--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Finally, I respectfully request that you withdraw > the statement that you > think I'm "okay with Saddam Hussein." > > -- > Doug
Ahh, I think I finally got through. OK. I do, but maybe now I've made my point. It's all about motives, motives, motives. I cannot, of course, prove that Bush has no connections to Saudi money. That is literally impossible. What I _can_ prove is that if he does, they sure haven't gotten what they paid for. And I have done that. If connections to Saudi money is demonstrated by _actions_, then John Kerry must have those connections. Because the one thing the Saudis _never_ wanted was the liberation of Iraq, and he would never have done it. Now, I don't think he has any. But, Doug, everything about what you say on the list says exactly what you object to. You're like Howard Dean, who thought September 11th was upsetting but George Bush was enraging. Between Hussein and Bush, which one is your enemy? It sure looks to me like it's your fellow American, because you attach a whole lot more passion to attacking him. What message are you sending by that? If it's not what you truly believe - and I don't think it is, you've defended our country once, which makes you a hell of a lot different from most people who agree with you (see such examples on the list) - why write and talk the way you do? It's never about whether anything was a good idea or not. I can engage on that level. But that's not what I hear. It's all about motives. Motives, motives, motives. It's Saudi money - that's the most recent one. Or it's oil. Or frat boys, for our distinguished namesake. What it never is, apparently, is people who honestly disagree with you. Why is it so hard to accept that other people might actually have a different vision of how to go about things in the world? The difference between useful public discourse and what we get from the Bush-haters is the difference between "this is happening because people have made a wrong decision" and "this is happening because everyone who disagrees with me is corrupt." The Saudi flights, for example. I did read the article, and it's quite clear that Clarke had the authority to stop the flights had he chosen to do so. He didn't. Why not? Now, about motives. Clarke has a clear and obvious financial and political motive for everything that he's saying. Controversy increases book sales. Hey hey, he's got controversy. Everyone in Washington knows that Clarke wanted to be Homeland Security Director and didn't get the job. Clarke praises in his book those Presidents who promoted him, and attacks those who didn't, with absolute uniformity. That's odd, don't you think? So his motives, it seems to me, are at least as suspect as anyone in the Administration. _But_, that is an argument not worth making, except on those (very rare) instances when his credibility is the key to a factual dispute. Everyone has motives that can be thought of as suspect, if you are inclined to do that. If you want to engage on ideas and policies, do that. If you want to tell me that President Bush did what he did for Saudi money, I have no desire to hear someone I respect suggest that reasonable actions that happen to differ from his are the product of corruption or whatever. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
