Home > Science, World Events > Why do they hate America?

Why do they hate America?

November 18th, 2005

In the leadup to the Iraq war, we were repeatedly told that anyone who disagreed with the rush to war, or criticised the Bush Administration, was “anti-American”. It now appears that the majority of Americans are anti-American. A string of polls has shown that most Americans now realise that Bush and his Administration lied to get them into the war and that it was a mistake to go to war. The latest, reported in the NYT is this one from the Pew Research Centre.

It has a lot of interesting statistics on the views of Americans in general, and various elite groups. The truly striking figure is Bush’s approval ranking among leading scientists and engineers, drawn from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. In Aug 2001, it was 30 per cent – not strong but not negligible either. In Oct 2005, it’s fallen to 6 per cent, with 87 per cent disapproving. I’d guess that the scientists in the sample are more hostile than the engineers (though, obviously, the engineers must be pretty hostile). Looking around science-oriented blogs and websites, I’d say that the attitude of Academy members is pretty representative of scientists in general. Anytime you find a favourable remark about Bush you can count on it that the site is an astroturf operation like Flack Central Station or the aptly-named Junk Science.

Scientists and engineers are not generally seen as a highly political group, but they can recognise enemies when they see them, and no government in US history has been more anti-science than this one.

Update: In the comments thread at CT and elsewhere, it’s been denied that anyone ever asserted that opposition to the war was anti-American. This post from Media Matters gives a number of instances, and there are more in the CT comments thread. Others, like Instapundit, preferred objectively pro-Saddam

Categories: Science, World Events Tags:
  1. Kieran Bennett
    November 18th, 2005 at 16:10 | #1

    Wait until he gets the mathematicians going. The bible was enough to warrent moves to ban gay marrige, logically the born again christian president will soon move to define pi as 3!

  2. Katz
    November 18th, 2005 at 16:52 | #2

    These, sensible, realistic and rational Americans are the true patriots. I ask all who believe that the Bush Clique has made life difficult for the world, imagine how difficult it must be to live next door to them and their crazed loyalists.

    The Bush Clique in the wake of 9/11 hijacked large parts of the American Constitution, perpetrated extraordinary rendition upon it and tortured it into something quite unrecognisable. Now the American people are recovering their senses. They are demanding that the Bush Clique show some respect for constitutional processes and some acknowledgment of the plain truth.

    The Republican Party, more commited to survival than to any particular set of policies or principles, is about now beginning to brace itself for the struggle to pry the Party away from the death-grip of the Bushites. This is likely to be a very grisly process.

    When Bush won the 2004 election I opined that this victory represented the high-water mark of the Radical right this time round. I see no reason to change my opinion on this.

    Go America! I’m on your side.

  3. gordon
    November 18th, 2005 at 16:53 | #3

    The Independent newspaper has a major article on the Pentagon’s admission that white phosphorus shells were used in Fallujah a year ago.

  4. gordon
    November 18th, 2005 at 17:08 | #4

    In a post headed “Worse Than You Can Imagine” dated 17/11/05, Brad DeLong’s weblog (http://delong.typepad.com/) has a post beginning (after a brief intro):

    ‘A North Carolina man who was charged yesterday with accepting kickbacks and bribes as a comptroller and financial officer for the American occupation authority in Iraq was hired despite having served prison time for felony fraud in the 1990′s. The job gave the man, Robert J. Stein, control over $82 million in cash earmarked for Iraqi rebuilding projects.

    ‘Along with a web of other conspirators who have not yet been named, Mr. Stein and his wife received “bribes, kickbacks and gratuities amounting to at least $200,000 per month” to steer lucrative construction contracts to companies run by another American, Philip H. Bloom, an affidavit outlining the criminal complaint says. …’

  5. November 18th, 2005 at 17:11 | #5

    Isn’t it amazing that the Iraq government is suggesting we leave? Having put all the effort in, they want to see our boys back home. What an opportunity to ‘piss-off’,but John and Alex think, this, is still not the time to “cut and run”.

    Suspect, we will be the last to leave. Were there any stats about ‘linguist academics’, who i suspect would have picked up the bullshit from the very beginning? ie, when George first opened his mouth.

  6. observa
    November 18th, 2005 at 17:24 | #6

    Why? Apparently it’s inevitable
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GK15Aa01.html

  7. R J Stove
    November 18th, 2005 at 18:03 | #7

    Chris (Lord) Patten, the former Tory Cabinet Minister and governor of Hong Kong, raised the very topic of “anti-Americanism” in an interesting speech he gave to the Australian Institute of International Affairs here in Melbourne last Tuesday.

    There is a man who (like myself in this respect, but of course with incomparably more talent and influence) is not only pro-American but has lived, breathed, eaten, slept, and dreamt American culture ever since his early 20s. (Back then, as he himself said, very few British politicians were doing so except Roy Jenkins.) So Lord Patten exhibited in his speech a sense of genuine hurt, as well as astonishment, that the dopier sort of neocon now calls him “anti-American”.

    Oddly enough I’ve never met any American in Australia who’s used the epithet. Nor have I been the victim of it myself on any of the numerous occasions I’ve visited the States. No, only Terror Australis’ native-born dingalings have ever hurled it – a few times – at me.

  8. Terje Petersen
    November 18th, 2005 at 19:56 | #8

    I went to America for the first time in my life this year. I must say I loved it. I was struck by the natural beauty of the place. And I found the vast remote emptyness of big expanses very surprising. Drive from LA into the mountains and the city just disappears into desert. I have been to remote stretches in the Northern Territory and as such I had naively felt that we had a monopoly on remote places. Its just not so.

    I fell in love with Zion national park. And Americans at home are as open, hospitable and friendly as you will find people anywhere. And industrious to boot. If I wasn’t happily Australian I would be happily American.

  9. November 18th, 2005 at 20:13 | #9

    Why do they hate America? Because they’re Democrats:

    “As in past America’s Place in the World surveys, the sample of opinion leaders includes more Democrats than Republicans or independents. Perhaps not surprisingly, the biggest decline in Bush’s approval rating since August 2001 has come among scientists and engineers – the most heavily Democratic group.”

    “By contrast, influential groups that include relatively high percentages of Republicans, such as military leaders, have a more positive view of Bush’s job performance. The military leaders also are more optimistic about prospects for success in Iraq than are members of other groups.”

  10. jquiggin
    November 18th, 2005 at 20:28 | #10

    I was hoping that someone would come along to restate the view that any American who opposes Bush is a traitor.

    A minor correction, though, JF. If you look at the polling data, you’ll find that Independents mostly agree with Democrats as regards Bush’s lies and on their evaluation of his performance. So, you should have written

    “Bcause they’re not Republicans”

    Other than that, 10 out of 10.

  11. Andrew Reynolds
    November 18th, 2005 at 20:43 | #11

    I thought that looked like a fishing expedition, PrQ, but that would be like saying that if you oppose Howard you are a traitor. My problem would be that this would make me a traitor at times and a patriot at others. Too confusing.

  12. SJ
    November 18th, 2005 at 20:44 | #12

    J F Beck:

    Young-earth creationism, intelligent design, “no global warming” are all part of the Republican platform, for some reason. There is non-zero number of scientists who believe such things, but it’s hardly surprising that the overwhelming majority of US scientists reject such crap and don’t identify themselves as Republicans.

    That’s the reality based community for you.

  13. Dave Ricardo
    November 18th, 2005 at 21:11 | #13

    It’s not just the Democrats who are traitors. Even George Will, who is to conservative commentary what Shane Warne is to leg spin bowling, has jumped off Bush.

    The self-hating American traitors should be sent to Guantanamo Bay, forthwith.

  14. November 18th, 2005 at 21:14 | #14

    Well at least our 70 year old PM remains resolutely Pro-American. To prove it he has agreed to let them bomb us!

  15. observa
    November 18th, 2005 at 22:48 | #15

    Well has the Spengler article I linked to got any truth to it?(I don’t know him/her? from a bar of soap but he seems like a good fit with the Asia Times general flavour) Or is anti-Americanism simply tall poppy syndrome? Tasmanians and mainlanders, Kiwis and Aussies and so forth. OTOH, since the fall of the Berlin Wall have leftists just got more sulky over time at picking losers and now increasingly take their frustrations out on a big winner? A mixture perhaps?

  16. November 18th, 2005 at 23:15 | #16

    Settle kiddies. JQ overstated the whole speaking out against Bush gets one painted as anti-American scenario. My comment was simply a continuation of JQ’s hyperbolic premise.

    Certainly there are America-hating elements with the American left but I don’t really see this as a significant problem, which is why I’ve written little to nothing about it.

  17. brian
    November 19th, 2005 at 00:46 | #17

    In an interview in “The Age ” Chris Patten made no effort to conceal his distaste for Cheney,whom he called “conspiratorial” ,and “very easy to dislike” and also “the Honorary Patron on the Washington branch of the Israel-Likud party “..leaving no doubt of his dislike of Bush Mid-east policies in general.

  18. November 19th, 2005 at 02:18 | #18

    Anecdotal, but the US Mid-Atlantic office I worked in a couple of years ago when all this happened was largely populated by scientists and engineers. The majority were highly critical of Bush, to the point that several lifelong American Republican Party voters, changed their vote. One of my mates, an engineer who is what would be called the Republican base prior to 2002, has called him the worst president ever.

    The Bush administration has been hostile to empiricism. Most of the cabinet members and secretaries which have left or been thrown out were empiricists – starting with Whitman and O’Neill. There is only room for ideologues in the Bush Administration. IMHO this goes directly against science and engineering culture.

  19. Tony Healy
    November 19th, 2005 at 06:49 | #19

    John, a significant cause of the hostility from engineers is due to that constituency’s feeling of betrayal on offshoring and excessive technical immigration. Your phrase: “they can recognise enemies when they see them,” captures the response.

    The US arm of the prestigious IEEE has formal policy positions opposing Bush policy in these areas. It says: “The offshoring of high wage jobs from the United States to overseas locations is currently contributing to unprecedented levels of unemployment among American electrical, electronics and computer engineers. Offshoring also poses a very serious, long term challenge to the nation’s leadership in technology and innovation, its economic prosperity, and its military and homeland security.”

    It also supports restrictions on temporary worker immigration and stronger workforce protections.

  20. Paul Arrighi
    November 19th, 2005 at 07:36 | #20

    I tend to find it rather ironic that Bin Laden and 9/11 truely united the U.S.A. through their disgusting actions. Since then Bush has continually found ways to divide the country.

  21. Simon Moffitt
    November 19th, 2005 at 08:30 | #21

    Excuse my naivety but my take is that this is mainly the fruits of the neo-cons hijacking Republican conservatism turning what was often inept short term foreign policy into incompetent and arrogant stupidity. I would assume that Rove isn’t a neo-con just a savvy political player, if so why would he let Bush get so entrenched with these gung-ho ideologues?

  22. Terje Petersen
    November 19th, 2005 at 11:04 | #22

    “Why do they hate Iran?”

    I have never been to Iran. Art and History aside I am pretty sure I would hate it. I find the notion of theocracy really outrageous.

    I am inclined to be sympathetic towards the thesis of Robert Baer who thinks Iran has been waging a silent war against the USA since 1979. I think that Bush invaded the wrong country. Iraq as a mostly secular state was not a major sourse of Islamic terrorism. Reagan was probably right to back Iraq in the war with Iran. And we should keep an eye on the Saudi Arabia also.

    Robert Baers book “See no Evil” is a compelling read.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baer#Articles

  23. Ernestine Gross
    November 19th, 2005 at 12:13 | #23

    observa,

    Re Spengler article: It totally misses the point that adults don’t need leaders and stereotyping is no longer fashionable.

  24. Katz
    November 19th, 2005 at 15:19 | #24

    “I would assume that Rove isn’t a neo-con just a savvy political player, if so why would he let Bush get so entrenched with these gung-ho ideologues?”

    It’s an interesting question, Simon.

    A parallel may be seen in the way in which briefly, crucially and disastrously, G. Gordon Liddy was able to convince John Mitchell that Operation Gemstone was a worthwhile project for CREEP to fund. It had no identifiable benefit commensurate with any money or resources expended on it. Yet support for it came to be seen as support for the President’s most heart-felt desires. And on that basis Watergate and all the other lunacy went forward.

    Similarly, it seems, Dick Cheney played the G. Gordon Liddy role in a rather more direct way in convincing Bush himself that his own previoiusly unacknowledged deepest desires lay in the direction of an invasion of Iraq. I really do believe that Bush thought that Iraqi oil would pay for it as well.

    Woodward’s book on the decision for war indicates just how perfunctory was any discussion in the White House about the issues necessarily consequent upon invasion, such as occupation and nation-building after military victory.

    The famous Downing Street Memos also provide a British perspective on their surprise about lack of planning.

    Moreover, British ambassor Sir Christopher Meyers in his memoir shows how prominent was Cheney in pre-war discussions with the British.

    And finally and crucially to the gathering firestorm in DC over the decision for war, the stream of intelligence justifying invasion was thoroughly contaminated by Cheney’s and Rumsfelds Office of Special Plans redaction of CIA material. both Bush and the Congress were reading the same intelligence — Cheney’s lies.

  25. November 19th, 2005 at 15:34 | #25

    Well, any American who supports US independence is clearly a traitor ipso facto, and furthermore in favour of terrorism against supporters of the legitimate regime.

  26. Ian Gould
    November 19th, 2005 at 17:05 | #26

    “The majority were highly critical of Bush, to the point that several lifelong American Republican Party voters, changed their vote. One of my mates, an engineer who is what would be called the Republican base prior to 2002, has called him the worst president ever.”

    At this point, George Bush ahs succeeded in alientating not only liberals and moderates but also a large part of his base.

    It’s interesting that his right-wing critics have exactly the opposite complaints to his liberal critics – he has’t been sufficiently vigorous in pursuing the war on terror, hasn’t been radical enough in his domestic agenda and hasn’t appointed enough conservatives to the bench.

    The universality of the condemnation and the range of justificatiosn make me think that the rejection of Bush by the Ameircan public is mroe abotu emotional factors than it is about reasoned politics.

  27. Ian Gould
    November 19th, 2005 at 17:08 | #27

    “I would assume that Rove isn’t a neo-con just a savvy political player, if so why would he let Bush get so entrenched with these gung-ho ideologues?”

    Well it was the widely ridiculed (in advance) “energise your base” strategy that one Bush re-election.

  28. snuh
    November 19th, 2005 at 18:00 | #28

    just by the by, but have you ever noticed how many al qaeda-linked terrorists are engineers? it’s bewildering: khalid shaikh mohammed, ramzi yousef, mohammed atta, ziad jarrah, ahmed al-ghamdi, marwan al-shehhi, said bahaji, zacarias moussaoui and mohammed sadeek odeh all had training in at least one field of engineering. a quarter of the 9-11 bombers were engineers. the big cheese himself, osama, graduated from uni in 1979 with a degree in civil engineering.

    something to think about, especially given the [usually correct] perception that “Scientists and engineers are not generally seen as a highly political group”.

  29. Alan
    November 19th, 2005 at 18:04 | #29

    Another reason engineers and scientists scorn the Bush government can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary, definition A.1.a of the word “ignorant”: Destitute of knowledge, either in general or with respect to a particular fact or subject; unknowing, uninformed, unlearned.

    Ignorance is astonishingly widespread in the USA. I could, no doubt, start a flame war of stories about ignorant citizens of the USA, such as a professor of modern history from a mid-Western university, whom I met in 1978, who did not know that Australia had taken part in the Vietnam War. In the Bush government we find not only ignorance of history, science and geography but an adolescent refusal to concede that these include anything non-obvious but worth knowing.

    Pity, really, as my experience, like that of Terje, has been that they are generous, friendly and industrious.

  30. Roberto
    November 19th, 2005 at 19:16 | #30

    There are heaps of reasons to hate America, especially if you take into account what one key critic and opponent suggests, see http://smh.com.au/news/world/bin-laden-without-the-filters/2005/11/17/1132016927094.html

  31. SJ
    November 19th, 2005 at 21:51 | #31

    Roberto:

    The fact that Bin Laden points out stuff e.g. that the US likes to invade places and kill people doesn’t mean that either:

    a) the US doesn’t actually do this stuff, or

    b) the US should continue to do this stuff simply because Bin Laden objects to it.

    When you invade countries and kill people, a whole lot of people will object. Maybe enough to start another round of terrorist attacks. E.g. the London Undergound. Duh.

  32. Steve Munn
    November 19th, 2005 at 22:32 | #32

    Snuh says:- “just by the by, but have you ever noticed how many al qaeda-linked terrorists are engineers? it’s bewildering: khalid shaikh mohammed, ramzi yousef, mohammed atta, ziad jarrah, ahmed al-ghamdi, marwan al-shehhi, said bahaji, zacarias moussaoui and mohammed sadeek odeh all had training in at least one field of engineering”

    Yes, I have noticed this Snuh. And I also note how few have done tertiary humanities and social sciences type courses. Maybe a more well-rounded liberal education, as opposed to a rigid specialist edication, would help innoculate those who are susceptible to terrorism.

  33. Jim
    November 19th, 2005 at 23:11 | #33

    In the leadup to the Iraq war, we were repeatedly told that anyone who disagreed with the rush to war, or criticised the Bush Administration, was “anti-American�.

    Funny , my recollection was that anyone who agreed with the US/Australian/British etc etc , methodical , reasoned and well argued argument for the liberation of Iraq or supported the Bush Administration for it’s determination to do so , was repeatedly pertrayed as a “suckhole” or a supporter of American imperialism etc.

    I wonder what our grandchildren will think?

  34. Katz
    November 20th, 2005 at 00:12 | #34

    “Funny , my recollection was that anyone who agreed with the US/Australian/British etc etc , methodical , reasoned and well argued argument for the liberation of Iraq…”

    Just to clarify Jim. You ARE talking about the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

  35. Panther
    November 20th, 2005 at 05:33 | #35

    The iraq war support it or disagree with it, the issue has been extremely blurred around one man and his supposive “clique” who have somehow garnered such frothing condemnation in intellectual circles, in which… might i suggest, that it is only because he is not one of them? For that matter, neither am i! I suppose that signifies me as certifiably stupid right?!

    To be clear, i am a firm bush supporter, period! But, i do recognize ones God given right to disagree with him or me, period! I do not like the constant character assasinations constantly being played out by both sides against those of opposing views, and only wish we can somehow develope the ability for critical reasoning without feeling the need to politicize every single issue of historical significance, and then categorize them into tiny little details and then think we are so smart by calling them soundbites, if that is possible!?

    If Mr. Bush lied to us, then so did the rest of the world ‘s intelligence communities. Or, if Mr. Kerry or any other democrats are so anti-american & unpatriotic, then i suppose the 50+ million who voted for him are too, which would be just as ignorant as the statement that “Bush lied, people died”! Ignorancies can and does work both ways.

    It’s been quite some time since i’ve seen such a bunch of non-issues as these, take center stage and then be presented to me as if it really reflects the reality of the current enviroment, in todays much different era of unstability.

  36. richard mcenroe
    November 20th, 2005 at 05:49 | #36

    400-3. boys. The Democrats don’t even have the courage of their own rhetoric.

    So who gives a damn if these impotent poseurs are patriotic or not.

  37. rog
    November 20th, 2005 at 05:52 | #37

    With a 400-3 Senate vote to not pull out of Iraq this GWB “split” is pure hyperbole.

    Those that hate the US are just haters.

  38. Terje Petersen
    November 20th, 2005 at 06:31 | #38

    Do we know the names and motives of the three?

  39. Roberto
    November 20th, 2005 at 07:16 | #39

    Well, perhaps not all is lost. This interesting story points to the success of Arab-Americans (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2781) and the point is clear that: “if cultural impediments are behind the Arab world’s disappointing performance, what explains Arab Americans’ incredible success? The answer, of course, is opportunities and institutions. Arabs in the United States have access to ample opportunities to prosper and can rely on powerful institutions to protect their civil, political, and economic rights to do so. Indeed, the census data show that Arab ancestry mixed with markets and meritocracy creates a potent fuel for success.”

    And further on: “(Arab) leaders should be ashamed when they see their emigrants prospering in the United States while their own people are miserable. ”

    All this on the back of: “Whereas 24 percent of Americans hold college degrees, 41 percent of Arab Americans are college graduates. The median income for an Arab family living in the United States is $52,300—4.6 percent higher than other American families—and more than half of all Arab Americans own their home. Forty-two percent of people of Arab descent in the United States work as managers or professionals, while the same is true for only 34 percent of the general U.S. population. For many, this success has come on quickly”

    Yep, America is a shocking country to live in. I guess it explains why people are in such a rush to migrate there? How long is the entry cue to get into Iran or Syria etc etc

  40. Ernestine Gross
    November 20th, 2005 at 09:26 | #40

    Markets and trading (local and international) have been part of the Arab culture for a long time. Moreover, it seems to me those who have traded in the markets in North Africa (bazaars), where prices are negotiated, would have an advantage in negotiating individual work contracts over those who were brought up in a type of market economy where haggling was frowned upon.

    The trouble with the argument in Roberto’s post is that there may be more than one notion of ‘success’ in the world and it seems to me the ‘big cheeses’ (to borrow a term from snuh) in the world try to convince the ‘little cheeses’ that their notion of ‘success’ is the right one. And, it seems, the little cheeses don’t like the methods used by the ‘big cheeses’.

  41. avaroo
    November 20th, 2005 at 11:31 | #41

    The Media Matters link hardly proves that anyone was “repeatedly told anyone who disagreed” with the war was anti-American. The link basically shows one person, Ollie North saying that one other person, John Kerry, was anti-American. And North makes it clear that Kerry has taken several anti-American positions, his comment isn’t even limited to the Iraq war issue. Unfortunately, the dems (and I’m an independent, not a dem or repub) are now using the same smoke and mirrors with the “unpatriotic” label that they are trying to hang on various people who haven’t even used the term to describe anyone else.

  42. avaroo
    November 20th, 2005 at 11:39 | #42

    Terje Peterson, your comment that “Bush invaded the wrong country” is quite interesting. With no UN resolutions demanding that Iran take any specific action, how would you have justified such an attack on Iran? Are 18 UN resolutions against Saddam meaningless?

  43. Ian Gould
    November 20th, 2005 at 12:19 | #43

    “With a 400-3 Senate vote to not pull out of Iraq this GWB “splitâ€? is pure hyperbole.”

    That IS an impressive result. Especially considering that there are only 100 members of the US senate.

    I hadn’t realised that they were using Diebold machines to count the ballots.

  44. Ian Gould
    November 20th, 2005 at 12:22 | #44

    “And further on: â€?(Arab) leaders should be ashamed when they see their emigrants prospering in the United States while their own people are miserable. â€? ”

    As I have noted before, one reason for allowing migration from repressive countries is exactly to encourage the growth of expatriate communities capable of acting as interlocutors and exemplars between liberal democracies and those countries.

    The prominent role played by expats in post-Soviet Eastern Europe illustrates this.

  45. Katz
    November 20th, 2005 at 13:05 | #45

    That 400-3 house vote on the question of immediate withdrawal from Iraq is as bogus on any vote the House may take on the following motion:

    “That this House relinquishes forever any claim to question in any way the policies and actions of the Executive in the conduct of the war in Iraq.”

    I imagine that this motion would also be voted down 400-3 or thereabouts.

    If the opponents of the Bush Clique in the House, both Democrat and Republican, had their wits about them, they would have moved an amendment to that ridiculous motion to the effect that the Bush Clique set firm and explicit and testable benchmarks for the commitment of more or fewer troops to Iraq.

    The motion as it stood is a sign of fear and desperation on the part of the House supporters of the Bush Clique. Their resolve is paper thin. This is a final gesture of defiance in face of the electoral tidal wave that is about to overwhelm them.

  46. Nabakov
    November 20th, 2005 at 14:10 | #46

    What’s all this sudden fuss about proving that folks really believed Iraq had WMDs? I thought it was all about regime change and injecting the vaccine of democracy into the region.

    Regardless of the talking points du jour, I think everyone can agree on two things:

    The WMDS weren’t bloody there.
    Iraq is an unholy mess (and Aghanisitan ain’t looking too good either.)

    If this was the private sector so beloved of the Bush adminstration, heads would have rolled by now over such a titanic fuckup. It’s Enron does Central Asia.

  47. Ian Gould
    November 20th, 2005 at 16:11 | #47

    A headline from News.com.au:

    “Car bombs kill 48; Bush says war on track”

  48. orang
    November 20th, 2005 at 16:59 | #48

    “Car bombs kill 48; Bush says war on track�
    - see the Right Wing does have a better sense of humour.

  49. observa
    November 20th, 2005 at 19:19 | #49

    Actually we find some black humour in the notion that when Saddam and his henchmen killed the same 48 and quietly bulldozed their unpleasant handiwork, then that was preferable because we were all peaceful secularists together. Peace in our time I believe it’s called.

  50. Ian Gould
    November 20th, 2005 at 20:10 | #50

    How about the keeslapper when you guys claimed that you were killing 100,000 Iraqis and blowing $500 billion in order to save those 48 lives per day?

  51. Roberto
    November 20th, 2005 at 20:14 | #51

    Let’s look at Iraq closely:

    • freed 26 million people from one of the most oppressive governments
    • The car bombings etc – well the insurgents are killing fellow Iraqi/Arabs/Muslims – the Coalition isn’t!
    • ps: Afghanistan has had stable elections and a new democratic government, and women voted
    • The insurgents favourite past time is brutal (religious inspired) beheadings
    • Successful constitutional and representative focused elections, all despite the threat and actuality of insurgent threats
    • The Iraqi Interim government appointed a Kurdish, as the President , the first non-ethnic Arab to be appointed to such a powerful position in the whole Arab world.
    • The PM is a Shiite
    • The government has stood for 2 years straight
    • The Kurds and the Shiite continue to work to include Sunni representation into constitutional and representative government issues.
    What is the current alternative to a pullout – throw open Iraq to capture by a bunch of unelected, theocratic fascists would love nothing more that to ‘spread the love’.

    As to the issue re: WMD

    I quote from the following:

    “Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq’s own admissions:

    * That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

    * That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

    * That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

    * That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

    * That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

    * That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

    * That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

    * That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

    Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons–not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations–that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis. ”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp

  52. Katz
    November 20th, 2005 at 21:08 | #52

    I guess that 94% of American engineers referred to in JQ’s original post don’t know about the good news that Roberto has cribbed at such exhaustive length.

    Shame! Shame! Shame! Fox News!

    See what happens when you start pandering to liberal elites? Caffe Latte gets spilled all over the Talking Points.

    Meanwhile type any of the key words in this more or less randomly selected snippet into Google to gain some idea of the political and moral limits of the Bush Clique’s military adventure in Iraq:

    “Recruitment is collapsing, both for the regular Army and Marines, and for the reserves and the National Guard. Parts and even ammunition are in short supply. Morale is at an all time low and sinking.”

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_lin_051118_admit_it_3a_the_us_has.htm

    I guess that professional engineers aren’t among the most likely demographic to sign up for active service. But then again, which demographic is?

  53. Ian Gould
    November 20th, 2005 at 21:40 | #53

    Let’s look at Iraq closely:

    Afghanistan has had stable elections and a new democratic government, and women voted

    Actually I’d say that’s a rather broad view of Iraq.

  54. Ian Gould
    November 20th, 2005 at 21:44 | #54

    “That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced…”

    And what proportion of that list had been destroyed under UN supervision prior to 1998?

  55. Ian Gould
    November 20th, 2005 at 21:46 | #55

    “•The government has stood for 2 years straight”

    Umm, no.

    Remember the eections in January? They were in all the papers.

  56. November 20th, 2005 at 22:03 | #56

    Anytime you find a favourable remark about Bush you can count on it that the site is an astroturf operation like Flack Central Station or the aptly-named Junk Science.And your evidence of these being fakes is…?
    Astroturf – artificial “grassroots”, right?
    Look, know such things as evidence and so on are mere inconveniences to you, but unsupported and insulting statements like that reflect poorly on those making them – be they right or left.
    I’m a Right Wing Death B*tch who blogs on Science, Enginering, Facts and Politics.
    So I take your insult personally. Please withdraw and apologise. Or put up evidence that my blog’s “Astroturf” as you put it.

  57. Dave
    November 20th, 2005 at 22:46 | #57

    I’d love to see some quotes, some dates and names, some evidence of some kind to support your charge that “anyone who disagreed with the rush to war.. or criticised Bush.. was called anti-American”.

    Watching our news here in the USA every day, I found that if one marginal person used the word “unpatriotic” one time, it resulted in 100 news stories which showed video of or quoted Democrats complaining that Bush and the Republicans were calling all the Dems “anti-American”… But I never did hear Bush or any of his team use “anti-American” or “unpatriotic” in the sense we’re speaking of here, when describing any American at any time in any context. You might have heard a couple of Fox News pundits speculating as to whether someone was unpatriotic, but it was NOT a theme of the Bush people.

    It IS a theme of the whining left here in the states, complaining that they’re being called that. But who is saying it about them? I can’t find the quotes, I can’t remember the occasions, I’ve got NOTHING on it. Do you?

    Dave
    Texas

    p.s. Bush began exploring the war option at the beginning of 2002. We invaded in the spring of 2003. FIFTEEN MONTHS. That’s some speedy “rush to war” there, pal.

  58. November 21st, 2005 at 03:31 | #58

    Ian Gould :

    Actually I’d say that’s a rather broad view of Iraq.

    You deliberately omitted the “ps” which makes the context of the statement clear. I know you’re trying to be clever with such cheap and misplaced pedantry, but it just makes you sound like a wanker, and the fact that you’re wrong makes you look even sillier.

  59. avaroo
    November 21st, 2005 at 05:46 | #59

    Nabakov, Actually, we know the WMD were there. Saddam admitted it when he supplied a list of WMD and components (albeit an incomplete one according to Mr Blix) to UN inspectors detailing what he had allegedly done with them. The question is and always has been, what happened to all of it.

  60. avaroo
    November 21st, 2005 at 05:51 | #60

    Ian Gould,
    Iraq has had a government since before January 2005. You might recall all the whining that the Iraqi Provisional government was a US puppet.

    As to what proportion of the list had been destroyed under UN supervision prior to 1998, that’s um, what the UN inspectors were trying to determine. Unfortunately Saddam blocked them from doing so, thereby violating his ceasefire obligations.

  61. jquiggin
    November 21st, 2005 at 05:57 | #61

    Zoe, Tech Central Station was set up as part of a lobbying operation by James Glassman. The details are at
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html

    Steve Milloy’s (Junk Science) history of funding by the tobacco industry has been well documented also, notably at Tim Lambert’s site (check the blogroll).

    These are easily the most prominent “science” sites that are generally supportive of the policies of the Bush Administration, and they are Astroturf sites. There are a string of others, such as Alexis de Tocqueville Institute and many more listed here
    http://timlambert.org/2004/05/adti/

    I’m sure there are exceptions to this pattern, though I haven’t run across any lately. I read you as saying you’re a scientist, and run an independent pro-Bush blog. If so, I apologise to you for any insult taken.

    Dave, the links were provided in the update, but Google would have found them for you if you’d bothered to look.

    As a general point, there seems to have emerged a pattern of demanding links to support statements of easily checkable facts. In future, please do your own Google search first, before making such demands. If you come up empty, then ask me for my sources.

  62. Roberto
    November 21st, 2005 at 08:56 | #62

    Katz Says: November 20th, 2005 at 9:08 pm “I guess that professional engineers aren’t among the most likely demographic to sign up for active service. But then again, which demographic is?”

    I can’t comment about the US, but on Friday, the Australian Retail Study Centre at Monash University revealed findings into GenY, and their (future) employment interests (and to Monash’s surprise) GENY rated highest professions/careers such as defence and the police (anything involving a uniform it appears).

    Maybe the decline in military recruitment in the US is a result of other factors than a simplistic interpretation offered.

  63. Ian Gould
    November 21st, 2005 at 09:20 | #63

    “Ian Gould,
    Iraq has had a government since before January 2005. You might recall all the whining that the Iraqi Provisional government was a US puppet.”

    Avaroo do you understand the difference between “a” and “the”?

  64. Katz
    November 21st, 2005 at 10:17 | #64

    “I can’t comment about the US, but on Friday, the Australian Retail Study Centre at Monash University revealed findings into GenY, and their (future) employment interests (and to Monash’s surprise) GENY rated highest professions/careers such as defence and the police (anything involving a uniform it appears).”

    Maybe the US Marines should send some recruiters to uniform-loving Australia.

    If they did, then some of our more vociferous RWDBs could put their butts where their mouths are. (For some this would involve only minor, cosmetic surgery.)

    No doubt there are many reasons why young Americans are sitting on their hands when offered the honour of serving their country.

    I’m not aware of any polling on that interesting question.

    But I’d like to wager that the unattractive prospect of full immersion in a futile, cynically misconceived quagmire ranks fairly high.

  65. November 21st, 2005 at 11:52 | #65

    I read you as saying you’re a scientist, and run an independent pro-Bush blog. If so, I apologise to you for any insult taken.
    Apology accepted.

  66. Roberto
    November 21st, 2005 at 12:03 | #66

    Katz Says: November 21st, 2005 at 10:17 am “”If they did, then some of our more vociferous RWDBs could put their butts where their mouths are. (For some this would involve only minor, cosmetic surgery.)”

    Why not, let the LWFWs add it to the proceedure-list heavy medicare schedule. Another opportunity to pay the (private sector) VMOs lots more money out of taxpayers $$.

  67. Ian Gould
    November 21st, 2005 at 12:04 | #67

    “If they did, then some of our more vociferous RWDBs could put their butts where their mouths are. (For some this would involve only minor, cosmetic surgery.)”

    Why wait? I’m sure Haliburton could fidn a suitable use for their talents in Iraq.

    Unless, like Dick Cheney during Vietnam, they have “other priorities”.

  68. stoptherubbish
    November 21st, 2005 at 13:03 | #68

    “If they did, then some of our more vociferous RWDBs could put their butts where their mouths are.”

    They won’t put their buts anywhere near danger. This is epecially true in the States, where it is largely the poor (white and black) and minority youth who are recruited for military service. You won’t find the children of the well to do doing their bit for ‘democracy, freedom and the American way’, in the middle east or anywhere else for that matter. Cheney, Bush and the rest of the mad neo con crowd handily managed to avoid military service the last time the US went on a frolic to preserve ‘freedom and democracy’, and that pattern is repeating itself this time around.

    However this fact is being increasingly noted in the US and many commentators have written that one of the most potent reasons for joining up in the military is the chance to obtain post school education and training, for those who otherwise would not be able to obtain it in the ‘market’ that there now exists for post schoool training.

    This may well explain the growing popularity of the army and the Police in this country as career choices, especially now since general employment rights conditions and pay can be expected to deteriorate rapidly in the wider labour market. So every cloud has a silver lining-less apprenticeships and training in the ‘open labour market’, but more people offering for service in the epolice and army. Excellent result!

  69. Terje
    November 21st, 2005 at 14:09 | #69

    QUOTE: Terje Peterson, your comment that “Bush invaded the wrong country� is quite interesting. With no UN resolutions demanding that Iran take any specific action, how would you have justified such an attack on Iran?

    RESPONSE: With great difficulty. But they could have let Iraq do it and support them with arms and funds.

  70. Ian Gould
    November 21st, 2005 at 14:26 | #70

    Umm, so you were infavor of supplying Saddam with weapons? Again? After Kuwait?

  71. Some Dude
    November 21st, 2005 at 15:22 | #71

    Holy Cow, what a bunch of nonsense all condensed in one website.

    1-no one ever said those who disagree with Iraq are un-Patriotic.
    2-The House of Reps, not Congress, voted 400-3 last night.
    3-Ooh, Scientists don’t like Bush. Any proof? Funny how Bush is the only US pres. to allocate Fed Funds for Stem Cell Research.
    4-Kyoto was ORIGINALLY turned down 98-0 by Congress in 1998, and just who was President then?
    5-Since when is Creationism a Policy of the Republicans?
    6- Iraq and Afghanistan are lost causes. Gosh, you’d better tell the billion or so Afghans and Iraqis who voted, you know, for their new and non-Totalitarian Govts.
    7-Is this website the result of years of Marxist thought? Scary, and good luck!

  72. Nabakov
    November 21st, 2005 at 15:37 | #72

    “billion or so Afghans and Iraqis who voted”

    So Diebold are moving into export markets?

  73. Razor
    November 21st, 2005 at 16:03 | #73

    Nabakov – you left off the boom-tish.

  74. Katz
    November 21st, 2005 at 16:59 | #74

    “4-Kyoto was ORIGINALLY turned down 98-0 by Congress in 1998″

    Some Dude, that would be the Senate and not Congress.

    Guess you don’t have to be a Marxist to get your facts wrong.

  75. November 21st, 2005 at 17:06 | #75

    To the aptly named Stoptherubbish –

    “where it is largely the poor (white and black) and minority youth who are recruited for military service.”

    I think you’ll find that the poor and lower middle class have, throughout history, staffed militaries in all countries. The positions historically reserved for toffs have been thrown open – the officer class ceased to be the exclusive domain of “gentlemen” in the late 19th century. And yes, that applies even in the workers’ paradises of Sweden, France, Germany etc.

    The military is an attractive option for people who want to go to university in the US. What’s so wrong with that? The American higher education system is the best in the world because of its user pays ethos and relative independence from government funding. This means you get a better degree, but it costs more. Joining the military to cheaply put yourself through uni sounds like a perfectly rational, sensible choice for a young person to make. I’d wager anything that the vast majority of people, once their tours of duty are up and they’ve got their degrees, are more than happy with the deal they struck with the military*. In fact, it sounds like a great way to empower people who may not have the resources to go to university. Still, the satisfaction of the individuals involved doesn’t mean much if the concept offends your misplaced sense of egalitarianism, huh?

    *And please don’t say “I bet the ones who joined for college and got killed in Iraq aren’t happy” – that’s pathetic and will be slapped down in two seconds flat.

  76. Some Dude
    November 21st, 2005 at 17:07 | #76

    Oh, wow, Katz, you really caught me there. Perhaps, you could find some typos in my post, too. Perhaps, I didn’t stop completely at all the Stop Signs on my drive home today. Oooh, Katz, you’re quite the detective. You know, my shoelaces are untied as I write this, so I guess that pretty much invalidates this post, too.

    And actually, if you were an American, you’d realize that Senate and Congress are used interchangeably.

    But anyway, care to refute what I wrote? Or shall you just nitpick and continue to feel superior?

  77. November 21st, 2005 at 17:09 | #77

    And Bill Clinton signed Kyoto in the full knowledge that the Senate wouldn’t ratify it in a pink fit. And they still won’t.

    Doesn’t matter – it’s Bush’s fault somehow.

  78. Katz
    November 21st, 2005 at 17:13 | #78

    I can feel superior to you SD without having to nitpick.

    That shoelace problem of yours can be fixed with velcro.

    How do you know I’m not a US citizen?

  79. November 21st, 2005 at 17:22 | #79

    Katz –

    Are you saying Some Dude is wrong in his assertion that “Congress” and “the Senate” are used interchangeably?

    If not, then I guess that makes you a pedant, and an erroneous one at that – the untouchable (and I mean that in the Indian, not Eliot Ness sense of the word) of any intelligent discussion.

    I also hope you are an American citizen. Because if you’re not, that question you pose would further emphasise your twerp status.

  80. Katz
    November 21st, 2005 at 17:30 | #80

    Senators are called senators.

    Members of the House of Representatives are called Congressmen.

    Reference

    http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=congressman

    Now y’all take it easy and visit with us again some time, you hear.

  81. Ian Gould
    November 21st, 2005 at 17:34 | #81

    “And Bill Clinton signed Kyoto in the full knowledge that the Senate wouldn’t ratify it in a pink fit. And they still won’t.”

    1. Clinton didn’t sign Kyoto, gore did.

    2. Neither the Senate nor the House ever voted formally on Kyoto. The Senate voted on a motion not to ratify any climate change treaty “that would adversely affect trhe US economy”. As a result, Clinton never formally presented the Protocol for ratification.

    3. The McCain Leiberman Climate Stewardship Bill (co-sponsored by that notorious Marxist Senator John McCain) was defeated 43-55 in 2003 with at least two other Republicans supporting the bill. The US is one mid-term away from sane global warming legislation.

    http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1171

    I’m sure that the detail in my response will get me labelled a pedant but if I omitted it I’m equally sure I’d be accused of failing to support my arguments with facts.

  82. Some Dude
    November 21st, 2005 at 18:41 | #82

    “1. Clinton didn’t sign Kyoto, gore did.”

    Huh? So? Clinton was the prez. His signature is all that matters. Are we talking about the same Al Gore who in the late ’90s took a whole bunch of campaign money from the airline industry while at the same time stifling a Govt. report saying that the security of the US airline industry was woeful? That Al Gore? Gosh, I wonder how many on the 9-11 flights were complaining of icebergs melting as the planes… oh, never mind.

    Right, nothing like Laws to really protect the environment. Why, praytell, are the most undeveloped countries the ones with the most enviro problems? Hmm, well, it could be because economic growth actually stimulates enviro protection. Anyone up for some bottled water from Africa?

    And as for the countries that have signed onto Kyoto, it’s all rainbows and unicorns now is it? Hey, maybe you can ask France stop with all the Car-be-ques. It really is getting hot over here.

    But you know what’s really amazing? This whole thread was started because some “Professor” stated that those who opposed the Iraq War were labeled as unpatriotic. Hmm, after several dozen posts, still have yet to see any proof.

    That’s okay, I’m still chuckling over the Climate Stewardship Bill. Hmm, the Earth and the Solar System vs. a pair of dimwitted politicians? So let me get this straight: religious people are fools because they believe the Bible, but enviros who think that old men with $100 haircuts will be able to stop the Earth from changing temperature are what, enlightened?

    Oh, and McCain is a twit. His name is on one of the worst bills ever to be enacted into law, Campaign Finance Reform. And Bush should be vilified for having signed it.

  83. jquiggin
    November 21st, 2005 at 19:50 | #83

    Umm, SD, did you actually read the update (posted well before you arrived here) and follow the links? Or did you just take Tim’s word for it that there wasn’t any evidence and dive straight in?

  84. Ian Gould
    November 21st, 2005 at 21:29 | #84

    “Huh? So? ”

    So I was fascinated by the sheer number of factual errors you could squeeze into a single sentence.

    “Hmm, after several dozen posts, still have yet to see any proof.”

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400050308/103-0167840-1150206?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

    http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/051119

    “On November 17th, Representative John Murtha (D, PA) called for the USA to prove that Osama bin Laden is right with his contention that Americans are cowards. He proposed that the US immediately pull its troops from Iraq.”

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/longenecker/2005/11/u-word-mothra-loses.html

    UnAmerican is what applies now to the left in America. Long overdue.

    Go ahead, say it to yourself. Say the word out loud: Un-American.

    Notice how truly it applies to the likes of the Democrats now, all of them.

  85. Andrew Reynolds
    November 21st, 2005 at 22:09 | #85

    Katz,
    You are being a bit of a pedant above. SD may not be right, but perhaps you could answer his substantive point without getting hung up on the difference between one of the consituent bodies of the Houses of Congress and the Houses of Congress themselves.
    The chances of a US president, of whichever stripe, getting Kyoto ratified by the Senate and then getting substantive legislation through Congress (both Houses) are so close to zero it is not worth them spending political capital on. It would be much better for them to try to get through a bill protecting wilderness or something else that is possible.
    The chances of France, Germany or anyone else meeting their Kyoto commitments are also quite low, so the whole process probably merely made the problem worse by providing an excuse for a lot of bureaucrats and other self important windbags to fly to Kyoto and other nice places for exotic lunches and a large amount of talking.
    It has put it on the agenda, so perhaps it was useful. Who knows – but it will not get through the US Houses of Congress.

  86. Tinkerbell1952
    November 21st, 2005 at 22:27 | #86

    I was living in the USA post 9/11 and during the lead up and invasion of Iraq. I used to count the seconds between speech lines for GWB to mention the word “terror or Terrorists” there were even examples where the word was not approprate to the sentence. Key words used over a 2 year period were – Terror, Patriotic duty, The American Way, Freedom, You are either with us or against us’ and many more. The press seemed to have hunkered down after 9/11, and anyone challenging the President was vocally castigated and accused of being unpatriotic or worse, a ‘Saddam lover’. The hysteria was astounding. Any anti-American views that the rest of the world may have, is not considered seriously in America and, is blown off as ‘They are jealous’. I was often shocked to hear such comments. These comments were often made in National current affairs shows, and not limited to local reporting.
    I feel that lately, the press is finally speaking out, and hope that the Americans will continue to take off their rose coloured George glasses.

  87. Tinkerbell1952
    November 21st, 2005 at 22:40 | #87

    To the writer from Texas, who claimed that he never heard the word Anti-American on television, or someone being accused of it, I refute that claim. Though I cannot give dates, I heard it constantly on CNN, Fox, NBC, PBS, ABC. The majority of current affairs shows, had guests on who would accuse anyone disagreeing with the Iraq invasion and the President, as being unpatriotic. The president did indeed utter these words, as did others speaking from the White House. Even Oprah Winfrey was abused for asking the question post 9/11 – “Why do they hate us?” Even more insulting, was that anyone wanting to discuss whether the US should be in Iraq, was often accused of abandoning the soldiers, and not supporting the troops.

  88. Some Dude
    November 22nd, 2005 at 06:37 | #88

    Holy Cow, I stand corrected. Several pundits/bloggers called people unPatriotic/Anti-American. Well! That settles it. I never even heard of 2 of them. And neither have 99% of most Americans. I’m sure I can round a few Americans to say that Elvis is still alive. So would that trump what the official Coroner said of Elvis?

    Okay, let’s try this again. Who cares what Joe Schmo says? Did Bush/Cheney/Rummy call anyone unPatriotic? No! That’s the point. The Only Point.

    Professor: you quote Media Matters and Sean Hannity. Again, soooo? S. Hannity is a pundit. Who gives a rats ass what he says?

    Seriously, is this the best you guys can do? Oh, no, someone called me UnPatriotic. Sob. Sob. If it’s not true, why do you care? Seriously, when Coulter and Hannity speak of the threat of Islamofascism or other public policy, I doubt you take them seriously. So why do you take their “insults” seriously?

    Take a look at what the Left has been saying for 5 years: Bush Lied, War for Oil, War for Haliburton. Ever been to a “peace” rally? I have and I see signs calling for Bush’s murder, calling Bush Hitler. I see signs promoting Communism and for the violent overthrow of the US Govt. Gosh, how could anyone mistake that for being unPatriotic?

    “he president did indeed utter these words, as did others speaking from the White House. Even Oprah Winfrey was abused for asking the question post 9/11 – “Why do they hate us?â€?”

    Because it’s a moronic question. The U.S., while far from perfect, is a force for good on this planet. When B. Clinton was prez we saved Muslims from Genocide. We buy their oil (at prices they set) and they buy palaces. When Muslims come to the US, we respect their religion and allow them to practice it in peace.

    The question is moronic because when the US is attacked, you want to understand the motives, but when the US fights back, you don’t look for motives, you look only for political gain (Bush lied, war for oil).

    Okay, you tell me why they hate us.

  89. Some Dude
    November 22nd, 2005 at 06:45 | #89

    “Key words used over a 2 year period were – Terror, Patriotic duty, The American Way, Freedom, You are either with us or against us’ and many more.”

    This is a perfect illustration of the vacuousness of the Left. What should the prez of the US be saying? What, would a countrywide handholding session, complete with “Why do they Hate us” posters and songs actually solve the problem of TERRORISTS MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE?

    Ay-yi-yi. It’s amazing how your love of Marxism/Socialism (’cause that’s really what the fight is about; you guys could care less about Iraq and its people, etc., if you did, you would be cheering the ouster of Saddam.) has corroded your brains. Do you understand that if you are not a Muslim, the terrorists want you dead?

  90. jquiggin
    November 22nd, 2005 at 07:32 | #90

    “I never heard of these guys”

    SomeDude, you’ve demonstrated your ignorance pretty thoroughly in this thread. The fact that you’re ignorant of (or, more likely have conveniently forgotten) something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    And, fairly obviously, the allusion in the post didn’t take the form of weeping and wailing, but of a mildly snarky introductory remark. It’s you (and others) who’ve been wailing that they’ve been traduced by having their own words, or the words of pundits they cheered on at the time, thrown back at them.

  91. Katz
    November 22nd, 2005 at 07:32 | #91

    AR, I never mentioned Kyoto. Nor have I mentioned the American political response to Kyoto.

    My point in regard to SD was a small but precise one.

    My message to SD: “Before accusing other people of being ignoramuses, take a look in the mirror to make sure that “ignoramus” isn’t written on your own forehead.” (A little tip for SD, the word will appear backward in the mirror.)

  92. Ian Gould
    November 22nd, 2005 at 08:19 | #92

    “The chances of a US president, of whichever stripe, getting Kyoto ratified by the Senate and then getting substantive legislation through Congress (both Houses) are so close to zero it is not worth them spending political capital on.”

    See my comments on the McCain Leibermann bill.

    “The chances of France, Germany or anyone else meeting their Kyoto commitments are also quite low,”

    Kyoto was desinged to promote international rtrade in permits. If it is economically rational for those countries to buy permits from other countries this is a good thing.

    Or have you now converted to a belief in mercantilism or autarky Andrew?

  93. Ian Gould
    November 22nd, 2005 at 08:20 | #93

    “Okay, let’s try this again. Who cares what Joe Schmo says? Did Bush/Cheney/Rummy call anyone unPatriotic? No! That’s the point. The Only Point.”

    Pity you failed so miserably in making it first time around.

  94. Ernestine Gross
    November 22nd, 2005 at 09:03 | #94

    If we set “Joe Schmo” equal to “Some Dude” then everybody seems to agree.

    Did I miss something?

  95. ljbgranny
    November 22nd, 2005 at 09:10 | #95

    Citations, please.

  96. corwin
    November 22nd, 2005 at 10:55 | #96

    Tink,
    call me unreliable,but your unsupported word that you’ve constantly heard things that reinforce your view is not sufficient for me.(And,some of my best friends were liberal arts majors,so don’t accuse me of being a snob.)No one in the government or media has ever used the term”Saddam lover”,the phrase “American way” is part of the famed triad of “Truth,justice ad the American waay” in Superman tv show and bubbele,there are terrorists.
    But wait,you’ve quoted Oprah.

  97. Katz
    November 22nd, 2005 at 11:58 | #97

    Yes, Right Wing pundits and mouthpieces spouting off vitriol and bile, and outright lies is one thing. We lefties should wear this smear as a badge of honour.

    But what about Karl Rove? He’s no mere smearer. He’s known, and acknowledged by the Empty Cranium himself, as “Bush’s Brain”.

    There is Rove’s smear of liberals as unpatriotic. These words were uttered at the New York State Conservative Party in June 2005. Among friends, Rove got caught up in the moment and revealed the way in which the GWOT could be used to label liberals as unpatriotic.

    “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. . . . Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: ‘We will defeat our enemies.’ Liberals saw what happened to us and said: ‘We must understand our enemies.’ ”

    I’m not the first to remark that this is a complete falsification of history. The record shows that the United States was united in Bush’s robust response to the Taliban.

    Too many liberals were swept along by Bush’s idiotic and illegal invasion of Iraq. And many liberal leaders and opinion shapers still haven’t regained their balance.

    However, the American people have looked critically at the motivations, mismanagement and dire likely consequences of the Iraq fiasco. Many of them now look to liberal leaders to show some courage and seek a sane way forward.

    Yes, these liberals deserve severe criticism for their pusillaminity. Maybe some of them are so thoroughly discredited that they should just withdraw.

    But whatever happens, American public opinion will find some outlet for expression.

    Bush and Rove are terrified of this. Thus, Rove is calling the Right Wing base to action.

    And that speech quoted above is just the beginning of a very bitter rearguard action by a thoroughly discredited administration.

  98. Beezle
    November 22nd, 2005 at 13:43 | #98

    Wow! I am gob-smacked at the bizarre allegations here that have absolutely no basis in reality. If the reality of the hated Republicans and the evil Bush aren’t enough, you just make crap up and the rest of the crowd just laps it up. You people have become unhinged.

  99. Andrew Reynolds
    November 22nd, 2005 at 14:04 | #99

    Ian Gould,
    I may like McCain, but that does not mean I agree with him on this. Even if the treaty was ratified (and changing a further 5 votes in the Senate would be very difficult) enabling legislation would still have to get through the House and then the Senate. With all the oil lobby money and the isolationist sentiment in there that is even less likely.
    You would (if you have read many of my posts here) already have a fair idea on my position on merchantilism. I will take that as a jibe, then. The problem with tradable credits is that someone has to have some credits to trade. The only country that may have some is Russia due to the collapse in its economy over the last 10 years – but even that is now looking unlikely. If everyone is in a debit position the trading of credits is not just difficult.

  100. Ian Gould
    November 22nd, 2005 at 15:46 | #100

    “I am gob-smacked at the bizarre allegations here that have absolutely no basis in reality.”

    Such as?

Comment pages
1 2 2721
Comments are closed.