Forums

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you going to start with the assumption that the other side is saying what they're saying merely for political gain, then you ought to be questioning our patriotism. If that's what you think, why be coy.

I'm stuck here with the question of, what is patriotism? I think the answer is, wishing for a good outcome for our country. I understand that winning wars is the easy answer to this - but I also understand that the eventual alignment of the rest of the world can also be good, or bad, for our country. So, I'm left with the idea that "patriotism" means, necessarily, agreeing with my views as to how to accomplish all of that. Back when Kerry was being his antiwar self, I thought he was being a great patriot - fighting for the vision he - and I - had of how our country should fit in with the rest of the world. (I've since decided that he, like me, was wrong at that point.) I can accept divergent views of how we should progress as patriotic. I could accept a Leiberman's fight to limit the war, and bring in the world, as patriotic.

I can't accept Kerry's views that way. I've known Kerry since I was fifteen, and he's always stood for . . . Kerry. I think he's unprincipled. I can accept divergent principles easier than I can accept a lack of them. He's a pollster at heart. He will do whatever he thinks is needed to win. Why is he a "good closer"? Because, in many of his races, he finally comes to a position in the last days, or he even reverses positions in those day, to win. And then, he acts differently than he indicated he would act. He doesn't serve his country, as I think a patriot should. He serves himself. There's no patriotism in Kerry.

There are a lot of Dems who supported the invasion and but have recently turned against the Bush Iraq policy . . .

I disagree. The public outcry against the invasion followed about the same numbers we see today.

It's particularly galling to hear this crap when Bush has used the war on terror and Iraq as a political stick for two and a half years. The flip-flop on Homeland Defense and then the use of it against Dems in the 2002 elections. Landing on the carrier in a flight suit and using troops as a backdrop at every chance. The suggestion that if you criticize his policies you aid and abet the enemy -- nauseating. It goes on and on. You guys seem to have a blind eye for this stuff. There was this terrific national unity after 9/11, and by and large Bush squandered and exploited it. I don't hate him for, but "let down" doesn't begin to capture it.

All I can say is, I think he's much less sophisticated about this stuff than you do. I think he just does what he thinks is right. If he was political, he would never have invaded Iraq. Think about it - if he had merely gone into Afg., and won there, he'd be on top of the world right now. Going into Iraq guaranteed that he'd be vilified by a big pile of people. But, he thought it was right. I think you can attack the correctness, but to accuse him of playing politics with the invasion is sort of dumb. He'd be at 80% had he not done that.

You have to admit that things have gone poorly. Not. According. To. Plan. About exactly a year ago, Richard Perle was suggesting that by this time, there'd be a square in Baghdad named after a President Bush. So let's just say we're a little behind schedule. . . . . It's not a failure yet. But it looks more and more like one every day. There is no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that we can all be glad that Hussein is gone. That is not, and never was the question. But I say this fortnightly, and you never seem to get this. You keep coming back to this "soft on Hitler" sort of crap. This is the real world.

Did you read the blog? Do you read other in-Iraq blogs? I sincerely question your theme here.

And I just don't find that National Geographic number credible. The population of Iraq in 1997 was about 22 million. He killed a third to a fourth of the population? Um, no.

It's in line with other estimates, and NG isn't a real partisan hack group. Heck, Rather has said good things about it.

In fact, I suspect that more people have died since we started shooting than would have died had we done nothing.

Don't go there. We're keeping this civil.

Of course this isn't the final answer to anything, but while we're kicking around the many deaths ignored, how about all the people we've killed? I can't point you to a number, because we didn't count, but we're talking many thousands.

Yeah, those suicide bombers of ours are a real pain. C'mon, we're offering them a chance for democratic governance. The only people fighting this are the ones opposed to letting the people choose who leads them. If we fight too gently, you say we're losing badly. If we fight too hard, and the civilian cost goes up, you say we're murderers. Exactly how hard should we fight? We're eager to know this.

If you want dialogue, it starts with respecting in good faith the views on the other side. Accusing Dems of wanting our country to lose a war because it will benefit our party is Not Showing That Respect. Try again.

It's hard, after months and months of "he LIED!!" following what I thought were good-faith moves by Bush, and your complete acceptance of the crowning of King Moore. There's not much good-faith belief left for the liberal wing at this point. I've been called a lying asshole too many times to now merely bury the sword that quickly. You seem to expect me to live to a standard that you never felt the need of. My fear is that there is now so much bitterness and hatred - yeah, hatred - between the groups that things are never going to be amicable again. It's always going to be "those lying thieving assholes", when both sides truly have worthwhile things to say.