Saddam Hussein has been taken into custody.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:24 pm

WCO:
 
 I see you´re still online and obviously have seen my follow-up post since you´re responding to posts made after mine.
 
 Are you going to answer my question and let me know of a few foreign affairs correspondents whom you like? It´s not like I´m asking anything personal. I´m curious, and I always like different, yet objective, perspectives.
 
 Out,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 15-12-2003 19:24 ]

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:34 pm

Did you see anything in those camps that warranted the level of military force exerted in Iraq? For that matter, did you see anything which suggested that the tactic of military occupation of the country was an effective counter to what you saw in those camps? To put in perspective, the United States has spent significantly more on the Iraq invasion than on the entirety of its domestic counterterrorism measures. In fact, most of the recommended actions for homeland defense have died on the vine for lack of funding because of the money going towards the Iraq invasion.
 
 I´m not doubting that you saw things on the ground that made you think this was a good idea. I´m doubting your ability (without attacking you in the least) to bring perspective to what you saw.
 -----------------------------------------------
 
 The answer to your first question is yes. I served in Somalia and Bosnia,and just on the basis of saving human life Iraq falls into the same catagory as those two conflicts. We still have troops in Bosnia and that conflict has cost the US millions. And it is warrented.
 
 My perspective covers 22 years of fighting in conflicts around the world starting in Grenada and ending in Iraq. I have always distanced myself with the population of whatever country I was in. Even in Bosnia where I saw some very horrid things.
 
 Iraq changed all that. After what I saw and the way it moved me. I can only compare it to what the GI´S in WWII must have felt when the found the concentration camps and freed the Jews and Russians.
 
 I am not going to go into the WMD argument anymore. We know he had them and used them on the Kurds. He had plenty of time to get rid of them during the years he thumbed his nose at the UN. And if anyone thinks he wasn´t harboring terrorist and funding them. Oh well, I do.
 
 I am glad we went into Iraq and Bosnia. I will never forget how good it felt to see people being freed and lives being changed .
 
 As a career soldier that is what I would gladly lay down my life for. That has helped me to deal with my brothers death. He died during something that was helping other humans. No matter why we went,thats what we ended up doing.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:43 pm

I don´t regularly read any foreign affairs correspondents. But Friedman is an Op Ep page columnist these days, isn´t he? Like I said, he served his time in the Middle East but he´s not doing any active reporting.
 
 I´m actually more impressed with work like Hersh´s series on the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.
 
 And if I were really serious about wanting to delve into these issues in depth, I would look for books by political scientists, not columnists.
 
 As for your take on Ivins, whom I´ve read maybe once or twice but heard many times on NPR, she is nothing like Coulter.
 
 Plus her latest book has gotten good reviews, with specific reporting on the ways Bush has allowed existing federal regulations for protecting worker and food safety to be compromised.
 
 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 47-7205636

seanmac · Post by **seanmac** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:52 am

Jackdog- For what it´s worth, I have absolutely no problem with fighting wars for humanitarian reasons (as the descendant of Holocaust survivors, I hardly could have). I supported the interventions in Somalia and Bosnia. Of course, there is one significant difference between those two conflicts and the Iraq one (well, there are several, but I digress)- the mass graves were much fresher. There were clear humanitarian epidemics going on in both those countries that necessitated immediate action. There was a crisis in Iraq as well, but it was primarily a result of the devastation of GW I and the lingering effects of the sanctions on Iraq´s infrastructure and medical resources. In terms of mass killings, the freshest large grave sites in Iraq were from the Sunni uprising in the wake of GW I (which, needless to say, we bear a great deal of responsibility for). Because there was no equivalent genocidal activity going on in Iraq, I don´t think the war can be looked at in quite the same way. (It doesn´t help matter that the war was sold and packaged in a way to appeal to our fears from 9/11.)
 
 As for the WMDs, saying that Saddam had them in 1988 does not translate into him having them now. We stopped supplying him with chemical weapons at the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq war, and the combination of GWI and the weapons inspectors doing their job for the last ten years whittled down Saddam´s arsenal to non-existence. Colin Powell´s presentation to the UN more or less acknowledged this while still attempting to whip up fear, and it was full of things like pictures of weapons dating from 1988 that the administration knew full well had since been destroyed.
 
 In any event, part of the problem is that the definition of what constitutes a WMD has been stretched or trimmed to fit whatever need the definer happened to have at the moment. There is a rather vast difference between a ballistic missle and a tactical nuke, and there is a difference between chemical and biological weapons, not to mention having the ability to deliver them effectively. There was zippo evidence before the war that Iraq had anything that was as threatening to us as three misdirected 767s, and there continues to be zippo evidence.

Post by **Jared** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:13 am

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-15 18:36, pk500 wrote:
 Jared:
 
 First, regarding Friedman. Yes, I acknowledge the flip-flops. But I´m willing to give Friedman more of a pass in that area because it´s very possible that he´s changing his opinion based on interviews with sources in the Middle East and further analysis of the situation.
 
 .......
 
 Yeah, Friedman is on the air a lot. Did you ever think that´s because the guy knows what the f*ck she´s talking about and because he does it without much partisanship? OK, he appears a bit high and mighty at times, I´ll admit. But the guy has won a Pulitzer and knows about as much about the region as any American journalist, so he can strut a lot more than someone who hasn´t been there in ages or never has been there but pretends to know all the answers, such as Bill O´Reilly.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Coulter is on the air a lot. Is it because she "knows what the f*ck he´s talking about and because he does it without much partisanship"? Probably not. It´s quality of commentary, not quantity of appearances, that makes someone an excellent commentatory.
 
 (However, Friedman is light years ahead of both Coulter and O´Reilly.)
 
 And it´s possible that his flip-flops are principled. Though that first one was a 11 day turnaround. Unfortunately, they don´t have the original articles up anymore on the NY Times site....so I can´t see if he gave reasons for changing his opinion. Also there are other things that I don´t agree with him on that are not Iraq-related. (I can elaborate on it if you want...but if not, that´s OK. A post on whether Friedman does or does not suck could get pretty boring. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_smile.gif"> )
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 Again, Friedman doesn´t write from a Beltway office. He doesn´t write based on a partisan point of view like most columnists in this country. He´s not obligated to toe the party line like Molly Ivins, Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 What I´m about to say is only tangentially Friedman related. Just because he´s not in Washington doesn´t mean that he´s gonna be better. There are lots of hacks in Washington, but lots of quality writers. Oh, and Molly Ivins writes out of Texas.
 
 (and as for towing the party line....i´m not so sure. Hannity (who I despise because he´s very dishonest in his arguments and mythification of Reagan) was openly against the new Medicare bill, which Bush pushed. Ivins holds LOTS of opinions that don´t go with the Democratic establishment. And Coulter? Well...she´s just insane.)
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 Now, on to Molly Ivins. Ivins simply is Ann Coulter with more writing talent and more respect from the media, for some incredulous reason. She´s a raving, lunatic partisan with minimal talent.
 
 Ivins spends more time criticizing Bush and all Republicans with clever wise-ass remarks than making suggestions about improvements. And her few suggestions always boil down to "more taxes, let the government bail out everyone, government is the answer."
 
 As a registered Libertarian, I consider Molly Ivins to be one of the most dangerous people behind a keyboard in America today. She is stark, raving nuts with a huge agenda-based ax to grind and few suggestions for improvement other than "spend, spend, spend."
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Well, I don´t agree with that characterization of her writing and positions. But if you can back it up with examples, then go for it. But her writings need to show that she´s a "raving, partisan lunatic". Quite a few of her readings are quite insightful and not rants against Bush. Although if you have examples otherwise, let me know.
 
 Regards,
 Jared
 [ This message was edited by: Jared on 15-12-2003 21:15 ]

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:50 am

Jared:
 
 I don´t get the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, for which Ivins writes. But the Syracuse paper -- which is liberal -- runs her once or twice per week, and all of her stuff is anti-Bush rhetoric cloaked in that folksy "I´m a Texas dame" bullshit.
 
 Again, she offers opinions on why Bush is so horrible but offers very few solutions. That´s easy criticism.
 
 Just check out the Ivins archive. Nearly every column follows a similar pattern: B*tch about Bush or the current Administration, offer a few pithy phrases and offer little or no alternatives:
 
 http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/molly_ivins/
 
 WCO:
 
 You´re using amazon.com as a credible source of literary commentary? That´s comical.
 
 OK, to Amazon´s credit, there also is commentary on the book from Publishers´ Weekly and Booklist:
 
 >>>From Publishers Weekly
 Ivins´s mordant wit, political passion and uninhibited energy are unique among political writers and translate into entertaining reading for anti-Bushites.<<<
 
 There´s more, but there´s absolutely nothing about her impeccable reporting. And the story points out that it´s entertaining reading for anti-Bushites, nothing about any objective look at Bush.
 
 Ivins HATES Bush, so how can any supposed work of non-fiction by her about Bush be considered objective and credible? Plus she´s a political, unabashedly liberal columnist, so how can anyone take any "reporting" that she does on conservatives even the slightest bit seriously?
 
 Christ, read this recent column by Ivins in which she calls herself a "bleeding-heart liberal."
 
 http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columni ... 429704.htm
 
 Now, from Booklist:
 
 >>>Although the sourcing could be more specific, the writing itself is pure Ivins, frank and funny and eminently readable.<<<
 
 The Booklist review even cites that Ivins´ sourcing is lacking. But it´s frank, funny and eminently readable.
 
 Sounds just like her columns. She can turn a phrase and is easy to read because her stuff isn´t that deep, yet the sourcing usually is mediocre.
 
 For every "review" excerpt you find praising Ivins, I could find one that rips Ivins.
 
 I will agree with you that Sy Hersh is excellent. The stuff in the New Yorker about the WMD´s was excellent. That guy is a reporter, plain and simple.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 15-12-2003 22:10 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:16 am

Not as source of literary commentary. Just a link to the book itself. See, the charge about this or that writer "hating" Bush is a way to ignore the arguments and evidence that writer lays out. Attack the person making the argument when you can´t attack the argument.
 
 I haven´t read the book but they read excerpts on NPR where they talk about specific cases and as far as I know, nobody has challenged the veracity of the info. laid out. Hence, the most you´ll hear from defenders of Bush is that the author is simply a Bush hater.
 
 I also like the NY Review of Books. Here is an excellent article, very detailed, on the war and the way intelligence was used or misused to build support for the war:
 
 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16813
 
 Much longer than most newspaper columns and much more detailed, especially the point-by-point comparison of Powell´s UN claims versus David Kay´s findings.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:52 am

WCO:
 
 Am I attacking Molly Ivins because she´s a liberal? No -- we probably agree on some issues.
 
 But am I attacking Molly Ivins as a credible source of objective information? Of course -- she´s a columnist. Just as I would attack George Will or Ann Coulter as an objective source of information in any book about a Democrat.
 
 Nearly every newspaper in the U.S. won´t allow its columnists to also cover a beat due to perceived lack of objectivity. So I´m supposed to assume that columnist Molly Ivins can check her anti-Bush sentiments at the door when doing reporting for her supposedly objective non-fiction book?
 
 Come on: I may have been born at night, but I wasn´t born last night.
 
 I´m glad you´ve lumped me into the pro-Bush camp. Incorrect, but funny.
 
 Check some of the threads from the past at both SR and here about my thoughts about the war. There´s absolutely no question in my mind that the Bush Administration fabricated or concocted intelligence about WMD´s to justify this war. And I also believe that the only WMD in Iraq was found in a rathole Sunday night.
 
 There´s no question Saddam had WMD´s at one point, as he used them on his people. But I agree 100 percent with Hersh´s report in the New Yorker about WMD´s: Saddam got rid of them once he realized his enemy in future conflicts after Gulf War I was going to be the U.S. again, not his own people. And that occurred long before this conflict started.
 
 I have the highest amount of respect for our military and the accomplishment of catching Saddam. Think about it: Our Army found one man underground in a farm plot within a country of how many millions of square miles. Yet the Army can´t find these supposed stockpiles of WMD´s?
 
 That´s not the Army´s fault. It is doing its absolute best, which is better than any other military in the world.
 
 I´m also well aware that WMD´s can be hidden in small vials, etc., yet the Bush Administration wants us to believe that there are large stockpiles of this stuff somewhere in Iraq.
 
 The U.S. Army can´t find WMD´s because I honestly believe there aren´t any left in Iraq. They´re long gone, either destroyed or moved to Syria well before this conflict started. Just my opinion.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 15-12-2003 23:05 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:20 am

I didn´t lump you with the Bush supporter. But it´s a familiar tactic of Bush´s apologists to label anyone critical of a Bush policy as a Bush hater.
 
 On another board, I pointed out that Saddam´s capture does nothing to make our troops more safer or changes the security of Americans at home because Saddam never posed a threat -- didn´t have the means and didn´t have the inclination because he was largely defanged in the Gulf War.
 
 Well I was accused of hating Bush so much that there was nothing I could give him credit for. Well I have to really think about which of his policies I could agree with but I don´t personally have anything against him and unlike the people who went after Clinton, I don´t dwell on speculations about his AWOL days or his party days or whatever.
 
 The administration´s defenders also accuse critics of the war of being unpatriotic or sympathizers of Saddam. They also cry that we´re at war and critics of the war are giving comfort to the enemy.
 
 This is not so different from Ann Coulter accusing liberals of treason or trying to retroactively defend and justify what McCarthy did. Honestly, I can´t imagine anything Ivins wrote that is at that level. Maybe if she tried to justify what Stalin did.
 
 But I presume responsible publishers wouldn´t continue to publish her books if they were so partisan that they amounted to little more than a political pamphlet. Anyways, I´m not going to defend Ivins any more other than to say I don´t agree that she´s one of the most dangerous persons behind a keyboard.

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:38 am

´As a registered Libertarian, I consider Molly Ivins to be one of the most dangerous people behind a keyboard in America today. She is stark, raving nuts with a huge agenda-based ax to grind and few suggestions for improvement other than "spend, spend, spend." ´
 
 There are a lot more dangerous folks than old Molly and they are actually doing the spending. They are called the United States government and these people just gave 87 billion dollars to Iraq and they continue to spend money both here and abroad without a thought to our growing budget deficit. Our government (with the lead of the Bush administration and the support of a lot of Democrats) is spending money we don´t have. You can´t blame welfare anymore and you can´t blame the pitance that went to the National Endowment for the Arts. You can blame the President for spending and the congress for rubber stamping the bills that come across their desks.
 
 Whether one agreed with the war in Iraq or Afganistan is now a moot point. Those regions have to be stabilized or the threat of more war and more terror both here and overseas will be a lot worse than anything we are looking at right now. But as a country we have some serious financial problems. Look at California, look at South Carolina. States are in some serious financial binds.
 
 I don´t see a presidential candidate out there who can really get us out of this mess. I suggest investing all your money in oil and energy, cause we are looking at 4 more years of oilmen in the White House.
 
 As for the most dangerous person in America, that´s easy. Karl Rove. He is not behind a keyboard and he is not behind a microphone. But he is behind every decision that comes out of the White House.
 
 His support of big tobacco alone will earn him a prime seat in hell, but the stuff he has done over the past 4 years is going to get him a personal escort into hell from Satan himself. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_mad.gif">

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:42 am

>>>On another board, I pointed out that Saddam´s capture does nothing to make our troops more safer or changes the security of Americans at home because Saddam never posed a threat -- didn´t have the means and didn´t have the inclination because he was largely defanged in the Gulf War.<<<
 
 WCO:
 
 I agree that Saddam´s capture does zero to make America safer. But I think it will have a small effect on the safety of American troops in Iraq because it may cause some insurgency to weaken, and the U.S. already has broken up one insurgency cell in Baghdad due to information gleaned after Saddam´s capture.
 
 Sadly, American soldiers still are at big risk in Iraq. But I think Saddam´s capture may have reduced that risk -- very, very slightly.
 
 As for home? We´re still at the same risk we were Saturday, before Saddam was captured.
 
 Take care,
 PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 11:46 am

Kevin:
 
 I agree that Karl Rove is a slimy little snake, driven to destroy lives and careers so his boss can win. He really is the Washington version of a Mob capo.
 
 But no one ever will convince me that anyone other than John Ashcroft is the most dangerous man in America. Ashcroft´s American vision seems to consist of secret police spying on every aspect of our lives, while Christianity is a state doctrine shoved down every citizen´s throat. I don´t want the government looking at any aspect of my life, and I don´t need the government to tell me to go to Mass on Sundays.
 
 Ashcroft has done more to destroy civil liberties in the last two years than arguably anyone has since World War II, when American citizens were held in jails just because they had Japanese ancestry.
 
 The day John Ashcroft is out of office is the day I do the jig. The day the Homeland Security Department is eliminated is the day I break-dance on cardboard in the streets. More bureaucracy to prop up failing existing bureaucracies. What a solution.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 16-12-2003 07:47 ]

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:30 pm

I´m not trying to politicize this. But the fact is this country has made a lot of horrible foreign policy decisions over the years. We´ve done our fair share of supporting dictators, letting human rights take a back seat to economic interests, all in the name of prosperity and security. Does that make America evil? No. I think we´re usually better than most in the way we conduct ourselves. International affairs are not always democratic, and sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to keep the peace.
 
 But we have undertaken plenty of actions for economic or politcal reasons. So it´s not unpatriotic for asking questions. It´s not unpatriotic to be skeptical. Skepticism is part of the American character. And I have a right, as a citizen of this country, to know why my government is doing things. I was told we went to war because Iraq was a direct threat to our security, CURRENTLY had WMDs, and had Al-Queda ties. Liberation had nothing to do with it BEFORE we started fighting. And when you read about how people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, etc., were gunning for Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War, well, it makes you think.
 
 I think Jackdog and every other soldier should be proud of what they did. They removed a horrible dictator from power. That is a great thing. Iraq will be a better place without Saddam. I don´t think anyone could say their sacrifice was in vain. And if the government had said, we owe it to Iraq to remove Hussein, I would have swallowed that much easier.
 
 But that´s not the reason, or at least the main reason, we were told we fought. I feel that the facts and the truth were twisted to scare the American people into supporting a war, and it just so happens that there was a positive outcome. But we have used that scare tactic before in actions that had horrible outcomes. That´s why I´m angry, that´s why I want an explanation, because I don´t want to see people getting killed or maimed for flawed reasons.
 
 Find the WMD or establish a *proven* link to Iraq and Al-Queda, and I´ll say the administration was right and shut my mouth. If the Atta memo is reliable, that certainly would change a lot of things. But if that connection isn´t proven, if the weapons or proof of weapons aren´t found, you´re goddamned right I want an explanation. I pay taxes, I vote, I´m entitled to know what went wrong and why we entered a war on unverifiable premieses.
 
 Okay, no mas for me on this subject.

Post by **Jared** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:23 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-15 21:50, pk500 wrote:
 Jared:
 
 I don´t get the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, for which Ivins writes. But the Syracuse paper -- which is liberal -- runs her once or twice per week, and all of her stuff is anti-Bush rhetoric cloaked in that folksy "I´m a Texas dame" bullshit.
 
 Again, she offers opinions on why Bush is so horrible but offers very few solutions. That´s easy criticism.
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 Well, I decided to write her most recent article and it is against Bush.....for his rollback in regulating mercury pollution. Basically now, mercury isn´t in the "hazardous pollutant" category where before it was...and mercury is bad bad bad for you (especially children). And then she explains why this is bad from a health perspective. True...no solution in this one; although I think it´s pretty obvious (bring back regulations on mercury pollution).
 
 BTW, if you read this, do you think that her "sourcing is mediocre". Again...there should be examples backing that up.
 
 The column before this is about loopholes that corporations use to avoid paying taxes, and how this is a BIG part of how corporations do business. Yes, no solution is offered....though again, I think it´s pretty obvious from the article (close the loopholes). And yes, it´s about taxes...but it´s basically saying that they should pay their fair share and they´re not.
 
 The column before that is about how she likes Howard Dean for being a fighting centrist and will support him because she thinks he can win. No explicit policy laid out here, but endorsing someone means you think they´re part of a solution to make things better.
 
 <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 Ivins HATES Bush, so how can any supposed work of non-fiction by her about Bush be considered objective and credible? Plus she´s a political, unabashedly liberal columnist, so how can anyone take any "reporting" that she does on conservatives even the slightest bit seriously?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 I don´t think you said this Paul...but it was an excerpt from one of your posts.
 
 http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columni ... 044874.htm
 
 Well, right here is an article about how she doesn´t hate Bush but thinks his policies are disastrous, and that´s why she criticizes him. And yes, she´s an unabashed "liberal". But you can´t just discount her writings because of that. Her stuff has to be examined for logic and truthfulness....if she doesn´t pass that litmus test, then fine. But stereotyping her (and not just her...people on both sides of the debate) as just a crazy liberal doesn´t work for me.
 
 (DISCLAIMER: I´m not a huge Molly Ivins fan, though I probably give her props for more things than you do, since you´re a Libertarian and I´m not. And I´m completely cool with that. But I really don´t like it when people get stereotyped based on general public opinion or one or two columns out of a million. It happened to Gore in 2000, Bush in 1992, and tons of other politicians/writers current and present.)

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:37 pm

Jared:
 
 I read that column about Ivins´ supposed lack of hatred for Bush, and it´s a huge cop-out to her critics. Why should a columnist have to devote an entire column to her reasons behind why she criticizes a subject?
 
 To get a few cheap laughs? To amuse herself? To continue her "legend" as "Will Rogers with an agenda" or "H.L. Mencken with a heart," as some publications have described her?
 
 Of course. That, and to keep her ego inflated. And to also try to put her above the fray of such lunatics like Coulter, who practice the political commentary of hate. Her whole schtick is that she´s a Southern dame from Texas, so she´s above the hatemongering in Washington yet she has the folksy touch of a Southern belle.
 
 Sorry, Molly, I´m not buying. Save your crap for saps who believe carnival barkers.
 
 That column was a total waste of space. I haven´t seen many other columnists devote space about why they criticize someone or also use that space to try and convince people that "it´s nothing personal; I just think the guy is a fool."
 
 And as for me criticizing Ivins based on one or two columns, I read her fairly regularly, at least once per week. Her writing is humorous because she CAN turn a phrase, and it´s also humorous because she whines, moans and b*tches incessantly with few solutions.
 
 She reminds me of many sports columnists in this country, including the incredibly overrated Rick Reilly: They write to impress themselves and their journalistic colleagues -- usually through vain stabs at humor -- just as much as they write to impress and inform their readers. Sad.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 16-12-2003 10:43 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:47 pm

Is anyone familiar with the work and advocacy of Bernard Lewis? He´s a renowned former Princeton scholar in the field of Middle Eastern studies.
 
 Lewis and some other scholars in the field are used by the neocons to give intellectual cover to their positions because they claim the threat to the US isn´t Al Qaeda or some international terrorist network but a certain Islamic ideology which some call Islamo-fascism.
 
 The claim is that this ideology doesn´t have a problem with US policies (like Bin Laden having a problem with US troops in Saudi Arabia or US policies regarding Israel) as much as the antithetical nature of Christian vs. Muslim, Modern vs. Antiquity, freedom/democracy vs. authoritarian. In other words, they are after us because they don´t like our civilization.
 
 So from the perpective of people like Daniel Pipes and Christopher Hitchens, the Iraq war is justified whether or not there were WMDs or whether there were links between Al Qaeda and Saddam. If Bush and the neocons had to "sell" the war by scaring the people with the prospect of terrorists unleashing WMDs on America, well the ends justify the means because these Islamo-fascists are planning to hit us with the big one, even though no "big one" has been found in Iraq.
 
 I don´t even think Bush knows how to pronounce "Islamo-fascism," let alone know what it´s about. But supposedly, in the week following 9/11, Bernard Lewis was at Camp David and was part of a faction (led by Wolfowitz) trying to convince Bush to hit Saddam.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:14 pm

>>>Christopher Hitchens<<<
 
 Ugh -- this guy annoys me to no end, on a personal level. I cringe whenever I see his disheveled mug on the tube. He seems like he´s drunk on the air, half of the time.
 
 Thanks for helping me to lose my lunchtime appetite, WCO. <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_smile.gif">
 
 Take care,
 PK

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:31 pm

Doesn´t Hitchen´s have a brother in England who is as far to the right as he is to the left?
 
 PK, you have a point about John Ashcroft.

RiverRat · Post by **RiverRat** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:47 pm

If you really believe that John Ashcroft is an evil maniac bent on national and/or world domination (a theory I don´t subscribe to), it doesn´t take much of a leap to see where all this might end up ...
 
 John Ashcroft vs. Hillary Clinton in 2008.
 
 Wouldn´t that be a boatload of fun?

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:12 pm

John Ashcroft vs. Hillary Clinton in 2008.
 
 Sounds like a Tim Burton movie <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:48 pm

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>
 On 2003-12-16 11:47, RiverRat wrote:
 If you really believe that John Ashcroft is an evil maniac bent on national and/or world domination (a theory I don´t subscribe to), it doesn´t take much of a leap to see where all this might end up ...
 
 John Ashcroft vs. Hillary Clinton in 2008.
 
 Wouldn´t that be a boatload of fun?
 </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
 
 That would be the political apocalypse. But it wouldn´t matter: I´m voting Libertarian anyways.
 
 But if forced to choose between Hillary and Ashcroft, I hate to admit I´d take Hillary, vomiting buckets while pulling the lever. All she wants to do is increase the size of government, not intrude it upon every facet of your daily life like Ashcroft.
 
 The lesser of two very big evils.
 
 Take care,
 PK

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 7:23 pm

"I´m voting Libertarian anyways"
 
 Is Harry Browne running again in 04?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 7:36 pm

BDunn:
 
 Browne has not declared any candidacy yet. Not sure if he will, considering he was the party´s nominee in 1996 and 2000.
 
 The declared candidates so far:
 
 http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/pr ... -2004.html
 
 Take care,
 PK