WARNING - WARNING - THIS IS SATIRE - WARNING - WARNING  (Puck, this is for you, the warning I mean)

(2004-05-11) -- The so-called 'Arab Street' erupted in rage and grief today, as devoted Muslims crowded into public squares by the hundreds of thousands, in dozens of cities, to denounce the brutal videotaped beheading of American Nicholas Berg by Muslim extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda.

"This is an outrageous, disgusting and obscene act of evil done in the name of our peaceful religion and in our own backyard," said one unnamed Muslim cleric in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. "We mourn with Mr. Berg's family at this horrible loss. We renounce not only this act of violence, but all acts of terror."

The governments of all Arab League nations made a joint statement condemning the slaughter of Mr. Berg, and committing $100 billion toward the elimination of Al Qaeda and other Muslim terror groups.

"We pledge money, troops and intelligence resources in an all-out effort to end this scourge," the Arab league statement declared. "We apologize for our past failures to rein-in or arrest extremists in our ranks. As of today, we are turning the tables on the terrorists. Now, it's their turn to be afraid."

Quite the contrary:  Kerry would have the sense to target the war at the terrorists.  Bush, on the other hand is RESPONSIBLE for the group that beheaded Berg even being able to operate in Iraq.  Under Saddam, these terrorists had no opportunity to go around killing Americans in Iraq.  Bush has brought the war to the WRONG Arabs.  He has ENABLED the Arab terror groups to operate with impunity in Iraq by overthrowing Saddam.

So actually, Bush indirectly has Berg's blood on his hands, because absent Bush's overthrow of Saddam, the terror group of Al Qaida sympathizers that beheaded Berg wouldn't even exist.

  Warning to all of you who blindly worship at the feet of your party and its leaders.  
  Its funny you should criticize all those Arab leaders who hate and despise the US.  Yet its our govt that is in bed with most of those Arab leaders.  Why so much outrage at those Arab leaders from whom this kind of behavior should be accepted.  Yet no outrage that the leaders of the greatest democracy in the world are actually in bed with most of those vagrants.  
  Could it be that a really really really big black cock called OIL is shoved up our leaders asses.  Call your representatives and ask them to cut off ties with these corrupt leaders and see which one of them has the courage to do so.  The fact is that we really can't because that really big black cock called OIL would really cause some serious wounds in the nether regions of our politicians and the global economies.  
   Members of the Saudi gov't actually financed Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, yet we still have the cozies of relations with them.  
Why aren't you outraged that our leaders still support that gov't.  Again, that big black cock called OIL probably has something to do with that.  
   "King Faisal, please oh please not so deep, it really hurts."
 
 

"Bush indirectly has Berg's blood on his hands, because absent Bush's overthrow of Saddam, the terror group of Al Qaida sympathizers that beheaded Berg wouldn't even exist."

That type of logic would suggest that America was responsible for 9/11 because of our Mideast policies and our Western way of life!  To say that Bush was (indirectly) responsible for Berg's death is revolting, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying this.  At times you let your emotions get the best of your judgement, and nonsense like your above statement results.  Perhaps you also feel that Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11 because he didn't eliminate Bin Laden when he had the chance.  Perhaps you also feel that the murder of Daniel Pearl was Bush's fault also.

The FACT is that both Pearl and Berg were murdered by disgusting, revolting and truly heinous scum that do not deserve to be called human beings.

If Bush wins the election, I, as an American, will support him.  If Kerry wins, I, as an American, will support him.  I certainly will have the right to criticize either if I oppose him on an issue, but at the same time whoever is President will have my support.  If Bush wins, will you be able to say the same, or are you so blinded by hate that you will refuse to support your President.

I'll be away for a while, so this is the only post I will write on this subject.  But please, sdstud, don't let your emotions trump rational thought.  You're smarter than that.

In fact, I was giving Bush the benefit of the doubt by saying that he was INDIRECTLY responsible for Berg's death.  The only reason his responsibility is INDIRECT, is that Berg was a contractor who voluntarily was there.  Bush's responsibility is DIRECT, for the deaths of the over 750 brave American troops that have been killed there.  

None of the other deaths you cite were the result of an AMERICAN INVASION of a sovereign country.  ALL of the AMERICAN deaths in Iraq are, and it was Bush who made the judgement to do this.  Berg's death was a result of Anti-American resistance toward our occupation of Iraq, and as such, was a consequence of Bush's invasion.  As Colin Powell and Richard Armitage would say, based on the Pottery Barn rule:  Bush Owns It.

And I would agree that Clinton shares some culpability with Bush over 9/11, but neither is directly responsible for it, because Al Qaida attacked US in 9/11, not the other way around.  And Daniel Pearl was not in the hands of Pakistani terrorists because of a U.S. invasion, rather, he was there doing his job, and voluntarily got close to some extremely dangerous people.  Of course, the folks that killed him, as well as the folks that killed Berg, are extremely vile people.  But in Berg's case, they only existed as an entity because Bush invaded THEIR country.

And, BTW, as a patriotic American, it is my CIVIC DUTY to dissent and NOT to support my President when he takes actions that are harmful to OUR Nation, such as the Iraq invasion has been.  (It has thusfar cost us nearly 800 lives, and $100 Billion Dollars, and our reputation worldwide and especially among the rest of the Arab world).  It is LOVE for my country that prevents me from supporting Bush when he is so clearly WRONG, and NOT acting in our national interest.  The most important thing that I can do in service of this nation right now is everything within my power to see that he's beaten in the next election.

It is a fool who supports a President when the President is harming the nation.

Not everyone agrees with your statements, my friend.  You claim it is your love for our country that prevents you from supporting Bush when he is so clearly wrong.  But not everyone thinks Bush is "so clearly wrong."  There were many miscalculations, but that's not the same thing as being "so clearly wrong, and not acting in our national interest."  Many Americans agree with Bush's strategy, while at the same time disagreeing with his tactics.  You further went on to say that "the most important thing that I can do in service of this nation right now is everything within my power to see that he's beaten in the next election."  While this statement, IMO, comes off as being a bit too self-important, this is certainly your right as an American citizen.

But let me restate my original question.  If it turns out that the American public at large disagrees with you and votes to re-elect Bush, will you support him as your President?  This is not to say that you can't protest decisions that he makes, nor does it mean that you can't criticize the President.  But support for the President means respect for the position given him by the American public, and tolerance for the "fools" who elected him (if Bush wins) because they don't believe he is harming the nation.  After all, I supported and respected Clinton because  he was the President, and while I think he did good things for America economically (basically by staying away from making economic decisions and letting those who knew better {Greenspan and Rubin} run the economic sphere), I felt he was a disaster internationally with his "appeasement" approach to foreign policy.  Indeed, I feel some of our international problems today are due more to Clinton than Bush.  But what I think is a small part of the whole, just as what you think is a small part of the whole.  I will support and respect whoever wins in November, and I hope you will too, although I have my doubts.

OK, I've got to catch a plane soon, so the podium is yours.  I know that you like that, but on this board, with few exceptions, you're preaching to the choir.

The Middle East is in turmoil and getting worse by the day.  Thousands of baby terrorists have been created by our missteps.  Bin Laden and his captains were more than likely trapped in Tora Bora early during the conflict in Afganistan and were allowed to escape to safety.  Many of our historical allies are finding it difficult to work with us on issues that are in our and their own self interest, and new ones are reassessing their relationship with us.  We allow Pakistan to dick around with finding Bin Laden because we are not willing to commit the number of troops needed to capture him and are unwilling to give Pakistan the ultimatum that they either bring Bin Laden in or we will invade the tribal lands and do it ourselves.  While Bin Laden sits in the tribal lands, our troops on the Afganistan side of the Pakistan border have to engage in mortal duels with Taliban and Bin Laden adherents who set up on the Pakistani border, a border which Pakistan should be policing if they were our true allies.  And you call those situations foreign policy successes?  Clinton is long gone, those failures cannot be blamed on him.  What planet have you been on lately?
    Regardless of how rabid you are in support of President Bush, a logical person has to admit that he has had some large failures and that failures continue to happen.  And for me, they are painful to watch.
    SDSTUD was pointing out some of those failures, to do so is his right as a US citizen, as you pointed out.  It is his right also to respect the office of president without having much respect for the person who holds it, as long as he does not commit illegal acts against that person or the country - and I have not sensed that he has done that or intends to do such actions.

  The citizens of this greatly lacking policy knowledge, and hence we cannot debate the merits of any policy in a civil manner without first passing it through the political party affiliate filter.  
  The fact is that the adherents of both political parties are always hell bent on believing their own party is perfect and above fray while always blaming the other side whenever any legitimate questions on policy are brought to the limelight.  Its truly a sad state of affairs that this is happening in an educated society like ours.  
  I too am guilty of vile statements, but I never make them to blindly support and blindly protect any party affiliation.  Its only because I get so damn pissed off that citizens of such a great nation have been reduced to worshiping politicians at any cost.  Ask most democrats or republicans to point out atleast 5 mistakes Bush or Clinton have made and I bet it would take atleast 5 months of beating around the bush and making every excuse in the book to deflect responsibility in trying to figure out atleast one mistake with each respective party.  That lack of introspection and accountability is the real reason this country is in such a pathetic state of disarray.  We have become a nation that loves its politicians more than it loves dissent and honest debate.  And the politicians take advantage at every turn to exploit that sentiment.  
   The political base of both parties is in my opinion a hundred times more ignorant and more backward than the taliban.

please show me where I called the situations you mentioned "foreign policy successes."  I said no such thing, and in fact fully believe that much of what you refered to were (and still are) gross miscalculations.  I don't blame Clinton for Bush's failures - I blame Clinton for creating the foreign policy atmosphere that allowed some of those failures to germinate.  Why don't we just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.  BTW, I've been on earth all this time.  Trust me, there are many other people who have been here with me that have different opinions than you, and don't think that Bush is quite the ogre that many on this board paint him out to be.  He may not be a genius, and watching and listening to him talk off the cuff is truly painful, but there are a number of things that he has done that I agree with, and while I reserve the option to change my mind, he'll get my vote in November.  In a nutshell, I simply don't trust Kerry.

In your words:

After all, I supported and respected Clinton because  he was the President, and while I think he did good things for America economically (basically by staying away from making economic decisions and letting those who knew better {Greenspan and Rubin} run the economic sphere), I felt he was a disaster internationally with his "appeasement" approach to foreign policy.  Indeed, I feel some of our international problems today are due more to Clinton than Bush.

-is the approach that Bush has taken in fighting global terror anything but a disaster now, after such a promising start?  Far better results could have been had by staying in Afganistan, stabalizing that country and finishing off the Taliban, Bin Laden and many if not most of Bin Laden's captains.  But instead, thousands of new jihadists have been created.  Please spare me, I know failure when I see it.  

   

please read what I said!  Did I say ANYWHERE that Iraq was a success?  Iraq is a mess, and I agree that Afganistan is where the real enemy is, although now they seem to be everywhere.  But I think you'll have to agree that errors concerning Bin Laden started with Clinton.  Errors have been made everywhere - don't throw it all on Bush.  And yes, I'll spare you for recognizing failure, along with millions of others.  BTW, what do you suggest we do now?  Pack up and leave on June 30, or destroy Iraq?  There aren't too many other choices, you know.  If we just leave on June 30, the Iraqis will likely destroy themselves.  Better them than us.

BTW, I am very careful concerning what I write, and I am very careful reading what others have to say.  Unlike others, I don't misinterpret their comments and attempt to twist their words to change the meaning.  As far as challenge, I will continue to feel free to challenge anything at any time so long as I don't curse or demean others (assuming the same respect is given me).  Don't try to muzzle people who may disagree with you (I'm not even sure we disagree about that much) - censorship is not part of the American psyche.

Actually, that would be giving Bush MORE than he deserves, because UNLIKE Clinton, who carried clear majorities in both terms, Bush NEVER had an electoral mandate to rule as the extremist right wing President he has become.  Whether you actually believe that Bush legitimately won the election or not (and I assuredly do not) there can be NO denying that he had less than a majority and in fact, not even a plurality of the popular vote.  He even said after squeeking by, and/or stealing the election, that he recognized that he needed to be the President for the entire country ("I'm a uniter, not divider") not just those who supported him.  But his actions in office have made a mockery of this promise, and as such, he is undeserving of even the slightest scintilla of support by those whom he has snubbed in this process (which, BTW is the MAJORITY of the American electorate, who voted against him).   Bush is President, but he is NOT entitled to the support of any who did not vote for him, because he has consciously chosen not to represent the views of those people, and those people represent a majority of the electorate.  Bush has operated with no electoral mandate, therefore, he is not entitled to support from the opposition in anything that he does.

Funny stuff!

Studs Turkel was being interviewed on C-SPAN several years ago, and said that he couldn't bring himself to call George W. Bush: "President Bush". Studs settled on just "W".

Whenever I think of Bush, I think of the big "W" where the treasure was planted in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World". As with George W. Bush, the W represented palm trees.

That Clinton made errors in not realizing the danger the Bin Laden posed soon enough.  But Clinton never had the moral power to relentlessly hunt down Bin Laden that President Bush had after Bin Laden and his people had killed almost 3000 innocent people.  I do not know how Clinton would have handled that imperative for justice and revenge, maybe he would have squandered it as Bush seems to have done.
    The diversion of resources from Afganistan and the hunt for Bin Laden and his allies to Iraq has had two major consequences in my opinion.  First, the problems in Iraq and the disposition of the administration toward anyone that criticize it, however well meaning, has isolated us from key allies.  Second, the situation in Iraq has actually made Bin Laden stronger by making it far less likely that people who know his whereabouts will turn him in, AND the Iraq situation has been a major recruiting tool for Bin Laden and his like.
    Dude, sorry if you get bent when your logic is challenged, live with it.  I have to admit that I get irritated when that happens to me.  But the plain truth is that President Bush II fucked up by taking his eye off a major obligation in Afganistan and turning it to Iraq at the time that he did.

Alas for George W. the treasure could mean only one thing......oil. Maybe to keep the theme going, though, you could say that the "W" treasure was "West Texas Crude".

Remember when George W. and his neocons were claiming that the entire Iraqi war and occupation would be financed by revenues from their oil fields, and further that oil would be going for ~$20 per barrel? With the latest attacks (e.g., Saudi Arabian oil contractors, Basra oil terminus, murder of the head of the provisional Iraqi government), oil has instead zoomed to more than $41 per barrel. I think it was Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg who said, "...things do have a way of getting out of hand...."

-- Modified on 5/17/2004 9:01:38 PM

There's really no denying it, no matter how illigitimately he got there.  All we can do is correct it in November.