Lefties: Who Is More Evil? Bush or Bin Laden?
I asked lefty commenters recently: who is a bigger threat to the country, and a bigger enemy? Bush? or Bin Laden? The responses of lefty commenters are rounded up here.
I failed to ask a different question: who is more evil?
I didn’t ask that because it’s a silly question. The answer is a gimme — even for the radical left. Isn’t it?
I dunno. Is it? Look at this picture from a Michelle Malkin post about anti-war demonstrations:
That guy thinks he’s making a good point . . .
So let me throw the question open, concentrating on the lefties who couldn’t quite bring themselves to say Bin Laden is a worse threat than Bush.
I’m looking at you, actus. And at you, Asinistra. I’ll even allow lying m.croche to comment. I really want to hear his answer to this — mostly because I know he doesn’t want to give it.
If you couldn’t answer the question of who is a bigger threat. can you at least answer this? And can you say it without qualifications and “but”s?
Who is more evil — Bush or Bin Laden?
Bin Ladin is not promoting the invasion of the USA from Mexico, as George “El Mexicano” Bush is doing. (That said, I admit the Bearded One is more evil.)
dchamil (222d87) — 5/2/2006 @ 8:37 amFrankly, Patterico, I’m really sick of the whole “evil” schtick. I know how gloriously it plays to your end-timers, but when we dismiss our enemies, be it bin Laden or Bush, as evil, we excuse ourselves from having to comprehend what makes them do the awful things they do and come up with rational plans to combat them. So I’m going to have to ignore your plea here against equivocating and say that I’m indifferent as to who is more evil between our top two contestants. I’m on record in your archives for stating at least half-dozen reasons why I think Bush has done more harm to America than the terrorists. I’m also on record there as saying that I’d rather have Bush’s finger on the nuclear trigger than bin Laden’s. I’m actually rethinking both those propositions. In light of Bush’s emerging Iran policy, it may come to a draw as to which of the two is more Strangelovian. And as to what Stephen Colbert would call the “threat down,” it could be that bin Laden has indeed done the greater harm to America. After all, his attack on 9/11 gave Bush carte blanche to pursue his hideous policies to a cheering media, and the tape he released prior to the ’04 election assured Bush of four more years to ruin the land that I love.
Asinistra (c493b3) — 5/2/2006 @ 9:10 amPatterico,
Sadly, the leftists who think Bush == Great Evil and Osama == MiniMe are off their rockers.
They can’t just say, “Ya know, in spite of his flaws, Bush was elected, and the country runs more or less peacefully. Osama is behind men diving jets into skyscrapers and blowing up civilians on busses and in marketplaces.”
It’s Bush hatred that is making them morally insane.
steve matlock (0fb51f) — 5/2/2006 @ 9:14 amI don’t think in terms of good and evil so much. Right and wrong work better for me. I think they’re both wrong in different ways. I think they both cause different harms. I think they have different intents in causing those harms. I think they’re both morally wrong on issues like gay rights and privacy, but one intends more harm. I think they both are responsible for causing ruin and injury, but bin laden certainly intends to cause more. Bush is at best misguided on his bad policies, a child of privilege and ignorance, while bin laden is more of a studied person.
I’d say bin laden meaningfully intends more harm. So that makes him more evil. Also, he’s not as funny.
actus (6234ee) — 5/2/2006 @ 9:19 amEquivocation is the language of the morally immature.
Christopher Taylor (9e1f4d) — 5/2/2006 @ 10:44 amPatterico, feel free to delete this comment as off-topic. It is not my intent to divert your point but do you think liberals believe that people are evil? In their view, people may be misguided, wrong, greedy, etc., but not evil. I think it’s a fundamental distinction in philosophy, and we already see a manifestation of that difference in these comments.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/2/2006 @ 11:18 amCertainty is the language of the morally lazy. I’m sure. I think.
actus (6234ee) — 5/2/2006 @ 11:23 am#6, liberals can think of people as evil all right… plenty of them think that Bush is evil, or that most Americans are evil.
But liberals cannot bear to think of anyone who is weak as evil, nor of anyone who is strong as good.
They believe that those who are weak, backward and disadvantaged must have been made that way by the strong who took advantage of them – in other words by us.
The observation that the left seems to actually favor the terrorists is not hyperbole, it is absolutely and literally true. And the underlying cause is the belief system of “strong is wrong” that so many liberals have been indoctrinated with since childhood.
daver (e37860) — 5/2/2006 @ 11:50 amNear as I can tell, the basic anti-Bush argument goes like this:
Everything else is just rationalization of the resentment.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 5/2/2006 @ 12:02 pmBoth are equally evil in the damage caused to America in the same periods of time. And both were on the same side at one time….The worst fights are internal fights. You never really know who your current/past friends are…Nor what they will do/or are capable of doing until it is already done. Too bad America is caught in the crosshairs of both.
It will take generations to undo the damage caused to America by either and/or both of their actions. Having a bigger than life “ENEMY” is a Republican Extreme Rightest trait….I know personally…I used to be one (an RER, not an Enemy).
NotMikeAndNonyaBidness (050520) — 5/2/2006 @ 12:21 pmThe lefties sure are showing themselves as lightweights.
PCD (1a332f) — 5/2/2006 @ 12:51 pmDRJ – you raise a good point. I don’t tend to think of people as evil, in general.
But there are exceptions. Pol Pot, he was evil. Stalin? evil. Hitler? evil. (Note the distinction: Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Brezhnev, Jaruzelski: wrong, but not evil). For me the dividing line has a lot to do with intent.
I would call bin Laden evil. Some of his followers may not be, but he is: his intent is not to improve the life of the people in the Arab world, but rather to destroy the west.
I would not call Bush evil: his intent is to do the best thing he can to make things better for our country. I disagree with him on how to do that, but even if i’m right on everything where we disagree and he’s wrong, that doesn’t make him evil.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/2/2006 @ 1:02 pmRe: Comment by Asinistra
Truly a target rich post. I’ll limit myself to one before lunch:
…but when we dismiss our enemies, be it bin Laden or Bush, as evil, we excuse ourselves from having to comprehend what makes them do the awful things they do and come up with rational plans to combat them.
This seems like a variation of John Kerry’s refrain about not being against the war, just the manner in which we went to war. The fact is, we do understand more than you want to admit.
We are dealing with people who view their own death as an integral part of the larger goal. Know why hostage taking works? Because we value life and have an incentive to meet the hostage takers demands. If we stopped caring about hostages, we could disband the SWAT team tomorrow.
So what leverage do we have over someone who aspires to death? Kill them twice? The Israelis have tried knocking down the family homes of suicide bombers. It’s probably worked to some degree, but how do you measure suicide attacks that didn’t happen?
The humiliation aspect of the “torture” Abu Girab was probably pretty effective in gleaning information, since it plays into the fear and embarrassment of homosexuality. Now before you spam me about being a torture advocate, I’m merely citing the naked pyramid part of what went on as an effective technique. I can reconcile this level of discomfort for combatants that can saw the heads off living people.
But even if this technique were 100% successful in gleaning useful information, a large segment of our population would be against it because it offends our current human-rights sensitivities. Ok, so what about burying their dead with pigs blood, or some other means of desecration to deny entry into paradise – the one thing they truly value, their “hostage”? The guy’s already dead, right? Not a chance in hell that’s going to happen.
So you’ll continue to sit on the sidelines and say “that’s against the rules” but offer no solutions for success (note: appeasement is not success). But now that I get to the end of the post, I realize my comments are predicated on the belief you want to win this war – not end up with another Korea.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/2/2006 @ 1:20 pmComment by Asinistra
I’m indifferent as to who is more evil between our top two contestants. … I’m also on record there as saying that I’d rather have Bush’s finger on the nuclear trigger than bin Laden’s. I’m actually rethinking both those propositions. In light of Bush’s emerging Iran policy…
I find those sentiments just astounding, no matter how many times I read them. If Binny had the bomb on 9/11, do you believe he would had tiniest of second thoughts? Have you heard even a whisper from the Bush administration about going nuclear in this conflict?
Since you bring up Iran, what about its current president’s almost daily threats that Israel will cease to exist when Iran gets the bomb. Has Bush made any similar nuclear threats? No. Instead we’re building even more ridiculously large, chemical-based bunker busters to deal with the looming Iran threat so we can avoid the horrific guilt of using nuclear weapons against a menace that seems determined to start a nuclear war.
But what the heck, let’s see how this one plays out. Those new missiles Iran just imported can only go as far a Europe.
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/2/2006 @ 1:58 pmSo far, the consensus seems to be that the liberals (apart from Aphrael, who has always struck me more as a moderate anyway) don’t think there is any such thing as evil. Which may go a long way to explain why they have been so eager to make common cause with the communists, the Islamofascists, and countless other groups who share almost nothing in common ideologically, aside from a deep-rooted hatred of western culture.
Xrlq (a9eea5) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:00 pm@takefive:
assistant devil's advocate (1adfcc) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:08 pmand **i** can reconcile cutting off the heads of living people as payback for foreign invaders subjecting me to the humiliation of a naked pyramid! it’s considered little more than a fraternity prank in my part of the world.
Hey – I think I went to one of your parties! Wasn’t yours the fraternity that made the pyramid of naked heads?
TakeFive (2bf7bd) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:17 pmI have long since given up on arguing with those who hold that Bush and Bin Laden, or the United States and Nazi Germany, or Roosevelt and Hitler, are all morally equivalent. It’s no better than debating the street crazy who rants and raves that CIA agents are controlling his brain waves by over-fluoridating the water: you can argue logically and patiently as much as you want that it isn’t true, you can back up your arguments with facts and figures, but once he gets a hold of that position he isn’t going to let go.
JVW (d667c9) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:21 pmAphrael wrote that Leonid Brezhnev was wrong, but not evil.
What, one wonders was Comrade Brezhnev’s intent when he sent the tanks rolling into Prague? What was his intent when he sent Soviet Troops into Afghanistan? Did he clean up the GULags? Did he institute freedom of speech?
Dana (dd8e7e) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:39 pmTo plagiarize/paraphrase the lovely Ann Coulter: the liberals finally had a chance to fight fundamentalism, and they’d have taken it — except it would have meant being on the same side as the United States.
Dana (dd8e7e) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:41 pmSteve Matlock, you said:
I beg to differ. It is their insane morals that is making them hate bush.
Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:43 pmI do, however, understand the reluctance of some of our friends on the left to label anyone evil; to label someone evil is to admit the existence of good and evil, and of moral absolutes. That they cannot do, without undermining so much of what animates liberalism.
Dana (dd8e7e) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:44 pmCommon cause with islamofascism? by doing what? sellign them missles?
Does he say that? IIRC he says his intent is improving (in the mind of a theocrat, of course) the muslimm world, and would like the west to leave it alone.
actus (6234ee) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:47 pmDana – I don’t know what the intent of either the invasion of Czechoslovakia or the invasion of Afghanistan was; I don’t speak Russian, and the translated material I’ve seen from his period is difficult to take at face value because of the political biases of those doing the translation.
The impression I have of Brezhnev is that he was largely operating out of inertia: Stalin had built this massive, bureaucratic, evil machine that continued operating after he fell largely because almost everyone had come to believe that it was inevitable, and that you couldn’t fight the system. Brezhnev was a timid mediocrity operating in an evil system; he was not one of the constructors of that system. He did not have the courage, and possibly he did not have the desire, to change the system … but he did not build it. So to whatever degree he is morally culpable, he has the culpability of the guy who plays along with evil, not the culpability of the man who creates it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:55 pm———————
On another subject, how does admitting to the existence of moral absolutes undermine what animates liberalism? I’ve seen this alleged by many conservatives, but i’ve never asked for an explanation before. What’s the rationale you are posing?
Actus: he may say that. But Pol Pot said he was just interested in improving the life of the working people of Cambodia, and we know how honest that was.
The point is that political figures often say things which are not true, and that we should take into account whether or not their actions comport to their words when determining what their intentions are. Bin Laden’s organization claims that it seeks to liberate the Arab world by attacking random civilians in the west. How does that work?
It is possible that he’s a severely misguided/deluded man who does not understand that the people he’s trying to kill are not, by and large, in any way responsible for the evils he thinks he is remedying. But that seems unlikely to me: I think it’s more likely that he’s choosing to kill western civilians not because doing so will make Arabia more free, but because he hates westerners.
What is more evil than killing innocents out of hatred?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/2/2006 @ 2:58 pmKilling your own child out of convenience aka Liberalism.
Chris from Victoria, BC (5d90a2) — 5/2/2006 @ 3:35 pmNo, I know what’s more insane! Letting Chimpy McBushitlerburton win the election TWICE! That’s far worse than some random terrorist bagging an old lady. I mean, on the one hand you have THE MOST EVIL MAN EVER, and on the other you have Day-care Osama who is simply misunderstood in his good-heartedness.
steve matlock (0fb51f) — 5/2/2006 @ 4:21 pmSteve: comments like that do a great deal to encourage rational leftists to not talk to you. Perhaps that’s why you only encounter irrational ones?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/2/2006 @ 4:29 pm“Frankly, Patterico, I’m really sick of the whole ‘evil’ schtick. I know how gloriously it plays to your end-timers, but when we dismiss our enemies, be it bin Laden or Bush, as evil,”
You mean like Howard Dean? “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.”
Jim C. (d8e20a) — 5/2/2006 @ 4:45 pmEvil is as evil tries to do…
Patterico has issued a challenge to the left side to commit to whether they think Bush or Bin Laden is more evil…
Thoughtsonline (d3e296) — 5/2/2006 @ 5:52 pmEvil is perception. A series of choices. What constitutes evil to one group is the exact opposite to another, unfortunately.
Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c) — 5/2/2006 @ 6:02 pmTo what extent are both Bush and Bin Laden doing evil as a result of their religious convictions? Bush went to war with Iraq after consulting God. Maybe he didn’t have that direct line to Him after all.
Judging from the comments here, there sure is a lot of hate from the right. Self-righteous indignation is such a lovely motivator. Having fun trying to have a civil discussion here Aphreal?
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 5/2/2006 @ 6:17 pmPsyberian:
In your opinion, is there any difference between doing bad things and being evil? I occasionally do bad things but I don’t think that makes me an evil person. I agree with Aphrael that there is an intent element to evil and, for that reason, I think that GWB is not evil and that bin Laden is. My take on your comment is that GWB does bad things and therefore he is evil, but perhaps I am misreading you. It could also be that you believe GWB, like bin Laden, wants to harm innocent people. Can you clarify this for me?
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/2/2006 @ 7:19 pmGreat, now I’m trolling against Patterico.
I think the President is an ordinarily decent and honorable man who loves America and is doing what he thinks is best for her.
I don’t know enough about OBL to render a judgment other than that he is our enemy. The enemy of my country and the enemy of the future of my child. I don’t give a rat’s #$% about whether he is “evil” or we are “good”. I want to preserve my country and the future of my child. Not to buy a ticket to Heaven.
And just to make the point clearer, did Katrina (the hurricane) give a rat’s #$% whether she was good or evil? We live fragile, ephemeral lives in a world which “is” and could not care less about our ideas of how it “should be”.
nk (723153) — 5/2/2006 @ 7:33 pmWho would anyone rather have as their Ruler or President, Bush or bin Laden?
Functionally, bin Laden is a sadist who requires death as its supreme, and perhaps only, expression. I would add that he is a “masochist” also except that bin Laden doesn’t have the honor in takes to actually follow his own ethical prescriptions – masochism again requiring one’s death as perhaps its only valid expression, and in bin Laden’s brand of values necessarily involving suicide while committing homocide.Thus bin Laden [hypocritically] advocates a strict sadomasochism for all others, which comes down again to a worship of death as an ultimate evaluator or proof of worth, or even the utimate Value itself. Death functions as the only true metaethic possible for bin Laden, except that he excludes himself from having to commit suicide to complete this most valued condition or act. The death of others is enough for bin Laden to feel that he is doing something of value.
At a lower level of value, bin Laden “only” requires complete thought or speech control, including other acts.
Therefore, I conclude bin Laden is indeed “evil”, and that Bush would have a hard time living up to this high standard.
As to understanding what makes bin Laden evil or express it, his brand, the death worship of sadism and advocacy of death-requiring sadomasochism, is on a par with pedophilia and sociopathy, which have remained refractory to understanding. As a rule all in this category simply do what they always do anyway.
But there is nothing keeping anybody from trying to understand what “makes” them do it, while at the same time defending against their evil.
J. Peden (1884e5) — 5/2/2006 @ 7:54 pmDRJ, when I worked in the area of psychology years ago, I met a person who was totally evil. Unfortunately, he was just a child. He was a sociopath who was totally unfeeling and enjoyed inflicting pain. When I talked to him to find out why, his belief was that everyone else was as bad as he was – so there was no reason to trust anyone or have any kind of relationship with anyone. From his perspective, this life and everyone in it was truly brutal; so he should act that way for his own preservation.
In a comment above I mentioned “doing evil,” which is different from being evil. I agree with Aphrael that a person has to know that they are intentionally harming other people (and no greater good comes of it) to be called evil.
I don’t believe that Bush is evil; he’s just severely misguided. I don’t really know Bin Laden well, so I can’t honestly say that he is evil. Bin Laden may be deluded into thinking that he is simply on a mission from God. But from our standpoint, this is only academic since whether or not Bin Laden is evil himself, he is, as Bush would say, an evildoer.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 5/2/2006 @ 8:08 pmThanks for your response, Psyberian. I think I understand your position and I generally agree with you although I don’t think GWB is misguided. His policies may not work out or they may work out well. The jury is still out on that, in my opinion.
As to bin Laden, I take him at his word that he wants to destroy America and Israel but I won’t quibble over the difference between an evil person and an evildoer.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/2/2006 @ 8:20 pmHey aphrael,
Sorry that you feel the hyperbole makes leftists avoid conversation. So far I haven’t found any that have avoided talking with me.* Maybe the number of leftists that avoid an argument is rather small?
* Of course, I can’t count the ones that truly avoid talking with me because of what I say, but I’m assuming that most people posting on an Internet forum would feel free to let fly their opinions.
steve matlock (38b9cd) — 5/2/2006 @ 8:45 pm> Sorry that you feel the hyperbole makes leftists avoid conversation.
Hyperbole makes a conversation less attractive to most reasonable people. At least that’s what it does for me.
Patterico has asked a straight and direct question. Many of the answers are presented carefully, and interesting to contemplate.
AMac (0097e1) — 5/3/2006 @ 12:06 amHow is telling the truth “hate speech”? It is true that most liberals do not believe in (or at least, won’t voice the concept of) good and evil. The idea of good and evil is a mainly moral and religious one, and most lefties shun both, unless it’s to say “capitalism is evil” or “the U.S. having more money is evil” or such nonsense. The problem presented in moral terms is not something they are willing to answer honestly because to do so, most would have to say, “George Bush may put forth policies I disagree with, but he isn’t trying to blow up cities or obliterate countries like Osama has advocated.”
sharon (fecb65) — 5/3/2006 @ 3:55 amEvil is something the other person does..like flying planes into the WTC and killing 3000 people. Good is when Bush kills tens of thousands in a war he planned and then lies about the causes. 🙂
Please dont refer to those that oppose G Bush because true Conservatives want to “conserve” not destroy. True conservatives have respect for laws and want to limit the size of government and the power of the Chief Executive. Bush is a shallow minded man with only photo ops and empty platitudes who is busy elevating himself to the status of “gods anointed one above the laws of mere mortals” He is perfectly willing to lie and destroy to achieve his ends even if that means the destruction of constitutional government, economic bankruptcy, cronyism, incompetence, deliberately fostered divisions here at home, wars and the disgrace of the USA throughout the world.
His is an administration of endless spin and lies which betray his total distain for the average citizen. Who here really believes he tried to avoid war “to the max” or that we “have turned the corner in Iraq”?
He is as firm in his self-righteousness and his contempt for laws and respect for life as Osama Bin Ladin and in any sane society he would certainly be impeached for his actions and in many, imprisoned as well.
Some dismiss this “leftist rant”. That’s because it makes it easy for them to ignore the awful reality of this man and his administration which can only be termed “evil” and “tending toward fascism” if not by his adoring supporters certainly by the judgment of history and most of the world.
One thing which is very surprising and pleasing is that, in the past, boards like this would be covered with Bush defenders. I am pleasantly surprised at the answers of so many! People are catching on to this man who will certainly go down in history as the worst President ever and who has done more damage to the US than Osama Bin Ladin ever dreamed. And, yes, to me, makes him more evil.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 5:21 amError in previous post.. the first line of the second paragraph reads “Please dont refer to those that oppose G Bush because true Conservatives want to “conserve” not destroy.” It should be “please dont refer to Bush as Conservative because true Conservatives want to conserve not destroy”
Sorry..Is there someway to edit remarks after they are posted?
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 5:30 amSharon You must be kidding when you say..
…most would have to say, “George Bush may put forth policies I disagree with, but he isn’t trying to blow up cities or obliterate countries like Osama has advocated.
Ever hear of Iraq? Do you think Bush honestly wanted to avoid war? Do you not realize that he cherry picked the evidence and fixed the facts to fit the pre-determined policy and has consistantly lied about the prelude to the war ever since? Do you not care?
Amazing how people deceive themselves into believing that the killing of innocents is evil when someone else does it but is good or simply “collateral damage” when they do it.
NK ..how do you know…”…the President is an ordinarily decent and honorable man who loves America and is doing what he thinks is best for her.”
You dont know George Bush at all. All you know is the media image of him based on carefully crafted announcments and photo ops. Did you think you knew OJ Simpson? Do you think you know Julia Roberts or Robert DiNero or do know only the screen image of them?
There is only one way of knowing a person. “By their fruits you shall know them” And the fruits of this man are lies, war and death.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 6:11 amIt appears Charlie is the first one to post that Bush is more evil than bin Laden. For me, his reliance on “Bush lied, people died” undermines his conclusion. In addition, I don’t see support in these comments for his statement that “people are catching on” to Charlie’s belief that GWB is evil.
Take a breath, Charlie, and try again.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/3/2006 @ 6:59 amaphrael:
Thanks for confirming once again that there are a few sane liberals left out there.
Dana:
In many ways, Brezhnev was kind of like Scott. “Not quite evil enough. The Diet Coke of evil.” In the pantheon of Soviet leaders, he was a relative moderate, compared with Unka Joe, or Vlad Ilyich himself.
As for his invasions:
Czechoslovakia was, like Hungary 1956, an attempt to prop up the system. The idea that any member of the Warsaw Pact could deviate from fundamental Soviet policies was unacceptable. Insofar as the idea of the Soviet Union was evil (something to that), yes, Brezhnev was serving evil. But power politics is not necessarily evil (although it often leads to bad or immoral choices—given that one is choosing from an array of bad/immoral choices).
That it wound up suppressing a (relatively more) liberal version of Communism was a bad thing—yet, in some ways, it may also have accelerated the ultimate fall of the USSR (by making it clear that only the most anodyne of reforms would be allowed).
Afghanistan at the time was seen (in the West) as a Soviet grab towards warm-water ports. In retrospect, I personally suspect that it was more an extreme form of zero-sum thinking. Having talked themselves into thinking that the Kabul government was tilting towards the US, the Soviets topple the sitting government, and then run through multiple replacements (iirc).
It was Soviet behavior after taking Afghanistan that was far worse. The level of civilian casualties was far higher than anything we’ve visited on Iraq or Afghanistan (including Fallujah). Interesting how the Left of the time argued that the Soviet invasion was not such a bad thing—hardly worth jeopardizing relations over.
Far more prominent examples of evil under Brezhnev would have been the Soviet treatment of their own Jews, subjecting them to systematic discrimination and harassment. Or their treatment of Sakharov and other dissidents. Or their utter distortion of what psychiatry is supposed to do. Or his maintenance of the prison camp system (including internal exile). Or his refusal to abide by such things as basic tenets of human rights.
And if deploying Pershing II was an evil or stupid act (millions march in Central Park against Reagan!), what to make of the Soviet SS-20s, with three warheads, rather than one, deployed years earlier?
But then, to condemn such things then (or now?) is to be objectively pro-capitalist and pro-American. And as the Left back then couldn’t quite bring themselves to do that, so, too, now.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/3/2006 @ 7:53 amDRJ if you dont understand what dozens of reports have said ..that Bush cherry picked evidence to support what he wanted to do all along..then you obviously DONT WANT TO SEE IT..
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 8:21 amHey blind ones..check the news again today ..Amnesty International has more criticisms of the US for the continued use of torture..OH!!! that’s right..torture is only evil if its done by them and not us….Sorry, I forgot the rules..
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 8:28 am“Charlie,” is that your real name, or a pseudonym for Matt Childrey? I shudder to think there may actually be two people in the world as clueless as you.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 5/3/2006 @ 8:47 amFilm at 11.
McGehee (5664e1) — 5/3/2006 @ 9:09 amClueless?? OK XRLQ clue me in ..where are the WMDs our beloved President said were in Iraq? Are you going to tell me along with the CIA and others? Or are you going to make excuses and say “they all believed Iraq had WMDs!” conveniently forgetting that “they” also urged King George not to invade…
Perhaps you can also clue me in as why so many members of the previous Bush administration have been so critical of Bush..
Perhaps you can explain how these massive deficits square with Conservative economics and tell me if you really believe the deficit will soon be miraculously cut in half as a result of these policies.
Please clue me in on how it is conservatives now apparently support a massive growth in the power of the chief executive and the holding of American citizens without charges, trial or access to the justice system.
Or maybe you just don’t consider such things evil??
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 9:34 am# 50 forgot to include Mr ChimpyBushMcHitlerburtton’s massive illegal/unauthorized secret program to spy on the personal and private innocent conversations of ordinary everyday regular Americans with so-called “alleged members” of a certain International Organization, known by a Senator from Washington, as a builder of Day Care Centers.
I point this out because the somewhat misunderstood, and falsely accused, members of the certain IO are passionate defenders of the oppressed/unwashed who seek only freedom, self-determination, and clean running water to glorify their spiritual quest for a better world for underprivileged children and cute fuzzy animals as revealed by learning all about the dirty world of capitalism because of a deprived childhood, and because boys can’t marry each other in backward parts of the world wrongly inhabited by those who deserve to become headless, but only for a good cause, approved by the ACLU, Socialist Workers Party, and the NY Times.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 5/3/2006 @ 10:20 amCharlie, obviously your intentions are good. And you are a good person. But, quite simply, you have come to a mental state which involves a deep denial of reality. Repeating memes that have been fed to you by your own leaders and other meme-generators is understandable up to a point, but you now somewhat urgently need to consider the possibility that they have been manipulating you.
J. Peden (8285e2) — 5/3/2006 @ 11:06 amWell, at least Charlie has provided sticks for hitting future Democratic Presidents:
Lessee, now.
Apparently, if former officials in previous administrations (better yet, previous administrations of the same party) criticize you, then you are guilty of evil.
And if you run up deficits, then you’re evil. (Guess FDR, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter were evil beyond belief.)
And if you engage in activities without access to the judicial system, then you’re evil. (Waco? Clinton rendition?)
Careful, Charlie, lest thee be hoist upon thine own petard!
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/3/2006 @ 11:37 amHere’s my take as a person of faith: I do not believe that evil itself goes around personified in human form. In the same way that I don’t believe that anybody is inherently holy, I don’t believe that anyone is inherently evil. I do believe in salvation and redemption, but that it is an on-going assignment, not simply a God-Stamp on your forehead (“GRADE A SAVED”) that marks you “HOLY” for the rest of time. And the opposite is true as well.
Even Jesus’ did not capitalize on portraying his enemies and nonbelievers as “evil.” People were possessed by “evil spirits” from which they could be delivered. Or else an unbeliever might be considered “lost.” Even the killers of Christ were not considered evil. Jesus said, “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Is Jesus calling for the forgiveness of an evil spirit? No. Rather, his words and deeds implied a separation between the person and the evil act.
Getting back to the topic at hand, the obviously relevant question is whether Bush or bin Laden commits more evil than the other. This is where it gets dicey. In my view, evil actions can be measured in one of two ways: intent, and/or actual damage done. I believe that both should be taken into consideration.
Let’s start with intent: It is clear that bin Laden intends to destroy the West, with every horrific ramification that goes with that. If we could assume that Bush is sincerely putting the good of the nation ahead of everything else, then there’s no question as to who is purposely committing more evil: bin Laden. However, for reasons that I won’t get into here, today, I simply cannot trust the purity of Bush’s intentions when he led us into Iraq. So I personally don’t have a clear-cut answer: on one side (OBL), there’s a clear intent to commit death and destruction, while on the other side (GWB), the motives are not clear. But before I rule in Dubya’s favor, I’m interested to see how much harm has been caused by both sides–a question which in my opinion is far more useful than who is more “evil.”
Just looking at the fairly universal standard of not killing innocent people, if we strip away ‘intent’ and turn to the numbers of innocent lives lost on both sides, who would have committed the greater evil? (That’s an earnest, not rhetorical question, since the actual body count would be very hard to pinpoint for numerous reasons). But you see how it becomes muddier. For people who believe we can separate the GOOD people from the EVIL people, is intent alone enough to save Bush from being “EVIL” even if his actions resulted in great evils being perpetuated? Well, yes, if we’re talking about someone being evil. But shouldn’t we be likewise concerned whether someone is doing evil, innocently or otherwise?
Tom Hoberg (eb6b88) — 5/3/2006 @ 11:37 amHey Lurking Observer,,why dont you real post 41 and 42 and observe the remarks I made there?
The post you read was in response to post 48 in which I was called “clueless” I was challenging that poster to “clue me in” on a bunch of issues related to this President..
J Peden ..thanks for your polite remarks. I appreciate your praise for my character but it is not me but Bush supporters who are being manipulated. Read all the things Bush said about the necessity of invading Iraq, something which I supported because I believed him, then read how many have actually been shown to be false and then tell me who is manipulated..
and TOM you make a well reasoned arguement but its based on your assumption that you somehow know what Bush intentions were and are but you dont. No one does. All you can do is judge his actions and the lies to support them. Why does someone have to lie to cover good intentions?
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 12:17 pmcharlie:
I most certainly read your diatribe, and saw nothing there that was particularly worth rebutting.
Many conservatives opposed Bush on issues ranging from steel tariffs to Medicare Schedule-D (the drug benefit) to Harriet Myers.
Does that make him evil?
As to anointing himself a god, I’ve yet to see much evidence of this. (Seems to me that there are neither laws nor preachers suggesting we start praying to the man.)
And this business of being above the law seems, like your claim of cherry-picked evidence, far more in the eye of the beholder than an objective statement of fact. Just as the belief that the French opposing our war in Iraq is somehow evidence that they knew that Iraq had no WMD (and ignores little things like “food-for-oil”).
But you know better than the rest of us. Like a Messiah, to free us from false gods, no?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/3/2006 @ 12:22 pmSharon (re #40) — i’m sorry; the idea that leftists shun morality is a myth. All liberals I know have a moral code by which they live; the trouble is that they shun much of what they consider to be traditional morality (eg, premarital sex, serial monogamy, etc, are not considered to be immoral in liberal circles) and they place a high moral value on not requiring people in other tribes to adhere to their moral views. This leads many conservatives to the conclusion you have reached.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/3/2006 @ 12:25 pmCharlie (re #41) — it is difficult to me to imagine that any President who did not instigate a nuclear war could possibly go down in history as being a worse President than James Buchanan.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/3/2006 @ 12:26 pmCharlie writes, “…and TOM you make a well reasoned arguement but its based on your assumption that you somehow know what Bush intentions were and are but you dont.”
Just to clarify, that’s actually the opposite of what I wrote:
“…I simply cannot trust the purity of Bush’s intentions when he led us into Iraq…the motives are not clear…”
Tom Hoberg (eb6b88) — 5/3/2006 @ 12:29 pmTom Hoberg brings us back to doing evil vs. being evil. Tom, I think you are mixing apples and oranges. I don’t agree that an action is evil solely because it has bad results.
Was it evil for traders to unwittingly carry disease from one continent to another during the course of their travels? Some historians and scientists believe that traders carried the plague to Europe where 30 million or more died – a third of Europe’s population. I realize you include intent in your evil test but if your test also includes consideration of the severity of the end result, the people who carried the Black Death to Europe would surely be winners on your evil scale. However, I doubt that you or any of us would call those traders evil because they didn’t know what they were doing and the results weren’t foreseeable.
I think your concern is really whether the results were foreseeable so we can impute intent to the actor and hold him responsible for the results. But foreseeability is related to causation and intent, not damages. Just because something turned out badly doesn’t mean it was evil if it wasn’t foreseeable or intended.
In this thread, the question becomes “Was George Bush evil for invading Iraq, knowing that death and destruction would result?” I think the answer is no because death and destruction are elements of war. While people like Charlie would heatedly disagree, I believe GWB when he says the greater goal was to save lives in Iraq by deposing Saddam and to save American lives by fighting terrorism. Thus far, the results have justified his actions because fewer people die each month in Iraq – even in war – than died under Saddam. And when it comes to terrorism, I want my government to take action to protect my country and my family. I felt that way on 9/11 and I still feel that way over four years later. So I’m glad that GWB ordered our military into Afghanistan and Iraq instead of waiting for terrorists to attack the US again.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/3/2006 @ 12:39 pmDRJ, much of what you’ve eloquently written deserves a far greater response than this, but at the moment, my time is limited, so forgive me. This discussion is raising all sorts of interesting questions for me. Here’s a couple:
Do you believe that “evil” is only manifested through intent to cause suffering alone? If so, then why should we have different levels of punishment in our criminal justice system for attempted crimes verses crimes actually committed? There doesn’t seem to be an explanation, other than that the state (or perhaps the people on the jury and/or the judge) considers outcome in addition to intent, even in lieu of intent, as supposedly “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Anyway, I’m interested in your thoughts. Thanks.
Tom Hoberg (eb6b88) — 5/3/2006 @ 1:12 pmP.S. I think the difference between your aforementioned plague-bearing traders and, say, Bush in this case is indeed intentionality: Bush intentionally brought war, which by definition means death and destruction, into Iraq, well-intentioned or otherwise. The traders did no such thing.
Also, as to whether the number of innocents killed presently verses during Saddam’s reign is not entirely as clean as you’ve implied: in fact, the death toll from the prior 12 years was largely due to the economic sanctions and bombing that GHWB & Clinton imposed.
Tom Hoberg (eb6b88) — 5/3/2006 @ 1:20 pmEr, Tom, didn’t Saddam perhaps have something to do with the imposition and retention of those sanctions?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/3/2006 @ 1:22 pmSure, LO. Obviously. Saddam’s morally culpable. But since it was our bombs that were/are hiting people and killing them throughout the process, we too have some moral responsibility, no matter how badly we wanted to get Saddam. I’ve heard this argument before (“more people died before the war than during the war”) and while it may be technically true, it doesn’t validate the fact that we are, inadventently or otherwise, killing innocent people. Nor does it belong in a discussion of the moral ramifications of doing just that.
Tom Hoberg (eb6b88) — 5/3/2006 @ 1:43 pmBut, Tom, just as the police sniper who hits an innocent hostage is not evil, and certainly not as evil as the lunatic Dr. Lecter who’s holding the entire room full of hostages (to take a somewhat extreme example), equating the US/UK forces, who are enforcing UN-imposed sanctions, with Saddam because the effects are comparable seems to be blurring the terms and conflating “bad” with “evil” and “effects” with “intent.”
To take it a little further—if Dr. Lecter takes a group of people hostage, in general the building’s electrical services are shut down, food is cut off, etc. Now, if the hostage stand-off lasts for a while, then the people inside the building are suffering.
By your lights, they are suffering because of the police—since it’s the cops who shut down the AC, the power, are stopping the pizza deliveryman, etc. Do their actions, which are causing suffering, actually make the cops in any way comparable to Dr. Lecter?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/3/2006 @ 1:51 pmTom,
This thread is discussing whether people are evil. I believe that evil exists and that, to be evil, a person must have an intent to harm others or act so recklessly that he knows harm will result.
While the American criminal justice system is based on the concept of individual morality, it is primarily designed to punish, rehabilitate, and protect for the benefit of society. It’s nice when criminal law helps individuals recover economically and emotionally but that is not the goal. Our host could address this better than I, but I believe that criminal law is not concerned with someone’s morals or motives although we treat intentional crimes as more serious – not because they are immoral but because we consider these people to be more dangerous to society than those who carelessly or unintentionally harm others.
This is one of the reasons I object to treating terrorism as a criminal matter. Our system isn’t well equipped to deal with evil such as genocide or terrorism, and thankfully it rarely has to. We learned this in the Nuremberg trials and we’re seeing it again in Saddam’s trial in Iraq. At its core, a civilized system of justice cannot effectively deal with the uncivilized anarchy of “crimes against humanity” such as these.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/3/2006 @ 1:58 pmAnd Tom,
Lurking Observer is on target but also consider this: GHWB, Clinton, and GWB all acted to minimize civilian damages, injuries, and deaths. I consider this evidence that they did not intend to hurt innocent people, and thus neither they nor their actions were evil.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:19 pmSo there are some people who simply are evil, as differentiated from those who are not actually evil (but may do evil? Is that your position?
If so, what does it take for someone to be evil, as opposed to simply intending to do evil? When does the line become crossed?
And are “evil” people beyond redemption?
Tom (eb6b88) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:23 pmI’m getting a sense from you that it’s all about intent. Is there more to it than that?
And now, does intent to commit evil mean that somebody is inherently evil?
Tom (eb6b88) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:27 pmPS–I find it interesting that for me to suggest that intent may be irrelevent (which I don’t fully support) is moral absolutism, while for you to suggest that the act in and of itself does not constitute evil is rather morally relativist.
Breaking it down further, is it still evil if the damage that you intend to do is only the means towards a greater good?
Tom (eb6b88) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:32 pmGood thoughts Tom..I focused on this remark of yours..
I believe GWB when he says the greater goal was to save lives in Iraq by deposing Saddam and to save American lives by fighting terrorism.
I disagree because you cannot know his real intention. I did not make that clear enough..
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:32 pmI don’t know, but my best guess is that they’re hidden somewhere near the WMDs our prior President said were in Iraq. Those, in turn, are probably not too far from the ones the Brits, the French, the Russians and just about every other intelligence agency in the world said were in Iraq. Once you find those, keep digging; I’ll bet you’ll also stumble across the WMD every captured Iraqi general thought every other Iraqi general had. Maybe even the stuff Saddam himself thought he had. Who knows?
Why they hell not? They did all believe that. I realize that for moonbats like you, facts can be inconvenient things, but c’mon, this is pretty lame even by moonbat standards.
Sorry, Charlie, but you’re the one conveniently forgetting stuff. More specifically, you’ve forgotten that not every other country opposed the invasion, but more importantly, you’ve conveniently forgotten that the question of whether a given country supported the war in Iraq is one issue, and whether or not their intelligence supported Bush’s statements about WMD is another. In fact, you’ve conveniently forgotten that one doesn’t have a f’n thing to do with the other. How convenient, indeed.
You’ll have to ask them. I will say this much, however: you’d be hard pressed to find a single member of either Bush Administration who believes the current President is evil.
Deficit spending sucks, but it isn’t evil.
If by “massive growth” you mean actually using the powers that have always been there, but which haven’t been used all that often since World War II, you may have a point. If by “American citizens” you mean “terrorists,” you’re getting warmer.
Of course I don’t. Terrorism is evil. So too would be your insane theories about President Bush deliberately misleading everyone to start a war because … well, just because – if there were a shred of evidence to back them up. But deficit spending is nowhere close to evil, and neither is a slightly overzealous prosecution of the war on terror, if indeed such a thing is going on. Even if Bush were the bumbling boob you make him out to be, that would not make him evil, any more than your idiotic ramblings make you evil, rather than merely stupid.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:37 pmTom,
Perhaps it’s the differentiation between “necessary” and “sufficient.” Rather than suggesting some kind of weirdly bright-but-blurred line about evil, perhaps the way to think about it is that both intent and action are necessary to be evil.
A person may have the desire to do evil, yet be unable to do so. Is that person evil? To some extent, but if they are never able to actually undertake an evil act (imagine, say, a quadriplegic), what is the level of their evilness? Desire/intent, then, is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being evil.
Similarly, then, a person may do things that in another are evil (say, kill an innocent hostage), but surely there is a differentiation between the police sniper and Dr. Lecter?
From a “God’s eye” view, one could look at a person and know intent as well as effect. For the rest of us, intent is difficult to determine.
Some, Hitler for example, are kind enough to put it down on paper. Others act in a manner that is consistently in-line with evil (Japanese behavior towards civilians, for example), as to make intent fairly clear.
It’s also important, I think, to differentiate between “bad” and “evil.” “Evil,” I think, inherently includes intent, and also requires committing an act that is above-and-beyond “bad.” This partly goes to your “doing evil.” I’m not sure what necessarily counts as “doing evil,” and I suspect your definition and mine do not align.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:38 pmI think that most people, no matter how evil, think of themselves as doing good no matter what they do. The nature of evil is and who is evil a question that philosophers have argued over for centuries.
Perhaps we can find common ground in this…
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:40 pmFrom strictly a results point of view, Bush has done far more damage to the US than OBL ever dreamed of. I think we can all agree on this and perhaps we can discuss whether or not that makes Bush “evil” with this common point of agreement…??
Charlie, really, just how delusional are you? To write
And then suggest, “I think we can all agree on this”?? Sorry, Charlie, but your starting assumption is breathtakingly off-base (aka wrong).
I suppose this puts me into the ‘evil’ category for you?
Oh, and let me note that disagreement on the above hardly means agreement with the Prez on everything, either. That should be obvious, but with an opening assumption like that, Charlie, I dunno….
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:44 pmCharlie said:
From strictly a results point of view, Bush has done far more damage to the US than OBL ever dreamed of. I think we can all agree on this …
It’s good to know you are such an agreeable fellow Charlie but I’m not. In fact, I strongly disagree with your statement. Nice try, though.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/3/2006 @ 2:48 pmTom,
I’ve lost track of our discussion so I yield to Lurking Observer but hopefully I made my position clear in earlier comments. To be evil, a person must have an intent to harm another. Further, knowing that people might be harmed by one’s actions is not the same as intending to harm another.
Of course, people do bad things and, from a religious perspective (and as Jimmy Carter might say) we all have evil in our hearts. Nevertheless, even if it’s useless semantics, I still see a difference between doing evil and being evil.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/3/2006 @ 3:15 pmCharlie. You’re trying to incite comments or something. We haven’t had an attack on US soil post 9/11, mostly due to the efforts of this administration. I think we can all agree on that…
Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c) — 5/3/2006 @ 3:18 pmWell never let it be said I didnt make an honest attempt to find common ground..
Charlie (e16458) — 5/3/2006 @ 4:02 pmCharlie – I don’t see how it is possible to have read comments and posts on this site and conclude that it was possible for everyone to agree that Bush has done more harm to the US than bin Laden.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/3/2006 @ 5:08 pmCommon ground is the ground between two parties, not that upon which you already stand.
bains (b7cdc0) — 5/3/2006 @ 6:09 pmXrlq, what you are conveniently ignoring is that Iraq may have had WMD and still Bush would not have been able to start a war with Iraq with much support. What made war possible with Iraq was not simply the WMD threat, but the nuclear threat. Bush should be held accountable for his exaggerated claims of their nuclear threat. Here is Bush before the war:
In retrospect, doesn’t that seem ridiculous? Bush’s ominous tone in his speech before the war was outrageous too. Without Bush’s well done speech that turned out to be lies coupled with the threat of nuclear bombs, there would not have been a war with Iraq.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 5/3/2006 @ 6:29 pmPsyberian, what you are conveniently ignoring is that Bush’s claims about Iraq’s WMD, nuclear or otherwise, were substantially identical to those made by every other country in the world. There was no real disagreement over Iraq having or not having any particular WMD, only over what to do about it. One of the common arguments against invasion was that he’d use them!
Xrlq (12f8ac) — 5/3/2006 @ 6:54 pmX, do you have evidence that other countries leaders believed that Iraq was really a nuclear threat? If so, I’d like to know more. Of course England obviously fell for it too. But who else?
Unfortunately, in the zeitgeist during the period of “You’re either with us or against us,” not many were inclined to publicly challenge anything Bush said anyway.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 5/3/2006 @ 7:12 pmHow did England “obviously” fall for Iraq wanting a nuke weapons program? What is obvious? You’re being a bit presumptuous with that statement.
Meatss (5a573d) — 5/3/2006 @ 11:38 pmSince France helped build the first reactor which the Israelis destroyed, they and the Germans had provided parts under the OFF porgram auspices that had a dual purpose that could have been used for a revived nuclear program. Saddam’s top nuclear expert visited Niger before Wilson’s famous trip, but Wilson failed to learn about his visit. The logical conclusion was that he was there interested in yellowcake.
Britian has never renounced it’s intelligence that Saddam was attempting to acquire uranium. Saddam had used WMD’s on the Kurds. Under the UN resolutions, Saddam was to show that the WMDs were destroyed. He didn’t so we went in to do the job he wouldn’t. Along the way we found mass graves of hundreds of thousands of victims. Banned weapon systems. Childrens prisons. Terrorists training camps. Situations that backed up many of the reasons Bush stated for us to go into Iraq. It just wasn’t all about WMDs.
Charlie, do you really believe Bush and bin Laden are morally equvilant evil? Do you think the majority of the people in Afghanistan and Iraq think Bush is evil?
Charlie, how can you stand it? These guys are defending the destruction of the constitution. They are defending the policies of Bush, torture, illegal(no warrants)spying, outing a CIA agent, ignoring Katrina victims, lying us into an illegal war, using depleted uranium causing cancer and birth defects, using white phosphorous melting bodies of innocents in the way. They are asking who is more evil…Bush or bin Laden.
Bin Laden worked for our CIA at one time. He actually has built schools and helped his people. Not that crashing planes into buildings is a good thing, but these bastards running our country are so damned dishonorable, I don’t believe a thing they say. I don’t even know if I believe he was responsible. I don’t even know if those many tapes that have shown up by him are genuine. How many lies do the neo-cons have to tell before these right wingers get a clue, that all the thousands and thousands and THOUSANDS of deaths from OUR side were from LIES? Damn it! IT IS NOT OKAY TO KILL THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE whether it was bin Laden or us.We are not talking about one death being caused by someone, which would be evil. We are talking about thousands. It is okay with them, Charlie. How can you stand it? I cant’ even stand communicating with these crazy people anymore, and I am not going to be. I am sure “good riddins” is their attitude.
WHAT IN THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? IF YOU WERE CITIZENS OF GERMANY IN HITER’S ERA, YOU WOULD BE CHEERING HIM ON. YOU PEOPLE ARE SOCIOPATHIC!!!!! OH NO? START COMPARING. JUST USING THE NUMBERS DOES NOT COUNT. TACTICS DO. STUDY THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. IT IS ABOUT CONQUERING. SUPERIORITY OF THE BOYS WITH THE BIGGEST AND BADDEST GUNS. VERY PRIMITIVE BEHAVIOR.
blubonnet (1c39de) — 5/4/2006 @ 2:05 amPsyberian:
That depends on what you mean by “nuclear threat.” No one claimed he had nukes already; indeed, those famous “16 words” that make every good liberal cry would not have made sense if they did. If there were any countries whose intel were convinced Saddam was not trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program, I’m not aware of them.
In any event, Kooky Charlie’s question was about “the WMDs our beloved President said were in Iraq,” not the nukes that our beloved President said were not in Iraq, but might end up there a year or two later if we didn’t act then. We weren’t supposed to find those WMD in Iraq.
Xrlq (12f8ac) — 5/4/2006 @ 4:00 amJohn Paul Roberts..who worked in the Reagan administration now says..
When President Richard Nixon made excessive claims for presidential powers, principled Republicans revolted and helped to bring down Nixon. Today’s Republicans are loyal only to power. They have no principles. By supporting Bush, Republicans are bringing down America.
I totally agree and that makes them much more evil that OBL..
Tell me this..if these people are not evil why do they lie so much to defend what they do??
Charlie (e16458) — 5/4/2006 @ 4:42 amLink to above statement
http://counterpunch.org/roberts05022006.html
Charlie (e16458) — 5/4/2006 @ 4:43 am#86: “Not that crashing planes into buildings is a good thing, BUT. . .”
And behold the tinfoil-hatted, spittle-flecked BDS screech in all its glory. Fabulous material, blubonnet. Can’t wait to catch your act at the local ANSWER open mike night.
CMD (407568) — 5/4/2006 @ 10:34 amKooky-Charlie’s hero du jour, “John Paul Roberts,” does not exist. The individual whose article he links to is Paul Craig Roberts, who’s almost as deranged as Charlie himself. Here are a few gems:
1. The original Constitution – you know, the pre-Civil War version, which contemplated slavery, allowed slaveholders to effectively vote 3/5 of their slaves’ intrests, and had no equal protection provision whatsoever – had equality in law as its essential feature.
2. Speaking of slaves and all the wonderful guarantees of equal protection under the law they enjoyed, antebellum slaves were freer than ordinary U.S. citizens today.
3. The modern Constitution, which prohibits slavery and guarantees equal protection of the law, was a better protector of racial equality under the separate but equal rule than it is today.
4. Trent Lott’s First Amendment rights were violated when he had to step down as Sen. Majority Leader for praising a racist Presidential candidate.
5. Immigration is OK, just so long as we don’t let too many of those “international-looking people” in.
6. “American identity” and “white American identity” are one and the same.
With values like that, it’s no wonder this guy wanted us to leave Saddam Hussein in power rather than install a constitutional republic in his place.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 5/4/2006 @ 11:45 amAnd a BLOODY good day to you! You guys have no head to wear a hat. You have no minds. You are merely Roboticans. FOX automatons. Brainless recorderings of defending illegal actions causing blood by the tankfuls to be spilled for LIES. Apparently, you have no conscience or no mind. Brain dead. Soul-less. Disgusting! Just because you don’t see the dead innocent men, women, and children on the news, it has no consequence to YOUR F**KING lives. What do you care. You don’t!
blubonnet (86405d) — 5/4/2006 @ 11:49 amAh, but now Charlie will play the inevitable “head’s I win, tails you lose” game, XRLQ.
If you condemn Paul Craig Roberts, then you admit that conservatives are racist—and btw, you’re a BushCo apologist.
If you agree with Paul Craig Roberts, then you’re a white supremacist—and btw, you agree that Bush is a bad President.
In such a situation, like the WOPR learned in “War Games,” the only solution is not to play. When the extended sophistry of “we all agree—Bush is worse than bin Laden” was displayed, I stopped taking Charlie seriously.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/4/2006 @ 12:00 pmYou Roboticans are nuts to defend this insanity of the president’s brutal policies.
You call us screamers. If you walked into a home, a saw a family brutally murdered, would you scream? Well, believe it or not, that is what we have done a thousand times.
blubonnet (86405d) — 5/4/2006 @ 12:20 pmYou mean like what the VC did during Tet? ‘
Or Pol Pot’s acolytes did in Cambodia?
Or Algerian jihadi/Islamic fundamentalists do all the time?
Perhaps you’re referring to what Saddam did to Kuwaitis back in ’90?
Surely you’re not referring to the luverly activities of Uday and Qusay?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/4/2006 @ 12:27 pmSome claimed htey knew were the WMD’s were.
actus (ebc508) — 5/4/2006 @ 12:57 pmactus:
You do realize, of course, that WMD is not purely synonymous with nuclear weapons, right?
That chemical weapons and biological weapons are both considered WMD as well?
Or are you resurrecting the Cheney comment about “reconstituting nuclear weapons” again?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/4/2006 @ 1:01 pmLurking Observer:
LO, is that your final answer? I’m not sure I’d want to make an admission like that. Not that you stopped beating your wife taking Charlie seriously, of course, but the implicit admission to ever having done so in the first place.
Meanwhile, Bubblehead, the only person in the world to take Crazy Charlie seriously (with the possible but improbable exception of Crazie Charlie himself), has this to scream:
No, unless I thought the killer was such an incredible wuss that he might be scared away by that. Otherwise, I’d intervene and try to stop it. In other words, I’d do to that killer on the micro level what the U.S. did to one of the most murderous regimes in history, on the macro. Since you were the one to bring up this analogy, I take that to mean that you, on the other hand, would NOT scream at the killer, just at the good guy who intervened. How dare he barge into someone else’s house like that?
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 5/4/2006 @ 1:54 pmActus:
No one claimed to know where Saddam’s nukes were, but thank you for playing.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 5/4/2006 @ 2:24 pmI admit I made an error.. It was Paul Craig Roberts and not John Paul Roberts I was talking about.. I was in a rush off to work and made that mistake, Sorry folks. I apologize for that error, Sometimes the thoughs come so quickly that these kinds of mistakes are made.:( Actually I have to admit this is the second time I have made that exact same mistake! I guess I am thinking of John Paul Jones,
But the bottom line is that Bush is a liar and a thug who lied to all of us and got us into a war that has no end and benefits our enemies greatly. Paul Craig Roberts may or may not have said some things in the past that are overboard but he had his eyes on this fascist in the White House that threatens world peace and is a disgrace to everything that our founding fathers stood for. He lies and our children die. Bush wanted a war so he could be a “wartime president” Bottom line is that he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths for a war that was not necessary. You cant deny that, can you?
He is an ignorant moron who puts his own self interests above the country and who is really “all hat and no cattle” as the folks in Texas used to say.
He is screwing our children with his massive deficit spending on behalf of his oily friends who give you peanuts while sending your kids off to war and shipping your jobs overseas.
I have a math equasion and it is simple..”the love of America is inversely proportionally to your support of Bush”
What thinkest yee??
Charlie (e16458) — 5/4/2006 @ 3:00 pmaphren..You mention James Buchanan and I also think of Andrew Johnson. One before the other after the best President we ever had.. I think we agree on that dont we??? Well I love Abe Lincoln..a simple man of the people who stood for freedom and understood tyrants who posed as saviors. Here are some of his wonderful words…
Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! — All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”: Abraham Lincoln – (1809-1865) 16th US President – 1838
I have a pic of Lincoln right by my computer. He was a great man..not a damn liar and photo op bullshitter like Bush.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/4/2006 @ 3:10 pmHey XRLQ The folks in Pakistan want to know how come you dont intervein in Somalia is your intention is to help people?? Not enough oil? And can you please tell me how to post a pic? I have one of Rumsfield shaking hands with Sadam Hussein…
Charlie (e16458) — 5/4/2006 @ 3:17 pmAnd a BLOODY good day to you! You guys have no head to wear a hat. You have no minds. You are merely Roboticans. FOX automatons. Brainless recorderings of defending illegal actions causing blood by the tankfuls to be spilled for LIES. Apparently, you have no conscience or no mind. Brain dead. Soul-less. Disgusting! Just because you don’t see the dead innocent men, women, and children on the news, it has no consequence to YOUR F**KING lives. What do you care. You don’t!
A wonderful example of “civil discourse” from the other side of the isle I see. Unfortunately, nothing more than another ad hominem rant.
If Bush is everything alleged here I’d be VERY WORRIED about January 20, 2009 …
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 5/4/2006 @ 3:31 pmNukes, not specifically. They claimed they knew where the “WMDS” were. Which is ambiguous as to whether that means nukes.
actus (ebc508) — 5/4/2006 @ 3:55 pmCrazy Charlie writes:
Whaddya mean, “in the past?” In the more distant past, Roberts was a respected, albeit underrated economist. Sometime between the Reagan Administration and now, he went senile and started writing all sorts of paranoid, conspiratorial crap. Unfortunately for you, he started writing his paranoid, conspiratorial racist crap at just about the same time he started writing his paranoid, conspiratorial moonbattery about U.S. foreign policy (which, it bears noting, he had no problem with while serving in the equally interventionist Reagan Administration). For a nice example of how closely interwoven these two strains of paranoia are, follow the link to my last example above, focusing on the introductory sentence:
Try as you might, you cannot separate the moonbat Paul Craig Roberts from the racist Paul Craig Roberts. The younger, saner version Paul Craig Roberts was neither. Today’s is both. But a hypothetical Paul Craig Roberts who agrees with you on American foreign policy and doesn’t agree with the Klan on other issues is a combination that has never existed, and probably never will. So continue to quote that sad old man if you must, but know that all you’re really proving is how desperate YOU are to latch on to someone, anyone, who will agree with your own paranoid ramblings about the administration.
Of course I can. It’s a crock of shit, which you haven’t an iota of evidence to back up. Damned right I’ll deny it.
Lincoln presided over a nasty war, suspended habeas corpus, and did all sorts of stuff which, while probably necessary at the time, make President Bush look like the ACLU’s model citizen of the year.
Xrlq (12f8ac) — 5/4/2006 @ 7:16 pmActus:
Like hell it was. I guess my reference to “those famous ’16 words’ that make every good liberal cry” were a bit too oblique for you, so let’s have a look at the 16 words in question:
Why on earth would Bush have made a big deal about Saddam Hussein having “recently sought” uranium if he was trying to convince anyone that Saddam already had the bomb?
Xrlq (12f8ac) — 5/4/2006 @ 7:23 pmTrying to make bombs isn’t inconsistent with having them. Also I don’t know just what rummy was talking about when he said he knew where the WMD’s are, but wmd does include nuke programs.
actus (ebc508) — 5/4/2006 @ 7:40 pmXrlq,
These liberals don’t believe the BS they are spouting either. Their real problem with Bush is that he did not have an adulterous affair with Jennifer Flowers; he did not rape Juanita Broderick; he did not attempt to rape Kathleen Wiley; and he did not molest Monica Lewinski in the Oval Office. Moreover, in his first State of the Union he came out against gay marriage. He is the most prominent living refutation of their worship of their gonadal urges. Which is all liberalism is. What their little peepee wants is, to them, a constitutional right.
nk (41da82) — 5/4/2006 @ 7:47 pmThe guy is living example that you can live your urges into your 40’s.
But it takes a lot of privilege.
actus (ebc508) — 5/4/2006 @ 9:21 pmHarry, you accuse me of bypassing civil discourse. Yep, there is nothing civil about killing people that were not supposed to be killed. It’s worth screamin’ about. How can you not be painfully, angry and actively trying to reverse this injustice? How can you support the demise of our democracy? He(Bush) has stated that this war could go on for a very long time. That will give them the unitary power, which he has been shown to abuse, indefinitely. How can you support policies like torture, using depleted uranium, and white phosphorous, and cluster bombs, and land mines, and attacking a country that was thoroughly known to be without WMD’s by all upper echelon government personnel. How can you possibly call him a genuine Christian? How can you not be part of the massive movement to remove him from power?
All you crazy people were more worried about Clinton’s sex life. Not having any idea what the situation was with he and his wife, you take on the role of judge. Decided to spend some astonishing amount of the US treasury on it too. That did alot to better our country, didn’t it? You have no idea of the affairs Bush in his past has been rumored to have. It just wasn’t excruciatingly investigated like Clinton’s from that “liberal media”.
But all the people this president thinks it’s okay to KILL is just fine with you.
Facts mean nothing to you. Being a team player, standing by your party, no matter the crime. Sounds like an organized crime policy to me.
If Bush’s lower lip was a little fatter, due to a history of brawls, and wore a fedora and a pinstripe suit, he would sure look natural in that role. He is in that role, but lives in the Whitehouse. These people are mafioso. THEY ARE ROBBING US ALL, AND KILLING OUR KIDS AND LYING TO US, AND KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
blubonnet (86405d) — 5/4/2006 @ 10:23 pmOk XRLQ lets get to the heart of the matter.
You can attack Paul Craig Roberts as a racist and me as crazy and smear all the others that present evidence you don’t like, but the bottom line is that in spite of all your talk you haven’t found the WMDs you insisted were there. You have not even found the means to produce them.
All you can offer is a vague hope that at sometime in the distant future you may be proven right and the CIA, which now says Iraq did not have them at this time, may be proven wrong. Don’t hold your breath. The UN and the IAEC both reported before the war that there were none but of course you attack them too. In fact, you can dispute and attack a whole group of people that have come forward saying Bush wanted this war and cherry picked evidence to support what he wanted to do all along while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Go ahead. Deny it all. Fact is Bush played a game pretending to want peace ” to the max” but the testimony and the evidence shows the evidence for WMDs was mixed and any responsible President would have been more critical and given the inspectors more time. But Bush and Cheney continued to repeat evidence which was weak at best and in some cases was known to false at the time.
But the goal was not finding WMDs or peace but to achieve what the Neo Cons wanted since the late 1990. They wanted regime change and they just needed a provocation to enable them to stampeded the American people into supporting that goal. 9/11 gave that to them even though Iraq had nothing to do with it. Check out their writings if you don’t believe me and notice who was a member of that group Do the names Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearlman mean anything to you?
Bush was his usual arrogant self when he ignored the UN and the advice of allies and invaded. He and his cocksure friends attacked dissenters with names like “axis of Weisels” and “Surrender Monkeys” renamed french fries “freedom fries” and pushed ahead with a war without proper justification or planning.
Now we are stuck with tens of thousands of people killed, billions spent, universal disapproval, stories of torture, secret prisons and innocent people being held without any opportunity of defending themselves.
And we now know that Bush and Cheney leaked selected portions of a classified document to their friends in the press with the sole intent of discrediting someone who they wished to destroy who dared challenge their fake story.. And the part they released was known to be false! If that is not an abuse of power, I don’t know what is.
Well XRLQ you can continue denying the obvious with spin and smear but to date all you can offer is faint hope that some day in some way they will find WMD’s and you will be vindicated. Good luck but after three years I wouldn’t bet on it. You have about as much a chance as making Iraq a stable model democracy, the latest justification.
This is not some good intentioned man gone wrong. This is an ignorant, arrogant man with a distain for life and for even being honest with the people. He relies on deception and smear and manipulation. Tens of thousands have been killed because of this mans flawed character and irresponsible actions. You can make excuse after excuse but in my book that makes him evil.
AND PS this doesnt make me some crazy lefty. Check out the number of Conservatives who are jumping this ship of fools known as the Bush administration.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/5/2006 @ 5:07 amCharlie sez: “how come you dont [sic] intervein [sic] in Somalia is [sic] your intention is to help people?”
Somalia? A country that has rumored stockpiles of WMDs? A country with suspected ties to Al-Qaeda? A country that poses no “imminent threat” to the US? And act unilaterally? How very neo-connish of you, charlie. Ah, but George Clooney wants us to act, so it MUST be a worthwhile cause, eh?
Oh, BTW – when you sneer about “neocons,” just cut to the chase and say “Jews,” will you? We all know what you mean, anyway.
CMD (407568) — 5/5/2006 @ 5:54 amI don’t smear anyone who presents evidence. I “smear” Roberts as a racist because he writes racist things. I “smear” you as crazy because you make stupid, paranoid, unsupportable claims, and treat those claims as though they were established fact. If you had any real evidence to support those claims, that would be different.
I do. On your part, it’s either an outright lie, or a false statement made with reckless disregard for the truth. Either way, it doesn’t make you look good.
Xrlq (0a29f4) — 5/5/2006 @ 10:16 amHarry, re #103 — what makes you think liberals aren’t very worried about January 20, 2009? It’s common belief among many on the left that Bush and his allies stole the election in 2000, and it was a common fear among many leftists that I talked to in 2004 that if the Democrat won the election, Bush would find some way to rig it and/or abolish democracy in order to ensure that he retained power. I have no doubt that the people who believed that believe that some extralegal tactics will ensure that the Bush-selected Republican heir-to-the-throne remains in power in 2009.
This is utterly absurd, in my view, but no more absurd than the ranting I heard from many conservatives in 2000 that Gore was going to steal the election and impose a dictatorship. This particular sky-is-falling democracy-is-about-to-be-abolished insanity can be found on both sides of the aisle, and is usually stronger in whichever group is currently out of power.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/5/2006 @ 11:00 amNK – re #108, i’m sorry, you are simply wrong about what liberals believe. I know the joke seemed funny to you, but it wasn’t. 🙂
It is commonly believed among many people on the left that (a) Bush essentially stole the election in 2000; (b) that Republicans have been using patriotism and the popular response to 9/11 to bolster Republican fortunes by unfairly portraying Democrats as unpatriotic or unsafe on security; (c) that certain individuals and groups within the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq before Bush was even elected, and that they used 9/11 as an excuse to do something they wanted to do anyway.
Some people are more or less precise in their explanation of these points, but all three of them are part of the general canon of the liberal history of the Bush administration.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/5/2006 @ 11:06 amaphrael:
While that is a good summation of what many (not all) liberals believe, I’m not sure what the point is.
As many liberals will point out, simply because many believed the sun revolved around the Earth neither justified the Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo, nor did it make one whit of difference to reality.
Yes, many liberals believe what you laid out. Should one therefore entertain it, or accord it polite inclusion? I suspect that those same liberals would not admit Creationism or Intelligent Design to the discourse, nor, for those of a certain age and ilk, would they admit that Japan surrendered because of the dropping of the atomic bombs.
All of which, sadly, is a digression off what was an interesting thread, and I hope Tom Hoberg comes back to discuss things further.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 5/5/2006 @ 11:55 amLurking Observer: the point was to refute a claim that someone made that liberals don’t really beleive what they are saying, and that it’s ultimately all about sex. That isn’t true, and claiming that it is true doesn’t lead to a helpful discussion.
I wanted to clarify the air in reaction to something which I thought was a poisonous misrepresentation.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/5/2006 @ 12:05 pmAphrael:
I suspect nk was being sarcastic in his “liberals and sex” comment, but I think your response correctly identifies the reasons for liberal hostility toward President Bush and the Bush Administration. Taking your points in order:
Endless recounts have proven Bush won the election. Anyone who thinks Bush “stole the election” must feel that way because of the Supreme Court decision barring selective recounts. In my opinion, that was an emotional but not a logical response. I’m sure it was particularly hard for liberals to accept a loss in the Supreme Court because they rely so heavily on the Court to further their goals.
I agree with this statement if you delete the word “unfairly”. Liberal leaders have endorsed policies that are unpatriotic and unsafe, and Republicans have pointed this out. If it seems unfair, it is not because of Republican action but because of the inherent dichotomy in their position: Liberals want to be tough but they don’t view terrorism and 9/11 as acts of war requiring a strong military response. Instead, for many liberals, 9/11 was a shocking crime for the police and the courts to handle. My only complaint is that Republicans, and especially President Bush, don’t point out the dichotomy in the liberal position often enough.
Even if this is true, so what? The Iraq invasion was primarily based on responsible reasons designed to aid in the War on Terror. The fact that someone wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 wouldn’t make the invasion wrong or illegitimate as long as the decision to invade was made for valid reasons. Given the prolonged efforts by the US to gain UN approval prior to the invasion, these reasons were public and scrutinized. It is illogical for liberals to contend that the Bush Administration slipped one past us.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/5/2006 @ 1:25 pmNot so much sarcastic, as hyperbolic (“over the top” for people from Rio Lindo). I do sincerely suspect that liberals see no possibility of detente with the President on social issues and it more than colors their perception on foreign policy. They want him out of there and are willing to wage total war to do so up to, and including, disregarding the reality of the Islamofascist threat.
On my part, I believe we are up against a mortal enemy and he is doing his best to protect us. I don’t want anyone trying to hobble him whether for ideological or partisan reasons.
Anyway, “good” and “evil” are absolutes. There is nothing absolute about human beings. We are fallible both in our good and in our evil. That’s why I accused myself of trolling on this thread. I disagree with the basic assumption. The better question is whether having GW or OBL is more likely to promote the survival and perpetuation of our way of life.
(And I do not lump Psyberian, aphrael and Actus in with Charlie and blubonnet.)
nk (54c569) — 5/5/2006 @ 4:09 pmCMD I have had discussions with others that I strongly disagree with but never has anyone been so ignorant and stupid as to insinutate that I was some how acussing the Jews of this disaster. Is Cheney a Jew?? I dont know because it is irrelevant. Is Bush a Jew?? You are one ignorant moron for making the statement you did. Perhaps you would discuss this with my friend Larry who is Jewish and invited me to his wedding. You are hateful moron!!
Charlie (e16458) — 5/5/2006 @ 4:18 pmAnd we don’t him to be hobbled by his puritanical base in fighting the war on terra.
actus (6234ee) — 5/5/2006 @ 4:28 pmDRJ Lets try to reason. The Iraq invasion was not based on responsible reasons. It was based on ignoring the dissenting opinons and promoting only one side…and they were wrong. Not much more I can say if you cant understand this or recognize the evidence.
Real patriots defend the country and the basic principles we are so damn lucky to have been given to us by our forefathers.
Real patriots stand for enduring principles that endure at all times and they dont rush to embrace some bullshit based on the emotions of the moment.
Not much more I can say. Either you get it or you dont.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/5/2006 @ 4:41 pmIts Friday night and I am feeling relaxed.:) I just wanted to take a moment to thank Patterico for his generousity in allowing me and others like me to express our views even though he disagrees. I was kicked out of Free Republic for expressing a dissenting viewpoint so all the more I appreciate you, Patterico. I hope someday you will understand what guys like me are trying to say..and the threat Bush poses. Thanks again for your kindness in allowing this discussion.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/5/2006 @ 4:55 pmAnother respected retired lieutenant general, William Odom, has joined the toil-and-trouble chorus with a piece in Foreign Policy magazine headlined “Cut and Run? You Bet.” He writes that withdrawing from “the big sandy” will encourage the terrorists, but argues that “our continued occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers — precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them.”
He says: “Invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For Al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans.” He concludes that “the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically.”
The U.S. may be paralyzed, but its leader is pedaling. The commander in chief, who could learn something about wily and resilient ways to adapt a war plan from Red Chief, spent a couple of hours yesterday afternoon biking and savoring the beautiful spring weather. When you’re on the hook, play hooky.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/5/2006 @ 7:13 pmCharlie, here’s a new movie that I’m sure you will enjoy.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/6/2006 @ 3:46 amAt the risk of engaging in petty one-upmanship with Charlie’s Free Republic experience, I was actually banned from the Democratic Underground. So I just want to take a moment here to second Charlie’s hat tip to Patterico for running a site where folks of opposing political views are tolerated (at least by the host), and sometimes even encouraged to post. But before Patterico’s partisans jump in here with their usual preening about their moral superiority to the Left, save your breath. I’ve been around the blogosphere enough to know there’s enough punk fascism and brute nastiness out there to cover both ends of the political spectrum in layers of shame. And, as I fondly recall, Patterico has cavalierly dismissed me in the past as “unhinged” and “a moron.” Pretty tame on the civil tone scale, and no where near as bad as the frothing Rightists who routinely accuse Lefties of treason and appeasement. Which brings to mind Hugh Hewitt’s latest slavering post to a millennium of Republican hegemony:
“The party is truly unhinged, and a voite (sic) for any Democrat will be a vote for defeat, and not just in Iraq.”
Indeed. This from the hypocrite who squeals long and loud about “venom” on the Left. But hypocrisy is only the half of it. The rank cowardice of this poseur who goes around pimping himself as some kind of prophet of the blogosphere, but doesn’t have the guts to allow comments is without parallel on either end of the political spectrum. By comparison, our host Patterico sports a pair of Colbert-sized balls. So once again, I tip my hat to you, Pat.
Asinitra (233b3a) — 5/6/2006 @ 9:44 amWho is more evil — Bush or Bin Laden?
And that’s the question being asked and answered over at Patterico’s Pontifications. There’s over a hundred comments, with both insane-lefties and even-keeled-righties giving it their best shot. I particularly liked these:
Frankly, Patterico, I…
OKIE on the LAM - In LA (e2cef7) — 5/6/2006 @ 9:54 amColbert-sized? Hmmm.
If I called you a moron, I apologize. Not my best moment. I’m guessing it would have to have been a response to an opinion that Bush staged 9/11. Still, name-calling is inappropriate, even n response to such a silly opinion as that.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/6/2006 @ 10:25 amOkay Patterico, I know you have a your hands full working over the Scheer archives at the LAT, but I haven’t posted so much here that you couldn’t easily check to see whether I ever said word one about Bush staging 9/11 before accusing me of doing so. Let me save you some time, not only have I never expressed that opinion, but I consider that charge total bullshit. Bush could never have master-minded anything so bloody effective in his life.
[Okay. I am sorry I suggested you argued that. So when *did* I call you a “moron”? I’m not saying I didn’t. I just want to know the context. — P]
Asinitra (233b3a) — 5/6/2006 @ 2:36 pmA Challenge for the Lefty Commenters Here
Asinitra (233b3a) — 5/6/2006 @ 5:52 pmFiled under: Morons, Terrorism — Patterico @ 11:26 am
Interesting exchange in the comments at that Hiltzik post I discussed yesterday. The first commenter, a lefty appropriately named Asinistra, made the patently absurd suggestion that I consider the real enemy to be, not the terrorists, but the L.A. Times:
By the way, Patterico, no need to apologize for calling me a moron…or anything else for that matter. I readily accept the rough and tumble of the blogosphere. My point is about this phony “uncivil tone” of the Left, you Righties are always whining about. Here’s the nutshell. The Right gets what Wolcott colorfully calls the vapors over words like wanker, douchebag, and Chimpinator. The Left gets rightfully angry over getting painted with words like traitor, appeaser, and treasonous. One is just schoolyard name-calling, and the other is what Hugh Hewitt might call, if he had a conscience, VENOMOUS.
Asinitra (233b3a) — 5/6/2006 @ 6:05 pmAsinitra, more common liberal terms of endearment for Republicans include fascists and brownshirts.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/6/2006 @ 6:39 pmAnd, of course, Asinistra sez nary a word about the political make-up of those, like blubonnet, who subscribe to the Bush LIHOP or even MIHOP schools of thought.
Of course, they don’t represent “the Left.” But those who would use the term “traitor” inevitably are typical of the Right.
Apparently, broad-brush generalities are only to be applied to one’s class enemies?
Lurking Observer (a7d8d0) — 5/6/2006 @ 7:43 pm#110. After being treated to the first paragraph, literally packed with factually incorrect, illogical and out of context statements, we are informed that …Facts mean nothing to you.
Blu, it seems that in virtually every discussion in which we’ve participated I’ve spent ample time correcting your “facts”. It is truly a shame that you seem to have no clue about truth and non-truth. I see you’re still obsessing about whether Bush is a true Christian, by your definition, of course … Still in the God business? hmmm.
So we’re treated to another “informative” list of “facts” including … indefinite abuse of unitary power …, torture …, white phosphorous …, the demise of democracy …, depleted uranium …. Just for the sake of getting our attention and gaining credibility, we’re labeled as … crazy people …. Because we disagree with you. Of course we also learn by virtue of the obligatory “facts” that Bush is … robbing us all …, killing our kids …, and … killing innocent civilians … and on it goes.
Aphrael, #114, what makes you think liberals aren’t very worried about January 20, 2009?. Actually, I don’t believe I used the term “liberals” at all in my comment. I generally don’t use the term except when comparing what I do call “the looney far left” to genuine liberals such as Sen Lieberman, for whom I have the highest regard and respect.
On the other hand, and I’m glad you distanced yourself from the absurd belief, I find it disturbing that there are actually otherwise fairly normal people in the country who seriously believe that Bush stole the 2000 election, engineered the 2004 election, and will do the same again following the 2008 election and orchestrated an attack on our country on 9/11. My comment was directed to those who hold those beliefs, and was intended to be taken in its ironic sense.
The probability that Bush will hand over the duties to the next duly elected chief executive at the inauguration ceremony which will take place in January 2009 is 100%.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 5/6/2006 @ 10:18 pmHarry, I am sorry, but you are ignorant of the facts. I am not going to give you a list of the many sources I use. I suggest you just use your search engines, and research it all yourself. I trust you have the logic and intellect to look at both left and right leaning sources, not merely the ones that are consistently proven as liars. I am not interested in engaging in a long exchange with you. I don’t believe facts will have any effect on your perspective. Beating my head against a wall does not interest me.
No, I’m not in the “God business”. I do know that there are sincere people that are Christian and try to do right. Sometimes ignoring some of the inconsistencies of their logical mind with the “word”, but nevertheless sincere in that they want to do what is right and good. Bush has shown none of that.
Why should I apologize for being angry that you and others still support the liar that brought unnecessary deaths to thousands, as well as a black hole defecit unprecedented in US history? You should be angry.
You have to know that I’m not a small percentage of the population. You can’t call me a fringe lunatic. Not that THAT factor would alter my perspective in light of factual scrutiny, as you well know.
blubonnet (86405d) — 5/7/2006 @ 12:18 amOk XRLX I admit some of Paul Craig Roberts writings are stupid.. I was only familiar with the anti Bush ones. I used him because I figured at least no one could call him a “lefty”.
But in defense I admire Thomas Jefferson but that doesnt mean I want to keep slaves.
Anyway
Any interesting news out of Basra isnt it?
Charlie (e16458) — 5/7/2006 @ 5:57 amHere is the real problem. So many Bush supporters I know will refer to him a “good and decent man” and on that basis support him.
They don’t seem to understand that they do not know Bush at all but only a carefully orchestrated image.
Honestly said, he is not the only one to do this but it helps to understand what is really going on.
The speeches he gives and the images he creates appeal to what ever the research tells his handlers the people will respond to.
He is told to stay on message and makes every effort to avoid getting off message with an unfriendly audience or question.
People fearful? Show him proudly standing in front of an eagle with a carefully selected suit and a power tie, bathed in just the right light with the camera angle just below him so you look up to him. Give him words that convey the image of a firm, confident leader who can lead us through these troubled times.
Need a “man of the people” image? Show him carrying a hammer and nails in New Orleans helping to rebuild a homes. ( how long did he continue after the cameras went off???)
Need a concerned image? Have him stand with those firefighters from Utah..you know the ones that later expressed their anger at having volunteer to help in NO and found their only assignment was to stand with the President in a photo op.
Need a war hero? Never mind his questionable military record. Show him landing a fighter plane on an aircraft carrier and standing in front of cheering crowds proclaiming “mission accomplished”
Select the friendly crowds and show smiling faces of approval, use language selected to appeal to peoples hot buttons and use your surrogates to create fear and hate for those that would “undermine America” while Bush appears to remain above the fray. Do all this and people, longing for security and reassurance many will follow him no matter how much his story changes and how false or shifting his reasoning. They will gladly even sacrifice even their own children for the sake of this image. That is why you cannot reason with them because they are not basing their support on reason. Its a deep gut feeling carefully planted in a kind of psy-ops campaign. They believe in him because they want to believe in him and they are in total denial.
But Lincoln said ‘You may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.'” And that is the problem for the Bush handlers.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/7/2006 @ 6:24 amHere is the real problem. So many Bush supporters I know will refer to him a “good and decent man” and on that basis support him.
They don’t seem to understand that they do not know Bush at all but only a carefully orchestrated image.
Charlie, I would assert, that you do not “know Bush at all, only a carefully orchestrated image”, created by those unalterably opposed to him personally and to his policies.
The speeches he gives and the images he creates appeal …
He is told to stay on message …
People fearful? Show him proudly standing in front of an eagle with a carefully selected suit and a power tie, …
Need a “man of the people” image? Show him carrying a hammer and nails …
Need a concerned image? Have him stand with those firefighters …
Need a war hero? Never mind his questionable military record. Show him landing a fighter plane on an aircraft carrier …
Any real differences here with any president in recent memory? This is what they do. I’m sure you were equally distressed that Carter and Clinton took part in the very same type of activities.
BTW, a small quibble that really doesn’t have anything to do with anything. It wasn’t a fighter plane and Bush didn’t land it nor did he claim to. Questionable military record? Unfortunately not up to the Clintonian standard. Interesting that it didn’t matter then. But I digress …
Here’s the truly interesting comment: That is why you cannot reason with them because they are not basing their support on reason. Its a deep gut feeling carefully planted in a kind of psy-ops campaign. They believe in him because they want to believe in him and they are in total denial.
And again I would suggest to you to look in the mirror before making this ad hominem criticism. Is your criticism also valid for those who so loath Bush, courtesy of the 2000 election and his expression of Christian faith, that they are “not basing their [opposition] on reason…”, and therefore cannot be reasoned with? Is your criticism equally valid for those who so loath Bush due to their “… deep gut feeling[s] carefully planted by [the] … psy-ops campaign[s]…” of Michael Moore, Move-On, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, assorted far left groups and the preponderance of the MSM?
And is your criticism equally valid for those who so loath Bush that they absolutely refuse to believe him, make up absurd conspiracy theories about 9/11, attribute motives to him that they have absolutely no way of knowing, and are themselves in total denial that Bush, for all his admitted faults, won two national elections and that his party controls both houses of congress?
It’s one thing to disagree and to forcefully express your disagreement in a logical and factual manner. We might disagree on various interpretations of the facts or even on the veracity of the facts themselves. Fair enough. It’s quite another to assert that you, or Blu, or others are privy to what’s in Bush’s mind, his motivations, whether he’s a “proper” Christian, his supporters’ minds, our thoughts, our motives, and even our level of support or disagreement with Bush’s policies.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 5/7/2006 @ 8:25 amre #135, Harry, I am sorry, but you are ignorant of the facts. I am not going to give you a list of the many sources I use. I suggest you just use your search engines, and research it all yourself. I trust you have the logic and intellect to look at both left and right leaning sources, not merely the ones that are consistently proven as liars.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. This is, after all, the focus of our complete disagreement, isn’t it? And my point is that simply because we disagree on the veracity of the sources, their “facts” and their logical treatment, you have branded those of us with whom you disagree a consistent variety of ad hominem labels. It doesn’t accomplish much in convincing us to look at your statements seriously but I suppose it is easier than having to argue with facts and reason.
I am not interested in engaging in a long exchange with you. I don’t believe facts will have any effect on your perspective. Beating my head against a wall does not interest me.
I think we’ve played this tune before also. Don’t, however, expect to post unfounded assertion after unfounded assertion and not be called on the innacurate, illogical, and in some cases, downright ridiculous “arguments”, let alone your arrogant, condescending, self-righteous, dismissive tone.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 5/7/2006 @ 8:40 amWhich is useful if you’re attempting to defeat a strawman who thinks only lefties oppose U.S. foreign policy, which of course has never been true. Pre-FDR, isolationism was the norm, and any idealistic attempt to “make the world safe for democracy” would have been rightly viewed as liberal. Paleocons like Roberts (or, to quote a better known example, Pat Buchanan) generally favor the old isolationist foreign policy, but they also tend to romanticize or at least trivialize other aspects of their bygone era, which included Jim Crow. Thus, it’s not coincidental that the older, crankier, unhinged Paul Craig Roberts bashes both interventionist foreign policy and other races, while the younger, brighter, then-respected Roberts did neither (and wouldn’t have lasted long in the Reagan Administration if he did). Nor is it coincidental that other paleocons like Pat Buchanan frequently stop just short of endorsing white supremacy, while other still, like Steve Sailer or David Duke, come right out and say it, as did two racist trolls on my blog when I took their racist hero Steve Sailer to task for espousing racist views having nothing to do with President Bush in general, or with his foreign policy in particular. Their view seems to be that dark-sninned people are so innately inferior to whites that their societies shouldn’t be free.
This is not to suggest, of course, that all self-described conservatives who oppose U.S. interventionism are racists. Some buy into paranoia of other stripes, as you yourself seem to do. Another popular stunt among paleocons, and also among their libertarian allies who find the race-baiting a bit off-putting, is to raise the spectre of “empire.” It’s particularly amusing when you consider the fact that throughout history, every time there was a real empire the colonizing country made no attempt to hide the fact; in fact, they announced it proudly. They only do now, in a society that overwhelmingly does not want to run an empire, but does have elements that wish to promote the most basic of its values (i.e., freedom and democracy) abroad, while other elements would rather withdraw and leave good/bad enough alone.
Before you try too hard to make common cause with anti-interventionist righties, be aware that you’re going to run into Roberts/Buchanan types all the time, and that the “empire” freaks are about the best you’ll do outside of them. Those guys do make a natural for the far left, since they both agree with the basic premise that the U.S. should withdraw not only from Iraq, but from the world at large. Their only difference of opinion is over why, or more specifically, over who is too good for whom. America Firsters think the U.S. is too good for the world; lefty loons think the world is too good for us.
Xrlq (1a2fae) — 5/7/2006 @ 9:02 amI used him because I figured at least no one could call him a “lefty”.
Superb observations by X. I would add that finding someone “on the right” who might agree with your argument is really a not-so-subtle form of an “appeal to authority”. My basic point about what anyone on the right might say is: “So what?” The only question in my mind is whether their statements make sense or not. Thus, I am free to disagree, and I often do, with Pat Buchanan, Brent Scowcroft, George Bush (Sr and Jr), and a host of others on a host of subjects.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 5/7/2006 @ 10:02 amHow approriate that on a Sunday morning I should have to bear the cross of liberalism’s holy trinity: diversity, pluralism, and inclusion.
Lookee here, says Jim C #29, Howard Dean used the word evil. Take that!
And wait, lookee here, says Lurking Observer #133, Blubonnet subscribes to LIHOP and MIHOP. Defend that!
And, hey, look over here, says DRJ #133, some commenters on kos or firedoglake or digby called us fascists and brownshirts. So say you’re sorry.
Well, I am sorry, folks…sorry that I can’t speak for all the patriotic Americans–from the Bush bashers to the deeply disillusioned–who have just had it with George W. Bush and his Era of Gross Incompetence. According to recent polls that’s now nearly 70% of the country and growing by the day, so I can’t possibly speak for all of them. But here’s who speaks for you, pontificators:
Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism–Hannity
Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism–Coulter
No mere kos kids but heavyweights of the American Right. Please raise your hands if you’re among the millions of Rightists whose bookshelves have been graced by these repulsive slanders.
Asinitra (233b3a) — 5/7/2006 @ 10:09 amAsinistra,
I wrote a post quoting you as saying something really stupid: that I think the real enemy is, not the terrorists, but the LA Times. (I don’t think such a silly thing, as I made clear in the post.) You also said that in *your* view, the real enemy is Bush and not bin Laden. I think that is a silly and stupid point of view. I filed that post under “Morons.”
And that is the full context. I didn’t exactly call you a moron, but I suppose I strongly implied it by the use of the Morons category. Given the ridiculous view you attributed to me, I think that the category was appropriate.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 5/7/2006 @ 10:47 amA, …Era of Gross Incompetence. Channeling Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid now are we?
…from the Bush bashers to the deeply disillusioned–who have just had it with George W. Bush and his Era of Gross Incompetence. According to recent polls that’s now nearly 70% of the country and growing by the day, … I would argue that your conclusion is faulty in that the polls imply no such thing. If X% polled indicate that they approve of the way Bush is doing his job, it is not a valid conclusion that 100-X “… have just had it with George W. Bush …” Maybe, maybe not. Unless you look at the reasons for their disapproval, you can make no such claim.
For example, if I were polled, I would probably fall within the 100-X group. Why? My disagreement is that he should be much more aggressive in his response to his critics and he should communicate far better regarding the successes of the war in Iraq. My only “disillusionment” is with his failure to secure our borders and with his unwillingness to reign in republican spending. I’m also disillusioned that he has not continued to pursue Social Security, Medicare and tax reforms, among other things.
I would submit that the real question for most of us in the 100-X group is whether there is currently a democrat on the national stage who wouldn’t make things worse, or a republican for 2008 who would do a better job of governing like a true fiscal conservative.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 5/7/2006 @ 11:23 amoops! Forgot to raise my hand. I particularly enjoyed Ann Coulter’s book.
While we’re discussing book lists, I also have Al Gore’s book, a few volumes by Charles Darwin, Bertran Russell, Karl Marx, the Koran, and other not particularly “conservative” works.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 5/7/2006 @ 11:31 amI have to admit, I don’t know what LIHOP and MIHOP stand for.
Incidentally, for those of you, that are saying I thought Bush orchestrated the 911 flying a plane into the WTC, I never said that. Just for the record, I believe that the neo-cons salivating for a war, ignored the massive intelegence pouring in warning of it. Besides that, helped fascilitate some of it. Just look at the evidence (sure you will). I’m done with this subject.
Asinistra, despite your derision of me, I appreciate your perspectives, which is more multi-dimensional than most. Always a joy to read.
blubonnet (86405d) — 5/7/2006 @ 12:35 pmIncidentally, good source for intelligent sources regarding 911: http://www.st911.org/ See who they are before discounting them.
blubonnet (86405d) — 5/7/2006 @ 12:41 pmAsinitra,
I take it from the absence of substantive content in your post #142 that debate isn’t working for you on this thread and you are trying a different tack.
DRJ (3c8cd6) — 5/7/2006 @ 1:27 pmHarry re post 138 If you read my post you will see that I said in Post 137 third paragraph that “he is not the only one” So you are right. I do not “know” Bush so I cannot either support or attack him based on “knowing him as a good and decent man” as others have..
Harry my dislike of Bush is based on the knowledge that he deliberately led us into a war with half assed reasons. You can think what you may but in fact I nominated Bush for Man of the Year for his actions after 9/11 and supported his attack on Afghanistan and Iraq. It was only later that I realized that not only were there no WMDs there but that Bush and crew manipulated us into going to war ignoring evidence that would have made a more responsible leader continue with the inspections. I am firmly convinced that Bush wanted war…just not the war he got.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/7/2006 @ 1:55 pmIts a terrible thing to send men and women in to fight and die for a cause..So what do you say to a mother or wife who has lost a son or husband?? Opps!!! Sorry I was wrong in rushing off to war? Or perhaps we can do a comedy routine like Bush did before the press club making a joke about his inability to find WMDs.. How funny!!
My applause is to Steven Colbert. Guts and courage to tell the truth!!
Its a terrible thing to send men and women in to fight and die for a cause..So what do you say to a mother or wife who has lost a son or husband?? Opps!!! Sorry I was wrong in rushing off to war? Or perhaps we can do a comedy routine like Bush did before the press club making a joke about his inability to find WMDs.. How funny!!
Are these really the only two choices?
One of the other alternatives, of course, is to tell them that in some small way the country shares their loss, that what they were doing was extremely important for our security and for the Afghani and Iraqi people, that they should be justly proud of their loved one, and that the people of these countries may just get the opportunity to live in freedom through their sacrifice.
Obviously the press club “joke” bothers you since you’ve mentioned it on more than one occasion. Personally, most of the stuff they do at the press club bothers me, including the recent nonsense. This has nothing to do with “telling the truth”, it is nothing more than a periodic “roast” that accomplishes little more than embarassment for the president, whoever he is. If your idea of useful, productive public debate about very serious policy issues is Steven Colbert or Al Franken, or the president, for that matter, making silly “jokes” at a press club dinner, then I guess we just don’t agree.
… my dislike of Bush is based on the knowledge that he deliberately led us into a war with half assed reasons. … It was only later that I realized that not only were there no WMDs there but that Bush and crew manipulated us into going to war ignoring evidence that would have made a more responsible leader continue with the inspections.
I honestly do not share your assessment of the facts. Nor do I, in all honesty, believe that we’ve handled the “post combat operations” all that particularly well in many respects. There is plenty of justifiable criticism for Bush and his team, I just don’t agree with your assessment of his reasons or that he manipulated intelligence to get us there.
In fact, one of my primary disagreements with the “Bush wanted a war” thought process is that there’s really no fundamental advantage to him politically to engage the country in a long, difficult, military conflict, particularly in the ME.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 5/7/2006 @ 2:34 pmHarry I respect your thoughful posts and those of XRLQ as well.
Let me answer two of your remarks in the last post.
First of all I dont understand why our soldiers should be dying to create freedom for the Iraqis or anyone else. Why them? There are plenty of other countries that we support that are anything but free. Thats just an excuse on the administrations part having failed to find WMDs. Do you believe that the American people would have supported an attack on either of these countries just to help them gain freedom from a dictator we supported for so long? Do you think they, or anyone else in the Mideast believes that?
And this situation does not make us more secure. Terrorism is an ideology and the situation in Iraq has generated enormus hostility and anger toward the US and is a breeding ground for future terrorists.
Harry, there is a ton of evidence and testimony saying Bush wanted this war but you say you cant believe that Bush wanted this war because
“there’s really no fundamental advantage to him politically to engage the country in a long, difficult, military conflict, particularly in the ME.”
You are right on that issue and you say it is one of your primary disagreements with those who say Bush wanted this war..but you forget that they did not expect this long a war. Repeatedly they told us they expected the war to be over in a very short time and to cost no more than 50 Billion dollars. They expected a quick cheap victory and with Sadam Hussein gone and our military having a presence there, the fact that no WMDs were found would not be an issue. So they got a war..but not the one they expected.
Charlie (e16458) — 5/8/2006 @ 5:13 amNot exactly on the topic of evil but a must read for everyone.. Right wing talk show host turns on Bush//
Finally sees the light..
http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsEntry.asp?ID=432586&PT=McIntyre+in+the+Morning
Charlie (e16458) — 5/8/2006 @ 5:20 am