Javan said:

All I can say is that it is very sad that you place more trust in the minions of a psychotic dictator than the President of our own great country. Believe me, these people do not care about you any more than they care about their own people.

Saddam is posing a threat to other nations. Sabri practically admitted to terrorist support in this statement: "This policy has brought about disasters to the U.S.". What do you honestly think he is talking about? This Bush administration has brought about no immediate disaster to our country and is doing its best to protect us from any further harm.

Why should Bush step down? He has done nothing to embarrass himself. Don't even suggest impeachment. Somehow I have a feeling you stood up for an immoral Clinton through his impeachment trial (though I do not know that, but going by your political position…) and that you would not stand up for this honorable man who has done nothing.

I admit that there are other countries out there that probably have the same kind of problems as Iraq. But we can't rid the world of all it's evil all at once!

brian. said:

javan, i'm gonna keep this short and sweet:

the main reason bush should step down is this: he didn't fucking win the election. through a series of dubious counts and recounts, ballot doctoring, and a cointoss by the supreme court, he suckered his way into that post. as your brother can attest, i didn't vote for him and i have absolutely nothing positive to say about him or his "foreign policy."

m@ said:

two things:

1) it is *not* our place to "rid the world of … evil…". at best, it is the world community's place to do so. still, and as i told my gf tonight, there are so many moral ambiguities and implications that i *cannot* say for sure whether this war is warranted or not. i cannot say whether the ends (war) justify the means (disarmament and deconstruction of a very real threat to many lives). but this is beside the point. i'm not here to argue about the many things we and they have done to warrant our and their actions, beliefs, and feelings. just remember that *all* coins have *two* sides.

2) i do *not* trust Bush. not as far as i could throw him. i do not trust his cabinet or our government. and Clinton, while perhaps not a "moral" man, was an *intelligent* man, and he and his cabinet had what was a least a generally rational foreign policy. Clinton at least kept our allies on our side, which is something that Bush has repeatedly proved incapable of doing.

my greatest fear is that, after this is over, Bush won't know when to quit. sometimes action must be taken, sometimes it is the only recourse, but i'm afraid that Bush doesn't understand that it should be a last resort–that he'll continue to pursue our "enemies" in like manner, and that the entire world community (at least what's left that we haven't "liberated") will turn against us.

my greatest hope is that, now that war is inevitable (Bush obviously will not be deterred, so it becomes a moot point to argue), that action will be swift and precise, and that "collateral damage" will be kept (as they're promising) to a minimum, that we'll succeed in deposing Sadam, that we'll successfully establish a free Iraqi society, that WMD will be found (to at least save face for us in front of the world community), and that things will stop there. do it, finish it, let it go.

the threat of terrorism still needs to be addressed (does anyone remember bin Laden?), but through means other than conquering other countries.

m@ said:

ok. so that was kind of three or four things, but still.

brian. said:

amen, brother.

Javan said:

I am glad you think a man who "smoked marijuana but did not inhale" is an intelligent person. very intelligent.

And if Bush did not win the election, who did? And don't anyone forget, Gore was the one who instigated the recounts and probably doctored more ballots than Bush, so he is definately the "Sore Loser-man". Therefore, Bush DID win the election.

I do trust Bush. You see, he is not a radical on either side like some people. This means that he will keep open his eyes to all sides, and listen to everyone, unlike some people.

War is imminent. All we can do is pray for the fewest casualties as possible.

I look forward to a more peaceful world.

anonymous said:

Javan. STOP.

I'm getting tired of reading this bullshit. You're a cool kid, but you don't know what you're talking about.

brian. said:

I like how war is your idea of a peaceful world.

anyhowways, you want to point fingers at Clinton being a pothead? Bush is a cokehead alcoholic.

some sources for you to peruse:
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

now, seriously, i'd shut the fuck up about Clinton and his pot.

Javan said:

I am finsihed with this side of the blog. I am no longer wanted here, you will not listen to my opinions, I am wiser than you think.

m@ said:

well, i had this really long response for you, but decided against it.

suffice it to say, it's not that you're not wanted, and it's not that we're attacking you personally.

if you throw a piece of meat in the middle of a pack of dogs, they *will* tear it apart. if you come into the midst of this pack of liberals you should expect some response. if you throw out the bait, don't be surprised when there's a hit on the line.

m@ said:

now, to respond to your points.

yes, it would have been better if Clinton had just said "yes. i smoked marijuana once or twice." but still, at least he could make an unprepared speech without making up new words, misusing common ones, and generally making a fool of himself verbally.

as for the election, the whole thing was questionable. the final fight came down to a state where GW's brother was the governor and the Sec. Gen. was another Bush-ite? (or something, may not be entirely accurate, but the person directly in charge of the electoral process in the state *was* connected to the bush camp in some way). prevailing opinion is that bush *lost* the popular vote, then was finally appointed by the supreme court.

if you *do* trust bush, then you're lucky. those of us who don't are stuck with a great feeling of unease and fear. all we can do is hope for the best.

…

and brian, i think javan's point about "looking forward to a more peaceful world." was meant to refer to the world *after* the war, assuming that the goal is achieved–saddam deposed, terrorism stamped out. i don't really think my brother equates war and peace.

Javan said:

OK, I am going to break my word. I am back, I am sure, to your dismay.

Thank you Matthew, you interpreted my statement about peace correctly. I did not think that it could be taken any other way.

Now I will draw attention to the fact that the "evidence", better said "accusations", is highly unreliable. Try this link, I can hardly see how you missed it, brian…

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/index1.html

I will admit that the evidence against Bush for the DUI is probably true, I have even heard that before. At least him didn't lie, and that gives me even more reason to trust him.

I am not going to PROP the thing again, but notice that there are no backup sources in most of those articles referenced by Brian, especially the one about Bush and Crack. The author is obviously anti-Bush, giving him a reason to distort.

And I think I do remember the popular election, however, the Electoral College is still the key to determining who wins the election, I remind you, and Bush won it there.

Also, I suppose you all know that by now Bushs' foreign policy must be working a little bit better now, as there are more than 40 nations in the coalition…

BTW, anonymous, I absolutely DETEST your comment about me. I greatly appreciate your informing me that what I write about it bullshit and that I don't know what I am talking about… au contriare, mon ami. I think you forget that even though I have never been in the military, like Matthew, or been around as long as any of you, but that I am a living, thinking person that actually does know what I am talking about, but that I am in a bunch of liberals that will do, well, like Matthew said.

brian. said:

The last link in that list shows the actual police document of Bush's DUI arrest. I'd label it a lot higher on the truth scale than "probably."

Javan said:

you are "probably" right 🙂

m@ said:

just because there's no hard evidence to back up accusations of crack/cocaine use, don't forget how deep the Bush family is intertwined in the judicial/political scene and how much pull they have. this is another "baseless accusation" but i'd bet that either of the Sr. or Jr. Bush's wield enough influence to get any records of cocaine use "swept under the rug."

besides the possibility of cocaine use is only one minor aspect among the hundreds that make us wary of Bush.

and as for his foreign policy being "justified" by his "Coalition of the Willing"… i'd call the "willing" part a little questionable considering Afghanistan is included on the list. In fact, i'd say that contributes to making his whole coalition notion a bit farcical. sure, we've got britain, and promises of *defensive* support from some other countries, but other than that the rest of the list is pretty… weak, really. we'll still have to foot for 98% of this total war bill on our own.

Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's further in debt we go!

oh, and finally, regarding your election comments… i know we've discussed my opinion on the whole electoral college thing before, but since you brought it up. 😉

the point you made is exactly the point i would make. if this is a govt. "of the people, for the people", then why does the people's choice not matter? why can a select group of individuals *override* the will of the people?

the technology is there to accurately, quickly, and securely (limiting vote fraud) tally the vote of every single member of our nation. so why do we hang onto the outdate Electoral College process that was implemented when horseback courier was the fastest way to get voting results from one place to another? it doesn't make sense to me. but, this whole electoral college debate is probably best saved for another time.

Javan said:

I would say that most Arabic nations dislike Saddam, as his own people hate him. No nations are forced to join the coalition, I would say they are all willing.

There are so many accusations against public officials. Every one of 'em. Most of them are probably not true.

Yes, this is an expensive war, but it is being paid for by a reduce in tax cuts.

Now, I never did say I agreed with the Electoral college. The original purpose of the college was to take the total power of election out of the hands of the uneducated masses and give it to an educated group elected by the public. So, in some ways, it is still needed, but in some ways I do not agree with it.

My point on this, however, is the fact that our opinion at this point in time (on that subject) does *not* matter, because the Electoral college is the *law*. Bush won the election by the college, so we need not waste our breath on it, but rather on the next election.

The college, in my opinion, did us a great favor last election, but whether it is needed or not is another subject.

m@ said:

yes, unfortunately, just eliminating the electoral college is not the answer. more things need to be taken into account. but at the very least the electoral process needs to be seriously redesigned.

and as for the reduction in tax cuts "to pay for the war", thank god for checks & balances, and thank god some of our elected leaders still have enough sense to at least attempt to stop the constant exponential growth of our national deficit (which was, i might point out, nearly eliminated under Clinton's administration).

also, don't be lead into the trap of thinking that even *most* Arabs dislike Saddam. I'm sure there is a large percentage of the Arab world that doesn't like him, but probably there are many who see him as a strong leader, and who are (as evidenced by the "stiff resistance") quite loyal to him.

whether the electoral college really did us a "great favor" or a "great disservice" will be told by history, not by you or i.