Amnesty International’s widely publicized statement that Guantanamo Bay is “the gulag of our times” did exactly what I suspect it was intended to do: it gave liberals everywhere a powerful anti-Bush sound byte, backed by the authority of a respected international organization, that they will be able to repeat breathlessly for months and years to come. And because ideologues (on both sides) are generally impervious to inconvenient contradictory facts, that repetition will not be affected at all by the news that the director of Amnesty USA says that the group doesn’t “know for sure” whether its inflammatory allegations are actually, you know, true.
Executive Director William Schultz admitted on Fox News Sunday, “We don’t know for sure what all is happening at Guantanamo, and our whole point is that the United States ought to allow independent human rights organizations to investigate.” Now, that’s a very good point, but it hardly justifies comparing Gitmo to brutal Soviet prisons without adequate information to back that statement up.
Moreover, even if Amnesty’s worst (unproven) fears about Gitmo are true, the comparison remains inappropriate, as Schultz himself basically admits:
CHRIS WALLACE: Mr. Schulz, the Soviet gulag was a system of slave labor camps that went on for more than 30 years. More than 1.6 million deaths were documented. Whatever has happened at Guantanamo, do you stand by the comparison to the Soviet gulag?
SCHULZ: Well, Chris, clearly this is not an exact or a literal analogy. And the secretary general has acknowledged that. There’s no question. But what in size and in duration, there are not similarities between U.S. detention facilities and the gulag. People are not being starved in those facilities. They’re not being subjected to forced labor. But there are some similarities.
Schultz later says he does not believe the analogy is “irresponsible,” but his own words undercut that claim. “Some similarities” do not a valid analogy make. If you look hard enough, I’m sure you can find “some similarities” between Bush and Hitler… and also “some similarities” between Bush and Jesus. But would it be appropriate to say that Bush is either “the Hitler of our times” or “the Jesus of our times”? I think not.
As I said, I agree with Schultz that “the United States ought to allow independent human rights organizations to investigate” its military prisons. But any organization that would make an inflammatory, irresponsible, and admittedly unfounded comparison between the prisons it wants to investigate and notorious human-rights abuses of ages past certainly puts at risk its status as an “independent” organization. I hate to quote Donald Rumsfeld, but he put it quite well: “Free societies depend on oversight and they welcome informed criticism, particularly on human rights issues. But those who make such outlandish charges lose any claim to objectivity or seriousness.”
Speaking of Rummy, Schultz also says “it would be fascinating to find out” whether the defense secretary really is a “high-level architect of torture,” as Schultz has asserted in the past. “I have no idea,” Schulz said yesterday. This from a man who once compared Rumsfeld to Pinochet.
InstaPundit puts it best:
I wonder what would happen if Donald Rumsfeld should charge Amnesty with being in the pay of Al Qaeda, and then later say that “It would be fascinating to find out. I have no idea.”
Somehow, I don’t think the same people who are still quoting Amnesty’s “gulag” statement and its criticisms of Rumsfeld would take kindly to conservatives continuing to quote such an outrageous statement after its source backtracked. But the same rules that apply to American (especially Republican) politicians don’t seem to apply to international do-gooders like Amnesty, for some reason.
Mind you, I’m not defending the Bush Administration or its policies and procedures at Gitmo. There are some very legitimate questions to be asked about the facility, and I think that, at the very least, there is great deal of room for improvement in the way the U.S. handles these things.
But Amnesty is embarrassing itself, and it is abdundantly clear that it has no credibility whatsoever on this particular issue. Any organization that would compare a U.S. detention facility to a brutal Soviet prison without adequate evidence to back up that claim should NOT be quoted as an “authority” by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.
Spread the word, fellow Bush/Gitmo skeptics: Find a better source to quote. As the Washington Post editorial board points out, Amnesty’s blatant pandering to the anti-Bush Left is actually harmful to the anti-Bush cause, because it allows the administration to discredit legitimate criticism as well:
Like Amnesty, we, too, have written extensively about U.S. prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have done so not only because the phenomenon is disturbing in its own right but also because it gives undemocratic regimes around the world an excuse to justify their own use of torture and indefinite detention and because it damages the U.S. government’s ability to promote human rights.
But we draw the line at the use of the word “gulag” or at the implication that the United States has somehow become the modern equivalent of Stalin’s Soviet Union. …
Worrying about the use of a word may seem like mere semantics, but it is not. Turning a report on prisoner detention into another excuse for Bush-bashing or America-bashing undermines Amnesty’s legitimate criticisms of U.S. policies and weakens the force of its investigations of prison systems in closed societies. It also gives the administration another excuse to dismiss valid objections to its policies as “hysterical.”
|
Categories: Terrorism & Homeland Security, Elections & Politics (U.S.)
|
June 6th, 2005 at 9:29:18 pm
Spot on.
June 6th, 2005 at 10:02:40 pm
Well, David said this weekend that he finds it ironic that Rummy thinks AI has no credibility (after Rummy purportedly cited AI). I have always been skeptical of anything AI says (hence my post this weekend on AI, which never mentioned Rummy by the way) but I wonder if AI themselves admiting they made unfounded claims will change the irony David, and I am sure many others, perceives in questioning AI..
June 6th, 2005 at 10:35:05 pm
Now i find it even MORE ironic that Rummy would have cited them in the past…its a spiral of confusion and irony…
June 6th, 2005 at 10:47:02 pm
So, how do you feel about Amnesty International, David, which is the main subject of both Brendan and my post? I knew how you felt about Rummy before, what I really want to know is how people can continue to be anything but skeptical of AI.
June 7th, 2005 at 2:29:18 am
Spot on.
June 7th, 2005 at 3:02:40 am
Well, David said this weekend that he finds it ironic that Rummy thinks AI has no credibility (after Rummy purportedly cited AI). I have always been skeptical of anything AI says (hence my post this weekend on AI, which never mentioned Rummy by the way) but I wonder if AI themselves admiting they made unfounded claims will change the irony David, and I am sure many others, perceives in questioning AI..
June 7th, 2005 at 3:35:05 am
Now i find it even MORE ironic that Rummy would have cited them in the past…its a spiral of confusion and irony…
June 7th, 2005 at 3:47:02 am
So, how do you feel about Amnesty International, David, which is the main subject of both Brendan and my post? I knew how you felt about Rummy before, what I really want to know is how people can continue to be anything but skeptical of AI.
June 7th, 2005 at 4:58:30 am
Oh i had no strong opinion one way or other before, I don’t know much about AI. I just found it ironic how they relied on them in one case, but when they were criticized suddenly they had no credibility.
I can understand what they are saying, since I happen to agree, about the despicable things happening in the prison camps. But I also understand that calling them gulags may have been a little too much in this case.
I don’t think the fact that they said the don’t know exactly whats going on completely undermines there position though, part of this whole problem is we don’t know whats going on, but there is proof that abuse has been commited.
I guess the real question is how much and how far up the chain of command it goes. Unfortunately without an independent investigation (i.e. special prosecuter, not AI) I don’t think that will happen. It will probably be years before we really know what is happening in there, and mores the pity.
But the last point is a good one, calling them gulags makes it easy for the Bush camp to paint them as hysterical.
June 7th, 2005 at 9:58:30 am
Oh i had no strong opinion one way or other before, I don’t know much about AI. I just found it ironic how they relied on them in one case, but when they were criticized suddenly they had no credibility.
I can understand what they are saying, since I happen to agree, about the despicable things happening in the prison camps. But I also understand that calling them gulags may have been a little too much in this case.
I don’t think the fact that they said the don’t know exactly whats going on completely undermines there position though, part of this whole problem is we don’t know whats going on, but there is proof that abuse has been commited.
I guess the real question is how much and how far up the chain of command it goes. Unfortunately without an independent investigation (i.e. special prosecuter, not AI) I don’t think that will happen. It will probably be years before we really know what is happening in there, and mores the pity.
But the last point is a good one, calling them gulags makes it easy for the Bush camp to paint them as hysterical.
June 7th, 2005 at 12:43:17 pm
But the last point is a good one, calling them gulags makes it easy for the Bush camp to paint them as hysterical.
Um, yeah, it makes it easy because it IS hysterical to call them gulags, and lukewarm responses like “calling them gulags may have been a little too much in this case” do not help.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, nor even the slightest hint or whiff of reasonable suspicion, that the American prisons even approach the level of brutality (not to mention total lack of accountability) of the Soviet gulags. The comparison is ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS on many different levels. Pretending it’s something short of outrageous, is also outrageous.
June 7th, 2005 at 2:13:41 pm
David, if you do not know much about Amnesty International, then that might explain why you were so quick to buy their gulag charge. What undermines their position is not that they want to know what is going on in Gitmo, but the charges they make. Amnesty International has been saying outrageous things for years!óand not talking about other truly bad things too, which is equally outrageous, as they are supposed to be a voice for all human rights victims. They have little credibility in my eyes because I grew up listening to them distort the truth about what was going on in Colombia. Amnesty International does not go after Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavesóblaming human rights abuses in Venezuela on those who want to unseat Chavez, a crappy president if I ever saw one and friend of the guerrillas in Colombia. They are supposed to be a watchdog for human rights everywhere and not just violations by non-communist leaning countries. If they were probably downplaying the Soviet gulags at the time, I would not be surprised.
June 7th, 2005 at 2:34:29 pm
Secret detention centers renowned for their cruelty without hope of trial where questions of innocence mean nothing to those in power? Who would call that a gulag? Hysteria, I tell you! Hysteria!
June 7th, 2005 at 2:35:10 pm
Bea, where did I ever say I bought their gulag charge?!?! All I ever did was mention the irony of Donald Rumsfelds statements.
My above statement reflects the fact that I don’t think saying that they don’t know exactly whats going on necessarilly means they don’t know at all whats going on. I mean we do not that some torture is going on, just not the extent. Now of course that doesn’t excuse their use of the term “gulag” without actually definitive evidence, and I don’t know if its enough to defend all of what they have said, i’m just saying its not outrageous to accuse the administration of wrong doing without knowing the full extent, in general at least.
June 7th, 2005 at 4:25:19 pm
Maybe we can create Loy’s Law…..it’ll be just like Godwin’s Law, except that it will pertain to Soviet Gulag references, rather than Nazi ones. :)
I think AI went out on a limb here, too, but they wouldn’t be the first somewhat partisan group to use hyperbole as a means of rousing the masses of armchair politicos.
Their comparative indiscretion does not pardon or lessen (or worsen) the actual misdeeds going on at said institutions. We should focus more on correcting the situation at hand, as opposed to letting ourselves be distracted by relatively unimportant issues and semantic bickering. Can anyone say “Monica Lewinsky”?
June 7th, 2005 at 5:25:34 pm
David, calm down, I was not trying to start up a fight :) I think you know my tone when I am trying to pick a figh, haha. I will correct my statement: you simply are less skeptical of AI than am I. As for them not being the the first partisan group to resort to hyperbole, sure, but uhm, let’s bear in mind they are biased and that they have been using “hyperbolic statements” for a looong time, eroding their credibility when they cry human right violation!
June 7th, 2005 at 5:43:17 pm
<i>But the last point is a good one, calling them gulags makes it easy for the Bush camp to paint them as hysterical.</i>
Um, yeah, it makes it easy because it IS hysterical to call them gulags, and lukewarm responses like “calling them gulags may have been a little too much in this case” do not help.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, nor even the slightest hint or whiff of reasonable suspicion, that the American prisons even <i>approach</i> the level of brutality (not to mention total lack of accountability) of the Soviet gulags. The comparison is ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS on many different levels. Pretending it’s something short of outrageous, is also outrageous.
June 7th, 2005 at 5:45:49 pm
I would also say it is more than semantic bickering, because AI should be a voice for people whose human rights are being trampeled on, worldwide, not just cherry picked countries AI takes issue with, and when people grow skeptical of their intentions and their findings, well, they undermine their ability to reach their goal. Again, I am not saying AI’s credibility is questionable because of the gulag charge alone.
June 7th, 2005 at 5:51:58 pm
“I’m just saying its not outrageous to accuse the administration of wrong doing without knowing the full extent.”
That is very outrageous and irresponsible of a US Citizen, David.
I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served.
I used to support and donate to Amnesty International until they started to ignore the real problems of the world, like in Africa. I even have an AI sticker on my helmet from when I worked off-shore.
June 7th, 2005 at 6:33:27 pm
I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served.
Charles, the fact that you have a “my country right or wrong” attitude does not mean that everyone else should. Indeed, no one should, if they actually believe in the founding principles and ideals of this great country, all of which are completely antithetical to your proto-fascist “always support the president and the military no matter what” attitude.
The fact is, sometimes the President and the US Army are wrong, and if you follow through on your pledge to “always back [them] up,” even when they are wrong, then you are FAILING TO DO YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY AS A LOYAL AMERICAN to speak out against wrongs committed by your government and your military.
That’s right, I just called David more patriotic than you. Oh, snap!
Mind you, I’m not saying the president and the military are necessarily wrong in this particular instance (that’s a separate question), but your blanket statements necessarily imply that they are NEVER wrong, and that’s what I’m taking issue with.
By the way, this is the sort of thing that makes me say you are disconnected from reality when it comes to these sorts of issues.
June 7th, 2005 at 6:45:40 pm
P.S. To be clear, I’m not calling you a fascist. I think it’s accurate to characterize your “my country right or wrong” bullshit as “proto-fascist,” seeing as how “proto-” means “relating to a precursor,” and that sort of attitude is definitely a precursor of fascism, authoritarianism, etc. But you’re not a fascist. You’re a generally well-meaning person who occasionally strays into proto-fascist rhetoric (or perhaps “proto-authoritarian rhetoric” would be more accurate and less inflammatory) without bothering to consider its implications.
If you really considered the implications of what you are saying, you’d realize that your statement “I will always back-up our President” would have prevented you from being anti-Clinton when he was in office!! Really, you’re not a fascist or a proto-fascist or a proto-authoritarian at all; you’re just a partisan hack who wraps himself and his party in the flag when it’s convenient to do so. Alas, you’re in good company there.
June 7th, 2005 at 6:55:09 pm
Brendan, I’m going to have to disagree with you. I think it’s perfectly natural and patriotic to believe in the sentiment, “my country (or my president)–right or wrong”. Right there in that statement one is admitting that we might be wrong, but that solidarity is more important. This attitude isn’t exclusively a conservative or Republican one, either.
That may not be a principle that you or I would live by or adopt as our own, but it’s a perfectly legitimate, patriotic, and occasionally partisan position to take. Call it proto-fascist if you like, but I think that label is a little strong and unfair.
June 7th, 2005 at 6:59:18 pm
Oh, and I would strongly discourage you from ever telling someone who has put themselves in harms way that they are less patriotic than someone who has not. Whatever his beliefs, Charles put his neck on the line for you and me (and David). Until David does likewise, I would never call him “more patriotic” than Charles.
Even accepting that it is one’s “PATRIOTIC DUTY AS A LOYAL AMERICAN to speak out against wrongs committed by your government and your military”, that duty falls much further down the scale than actually risking one’s life for America.
June 7th, 2005 at 7:13:41 pm
David, if you do not know much about Amnesty International, then that might explain why you were so quick to buy their gulag charge. What undermines their position is not that they want to know what is going on in Gitmo, but the charges they make. Amnesty International has been saying outrageous things for years!óand not talking about other truly bad things too, which is equally outrageous, as they are supposed to be a voice for all human rights victims. They have little credibility in <i>my</i> eyes because I grew up listening to them distort the truth about what was going on in Colombia. Amnesty International does not go after Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavesóblaming human rights abuses in Venezuela on those who want to unseat Chavez, a crappy president if I ever saw one and friend of the guerrillas in Colombia. They are supposed to be a watchdog for human rights <i>everywhere</i> and not just violations by non-communist leaning countries. If they were probably downplaying the Soviet gulags at the time, I would not be surprised.
June 7th, 2005 at 7:25:19 pm
While I completely respect Charles service, and the service of all military people and the sacrifices they make, I don’t think its fair to say that makes them more patriotic.
What about the women who fought for the vote? Or those who fought for equal rights for minorities? They didn’t serve in the military but by defending and fighting for the principles which America is supposed to stand for, you know that whole “liberty and justice for all” thing I’d say they were just as patriotic, if not more in many cases.
I am not trying to disparage our military in any way, i have many friends and family who have served or are serving, and I am very proud of them and greatful.
But Patriotism is about loving ones country, not loving the current administration. I mean honestly Charles you are treating the President as infallible more than Catholics do the Pope.
June 7th, 2005 at 7:28:35 pm
Andrew, perhaps “my country right or wrong” was the wrong paraphrase to describe Charles’s attitude. So forget my paraphrase and look at his actual words: “I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served.” I fail to see how your defense applies to these words. He’s NOT acknowledging that we might ever be wrong; instead, he is saying that he will “always back-up,” which I read to mean “always support,” the president and the troops, no matter what. The word “always” would seem to encompass such grave military/governmental wrongs as, for example, Watergate and Abu Grhaib, as well as any hypothetical future wrongs such as, say, President Palpatine saying he needs emergency dictatorial powers in order to defend the republic from separatists. :) Or, on a more serious note, President Hillary Clinton throwing Muslims in relocation camps after the “nuclear 9/11″ increases public outrage to the point that such a move is overwhelmingly popular. If Charles will “always” support the president and the military, how could he possibly stand up against a corrupt regime bent solely on consolidating power and destroying our system of government, and/or pursuing blatantly immoral and unconstitutional policies, if, heaven forbid, such a regime ever were to be elected?
And I’ll admit I got a little carried away with the patriotism thing. Sorry about that, Charles. You are a patriotic guy, I don’t doubt or deny that. I just think it’s completely and utterly wrong for you to go around basically calling other people unpatriotic because they disagree with you (and with this particular president) on debatable political issues. I think the act of doing that, of saying those sorts of things to David and others, is itself an unpatriotic act. But that doesn’t mean you’re an unpatriotic person.
June 7th, 2005 at 7:34:29 pm
Secret detention centers renowned for their cruelty without hope of trial where questions of innocence mean nothing to those in power? Who would call that a gulag? Hysteria, I tell you! Hysteria!
June 7th, 2005 at 7:35:06 pm
Andrew, by your logic one who did not, will not or cannot serve in the armed forces can never be more patriotic than anyone who has? That’s a blunt statement!
Does this definitively mean that John Kerry is more patriotic than, say, Dubya or Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan (his eyesight left excluded him from any overseas action)?
June 7th, 2005 at 7:35:10 pm
Bea, where did I ever say I bought their gulag charge?!?! All I ever did was mention the irony of Donald Rumsfelds statements.
My above statement reflects the fact that I don’t think saying that they don’t know exactly whats going on necessarilly means they don’t know at all whats going on. I mean we do not that some torture is going on, just not the extent. Now of course that doesn’t excuse their use of the term “gulag” without actually definitive evidence, and I don’t know if its enough to defend all of what they have said, i’m just saying its not outrageous to accuse the administration of wrong doing without knowing the full extent, in general at least.
June 7th, 2005 at 7:39:49 pm
How about this: “I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served, provided they are acting within the bounds of their constitutional authority and are not violating the basic moral law of civilized society.”
If Charles said that, I wouldn’t call it proto-fascist (though I’d still disagree with it, because it doesn’t allow for basic, simple, everyday disagreement). But when you don’t add the caveats, you are giving the government a blank check, and that is indeed the first step down the road to authoritarianism.
Ours is a governments of laws, not of men. That means our fundamental loyalty must be to the constitution and the laws that uphold our country’s ideals — not to any one person or group of people. Any philosophy that elevates loyalty to the president or the military or any other group of people above loyalty to our laws and ideals is a warped and un-American philosophy, no matter how patriotically well-intentioned is the person spouting the philosophy. (Hence, me calling Charles’s statements proto-fascist and unpatriotic, but still thinking Charles is a good guy.)
June 7th, 2005 at 7:53:45 pm
What about the women who fought for the vote? Or those who fought for equal rights for minorities? They didn’t serve in the military but by defending and fighting for the principles which America is supposed to stand for, you know that whole “liberty and justice for all” thing I’d say they were just as patriotic, if not more in many cases.
You have a valid point, David, but here’s how I approach it. First and foremost, veterans and those who died fighting are at the top of the list. Even when they do wrong, I give them as much benefit of the doubt as possible, and consider them patriotic unless they give me good reason not to (e.g., former soldiers coming back to advocate treasonous policies).
As for the other things you mention regarding the right to vote and equality, those fall under the category (in my mind) of justice. Fighting for justice is an absolutely laudable thing, but I don’t automatically equate it to patriotism. It can be an equally high calling, which is why I’d have no problem with one respecting those who marched for civil rights as heroes and patriots, but I can’t bring myself to say it’s more patriotic.
But Patriotism is about loving ones country, not loving the current administration. I mean honestly Charles you are treating the President as infallible more than Catholics do the Pope.
…
Looking at his actual words, though — “I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served” — I fail to see how your defense applies. He’s not acknowledging that we might ever be wrong; instead, he is saying that he will “always back-up,” which I read to mean “always support,” the president and the troops, no matter what. The word “always” would seem to encompass such grave military/governmental wrongs as, for example, Watergate and Abu Grhaib, as well as any hypothetical future wrongs such as, say, President Palpatine saying he needs emergency dictatorial powers in order to defend the republic from separatists. :) If Charles will “always” support the president and the military, how could he possibly stand up against a corrupt regime bent solely on consolidating power and destroying our system of government, if, heaven forbid, such a regime ever were to be elected?
This is a fair point, and from your perspective or my perspective, absolutely we would hope that veterans can recognize corruption and malfeasance and fight against it when necessary to restore justice and liberty. But as a whole, I think you need to understand the veteran’s perspective. For the man in uniform, their’s is not to reason why, their’s is but to do or die. When they step back into the civilian role, and indeed, in the increasingly gray roles and situations we put our modern armies into, with nation-building and peace-keeping, it’s difficult for some to totally make that transition. Equally, you or I could probably never accept the transition to totally obeying commanders without question, yet a military would fall apart without a significant number of soldiers who think like Charles.
I think it’s wrong to assume that Charles cannot differentiate between corruption and malfeasance, and loyalty to his country and president. If I may read beyond Charles’ inarticulateness, I think what he is saying is he has personal loyalty and full trust in this president, and in the Army in which he served. I think if Charles was 80 and hobbling on one leg, and President Bush said, “We need your help”, Charles would go without stopping to ask, “Why me? What the hell are you thinking?” I cannot bring myself to fault that, because such men are rare and admirable in my opinion.
I just think it’s completely and utterly wrong for you to go around basically calling other people unpatriotic because they disagree with you (and with this particular president) on debatable political issues.
I agree with that statement. I really would like to see Charles abandon that and cease throwing around that label. There are plenty who deserve the patriotic label, such as Michael Moore, but even then, I much prefer Charles to say to David, “I find that kind of thinking unpatriotic” than to say, “You, David, are unpatriotic”. But I also understand that he gets frustrated sometimes, for even though I prefer to say that David’s reasoning is idiotic, sometimes he frustrates me so much that I have to just call him an idiot. :-P
I do think throwing around the label “unpatriotic” is worse though. In my experience, I’m sure people like David intend to be patriotic, and they almost always think their positions are patriotic, so if in certain instances I cannot help but conclude that those positions really aren’t patriotic, I will go ahead and respect that they think they are being patriotic and conclude instead that their simply being idiotic.
June 7th, 2005 at 8:03:43 pm
Andrew, by your logic one who did not, will not or cannot serve in the armed forces can never be more patriotic than anyone who has? That’s a blunt statement!
It sure is, and I stand by it. All other things being equal (political beliefs, community involvement, etc.), a man who served is more patriotic in my mind than a man who hasn’t.
Let me apply this to something else: “By your logic one who did not, will not or cannot donate money can never be more generous than anyone who has?” I think it’s the same thing. In both cases you are giving, and patriotism and generosity measure that giving. That doesn’t mean that one can’t be generous without donating large sums of money (or, if you prefer, as a percentage of income) to charity, or that one can’t be patriotic without serving, but I would certainly say that without having done those things to the extent others have, you certainly can’t claim to be more generous or patriotic.
Does this definitively mean that John Kerry is more patriotic than, say, Dubya or Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan (his eyesight left excluded him from any overseas action)?
Despite continued illusions to the contrary, Dubya served his country in the armed forces. I do not know about Cheney or Reagan. Foreign deployment is not a requirement in my book, just enlistment. I wouldn’t get into a pissing contest about which candidate is more patriotic, as I am sure all of them are pretty patriotic. I would just conclude that John Kerry, in addition to being patriotic, is also idiotic.
June 7th, 2005 at 8:07:55 pm
How about this: “I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served, provided they are acting within the bounds of their constitutional authority and are not violating the basic moral law of civilized society.”
That’s asking too much from a soldier, IMHO. It’s not for the soldier to ponder moral law and the bounds of constitutional authority.
Ours is a governments of laws, not of men. That means our fundamental loyalty must be to the constitution and the laws that uphold our country’s ideals — not to any one person or group of people. Any philosophy that elevates loyalty to the president or the military or any other group of people above loyalty to our laws and ideals is a warped and un-American philosophy, no matter how patriotically well-intentioned is the person spouting the philosophy.
I would accept everything you just wrote in that statement if you just dropped the “and un-American” part. Warped? Yes. Potentially dangerous? Absolutely. Un-American? I wouldn’t go that far.
June 7th, 2005 at 8:09:16 pm
Ahhh. But one can be generous without giving money, per se.
All it take is an enlistment to get onto the top of Andrew’s SuperCoolMuyPatriotic List, eh? Well sign me up for that ROTC program and the sky’s the limit!
June 7th, 2005 at 8:37:46 pm
All it take is an enlistment to get onto the top of Andrew’s SuperCoolMuyPatriotic List, eh? Well sign me up for that ROTC program and the sky’s the limit!
“All it takes”? Sure, and since it seems so easy to you, I challenge you to do so. Let’s see you get through ROTC, and the requisite years of post-graduate service entailed. Go through that without quitting or getting dishonorably discharged, and absofuckinglutely, you move to the top rung of my SuperCoolMuyPatriotic List.
June 7th, 2005 at 8:38:58 pm
Anonymous, mocking what the military does is not funny at all .
June 7th, 2005 at 8:43:28 pm
I’m not mocking the military or its personnel.
I’m mocking Andrew.
June 7th, 2005 at 9:25:19 pm
Maybe we can create Loy’s Law…..it’ll be just like Godwin’s Law, except that it will pertain to Soviet Gulag references, rather than Nazi ones. :)
I think AI went out on a limb here, too, but they wouldn’t be the first somewhat partisan group to use hyperbole as a means of rousing the masses of armchair politicos.
Their comparative indiscretion does not pardon or lessen (or worsen) the actual misdeeds going on at said institutions. We should focus more on correcting the situation at hand, as opposed to letting ourselves be distracted by relatively unimportant issues and semantic bickering. Can anyone say “Monica Lewinsky”?
June 7th, 2005 at 10:10:09 pm
Well, Andrew is saying serving in the military is super patriotic, and then you say oh? All I have to do is serve? Oh well, where is the ROTC and where can I sign up. That does not sound like mocking Andrew but like mocking the military. I really do not care if you mock Andrew (love him and all, but go ahead and mock) but when someone mocks the military, making it sound like serving is no big deal, you just sign up, well, yeah I take issue with that, big time. Serving your country is about the most patriotic thing you can do. We often times take our military for granted (not saying you did, but I do find your comment insulting and annoying). Am I super sensitive when it comes military men and women? Yes :)
June 7th, 2005 at 10:25:34 pm
David, calm down, I was not trying to start up a fight :) I think you know my tone when I am trying to pick a figh, haha. I will correct my statement: you simply are less skeptical of AI than am I. As for them not being the the first partisan group to resort to hyperbole, sure, but uhm, let’s bear in mind they are biased and that they have been using “hyperbolic statements” for a looong time, eroding their credibility when they cry human right violation!
June 7th, 2005 at 10:45:49 pm
I would also say it is more than semantic bickering, because AI should be a voice for people whose human rights are being trampeled on, worldwide, not just cherry picked countries AI takes issue with, and when people grow skeptical of their intentions and their findings, well, they undermine their ability to reach their goal. Again, I am not saying AI’s credibility is questionable because of the gulag charge alone.
June 7th, 2005 at 10:51:58 pm
“I’m just saying its not outrageous to accuse the administration of wrong doing without knowing the full extent.”
That is very outrageous and irresponsible of a US Citizen, David.
I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served.
I used to support and donate to Amnesty International until they started to ignore the real problems of the world, like in Africa. I even have an AI sticker on my helmet from when I worked off-shore.
June 7th, 2005 at 11:33:27 pm
<i>I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served.</i>
Charles, the fact that you have a “my country right or wrong” attitude does not mean that everyone else should. Indeed, <i>no one</i> should, if they actually believe in the founding principles and ideals of this great country, all of which are completely antithetical to your proto-fascist “always support the president and the military no matter what” attitude.
The fact is, sometimes the President and the US Army are <b>wrong</b>, and if you follow through on your pledge to “always back [them] up,” <i>even when they are wrong</i>, then you are FAILING TO DO YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY AS A LOYAL AMERICAN to speak out against wrongs committed by your government and your military.
That’s right, I just called David more patriotic than you. Oh, snap!
Mind you, I’m not saying the president and the military are necessarily wrong in this particular instance (that’s a separate question), but your blanket statements necessarily imply that they are NEVER wrong, and that’s what I’m taking issue with.
By the way, <i>this</i> is the sort of thing that makes me say you are disconnected from reality when it comes to these sorts of issues.
June 7th, 2005 at 11:45:40 pm
P.S. To be clear, I’m not calling you a fascist. I think it’s accurate to characterize your “my country right or wrong” bullshit as “proto-fascist,” seeing as how “proto-” means “relating to a precursor,” and that sort of attitude is definitely a precursor of fascism, authoritarianism, etc. But you’re not a fascist. You’re a generally well-meaning person who occasionally strays into proto-fascist rhetoric (or perhaps “proto-authoritarian rhetoric” would be more accurate and less inflammatory) without bothering to consider its implications.
If you really considered the implications of what you are saying, you’d realize that your statement “I will always back-up our President” would have prevented you from being anti-Clinton when he was in office!! Really, you’re not a fascist or a proto-fascist or a proto-authoritarian at all; you’re just a partisan hack who wraps himself and his party in the flag when it’s convenient to do so. Alas, you’re in good company there.
June 7th, 2005 at 11:55:09 pm
Brendan, I’m going to have to disagree with you. I think it’s perfectly natural and patriotic to believe in the sentiment, “my country (or my president)–right or wrong”. Right there in that statement one is admitting that we might be wrong, but that solidarity is more important. This attitude isn’t exclusively a conservative or Republican one, either.
That may not be a principle that you or I would live by or adopt as our own, but it’s a perfectly legitimate, patriotic, and occasionally partisan position to take. Call it proto-fascist if you like, but I think that label is a little strong and unfair.
June 7th, 2005 at 11:59:18 pm
Oh, and I would <i>strongly</i> discourage you from ever telling someone who has put themselves in harms way that they are less patriotic than someone who has not. Whatever his beliefs, Charles put his neck on the line for you and me (and David). Until David does likewise, I would never call him “more patriotic” than Charles.
Even accepting that it is one’s “PATRIOTIC DUTY AS A LOYAL AMERICAN to speak out against wrongs committed by your government and your military”, that duty falls much further down the scale than actually risking one’s <i>life</i> for America.
June 8th, 2005 at 12:25:19 am
While I completely respect Charles service, and the service of all military people and the sacrifices they make, I don’t think its fair to say that makes them more patriotic.
What about the women who fought for the vote? Or those who fought for equal rights for minorities? They didn’t serve in the military but by defending and fighting for the principles which America is supposed to stand for, you know that whole “liberty and justice for all” thing I’d say they were just as patriotic, if not more in many cases.
I am not trying to disparage our military in any way, i have many friends and family who have served or are serving, and I am very proud of them and greatful.
But Patriotism is about loving ones country, not loving the current administration. I mean honestly Charles you are treating the President as infallible more than Catholics do the Pope.
June 8th, 2005 at 12:28:35 am
Andrew, perhaps “my country right or wrong” was the wrong paraphrase to describe Charles’s attitude. So forget my paraphrase and look at his actual words: “I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served.” I fail to see how your defense applies to these words. He’s NOT acknowledging that we might ever be wrong; instead, he is saying that he will “always back-up,” which I read to mean “always support,” the president and the troops, <i>no matter what</i>. The word “always” would seem to encompass such grave military/governmental wrongs as, for example, Watergate and Abu Grhaib, as well as any hypothetical future wrongs such as, say, President Palpatine saying he needs emergency dictatorial powers in order to defend the republic from separatists. :) Or, on a more serious note, President Hillary Clinton throwing Muslims in relocation camps after the “nuclear 9/11″ increases public outrage to the point that such a move is overwhelmingly popular. If Charles will “always” support the president and the military, how could he possibly stand up against a corrupt regime bent solely on consolidating power and destroying our system of government, and/or pursuing blatantly immoral and unconstitutional policies, if, heaven forbid, such a regime ever were to be elected?
And I’ll admit I got a little carried away with the patriotism thing. Sorry about that, Charles. You are a patriotic guy, I don’t doubt or deny that. I just think it’s completely and utterly wrong for you to go around basically calling other people unpatriotic because they disagree with you (and with this particular president) on debatable political issues. I think the act of doing that, of saying those sorts of things to David and others, is itself an unpatriotic act. But that doesn’t mean you’re an unpatriotic person.
June 8th, 2005 at 12:35:06 am
Andrew, by your logic one who did not, will not or cannot serve in the armed forces can never be more patriotic than anyone who has? That’s a blunt statement!
Does this definitively mean that John Kerry is more patriotic than, say, Dubya or Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan (his eyesight left excluded him from any overseas action)?
June 8th, 2005 at 12:39:49 am
How about this: “I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served, provided they are acting within the bounds of their constitutional authority and are not violating the basic moral law of civilized society.”
If Charles said that, I wouldn’t call it proto-fascist (though I’d still disagree with it, because it doesn’t allow for basic, simple, everyday disagreement). But when you don’t add the caveats, you are giving the government a blank check, and that is indeed the first step down the road to authoritarianism.
Ours is a governments of laws, not of men. That means our fundamental loyalty must be to the constitution and the laws that uphold our country’s ideals — not to any one person or group of people. Any philosophy that elevates loyalty to the president or the military or any other group of people above loyalty to our laws and ideals is a warped and un-American philosophy, no matter how patriotically well-intentioned is the person spouting the philosophy. (Hence, me calling Charles’s statements proto-fascist and unpatriotic, but still thinking Charles is a good guy.)
June 8th, 2005 at 12:53:45 am
<i>What about the women who fought for the vote? Or those who fought for equal rights for minorities? They didn’t serve in the military but by defending and fighting for the principles which America is supposed to stand for, you know that whole “liberty and justice for all” thing I’d say they were just as patriotic, if not more in many cases.</i>
You have a valid point, David, but here’s how I approach it. First and foremost, veterans and those who died fighting are at the top of the list. Even when they do wrong, I give them as much benefit of the doubt as possible, and consider them patriotic unless they give me good reason not to (e.g., former soldiers coming back to advocate treasonous policies).
As for the other things you mention regarding the right to vote and equality, those fall under the category (in my mind) of justice. Fighting for justice is an absolutely laudable thing, but I don’t automatically equate it to patriotism. It can be an equally high calling, which is why I’d have no problem with one respecting those who marched for civil rights as heroes and patriots, but I can’t bring myself to say it’s <i>more</i> patriotic.
<i>But Patriotism is about loving ones country, not loving the current administration. I mean honestly Charles you are treating the President as infallible more than Catholics do the Pope.</i>
…
<i>Looking at his actual words, though — “I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served” — I fail to see how your defense applies. He’s not acknowledging that we might ever be wrong; instead, he is saying that he will “always back-up,” which I read to mean “always support,” the president and the troops, no matter what. The word “always” would seem to encompass such grave military/governmental wrongs as, for example, Watergate and Abu Grhaib, as well as any hypothetical future wrongs such as, say, President Palpatine saying he needs emergency dictatorial powers in order to defend the republic from separatists. :) If Charles will “always” support the president and the military, how could he possibly stand up against a corrupt regime bent solely on consolidating power and destroying our system of government, if, heaven forbid, such a regime ever were to be elected?</i>
This is a fair point, and from your perspective or my perspective, absolutely we would hope that veterans can recognize corruption and malfeasance and fight against it when necessary to restore justice and liberty. But as a whole, I think you need to understand the veteran’s perspective. For the man in uniform, their’s is not to reason why, their’s is but to do or die. When they step back into the civilian role, and indeed, in the increasingly gray roles and situations we put our modern armies into, with nation-building and peace-keeping, it’s difficult for some to totally make that transition. Equally, you or I could probably <i>never</i> accept the transition to totally obeying commanders without question, yet a military would fall apart without a significant number of soldiers who think like Charles.
I think it’s wrong to assume that Charles cannot differentiate between corruption and malfeasance, and loyalty to his country and president. If I may read beyond Charles’ inarticulateness, I think what he is saying is he has personal loyalty and full trust in <i>this</i> president, and in the Army in which he served. I think if Charles was 80 and hobbling on one leg, and President Bush said, “We need your help”, Charles would go without stopping to ask, “Why me? What the hell are you thinking?” I cannot bring myself to fault that, because such men are rare and admirable in my opinion.
<i>I just think it’s completely and utterly wrong for you to go around basically calling other people unpatriotic because they disagree with you (and with this particular president) on debatable political issues.</i>
I agree with that statement. I really would like to see Charles abandon that and cease throwing around that label. There are plenty who deserve the patriotic label, such as Michael Moore, but even then, I much prefer Charles to say to David, “I find that kind of thinking unpatriotic” than to say, “You, David, are unpatriotic”. But I also understand that he gets frustrated sometimes, for even though I prefer to say that David’s reasoning is idiotic, sometimes he frustrates me so much that I have to just call him an idiot. :-P
I do think throwing around the label “unpatriotic” is worse though. In my experience, I’m sure people like David <i>intend</i> to be patriotic, and they almost always think their positions <i>are</i> patriotic, so if in certain instances I cannot help but conclude that those positions really <i>aren’t</i> patriotic, I will go ahead and respect that they think they are being patriotic and conclude instead that their simply being <i>idi</i>otic.
June 8th, 2005 at 1:03:43 am
<i>Andrew, by your logic one who did not, will not or cannot serve in the armed forces can never be more patriotic than anyone who has? That’s a blunt statement!</i>
It sure is, and I stand by it. All other things being equal (political beliefs, community involvement, etc.), a man who served is more patriotic in my mind than a man who hasn’t.
Let me apply this to something else: “By your logic one who did not, will not or cannot donate money can never be more generous than anyone who has?” I think it’s the same thing. In both cases you are <i>giving</i>, and patriotism and generosity measure that giving. That doesn’t mean that one <i>can’t</i> be generous without donating large sums of money (or, if you prefer, as a percentage of income) to charity, or that one <i>can’t</i> be patriotic without serving, but I would certainly say that without having done those things to the extent others have, you certainly can’t claim to be <i>more</i> generous or patriotic.
<i>Does this definitively mean that John Kerry is more patriotic than, say, Dubya or Dick Cheney or Ronald Reagan (his eyesight left excluded him from any overseas action)?</i>
Despite continued illusions to the contrary, Dubya served his country in the armed forces. I do not know about Cheney or Reagan. Foreign deployment is not a requirement in my book, just enlistment. I wouldn’t get into a pissing contest about which candidate is more patriotic, as I am sure all of them are pretty patriotic. I would just conclude that John Kerry, in addition to being patriotic, is also idiotic.
June 8th, 2005 at 1:07:55 am
<i>How about this: “I will always back-up our President and the US Army in which I served, provided they are acting within the bounds of their constitutional authority and are not violating the basic moral law of civilized society.”</i>
That’s asking too much from a soldier, IMHO. It’s not for the soldier to ponder moral law and the bounds of constitutional authority.
<i>Ours is a governments of laws, not of men. That means our fundamental loyalty must be to the constitution and the laws that uphold our country’s ideals — not to any one person or group of people. Any philosophy that elevates loyalty to the president or the military or any other group of people above loyalty to our laws and ideals is a warped and un-American philosophy, no matter how patriotically well-intentioned is the person spouting the philosophy.</i>
I would accept everything you just wrote in that statement if you just dropped the “and un-American” part. Warped? Yes. Potentially dangerous? Absolutely. Un-American? I wouldn’t go that far.
June 8th, 2005 at 1:09:16 am
Ahhh. But one can be generous without giving money, per se.
All it take is an enlistment to get onto the top of Andrew’s SuperCoolMuyPatriotic List, eh? Well sign me up for that ROTC program and the sky’s the limit!
June 8th, 2005 at 1:37:46 am
<i>All it take is an enlistment to get onto the top of Andrew’s SuperCoolMuyPatriotic List, eh? Well sign me up for that ROTC program and the sky’s the limit!</i>
“All it takes”? Sure, and since it seems so easy to you, I challenge you to do so. Let’s see you get through ROTC, and the requisite years of post-graduate service entailed. Go through that without quitting or getting dishonorably discharged, and absofuckinglutely, you move to the top rung of my SuperCoolMuyPatriotic List.
June 8th, 2005 at 1:38:58 am
Anonymous, mocking what the military does is not funny <i>at all </i>.
June 8th, 2005 at 1:43:28 am
I’m not mocking the military or its personnel.
I’m mocking Andrew.
June 8th, 2005 at 3:10:09 am
Well, Andrew is saying serving in the military is super patriotic, and then you say oh? All I have to do is serve? Oh well, where is the ROTC and where can I sign up. That does not sound like mocking Andrew but like mocking the military. I really do not care if you mock Andrew (love him and all, but go ahead and mock) but when someone mocks the military, making it sound like serving is no big deal, you just sign up, well, yeah I take issue with that, big time. Serving your country is about the most patriotic thing you can do. We often times take our military for granted (not saying you did, but I do find your comment insulting and annoying). Am I super sensitive when it comes military men and women? Yes :)
June 8th, 2005 at 11:50:39 am
I truely don’t care what you think, Brendan.
Your men and women serving in the military can distinguish between a lawful order and an unlawful one.
The military is a $400 billion a year industry with over two million employees and has more oversight than any other industry in the world. You can only fault a few mistakes made along the way in a very messy business called war. The military’s core business which is stratigic control, perserving life and causing death is being done with amazing sensitivity and care.
I didn’t bother to read what you said about me. You already feel that I re-write history using things called ‘facts’ and ‘experience;’ which have no credibility on this blog.
But a well worded lie will rule the day. That is just my opinion on David’s statement: “I’m just saying its not outrageous to accuse the administration of wrong doing without knowing the full extent.”
And I still find it offensive.
June 8th, 2005 at 12:49:53 pm
I don’t much like David’s statement either, at least as applied to the Amnesty situation. Although, taken literally, I don’t think there’s anything “offensive” about it: I mean, say you know 99% of what’s going on, but not 100%. You don’t “know the full extent,” but I certainly don’t think it’s outrageous to say, “Based on my 99% knowledge of the situation, I’m accusing the administration of wrongdoing.” As long as you are honest about what you know and what you don’t know, it’s not offensive. Where Amnesty went wrong is that they acted like they had more information than they really do, and also, they made a comparison that was utterly unsupported even by their worst unproven fears.
Anyway, even if David’s statement is offensive, that still doesn’t justify your statement that you will “always” support the president and the military no matter what.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of the men and women in the military can distinguish between a lawful order and an unlawful one, as you say. I was not impugning the character or intelligence of our soldiers. I was objecting to a specific statement you made, which professed blind obedience to the president and the government. Your statement did not allow for any “distinguishing” and that’s why I objected to it.
I have no objection to your using your own experience to frame your opinions; we all do that. I have a serious problem with your frequently stated belief that, because you have certain types of experience, your opinions are obviously right (essentially, that your opinions are facts) and that everyone who lacks your experience isn’t entitled to an alternative opinion, or at least, is an idiot if they have an alternative opinion. That sort of closed-mindedness cannot be justified by any “facts” or “experience.”
And the only time I accused you of re-writing history is when you downplayed Watergate. I stand by that. But I’ve never said you re-write history on a regular basis.
Remember that this post started with me condemning Amnesty. I don’t disagree with you on the issue at hand. I disagree with you when you take a specific issue like this and turn it into something along the lines of, “The president is always right and should never be criticized, and David is an idiot and nothing he says ever makes any sense, and my experience makes my opinions inherently superior to all of your opinions.” You want to talk about offensive? Now that’s offensive.
June 8th, 2005 at 2:10:25 pm
I’m sorry Brendan, but what exactly is wrong with my statement?
At no point have I defended AI in this case, the only thing I have said is that saying they don’t know everything is not a realistic reason to say they don’t know anything.
If you want to criticize their use of the term gulag, fine, i agree with you it was out of line.
If you want to say that they don’t know enough to criticize fine.
But saying because they admit they don’t know everything they are saying they know nothing? Sorry but that doesn’t seem right.
Oh and Charles if you don’t care what Brendan says why do you bother to read the blog?
June 8th, 2005 at 4:50:39 pm
I truely don’t care what you think, Brendan.
Your men and women serving in the military can distinguish between a lawful order and an unlawful one.
The military is a $400 billion a year industry with over two million employees and has more oversight than any other industry in the world. You can only fault a few mistakes made along the way in a very messy business called war. The military’s core business which is stratigic control, perserving life and causing death is being done with amazing sensitivity and care.
I didn’t bother to read what you said about me. You already feel that I re-write history using things called ‘facts’ and ‘experience;’ which have no credibility on this blog.
But a well worded lie will rule the day. That is just my opinion on David’s statement: “I’m just saying its not outrageous to accuse the administration of wrong doing without knowing the full extent.”
And I still find it offensive.
June 8th, 2005 at 5:49:53 pm
I don’t much like David’s statement either, at least as applied to the Amnesty situation. Although, taken literally, I don’t think there’s anything “offensive” about it: I mean, say you know 99% of what’s going on, but not 100%. You don’t “know the full extent,” but I certainly don’t think it’s outrageous to say, “Based on my 99% knowledge of the situation, I’m accusing the administration of wrongdoing.” As long as you are honest about what you know and what you don’t know, it’s not offensive. Where Amnesty went wrong is that they acted like they had more information than they really do, and also, they made a comparison that was utterly unsupported even by their worst unproven fears.
Anyway, even if David’s statement is offensive, that still doesn’t justify your statement that you will “always” support the president and the military no matter what.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of the men and women in the military can distinguish between a lawful order and an unlawful one, as you say. I was not impugning the character or intelligence of our soldiers. I was objecting to a specific statement you made, which professed blind obedience to the president and the government. Your statement did not allow for any “distinguishing” and that’s why I objected to it.
I have no objection to your using your own experience to frame your opinions; we all do that. I have a serious problem with your frequently stated belief that, because you have certain types of experience, your opinions are obviously right (essentially, that your opinions are facts) and that everyone who lacks your experience isn’t entitled to an alternative opinion, or at least, is an idiot if they have an alternative opinion. That sort of closed-mindedness cannot be justified by any “facts” or “experience.”
And the only time I accused you of re-writing history is when you downplayed Watergate. I stand by that. But I’ve never said you re-write history on a regular basis.
Remember that this post started with me condemning Amnesty. I don’t disagree with you on the issue at hand. I disagree with you when you take a specific issue like this and turn it into something along the lines of, “The president is always right and should never be criticized, and David is an idiot and nothing he says ever makes any sense, and my experience makes my opinions inherently superior to all of your opinions.” You want to talk about offensive? Now <i>that</i>’s offensive.
June 8th, 2005 at 7:10:25 pm
I’m sorry Brendan, but what exactly is wrong with my statement?
At no point have I defended AI in this case, the only thing I have said is that saying they don’t know everything is not a realistic reason to say they don’t know anything.
If you want to criticize their use of the term gulag, fine, i agree with you it was out of line.
If you want to say that they don’t know enough to criticize fine.
But saying because they admit they don’t know everything they are saying they know nothing? Sorry but that doesn’t seem right.
Oh and Charles if you don’t care what Brendan says why do you bother to read the blog?
June 9th, 2005 at 8:33:14 am
I downplayed nothing on Watergate. I wrote what factually happened. I defended nobody and stood by the charges brought before everybody involved.
I will defend our President and Government, Clinton or Bush, until shown factually to do otherwise. That’s why we pledge our allegiance and that’s leaders take an oath. Blind loyalty is foolish but loyalty is not. Loyalty with disclaimers is a waste of time, effort and removes trust from the equation.
But ‘Howard Deaner sound alikes’ like you, David and Brian are always looking to justify your mistrust of Government, the Military, President Bush and Republicans simply because you don’t like any of them or understand any of them. You refuse to step away from the ‘X-Files’ mentality long enough to realize that those evil people in government are people like you, me, David and Brian, who actually works for the military.
None of you bring anything but contempt to President Bush and the Iraqi situation.
It is your right to do as you wish in these areas. It is my right to stand offended.
But I am rarely offended when you bring wisdom, objectivity and fact before an issue, like the abortion debate brought forth by David. Even by his sound logic proposed, I admited that I am pro-abortion when looked at it factually.
President Bush, our Military Leaders, and Cabinet are doing a fine job and should be treated as such, if you looked at the situation objectively and factually. They are all innocent of wrongdoing until proved guilty of anything.
So “I’m just saying its not outrageous to accuse the administration of wrong doing without knowing the full extent…” is another way of saying baseless slander is OK. Pretty rough to swallow if you are going to be an officer of the court one day, Brendan.
Taking issue with me for trusting, while standing by slander is the hight of hypocrisy. I should know, I have already acknowledge wholeheartedly that I am a hypocrite.
Trusting in government is OK, until they prove themselves unfit.
But what is done here and the MSM is to whip one party, the Republicans and let the other parties, the Green and Democratic parties slide. Why we even get a chuckle out of them but we do not hold both parties to the same account. You make fun of Howard Dean instead of putting him under the same scrutiny you do Bush and the Republicans.
So instead of being a popular and witty government basher, like you three. I will go ahead and stand by our Government, Military and President. It is unpopular but not unwise. It also adds a little gravitas to this blog.
Finally, David likes to think that I just want us to be one big Republican country. Not by a long shot. But Liberalism is not a way to run a business, a family or a government. Good feelings are just that, good feelings. They ignore fact and reality, both of which the Repbulican Government is handling well, in my opinion.
June 9th, 2005 at 11:11:01 am
So instead of being a popular and witty government basher…
That’s true, you’re neither popular nor witty.
Honesty is nice.
June 9th, 2005 at 11:59:38 am
Given the lack of nuts shown, above, by “Spade = Spade”, in making such a comment anonymously, and worse, in amking such a not-evn-half-witty comment anonymously, the ID attached should have been ‘Speyed = Speyed’ …
June 9th, 2005 at 1:33:14 pm
I downplayed nothing on Watergate. I wrote what factually happened. I defended nobody and stood by the charges brought before everybody involved.
I will defend our President and Government, Clinton or Bush, until shown factually to do otherwise. That’s why we pledge our allegiance and that’s leaders take an oath. Blind loyalty is foolish but loyalty is not. Loyalty with disclaimers is a waste of time, effort and removes trust from the equation.
But ‘Howard Deaner sound alikes’ like you, David and Brian are always looking to justify your mistrust of Government, the Military, President Bush and Republicans simply because you don’t like any of them or understand any of them. You refuse to step away from the ‘X-Files’ mentality long enough to realize that those evil people in government are people like you, me, David and Brian, who actually works for the military.
None of you bring anything but contempt to President Bush and the Iraqi situation.
It is your right to do as you wish in these areas. It is my right to stand offended.
But I am rarely offended when you bring wisdom, objectivity and fact before an issue, like the abortion debate brought forth by David. Even by his sound logic proposed, I admited that I am pro-abortion when looked at it factually.
President Bush, our Military Leaders, and Cabinet are doing a fine job and should be treated as such, if you looked at the situation objectively and factually. They are all innocent of wrongdoing until proved guilty of anything.
So “I’m just saying its not outrageous to accuse the administration of wrong doing without knowing the full extent…” is another way of saying baseless slander is OK. Pretty rough to swallow if you are going to be an officer of the court one day, Brendan.
Taking issue with me for trusting, while standing by slander is the hight of hypocrisy. I should know, I have already acknowledge wholeheartedly that I am a hypocrite.
Trusting in government is OK, until they prove themselves unfit.
But what is done here and the MSM is to whip one party, the Republicans and let the other parties, the Green and Democratic parties slide. Why we even get a chuckle out of them but we do not hold both parties to the same account. You make fun of Howard Dean instead of putting him under the same scrutiny you do Bush and the Republicans.
So instead of being a popular and witty government basher, like you three. I will go ahead and stand by our Government, Military and President. It is unpopular but not unwise. It also adds a little gravitas to this blog.
Finally, David likes to think that I just want us to be one big Republican country. Not by a long shot. But Liberalism is not a way to run a business, a family or a government. Good feelings are just that, good feelings. They ignore fact and reality, both of which the Repbulican Government is handling well, in my opinion.
June 9th, 2005 at 2:22:22 pm
David and Brian are always looking to justify your mistrust of Government, the Military, President Bush and Republicans simply because you don’t like any of them or understand any of them.
…
President Bush, our Military Leaders, and Cabinet are doing a fine job and should be treated as such, if you looked at the situation objectively and factually. They are all innocent of wrongdoing until proved guilty of anything.
Charles you have done a fantastic job of proving yet again how much of a clueless partisan apologist you really are.
I don’t mistrust the military out of hand, but right now I am very skeptical of them because of what has happened at both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. An obvious pattern has emerged of FACTUALLY based cases of abuse that is not being investigated thourghly.
And I didn’t mistrust the Bush administration out of hand, I do so based on the FACTS of his record. I gave him the benefit of the doubt regarding the Iraq war, believing as many of the people in this country did, that he wouldn’t send us to war unless it was absolutely necessary, unless the evidence was solid enough to justify it. This, despite the fact that I didn’t approve of many of his policies, yes Charles, unlike you I actually can look beyond partisanship.
Unfortunately we are now founding out more and more that he did not act only because it was necessary. We are finding out that the intelligence was incredibly faulty and more and more that significant doubts were raised about the WMD intelligence and were promptly ignored by Bush and co. Not only that but the head of the CIA under whom all this faulty evidence was gathered was not reprimanded he was promoted! (a pattern which seems to be the norm in the Bush administration). Bush surrounds himself with yes-men (and woman). He refuses to acknowledge when mistakes are made. He makes ridiculous arguments about them too:
“Well gosh, we didn’t think the insurgency was gonna be such a big deal guys, we just beat Saddam too durn quickly”.
I don’t criticize Bush because I don’t like him Charles, I criticize him because I think his record shows that he is a terrible President whose actions speak for themselves.
I think he mishandled the Iraq war.
His tax cuts, which benefited the rich primarily, did not help the economy, should have been scaled back or eliminated when we went to war because *gasp* now we needed the money.
He has turned a budget surplus into a sky rocketing national debt.
He has presided over a net LOSS of jobs, and the jobs that are being gained are of a lower caliber than those being lost.
He supports a constitutional ammendment to enshrine bigotry.
He refuses to back down on his Social Security plan despite contiously lowering public AND party support for it not to mention analysis that show it won’t actually be as beneficial as he claims (not to mention he hasn’t actually put forth a solid plan, just a vague idea.)
I could go on and on, but the point is Charles these are the reasons I do not like the JOB President Bush is doing. I don’t hate him as a you like to think, I judge him on his actions. Now this is not to say I don’t ever agree with him either. I felt he did a fantastic job in the days and weeks after 9/11 uniting our country. I also felt he handled the Afghanistan situation incredibly well.
But over all I think he has done a dramatically poor job. You disagree, fine. The difference between us is that no matter what evidence is presented you will never accept anything but what you want to see, where as I am willing to accept the good AND the bad.
So you keep living in your fantasy world where Bush can do no wrong and the rest of us will live in the real world.
June 9th, 2005 at 4:11:01 pm
<i>So instead of being a popular and witty government basher…</i>
That’s true, you’re neither popular nor witty.
Honesty is nice.
June 9th, 2005 at 4:59:38 pm
Given the lack of nuts shown, above, by “Spade = Spade”, in making such a comment anonymously, and worse, in amking such a not-evn-half-witty comment anonymously, the ID attached should have been ‘Speyed = Speyed’ …
June 9th, 2005 at 6:57:14 pm
Oh and by the way Charles, you have proved that you have no perspective by comparing me and Brian to Howard Dean. Apparently in your mind not marching lock step with the GOP talking points means your a left wing loony, which is patently ridiculous.
June 9th, 2005 at 7:22:22 pm
<i>David and Brian are always looking to justify your mistrust of Government, the Military, President Bush and Republicans simply because you don’t like any of them or understand any of them.
…
President Bush, our Military Leaders, and Cabinet are doing a fine job and should be treated as such, if you looked at the situation objectively and factually. They are all innocent of wrongdoing until proved guilty of anything.</i>
Charles you have done a fantastic job of proving yet again how much of a clueless partisan apologist you really are.
I don’t mistrust the military out of hand, but right now I am very skeptical of them because of what has happened at both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. An obvious pattern has emerged of FACTUALLY based cases of abuse that is not being investigated thourghly.
And I didn’t mistrust the Bush administration out of hand, I do so based on the FACTS of his record. I gave him the benefit of the doubt regarding the Iraq war, believing as many of the people in this country did, that he wouldn’t send us to war unless it was absolutely necessary, unless the evidence was solid enough to justify it. This, despite the fact that I didn’t approve of many of his policies, yes Charles, unlike you I actually can look beyond partisanship.
Unfortunately we are now founding out more and more that he did not act only because it was necessary. We are finding out that the intelligence was incredibly faulty and more and more that significant doubts were raised about the WMD intelligence and were promptly ignored by Bush and co. Not only that but the head of the CIA under whom all this faulty evidence was gathered was not reprimanded he was promoted! (a pattern which seems to be the norm in the Bush administration). Bush surrounds himself with yes-men (and woman). He refuses to acknowledge when mistakes are made. He makes ridiculous arguments about them too:
“Well gosh, we didn’t think the insurgency was gonna be such a big deal guys, we just beat Saddam too durn quickly”.
I don’t criticize Bush because I don’t like him Charles, I criticize him because I think his record shows that he is a terrible President whose actions speak for themselves.
I think he mishandled the Iraq war.
His tax cuts, which benefited the rich primarily, did not help the economy, should have been scaled back or eliminated when we went to war because *gasp* now we needed the money.
He has turned a budget surplus into a sky rocketing national debt.
He has presided over a net LOSS of jobs, and the jobs that are being gained are of a lower caliber than those being lost.
He supports a constitutional ammendment to enshrine bigotry.
He refuses to back down on his Social Security plan despite contiously lowering public AND party support for it not to mention analysis that show it won’t actually be as beneficial as he claims (not to mention he hasn’t actually put forth a solid plan, just a vague idea.)
I could go on and on, but the point is Charles these are the reasons I do not like the JOB President Bush is doing. I don’t hate him as a you like to think, I judge him on his actions. Now this is not to say I don’t ever agree with him either. I felt he did a fantastic job in the days and weeks after 9/11 uniting our country. I also felt he handled the Afghanistan situation incredibly well.
But over all I think he has done a dramatically poor job. You disagree, fine. The difference between us is that no matter what evidence is presented you will never accept anything but what you want to see, where as I am willing to accept the good AND the bad.
So you keep living in your fantasy world where Bush can do no wrong and the rest of us will live in the real world.
June 9th, 2005 at 11:57:14 pm
Oh and by the way Charles, you have proved that you have no perspective by comparing me and Brian to Howard Dean. Apparently in your mind not marching lock step with the GOP talking points means your a left wing loony, which is patently ridiculous.
June 10th, 2005 at 4:14:11 pm
Charles - I have to agree with derivative David about this *one* thing …
A left wing loony *is* patently ridiculous …
(innocent smile)
June 10th, 2005 at 9:14:11 pm
Charles - I have to agree with derivative David about this *one* thing …
A left wing loony *is* patently ridiculous …
(innocent smile)