Wednesday, July 06, 2005

George Bush's Bowling Ball ( And Ours)

Many conservative luminaries objected to invading Iraq as much as some left intellectuals like Christopher HItchens or neo-liberals like Thomas Friedman supported invading Iraq.

General William Odom, a conservative and highly distinguished former advisor to President Reagan, strongly objected to invading Iraq.

We point him out because, properly understood, there is nothing particularly 'conservative' about the decision to invade Iraq or supporting such a radical policy.


Odom , a conservative, thought invading Iraq would not only not help the U.S., but would actually hurt our national efforts against the very enemies who attacked us and continue to threaten us.

Odom postulated that the Iranian regime,far more than America, Iraq, or our allies, would end being the chief beneficiary of our invasion and occupation.

Only time will tell if that particular admonition proves totally acccurate, but in many respects, things seem headed in that direction.

Further, Odom, in so many words, warned that our very presence in Iraq would strain resources better deployed elsewhere, unite our enemies rather than divide them, divide Americans rather than unite them, and lead to an increase in terror attacks instead of a reduction.

Odem's concerns on that latter point have come to pass; the actual number of terror attacks has demonstrably increased.

However, rather than confront this reality, the President responded, not by changing or adjusting a flawed policy, but by trying to obscure or hide the very facts that call that policy into question.

This seems to be a form of wishfull thinking on the President's part.


Afterall, our enemies are obvously aware of these facts, so trying to hide them won't fool them.

Perhaps this is a human reaction, but we should expect more from our President.

Recall when you were very young and you used to attend birthday parties at bowling lanes.

We recall the big bowling balls were often diffficult to roll down the lane.

Usually, after we tried to roll the ball down the lane, the ball would start to veer off to the right gutter or the left gutter about halfway down.

Often, when this happened, we would find ourselves frantically using hand gestures, vainly trying to wave the bowling ball into the center of the lane and away from the gutter.

This was fruitless, of course.


The bowling ball, after it left our hands, was going to go where it was going to go. Arguably, the ball was destined for an uneven journey as soon as we picked it up off the rack.

However, at that time, it seemed as if some wishing thinking, along with some adroit hand gestures, waved at the ball halfway down the lane, would be enough to adjust the course the bowling ball took after the ball had left our hand.

Bush's recent speech about Iraq seems to be a similar form of wishfull thinking.


We see his Iraq policy, if you will, lacking the kind of force and direction necessary to make it down the lane and hit some pins, but the President talks as if not noticing the problem will help straighten the policy.

Now it seems that a combination or pride and partisanship are preventing an honest re-evaluation of the policy and his allies are getting argry because they do not want to let Bush's opponents seem to win.

Meanwhile, America pays the price and it is getting more and more expensive with no end.

Meaningless tautologies like "We will stay till the job is done and not one day later!" are still accepted as normal comments by a weak press still insecure for allowing so much nonsense to go by unchecked.

50 Comments:

At 11:41 AM, Blogger halcyon67 said...

Interesting post. You are right we should expect more from Bush. He is just standing there, being the lame duck that he is. I would have much more respect for Bush if he publicly stated that he made a mistake. All AMericans (well most of us) realize that invading Iraq was a mistake, and some would like to see it end. But it won't end, the damage is done.

 
At 6:43 PM, Anonymous injinuity said...

well what you say is already true...

1. The Iranian backed Shias are in power now, they are more radical in nature.

2. Iran itself has lost the moderate government.

Thus, with a prolonged war in Iraq, the only outcome will be a war in Iran. But ironically I would be more inclined to that war than the war in Iraq.

 
At 6:59 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Injinuity,

Are you devious?

Some people say that what you say, has been the plan all along.

The two (Iraq attack and Iran attack) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The theory is that those who wanted to go after Iran, knew they had to go to Iraq first- not because Iraq would work out, but because it would inevitably not -thus, providing the pretext necessary to go after Iran, for undermining Iraq- which was inevitable.

But that's just speculation.

Sounds devious.

 
At 7:04 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Update on Rove/Plame/Miller:
Miller never wrote a story about Plame.

Why does Fitzgerald want her testify?????????

Maybe:

"Sources close to the investigation say there is evidence in some instances that some reporters may have told government officials ­ not the other way around ­ that Wilson was married to Plame, a CIA employee."

Washinton Post- Wednesday.

Is Miller Rove's source??????

Who was Miller's source???
(That is the real speculation!)

That would explain much.

So far most liberal blogs are missing that angle.

Recall Miller's ablity to "learn" inaccurate information and (woops!) manage to confirm it and recycle it.

Miller evidently wanted war for a long time and the WH used her "liberal" media creds as a useful echo chamber for what they wanted, and it looks like she used them as an echo chamber for what she wanted.

 
At 8:40 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Sixteen Words:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

 
At 4:28 PM, Anonymous injinuity said...

me devious?... I am the deviotollah of the Evil Empire.. you forgets matie.

 
At 9:18 PM, Blogger j said...

Well put, as usual. And with the recent attacks in London, he can't really use the "we'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" line.

The Republicans have mastered the art of repeating something until it becomes true, but that's not going to help in Iraq.

So what happens next? Merely withdrawing won't make the situation better for them or us.

 
At 9:28 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Ideally Congress would exert some adult supervision.

Thanks.

Admittedly, we deluded ourselves when bowling as a kid, but our parents were there for a reality check.

Unfortunately, there is no meaningful opposition- in fact, if you read the Bush partisan press and blogs, they still don't even realize they are in power themseleves- theu constantly are blaming liberals, etc -totally oblivious to the fact they completley control the government and the military.

It's very odd. The Bushies are already sensing slippage- they are starting to direct their wrath against Americans, instead of Iraqis and/or Qaeda.

Maybe that was the point all along.

 
At 9:39 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Comic Relief:

""Mr. Fitzgerald made his bones prosecuting the mob,and doesn't seem to realize that this case isn't about organized crime."
-Wall St. Journal Editorial

LOL! Yeah, sure!!! Not organized?

 
At 4:46 AM, Blogger John said...

Aren't the magic bowling ball motions what you guys have been doing for years, currently with the Plame case, hoping it manages to get a split and knock over at least one pin before being guttered, as the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo balls were, with you guys jumping up and down and screaming for strikes each time?

Then the new ball rolls up with the Downing Street memo magically stuck to it and you guys put lipstick on it and sprinkle fairy dust into the fingerholes and smash a champagne bottle on it as if a christening a ship before rolling that one down the aisle with much giddiness and fanfare, and more frantic waving as it, like all the others, careens towards the gutter.

We're in an overdue and vicious war against Jihadist terrorists and you fools are bowling for Impeachment of the POTUS.

 
At 5:14 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were not good for America. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. It serves no American interests to have that kind of propaganda for American's enemies.

Also, it's not fair to the Army for you to lump them together.

Recall the report by General Taguba.

What percentage of inmates in Abu Ghraib did he say were in by mistake?

Compare that to Gitmo, where there is much more ambiguity.

Show us one country where America's image ("decent respect for the opinions of mankind") were enhanced by these events.

 
At 9:18 AM, Blogger j said...

Gee, John, the president thought the Plame case was important, too. Remember when he said he'd fire the leaker? Perhaps you disagree: I suppose one could make an argument that justifying the war in Iraq was (is?) more important than the law that was broken.

 
At 12:23 PM, Blogger John said...

Just keep waving the ball down the lane, boys.

 
At 1:03 PM, Blogger John said...

And gee, J., I actually don't remember Bush saying he'd "fire" the leaker.

Do you?

You guys have a lynchmob mentality right now and are just trying to bowl over the winning lynchpin of the Bush campaigns (i.e. Rove).

That's all this is about. It's driven by spite.

 
At 1:41 PM, Anonymous MandT said...

"Perhaps this is a human reaction, but we should expect more from our President." Why do you expect so much from a gutter ball? lol M

 
At 2:34 PM, Blogger John said...

Come on, Mandt. The guys been bowling strikes for five years.

Social Security reform might be the first gutterball he rolls. And he'll at the very least get a spare in the Supreme Court appointments.

 
At 4:28 PM, Blogger Copeland said...

There are other scandals standing in line behind the Rove business. Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff, for instance.If Bush and pals are bowling, it's not the "regulation" game. Too many wild throws rolling off into other folks'lanes.

 
At 7:23 PM, Blogger j said...

To refresh your memory, John:

President Bush on Sept 30, 2003:
"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

And on June 10, 2004:
Q. "[D]o you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggestion that it might difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? And ...
A. That's up …
Q. And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
A. Yes."

Remember now?

 
At 9:36 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

John may be right about the court issues. It is likely Bush will win on that score.

On a macro level, if not always on a micro level, conservative appointments tend to more popular than most Bush opponents would like to admit.

Also, whether it is a Dem or a Repub in office, popular opinion tends to give the President the benefit of the doubt on such appointments. That's why the Senate approves the overwhelming majority, even though many disagree with them. It was the same with previous admins.

However, we respectfully disagree with your characterization of the Plame debate as a "lynchmob mentality."

This debate has been building for years- it did not erupt overnight.

Literally, your use of that phrase implies that Rove, not Plame, is the victim - Yet, the actual investigation suggests that is not so.

Also, we are just bloggers commenting on the news from various points, far and wide, not crowd attempting to take the law into our hands.

Also, as metaphor, we think it wrong because it serves to dilute the meaning of the word "lynch," while also implying that debating politics in a democracy is not loyal. Actually, political debate in a free country is patriotism.

When Clinton was in office, people were correct to take objection to his parsing of words (the meaning of "is") - so it is fair to object to the current administration doing the same thing (saying Rove didn't mention the Plame's name, just saying 'Wilson's wife')

 
At 9:56 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

J,

Recall Cheney recently trying to parse the meaning of the word "throes," after he was contradicted by reality after he said the insurgency was in it's "last throes."

Recall, Clinton trying to parse the word "is."

Recall Rumsfeld playing all sorts of word games.

You quote:
President Bush on Sept 30, 2003:
"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

That straightforward-seeming statement, when dissected, has much Clintonian wiggle room. What is a "leak?" "IF that person *HAS* (not IS violating!!!!) *violated* the law." Also, "taken care of" is rather vague.

Most politicans, being human beings, with legal advice, would probably do the same.

The problem is that factions within the Bush camp had premised their support for him, in part, on the basis that Bush differed from Clinton in this respect.

 
At 10:00 PM, Blogger j said...

You're right, Gotham, there's plenty of Clintonian wiggle room in those statements. I was merely pointing out to John that Bush did indeed make those statements.

If John wishes to wiggle out, he's free do to so.

 
At 10:53 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

John's a true team player fop Dubs and we respect that here at Gothamimage.

It's different with Bush's transactional allies- like the op-ed writers and the policy wonks, who have no problem using arguments for Bush that they condemned when used on behalf of Clinton.

Bush and Clinton are human beings, and subject to error like the rest of us. Nothing wrong with calling them on it when you see it.

Bush opponents should take note - because liberals never notice how carefully Bush's words are chosen on a clause-by-clause basis when he is speaking about problematic subjects that he cares about.

 
At 10:58 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Just for the record, knowing what we now know, and assuming that there is no more, it looks like Rove did NOT violate the letter of the law with regards to Ms. Plame.

We are not lawyers, but just looking at the facts as we see them.

Whether he violated the spirit of the law is something we cannot really say.

If he is in trouble, aside from politics, that would be if he was not forthright with the investigators.

However - his defense is technical and linguistic- just like Clinton's parsing of verbs, voices, and tenses.

 
At 11:31 PM, Blogger John said...

Professor J:

I said "I actually don't remember Bush saying he'd "fire" the leaker.

Do you?

And you answered:

"Bush said: And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

I am aware that Bush said that.

I ask you again:

I actually don't remember Bush saying he'd "fire" the leaker.

Do you?

I'm still waiting for you to quote Bush using the word "fire."

Second of all, does it make sense to any of you that Rove--in a peevish fit of spite--would "out" a CIA agent as "revenge" because her husband wouldn't play ball, and compromise the intelligence-gathering apparatus against the Saudi's rthat Plame had been cultivating?

What kind of revenge is that?

It makes more sense that Rove indeed was correcting the erronous report that Wilson was authorized directly by Cheney and Tenet and simply said it was the wife with the credentials to do so.

I blame the press and you BIG-MOUTHS for telling the rest of the world.

And if it is the case--as alleged--that Rove's unnamed correction was identified by Novack as the "government agent" and caused spy operations on Saudi Arabia to be seriously compromised by the ensuing chain reaction, then it was just a fornicating mistake (i.e. a f**k up) that had unforeseen consequences, and now the administration is goingv through the typicl motions of damage control, which can resemble the roll call of the Keystone cops (which is comforting, as it proves they're not too slick at that sort of thing).

To characterize the slip in discretion as "Revenge" or "Treason" is characteristically way over-the-top.

You guys are just mad because Rove recently ridiculed you as wimps (as well as orchestrating two electoral wins for Bush) and are just getting revenge by outing him.

Projection.

 
At 11:37 PM, Blogger John said...

And copeland, I'm still waiting to hear what crime Delay commited. As far "ethics" go (regarding the junkets), you know what they say about people living in glass houses.

Prove your integrity of principle by including Pelosi--for starters--in your harangues.

As for the Abramoff scam with Indian casinos, wupty s**t. Welcome to America.

 
At 11:39 PM, Blogger John said...

P.S. Well put, Gotham. You are being objective.

 
At 11:41 PM, Blogger John said...

...but I must insist that Bush and Clinton are different creatures.

 
At 12:20 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Q. And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
A. Yes.

Is not Bush's "yes," enough. The fact that he was so clever as to not mention the F word himself, while indicating that 'fire' was what he meant, is a defense that that will make Lanny Davis (Bush's Yale fraternity brother and Clinton laywer) proud.

 
At 1:51 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

John, we disagree with you.

You wrote:

"I blame the press and you BIG-MOUTHS for telling the rest of the world"

We think that is wrong. Free press and free speech are not bad things.

Political freedoms self-evident - they are not a means to an end. They are the end. They are the whole point of having a free country and a constitution.

Also:

"Second of all, does it make sense to any of you that Rove--in a peevish fit of spite--would "out" a CIA agent as "revenge" because her husband wouldn't play ball, and compromise the intelligence-gathering apparatus against the Saudi's rthat Plame had been cultivating?

What kind of revenge is that?"

If you pose the question that way, we see your point- but we think you are contesting a straw argument, not the real argument.


I would not make sense and it would be poor revenge, IF that was what he was doing and that WAS what Wilson and the others thought was his motive.

No one serious in this debate is alleging that spite was Rove's chief motive.

Recall the Fall of 2002- to the Spring of 2003. On the inside pages of every major newspaper were patriotic leakers, from inside sources, spilling details that took issue on a point by point basis the all the weak WMD specifics Bush was retailing in the lead up to war.

When Wilson wrote his now famous op-ed, Bush's case was falling apart, among informed followers.
So many details (aluminum tubes, UAVs, etc) were being questioned in detail.

Many people in the intel, military , and diplomatic coummunity thought Bush was hyping intelligence to justify a war that they thought was bad for America.

Wilson and others in the diplomatic and intel community suspected the leaking of Wilson's wife was a shot accross the bow to others in the Intel community who have families and children.

Is not Rove is on the record calling Wilson "fair game?"

This posits Rove seeing Americans, rather than the enemey , as the enemy. That is a sad situation.

That is is why Wilson and others suspected Rove as the leaker from the beginning.

Bush and Clinton are very similar in their rhetorical games. No wonder they get along so well.

 
At 2:14 AM, Blogger John said...

So Copeland is saying that I am at the apex of "moral depravity."

Well,coming from Copeland, who thinks American fundamentalist Christians pose a greater danger to America than Middle-Eastern Islamic fundamentalists, wupty s**t.

I myself won't say that my fellow American Copeland is morally "depraved." Just morally disjointed, or confused.

Poor Copeland. How sad.

 
At 2:21 AM, Blogger Copeland said...

Bill Moyers passed this little anecdote along from reportter Mark Shields

"It seems workers in the American territory of the Northern Mariana Islands were being forced to labor under sweatshop conditions producing garments for Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Gap and Liz Claiborne. The garments were then shipped tariff-free and quota-free to the American market where they were entitled to display the coveted "Made in the USA" label. When Republican Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska heard that these people were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage and were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks without plumbing while working l2 hours a day, often seven days a week, with none of the legal protections U.S. workers are guaranteed, he became enraged. He got the Senate to pass a bill - unanimously - that would extend the protection of our laws to the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas. But then the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff moved into action with an SOS to his good friend, Tom DeLay. The records show they met at least two dozen times. DeLay traveled to the Marianas with his family and staff - on a "scholarship" provided by Abramoff's clients -- where they played golf and went snorkeling not far [from] the sweatshops (some scholarship!) Was Tom DeLay offended by what he saw? To the contrary. He told the Washington Post that the sweatshops were "a perfect petri dish of capitalism. ABC-TV News recorded him praising Abramoff's clients by saying: "You are a shining light for what is happening to the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America and leading the world in the free-market system." And Tom Delay - the rightwing radicals' revisionist incarnation of Saint Francis of Assisi -- killed the Senate bill." (Mark Shields, CNN.com. 5/28/05.)

This is a real example of what radical republicanism really means.

 
At 2:21 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Do you really think that what Abramoff is alleged to have done, is not so bad? "American way," might be they way a left wing professor might catagorize it, after stroking his seditious whiskers, but we expect more from you John!

 
At 2:27 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Radical republican, ironically used by the abolitionist, not the slave excusers.

But the new conservatives are not really conservative-in that old fashioned sense- they have embraced destructive power of capital and the strip mall and mine aesthetics of corporate capital.

"The American way," to most Americans, is a different image- one of fair play and good faith.

 
At 2:30 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

We are not sure about this, but we have been told that CAFTA countries will also get to display "Made in the USA" label, if that bill passes-

If true. this is another examaple of business and political elites taking advantage of the good faith of ordinary Americans, who think they are supporting American workers.

 
At 2:45 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Copeland, you quote Tom Delay:
"a perfect petri dish of capitalism." - Delay is describing the people working on the the islands.

That's interesting on many levels-What does one look at in a Petri dish? Not humans. Also, Delay - a former exterminator, is often describe by his adversaries in ways that are similarly dehumanizing.

What DOES one look at in petri dishes or under a microscope? How about Harry Lime in the Third Man looking at all the little people from the perspective of the Ferris Wheel.

Also- viewing 'masses' in such a way,, used to be the conceit of turn of the century leftist intellectuals.

Many left intellectuls thought Russia was a useful experiment, even when the mass death and pain became apparent.

Delay has the benefit of hindsight, but he chooses to become more like his enemies of days gone by.

 
At 6:05 PM, Blogger John said...

Bill Moyers et al. implies that the workers are "forced" into slave-labor camp conditions, and by mentioning the barb-wire, they invoke prisons and insinuate that they are kept there against their will.

As far as Lefty's are concerned, any employment outside of an "entitled" climate-controlled socialist hive that provides dental plans and stock options and maternity-leave and breaks and overtime pay and a whole bunch of other stuff--all at the expense of the CEO's or the tax-payer and far beyond the worker's productive value-- is a concentration camp.

It's really quite simple. It's like this: I need something done and I'll give you this for you to do it. You take it or leave it. If I can't find anyone who will do it on the terms I offer, then I increase the offer until the positions are filled, and reward (e.g. raise the wage and/or benefits) or punish (e.g. dismiss) according to performance.

If you can find better, you're free to go, and have a nice day. Otherwise, shaddup and get back to work.

 
At 10:39 PM, Blogger Copeland said...

Social justice and socialism are not the same thing. A fair day's work for a fair day's pay? Some don't seem to acknowledge the concept.

We have a minimum wage in this country, so that (in theory) people aren't exploited and forced to live like dogs. But "a petri dish of capitalism" permits corporate rogues to treat employees like they're not even human.

Of course this maximizes profit for those who are the Lords in this feudal arrangement.

The evil embodied in the swindles of a Jack Abramoff is not far removed from evil in corporate culture that promotes the sweatshop or gnaws through pensions of former employees. This rogue corporatism, the swindling, the cheating, the ruthless exploitation, are symptoms of a social illness that could destroy our country, or at least destroy what is decent about it.

Americans are supposed to have a reputation for fairness; but apologists for injustice advise us that all we want is pampering. It's just a "Lefty" thing they say. Meanwhile people on the island are trapped in a cruel condition. They do live behind barbed wire, you see. They do live without plumbing in hovels. They do often work seven days a week and struggle through 12 hour days.

But the apologist, with his talking points, trivializes their suffering with limp humor and dazzles us with his "climate-controled socialist hive" line. It is doubly shameful because the islands in question are US Territories. Americans should be reminded that US consumers buy merchandise with the "Made in USA" label with the confidence that those who made the items were treated fairly. But this is just one more cruel deception..

 
At 12:24 AM, Blogger John said...

Is the barbwire there to keep them in, Copeland? Are there children working there? How would the workers make a living if the company wasn't there? Would their standard of living be higher?

Why are they "forced?" Because they have no other viable alternative to make living there?

If that's the case, then they should be grateful.

Would they be better off working in a Chinese or Indian factory?

I think not.

And I shudder to think what your idea of "fairness" is.

I think, in your liberal mind, "Social Justice" is in fact equivalent to socialism.

I'm not "apologizing" for disadvantaged workers being taken advantage of.

And I'm not arguing against reform in that area.

I am, however, pointing out that you're engaging in typical America-bashing hysterics and pompous, holier-then-thou condescension, like "corporate rogues treating employees like they're not even human."

"Of course this maximizes profit for those who are the Lords in this feudal arrangement."

Do you have a problem with the maximizing of profits, Copeland?

HEYYYYYYY...THIS GUY'S A COMMIE!!!!

"...evil swindles ...sweatshop ...gnawing through pensions...rogue corporatism...the swindling, the cheating, the ruthless exploitation...symptoms of a social illness that could destroy our country, or at least destroy what is decent about it....trapped in a cruel condition....

Are we talking about Club GITMO again?

Man, Copeland, you have some serious issues. You're like Marvin the Robot from Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

"They do live behind barbed wire, you see."

So? What does that mean? So do our troops, and livestock herders, and NASA employees. What are you implying, that the wire is there to keep them in, or are you just making an aesthetic critique?

"They do live without plumbing in hovels."

What do you mean? No access to running water? One room dwellings? Have you seen a typical studio in Manhattan, and the plumbing problems there for over a grand a month? Only I bet those workers live rent free, right?

"They do often work seven days a week and struggle through 12 hour days."

What does that mean? So does Bush. And I'm sure they get paid for those hours and choose to put them in to make up for the measley wage. There's no overseer with a whip there.

"But the apologist (i.e. yours truly), with his talking points, trivializes their suffering with limp humor and dazzles us with his 'climate-controled socialist hive' line."

Why are you mocking that, Copeland? That's EXACTLY the kind of worker's paradise you have in mind for proletariats everywhere.

"It is doubly shameful because the islands in question are US Territories. Americans should be reminded that US consumers buy merchandise with the "Made in USA" label with the confidence that those who made the items were treated fairly. But this is just one more cruel deception."

Relax. Working in a cubicle with buzzing flourescent lights over your head and a diet of coffee and doughnuts and death by a thousand paper-cuts ain't no picnic either.

And then there's the pink slip after years and years of devoted service to the company because of a hostile takeover or downsizing.

Hey Copeland, I got news for you: Life's not always fair. And if you don't like it here, leave. Go to Canada, or Sweden, or Iran, and vent your anti-American angst from there. I'm sure you'll have lots of company.

 
At 1:13 AM, Blogger Copeland said...

Labor in a just society lifts people out of degradation and invests them with some kind of dignity. In an unjust society, labor is used against working people to make them utterly subservient and reduce them to a state of misery.

Living in squalor, adjacent to the workplace, behind barbed wire, working 12 hour days, sometimes 7 days a week. Where's the life?--where's the dignity?

What gets me John, is first you trivialize the suffering of these people; and then you get very defensive and act like you didn't do exactly that.

You seem to studiously ignore all the information in the story; and finally you revert to calling me anti-American, suggesting that I should find myself another country. And to think, just a few steps up this thread, you called me a fellow American.

Tom DeLay killed the bill in the House, that had passed unanimously in the Senate. But I get the idea John, that you could care less. The bill would have allowed people in this US island territory to make the American minimum wage. But as it is with Tom DeLay, this is simply too much justice for you. The point is, John, that if these islanders made the minimum wage, that would not put them in a "climate-controlled socialist hive".

But what I find most typical of an apologist, is someone who responds to a very specific, well documented and remediable injustice, by replying "Life's not always fair".

 
At 3:39 AM, Blogger John said...

Okay, look, you ARE my fellow American, Copeland, it's just that your incessant gripes about the Republicans and how corrupt everything is--because of them-- or how dark everything is getting--because of them-- is over-the-top, and your crowd has screamed wolf so many times now, I'm starting to tune you out.

I'm not asking you to leave. I was responding in exasperation to what seems to be an angry, pessimistic outlook that equates Bush, the REpublicans, and Washington with Sauron, orcs, and Mordor, spreading darkness across the land and around the world (which is absurd), and I simply said that if it's so bad here, try somewhere else, and see if it's any better.

Seriously, Copeland, don't you think you're overdoing it with all the Gloom & Doom? That "Darkness visible over America" stuff?

The enemy at hand are Jihadists, not the Republicans. And not American liberals, either. My problem with you guys is that you're reversing the first two.

 
At 9:35 AM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

In Dixieland I'll make my stand," may have been the tune of a 'lost cause,' but as music it had a sweet ring to it.

John's defense of American honor by making a stand on behalf of an unpatriotic and amoral muti-national corporations grinding away poor foreigners, seems decidely off-key.

In the old days, American folk heros were guys a bit more like the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, or Neil Armstrong.

Mr. Abramoff is entitled to his day in court and as a good a defense as he can muster, but to use him as a rally point seems to be absurd.

Abramoff's two business partners just this week decided to call it quits on the U.S. and move to a foreign country, where they will be hard to reach by subpoena.

Tom Delay is not a figure of that inspires, no matter what you think of his politics.

Copeland did not critize America he criticises a politian.

Veneration of politicians is a very dark European philosophy, not an American one.

Copeland did not critcise Americans- rather, he criticsed a multinational corporation - probably the most unpatriot organization one can imagine.

The heads of companies do everything they can to dissassociate with America when forced to chose between citizens and foreign cash.

Even the most prestigeos companies have done business with the most foul regimes of the past century.

President Bush's supposedly independent intelligence head , MR. Langdon, is now advising the Chinese Communist government in their efforts to defeat an American company for ownership of Unical- a corporation with reserves and interests that American soldiers have died defending.

These lobbyists and ex-pols serve who ever pays the most. They are sleaze joined by all those people who dodged Vietnam but lied and smeared Vietnam Veterans who went, and now we have this crew attacking Ambassador Wilson and his wife - two public servants who have both been decorating by George HW Bush. Attacking them for telling the truth about a pack of lies that will haunt our country for years to come.

America is not the sum total of faults you chose to defend. You have expressed opposition to political debate, the forming of coalition politics, and free press in recent comments. You cannot possibly believe that this most ungracious Bush is worth ignoring common sense.

 
At 1:24 PM, Blogger John said...

The only thing I've expressed, W.C., is my disgust.

"John's defense of American honor by making a stand on behalf of an unpatriotic and amoral muti-national corporations grinding away poor foreigners, seems decidely off-key."

W.C.'s defense of American honor by making a stand on behalf of unpatriotic and immoral liberals and regimes oppressing entire populations is disgraceful

"In the old days, American folk heros were guys a bit more like the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, or Neil Armstrong."

That's right, Gotham, associate your pinko salon with red white & blue luminaries like them.

Mr. Abramoff is entitled to his day in court and as a good a defense as he can muster, but to use him as a rally point seems to be absurd."

I'm not using him as "a rally point."

What the hell are you talking about?

"Abramoff's two business partners just this week decided to call it quits on the U.S. and move to a foreign country, where they will be hard to reach by subpoena."

Good. Good riddance.

"Tom Delay is not a figure of that inspires, no matter what you think of his politics."

I'm not "inspired" by Tom Delay. I don't even pay attention to him.

"Copeland did not critize America he criticises a politian."

Yes he has criticized America.

"Veneration of politicians is a very dark European philosophy, not an American one."

You're the one ready to bend over for John Kerry and Bill Clinton.

"Copeland did not critcise Americans- rather, he criticsed a multinational corporation - probably the most unpatriot organization one can imagine."

How about "Gothamimage?"

"The heads of companies do everything they can to dissassociate with America when forced to chose between citizens and foreign cash."

Oh yeah. "The citizens." "The People." "The Children."

Cut the demagoguery, you scoundrel.

"America is not the sum total of faults you chose to defend."

America is not the sum total of faults you choose to attack.

"You have expressed opposition to political debate..."

LIAR. You're the one who deletes my comments after I'VE been attacked and then reveal the illogical inanity of your arguments.

"...the forming of coalition politics..."

LIAR. You guys are the ones whining about the Republican and conservative coalitions formed by the likes of Rove.

"...and free press in recent comments."

LIAR. You're the one who deletes me.

"You cannot possibly believe that this most ungracious Bush is worth ignoring common sense."

You speak like Orson the pig.

 
At 2:26 PM, Blogger John said...

You know, from Orwell's *Animal Farm.*

You deviously took your own subjective premises, established them as "That's a fact," and framed them in a rhetorical question to get an objective affirmative.

That would be like somebody saying: "You cannot possibly believe that this most ungracious Gotham is worth ignoring common sense."

Phrased in that way, the answer would be "Of course not."

And Copeland, I specifically referred to the Indian casino thing when I said "wupty s**t."

I don't follow Delay after it became clear to me that the earlier screaming over his hiring of family members on the public dole was petty partisanship with a shameless double-standard.

Put a pox on both houses if you want to have the integrity of your principles taken seriously.

I heard about that slave-labor-camp thing whatever for the first time from you guys, and simply questioned your characterization of it as some Auschwitz ("barbed wire," "evil," "ruthless exploitation," "trapped in cruel conditions," etc.).

Putting aside compassion and decency, to argue that a territory is entitled to the same labor laws as a state of the union is nonsense. It's a territory. It's "entitled" to no such thing.

And what law has he broken? As you guys so eloquently screamed throughout the Clinton years, being a sleazebag is no crime.

 
At 8:10 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

John writes:

"I heard about that slave-labor-camp thing whatever for the first time from you guys, and simply questioned your characterization of it as some Auschwitz..."

Copeland never compared those island workhouses to Auschwitz. Why do you imply that he did?
That is not right. When you throw around words like that, you diluter the real meaning of them-Auchwitz was one of the great crimes of human history, while Copeland was just referring to Mark Shields (notorius radical?) said about sweatshops in the Marianas.

Earlier you catagorized our debate over Rove as a "lynch mob." That was another example of your diluting a historical crime by using that word gratuitously describing debate.

We have never erased anything of yours unless it was slanderous and libelous. It's just a waste of time and boring to reply to all these things.

Who are these Clinton defenders you attack as "you guys" on this blog? They don't exist, and that is why you do not name them.

 
At 10:52 PM, Blogger John said...

W.C. said:

"Sixteen Words:

'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'"

Sixteen UN Violations.

 
At 11:07 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

Any reference to Niger by you has been rendered moot, not just by Wilson's revelations and vindacation, but the UN's head admission that the war was not authorized. Also, your pretense to want to uphold UN rules seems insincere in light of your reaction against the UN in previous pieces.

 
At 1:06 AM, Blogger John said...

"Labor in a just society lifts people out of degradation and invests them with some kind of dignity. In an unjust society, labor is used against working people to make them utterly subservient and reduce them to a state of misery."

Is that Copeland?

Or Marx-Engels?

 
At 5:30 PM, Blogger John said...

W.C. wrote:

"John, we disagree with you.

You wrote:

'I blame the press and you BIG-MOUTHS for telling the rest of the world.'

We think that is wrong. Free press and free speech are not bad things.

Political freedoms self-evident - they are not a means to an end. They are the end. They are the whole point of having a free country and a constitution."

Blah-blah-blah.

Like I said:

'I blame the press and you BIG-MOUTHS for telling the rest of the world' (about Plame's super-duper-double-secret identity as a spook <--- sarcasm), NOT Rove.

Apparently, he was speaking "off the record," too, when he named the CIA staffer without mentioning the names "Valerie Plame" or "CIA," to correct Wilson's LIES about his top-secret-007 mission <--- sarcasm, the conclusions of which failed to ascertain whether Saddam was, in fact, or not, sniffing around for uranium, anyway, as British intelligence claims--and still stands by, which was the substance of Bush's "Sixteen Words."

Put it to rest, boys. It's in the gutter.

 
At 10:25 PM, Blogger John said...

W.C. wrote:

"John, we disagree with you.

You wrote:

'I blame the press and you BIG-MOUTHS for telling the rest of the world.'

We think that is wrong. Free press and free speech are not bad things.

Political freedoms self-evident - they are not a means to an end. They are the end. They are the whole point of having a free country and a constitution."

They are also the whole point of the IIPA, which Phillip Agee caused the creation of by his BIG-MOUTHED publication of spooks' identities.

There's you're "Free Press," Gotham, you're "free speech" and "the ends to your means."

It's that very same reckless abuse of "free press" and "free speech" that inspired the IPPA law which Rove is alleged to have violated in the first place, while the journalists who circulated the info in public--like Agee-- are, what, "just doing there job?"

So, yes, "I blame the press and you BIG-MOUTHS for telling the rest of the world."

 
At 11:46 PM, Blogger Gothamimage said...

You're repeating yourself and saying things that we doubt you believe. No serious person doubts Wilson told the truth; to say other wise requires Clintonian word games. The far right complains that Wilson said Cheney ordered him to Africa - when Wilson never said that- he merely said that Cheney asked the CIA and THEN the CIA asked him (along with 3 others). The amenment that the GOP attached to the Senate report was refuted by the CIA shortly after.

When it turned out that his wife had nothing to do with it- she had no authority to send anyone anywhere (right wing imagination!!), the far right went silent.

These are facts- they are not opinions.

Also, you're comparions to Saddam and the Kurds is as silly and as bad as your Auschwitz and Lynch analogy.

You shouldn't minimize those events by such silly diluting.

When Rummy was selling Saddam gas and gun, we were not approving. We did not even know about it.

Phil Agee and Karl Rove put CIA agents (foreigners working on our behalf) at risk. Whether Rove did it intentionally, so as to warn other potential whisleblowers, is something Fitzgerald will tell us. It's absurd for you link people like us, with opinions, with those who have erred in such a way.
Don't be silly.

Rove and Agee are not what the founders had in mind when they spoke of free speech. You have to realze that offering opinions and commentary is different that exposing CIA people, like Agee did and Rove is being investigated for. Also, it's different than slander, libel, and lies - You cannot make up quote of people and call that free speech.

You keep up with this slamming- repeating things that have been disproven and are known to be untrue. It's boring. This thread is closed.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home