Six: This may be true. Bush may be theoretically correct that invading Iraq and instituting a democracy there is one valid -- or even the best -- way to protect the US from terrist attacks. However, it may also be true that this attempt cannot succeed amid the political climate. If true, Tom and Nadir will have proved themselves correct by fulfilling their own prophesy. Or, we might say, Bush failed by failing to successfully counter the Tom and Nadir hysteria.
Sounds like to really wire things up and sort out Iraq, Tom and Nadir need a visit from Homeland Security. Why imprison a bunch of Syrian cab drivers at Gto. when you can round up and silence the real culprits?
Because nobody would consider such a thing. You are creating a straw man here, Tom. Who has ever suggested a crack down on loud, angry dissent? Some of us war supporters have requested that the anti-war people pipe-down, as the protests provide encouragement for the tyrants... some even as angrilly and as stridently as Nadir has requested people not to lampoon mohammad. I have not made such a request. I have instead stated that Bush should have accounted for you guys in his actions, and that indeed due to such devoted leftist shrieking, it may be impossible for such a plan to work.
But nobody has suggested that fedl officials intimidate people like you and Nadir into zipping your lips, and more importantly, nobody has shown that this is happening.
As for those cab drivers in gitmo, you assume that gitmo comprises an indescrimate dragnet of muslims, and that the US military action amounts to wholesale, indescriminate destruction and intimidation of Iraqis and Afgahnis. I do not. However, I am sorry to say that Bush has not adopted what I think is the best plan: forgiveness even for murderers in war time, and treatment of prisoners the way you would want your troops treated, with the assumption that some of the prisoners are innocent, that the harsh treatment of innocent prisoners creates a serious military problem, and that the nice treatment of guilty prisoners creates either no problem and maybe even a benefit.
It's a joke, fellas. Theme of which: the right hates the state, but loves the state police. (Think that unspeakable "hero," Guiliani.) And not so secretly thinks the war machine would run a little smoother if those damned dissidents could be taken care of. Quietly. Under cover of night.
Tom, you claim to be joking, but you seriously believe that rightists have some thought or hope of secret police silencing you peaceniks. You're the one imagining here, fella.
But I agree with you that right's disdain for the state has some serious contradictions. However, I see zero evidence that the state's response to international terrorism has resulted in wonton state police harrassment of Americans, including the "warrentless wiretaps", which appear to me to involve only phone calls between people in America with people in nations with large numbers of declared terrorists.
I can't imagine Abe Lincoln not monitoring Morse codes between Union and Confederate states, or FDR not monitoring phone calls and mail between Americans and people in Germany and Japan. What is new here? I do think that an independant (non-executive) body of people should monitor these NSA wiretaps, and confirm that they comply with Bush's description of them.
5 comments:
Six: This may be true. Bush may be theoretically correct that invading Iraq and instituting a democracy there is one valid -- or even the best -- way to protect the US from terrist attacks. However, it may also be true that this attempt cannot succeed amid the political climate. If true, Tom and Nadir will have proved themselves correct by fulfilling their own prophesy. Or, we might say, Bush failed by failing to successfully counter the Tom and Nadir hysteria.
Sounds like to really wire things up and sort out Iraq, Tom and Nadir need a visit from Homeland Security. Why imprison a bunch of Syrian cab drivers at Gto. when you can round up and silence the real culprits?
Because nobody would consider such a thing. You are creating a straw man here, Tom. Who has ever suggested a crack down on loud, angry dissent? Some of us war supporters have requested that the anti-war people pipe-down, as the protests provide encouragement for the tyrants... some even as angrilly and as stridently as Nadir has requested people not to lampoon mohammad. I have not made such a request. I have instead stated that Bush should have accounted for you guys in his actions, and that indeed due to such devoted leftist shrieking, it may be impossible for such a plan to work.
But nobody has suggested that fedl officials intimidate people like you and Nadir into zipping your lips, and more importantly, nobody has shown that this is happening.
As for those cab drivers in gitmo, you assume that gitmo comprises an indescrimate dragnet of muslims, and that the US military action amounts to wholesale, indescriminate destruction and intimidation of Iraqis and Afgahnis. I do not. However, I am sorry to say that Bush has not adopted what I think is the best plan: forgiveness even for murderers in war time, and treatment of prisoners the way you would want your troops treated, with the assumption that some of the prisoners are innocent, that the harsh treatment of innocent prisoners creates a serious military problem, and that the nice treatment of guilty prisoners creates either no problem and maybe even a benefit.
It's a joke, fellas. Theme of which: the right hates the state, but loves the state police. (Think that unspeakable "hero," Guiliani.) And not so secretly thinks the war machine would run a little smoother if those damned dissidents could be taken care of. Quietly. Under cover of night.
Tom, you claim to be joking, but you seriously believe that rightists have some thought or hope of secret police silencing you peaceniks. You're the one imagining here, fella.
But I agree with you that right's disdain for the state has some serious contradictions. However, I see zero evidence that the state's response to international terrorism has resulted in wonton state police harrassment of Americans, including the "warrentless wiretaps", which appear to me to involve only phone calls between people in America with people in nations with large numbers of declared terrorists.
I can't imagine Abe Lincoln not monitoring Morse codes between Union and Confederate states, or FDR not monitoring phone calls and mail between Americans and people in Germany and Japan. What is new here? I do think that an independant (non-executive) body of people should monitor these NSA wiretaps, and confirm that they comply with Bush's description of them.
Post a Comment