OK, let's review - 2 years later

[Sundog]

We failed to find Bin Laden.
We failed to find Mullah Omar.
We failed to find Saddam Hussein.
We failed to find ANY weapons of mass destruction.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis.
We failed to find the source of the anthrax contaminations.
We failed to bring peace to the Mideast.
We failed to enlist the help of our allies in the war on Iraq.
We failed to uphold world opinion about America.
We failed to convince the world our actions are justified.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the world's Muslims.

Anyone remember 9/11? What the capitalized, italicized **** does our little excursion in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing whatsoever! The old bait-and-switch on a stunning scale. And we Americans are so stupid that we actually bought it.

We have taken our eyes off the ball. We have let Bush distract us into paying attention to his little war instead. In the meantime Bin Laden relaxes somewhere, planning the next outrage.

George Bush is an out-and-out failure.

 

[DrChinese]

We failed to find Bin Laden.
We failed to find Mullah Omar.
We failed to find Saddam Hussein.
We failed to find ANY weapons of mass destruction.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis.
We failed to find the source of the anthrax contaminations.
We failed to bring peace to the Mideast.
We failed to enlist the help of our allies in the war on Iraq.
We failed to uphold world opinion about America.
We failed to convince the world our actions are justified.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the world's Muslims.

Anyone remember 9/11? What the capitalized, italicized **** does our little excursion in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing whatsoever! The old bait-and-switch on a stunning scale. And we Americans are so stupid that we actually bought it.

We have taken our eyes off the ball. We have let Bush distract us into paying attention to his little war instead. In the meantime Bin Laden relaxes somewhere, planning the next outrage.

George Bush is an out-and-out failure.

Yes, you are correct about his foreign policy failures. But his great success, which you do not give him credit for, is his handling of the domestic economy. I suspect he will be remembered most for that!

 

[hammegk]

Get a good lawyer. Maybe he/she/it can sue somebody to correct those Bush debacles and make you feel whole again.

 

[Crossbow]

World, Sworld!

Who cares about those other guys, you got a tax break right? So that should ease all of your aches.

 

[Tmy]

Well the Iraq thing does kinda tie into terrorism. Bush wants to reshape the whole region in oder to put the smack down on the islamocrazies. Problem is that hed never come out and say that. Instead he pulls out "iraqi freedom" "wmd" and other digestible justifications .

Thats what pissed me off. Not so much that he went into Iraq, but how he did it and how he justified the action.

 

[bignickel]

On Yahoo news recently, I read that a second poll confirms the results of the first one months ago:

7 out of 10 Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.




This country deserves President George W. Bush.

 

[Cleopatra]

In Europe we hear a lot about restrictions of the personal freedoms and the role of the notorious Ascroft.

How much of these are true? Do you feel that your democratic freedoms have been restricted since 9/11?

 

[headscratcher4]

I wouldn't say that personal freedoms, per se, for most Americans have been restricted. But than, most Americans don't put their personal freedoms to any real test...i.e./e.g. active dissent. No, what is scary about Ashcroft is that he and the Bush Administration are putting in place tools and procedures that can be subject to grave misuse.

Further, they are setting an atmosphere where political dissent can be easily confused with ideas like "support" for terrorism. For instance conservative writers who are very comfortable with conflating political dissent with "traitor" (a'la Ann Coulter). Bush, Ashcroft and too many in this Administration believe that if you are not with them, you must be supporting the enemy, as they define it.

What is happening in America is the "burn the village to save it" mentality? It isn't like the Nuremberg laws...one day a certain kind of liberty, the next subjugation to the crushing power of the state. It is the subtle chipping away of liberties and the popular understanding of liberty. It is the belief that liberty can be managed and controlled, rather than the understanding that freedom and liberty are messy things. It is the compromise of deep seated values for short term security or political advantage, with no sense that once the liberties have been voluntarily offered up, they will be damned hard to recover.

In the end, the Administration has blithely and willfully forgotten the great words of Ben Franklin (to paraphrase): those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.

I would still, today, say that the personal freedom enjoyed by most Americans is comparable, if not greater, than any other nation in the world. The problem is that we are let it be eroded bit by little bit, justification by justification, and someday we will wonder where it went and why the "system" stopped protecting liberty and freedom as its highest aspiration. I wouldn't say that personal freedoms, per se, for most Americans have been restricted. But than, most Americans don't put their personal freedoms to any real test...i.e./e.g. active dissent. No, what is scary about Ashcroft is that he and the Bush Administration are putting in place tools and procedures that can be subject to grave misuse.

Further, they are setting an atmosphere where political dissent can be easily confused with ideas like "support" for terrorism. For instance conservative writers who are very comfortable with conflating political dissent with "traitor" (a'la Ann Coulter). Bush, Ashcroft and too many in this Administration believe that if you are not with them, you must be supporting the enemy, as they define it.

What is happening in America is the "burn the village to save it" mentality? It isn't like the Nuremberg laws...one day a certain kind of liberty, the next subjugation to the crushing power of the state. It is the subtle chipping away of liberties and the popular understanding of liberty. It is the belief that liberty can be managed and controlled, rather than the understanding that freedom and liberty are messy things. It is the compromise of deep seated values for short term security or political advantage, with no sense that once the liberties have been voluntarily offered up, they will be damned hard to recover.

In the end, the Administration has blithely and willfully forgotten the great words of Ben Franklin (to paraphrase): those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.

I would still, today, say that the personal freedom enjoyed by most Americans is comparable, if not greater, than any other nation in the world. The problem is that we are letting it be eroded bit by little bit, justification by justification, and someday we will wonder where it went and why the "system" stopped protecting liberty and freedom as its highest aspiration.

 

[Sundog]

Get a good lawyer. Maybe he/she/it can sue somebody to correct those Bush debacles and make you feel whole again.

Hammy, maybe you're full of she/it.

 

[Ziggurat]

In Europe we hear a lot about restrictions of the personal freedoms and the role of the notorious Ascroft.

How much of these are true? Do you feel that your democratic freedoms have been restricted since 9/11?

No, not really, only when I go through airport screening. Other than that, I really don't notice anything different, though I'm sure people in some specific areas (like librarians) probably notice it a lot more than most people. But Ashcroft (much as I detest the man) makes little difference in the daily lives of most americans.

The biggest problem with Ashcroft, etc. isn't the restrictions on freedoms of Americans that's significant, it's the restrictions on freedoms of non-citizens in the US. That's often the case in times of war, and the US has bounced back to a pretty open society from doing much worse (Japanese internment springs to mind), so while it's a problem, it's also not a sign of any sort of irreversible trend.

 

[DrChinese]

In Europe we hear a lot about restrictions of the personal freedoms and the role of the notorious Ascroft.

How much of these are true? Do you feel that your democratic freedoms have been restricted since 9/11?

Honestly, I can't say that there is anything that affects me directly in the way of limited freedoms. Of course, Ashcroft has met a lot of resistance on his plans to limit those freedoms. And I have not been arrested for terrorism either; that is where you most hear of freedoms being abridged.

I did get singled out on an airplane for searching (not a body search). It was because I had a one-way ticket, as did the 9/11 hijackers. That was really clever of the security people, I'm sure they catch a lot of terrorists that way these days.

 

[HarryKeogh]

We failed to find Bin Laden.
We failed to find Mullah Omar.
We failed to find Saddam Hussein.
We failed to find ANY weapons of mass destruction.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis.
We failed to find the source of the anthrax contaminations.
We failed to bring peace to the Mideast.
We failed to enlist the help of our allies in the war on Iraq.
We failed to uphold world opinion about America.
We failed to convince the world our actions are justified.
We failed to win the hearts and minds of the world's Muslims.

Anyone remember 9/11? What the capitalized, italicized **** does our little excursion in Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing whatsoever! The old bait-and-switch on a stunning scale. And we Americans are so stupid that we actually bought it.

We have taken our eyes off the ball. We have let Bush distract us into paying attention to his little war instead. In the meantime Bin Laden relaxes somewhere, planning the next outrage.

George Bush is an out-and-out failure.

while true i dont think this is entirely fair. it's easy to make a list of everything that fits with your argument. for example, saddam's kids were found and killed. if they werent that would be on your list as well. but they were found so there's no mention of it. this is just a terribly one-sided list.

 

[Andonyx]

On Yahoo news recently, I read that a second poll confirms the results of the first one months ago:

7 out of 10 Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9/11.




This country deserves President George W. Bush.

To an extent just as more than half in various surveys still believe that some or all of the hijackers were Iraqi.

Oy!

But I find this latest survey a little misleading.

The phrasing of the question is ambiguous. For instance i can take it to mean a couple things:

1. By saying I believe he had a hand in the 9-11 disaster I could mean I think he probably was involved in some circuitous way either through money, or resources, or simple encouragement of the hatred.

2. I could be saying yes, George Bush and his administration are going after Iraq because we haver material evidence that Husseing helped in the 9-11 attacks.

The first position is kind of a fifty fifty deal, maybe in some way he was involved somehow, and answering yes means you have a personal hunch even though you know darn well there is no evidence whatsoever at the moment.

The second position is ridiculous.

But in either case all we know is yes or no. People may not be the complete idiots implied by that survey.

 

[hammegk]

Hammy, maybe you're full of she/it.

Could be. You are certainly full of left-wing pc'lib bullsh*t.

 

[Sundog]

Could be. You are certainly full of left-wing pc'lib ◊◊◊◊.

You and PC are like Bill and cargo cults; it's your favorite insult and you use it even when it isn't germane.

On the rest, mea culpa.

 

[Tricky]

while true i dont think this is entirely fair. it's easy to make a list of everything that fits with your argument. for example, saddam's kids were found and killed. if they werent that would be on your list as well. but they were found so there's no mention of it. this is just a terribly one-sided list.

True, but the only things that should be on the list are major objectives that were either stated or discussed. True, we did add a lot of names to the "most wanted" list (or deck), but we rarely heard mention of them until the war was already in progress. Certainly you could say that "taking out Saddam's henchmen" was a general objective, but we can't say that is is done either. Some are accounted for, some are not.

And oh yes, I wanted to add one to the original list of failed post-9/11 objectives:

We failed (so far) to bring stability to Afghanistan.

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: OK, let's review - 2 years later

while true i dont think this is entirely fair. it's easy to make a list of everything that fits with your argument. for example, saddam's kids were found and killed. if they werent that would be on your list as well. but they were found so there's no mention of it. this is just a terribly one-sided list.

A perfectly good point. You are invited to construct a similar list of successes.

 

[Cain]

We failed to do this, we failed to do that, we failed blah blah blah.

Look, we're gonna kill "Chemical Ali" twice. TWO times. This is quite an accomplishment that easily dwarfs "weapons of mass destruction" or 2.7 million lost jobs, or whatever other wholly arbitrary standard one chooses to judge the Bush administration by. Instead, I think we should be impressed by the president's ability to pull off the seemingly impossible. Another example is falling off the Segway. Bush continually challenges us as to what's humanly possible.

 

[HarryKeogh]

True, but the only things that should be on the list are major objectives that were either stated or discussed.

"we failed to bring peace to the middle east"... c'mon, no one expected that to happen within the two years since 9/11/01. I might as well say "we failed to land men on the surface of mars"

 

[CapelDodger]

From HarryKeogh:

"we failed to bring peace to the middle east"... c'mon, no one expected that to happen within the two years since 9/11/01. I might as well say "we failed to land men on the surface of mars"

A better job could have been made of the effort. Look at the situation now - realistically, could things have been any worse?