« Where the Peace Movement Went Wrong | Main | Privatization of the Military »

April 11, 2003

The Unbearable Cheapness of Bush

Ignoring ten years of sanctions and the devastation of years of oppression, the US government is already looking to back off of real help for the Iraqi people.

The Bush administration on Friday played down the need for a costly reconstruction effort in Iraq, citing limited damage to the country's oil fields and other infrastructure and rapid progress in the war.

"There's just no reason that this can't be an affordable endeavor," said White House budget director Mitch Daniels.

"I don't know that there is much reconstruction to do," Rumsfeld told reporters late Thursday.

It's almost unbelievable that we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on weaponry, but run away from spending the billions that would improve the lives of the people of Iraq.

But then, we did the same thing in Afghanistan, cutting and running without allocating the financial support to restore the country. And warlords and drugs continue to control most of that country.

But hey, Bush has nickeled and dimed even New York City, the main victim of the 911 attacks, so no one should take the Bush White House cheapness too personally.

Posted by Nathan at April 11, 2003 04:54 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Why won't the left learn that throwing money at the problem won't always fix it. With there oil fields intact, Iraq will have more than enough money to repair its infrastructure, which is, to the disbelief of anti-war entusiasts, not that bad. Besides, our air campaign didn't target infrastructure that much as too reduce the amount of rebuilding would have to be done.
-Robert S. Morgan

P.S.-Mr. Newman, you must have HATED Ron Reagan

Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at April 11, 2003 11:33 PM

Theres no money in this world that can pay the lives from innocent civilians assassinated by coalition forces. Not even those kids' spoiled youth by 10 years of sanctions.

What are you Mr. Morgan a veteran of war?

Posted by: guilherme at April 12, 2003 12:06 AM

If the matter had been left in the hands of Bush's opponents, Saddam would still be running his children's prisons and torture chambers, and the inexorable impoverishment of the Iraqi people that characterized his rule would be continuinig unabated. It seems to me that you and yours have an exceedingly shaky moral basis to criticize Bush for not doing enough to improve the lives of Iraqis.

Posted by: Tom T. at April 12, 2003 01:11 AM

Why spend our money suppressing looting, revenge killings, sectarian fighting and so on? Just eliminate taxes on dividends and let the free market provide a solution!

Posted by: SqueakyRat at April 12, 2003 05:49 AM

The Globalist has a good article showing that most of Iraq's oil already goes to the Iraqi people -- in the form of food. The rest of the money will be needed to upgrade Iraq's oil infrastructure and to pay off debts . (The LA Times says that Iraq has more debts than Argentina, relative to GDP.)


BTW, sorry about the cut-&-paste URL. Does this comments article accept links?

Posted by: Carl at April 12, 2003 07:17 AM

Do you know what sanctions means, Tom?
Do you know what it did to Iraq? And Cuba?
Are you serious Tom?
If your murderers wanted to help Iraq, what is the is the deal on those sanctions?

This war started when Iraqs changed oil quotation from DOLARS to EURO. That made White house pissed off, that made them think, we are gonna lose power.

Your murderers dont want to own the oil, they wanna control how it is going to be commercialized.

Posted by: Guilherme at April 12, 2003 10:21 AM

Guilherme, my American murderers are going to kill a lot fewer people in Iraq than your Baathist murderers. That's what it comes down to for me.

Posted by: Tom T. at April 12, 2003 02:45 PM

"Do you know what sanctions means, Tom?
Do you know what it did to Iraq? And Cuba?"
Do know know who's fault it is for those sanctions, do you Guili? SADDAM, thats who! Do you know who's responsible for the dead civilians, SADDAM, thats who!

If we didn't go to war, little children would still be starving in Iraq under Saddams regime. People would still be tortured. Saddam would still have a chance to give WMD's to terrorists. Why can't you get over your general hatred of Pres. Bush and admit that this was a just war!
-Robert S. Morgan
P.S.-Ditto to Tom T.

Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at April 12, 2003 03:35 PM

Mr Morgan,

I'd like to direct you to what seem to me to be two really sensible articles, one written before the war and one written after.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081376/ (after the war)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080322/ (before the war)

There's too much to summarize but a few important points: to continue to question the wisdom of the war doesn't mean that we somehow wish the Iraqis were still being oppressed by Saddam. No sane person couldn't be anything other than delighted at their liberation by the US (assuming the current mayhem calms down). It just means that we acknowledge the fact that the debate about the war was not exclusively a debate about liberating the Iraqi people - remember, the US administration began the process as a debate about WMD - and that there are a number of other potential consequences that could have a very real adverse affect but have not yet surfaced. The logic of continuing to say the war was unjustified is based on saying that the outcome of previously identified risks - an escalation of resentement towards the US and violence in the middle east, a descent into civil chaos in Iraq as has happened in Afghanistan (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/10/afghanistan/) - has not yet been determined. Until everything is weighed up, we cannot say whether the good (the liberation of the Iraqi people) outweighs the bad (other risks).

Secondly and relatedly, any balanced judgements are going to take a long time to be arrived at. As the "before the war" article above says:
"Most of the warís long-term downside wonít be clearly traceable to the war. For example, terrorists donít typically publish treatises about their formative influences. In contrast, the warís short-term upsides ó cheering throngs, discovered and destroyed chemical weapons ó are often visible and viscerally gratifying. This asymmetry biases democracy toward anti-terrorism policies that feel good at the time but can be killers in the long run"

Posted by: votive at April 12, 2003 09:05 PM

Nathan, perhaps you can delete some of the multiple posts?
Bush is no stranger to stiffing. He also stiffed the NYFD, and he stiffed veterans, ending I don't know how many decades of tradition of guaranteed medical coverage for all US vets. My aunt did 20 years in the USAF, and her veterans' monthly magazine has not seen fit to report that to her (she was one shocked Republican when I told her). Evidently the veterans' magazine doesn't think this is something veterans will want to know about. One has to wonder why.
P.S. On the morality of this war: I may want a murderer stopped, but that doesn't mean I endorse his lynching.

Posted by: John Isbell at April 12, 2003 09:54 PM

I have seen no one asking for an american help in Iraq. Have you?

Who asked you murderers to go to a country thats not your business and 'free' its population?

Why didnt Bush go to North Korea instead? Their governor cries out loud about their nuclear potential.
What then? Not enough oil?

Posted by: guilherme at April 12, 2003 11:38 PM

I suggest you guys read some american foreign policy, specialy after WW2. Not from those books you kids swallow in High school. Try amazon.com you could import a decent one.

Posted by: guilherme at April 12, 2003 11:41 PM

"Who asked you murderers to go to a country thats not your business and 'free' its population?"

We can obviously tell now that Guili has no concept of freedom and could care less about the torture, rape, and your favorite word, Murder. For the past 30 years, Iraqi exhiles, the ones who escaped Saddam, have been asking for the U.S. government to take down Saddam so they can be with there families again.

As for North Korea, we have to take one thing at a time. Before acting prematurely, we must stress the diplomatic road before taking hostile action in Korea. Unlike Iraq, there are WAY too many civilians in harms way. Seoul sits within Heavy Artillary range of the boarder, and would most certainly be assaulted with Chemical, Bio., and Nuclear. Hopefully war will not occur on the Korean peninsula, but if Kim Jong Ill push's us into it, we will not hesitate to respond.
-Robert S. Morgan

Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at April 13, 2003 01:33 AM

Here's an interesting BBC report on Iraq's reconstruction bill:

"Taking into account the magnitude of the task, recent studies put the bill anywhere from that level up to as much as $400bn.... [T]he US budget includes less than $2bn for that purpose.

"...With a variety of oil companies pushing for the US to make sure the industry is privatised, rather than kept on a licensed basis for all Iraqis to share, there may not be much left over for the rest of Iraq's needs."

Link via underreported.com

Posted by: Carl at April 13, 2003 06:53 AM

'this was a just war'
-Robert Morgan

We can obviously tell now that Mr. Morgan has no concept of humanity and could care less about targeting innocent civilians, journalists and freedom of speech.

My favorite words are justice and peace wich you dont know. But i forgive you, you live in sick and hostile society.

Posted by: guilherme at April 13, 2003 09:56 AM

"...could care less about targeting innocent civilians, journalists and freedom of speech.....
..But i forgive you, you live in sick and hostile society."


Time to finish this here and now. Mr. Guli, I don't know what kinda society you live in, but America has moved heaven and earth not to kill innocent civilians and journalists.

But when you have an enemy that uses civilians as shields and fires from behind them, even you should realize that civilian casulties are inevitable.

Second of all, if you think America is a "sick and hostile", fine! Stay out. Go back to wherever you came from and believe your own lies. Hopefully after realizing how great America is, you will change your mind. Even Mr. Newman will probobly agree with me that America is one of the greatest nations in the world, because we are free. -Respectfully
-Robert S. Morgan

Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at April 13, 2003 03:43 PM

'America has moved heaven and earth not to kill innocent civilians and journalists.'
-Robert Morgan

I dont know if i laugh or cry.

Bye Mr. Morgan, have a nice life. Just accept my advice and read some decent books on America foreign policy.

Posted by: guilherme at April 14, 2003 12:04 PM

''Second of all, if you think America is a "sick and hostile", fine! Stay out.''
- Mr. Morgan

Nice of you to say that. The rest of the world would like the US to stay the hell out of it as well. We would be really happy if the US would put its myth of isolationism to reality. Just stay on your island and stop messing with the world.

"America has moved heaven and earth not to kill innocent civilians and journalists."
- Mr. Morgan

Yeah right. Even the British army, who are infamous for their 'rudeness', are appalled at the poorly disicplined, rude and reckless behaviour of US soldiers: 20year old cowboys driving around in tanks firing at will. Shooting cattle for the hell of it, shooting at *anything* that moves, including 10 year old kids and 70 year old women.

Thinking of the US post WW2 involvements in wars, coups, economic sanctions and armed conflicts in countries like Iran, Cuba, Israel and Palestine, Nicaragua, Syria, Jamaica, Panama, El Salvador, Somalia, Colombia etcetera etcetera, I'm thinking the US is responsible for more civilian casualties than you could ever imagine.

"Hopefully after realizing how great America is, you will change your mind"
- Mr. Morgan

I've lived in CA for a while and had a nice time and have met some wonderful friends when I was attending UCLA, but with the Patriot Act, the flag-waving, SUVs, school shootings, people disappearing in secret prisons, the *huge* debt, the appalling difference between the rich and the poor, the enormous rate of illiteracy, the christian fundamentalism, the racism that's *just* beneath the surface but visible everywhere, the terrible food, the never ceasing belief in capitalism, without acknoledging its obious shortcomings when uncontrolled, the awful education, especially for the poor, the complete and utter ignorance of the people on global issues (ask any US citizen to point out Iraq on a map. Or Afghanistan), the terrible state of parlimentary democracy that makes sure there will never be a real political choice, and a number of other reasons, I have decided to stay away from the US for a while, despite me missing my friends over there.

Mr. Morgan, please stop watching Fox News and CNN, go to the library (while you're still allowed to read books in your "free" country) and read up on world history, culture and US foreign affairs. If you don't want to leave home, and your web traffic isn't filtered yet, google for answers. But stop chanting that America is So Great, because it isn't. How many other countries have you lived in anyway, to compare the US with?

Posted by: jon at April 14, 2003 06:41 PM

Its blatently obvious that you live in a pesimistic dream world, jon. You are in the, what I like to call, "too suspicious to accept the truth". I have many friends on the left and they tell me there sick and tired of radical wankers like you who give them a bad name.
-Robert S. Morgan

-P.S. If L.A. is the only place you've been in the U.S., no wonder your opinion is so messed up.

Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at April 15, 2003 12:23 AM


I am not considered to be radical *at all* in the political climate I'm living in. A lot of people around here (and in the rest of the world) feel the same way or feel even more disgusted with the US. I often find myself defending the US and its citizens against the common prejudices that people have. I *know* there are some wonderful people living there. I know how easy it is to live there (if you're not piss-poor that is) because everything is so consumer-oriented. I know that there's some great research being done at some of the universities. That doesn't cancel out the fact that your foreign policy is destroying the world or any of the other things I said before.

You said I'm pessimistic and a radical wanker, but can you actually say that the things I mentioned are untrue? You're calling names, but you're not proving me wrong.

You said my opinion is messed up because it's only based on my time in LA. Well, what's your opinion based on? I ask again: what other countries can you compare yours with? My opinion has *changed* after I was in CA, but believe me, US culture, news, politics and economy have such a massive influence on the rest of the world, people don't really need to live there to form an opinion. Often this is a biased opinion, but it's based on the US influence on their lives. By the way, why do you think I'm able to debate here in English, which is not my native language? It's not the few years in high school. It's US movies, US advertising, US internet, US sitcoms, US books, etcetera.

A good friend of mine was in Bloomington (Indiana University) for a while, and his opinion is far, far more negative than mine. I've visited friends in the Bay Area and I've travelled around in CA. One of my coworkers grew up on the east coast and has lived in the Bay Area for years. I'm not so naive as to equate LA with all of the US.

LA is a weird city, I admit, but I still kind of like it. I'd love to visit it again, but the news I keep hearing of ordinary people disappearing in prisons without being charged with anything and without access to a lawyer are giving me the creeps. If it's not safe anymore for ordinary US citizens, why would a european "radical wanker" feel safe?

Posted by: jon at April 15, 2003 04:18 AM

O.K., Jon, I apoligize for the rudeness. I have probobly fortified your hostility to America. For that, I am sorry. Politics should never be personel.

I live outside Washington D.C., but have lived in many differnt places inside the US, including Seatle, Kansas City, and Sacremento. I have also visited 41 out of 50 states in the country as well as France, England, and Italy. I can understand how a European could feel the way you do. America is superpower, and it does from time to time, throw its weight around.

I am proud to say that I am an average American citizen and I feel perfectly safe, even when walking through the poorest parts of the District. I can assure you that stories of "ordinary" people being arrested for nothing are false. I dissagree with some protestors, but most Americans agree(including myself)that they are a must in a democracy. When they turn violent, thats a different story.

As you said before, I did begin name-calling instead of refute your "facts". Well, let me start now:

1.American soldiers are not untrained cowboys who shoot things randomly. I am prowd to say I know a few Men over in Iraq right now giving freedom to the Iraqi people. They are probobly some of the nicest people I know and are trained VERY well in what they do. The allegations that thay shoot innocent civilians at the drop of a dime is absolutely outragous.
2. What is wrong with flag-waiving?
3. I do not drive an SUV myself, but who am I to tell someone they can't drive an SUV?
4. Where I live, if your branded a racist, you almost become almost a pariah in the community. Racism is a problem in the South, but over time, it will end.
5. One of great things about America is that the comman man has every oppurtunity to improve himself if he is willing to work for it. We believe excessive handouts from the government will only result in the people becoming dependent on welfare(which many have already become). I hate to say it, but most of the poor in U.S. are poor because of bad choices they have made and continue to make.
6. Come on!..our food isn't that bad.What kind of American food do you find terrible? Try K.C. Masterpiece Barbeque, you'll love it!
7. Our education isn't much worse than any other nation in the world.(I know where Iraq and Afghanistan are on the map).
8. We don't have a parlimentary democracy, it's called a democratic republic. All americans have the guranteed OPPURTUNITY to vote and be involved in the government. Many just choose not too, unfortunatly.
9. And finally, Capitalism has its shortcommings, but nothing that can't be fixed.

Again, I am sorry for insulting you and would be happy to discuss politics with you at any time.
-Robert S. Morgan

Posted by: Robert S. Morgan at April 15, 2003 03:50 PM

I thought I'd take the opportunity to respond to some of these points:

1. It is true that American soldiers do not intentionally target civilians. However, civilians have died because of actions by American soldiers in adverse situations. The problem, in the end, is simply one of whether or not those soldiers belong in the situations they have been put into.

2. Put simply, authority exists to be questioned. When people begin to put nationalism before rational decision-making, they often become more willing to victimize others who do not agree with them because they perceive the challenge to be against their nationalistic identity rather than political stance. When people refer to "flag-waving" it is usually in reference to this phenomenon, and how many dissenters are unreasonably labeled un-American in today's world.

3. Driving an SUV involves many unseen costs. The person who choses to drive an Excursion or a Vue choses to incur the cost of the car, gas costs, assorted other maintenance costs, etc. From there however, everyone else is forced to collectively handle other costs such as heath problems caused by exhaust, more wear and tear on public roadways, quicker depletion of natural resources, safety risks to pedestrians and drivers of smaller cars, and so on. There's no way to tell someone they have no right to drive an SUV, but if drivers of such cars had to incur all unforseen "side-effects" of their purchase, they would likely choose a more useful and reasonable vehicle. SUVs are symbols of excess and willingness to put one's own satisfaction above what's good for society as a whole. This doesn't mean nobody with a legitimate reason shouldn't drive an SUV, but clearly there are many who drive them for simple satisfaction, inconsiderate of others.

4. Upfront, yes, racism will end. The issue to be aware of in the future is the effects of hidden biases in society against minorities. Don't misinterpret this to mean that I am claiming ALL problems in minority populations to be the result of racism, but it is pure ignorance to claim the exact opposite.

5. Contrary to the romanticized image of the beloved land of opportunity, not everyone is given the same chance to succeed. Given time people can obviously succeed through effort, but many, for no legitimate reason, are handed circumstances where they need not put forth any effort to live a life of wealthy excess. I'm not going to argue with the work ethics issue because there is simply no way to quantify this "poor decisions" phenomenon that is given credit with America's welfare problems. If someone can prove to me that everyone who is poor is so because of personal mistakes, I'll believe it. Moving on, regardless of whether the poor are dealt an unfair hand or if it really is a case of motivational deficiencies, there is still no true reason why it must be made harder for them to succeed. By eliminating childcare and job training for people on welfare, there is a point at which it becomes more acceptable to forego work and care for a child, than to leave him/her at home to work for money that oftentimes will not be enough to lift them out of poverty.

6. Good point, it's not too bad. I personally have an affinity for most asian cuisine over what we have to offer though. But then again, that's just me.

7. Our education system is definitely high quality, but as citizens of the world's only remaining superpower we are astonishingly ignorant of events that take place outside as well as inside our nation. Even within our own borders, statistics such as voter turnout demonstrate the general apathy of our population.

8. As was shown in the year 2000, not everybody is/was even given a very fair opportunity to vote. Whether it's keeping African Americans out of polling locations or offering a confusing ballot to elderly voters, both cases still represent failures in this system.

9. The issue is who is willing to fix it, and to what degree. So far it doesn't appear that very much is being changed for the better.

Posted by: Micah Lanier at April 15, 2003 09:59 PM

Those are some excellent points, especially nos. 2 and 4.

Racist beliefs are still a pervasive part of our society, unfortunately, and lie at the root of a lot of peoples' beliefs about many different issues. We simply must move forward as a nation on race and challenge and change long-held mindsets, but I don't see it happening. I see attitudes hardening and being passed on to younger generations. Doing what really needs to be done is going to be painful for many.

The rampant 'cheerleading' nationalism seems to be flourishing within the same parts of the community where the hardline attitudes about race seem to be most prevalent, i.e. the white middle class suburban areas.

If people lose sight of the principles of democracy and basic rights that made this country unique and instead focus on flag-waving, chanting, etc., that's not a healthy thing for our society.

How nationalism, patriotism, etc. have come to be identified with conservatism the more think about it the more odd it seems. The most honorable elements of conservatism are beliefs in keeping the power of government strictly limited, in having a government that exercises prudence and judiciousness at all times, but especially in fiscal matters, and in public officials being open and strictly accountable for their actions. When it comes to foreign affairs, I contend that being a populist means being conservative as in being reluctant to engage our military forces where there is no clear justification in terms of defense of our country as opposed to being imperialist or expansionist, and that a true conservative is someone who maintains a certain skepticism of political rhetoric. I have to think that the current beliefs of conservatism equating to nationalism and pro-militarism come from the Cold War mentality of "us versus them (the U.S.S.R.)" along the identification of Democrats and particularly liberal Democrats with opposition to the war in Vietnam (although liberal Democrat presidents Kennedy and Johnson were responsible for the policy of U.S. forces being in Vietnam). Now we have a fair amount of liberals rushing to join in with modern-day conservatives in hailing this war that was purely a war of choice and a war whose rationale has been very questionable and very vague from the start.

Posted by: Richard P. at April 16, 2003 11:52 AM

"The allegations that they shoot innocent civilians at the drop of a dime is absolutely outragous."

Robert S. Morgan

'WE HAD a great day," said Sgt Eric Schrumpf of the US Marines last Saturday. "We killed a lot of people."

He added: "We dropped a few civilians, but what do you do?" He said there were women standing near an Iraqi soldier, and one of them fell when he and other Marines opened fire. "I'm sorry," said Sgt Schrumpf, "but the chick was in the way".'

Posted by: Bill at April 17, 2003 07:42 PM

In addition to the good points made by the previous couple of posters, I'd like to mention one more thing.

""I can assure you that stories of "ordinary" people being arrested for nothing are false"" - Robert Morgan

Just go to google and search for 'mike hawash'. Or maybe you think he's not an ordinary citizen?

Further searches with google on the matter will provide you with links to news stories (from sources like cbsnews, latimes, etc) about thousands of people being detained without being charged for anything -- "guity until proven innocent". That sounds seriously creepy to me. People like Mike Hawash always thought "this will never happen to me. I have done nothing wrong". Well....

In a free society, mechanisms should be in place to protect citizens from the government, not the other way around. The government is not infallible, after all. Via elections, citizens hand a *huge* amount of power over to a handful of people. I'd say it's really important for these citizens to watch closely how this power is used.

Posted by: jon at April 18, 2003 03:40 AM

Okay, I'm addressing this to Liberals & Conservatives alike, so I'll probably cheese both groups off...
First, I'll admit I'm not a big fan of Baby bush, Daddy Bush, or gramps Reagan. Having said that, though, W. is my president. But as my president, I expect him to responsibly fulfill his duties. Can his administration pull our economy out of the toilet and work with Congress to institute policies regarding both taxation and fiscal restraint which will help improve the overall living conditions in the country where they happen to be the elected leaders?
I'm beginning to have serious doubts they can, and one reason for my doubt is some of the logic they expect us to swallow without question, such as this statement from yesterday: "We achieved a tremendous victory in Iraq".....
Uh...Iraq has no Navy, no real Air Force, and only 1/5 of the military size they did in the Gulf War......Excuse me, but I was known to achieve the same kind of 'tremendous victory' with G.I. Joe when I was a child.....
Though I personally dislike W. I still must trust him as the President of my Country. However, he's making that harder and harder to do. Guys, what about here at home? If the focus and the rhetoric remain fixed on wrapping ourselves in patriotism at the expense of a grossly inferior foe, we all lose. This does nothing to help my economy here in Denver (it sucks). This does nothing to help provide the needed funds for education from an "Education President" who vastly underfunded his own education initiatives while working towards a tax cut that will allow him to save more on his taxes than most of us make in an entire year....this does nothing to improve the situation for seniors who can't afford the growing cost of prescription drugs or qualify for Medicare...it does nothing to.....(add your own!) See what I mean? We could easily come up with a huge laundry list of other domestic issues that are sidetracked while we're busy chasing down Sadaam.
I don't mean to sound harsh; Sadaam is a brutal excuse for a human being that needed to be dealt with. But boys and girls, we don't live in Iraq....and I'd kinda like to see our elected leaders begin to do the job they were chosen to do here. This is home - this is where they're supposed to be leaders. That's kinda why we elected them in the first place - isn't it??

Posted by: Jim at April 18, 2003 12:53 PM

In a free society, mechanisms should be in place to protect citizens from the government, not the other way around. The government is not infallible, after all. Via elections, citizens hand a *huge* amount of power over to a handful of people. I'd say it's really important for these citizens to watch closely how this power is used.

That's exactly why even the success of achieving the 'big victory' in ousting perennial bad actor Saddam Hussein cannot overshadow the importance of whether or not the administration was telling the whole truth about the threat Iraq was posing and about the chem and bio weapons that they seemed to be just so sure about. Military might does not make right and cannot make right -- even using military might to do good. Because governments are instruments of people and are therefore fallible, the rule of law must remain supreme.

Posted by: Richard P. at April 18, 2003 01:36 PM

I like the discussions here. I'm part of the old Globe.com, a group that has migrated for several years from server to server as our freedoms on the Net are continually shut down. We were once a
gestalt of many points of view, citizens from many walks of life. No longer, it seems.

The topics here are covered from all sides, and fairly.

I really agree with Micah Lanier, especially his Item 2, above. I see it in action with our group. We were, until this war began, close friends. In fact, I relocated and married (the best!) of its members.

You can not there, introduce a political opinion without abuse, if it is not aligned to cheerleading about the war. International members are especially attacked if they dare even a question. It has degenerated to the point of being locked out if what is asked or presented does not conform to what the gentlemen running the site believe comfortable knowing about their government. The attacks are often vicious, and personal. They only confirm the negative opinions of Americans held by the rest of the world, nothing changes that, even when it is pointed out.

I would reference this site to them, the information here is presented with much value to understanding...but I'm not sure you would appreciate that!

Posted by: Gina Imboden at April 28, 2003 06:04 AM

What cracks me up is people that knock Bush. This man is doing the right thing. Clinton had my brother sitting on the shores of Iraq ready to go bomb the hell out of it, instead he chose Bosnia. People are forgetting that Clinton was real close to bombing the hell out of Iraq. What do people expect from a man that came into office already the economy had started to plumit months before Clinton was gone. Now is not the time to knock a man that represents our interests and our freedoms. Gee Bush your such a jerk please do not get rid of a regime that put people on meat hooks and ravaged and raped women. Not to mention the atrocities committed. Nathan sometimes the right thing isnt always easy. Being in N.Y. and seeing people jumping out of the towers was a real wake up call.You may wan't to read up on the "Iran Contra" Read the question asked to Mr.Col.North from a Mr. Al Gore about his home security system and why it cost sooo much. Its enlightening..

Posted by: Anthony at May 13, 2003 11:46 PM

George Bush is the president, ergo we should never criticize him?

The war is done. There's no harm in asking questions now. A major one: were Americans made any safer by attacking Iraq? It doesn't look like it. If they can't find any bio or chemical weapons in Iraq, then how did attacking Iraq do anything to protect you and me?

It was a waste of time and money! When we should have going after al qaeda.

Yes, Saddam was/is a bad actor. So is Robert Mugabe. So is Karimov in Uzbekistan. How many GOPer's are crying to send in troops to oust the latter?

Posted by: Richard P. at May 14, 2003 10:40 PM

It's very heartening to see so many people who support the Bush war in Iraq for eliminating human rights violations by Sadaam as the core reason for war and not WMD. How quickly the've been converted to Jimmy Carters war on human rights! Too bad they walked out on the World Forum to combat human rights violations. Where will our next pre-emptive human rights attack be?
Perhaps in Saudi Arabia or with other buddy kindoms?

Posted by: gary nehring at June 26, 2004 12:41 AM

It's very heartening to see so many people who support the Bush war in Iraq for eliminating human rights violations by Sadaam as the core reason for war and not WMD. How quickly the've been converted to Jimmy Carters war on human rights! Too bad they walked out on the World Forum to combat human rights violations. Where will our next pre-emptive human rights attack be?
Perhaps in Saudi Arabia or with other buddy kindoms?

Posted by: gary nehring at June 26, 2004 12:42 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)