Abu Ghraib to be demolished...

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I feel like starting a flame war now. Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, and you are free to disagree.

Bush is having the abu ghraib prison in Iraq demolished, this I find upsetting. Isnt he just sucking up to the media by doing this? After all, the prison itself is not inherently evil, its the people and acts that were commited inside the prison, so isnt he just sweeping it under the rug, and being a ball-less wonder, a suck up, and a coward? After all, as a president, and as a person, he shouldnt allow some persons perception to sway him from his duty. That makes me think that he is the kind of person that takes money under the table and does wink-and nod jobs at meetings. The kind of person who is easily swayed not neccasarily by the people, but by the people with the power.

If he is demolishing the abu ghraib, he is sucking up to the reporters, and to the media, and to the many groups out there that oppose him. I dont want a suck up like bush for a president, because I dont know which people with their own agendas are servicing dubya under the table. Its metaphorical of course.

This leaves some people like me, who normally root for bush, to have a case of buyers remorse, if you know what I mean. I mean like, I dont like kerry, or bush for that matter, so I have to choose between the lesser of two evils...who?

I would appreciate it if my reputation was not lowered for this post. But then again, I'm at -58, so I might as well have some fun and dip into the negative hundreds... flame away!

[Flagrant da Nut]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

This leaves some people like me, who normally root for bush, to have a case of buyers remorse, if you know what I mean. I mean like, I dont like kerry, or bush for that matter, so I have to choose between the lesser of two evils...who?

people like you? you mean 13 ydar olds who arnt going to be voting in the next two elections? you have to choose between the lesser of two evils? for what? trading cards?

i always syspected you were really a 26 year old dude who never learnd to read or write so you pretend to be a kid here. then you say thngs that are way to stu[id for enven a 26 year old

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by Flagrant da Nut

people like you? you mean 13 ydar olds who arnt going to be voting in the next two elections? you have to choose between the lesser of two evils? for what? trading cards?

i always syspected you were really a 26 year old dude who never learnd to read or write so you pretend to be a kid here. then you say thngs that are way to stu[id for enven a 26 year old

So, are you suggesting that a minor can not have a preference of candidates? It isnt really about voting for me, its knowing what you support, because even though you may not be able to vote, you still live in the world, and you have the right to be confused about which candidate you agree with, even though you can not vote.

[Artisan]

...as if by demolishing the prison can begin to erase his problems. Like Rummy's recent ban on camera phones and cameras in detention centers - the genie is out of the bottle.And tonight, folks the first installment of a 6 speech series designed to hopefully spin his a$$ outta the sling its in. Yet another misplaced zig in the meandering course of his administration. I find this sort of feeble attempt at damage control to be an insult to the public. Of all the things that really need doing in Iraq, I'm sure replacing a functional piece of infrastructure so it can be symbolically renamed and hopefully "forgotten" by history to be a complete waste of resources. There's nothing wrong with political idealism and well placed symbolic gestures (i.e. toppling Saddam statues), but this one is so simplisticly self serving that it won't change the perceptions of the most illiterate of third world nincompoops, much less the Iraqi insurgents, Al Qaeda, Bin Ladin, or your average Muhammed on the street.

The administration has taken the concept of "a war of ideas" way too literally, believing now that "perception is reality" and that the people of the world will accept any version that is sold to them. And the polls show the public is less and less willing to listen to the optimistic hype that with every credible news report and real image that leaks out appears to be just that: hype.

[Inquartata]

FLASH! We interrupt this "Bushsucksathon" for this late-breaking cognitive dissonance!

Better save some of your disdain and disgust for the House of Representatives and certain respected Senators, too, Arty:

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDet...0032&oliID=213

http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ction=retrieve

Passed 308-114, as part of HR 4200....measure introduced by a Democrat and passed BEFORE Bush made his decision ( Wednesday I think ). How DARE he listen to Congressional Democrats and the likes of John McCain! Why, he oughta be whipped, the rat bastard!

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled hate-fest, already in progress...

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

I think we agree for once artisan. It seems to me like the real power is not in the king, nor is it behind the throne, its in the press. So in turn, we have an unstable government that plays to the piper and knows where its bread is buttered.

So where do us bush supporters go from here? We loath kerry, and we think that bush is another one of the richard simmons ball-less wonders that couldnt walk a straight line if you pulled him across it.

Now me, a "former" bush supporter is left to root for whom... nader? Yeah right. Nader has about a snowballs chance in texas of getting elected. These cats who are running there own "third party" gigs couldnt find their rear with both hands, they dont have their ducks in a row if you know what I mean. They actually think they can win? Well I will tell you ladies and germs that this may be the first time in us history that a third party person steps up to the presidency Why? Because our two conventional candidates are crazier than a craphouse rat, so we have to vote for the oddball. If you want your third party candidate in the whitehouse, this is the year to do it folks!

[The0ne]

All the senators want to make sure they're not associated with Bush, or the prison, as a senators fulltime job is to suck up to the media and the american public. There definitely needs to be a third party. . . Democrats and Republicans are getting was to close to the same stance on many issues for me. . .

[Artisan]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

So where do us bush supporters go from here? We loath kerry, and we think that bush is another one of the richard simmons ball-less wonders that couldnt walk a straight line if you pulled him across it.

Now me, a "former" bush supporter is left to root for whom...

Hadouken,
I suspect then you will find this site entertaining - I believe it will appeal to your sensibilities:
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti...himanyway.com/

Inquartata,
Why is it that you manage to paint any OPINION that you disagree with in such a satyrical manner? Your reaction is a pithy kneejerk response. Ironic that you should invoke "cognitive dissonance" over a year after the memorable "Mission Accomplished" failed attempt at media spin - and the claims that the cabinet had nothing to do with hanging the banner - which have now been recanted.
It doesn't matter to me who's idea it is to demolish the prison, or who approves of it. My criticism is of the the decision to do it and the motivation behind it. Critique does not imply a "hatefest," Please don't overstate it.
What's your personal opinion on this matter? You know its ok to wander from the loyal party line - you won't be charged with treason.

The whole abuse scandal is unfortunate. Eventually we'll know why and how it happened. In the meantime, to try to address it in this manner just seems ill conceived. It doesn't fit in with Bush's 5 part plan (which is not really a plan, but a list of 5 objectives, and would have been good to have in hand about 6 months ago - oh- I digress) There are still coalition forces and Iraqis getting killed every day, still people without basic municiple services, civil order, and still without a government - how will the replacement of this prison address any of these more more immediate needs?

Now if the announcement had been to replace the prison with a hospital or a school, a food distibution center, a manufacturing facility or power plant, or even an Iraqi run police installation - wouldn't that have generated a bit more international good will? - Something we are in dire need of.

[The0ne]

I find Inquartata really funny, rather than condescending. . .

[Tomas N]

Well, I'm an anti-Bushie, but I think tearing down the prison is the right thing to do. We can't continue to use it as a prison, I don't think we can put a day-care center in there (or probably much else useful), so we tear it down as a symbolic gesture that we condemn the actions that took place in the prison.

Tomas

[telkanuru]

I think it's too little, too late. And keep on mocking people, Inq!

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by Artisan

Inquartata,
Why is it that you manage to paint any OPINION that you disagree with in such a satyrical manner?

Maybe because this thread was started in the context of "starting a flame war?"

Your reaction is a pithy kneejerk response.

And the flames keep burning.

Ironic that you should invoke "cognitive dissonance" over a year after the memorable "Mission Accomplished" failed attempt at media spin - and the claims that the cabinet had nothing to do with hanging the banner - which have now been recanted.

I don't know. He looked pretty impressive in a flight suit.

You guys are funny. Out.

[Flagrant da Nut]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

So, are you suggesting that a minor can not have a preference of candidates? It isnt really about voting for me, its knowing what you support, because even though you may not be able to vote, you still live in the world, and you have the right to be confused about which candidate you agree with, even though you can not vote.

Ur a twerp and not a very smart one at that either.

i dont care what you think. i still think your an old dude pretending to be a kid.

[Inquartata]

[quote=Artisan]Inquartata,
Why is it that you manage to paint any OPINION that you disagree with in such a satyrical manner? [quote]

Perhaps I simply cannot resist the canvas you furnish me.

Seriously, though, would you rather I just resort to humorless contradiction or flaming insults? May I not be permitted my own style of argument?

Your reaction is a pithy kneejerk response.

I see. Your reaction to the Bush decision was thoughtful and justified; but my reaction to your reaction can only be a "kneejerk response"...

Ironic that you should invoke "cognitive dissonance" over a year after the memorable "Mission Accomplished" failed attempt at media spin - and the claims that the cabinet had nothing to do with hanging the banner - which have now been recanted.

You have missed the point of my little gibe. It is not that Bush & Co. have never screwed the pooch or indulged in propaganda. It is that somehow you seem to attribute EVERYTHING that happens that you don't like to them and to them alone. When the House of Representatives votes 308-114 in favor of a resolution to do X, then three or four days later Bush says, "OK, let's do X", it hardly seems appropriate to exclaim in disgust about the latter only...or to claim that somehow he has invented a wholly 'self-serving' and cynical political 'stratergery' out of whole cloth and then take off on a riff about how it's just transparent damage control for his public image....

The man cannot win with you. If he makes a decision on his own, he's acting arrogantly and unilaterally, ignoring advice from legislators and experts and the 'world community'; if he does accede to the wishes of others with regard to a policy, then he's despicable for pandering.

It doesn't matter to me who's idea it is to demolish the prison, or who approves of it. My criticism is of the the decision to do it and the motivation behind it.

Then as I said why not save some of your criticism for all involved, or criticize the decision without tossing in the gratuitous attacks? Because your post sure seemed less about the decision itself than about what you think it demonstrates about one or two guys...

Critique does not imply a "hatefest," Please don't overstate it.

So, you realy like Bush, then?

What's your personal opinion on this matter?

I think it's probably pretty cose to yours: it's a pointless symbolic gesture which will distract no one's attention from the prison abuse scandal, and a waste of resources as well. Where we part company is in thinking that the blame falls all in one heap, or that it's a decision arrived at in isolation solely at the behest and for the benefit of the White House.

You know its ok to wander from the loyal party line - you won't be charged with treason.

Because everyone knows that anyone who agrees with the Administration's actions on any issue or defends it in any way cannot possibly have decided on his own that an action was appropriate or that criticisms are unwarranted, but instead is merely parroting Karl Rove, who has had receivers planted in all our brains that he might control our thoughts....

There are still coalition forces and Iraqis getting killed every day, still people without basic municiple services, civil order, and still without a government - how will the replacement of this prison address any of these more more immediate needs?

Again, disagreeing with your conclusion was not the point of my gibe. It was to note that the idea did not even originate with the fellow whom you have inferred it alone serves, and serves in some necessarily base manner, and who alone seems to merit responsibility for concocting it...

[Artisan]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I see. Your reaction to the Bush decision was thoughtful and justified; but my reaction to your reaction can only be a "kneejerk response"...

Point taken, except that I stated an opinion, and my reasons why, and you critiqued the reasons without stating your position on the opinion. Frankly I care less about the reasons - the point for me is the outcome.

You have missed the point of my little gibe. It is not that Bush & Co. have never screwed the pooch or indulged in propaganda. It is that somehow you seem to attribute EVERYTHING that happens that you don't like to them and to them alone.

I would never give Bush or any administration full credit for germinating every idea that crosses the oval office desk. But if we can't hold our leaders accountable for the decisions on the items they act on, well - why call them leaders? He could have vetoed it, asked for it to be ammended, etc. Besides we all know theres a lot of mutual back scratching that goes on with any congressional / executive activities, not to mention the possibility that some may have voted for it because of how it might make the administration look, and some may have thought it to be a genuinely good idea.
[/quote]

When the House of Representatives votes 308-114 in favor of a resolution to do X, then three or four days later Bush says, "OK, let's do X", it hardly seems appropriate to exclaim in disgust about the latter only...or to claim that somehow he has invented a wholly 'self-serving' and cynical political 'stratergery' out of whole cloth

I didn't make that claim about "stratergery" - but it a perfect use of the "woid".
We both know that this idea didn't pop into Bush's head one night as he tossed and turned worrying about his troubles. Some political wonk cooked it up and pitched it, and the administation thought "Hey we can get some milage outta this"

and then take off on a riff about how it's just transparent damage control for his public image....

but you agreed with me... "it's a pointless symbolic gesture" I'm sure he wants to improve the image of the US as a moral authority, thats his justifiable primary motivation, and if he does so effectively he improves his standings and chances of reelection. win/win.

The man cannot win with you. If he makes a decision on his own, he's acting arrogantly and unilaterally, ignoring advice from legislators and experts and the 'world community'; if he does accede to the wishes of others with regard to a policy, then he's despicable for pandering.

You're putting words in my mouth that I did not utter, since I for one don't think Bush (ok- or any president) has ever made a decision on his own without input from his advisors. Furthermore I don't believe any politician worth his salt accedes to the wishes of others for the sake of being nice - there is always a quid pro quo.

You may see me as arbitray or simplistic to feel that the leader is to be held accountable - but thats what they are there to do. Bush chooses his advisors, and chooses when and who to listen to, so ultimately he is the single person responsible for the groupthink of his administration. When I spoke out about Rumsfeld you criticised me for holding him accountable - the very next day he was on TV in front of the committee saying "as the man at the top I am responsible"

Then as I said why not save some of your criticism for all involved, or criticize the decision without tossing in the gratuitous attacks? Because your post sure seemed less about the decision itself than about what you think it demonstrates about one or two guys...

Again - and not to put too fine of a point on it - One guy stands for the whole organization. We don't get to vote for the cabinet, we only get to vote for one guy, and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent this campaign year are being thrown around to demonstrate something about the candidates to the public. Most people unfortunately vote on how they "feel" about the candidate - not their actual performance, and politicians know this. The public doesn't want all the details.

So, you realy like Bush, then?

Um, no... but when he started, his slate was in my eyes (almost ) clean. I was optimistic.
[quote]
I think it's probably pretty cose to yours: it's a pointless symbolic gesture which will distract no one's attention from the prison abuse scandal, and a waste of resources as well. Where we part company is in thinking that the blame falls all in one heap, or that it's a decision arrived at in isolation solely at the behest and for the benefit of the White House.
[/qoute]
Aha! I knew we had some common ground.

Because everyone knows that anyone who agrees with the Administration's actions on any issue or defends it in any way cannot possibly have decided on his own that an action was appropriate or that criticisms are unwarranted, but instead is merely parroting Karl Rove, who has had receivers planted in all our brains that he might control our thoughts....

I didn't know about the Karl Rove receiver implants, thanks - that helps explain a lot. Apparently one of the side effects is that it causes the host organism to respond to debates by attacking the opponent directly rather than the ideas being expressed. Clearly you like Bush and are willing to forgive him for the misteps he's and his minions have made. I don't and won't.

Its interesting that, backstory aside, neither of us think demolishing the prison is useful. So neither of us have fallen into the Mango zone either.

andInky, ...I like your style, and appreciate the opportunity to have you paint on my canvass.

There, Hatefest turned Lovefest...ick.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Artisan

I would never give Bush or any administration full credit for germinating every idea that crosses the oval office desk. But if we can't hold our leaders accountable for the decisions on the items they act on, well - why call them leaders?

Accountable, yes; but solely responsible? Aren't Congressmen supposed to be among our leaders, too? And if they come up with the idea, why does it become the President's Folly simply because he likes the idea?


He could have vetoed it, asked for it to be ammended, etc. Besides we all know theres a lot of mutual back scratching that goes on with any congressional / executive activities, not to mention the possibility that some may have voted for it because of how it might make the administration look, and some may have thought it to be a genuinely good idea.
[/quote]

I didn't make that claim about "stratergery"

I know. Somehow I just can't think of Bush and write "strategy" correctly any more...even if it is a bit of a cheap shot.

but you agreed with me... "it's a pointless symbolic gesture" I'm sure he wants to improve the image of the US as a moral authority, thats his justifiable primary motivation, and if he does so effectively he improves his standings and chances of reelection.

But again, the idea germinated first in the mind of a Democratic Congressman, and the resolution was overwhelmingly passed by the House, meaning a lot of Democrats voted for it. I suspect that these worthies weren't promoting the idea in order to let Bush improve his image or give him a campaigning boast. So I don't see how it can be primarily a move for his benefit....

You're putting words in my mouth that I did not utter, since I for one don't think Bush (ok- or any president) has ever made a decision on his own without input from his advisors. Furthermore I don't believe any politician worth his salt accedes to the wishes of others for the sake of being nice - there is always a quid pro quo.

Very well. But that's one of the most popular lines of attack against Bush: that he's a unilateralist who disregards all input but that of his own cabal. Cetainly he is supposed to ignore Democratic ideas and the advice of the loyal opposition in Congress!

You may see me as arbitray or simplistic to feel that the leader is to be held accountable - but thats what they are there to do.

But again, is he our ONLY leader, responsible for EVERY decision and action? If, say, he vetoes a bill and Congress overrides it, is he still "accountable" for the policy the bill legislates? Or do Congressmen exercise leadership functions independent of the Oval Office?

Bush chooses his advisors, and chooses when and who to listen to, so ultimately he is the single person responsible for the groupthink of his administration.

And for that of Congress, too?

When I spoke out about Rumsfeld you criticised me for holding him accountable - the very next day he was on TV in front of the committee saying "as the man at the top I am responsible"

Leaders are expected to say such things, even if they're not really true...or rather, if we can't know whether or not they're true. Denying responsibility doesn't play well since Watergate---look what it got Clinton. But at the same time it isn't proof of guilt, either. It can be a sort of philosophical recognition that one is at the top of the chain of command ( or almost the top ).

I will say, though, that in his testimony to the committee Rumsfeld was showing a good deal of body language that usually connotes evasiveness. Maybe he did know of the abuses, or even approved of them. I just thought it was premature to be calling for a head so soon...

Again - and not to put too fine of a point on it - One guy stands for the whole organization. We don't get to vote for the cabinet, we only get to vote for one guy, and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent this campaign year are being thrown around to demonstrate something about the candidates to the public.

I hate to keep harping on this, but Bush merely picked up on, or yielded to, a demand proferred by a Democratic Congressman and suggested by folks like Senator McCain well beforehand. And we DO get to vote for THEM. ( Hence my prompting to save some outrage for them. )

it causes the host organism to respond to debates by attacking the opponent directly rather than the ideas being expressed.

Not the idea...only one conclusion: that it was all Bush's doing, and that by extension it was all an idea to rehabilitate his public image...

And I don't believe I ever attacked you personally.

Clearly you like Bush and are willing to forgive him for the misteps he's and his minions have made. I don't and won't.

I think that on balance the good he has done has outweighed the bad. This gets him some forbearance from me, if not forgiveness. No political leader is ever going to meet all of my wishes and share all of my beliefs exactly; one can only hope for the best...and perhaps not try to hamstring future effectiveness by rejecting everything he may wish to do in the future because one is disgusted with the results of a few past policies.

Lovefest...ick.

Now on this we can truly agree!