Bush commutes Libby sentence

[Occhidiangela]

Jester: Krauthammer. Classy.

I appreciate the attempted deflection, but you tarred yourself with that brush. If the shoe fits, wear it.

If you manifest the symptoms, don't be surprised when a doctor makes that diagnosis. Long before 9-11, the shrill pissing and moaning of personal dislike for Bush were a Greek Chorus that added to the American political play naught but noise. The reasoned critiques of his various policy blunders, of which there is no shortage, do not take on the BDS character, but your emotion driven diatribe did.

Jester: Somehow, I'm going to want an opinion other than the two people I've been arguing against, no offense. And my "liberal street cred" means about as much to me as the crud on the bottom of my shoes.

And it's worth about as much.:)

The question is not whether I am angry at Bush and co. Of course I am. The question is whether that anger is justified, and if it comes *from* an analysis of the situation, and is not the *basis* for that analysis.

I see, the insecurity leaps to the fore. "I must have justification for my emotion."

Really?

Why?

Harnessing "righteous anger" got a war started recently. You sure you want to go there?

Assuming there are any international actions at all that are worthy of outrage, I can't see how this fails to qualify.

Still seeking an excuse for outrage, the assumption is unnecessary, check any book on anger management.

1) Illegal war.
2) Motivated by God, or motivated by PNAC opportunism. Probably both.
3) Tens of thousands dead. Probably more.

4) Trillions of dollars flushed away.
5) Massive boost for the very terrorists it purported to combat.
6) Likely consequences appear dire. Destabilized nation at best, nuclear war with Iran at worst.

1. Prove it.
2. Gimme a break on first, yes on the second.
3. Correct. It is a war. People die in wars. The current civil war in Iraq, underway since about June 2004 (picked that start date due to Bremmer being gone) the interfction fighting, have killed more American and Iraqis than the initial phase of the America/Iraq war.

If you want to play the game of "I blame America for Sadr and his Madhi Army's killing SUnni and Shia" you are on shaky ground.

The core policy aim is not civil war, and is not interfaction fighting. The agency for such action is not American. Blaming Bush for that is intellectually dishonest, or to put it differently, pure moonshine. No one made any of those SCIRI, Mahdi Army, and various Sunni factions kill anyone. They did it for their own reasons, and it is they who are pushing up the body count, not to mention the impetus for 1.5 million people who have fled. Refugees. Powell was still right: you break it, you fix it. Bush and the gang contributed to the problem, sure, but they aren't pulling the triggers. They are trying, perhaps in vain, perhaps cluelessly, to get the trigger pulling stopped.

4. Not your problem, not your tax burden, not your debt burden. It's me who ought to be mad at that, which I am, as I have been since the tax cut in 2003 while a war was being undertaken. Crap policy.
5. Indeed. It's called in military circles "A self inflicted wound."
6. Yes to first, gimme a farkin' break on the second. Cartoons in your head, yet again.

This is a matter for all humanity to be deeply concerned about.

All humanity. There Ain't No Such Thing, it is a concept. It exists nowhere other than in rhetoric, in the imaginations of Ivory Towers, in philosophy departments, not to mention religions. Humans aren't a hive, we don't scale up to the Ultimate Macro.

So deeply concerned is all humanity that it keeps breeding itself into squalor and more conflict.

Population pressure? It's real.

This is doubly true since the United States, more now than ever, feels little obligation to confine itself to its borders.

Huh? We don't even defend and protect them, and furthermore, what the heck are you whinging about? We've been extraterritorial since TR was around. "Now more than ever?" Ever hear of Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, or Korea? Japan? Germany? Panama?

We left the Philippines, and are leaking out of Korea, and with any luck, will be out of Okinawa within the decade. The last American troops leaft Bosnia early this year. Heck, we left Saudi Arabia and closed the air base in Oman.

As far as I can tell, the sound judgement is to turf Bush and his puppetmasters out on their butts, and never, ever let them near power again. Indeed, it is deeply shocking that this has not already happened.

So, let's see, are you going to come down here with the Canadian Army and do that? Y'all gonna try and Burn Washington again? Or, maybe, is your diatribe a manifestation of impotent rage and frustration?

Let's look at the move to impeach Dick Cheney. (Kucinich, I liked the move.) Where does it go? Where Clinton's did, check the head count. (New evidence may change that in a number of matters, bet the over on Gonzo screwing up yet again. )

"Turf them?" Are you an advocate of the lead plebiscite? Election recall by fine marksmanship?

Bush and his gang didn't get into power by being idiots, though goodness knows he comes off as one most times he opens his mouth, they got into power by the usual political process of winning an election, and stayed there by being cleverer than their opponents. While there, as many people do in high political office, they see how far they could push the envelope.

Nothing new under the sun.

A war crimes trial would not be out of place.

Where? When? In the event that this comes to pass, I'd like to see how that kangaroo court handles someone with money behind him. I note that Milosevic made good sport of the Hague for about three years before he died. He was not as well connected as the neocon gang.

While you are at it, please spell out the charges. Your "illegal war" is dead in the water.

Why?

Think very carefully before you respond to that "why" since it's important to the PM's/presidents of eighteen other nations.

Occhi