Misconceptions on Liberalism and me not squirming in the darkness…
I read a post over at Right Wing Toledo, entitled, Why it’s easier to be a Liberal Part 1 and the beginning portion of the post stated:
I recently had someone pose me the question, “Why would anyone want to be a liberal? There’re wrong on nearly everything, and they’re always so miserable.”
The answer: it is easier to be liberal than conservative. You can almost hear the voices now; “it…is…not…. It’s hard to… be concerned… about the bunnies.” Well, sorry to burst your bubbles, but it isn’t hard. In fact, there’s nothing hard about being a liberal – excepting the occasional hair pulling every time a conservative makes a fool of you in front of others.
It’s not my intention to make a fool of any of those who commented, or Right Wing Toledo for writing the post. I commented on the post and when he approves the comment in his moderation system, I gave specific examples of how I feel some conservatives use the same “heartstring/emotional” method of behavior. One example of this behavior as I commented is related to abortion, promoting the concept that a woman who has an abortion is killing a baby, which is done to create that same feeling of emotion rather than using logic based thinking. I also used the situation with Terri Schiavo as another example of a time when some considered to be conservative used emotion rather than logic to promote their beliefs. This type of selective assumption that “all liberals” or “all fill in the blank” act a certain way does not serve any of us. Infact I strongly “feel” that this type of general assumption creates roadblocks that we must continue to overcome to be able to move forward to find common ground solutions.
There are people out there that are more liberal than I am, there are people out there that are more conservative than I am, yet at the end of the day, we can either decide to make this be “us versus them” or we can move beyond that. Liberals do not hold the market on “emotional” people, nor do we hold the market on those who are extreme, nor do we hold the market on logic or truth or any characteristic.
I also realize that the whole title aspect of me being a “liberal” has been debated by some and the mere definition of what constitutes a “liberal” could be debated. I rely on the definition of liberal from this, especially:
I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
While these words were of course said many years ago, for me, I still think they have value…
Excellent post.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 amI agree with News Grinder, good post.
“….but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind.”
But, we could remember that one size or concept or system or way of life does not fit all.
One only need look around and see that our beacon has been dimmed in the not so distant past.
Our halls of government are tarnished and in some quarters disgraced.
Some seek to have us follow one way.
Some would say that the other side is to blame and when we look back are all are equally at fault as no one has the ability to know the future and the outcomes of our actions in advance,
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 amLR,
The post you refer to is but the first in a series – and is meant to compare both the “average” liberal, as well as te liberal leadership, verses their conservative counterparts. To say that there is no generalized liberal is an attempt to muddy the waters – I’m referring to the self-identified, politically active liberal – and their leadership. To add a disclaimer – “this may not apply to any liberals reading this post” – smacks of the very political-correctness the liberal agenda promotes. I am presenting a rational discussion on the differences in the way liberals and conservatives approach issues, and I care not a whit how that makes someone feel. I’d rather they think.
I wouldn not expect you to squirm in the darkness Lisa – I don’t consider you an “average” politically active liberal.
As to your quote – I don’t believe that JFK would be considered a liberal by today’s standards. In fact, to even begin to make the above quote agreeable to the liberal leadership, replace “human dignity”, “human liberty” and “human heart” with “national government.” And of course, you have to eliminate the whole section about taxes – at least one local liberal apparently sees the “magic” that JFK couldn’t find.
In any event, keep reading, Lisa. We might not agree; but that’s what makes this country so great, civil disagreement is not illegal (at lesat until the PC police arrive.)
RWT
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:44 amah, Lisa, it appears that you’ve identified yourself along the ‘classical liberal’ lines – quite different from what the majority of today’s self-described liberals profess to believe. Perhaps that’s why we have differences but many areas of agreement…
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 amI have to and continue to wonder about what ever pursuasion people like to label themselves with.
With respect to the quoting of others. The quotes may encompess what ideals a person may have, but the words and quotations are still those of another.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:17 amMy thought on this: Right Wing Toledo is Maggie Thurber. She did this type of stuff before; posting anonymously on Toledo Talk under “Intrepid”. Intrepid then suddenly “moved” away and then Maggie Thurber started posting on Toledo Talk. If you look at Thurber Thoughts and Right Wing Toledo, you will see alot of similarity. What a sham….
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 amYou’re wrong, Give it a rest, on both counts. Remember, I’m no longer a public officials and the standards for libel/slander are much easier to meet for a private individual.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:35 amok, whatever. Same news stories, similar links, chili cook off on both blogs. We know you have worked on the Mobile Meals chili cook off…I guess it is just a coincidence, that both you and RWT are interested in that cause.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 amGive it a rest, I can assure you that Maggie and RWT are different people.
Series not withstanding, RWT, the use of emotion or even at times the over use of emotion is not only the hallmark of one political group. It’d be like laying down the standard that all women are too emotional. All men are macho, etc., it’s a comparison that is not an accurate one to portray not out of a matter of political correctness but a realistic look at human behavior. The mere basis of being a liberal or a conservative does not assign character traits. Of course a persons’s political leanings is based on which group they identify more with but not to the extent where you can paint such a broad brush.
NC, You are right, using someone else’s words does only quote them, I’ve used that particular speech by JFK for many years as an example of a thought pattern I share because it’s said better than I have come up with.
Maggie, I am more of a classic liberal, on some issues yet that is the other facet to this discussion, there is no “one” liberal and there is no “one” conservative. Each of us is made up of individual values with our own personal scale of where we label ourselves which could be very different than how others label us. As I said, there are those out there who will be more liberal than me, there are those out there that will be more conservative than me. In a way this whole labeling process that we put ourselves thru isn’t accurate. I’d have to say, I’m such and such percent classic liberal, such and such percent conservative, such and such percent constitutionalist…etc. You would have to do the same thing, almost all of us would.
Government should be based more on fact than emotion, however, at times emotion is going to enter into this, no matter the political label. At times this emotion is going to be used for good, to awaken a spirit of unity or patriotism, at times it will be to evoke feelings of sadness or mourning and at times, it will be used as a political tool.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 amclarification…GIAR – I don’t work on the Mobile Meals Chili Cookoff, I work on their Wine Gala and have served on their board in the past.
I don’t see any post on RWT for the chili cookoff…although uncommon squalor blogged about his participation in his boat club chili cookoff…please get your facts straight before you accuse people wrongly.
Lisa – You are correct about emotion being used to inspire or for mourning.
But I think that we’d agree that decisions based primarily on emotion – despite the facts – are not good ones for governments to make…individuals, however, are another matter entirely.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:53 am“At times this emotion is going to be used for good, to awaken a spirit of unity or patriotism, at times it will be to evoke feelings of sadness or mourning and at times, it will be used as a political tool.”
You mean like; America love it or leave it.
When engaging in discussion against an administrations policies it is; Hate Speech.
Or; “YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR WITH THE TERRORISTS” and then we, The United States supports torture to get confessions in other countries and then at the same time speaks out against the same countries for torturing.
Or; I did not have sex with that person, instead of fessing up.
Or at the same as Clinton was not fessing up to infidelity, Newt Gingrich was in an affair while married and speaks out against that do as he did.
And on and on we go.
What’s the point?
We are individuals and not one of us has all the answers but we seek to divide and label each other for some arcane reason that I cannot grasp.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:54 amNC – I always thought it was one thing to recognize the traits of others versus using such traits against a person. Sometimes a label helps us to understand another person – not entirely, but in a basic way…
I wonder how much of identifying ourselves with certain ‘labels’ is human nature versus nurture…
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 amMaggie, agreed that emotion should be left out of government the majority of the time, attempting to keep it out of politics should also be a factor for many.
NC, I was trying to give examples of when emotion could be used for good, which it can be at times. As you pointed out it can also be used to divide. Emotion is like anything, in real life I can be emotional, movies make me cry as an example, watching my children get some type of an award or accomplishment, makes me cry. Yet, I’m still able to discuss facts and use logic. The over use of emotion in politics is a valid issue to bring up by RWT, however, my main reason for bringing this up for discussion is that like most issues, one side can’t take the crown for having that as a major attribute.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:04 amThere is a link for the chili cook off on RWT and it goes right back to Thurber Thougts. Get your facts straight…
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:07 amGive it a Rest…if you look on Right Wing Toledo’s blog – the link to the chili cookoff is there because they are both members of the State of Ohio Blog Alliance – it’s a feed that links lots of conservative Ohio bloggers. Check the link above and below that and you’ll see it’s other Ohio bloggers as well. Maggie has the same SOB alliance on her blog since she’s also a member of that same blogroll group.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:18 ammaggiethurber Said: @8:01 am;
“I wonder how much of identifying ourselves with certain ‘labels’ is human nature versus nurture…”
Speaking for my own thoughts and my own point of view I do not label people, anymore, it bears no fruit is divisive.
I did label people up until 5 or so years ago and then I started to reflect.
For me, I see no value in attaching labels as I am not really concerned about appearances as much as I am concerned with substance.
It would nature those that need to have the comfort of others around that share the same thoughts or it gives strength those who are weak in their own thoughts and need a group to support them.
When I see this, conservative vs. liberal song and dance starting again just as it was when it Republican vs. Democrats, the bait that is cast by me, keeps on going.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:23 amGIAR – providing links to specific blogs doesn’t mean we’re the same person…I’ve got links to some of Lisa’s posts and we both link to some, but not all, the same sites – are we the same person, too?
You obviously have a problem with me, but I don’t think that Lisa’s blog is the place for you to express it. Lisa may feel differently…Perhaps you should follow the advice of your name.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:23 amNC – please allow me to clarify…people provide labels for themselves – that’s what I was questioning as nature vs. nurture…
I, too, try not to classify people based upon impressions, but to learn about a person before coming to conclusions about the ‘who’ of who they are.
I’d describe my husband as fun, happy, smart, caring, good looking, etc… Humans tend to label people – and I don’t know whether it’s the easiest way to describe them, but it’s the method we use most often. So to see it applied in the political field makes sense to me…How would we avoid such descriptions or share information about a person without the use of ‘labels’ as descriptors?
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:29 am“How would we avoid such descriptions or share information about a person without the use of ‘labels’ as descriptors?”
I understood what you were aiming.
It would seem that the very word label is in question. To me, you described your husband and if I was to label him; caucasain male.
We describe people as something and we, in my opinion falsely label them one thing, as we know that the only thing that stays the same is change.
If we look back at some of those that were labeled this and that we can sometimes see that they are no longer the same so the “label” does not hold true.
In the political field, sure people need to have comfort in applying a label. But what I see looking back is that labels do not stick, like a conservative who holds out a fiscally conservative platform and smaller government and then we look, there was little fiscal reform and larger government and equally so, when we look at the liberals, we see not the outrageous tax and spend that are commonly assigned to the label.
So on and on the song and dance goes.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:43 amI understand the distinction you make…and I’m also one for judging actions more than the self-identified descriptions people have of themselves…
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 am“I understand the distinction you make…and I’m also one for judging actions more than the self-identified descriptions people have of themselves…”
Hooray!
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 amI think we have shades of one of the reasons Toledo politics are deadlocked and flailing about. If everyone is so concerned as to what agenda others are trying to follow we fall into an us versus them mentality. Then nothing gets accomplished. Liberal or conservative, you both live in the area, deal with it. It should be everyone versus the situation. Then you can start fixing the issues at hand, even if you don’t agree on the reason and causes, you can compromise on a solution or even a course of action to identify the problem.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 amTime to chime back in…
Lisa – I think you have misjudged my post. While I understand that both sides of the political fence use emotion to convey message and “motovate the troops,” my point is that liberals use emotion as both the reason to act on a problem, and in some instances as the solution. For example, in regardsa to animal testing, some of th eliberal bent feel sorry that animals must die for human research – and because they fdeel bad about it, the research must be stopped. A conservative might not like the necessity of the procedure, but would realize that countless human lives (yes, a value bases judgment) would be saved with the creation of a particular vaccine, and would not allow his/her emotions to guide policy. I don’t have a problem with emotions, except where either they exist for show, or substitue for rational thinking in making policy.
Maggie – I express my heartfelt sympathy for your being comparred to me. While it is a boon for my own self-esteem (apparently self-esteem not cared about by liberals), I suspect it is a crashing blow to your own.
Scy – I think that the reason things are so stalled in Toledo is more a function of the same people being in power for the past 20 years or so… Thwere is no true opposition party, based on some of the votes in council this past week. You cannot compromise when some believe that the same solutions that were tried again and again, without effect, are the only solutions woth trying. They have a vested interest in the status quo (ie re-election). So, what motovation do they have in change?
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:39 pmLisa- I’m signing up for the lessons. I’ve let my feelings lead me along life all of these years, but now I am going to get educated on how to think for a change.
I took my first lesson today [my first visit to the RWT blog.] Already, as you can see, I’m smarter.
It’s good to know that we can just click over there to learn what life should be like.
Oops! Got to run for lesson #2.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmI don’t think I did misunderstand your post RWT, I disagree with the assumption that the use of emotion is one that is only done by liberal politicians and that emotionalism is something that is evidenced more by liberalism than by conservatism. We can both point to situations where emotion was used by both sides, to create a desired response from the base supporters using emotion and at times creates a negative emotional response from the non-base supporters. I understand it is a common theme, just as the belief that liberals by and large are not religious. Or that all conservatives are against same sex marriage. There are many of these “assumptions” that are levied at one group when the logic of human nature dictates it can be found on both sides. Not to pick on George V but I remember how he was slammed when he became emotional, most people do have emotions…Certain topics and debates are going to create more emotion than others.
I agree with you that logic should be more used as a basis, I just don’t agree that it’s as one sided as your post suggests.
Lib Dem…now I need my tissues because your response…made me too emotional to really respond properly…
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 pmThe one thing I have noticed about Right Wing blogs vs. Liberal blogs is that “liberal blogs” (Glass City Jungle, History Mike) and neutral blogs (Talk Toledo) allow for unfettered comments. Right wings(or conservative blogs) moderate the comments. The blogs owners feel they need to approve or at least pre screen everything that is posted as a reply to blog.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pmIt’s not only the local blogs that is true. Bill O’Reilly’s blog doesn’t even allow for comments, but Kos or Huffington Post allow anyone one to comment without edit.
Just an observation…
To be fair SensorG, some of the blogs in the more left part of the Ohio blogosphere also moderate comments. The majority of them do so to avoid spammers which is a problem for me here but I trust that the majority of those of you who know me will realize that someone selling drugs or trying to promote rape videos will be deleted as soon as I’m online. I also gave my best friend, Holly, posting rights here so if she’s online and sees spam she can delete it here when I’m not online.
I haven’t done an official survey so you could very well be right about the number of conservative blogs that moderate versus liberal blogs but felt it important to point out why some bloggers do moderate that is not related to free speech type responses.
Personally I don’t like comment moderation – while it may cut down on spam it to me cuts the free flow of discussion that can happen, but that’s just me.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pma few bad apples can spoil the whole barrel…
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm” I don’t have a problem with emotions, except where either they exist for show, or substitute for rational thinking in making policy.”
And the neo-cons used emotions, 9/11 attack, as part of the reasons for entering Iraq as we were not at risk from attack by Iraq when the terrorists were in Afghanistan.
The administration preyed on people’s emotions with images of nuke bomb clouds from Iraq and out right falsehoods that the government was working with Bin Laden and through the clever use of emotions was able to convince the American public that the government was behind the 9/11 attack.
And seeing that my posts are not allowed on RWT, what about Ann Coulter and her emotional and misleading rants…a true spokesperson for the conservatives which when I was growing were reffered to as radicals which fits her writings as I would hope that she does not reflect the mainstream Republican party members.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:45 pmMaggie, that about nails it – we need to somehow stop judging an entire group based on the actions of a few. That goes for all of us no matter which political party we lean more towards.
This came up last week on my other blog where a conservative seemed shocked that I expressed hope that Tony Snow would get thru his cancer, the assumption that since I’m more “liberal” I’d wish harm on someone seemed to be how many were feeling just because a few yahoos decided to be jerks doesn’t make us all jerks…
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:50 pmNC – not all columnists who claim to be conservative speak for conservatives in general…just like self-claimed liberal columnists can’t be said to speak for all liberals.
I always thought columnists spoke for no one other than themselves, despite any claims to the contrary.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm“…not all columnists who claim to be conservative speak for conservatives in general…just like self-claimed liberal columnists can’t be said to speak for all liberals.”
Yes, indeed I do know this and there are many that will follow the words set forth.
One only needs to look at the amount of people listening to Limbaugh, Coulter (she is selling a lot of books), Robert Novack and on and on and the same goes the liberal crowd.
It is funny who a small group of people can gain the most amount of notice and at times have little to say or rehash what was already said.
I have been around the block a few times and remember watching and listening to many of the old timers now that practiced columns not based on their political slant.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:57 pmWhat RWT is saying boils down to this:
Liberals have a heart; conservatives are heartless.
If that makes him feel good about being conservative, fine. I’ll stick with being liberal.
This whole thing — except for Lisa’s post — is just a bunch of nonsense.
April 2nd, 2007 at 2:32 pmLisa,
As “squirming in the darkness” is a direct quote from my response, quoted in your title, I feel compelled to respond.
I think that we all know people as described in RWT’s post. We also all probably know examples of their conservative counterparts.
If you took my comment personally I truly apologize, it wasn’t about you.
Similarly, a rant against “them damned conservatives” would not offend me, because I don’t fit that mold.
Neither do you, IMO, fit the liberal mold as described in that post.
However on the whole I agree with your assessment that neither side has exclusive title to feelings and how they use them to their best advantage.
On the whole, either kind of post can contain some truths as well as some “not so” truths, because we are all individuals.
Anyway, I was surprised that you think that it could ever have been about you
I just wish that I had seen this sooner so that I could have nipped this thread in the bud before it became…, well, let’s just say rambling
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:31 amHooda, you didn’t need to nip anything in the bud, however your line used in your comment was too good to not use. I assumed that when I wrote this one of the first things that would be said is that it wasn’t directed at me. Borrowing your line wasn’t directed at you, except to state I wasn’t one of those who was squirming in the darkness.
Of course there are many people out there that fit the description RWT shared and you as well as a few others agreed with. My point was it’s not just liberals or liberalism. I understand there are those out there that go as far as to say that liberalism is a disease, that of course I’d disagree with too.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 am“I just wish that I had seen this sooner so that I could have nipped this thread in the bud before it became…, well, let’s just say rambling..”
One person’s idea of rambling is another idea of discussing ideas in a calm rational way thereby allowing us to talk over what makes us different and the same in so many ways.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 amLisa,
Glad you cleared that up for me
We all have differing opinions on various thing; the important thing is that we can discuss them civilly.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:38 pmNC – I moderate comments to keep things more or less on topic – I can’t recall eliminating yours as of yet. If, however, I don’t get to the mod quene as fast as you’d like- sorry, but I have a life outside of blogging, and responsibilities that need tending to.
Bleeding Heart – my response is the old saw:
“If you aren’t a liberal by 18, you don’t have a heart.
If you aren’t a conservative by 30, you don’t have a brain.”
I have no problem with emotions, but I don’t allow them to rule me.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:26 am“NC – I moderate comments to keep things more or less on topic – I can’t recall eliminating yours as of yet. If, however, I don’t get to the mod quene as fast as you’d like- sorry, but I have a life outside of blogging, and responsibilities that need tending to.”
I have a life also. I tend to things also. My post was right Renee’s and before your response to Renee and had to do with Ann Coulter, no matter though and I did not complain that you took to long, etc.
I said that my comments are not allowed on your blog, those emotions you claim to not have probably made you comment the way you did.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:53 amI’d like you to provide evidence of any statement on my part that I do not have emotions. I simply stateds that emotions do not rule my life, or my outlook on issues – political or otherwise. And no, emotion did not cause my post – it was simply a statement of fact.
As to comments on my blog, feel free to comment – with the following caveats:
- You must add to the discussion at hand in some way. (Way off topic posts are not allowed)
- No flaming, or personal attacks. If you have a problem with a position or policy, fine. Provide a reasoned response. But no “You are a _____” type of comment. – Thisd is by far and away the most common offense.
- No spamming.
If you can handle it, you’re invited in. But, given the political bent of myself and most of my readers, don’t expect to be greeted with warm and fuzzy kudos.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:05 am“If you can handle it, you’re invited in. But, given the political bent of myself and most of my readers, don’t expect to be greeted with warm and fuzzy kudos.”
I think you provided all that needs to be provided.
I try to discuss ideas free from innuendo, sniping, snarking, etc.
Thanks for the invite, anyways.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:14 amWhile we are on the topic of feelings, a friend sent me this New York Times piece. A good portion of it for those of you who don’t have the free registration to the NYT:
President Bush and his advisers have made a lot of ridiculous charges about critics of the war in Iraq: they’re unpatriotic, they want the terrorists to win, they don’t support the troops, to cite just a few. But none of these seem quite as absurd as President Bush’s latest suggestion, that critics of the war whose children are at risk are too “emotional” to see things clearly.
The direct target was Matthew Dowd, one of the chief strategists of Mr. Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign, who has grown disillusioned with the president and the war, which he made clear in an interview with Jim Rutenberg published in The Times last Sunday. But by extension, Mr. Bush’s comments were insulting to the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and spouses have served or will serve in Iraq.
They are perfectly capable of forming judgments about the war, pro or con, on the merits. But when Mr. Bush was asked about Mr. Dowd during a Rose Garden news conference yesterday, he said, “This is an emotional issue for Matthew, as it is for a lot of other people in our country.”
Mr. Dowd’s case, Mr. Bush said, “as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable.”
Over the weekend, two of Mr. Bush’s chief spokesmen, Dan Bartlett and Dana Perino, claimed that Mr. Dowd’s change of heart about the war was rooted in “personal” issues and “emotions,” and talked of his “personal journey.” In recent years, Mr. Dowd suffered the death of a premature twin daughter, and was divorced. His son is scheduled to serve in Iraq soon.
Mr. Dowd said his experiences were a backdrop to his reconsideration of his support of the war and Mr. Bush. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something deeply wrong with the White House’s dismissing his criticism as emotional, as if it has no reasoned connection to Mr. Bush’s policies.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:10 amRichard Perle is backing away from the Iraq war as is Ken Adelman;
“A year before the war, Adelman predicted demolishing Saddam’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a “cakewalk.” But he told the magazine he was mistaken in his high opinion of Bush’s national security team.”
“They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era,” he said. “Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/iraq.critics.ap/index.html
“President Bush and his advisers have made a lot of ridiculous charges about critics of the war in Iraq: they’re unpatriotic, they want the terrorists to win, they don’t support the troops, to cite just a few. But none of these seem quite as absurd as President Bush’s latest suggestion, that critics of the war whose children are at risk are too “emotional” to see things clearly.”
This is nothing different than all the other tactics that were and are used to this day.
All we need to do look back in history a few decades to another unpopular war and the same tactics used then as now.
Same as it ever was.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:24 amEverything needs to be taken in context. My reading of the president’s comments were not dismissive – rather explanatory…”How do you explain when one of your supporters takes a position in opposition to your policies, Mr. President?” response – not exact words: “his position is based upon his personal feelings as are many others.”
I think the so-called analysis or interpretation of the comments says more about the writer of the article than the speakers of the words.
but I’m sure someone will call this a Republican bias, when it isn’t intended as such. Perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves about this issue is this: What would you have preferred the president to say..and how would the media have interpreted such a response?
April 4th, 2007 at 10:39 amThat’s true, Maggie, it is an editorial and as such is the opinion of that particular writer. It does however point to how the labeling of emotions is used in politics on both sides though. In this situation the President is stating that he feels emotions played a part in Matt Dowd’s decision. Evidently Mr. Dowd also felt it was important enough to state his emotions had nothing to do with his decision.
Perception is one of the main factors, and our perception of a statement is at times colored by our own thoughts on an issue. The reason I felt it was valuable to this discussion was not necessarily the underlying topic of the war and the President or Mr. Dowd but the fact that we see in the media the issue of “feelings” being attributed as a reason to disagree rather than one based on logic or other factors.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:48 amI’d also offer this link to Editor & Publisher which puts the comments in context and gives the entire quote – something the NYT didn’t appear to do (at least from Lisa’s excerpt).
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003566742
from the article:
“”NEW YORK At his press conference today, President Bush joined two of his chief spokesmen in suggesting that one’s views of the Iraq war can be strongly influenced or even changed if you happen to have a child who is joining the battle there.
Matthew Dowd, who directed the president’s re-election bid in 2004, had told The New York Times for an article on Sunday that his son was about to be deployed to Iraq — and partly for that reason he now opposed U.S. policy there and backs a withdrawal.
Bush said today, “Matthew’s case, as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words, he’s got a son in the U.S. armed forces and — I mean, I can understand Matthew’s concerns.”
Critics of the war in Iraq have long charged that supporters of the war might feel differently about if they had a a son or daughter fighting in, or possibly headed for, that conflict. Surveys have shown that very few war supporters in Congress, the White House or serving as officials or campaign directors have children in the military and even fewer in the war. “”
According to this version, Dowd said part of his reason for opposition is because of his son’s deployment…If he’s saying it’s part of his reason, why is the President wrong to acknowledge that a personal attachment can influence your opinion?
I don’t think that anyone has said emotions have no place in decisions… but in such extreme cases (like a child being placed in harm’s way – like a war or being a police officer or fire fighter) emotions do have influence – and rightly so.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:49 amHere is a link to the entire transcript which I think we all would agree is preferable:
QUESTION: Matthew Dowd, your chief campaign strategist in 2004, kind of issued a strong critique of you and your administration this weekend.
I’m wondering if you were personally stunned, and if you worry about losing support of people — of him and people like him.
BUSH: First of all, I respect Matthew. I’ve known him for awhile. And as you mentioned, he was an integral part of my 2004 campaign.
I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless, I understand his anguish over war, understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country.
Matthew’s case, as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words, he’s got a son in the U.S. armed forces and — I mean, I can understand Matthew’s concerns.
I would hope that people who share Matthew’s point of view would understand my concern about what failure would mean to the security of the United States.
What I’m worried about is that we leave before the mission is done — and that is a country that is able to govern, sustain and defend itself — and that Iraq becomes a cauldron of chaos, which will embolden extremists, whether they be Shia or Sunni extremists, which would enable extremists to have safe haven from which to plot attacks on America, which could provide new resources for an enemy that wants to harm us.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:54 amI think I see this differently, Lisa.
I don’t interpret this as Dowd making a decision solely based upon emotions – rather, his reasoning is INFLUENCED by emotions – and he’s making a personal statement. He’s not dictating policy based upon his personal situation.
The critical thing elected officials and those in position of authority have to do is not allow their PERSONAL feelings to DETERMINE policy.
I was terrified for the safety of my brother who was on a ship in the Gulf during the first Gulf War. But my fear for his safety was separate from my understanding of the reasons why he was at risk.
If you had a child deployed in Iraq, would you not have an inherent conflict of interest when it came to making policy decisions for the U.S.? Isn’t this why we pay such attention to conflicts of interest?
But I read the analysis of this situation as trying to say that the president dismissed the comments because they were emotion-based. I didn’t see that in the news stories. I saw an understanding of a change of position because of the emotions involved.
Understanding a person’s emotions does not mean that you are using emotions for a political purpose. I think the media spin (all ways that this is being spun) is trying to present more than what was intended.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:56 amthanks for the transcript. I now go back to how this is being spun…and a question – what would have been a better answer for the President to give?
April 4th, 2007 at 10:58 am“what would have been a better answer for the President to give?”
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. As he, the President, has said he is the decider.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:17 amMaggie, I don’t disagree it’s being spun, infact it is being spun and it’s being spun in the same manner that started this original post. Just with an attempt at a different outcome.
I’m not saying the emotions shouldn’t exist, I know how I felt when my son’s best friend was in Iraq. What I am doing is pointing out how this basic assumption of emotions and feelings is done. The assumption that decisions made if they can be explained away by emotions can be discounted. Just as RWT believes it, this NYT editorial writer also believes it’s being done.
Personally I don’t know how the President could have answered this, if he truly does feel that Dowd made his decision to no longer support the war based on what’s happened in his personal life and the impending deployment of his son than that’s how he feels. I suppose the only way would have been to not use:
understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew
and state:
understand that this is a personal issue for Matthew
Though I think the result could have been the same.
For me it was the larger issue of the almost automatic assumption on emotions. RWT feels most liberals do this, here we have an editiorial where it’s being suggested that the President is using emotions as a reason to explain away disagreement. Which to me demonstrates how deep seated this issue is.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:24 am“What I’m worried about is that we leave before the mission is done…”
Can we define what the mission is anymore.
I remember that; Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was a threat to the world, was harboring Al-Qaeda, was looking for uranium in Niger and was in some way behind or partly responsible for the attack on September 11.
Now the mission has become, in my opinion, a mission to hold Iraq together now that it is starting to fracture. We can remember that Iraq was cobbled together by the British who were defeated by the people of then Mesopotamia.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:25 amHere is the White House Breifing where Mr. Dowd was asked about….no spin here?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070402-4.html
April 4th, 2007 at 11:29 amNC, Yes the administration did claim, apparently incorrectly, that Iraq had WMDs. So did the Clinton administration, the Blair administration, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, etc.. etc…
At no time EVER has anyone in this administration claimed Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. This is a convenient liberal urban myth. Please produce your evidence of this claim or stop repeating it. These days every public utterance of the pres, vp, etc.. is recorded somewhere so you should have no trouble pointing us to it.
Just because some polls showed lots of people confused about Saddam and al Qaeda does not mean the administration to make this claim. Most people are just in general confused about the middle east situation, even the “experts.”
For example, the chairman of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Democrat Silvestre Reyes, in an interview with Congressional Quarterly last December incorrectly said that al-Qaeda is a “predominantly probably Shiite” organization. Al-Qaeda is actually Sunni.
He also refused to answer whether Hezbollah is a Shiite or Sunni group, replying “Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah? Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?”
April 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pmMaggie, it’s just a diversion from the issue to ask us to construct what the president should have said when we have before us exactly what he did say. His words are directly related to the matter that caused Lisa Renee to begin this discussion.
When the president said “I have not talked to Matthew about his concerns. Nevertheless, I understand his anguish over war, understand that this is an emotional issue for Matthew as it is a lot of other people in our country. Matthew’s case, as I understand it, is obviously intensified because his son is deployable. In other words, he’s got a son in the U.S. armed forces and — I mean, I can understand Matthew’s concerns. I would hope that people who share Matthew’s point of view would understand my concern about what failure would mean to the security of the United States.” — he’s oozing with code and spin and dismissiveness.
Because I’m fluent in Bush-speak, let me offer this translation:
“I am wise and have carefully thought through the large and important aspects of the war, therefore I am right — and Dowd is just a blob of quivering jello because emotions are taking him off the deep end, warping his ability to think. While he was once smart and insightful because he saw how right my agenda is, he’s now useless to this administration and needs to be belittled so that I can more easily kick him to the curb. I hope that rather than continue to speak to the media, Dowd gets the much-needed therapy that will take him out of this emotional turmoil that is clouding his thinking. In fact, his weakness, his emotionalism is making thinking impossible for him. It’s too personal for him and we all know what ‘personal’ means: it involves his emotions and his family. My administration is all about family values, and we also know what that means: leaving emotion and family out of the equation when establishing policy and going to war because that’s just about people, and people have no place in my kind of governing. There’s no place for them when there’s money to be made and oil to be taken and power to be grabbed. So, bottom line, Dowd is a poor, pathetic man — and thank god he’s been weeded out of my inner circle because, obviously, this man is no longer fully-functioning. He’s to be pitied and ridiculed, while I am to be followed blindly by all you ‘thinkers.’”
April 4th, 2007 at 1:21 pm“At no time EVER has anyone in this administration claimed Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.”
Okay, so then we find this;
Here are some of those statements:
“With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”
— President Bush, State of the Union Speech, Jan. 28, 2003.
“But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. … But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region. We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service. Saddam became more interested as he saw al-Qaida’s appalling attacks. A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al-Qaida’s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.”
— Secretary of State Colin Powell, Statement to the U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003.
“After the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, we will not allow grave threats to go unopposed. We are now working to locate and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This is a historic moment. Just over a month ago, not all that long ago, a cruel dictator ruled a country, ruled Iraq by torture and fear. His regime was allied with terrorists, and the regime was armed with weapons of mass destruction. Today, that regime is no more.”
— President Bush, Speech to workers at Abrams tank plant in Lima, Ohio, April 24, 2003.
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
— President Bush, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003.
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that still goes on. al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist networks still operate in many nations. And we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend our homeland and, more importantly, we will continue to hunt the enemy down before he can strike. No act of terrorists will change our purpose or weaken our resolve or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.”
—President Bush, Weekly radio address, May 3, 2003.
“I think that if you ask, do we know that he had a role in 9-11 — No, we do not know that he had a role in 9-11. I think that this is a test that sets the bar far too high. I don’t think that we want to try and make the case that he directed somehow the 9-11 events.”
—National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Sept. 8, 2003.
MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
—Vice President Dick Cheney, Interview with NBC’s Tim Russert, Sunday, Sept. 14, 2003.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3070241&p1=0
“Just because some polls showed lots of people confused about Saddam and al Qaeda does not mean the administration to make this claim.”
Are these claims, it is all up to the consumer of the words.
Just because the words were parsed carefully it laid the ground work in people’s minds that Iraq was responsible for some part of the attacks.
The President and staff and administration members were very good at repeating the same thing but in different words and we all know that if the same thing is repeated over and over again then it becomes so.
If this was not so, then do so many of the troops interviewed on television say that they wanted to join to fight the people that attacked, those in Iraq, when we all know that Iraq was not behind the attacks.
And this is not about Bush and the republicans, the democrats and the few independant all are to blame also, in my opinion.
And this is relevant because, “Al-Qaeda is actually Sunni.”
And when leaders intimate situations as being this or that people tend to follow what is said, not all people, though.
When in Doubt, Attack Iraq
Finally, the 9/11 Commission report closes its narrative section with the brief, but revealing discussion of the options the administration considered after the attacks. Most striking are the repeated and ultimately successful efforts by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary Douglas Feith to pivot from bin Ladin to Saddam Hussein.
“The phrasing of the report’s first conclusion, in fact, seems to come from a memo Wolfowitz wrote arguing that it was “a failure of imagination” that both prevented us from anticipating the use of suicide pilots and that dismissed the possibilities of Iraqi involvement in the attacks.15 Wolfowitz, the report notes, had pressed the CIA to explore his theory that Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The Commission says in a footnote. “We have found no credible evidence to support theories of Iraqi government involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing.”16
Perhaps the most bizarre memo cited is one from Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith to Rumsfeld, dated September 20, 2001. The Commission reports: “The author expressed disappointment at the limited options immediately available in Afghanistan and the lack of ground options. The author suggested instead hitting terrorists outside the Middle East in the initial offensive, perhaps deliberately selecting a non-al Qaeda target like Iraq. Since US attacks were expected in Afghanistan, an American attack in South America or Southeast Asia might be a surprise to the terrorists.”17
The narrative ends with what seemed to have been a successful war in Afghanistan – a conclusion now very much in doubt as the Taliban continues to attack US and Afghan government targets with deadly results and bin Ladin and other al Qaeda leaders remain at large. No mention is given to the war in Iraq or its consequences.”
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd78/78jc.htm
April 4th, 2007 at 1:38 pmThose are lots of nice quotes about Iraq and AlQaeda but they don’t show the adminstration suggesting Iraq was involved in 9/11. As you admit the words were “parsed carefully” as well they should be. There is lots of evidence linking Iraq and AlQaeda pre-9/11. The administration many times linked Iraq and terrorism, indeed there were terrorist training camps in Iraq an financing provided to terrorists by Iraq. Nothing in your document dump above suggests Saddam was involved in or knew about the specific attack of 9/11.
Words need to be parsed carefully, as the VP does in one of your quotes above. When Russert presses him he says he does not know because, how could the VP in 2003 say unequivocally he KNOWS Saddam was not involved. All he could say, and what he did say, is that there was no evidence of this. Parsing your words to make sure their is a distinction between linking Iraq to Al Qaeda but not linking it to 9/11 specifically is totally reasonable.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWhile not a government spokes person Rush Limbaugh does have a loyal following and said thusly;
“Iraq was indeed involved in those assaults. There is considerable information to that effect, described in this piece and elsewhere. They include Iraqi documents discovered by U.S. forces in Baghdad that U.S. officials have not made public.”
http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/linkconfirmed.htm
And, I do agree with this;
“Parsing your words to make sure their is a distinction between linking Iraq to Al Qaeda but not linking it to 9/11 specifically is totally reasonable.”
But none the less the diet of 9/11, Iraq, nuclear weapons, Iraq and so on, did give the impression that Iraq was some how involved in 9/11 and with the emotions of the time running high the American people bought into the fuzzy statements.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pmGood, so after all that NC and I finally agree. Noone in the administration tied 9/11 and Iraq together. Instead it was the emotional American people who got the impression because the administartion talked about Iraq a lot and also 9/11 a lot. If you’re going to start citing Rush Limbaugh I’m going to start citing Arianna Huffington as representative of you libs.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:48 pm“If you’re going to start citing Rush Limbaugh I’m going to start citing Arianna Huffington as representative of you libs.”
And you draw the conclusion I am a lib, how?
I cited Limbaugh as he was perpetuating the alleged myth.
I think Huffington is about as next to useless as Limbaugh is as I can read and research my own information and do not form my opinions on any commentator.
“Noone in the administration tied 9/11 and Iraq together. Instead it was the emotional American people who got the impression because the administartion talked about Iraq a lot and also 9/11 a lot.”
And I also wonder why the two were used so much and at some many times by people in the administration.
It reminds me a lot of the controversy about the Gulf Of Tonkin resolution and there was an “evil” group involved too and one that we now trade with and have diplomatic relations with.
We may not the true motivations for either conflict for quite some time if at all.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pmBleeding Heart Liberal…perhaps you’d consider another ‘interpretation’???
Bush: I know that people who have children who are placed in harm’s way often rethink their positions because they are concerned about the safety of their child. This is a normal reaction to the fear you feel for your child and I can understand that.
However, as the president, I can’t let my emotions dictate what actions our Country should take to protect itself. No president ever relishes sending people into a war or into situations which can cost them their lives. But presidents have done this when they truly believed that incurring such loses was worth the protection of the country. While a parent has the luxury of worrying about only their child, a president must think of the nation as a whole – while understanding and appreciating the potential sacrifices that American families make.
Such decisions, when made by presidents, are not done lightly. So I’m not going to criticize Dowd for not wanting his son to be in danger.
______
may I also suggest that the argument, stated by many liberal leaders in congress, that “we wouldn’t be in this war if the people making the decisions (meaning Bush) had to risk their own children” implies that leaders should react in a personally emotional way when making decisions. This seems to say that the personal fear over the loss of a child should cause the president, for example, to never decide to enter into a war or conflict that would risk lives.
This is exactly the point that I think RWT was trying to make…that the emotions would determine the action – rather than the responsibility to the entire country and the logic and reason of sometimes having to risk life and limb in defense of the country. (please let’s not be specific to this war, for this argument applies to all wars.)
Can you imagine what might have happened if Lincoln had decided that too many of his friends/family might die if he tried to keep the nation as one, so he just let the south succede?
And I believe my question as to what would you have preferred the president to say is valid. What could he have said that wouldn’t have so many deriding his statements? I’m not being flip, but am truly curious as to what you think would have been a better answer to the question posed?
April 4th, 2007 at 4:11 pmMaggie, it was a simple question that could have been answered with one word — but Bush chose to use a personal putdown in the form of look-how-wise-I-am and look-how-emotional-Dowd-is snark to make a political statement. He was asked if the falling away of support from Dowd and folks like him stunned him. Yes or no, George. Skip the spin, George. Resist the temptation to defend your own falling approval ratings by voicing faux empathetic understanding of someone who served you with loyalty then dared to disagree with you. It was a textbook example of a passive-aggressive coping mechansim.
Your Lincoln comparison has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Lincoln was responding to a real situation, a wrong that he set out to make right.
But Bush? Over and over BushCo. told us the mushroom cloud was coming, Iraq had WMD, yellowcake-yellowcake the-sky-is-falling, we’re fighting for freedom (never mind we already had freedom before this crazy war), we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here (despite there being zero evidence we would ever have to fight them here), and — my personal favorite — now we need to start killing people, destroying their nation and infrastructure and treasures, and subject our own military to death and life-changing injuries because paranoid fantasies tell this administration it’s okay to bring about that death and destruction solely because of what neo-cons suspect a foreign leader “might” do.
I remember when America was still America. I miss that place.
April 4th, 2007 at 7:57 pm“But presidents have done this when they truly believed that incurring such loses was worth the protection of the country.”
And there is the crux of the issue for me, sans the emotional debate, where we in danger from Iraq, when Bin Laden was in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
If the danger emanated from another part of the area they wage the battle there and not the leave the job have done.
“(please let’s not be specific to this war, for this argument applies to all wars.)”
You will be comparing apples and oranges. WWI and WWII were for distinct reasons. The Korean conflict was to stop the spread of communism as was the Vietnam War and one was a draw and not ended and the other was a withdrawal for the U.S.
I personally believe that the President did act of emotion. After all he did make claims that God told him to do;
” Nabil Shaath says: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, “George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.” And I did, and then God would tell me, “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …” And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, “Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.” And by God I’m gonna do it.’”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
April 4th, 2007 at 8:00 pmBHL – The Lincoln comparizon is exactly on target. I suggest you do some research into the newspaper opinion of the period – the NYT could have just substituted “Iraq” for “the South” in some of these arguments, and sparred themselves the wirting time.
may I also suggest that the argument, stated by many liberal leaders in congress, that “we wouldn’t be in this war if the people making the decisions (meaning Bush) had to risk their own children” implies that leaders should react in a personally emotional way when making decisions. This seems to say that the personal fear over the loss of a child should cause the president, for example, to never decide to enter into a war or conflict that would risk lives.
The term for this is transference – the process in which emotions of one (or one’s own self) are projected upon another. In other words, the liberals expect Bush to make a desicion based on emotion because they would.
NC – World War I & II were fought by the US to prevent tyrrany from spreading across a region, destroying the liberty of others. Korea and Vietnam – what is different about the spread of terrorism and the spread of socialism – both are “beliefs,” excepitng that the president’s in question were democrats for Korea and Vietnam, and the current one is republican?
April 5th, 2007 at 6:04 am“NC – World War I & II were fought by the US to prevent tyranny from spreading across a region…”
I am fully aware of that as my father served in the Battle of the Bulge.
And a step brother served in the Vietnam war, state side as a radar chief.
There are some similarities in the conflict in Korea and Vietnam and the so-called War on Terror.
The Korean War is unresolved, the Vietnam war, previously the French Indochina, against a belief failed for France and the U.S. and almost five years in the Iraq war was about one thing and now has morphed into a War on Terror unlike the previous conflicts and wars where the mission was clearly stated and did not shift around.
So Mr. Bush made the decision based on something else based on where the war has taken us so far, emotion or not and we have not defined what “emotions” are. We are emotional creatures by nature and not robots.
Or are we to believe that all our leaders are devoid of characteristics that we all have?
I think it almost safe to say if we look back at all the statements made with regards to faith, crusades, our god is greater than your god, we can see that there were emotions that entered into the thinking some where along the line.
The word emotion is so handily used and so hard to define and if people were as static and did not use emotions to judge their actions and reactions then we would be as lifeless as a computer.
By using the emotional state of the American people the administration at the time of the attacks of 9/11 allowed for the invasion of Iraq as Bin Laden went missing and the 9/11 commission reported that there were efforts by some administration members that were looking for reasons to invade Iraq.
They were not as steely cold as can be claimed and judicious in my opinion, because if they were they would have continued to strike at those that attacked the U.S. and not go into Iraq which as we know had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a threat to us.
So if emotions were not at play, what was?
April 5th, 2007 at 9:03 am“Or are we to believe that all our leaders are devoid of characteristics that we all have?”
Not “devoid of”…just not “ruled by” that’s the difference.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:38 am“Not “devoid of”…just not “ruled by” that’s the difference.”
Of course people ruled by emotions or use emotions. The two are intertwined.
We need to define what emotions are we referring too.
Ms. Thurber you held office as did I, on a smaller scale and can either us say that emotions did not come into play? I cannot as I thought about reactions to my actions, was I governed by “emotions” as a human being and a leader at Town Hall, well sure I was. But I had a job to do and I did the best way I could and I took into account the emotions of those the policies I put into place and tried to as best I could to cover all the bases.
The tactic used by the White House in regards to the “traitor” as characterized by msnbc.com is a common tactic used by politicians to dismiss the persons comments and that is transparent as air, it is nothing new and why people would find it note worthy is beyond me as the idea is as old as politics are.
The concept that one group of people acts without regards to emotions and one group acts on emotions is really silly and is a distraction from the substantive issue in the discussion, we are different and yet the same overall. We all have our differences and some can find a common plain to stand on and some cannot stand with others as they are perceived to be too different and thereby unacceptable.
It is all about labels and the differences between people and if we spent more time looking for commonality between us we would accomplish more and learn more from each other and work together better to accomplish a common goal.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:13 amWhile there seems to be a general consensus about Iraq/9/11/Al-Queda having no involvement, V.P. Cheney still is bringing it up.
“WASHINGTON – Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.”
“Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_intelligence;_ylt=AujO3.ccYa_UXjrD_A2f_bas0NUE
April 6th, 2007 at 8:08 am