My fellow Gatherers,
I'm writing this article in response to char h.'s article or more accurately, his tirade. Read his first if you'd like context.
I'd like to clarify here that my comments are not intended - nor should they be interpreted - to paint the entire Republican party with the sins of any one member. I'm addressing, more, the hypocrisy and double standards I see.
_______________________________________________
So, the Democrats are relentless in their criticism of George Bush, you say? Well, he deserves it. Unlike you're stereotype, I'm one of many liberals who completely back the dismantling and eradication of terror organizations. Like others of my kind, I'd also like to see an effective counter-offensive to the hate indoctrinated into Muslims worldwide through madrasses and the media. The return of the Caliphate, radical Islam's dream, will be quashed - but the Islamists may inflict a lot of damage and grief before that happens. This administration trumpets their safety record by crowing that we haven't had another terrorist attack on American soil. The fact that we're dealing with very patient whackos should instruct us to add a "yet" to the end of that overly confident pronouncement. Our ports are still vulnerable. Our borders are as porous as ever. Our power plants and chemical storage aren't well protected. The Bush administration has done little to address these vulnerabilities. Just because we haven't been attacked again doesn't mean it's less likely. Bush & Co. have incubated legions of haters and terrorists with their self-interested (as opposed to "good for the country" or "spreading democracy") folly that is the Iraq War!
char, you just don't like the taste of your own medicine. Bitter, isn't it? When the shoe was on the other foot and the liberals complained that conservatives were obsessed with criticizing EVERYTHING Clinton did - including breathing - the Neocons ignored these complaints and refused to engage in any reasoned discussion of the issues. It was all screed, all diatribe, all rant, all the time. To this day, that hatred and obsession remain and the right-wing is still trying to blame EVERYTHING on Clinton! 9/11, the Katrina disaster, the Foley scandal, etc. Bill O'Reilly stooped so low as to misidentify Foley as a Democrat on his fair and balanced Fox Network "News" show, while Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh came right out and blamed Clinton for not putting a stop to Foley!!! Clinton is the Neocons' favorite scapegoat. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
As history will record, Clinton was distracted away from the business of the country to deal with an absurd impeachment; a huge waste of taxpayer dollars for an insignificant lie - one told by many a cheating husband, in order to protect his spouse's feelings and to avoid the attendant humiliation for them both. I absolutely do not condone what he did - I'd have understood if Hillary had done a Loreena Bobbit on him - but his behavior wasn't unique, not even in the White House. Republican presidents, too, have had dalliances there! You can't have it both ways. You can't relentlessly expose one sex scandal and cover up another just because the one you're covering up - for years - involves a Republican who paraded as a moral bastion - even sponsoring legislation to protect children from pedophiles - and is revealed to be one himself! Compared to Mark Foley, the Clinton/ Lewinsky scandal is a yawn. Besides, we both know if the same question had been asked of ANY President who'd had an extramarital affair,the same lie would have come out of his mouth - period, end of story.
Underlying the obsession with "the lie" is the truth that the Lewinsky affair was none of the American public's or Congress' business. Sleazy though it was, these were two consenting adults engaging in morally reprehensible - but not illegal - behavior. The problems in a marriage are the business of the people in the marriage - and no one else. If they get a marriage counselor, I suppose he or she could be said to be involved - but the legal system would only be involved if the marriage moves to a divorce or there are abuse issues. Even then, it's still nobody's business but the people involved in the case.
What was happening in the Clinton's marriage or Newt Gingrich's or Jim McGreevey's was, and is, not vital to the security of the country. Clinton was going after Osama Bin Laden when he had to take his eye off the ball to deal with that inanity. Republicans accused him of "wagging the dog" - this in order to distract Congress and the public from the Lewinsky scandal. Dripping with contempt, they demeaned him for bombing Bin Laden's stronghold in Afghanistan - which, in their estimation,was just a cynical ploy. Oh, how very wrong they were - but I don't see any of those critics coming forward now to apologize. Instead, they're engaging in the very tactic of which they accused Clinton. It's "look over there" time! Clinton gets the blame instead of the buck stopping where it belongs - squarely in front of Bush, and the Republican Congress.
In truth, Clinton got very close to getting Osama but had to stop the search for the aforementioned reasons. We know the bitter outcome of that folly!
Like a good paradigm, history may well judge the holier-than-thou, gotta have payback for Nixon, pettiness of the Republicans as the true cause of how and why the terrorist's were able to bring their dreadful plans to fruition on 9/11. I blame radical Islamists for the death of 3000 + people. I blame the Republicans and their ilk for the pettiness that likely allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape and live to execute the 9/11 plot.
(When, oh when will the good of the country come before petty partisan squabbling and one-upsmanship?)
Now Bush & Co. have just made the terrorist threat quantumly worse with their misadventure in Iraq. Instead of addressing terrorism with good spy and police work, they made up excuses to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11! Why did they do that? I have my theories and they have nothing to do with spreading democracy. I'm more of a "follow the money" type - and what I see are cronies and family getting very much richer while the country racks up a 1,000,000,000,000 + debt ( - which, btw, is held mostly by the Chinese. We have a rather symbiotic relation with China right now, but what if Iran or N. Korea decides to buy that loan? What then?) Clinton left a huge surplus in the Treasury - a hateful thing, I guess (go figure) - while our "fiscally responsible conservative Republican" President has created a giant sucking black hole abyss of debt; which puts us, imho, in a very worrisome and vulnerable position.
How can one recognize evil? Usually evil is quite banal. It's not always an obvious devil with a pitchfork - like the jihadists. No, it's usually much subtler. One way is to assess it is if something is done for the good of the few at the expense of the many. That's what I see. That's why I criticize. I don't hate. Hate clouds your vision and addles your thinking. I believe hate decreases your I.Q in direct proportion to the level of the hate. The more you hate, the stupider you become. Neocons now love to accuse any criticizer of Bush as hating him. Facile but untrue. Frankly, he's not worth getting stupid over. We need intelligent leaders. We need leaders with vision, wisdom and savvy. If anyone hates, it's the conservatives. Just look at the above-cited Clinton remarks. Whenever the right speaks of Clinton, they don't actually talk - they seethe! Most criticisms I hear from the right-wing would be best directed into a mirror.
I believe the solution to the terrorist problem is for America to return to its Yankee ingenuity. If we came up with a plentiful, clean, affordable energy source - one that would REPLACE fossil fuels as the standard in the world - not only would we stop the flow of money to the terrorists (by drying up their oil income) but we could renew our country's spirit and fill our Treasury to overflowing! We could pay off the debt and improve the quality of life here and everywhere. Greenhouse gasses wouldn't be an issue anymore and all would benefit from the cleaner environment.
We already have alternatives without looking to the exorbitantly expensive and far off solution of hydrogen. We could start now to kick the oil addiction. We could grow sugar cane for ethanol. which is much faster growing and better / more efficient than ethanol from corn. We're promoting corn because of farm subsidies - not because of efficiency.
When we decide to be energy self-sufficient, it will happen very quickly. The self-interested oil men in control of our government have little incentive to promote anything but oil, so we get a dog and pony show about alternative energy! Bush says "Yes, let's develop more alternative energies - and then refuses to fund or strips funds from alternative energy programs! "By your actions are ye known!"
(Before the conversation becomes a "look over there" let me say that for about 5 years now, I've driven an alternative fuel car that runs on CNG. I'd eventually like to go to biodiesel or solar-powered electric but I can't afford those right now. I have but one CNG station nearby so it's a bit of a hassle - but I'm willing to put up with it since I prefer not polluting or buying gasoline.)
PS. I agree with previous writers about your choice of font char. Emphasis only has meaning if used sparingly.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
I especially like this part:
"One way is to assess it is if something is done for the good of the few at the expense of the many. That's what I see. That's why I criticize. I don't hate. Hate clouds your vision and addles your thinking. I believe hate decreases your I.Q in direct proportion to the level of the hate."
Good points.
Another 10, essential reading for anyone interested in fair a balanced perspective.
Check out Gather Truth for 911, if you find the discussion of merit.
LoTek
The only thing I disagree with is "without looking to the exorbitantly expensive and far off solution of hydrogen."
It may not be as far off as you think. The one thing I've identified that Bush has done right is visit ECD Ovonics the week following his "America is addicted to oil" speech. ECD Ovonics has been working on energy solutions for decades. The website is:
http://www.ovonics.com/
This company was featured on PBS "Scientific American." A very interesting video explains that ECD Ovonics has developed a metal alloy that "soaks up hydrogen like a sponge," eliminating the need for high pressure hydrogen tanks.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/
Hydrogen technology is already available. Only political will is not.
Steve, thanks for the update on hydrogen. I wasn't aware someone had found a cheap, efficient way to extract it.
Corey, neither of us knows exactly what went on in the government during the run-up to the impeachment. My sense is that the Lewinsky affair was pretty all-consuming for Clinton at that time. I'd have to research it to get a clearer picture but it was Clinton - and only Clinton who was able to take the intel and make the decisions about Osama and Afghanistan.
A great article, you got a 10 from me!
As to alternate fuels, check out the soy (silk) website, they "are" government funded and they operate on windmill power. So, maybe we're getting somewhere.
I've been following an article on abortion and the associated comments, and the author of that article, too, uses the idea of evil to oppose abortion. What an easy way out. If it is evil, you don't have to defend why you believe as you do, and it easy to label anyone who disagrees with you. Think of bush's "your either with us or against us" or the all-time favorite among right-wingers "oh, you don't support the war? Then you must support Saddam Hussein (or the terrorists). Oh, to live in such a simple world.
Thanks for the in-depth article.
Well you've covered much above.
The teaching of hate winds up killing others. Therefore one could say that this is good as the Muslims are killing each other by the thousands. This is a good some will say.
But of course it's not.
Stop the teaching of hate now and in three generation of the dead or 80 to 100 years down the road we will al be better off.
Naturally, the pros and cons are going to rush here to comment. Hate is a terrible thing. It corrupts the mind and the heart. How can we elect ANY candidate who persists in "hate " campaigns. The record speaks for itself. People running for office should post their records, ie: their attendance records, voting records, tax records, (not the amount of taxes but some endorsement that they did pay tax),
law enforcement records consisting of tickets, DUI's, misdemeanors, child or spousal abuse, etc. If each candidate did this instead of attacking their opponents, the public would have a much clearer idea of whom they are electing to any type of political seat. Alas, the backbiting and bickering starts at the highest point in government and works its way down. We are faced with a sad situation that looks quite insurmountable. No matter who wins, they are going to be faced with bashing by the opposite party.
I am not sure people realize that this all starts at home base. The bullying in school, the little clichés, the snubs and making fun of others, the name calling that starts in earliest childhood, parents opposed to discipline of children, schools that are unable to enforce even the simplest rules, violence on T.V., movies and games all contribute to forming an adult full of hate, violence, discontent and focused on self. If parents would take the lead and teach their child respect for others and its ok to think, look and act differently, things would work out as Richard stated above.
Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.)
Anyone for a little anti-Muslim or at least, a dose of anti-CAIR sentiment?
===================================================
JUST FYI Clinton: EVERY attempt he made to respond to any agression (murders) taken against the US interests all coincided with Monica and impeachment proceedings (1998 and 99 3 military attacks:
1) Op. Desert Fox - 3 days of bombing Iraq at the EXACT same time as articles of Impeachment were being debated. (THIS is what he should have been impeached and imprisoned for. Oct 31, 1998 - Iraq Liberation Act called for regime change BUT it also stated quite plainly: "The Act also said that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces," except in direct aid to an active Iraqi rebellion.
2) Op. Infinite Reach - ended THE NIGHT apologized to us for lying to his wife and after he had testified about his lying about not lying, (remember "it depends on what 'it' means" or the in famous "I did not have sexual relations with that chubby jewish girl - the cigar did it").
HE hit an aspirin factory in Sudan and did miss bin Laden because he took a random turn to Kabal instead of going to the camp (Satan's hand of protection or a Haliburton plot)? Then it WAS Haliburton that planted the swingset on the grounds that prevented Clinton from pulling the trigger on him at another coumpound - Arresst warrant had been issued in the US for Bin Laden in June 98 - so what? You go Bill.
3)Operation Allied Force: Weeks after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton started bombing Serbia.
China and Clinton: anyone remember the huge pile of money that came that way to Clinton's campaigns? What investigation, remember?
Oil: We have enough here within our own domain if only some environmentalists would stop fretting about all the little critters that may be inconvenienced. But of course, in your little world they have the same rights to the pursuit of liberty, justice and the American Way.
Maybe, just MAYBE, if Saddam had not been such a bad player in the sandbox, all of his history of thumbing his nose would not have got his glory hungry ass burnt.
You and yours still suffer from the same disease of selective memory loss that has struck down the ball-less Dems and Libs. How about you read the Use of Military Force amendment: Votes 296-133, Senate 77-23.
Now we all know the Dems were too lazy or unconcerned to read any of the 'cherry-picked' intelligence. Or ask questions, or were lied to. Are they all just deaf, dumb, blind, too trusting, or plain stupid?
Iraq Resolution
How about the fact that Saddam basically ignored, since 1990, over 16 UN Resolutions, blocked inspections, murdered nearly 1 million of his own people, (300,000 Kurds that became missing that we are finding in mass graves), his use of CW and BW against his own people and Iran, paid $25,000 to PALESTINIAN families of suicide bombers that blew up innocents in Israel in the name of the moon god all-ah? Have you heard Saddam might well have funded the OKC bombing, remember the never found 'Arab-looking man' - the third man sought? See the book about it or do a google search if unable to concentrate long enough to read the full book.
Did you ever hear of the Oil-for-Food scandal? Did you know it was known that Saddam purchased a lot of 'duel-purpose' (nuke, bio, chem) equipment that he was not supposed to possess? NO - read Hans Blix's last UN report again about how many tons of anthrax, ricin was missing and unaccounted for. (Easily passed to terrorist and transported since Saddam had high-tech dryers to extend the shelf-life and transport stability to use against AMERICANS almost anywhere, bright-eyes).
So, if that was not enough, to begin with, that the evil bastard lost any right to do anything above being in a crossing-guard position in gov't, you all want to say the world is full of bad people.
So you want to cite Darfur and put it on Bush's shoulders that we would/should go rushing in there to kill some more MUSLIMS engaged in ethnic (religious) cleansing!
"If they had oil, we would do something". Idiots fail to see nothing was done there because Kofi was from Ghana and could hardly risk the Muslims come charging in there to revenge his stopping them in Darfur. The same reasoning we failed to get any support in the UN regarding Iraq because France and Russia were knee deep in oil vouchers in their govt offices. They were hardly anxious to see some documents found that would implicate them (HA we found them)!
Historical rewrites by the Soros-ites and hysterics by the Shehan-igans are bald faced lies to attack a president that is a far-reaching visionary. History will prove that as you secular, life-affirming libs watch the collapse of Europe in the next 20 years or less to the 'religion of peace' - Islam. Probably without much of a fight since they have lost the moral compass to fight for anything.
I thank my God every day the elections of 2000 and 2004 were "stolen" and I note the groundwork is set again to explain the upcoming mid-term inability to win a majority in either house by the hapless whiners, weak, and Liberal Dems that don't believe in or can't find anything worth fighting for in this great nation. Losers.
Or do some more of Clintonian World Crisis management: Talk, agree, shake, sign, wink, nod, know you're being lied to. Grab a babe and relax- worked for Korea and Arafat.
Arafat was Bill's REAL distraction. See Oslo Accords and how they were held without his knowing, might have had his head somewhere else (lol)? He wanted a Nobel Peace Prize so bad nothing else mattered, he kissed so much Arab ass he was known as Arafat-breath. Arafat left Camp David and went home and declared a fatwah (WAR) on Isreal. See:
"I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one." Clinton To Arafat.
I relish the domain of Pelosi, Conyers see his stellar behavior here:
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi) Applauded Beheadings At Terrorist Fund Raiser?! Hyprocracy? Damn near.
and fat cat Rangal. Get back on impeachment, I'd love it because it would guarntee Republican hard ass world politics for a few more decades.
I feel as you do, I too am a liberal who dispairs at the US political left that is blinded by religous Islamist extremists.
Many of the comments here are stellar as well. And there is one commenter who doesn't know their facts about Africa. Grateful dear, even tho I love you, you know zilch about Africa. In fact, Ghana (Kofi Anann's home country that you mention) is now a predominately Muslim country as are most of the countries that make up what we call West Africa. The same is true for Nigeria. So he has no illusions about radical Islamists, and no illusions about them over-running Ghana - THEY ARE ALREADY THERE! The entire African continent has been destablized by Islamists since the dawn of camel travel. Islam is creeping down the continent so fast now that countries that had only a small margin of Muslims when I was a kid today have majority muslim polulations that are listening closely to their self-professed cult leaders - they call them mullahs - about the evil West.
And please also remember that when Clinton was in office and did not take appropriate action against the Islamists then it was becasue he and his entire administration were under attack by the wing-nuts from the second they entered office. I clearly remember Repubs making a joke out of Clinton sending that missile to try to get UBL. The minute he hit office Clinton was made a lame duck by the repubs who made his defeat their life's work. He could not have done anything or attacked anyone without the complete support of people in both parties and the repubs publicly said they would never support anything Clinton wanted to do. Yet another reason why division and partisanship are harming our country - and the repubs are the worst offenders.
I really wish people would stop generalizing about things and start educating themselves before it's too late. One CAN be liberal and still support Israel and also support the elimination of radical Islam!
IMHO a much more threatening problem is North Korea and our billiant leader refuses to have bilateral talks with them, so they tested their nukes in rebuttal. Personally the world would be a better place were Sadaam still in place and Lil Kim ousted.
BTW, while CNG pollutes less than gasoline, it still does pollute, and the U.S is a net importer of natural gas, so it doesn't help our trade deficit. A good near-term solution is the plug-in hybrid, which let's a car be electric for the limit of the battery's range, but can run on the gasoline to give it any extra range it needs. Electric cars still pollute, because they get their electricity from fossil fuels.
People would do well to bite the bullet and crack a few books. As a nation, we are woefully under-educated in such subjects as history, geography, political science and world religions. Those who use Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly as their professors cannot claim to be educated. Pundits on either side of the political divide can sometimes be well informed - but it's just not good enough to passively listen to them and expect to have the breadth of knowledge and understanding that, for example, Digital Dogs has. (DD has mentioned, in other posts, living and studyng in Africa - so knows a great deal more than most about that continent.) We must all endeavor to be better educated on a subject before sounding off on it - and that education should come from nonpartisan sources. Lots of REAL scholars have written books that are available at the library.
My fellow Gatherers, I want to know what YOU think - not what Rush or Bill or Jon or even Arianna thinks. I respect some pundits, not others - but no matter how I feel about THEM, I value the freedom and ability to think for myself and come to my own conclusions.
When I read your comment, it was patently clear that you'd stopped reading as soon as you saw the word "liberal." I'm probably wasting my breath, but I will suggest that you read the whole article and then read my other articles. Just put Duse into the search function and you'll find that you spent an inordinate amount of time on a knee-jerk reaction that had nothing to do with me or my opinions.
You are right about Saddam paying $25,000 dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide murderers - but that's about the only thing we agree on (well that and we agree the left needs to understand the terrorist threat along with the necessity of eliminating it)
Bush a visionary? Are you kidding? Take off those rose-colored glasses Pollyanna and see the world as it really is! History will record Bush as the worst disaster of a President the country has ever known! He's just as incompetent at being President as he was in all the other endeavors he ever tried - all of which went belly-up. He's in spitting distance of doing the same to this country and people like you keep giving him and his whole money-grubbing, corrupt party pass after pass. You'd never have given Clinton this kind of latitude - but Bush - oh yeah, because he's a Republican, he gets away with bankrupting our Treasury, sacrificing the precious lives of our soldiers, uber-enriching the already obcenely rich (at the expense of the rest of us) and undermining the Constitution / BIll of Rights.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against being rich. I'd like to be rich just like every other American. What I don't like is getting rich by forcing others into poverty.
Anyway, like DD, I'm a proud liberal American who avidly supports Israel - and who profoundly understands the terrorist threat. Please take your stereotypes elsewhere.
Two: The exact point, Kofi was not about to do anything to threaten the relative peace in Ghana. To intervene in Darfur could easily set off unrest in Ghana, could he have risked that? (see oversensitivity by Islam, the Pope, cartoons, etc.).
That's two points, oops.
D.Doggs, despite your self-proclaimed expertise on Africa, which I grant, you might want to notify the Ghana gov't that they are under Muslim rule. If you read their 'official website", you will find they consider 'Diaspora' (displaced Jews) as the national majority.
http://www.ghanaweb.com
Also, you made several point but didn't back them up or establish facts leading to the conclusions. For example, you say "Our ports are still vulnerable. Our borders are as porous as ever. Our power plants and chemical storage aren't well protected. The Bush administration has done little to address these vulnerabilities". Okay, where are the facts to support this? I agree with the statements, but you still need to make some attempt at explaining why you take this position.
Again you say, "Bush & Co. have incubated legions of haters and terrorists with their self-interested (as opposed to "good for the country" or "spreading democracy") folly that is the Iraq War!". A bit bombastic, don't you think? This may be true, but I suspect it is more hubris than fact.
I understand that your (not you're) post was an rebuttal to a previous posting. This requires that you take extra care in your presentation.
Just a thought.
Best regards
Shawn
How am I to take you seriously when I read a sentence that begins like this: "Also, you made several point..." Several indicates a plural so point should have an "s." Believe me, Shawn, I could give you a grammar lesson. If there's a typo, that's one thing. That shouldn't impede your understanding. To doubt an article based on a grammatical error is just absurd! Quantumly is a bit of poetic license and I stick by it. You're not talking to an illiterate or uneducated person so get off your arrogant high horse and try and respond appropriately.
As for the content, I usually write too much and left it to my readers to be current on the news reports about these things. Would I have to site evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun, Shawn, if I were writing an article about the solar system?
If I wanted to tick everyone off, here at Gather, I could be the Grammar Police, the Spelling Police and the Content Police. I've read dreadful drivel on this site! I've read pieces that barely make sense; they have so many grammatical, spelling and content errors! I know people can be quite childish when it comes to correcting them on such things. I don't bother. I just try to comprehend as best I can. Perhaps I'll start a Good Grammar Group where people can learn how to do it better - using examples from articles published here. Till then, Shawn, please take your well-intentioned pedantry elsewhere.