A high-ranking military officer reveals how
Defense Department extremists suppressed information
and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

If Gore was the president, it would be a court case. That is the problem with Democrats, they are a bunch of lawyers. Lawyers think they are smarter than they are and everything can be settled in court. The first Word Trade Center case took 10 years. I live in New York and we don't have 10 years to wait. I would vote for Bin Laden before I would ever vote for any Democrat.

New York

 

Wow Brad... I've been reading a lot of ignorant and unsubstantianted arguments you've been making, but this one really rose to the top of the pile of crap you’ve been dumping out.

What is ignorant or unsubstantiated about pointing out the fact that Americans don't put much weight into European opinions before selecting a President? Do German voters worry what people in Brazil think of the candidates before voting?

This is by far the most arrogant, isolationist, and dare I say… American thing I have ever read or heard.

Ah, the double put down. And here you demonstrate why Americans don't care what Europeans think. Hypocricy and patronization in the same sentence. Again I ask: Do German or French voters consider the opinions of say Brazil or Mexico or Taiwan when selecting a leader? Unlikely. Heck, the French recently participated on a join miltiary manuever with Communist China off the coast of Taiwan around the Taiwanese elections. Classy.

America bombs third world countries into rubble so routinely that it’s hardly news anymore, and then, just to pour salt into the wound, you seem to assume that the people being bombed are lesser forms of life, who might have something to say about it, but why would an American even fart in their direction, let alone listen to anything they have to say.

So often you can't be bothered to list it.  Let me do it for you: The United States has bombed the following countries in the past decade: Iraq. Afghanistan. Serbia. There was also one building destroyed in Sudan.

Moreover, I never said or implied that we consider other people lesser forms of life. I just don't see why Americans should consider the views of some European country any more than some other country.

The problem with many Europeans, such as you, is that you're so arrogant and myopic that you don't realize that most European countries are fairly minor. For example, I said US voters should care about the opinion of European countries about the same as we care about the opinions of Bangladesh.

A statement you considered insulting because, obviously, you consider yourselves superior to the people of Bangaldesh. Bangladesh has a population of 138 million. That's higher than ANY European country. In fact, it's 50 MILLION more people than the most populated European country - Germany. So who's being arrogant?

So when voting for a President, Americans should do a poll of every country in the world to get their views on the candidates? Of course not. That's absurd. The job of the President is to represent the interests of the citizens of the United States. That's his job description.

 

The Europeans never liked us, they needed us. The Cold War is over and now they can say what they have held in for 50 years. If you believe the French or Germans are worried about the good of Americans you are a bigger idiot than Kerry.

I would say there is a cultural lag. Europeans tend to define things from their perspective (like everyone else).

So when they consider themselves more "worldly" than Americans, they really mean they know more about other European nations. Do they know what's happening in say Mexico? Or Guatamala? Probably not.

The cultural lag comes from not recognizing the changing geo-political realities. Europe, as a colletive world power, is in decline. This is especially true of Germany and France who are seeing their populations declining. Their economies stagnate. And their militaries becoming obsolete. But they still tend to view themselves as major world powers.

Let me give you an example: How often in these debates over Iraq have we heard about how France thinks about what we should do? Now, compare that to Japan. Japan has a larger population, a much higher GDP, and produces a lot more products and services that people use on a day to day basis. Yet France gets an incredible amount of attention. The US had Japan's support for its actions in Iraq. Japan has even sent troops there. But you rarely hear about that.

It's cultural lag. Many Europeans are unaware that individual European nations are not a major concern to most Americans. They can't go and pick presidential candidates based on what Belgium thinks any more than we're going to poll what Argentina thinks. But because Europeans beliee their opinons should matter more to us than other nations, they chaffe at when someone like me points out that Americans don't care. Nor should they care. National governments are suppoed to do what is best for their own citizens. Not what's best for some minor nation state across the ocean.

This isn't arrogance. I would expect that someone in Belgium is not going to care what someone in Pakistan thinks of their leaders when voting. Despite the fact that Pakistan has a vastly higher population. Citizens in Belgium should only care what their leaders will do for them.  Same in France. 

BTW, do you think the French worry what we think of Chirac? Poll Americans and those who even know who he is are liekly to have a generally unfavorable opinion. But you rarely hear about Europeans worrying what Americans think -- even though Americans can affect their lives a helluva lot more than Europeans can affect the lives of Americans.  Nor do you hear complaints by Americans that European voters shoudl care. We don't expect Europeans to care what we think when they vote for their leaders. But amazingly, Europeans expect us to care what they think of ours.

Mr Brandt: touche! Very good reply and leaves me a bit dis-heveled. I was primarily anticipating Brad and his tactic of using one title to get at another issue, such as the comparison to Clinton here, rather than the actions of Bush directly. By diverting judgement on one he makes the reader react to another side issue rather than ever get to the point of accountability for Bush.

I am caught quite un-prepared and will respond properly when i get a moment. I thank you for the incisive work, puts me back on guard for I had grown lapse in my replies lately. I have just completed a three part on Rice and her testimony to come. Am a bit worn from the read and will get back to you as soon as I can. I'll be there, even if I catch you on another blog, as this one is getting a bit distant from the title. Brad does it again, re-directing us away from the issue at hand to comparisons of dollars and donuts, qua, Bush and Clinton.

There is clear links between Somalia and osama. I asked for proof and you repeat the same statement. Sure there were Al Qaeda fighters in Somalia, did they lead the fighting? Probably not, it was one warlord against another warlord, with Al Qaeda fighters, Somali fighters, American fighters, the French Foreign legion, and God knows who else. Cheers

I'm still looking for a response to this post.

Cheers

To adress Brad's original post. Everyone was asleep at the wheel, it's true, and, as you've said, everyone should be blamed for that. For me, the critical issue isn't that Bush could have prevented 9/11, or even that there was an Iraqi war. The critical issue for me, insofar as we're talking about "war" and "terrorism", is the by now debunked assertion that Saddam helped stage 9/11, perpetuated by the White House, and the also debunked assertions of WMDs in Iraq. Sure intelligence was wrong, I don't dispute that, nor do I hold that against Bush, I just resent being told that I'm about to die because someone in Iraq might have WMDs, which, by the way, he didn't have the capability to have reach the United States. The urgency in my eyes was not there, so yes, dubya could have spent more time building up a more multi-national coalition, he could have spent more time constructing a real plan for post Saddam Iraq, he could have done a lot of things when, at the time, the most that was threatened was the Arab world. Sure we have allies there, but they could have taken care of the problem a long time ago if they really wanted to.

By the way, the above reasons aren't my most important reasons for voting against Bush, but they are some of them.

Cheers

Neo – CONNED !

A bit late, but still here is:

Frogboy:
"Danny: Yes but you still have to make the case as to why Americans should consider European opinion when voting for a Presidential candidate."

I never said they should. What I meant was that even though both parties could care less about what they think of each other, they still have opinions about each other's public figures and/or events taking place elsewhere in the world. So basically you'll get americans saying Chirac said some pretty stupid stuff, just like you'll have europeans saying stuff about Bush; that's in addition to euro's saying stuff about Chirac & americans about Bush.
Point being that although people could care less about the opinions of foreigners - rightly so in most cases, I'd say - you can't expect people to shut up about stuff that does concern them one way or other - maybe even trying to influence the debate; I mean, one can always learn things from a discussion

Frogboy: "Blix, btw, WAS finding huge stockpiles of mustard gas and worse right up until they got kicked out in 1998. I assume you would have supported war in 1998? And if so, why not then in 2003? What changed?"

What changed? For one it looks like the stuff had been destroyed or removed since then. On the other hand I've never responded well to (perceived) arrogance; statements as those made by Powell in the UN did not help either since it was clear the 'proof' he was showing was not nearly as sure as his statements. Playing the WMD card as _the_ reason to go to war was a stupid move - at least in the way of interesting other people in the war.