Very thoughtful essay explaining (again) why a committed European leftist supports Bush against many self-identified leftist critics and politicians. Includes a thoughtful comparison to Cold War Era US policy, and some comments on Chomsky and Schroeder, among others. (Scroll down to Bush and the Left) http://oliverkamm.blogspot.com/2003_07_13_oliverkamm_archive.html#105856694060079304
Everyone you happen to agree with you deem "thoughtful." You are so full of intellectual dishonesty, just amazing. If I linked to a right winger who was against Bush and favored Dean, no matter what points they made you would deem their position "loony." I notice you were silent when recently Buckley trashed Bush on several issues. But then, Buckley is an old line conservative, not the current brand of neocons that roam the halls of spin.
Victor Davis Hanson's summary of what Bush has accomplished since 9/11, from a thoughtful essay on whether Bush's policies are better viewed as "corrections" toward a more moderate relationship with the world rather than the excessively compromised, gullible, and dangerous complacency and retreat that we fell into during the last years of the Cold War and the first years of the "peace dividend": I also liked his observations on the issue of "loose talk": Full piece at: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson071803.asp
"The problem with deterrence â apparently sometimes forgotten by our former presidents â is that it is not static, but a creature of the moment, captive to impression, and nursed on action, not talk. It must be maintained hourly and can erode or be lost with a single act of failed nerve, despite all the braggadocio of threatened measures. And, once gone, the remedies needed for its restoration are always more expensive, deadly â and controversial â than would have been its simple maintenance." Most reasonable people who invest themselves in any successful relationship with another person could say on the basis of real life experiences: The problem with relationships-----apparently sometimes forgotten by the single or the divorced or those too self centered and unwilling to grow, change and compromise sufficiently to work out their differences with others-----is that they (relationships) are not static, but a creature of the moment, captive to impression, and nursed on action, not talk. It must be maintained hourly and can erode or be lost with a single act of failed communication or breach of faith, despite all the professed love and fraternity or threat of consequences if the boundaries of the relationship are not preserved. And, once gone, the remedies needed for its restoration are always more expensive, deadly----and painful-----than would have been its simple maintenance.
Needless to say, you don't show that you even read the piece that was linked. Instead, yet once again, you demonstrate an incapacity to deal with arguments and issues, and instead turn to contrived personal attacks - it's how you deal with Bush, it's how you deal with me and others on this thread, it's how you deal with people in the ET chatroom. It seems to be who and what you are. Even your fantasy policy for dealing with Iraq comes down to the same thing: Because you personally like to think of yourself as being against Saddam Hussein, to you it's the same as supporting policies that effectively opposed him, and in your imagination it clears you of the charge of objectively supporting his grip on power, freeing you to claim that those who did in fact support the only viable plan for deposing him are part of some "immoral majority." All that seems to matter to you is your own personal emotional reaction. You probably think that if you put up a post with "Saddam is a loooooozer" in size=8 font, it would qualify as a realistic policy for ridding the Iraqi people and the world of him.
Needless to say, you don't show that you even read the response of mine and considered it to possibly be an accurate perception. Instead, yet once again, you demonstrate an incapacity to deal with criticism, and instead turn to your own brand of holier than thou contrived personal attacks - it's how you deal with criticism, it's how you deal with me and others on this thread, it's how you deal with people in the ET chatroom. It seems to be who and what you are. Even your fantasy policy for dealing with those of differing opinions comes down to the same thing: Because you personally like to think of yourself as being right or smarter than others, to you it's the same as supporting your conclusions because you see yourself as right, and in your imagination it clears you of the charge of subjectivity and bias, supporting your continual spin of the issues to your own brand of neocon rhetoric, freeing you to claim that those who don't support you are dangerous or perhaps not American as the only viable plan for defending your position on the basis of some temporal "moral majority" as seen in public opinion polls. All that seems to matter to you is your own personal bias, agenda, and self righteous perspectives. You probably think that if you put up a post with "this leftwing website and author are lunatics" in size=8 font, it would qualify as a realistic policy for convincing people that your opinions are the correct options to have.
I love the way the administration's critics dance around the issue. Are they for the war or not? Several of their dwarf presidential candidates voted to support the war, so they are in an awkward position. One way out is to focus on irrelevant details like the uranium non-issue. I have more respect for the posters here who were against the war from the outset and made their arguments. I personally had some doubts, as preemptivce invasion is a big step, and I also have some qualms about the neo-con swamp draining strategy. When we went in though, I think you have to support the team. I have zero respect for the John Kerry's and others who voted to support the war, supported Clinton's attack on Iraq, but now are in high dugeon over some idiotic debating point.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies Report The most poignant and descriptive part of the report comes in the preamble to the conclusions: âEleven days in Iraq left indelible images in our minds. Fathers escorting young girls to school; young men waiting in long lines everywhere jobs are announced; young kids flashing the thumbs-up sign (and swarming around us asking for money); a rebuilt prison with a newly installed manager; retrained Iraqi police officers directing traffic; snaking lines of cars at gas stations; a festive 4th of July party thrown by the Kurds in the north (and celebrating 4th of July at Saddamâs palace in Baghdad); racing through small towns in heavily armed convoys; 19-year old American soldiers standing out in 120 degree heat to guard Iraqi sites, and chatting on street corners with Iraqi children; the blackness and heat of the night with power shortages; the pleasure of a shower after days without running water; the energy, commitment, and intensity of Iraqis as they discussed their countryâs future; the natural beauty of the mountains in the north and Iraqâs fertile crescent; the pride and professionalism of Iraqi members of newly established town councils; the palpable fear of Iraqis out in the street after the sun goes down, and the security bubble U.S. officials work in; the high expectations of Iraqis as to what the United States can provide, and their frustration and anger over intermittent electricity and water service; the resourcefulness of U.S. and British troops as they restart civil society; the sincere efforts of civilians to forge ahead despite the looming insecurity; devastated university buildings in Basra, completely ravaged by looters; the opulence of Saddamâs palaces; and Iraqâs ancient history and cultural richness. "As we traveled throughout the country, it was impossible not to be impressed by the character and drive of the coalition forces, the dedication and enthusiasm of the CPA, the wearied endurance of the Iraqi people, and the enormity of the opportunities, challenges, and risks before them all." _______________________________________ I truly hope that all of the carping and naysaying won't stop the progress or defeat the accomplishments or embolden the old regime or weaken our resolve. I don't know whether the carpers really want us to pull out and allow a repeat of the 1991 massacres or just get rid of Bush so his replacement can continue the job and then claim the whole job was theirs. Either way is dishonest, so what is new with the libs.