Dan Minette wrote > > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over > > >the starving Koreans kiddies etc... > > > > What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already > mentioned > > this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any > answer > > but > > Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself "what are the differences > between > > N. Korea and Iraq?" "Is there any difference in the estimated number > of > > civilian casualties in each war?" > > > > >I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief > >that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is > >the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational > >one at that. I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things, > >or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he > >and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. > > But, that's not what you wrote. With all due respect, if you want a > debate > on the issue, dragging out old clich�s isn't helpful. Think about it. > AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support > of > Bush. Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections. > I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the > Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who > would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the > office.) I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive. I > think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years > shows criminal incompetence. > > Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post because I think to > myself > "he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad." > > Dan M. > Dan, I am unable to find what I wrote that you are referring to. I don't actually recall saying Bush is a bad boy, or anything like it. I said I did not like what he had done (or more how he had done it). I said that I doubted that the well being of the Iraqi people was uppermost in his mind when he decided to invade Iraq. In neither of those cases did I suggest he was bad. I can happily disagree with GWB without needing to consider him bad. What I was reacting too, and what prompted my colorful phrasing was the contention that GWB invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people. It was being suggested that this was maybe the _real_ reason behind the invasion (Most of the others having run out of any relevance long ago) and that that was made clear at the time, that he and the government put this forward in such a way that it had some parity with the issue of WMD. My memory is not perfect, but it ain't that bad. Frankly, the whole idea is total revisionist bollocks. He was (and as President of the USA this is his job, so it's not insulting to suggest it I hope) acting in what he saw as the best interests of the United States. And, no, I don't think that makes him bad. Your point about old clich�s is an interesting one. I am sorely tired of being fed similar things, day after day, lies basically, dressed up often in some slighty funkier post-clich� form, by my and other governments et al. Groupthink is not my scene. If others wish to paint the invasion of Iraq as some noble 'Save the Iraqi kiddies from Evil' thing then fine, they can go right ahead. I would call them naive, but if that's what they want, fine. I am sorry that I overreact to such concepts as the idea that I should be ashamed of myself for having misgivings about the war, or that I am somehow complicit in the torturing of Iraqi children because of these misgivings, by using a few tired old clich�'s. I guess its cos I am sometimes speechless at the hypocrisy (not specifically of those here, don't get me wrong) of the world, and how easily we forget because it suits us. We invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi children from Saddam. Yea. Right. Sure. We invaded Iraq because we saw a chance to get away with it, on the back of 9/11, and because it suited our long term strategic interests. (*Note - long term strategic interests involve many things, including even making life a little better for people. And long term strategic interests are not, of themselves, a bad thing). I can deal with that, I don't need it dressed up as some noble humanitarian act to be able to sleep at nights. To pretend that would be a lie, and there have enough of them already. Andrew _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
