04 October 2006

Meanwhile . . .

Sex scandals that bring down bloated, corrupt, corpulent Speakers of the House are fun and all but let's not forget. . .

23 US Servicepersons have died in Iraq since Sunday.

George Bush has blood on his hands and this is why we stand against him.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Exactly who are "we"? I'm glad you spoke for the entire nation.

Anonymous said...

As the father of a USMC Infantry Sgt. I stand against you.

The deaths of the fine people does not happen in a vaccuum, and are not in vain.

Read the letter found with Zarquarwi, and you'll see what I mean.

scalpel said...

I don't think Bush can run again, unfortunately.

JimII said...

I stand with Liam and the majority of Americans who realize that the courage of those sacrificed cannot sanctify a wicked cause.

George W. Bush's exploitation of fear has cause this country to lose its moral authority. Just like hard-working Americans can vote for a spoiled rich kid; just like courage veterans can vote for a draft dodger; just like devoted Christians can vote for a man who stands against everything Christ ever stood for--we moral, hopeful, courageous, diligent Americans have allowed ourselves to be tricked into supporting the deaths of innocents, the torture of our enemies and the death of our constitution that men and women for 250 years, including me and my dad and his dad, have fought to protect.

This great nation is being taken down from the inside. No matter how noble your son is; his president is leading us into darkness.

Read a newspaper and you'll see what I mean.

keagirl said...

The irony is that this so-called "sex scandal" is really small fish compared to all the *unbelievable* events and policies that have been happening under this administration for the past 6 years. But the Foley scandal is what is garnering the most press and outrage from the American public (which speaks volume in itself). However, if this is what it takes to bring this administration down, then I say "bring it on!"

Anonymous said...

**"I stand with Liam and the majority of Americans who realize that the courage of those sacrificed cannot sanctify a wicked cause.

-I guess I just don't see liberation from tyranny as a wicked cause.

**George W. Bush's exploitation of fear has cause this country to lose its moral authority.

-You could ignore every statement of Bush's and the dynamics would still be the same. Exploiting or warning of real danger is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. But after studying radical islam for the past decade, I see no disconnect between his position and the realities. I get the feeling some don't want to face that reality, so they blame Bush for it, or alerting them to it.

You might consider looking at the 90's, and the rhetoric concerning Islamism and Hussein for comparison.

I don't see any difference, other than the previous admin made a much more emphatic attempt to link AQ and Iraq. No-one seemed bothered by it then. What changed?

**Just like hard-working Americans can vote for a spoiled rich kid; just like courage veterans can vote for a draft dodger; just like devoted Christians can vote for a man who stands against everything Christ ever stood for--we moral, hopeful, courageous, diligent Americans have allowed ourselves to be tricked into supporting the deaths of innocents, the torture of our enemies and the death of our constitution that men and women for 250 years, including me and my dad and his dad, have fought to protect.

I won't address every apocolyptic scenario you present, but I know quite a few OIF vets, all Bush voters, including my son. Keep in mind these guys have been there, put their lives on the line to *protect* innocents in a theatre in which non-combatants are essentially a weapon, and a shield. You might reserve some outrage for those who target innocents as a tactic.

**This great nation is being taken down from the inside. No matter how noble your son is; his president is leading us into darkness.

I've heard that for 40 years in one form or another about every administration. I'm barely recovered from the nuclear war reagan got us into, as promised.

I agree that there are elements who want to take down this country. Maybe that's not their intent, but in the zeal to "take down" an administratiopn that is leaving in 2 years, they just might end up taking down more than they bargained for.

**Read a newspaper and you'll see what I mean.

Read more than newspapers, just a suggestion.

As a former journalist, I can tell you that news coverage is different depending on which party is in power. I can honestly say that the situation in big "journalism" is as bad as I've ever encountered, the agenda is inescapable, but enough about that.

That being said, I respect your dire outlook, but keep in mind that the global realities we face today are no different than the previous decade - other than the fact that al-Qaida is provably weakened, and 50,000,000 more humans have a better shot at self-determination than they have ever had before.

Changes like that don't come about by wishing, they are a result of facing problems head on - and there will always be a price paid, always. My son and his comrades willingly pay that price. maybe they know something you don't?

Anonymous said...

"The deaths of the fine people does not happen in a vacuum (editor's note: learn to spell!), and are not in vain."

And what of the 40 million people dying of AIDS, worldwide? Instead of funding the research into a cure or a vaccine, Bush is putting all of the nation's funding into the war in Iraq, and biodefense. And in case you haven't been paying attention, "biodefense" programs sound an awful lot like the biowarfare programs that Nixon shut down three and a half decades ago.

Little has changed since the early 1980s, when Reagan cut funding to research programs because AIDS was known as GRID and homosexuals weren't worth the effort or money. The deaths of AIDS patients worldwide *ARE* in vain, and Bush won't do anything about it because he's busy exploiting fear to protect his oil interests.

News flash: Bush has blood on his hands. A lot of it. And it's not just from a war we shouldn't be fighting.

Anonymous said...

I actually surfed here from another medical blog looking for such. Instead I get left-wing drivel shoved down my throat the second I arrive. So much for this blog.

Steve in Texas (formerly anon) said...

**"The deaths of the fine people does not happen in a vacuum (editor's note: learn to spell!), and are not in vain."

Not to belabour the point, but in the internet age, a spelling flame is not particularly worth the effort. That being said, my apologies for the typo.


***And what of the 40 million people dying of AIDS, worldwide? Instead of funding the research into a cure or a vaccine, Bush is putting all of the nation's funding into the war in Iraq, and biodefense.

You could pick any "issue" that is in need of funding, and somehow tie it into the war in Iraq, or funding for the GWOT in general. It's rather pointless to address this issue.

**And in case you haven't been paying attention, "biodefense" programs sound an awful lot like the biowarfare programs that Nixon shut down three and a half decades ago.

Yes, it has the word "bio" in it, I'll concur with that.

"Bush" also sounds suspiciously like "Bushwacker", which is a rifle.

**Little has changed since the early 1980s, when Reagan cut funding to research programs because AIDS was known as GRID and homosexuals weren't worth the effort or money. The deaths of AIDS patients worldwide *ARE* in vain, and Bush won't do anything about it because he's busy exploiting fear to protect his oil interests.

It appears you consider the AIDS issue to be of paramount importance - but comparisons between disease to a global conflict with a radical ideology doesn't really address the issue of the radical ideology and the methods employed to fight against it.

We're wasting the good Doctor's bandwidth.

**News flash: Bush has blood on his hands. A lot of it. And it's not just from a war we shouldn't be fighting.

In a debate about the war in Iraq, you offer critique of AIDS funding, a seeming suggestion that we're prepared to use bioweapons, and criticize Reagan's handling of the early days of the epidemic.

However, you at least stated we shouldn't be fighting the war, but you fail to offer any war-related issues that would lead you to this conclusion.

I'll disregard all the world's problems that an omnioptent Bush should be solving, and stick to the issue of this war, and stating my position and what issues have brought me to my conclusions.

Perhaps you might do the same? Unless, of course, your position is simply "We should not be in Iraq because of the AIDS epidemic". That would be a valid point, but I suspect there are other, more related facts that bring you to your conclusions.

I've posted too much already, but I'll leave you with something to ponder, as I believe problems are best solved by looking ahead.

Even if you were against the war initially, what do you propose we do from this point forward? Immediate retreat? Stay the course? Fretting about what you perceive as a past mistake does nothing to offer solutions. Got any?

JimII said...

Still Anon said:
"The deaths of the fine people does not happen in a vacuum (editor's note: learn to spell!), and are not in vain."

And what of the 40 million people dying of AIDS, worldwide?

JimII says,

*sigh* First, why would you pick on somone's spelling. What a way to lose credibility.

Second, AIDS, really? I mean, I hate W. I really hate him, but what is the name of the President who has spent more money on AIDS in Africa than any other? Oh right. It would be like a conservative deciding to attack Clinton for his deficit spending.

Steve in Texas,

You're right about wasting Liam's bandwidth. I apologize for the spelling idiot. I still think W is destroying our country but I've now decided that I like you. I hope your son returns safely.

Love,
JimII

matt dick said...

A disclaimer: I've known jimii and the blog owner for most of my adult life and they are two of my closest friends.

Mitigating factor: I almost always disagree with their political positions.

That having been said, I've enjoyed this discussion, mostly because while jimii and steve in texas started out fairly hostile, they each obviously read the other's arguments and found the grounds of agreement and disagreement. Having that kind of honest discussion is the reward both of them reap for the sacrifice and service of jimmii and steve's son.

Steve in Texas said...

Matt, Jimll-

Thank you for the sentiment concerning my son. it is deeply appreciated.

A clarification: He is not currently in Iraq, and has left USMC after 6 years and is surrently a paramedic in Ft Worth. He is Inactive Ready Reserve until late december, so he may get called back.

Regarding the exchanges we've had - my apologies if I came off as hostile, there was no intent to be so. Lord knows there's enough of that in discourse these days - I try not to contribute to that. Certainly not as a commenter on someone's blog.

I respect those who are negative towards Bush and his policies, but I find the heated rhetoric directed at him is unhealthy for this country, especially when our military is engaged as it is.

Unfortunately, I believe this anger is being exploited by our enemies - that's not a new tactic, but the level of sophistication and manipulation is.

I remind all that this is unlike previous wars, and we are essentially on a battlefield, we are considered combatants, and we are targets.

We are also weapons. I'm sorry, but when I hear Cindy Sheehan (whom I have met in C'ford) speak of her fantasy of killing Bush as a baby, it sends chills down my spine.

If you read the available strategy papers from al-Qaida and the like, this is right out of the playbook - and it is frightening how we seem to be playing by their rules more and more.

I just wish folks would realize this, others are listening and watching, and with great interest. And it will not end when Bush is out of office. We face a determined and very patient enemy. We may very well look back at this time as one of relative peace.

We are in it for the long haul, as Americans - not R's or D's, but as the keepers of the American flame, I hope it is not extinguished on our watch.

And it very easily could be.

peace/out, and God Bless.