Damn straight. And we can't let him forget it.

Get a hold of yourself, Nathan!

Three Nobel Peace laureates now support action action against Saddam: Elie Wiesel, Jose Ramos-Horta and Lech Walesa.

Jack, and 49 Nobel prize winners have come out against the war. See here.

As for Wiesel, his silence on Palestine leaves him with little credibility on condemning oppression at this point, as this Jewish criticism notes.

It is precisely the hypocrisy of those who talk about the oppression of the Iraqis-- which is accurate but kind of irrelevant to whether they should be bombed and murdered for their own good-- when the oppression of the Palestinians is ignored by the Bush administration

Okay, but notice that Wiesel isn't saying anything about repression of the Iraqis. He is arguing that Saddam's WMD are a threat which must be confronted. Nathan, if we're trading Nobel Peace laureates, isn't this a bit more complicated than "bloody-handed Bush"?

What about Ramos-Horta and Walesa? To say nothing of Tony Blair?
Did Bush threaten them? Or bribe them? Or perhaps he and Cheney gave all of them shares in Dutch/Shell?

The arguments of the left aren't worth pocket lint.

Jack-- you are mostly uninteresting and rude, so if you are going to continue to be disrespectful, I'll ask you to stop posting here. I'm happy to have conservatives post counter-arguments but you are a guest on this site, or in terms a conservative should understand, I'm paying for this microphone.

So clean up your act or stop posting.

Nathan, you're correct to point out the cause and effect, yet what I find so depressing it the difficulty of conveying this point to a wider audience which needs to be done if we are to break the cycle. If one points out that Bin Laden was a creation of the CIA, this is somehow dismissed as being one of irrelevant, unpatriotic or conspiracy theorizing, rather than acknowledged as an undeniable fact, the circumstances of which may be instructive in understanding events and formulating policy (and please don't infer from this that I am saying in some simplistic sense that the US brought 9-11 on itself, rather I simply wish to point out that the causes are complex and the interplay of all parties needs to be understood in a way that popular debate seems to prohibit).

When / if (more likely when) the next terrorist attack occurs against the US, there will be no serious examination of cause and effect in the US mainstream media, prior to the US determining its response. To ask the question will simply invite accusations of disloyalty to the flag or worse. When the very serious UK journalist Robert Fisk asked these questions about 9-11 he received a torrent of threats and abuse from all quarters in the US (including John Malkovich announcing at a debate at Cambridge University that he would like to kill him http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/terror/counter182.html)

This lack of debate is disastrous. It fosters continued ignorance and, with nothing other than the fantastical explanations of the politicans, the population of the US will give further (passive) assent to the waging of subsequent wars which will merely create and perpetuate more problems, as is now happening. And of course, if I really wanted to wear my leftist credentials on my sleeve, I'd go on and say that the obfuscation of cause and effect is vital to continuing this process which is designed to serve the narrow interests of those in political and financial power...

Through 2001 I watched Bush move U.S. policy away from Clinton's (and previous administration's) somewhat neutral, somewhat even-handed mediating approach, and more and more toward one-sided support of the positions of Sharon's Israel and against the Palestineans. I believe this is part of what led to 9/11.

What I understand is that the left can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Rude? Saying that the president has "blood on his hands" is one thing. But mention pocket lint? Well now, that's just going to far!

Give it up Jack-- one is a description of policy-- and you are free to describe left policy as criminal or treasonous for all I care- but the other is being respectful of those you choose to engage in discussion. If you don't think the arguments on this site are worth anything, you are hereby invited not to read them or respond.

So what you're saying is that you don't mind if leftist arguments are seen as criminal or treasonous? Just so long as they aren't called worthless:

"Yes, they may be criminal and treasonous ideas, but still one has to say that they're valuable."

I have said, and shown, only that leftist arguments don't stand up to critical scrutiny. What do you expect your conservative guests to say in their counter-arguments?

Criminal and treasonous, Jack? Only in the view of a rabid right-winger, not under the laws of this nation.

Be careful with your words. Words actually have meanings external to your own definitions.

Chuck,
If you will note, those were Nathan's words, not mine.

Jack,

Pledging allegiance somethin other than America is criminal and treasonous. So ask yourself - do you pledge allegiance to George Bush or America first? Nathan pledges it to America, even if he thinks thhe current administration of America is a piece of crap. Thr right wing seems to pledge it to the administation first.

If you pledge your allegiance to this administration first, you simply cannot call yourself an American. End of story.

> Every terrorist attack from now on is his responsibility, his fault.

Don't you know *anything*? It's Bill Clinton's fault! Yes, that fiend in human form is directly responsible, just as he was for the deaths of Jesus, Gandhi (both of them), JFK, etc. etc.

Responding to Votive (3/16) regarding problems with US media coverage, you might like "how to deter Bush's fibbing" and more at Take Back the Media --
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/com-hans-03-0314.html

If Bush goes into war, let's be clear. Every terrorist attack from now on is his responsibility, his fault.

Nathan, this is too absolute. Surely you don't really believe in this literally. I mean, come on.

Let's say Sendero Luminoso now has a terrorist attack in Chile. They're not even Muslim. Is Bush somehow going to be responsible for that?

If you're going to say that every Muslim terrorist attack is now driven by this, then at least put forth an argument.

Jesus, Nathan. You are normally so incredibly damn intelligent. I'm blown away by this. If you're going to be this absolute, then put forth an argument.

thanks AMK.

Andrew, I meant in context that any terrorist attack in the US was now Bush's responsibility. Now, every terrorist in the world has justification to kill Americans as a "preemptive" defense of their homeland, since Bush has now said he reserves the right to invade any country, anywhere, without any regard to international law.

He is removing any moral right for the US to condemn terrorism as somehow outside international law or standards.

It is insanely destructive and living in the city that suffered from 911 most directly AND has opposed this war in the streets and in city council resolutions, we have the right to call this action by Bush a betrayal of our community.

He is endangering our lives, even as he'll probably hide once again in some concrete bunker when the next attack comes.

But what does he care about New York-- he's letting children die in underfunded hospitals still suffering from the economic collapse following 911. He'll spend hundreds of billions on weapons to kill and nickel-and-dime those who suffered from terrorism on 911.

He doesn't care about those who suffered from 911. He's just using their names for a war of aggression to expand corporate military power, get some oil, and dominate the region.

Nathan, you've restored my confidence. Thank you. Many good points. I still disagree that Bush will have culpability, because a terrorist attack is an act of aggression, not one of defense.

You overstate this one thing. Bush has never claimed that he needs no international law justification for military action. Furthermore, I believe Bush will claim justification under international law for military action in Iraq. If true, he would not be opening the door to anarachy.

I'm not making any statement here as to what international law is or is not. I'm just saying that Bush is saying that he has justification under it for what he's about to do.

french? im pretty sure that bush isnt the reason we are going to war. the US and the UK and many other nations attempted very hard to get somthing to the UN that would pressure iraq into complying. however the french took it upon themselves to say no to ANYTHING prior to it even being written. that is why we are at war. but lets not put all the blame on france and its economic ties with iraq.. we must remember that saddam is where it all started OVER 12 YEARS AGO!

its not an issue of rushing to war. 4383 (roughly) days is not, in my view, rushing to anything.

Hi,
Mr. Newmann, they hated us all ready. Islamic fundementalists hate us for our freedom and our success. The day they will stop bombing and attacking us is the day we are all dead. They are the enemy now, not president Bush.
-Respectfully
Robert S. Morgan

Who's us paleface, as Tonto said when the Apache surrounded the lone ranger?

I'm pretty secular, so I don't believe much of what Islamic believers promote, but most of them (and no doubt the same percentage as fundamentalist Christians) are loving human beings who value their children and ours as much as I do. I travelled for months in the Middle East in 1999 and never once met a hint of hostility personally because I was an American, although some criticized our government's policies.

I've met far more hostility just on this blog from conservatives who support attacks on communities in the United States, from attacking union members to deporting immigrants to attacking recipients of welfare.

And as the respect shown Rachel Corrie demonstrates, respect for America itself will be shown when we demonstrate respect for people struggling for justice.

Hi,
I agree, the majority of Muslims in the world don't hate us. I never said all Muslims are fundementalists. The few that are, will always hate us, will always bomb us, no matter who is our president. -Respectfully
Robert S. Morgan

Hi,
Coming to the defense of Mr. Stephens earlier, and responding to the comments of a Dr. Squid, if you pledged aligance to the country, and not the administration, then you'd have to support all of the documents of this nation, Right?
Well lets see, if you support the Constitution you'd have to support the idea that the president has the right to deploy troops as our Commander In Cheif. Therefore, your whole anti-war protest is technically un-american. -Respectfully
Robert S. Morgan