Originally Posted By ecdc "I disagree." "Of course you do. You wouldn't be Douglas if you didn't. But Saddam WAS contained." Of course he disagrees. Since it turned out there were no WMDs, support of Iraq hinges entirely on making Saddam a boogeyman out to get us all. It's not true and the facts don't support it, but if anyone on the Right admits Saddam wasn't a threat or was contained, then there's no reason for us to be in Iraq. That's why we always hear about Saddam's thuggery and how nasty he was to his own people. It's all true, but there's plenty of dictators like him that we haven't diposed either.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Read the link I posted. It covers all sorts of things like that.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> It is so remarkably telling that those who don't like what Olbermann has to say can only continue to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than address the substance of what he has said. And what substance would that be? Boil down his discourse to the bare-bone facts. Olbermann's rhetoric is extreme and negative, even for someone who is anti-Bush. Even if I were a liberal, I'd have little use for his propaganda. My main beef with Olbermann is his unbelievable negativity. Are you saying his comments are typically positive and constructive?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Anyone who blames Bush for the lack of a memorial in New York is on crack. The whole issue of what is to be done at the site is mired in politics, personalities, grief and mistrust. With thousands of relatives of victims it only makes sense that there would be devisiveness and debate. To blame Bush is to have no clue. None. Finally, If anyone ever thinks we are going to "win the war" on terrorists...you too are sadly mistaken. The "war on terrorism" is going to make the Cold War look like a hiccup. We will win battles...but the war will never end.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Read the link I posted. It covers all sorts of things like that.> It's also the opinion of two anti-semites. Would you like me to post a link to a paper which claimed Osama bin Laden was contained in 2001?
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <<<Olbermann's rhetoric is extreme and negative, even for someone who is anti-Bush. Even if I were a liberal, I'd have little use for his propaganda.>>> If it is on tv, it is propaganda. The idea of olbermann is he is a release valve. If it turns out the society is as disgruntled as olbermann sounds, and they start organizing, at least they still have olbermann taking orders from the top. <<<My main beef with Olbermann is his unbelievable negativity. Are you saying his comments are typically positive and constructive?>>> This is what happens when there is complete censorship of our media. The war propaganda message is all that is allowed. We need 24 hour coverage of uncontrolled live tv and let your pal, ed host it, and see what happens. Chickens, brock brock brock broooock.
Originally Posted By Lake Nona >>We need 24 hour coverage of uncontrolled live tv and let your pal, ed host it, and see what happens.<< Like, go bankrupt like your radio network...Air America.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd No, air america was controlled propaganda, i didn't listen to it. It was garbage on purpose. No real american is allowed to speak. Republican liars create enemies only, that's how they make their livings as parasites.
Originally Posted By DAR <<We need 24 hour coverage of uncontrolled live tv>> I think they call that the Spice Channel.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I had been avoiding this topic because I don't know the first thing about Keith Olbermann. (Like most TV viewers, I haven't the slightest idea where, or when, he broadcasts.) Based on this bizarre piece of grandstanding, it's obvious why. It is, however, not enough to shrug and dismiss among those here who routinely shrug and dismiss. So I'll offer a few supporting comments. First, I will assume that Mr. O delivered this piece with the World Trade Center site as a backdrop. How... tasteful. (I say that only for the benefit of those who regularly complain whenever a conservative commentator goes to the WTC site, claiming it's some sort of pandering.) Second, there is ONE thing in which Mr. O and I are in wholehearted agreement. He began his second paragraph with the phrase, "I belabor this..." Hey, he got that right, anyway. Third... oh, let's just go to the EXCERPTS, with comments: >>Five years later this space is still empty. Five years later there is no memorial to the dead. Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us by cowards and criminals.<< What a crock, and factually wrong. There is no permanent memorial (more on that later), but there are any number of heartfelt memorials on site and nearby. (I have been there and seen 'em.) Every year on the anniversary the families of the dead are able to gather and focus their grief. Sorry that isn't enough for Mr. O. As far as construction, infrastructure has been laid and WTC 7 is built and occupied. (Despite the fact that, unlike an unemcumbered field in Pennsylvania, the WTC site is in the heart of a densely urbanized island.) >>At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial, barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field, Mr. Lincoln said, “We cannot dedicate. We cannot consecrate. We cannot hallow this ground. The brave men living and dead who struggled here have consecrated far above our poor power to add or detract.†Lincoln used those words to immortal words to their sacrifice.<< Yup. And Lincoln's words were dismissed by the media elite of the time (newspapers). Or, as this excellent site from Cornell University put it: >>Reaction to Lincoln’s address was frequently divided along political lines. Newspapers critical of the President had snide things to say about the speech’s brevity and inappropriateness to the occasion. Lincoln supporters, on the other hand, published glowing reviews and noted the classical elegance and heartfelt emotion of the address.<< <a href="http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/gettysburg/ideas_more.htm" target="_blank">http://rmc.library.cornell.edu /gettysburg/ideas_more.htm</a> And this only FOUR MONTHS after the battle. There is at least one constant in American journalism: spin. (Oh. And why the phrase, "another Pennsylvania field?" Last time I checked, the WTC was in New York.) >>Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets and look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres the terrorists are clearly still winning. And in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed, but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.<< If the Olbermann feels that 16 empty acres in the heart of lower Manhattan are proof that the terrorists are winning, he's either willingly being obtuse, lying through his teeth, or grandstanding. There are at least 4 different municipal layers (federal, state, county, and city), dozens of special interest groups (ranging from grieving families to neighborhood watch groups to environmentalists), and the Port Authority (who actually owns the land and needs to derive income from it) all engaged in an epic struggle to both honor the reality of what happened, and assure that life will go on. The only terrorist victory here is the terror of the committee. >>History teaches you that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation‘s wounds, but to take political advantage. << Mr. O shouldn't use glib phrases as a substitute for history. "Unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics?" Really? The moment George W. Bush arrived in DC he was assailed by critics. (It happens to every elected President, by the way.) The relentless drumbeat against this sitting President has been accelerated by a willing press with a 24 hour news cycle. And the notion that the rest of the world actually would love us if it wasn't for the present Administration is sheer nonsense. As long as we are a powerful nation, we will be a lightning rod for criticism and hatred. I agree that recent actions have given these attitudes powerful focus, but nothing more than that. >>Terrorists did not steal our newly regained sense of being American first and political 50th, nor did the democrats, nor did the media, nor did the people. The president and those around him did that.<< And now we get to the crux of this rant. It's all Bush's fault. No logic, no sense of history, and not a shred of balance. Just blame Bush. (Maybe Mr. O craftily assumes that everyone who disapproves of Bush will approve of his broadcast, and get around to tuning in.) >>The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped in to supporting a war on the false premise it had something to do with 9/11, is “lying by implication.†The impolite phrase is “impeachable offense.â€<< I suppose if one were truly partisan, they would have to urge the impeachment of Senators Clinton, Rockefeller and Kerry, since they drew the same conclusions as Bush. And their intelligence, in many instances, predated the Bush administration. (When Senator Clinton was First Lady, and Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bush was running for governor of Texas.) >>Not once, in now five years, has this president ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space and to this the current and curdled version of our beloved country.<< I can only imagine the hue and cry if the President attempted to take over the reconstruction of the WTC. It staggers the imagination. (I am certain that the bloggers and the press would immediately find a Halliburton/Cheney/Saudi connection in the planning and construction. And I'm not even that much of a cynic.) And how, praytell, could ANYONE take responsibility for the "curdled version of our beloved country?" Where to start? Bush? The two parties who won't even talk to each other? Bloviating commentators who do stand ups in front of the WTC site, while deploring politicians who do stand ups in front of the WTC site? Actual terrorists? Michael Moore? Rush Limbaugh? This much I do know: the moment Bush offers even the slightest form of apology for anything, his political opponents will use it as an excuse to excoriate him. The days of gracious rhetoric are over. When it comes to pontificating in today's political arena, scorched earth is the order of the day. >>Still, there is a snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness. Even his most virulent critics have never suggested that he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.<< Just as no one has ever definitively stated that Karl Rove will go to jail for outing Valerie Plame. Or that Bill Clinton strangled Vince Foster. Or that Osama Bin Laden is hiding out as a guest on Dick Cheney's ranch. (Oh wait-- I think that last one has been stated.) This type of rhetoric goes right to the "When did you stop beating your wife" school of journalism. >>Yet, what is happening this very night, the miniseries, created, influenced, possibly financed by the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavelli continues to be televised into our homes. The documented truths of the last 15 years are replaced by bold-faced lies, the talking points of the current regime parroted the whole sorry story blurred by spin to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent and the party in office seem like the only option. How dare you, Mr. President?<< Gee, I hope Mr. O's soapbox isn't actually on the WTC site. It might get tippy. As far as the above goes, How Dare YOU, Mr. O. Which "documented truths of the last 15 years" are being "replaced by bold-faced lies?" The truths surrounding 9/11 and the war on terror have been so twisted and spun for partisan ends that even when confronted with direct quotes and unassailable documents, some still prefer newly drawn conclusions based on nothing more than the interpretor's own animus. >>After taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love and transmuting both into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear in to the campaign slogan of three elections. How dare you or those around you ever spin 9/11?<< I will not sully my keyboard by parsing Mr. O's use of the phrase "unanimity and love" in this context. (I mean, really.) But how much more breathtaking is his assertion that Bush has somehow managed to place a fictional docu-drama on the ABC TV network. It strains credulity to the breaking point. >>This is an odd point to site a television program, especially one from March of 1960...<< Uh, yes. Yes it is. >>...but as Disney‘s continuing sell-out of the truth and of this country suggests, even television program can be powerful things.<< Well, only as long as people are actually watching it, anyway. >>And long ago, a series called the “Twilight Zone†broadcast a riveting episode entitled “The Monsters are Due on Maple Street.â€<< And here, my friends, Mr. O's commentary has definitively jumped the shark. Whenever you find yourself thinking, "Rarely have I seen something that speaks so closely to my own feelings and emotions," just read this aloud: "And long ago, a series called the 'Twilight Zone' broadcast a riveting episode entitled 'The Monsters are Due on Maple Street.'" >>And then in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves, tonight. “The tools of conquest,†he said, “do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record,†he said, “prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own for the children and the children yet unborn.†<< Rod Serling was, indeed, a very fine writer. Mr. O. would better spend his time studying this master, rather than quoting him. Take these words: "...prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own..." The "thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat?" I would say that pretty well sums up Mr. O's screed. (BUT THANKS FOR PLAYING, KEITH!!! After the break: an exclusive interview with John Mark Carr's high school sweetheart.)
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Like, go bankrupt like your radio network...Air America. >> Except, like, they didn't declare bankruptcy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yes. It's far more important to protect Americans against additional terrorist attacks than it is to hunt down one man who has been contained and presents little to no danger. > I wouldn't be so sure he presents little danger, sadly. There are many who believe he's busy planning the next "spectacular event" - more spectacular than 9/11 - and that he now enjoys relative freedom of movement and communication in the tribal area of Pakistan. I wouldn't count him out until he's taken out. As someone living in the city with a target on its back, I'd feel a LOT better if he and Zawhiri were captured or killed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 As for Olbermann, he went out of the realm of reality blaming Bush for the lack of progress on Ground Zero - I believe he lives in NY too (maybe DC), so he ought to know of the dozens of bureaucratic battles that have slowed progress to a near standstill. However, on Bush squandering the unity Americans felt in the aftermath of 9/11 and Afghanistan with the ill-considered Iraq adventure, I'd say he has a point. Because if there's one thing that fractured that unity, it WAS invading Iraq, and that is Bush's baby.
Originally Posted By ecdc Well at least Dug attempted to answer Olbermann, though with plenty of personal attacks thrown in for good measure. We still get to hear about how Olbermann isn't well known, as if that in and of itself is a sin: "(Like most TV viewers, I haven't the slightest idea where, or when, he broadcasts.)" Olbermann is apparently "distasteful" for delivering his comments at the WTC. The nerve of a reporter broadcasting from the WTC on the fifth anniversary of 9/11! No, people don't say conservative commentators are pandering when they broadcast from the WTC, as long as their actually talking about the WTC. To go there or even reference it and then turn around and talk about Iraq is an insult. (I say that for the benefit of those who insist Iraq and 9/11 somehow have *anything* to do with each other). >>>Five years later this space is still empty. Five years later there is no memorial to the dead. Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us by cowards and criminals.<<< >>What a crock, and factually wrong. There is no permanent memorial (more on that later), but there are any number of heartfelt memorials on site and nearby. (I have been there and seen 'em.) Every year on the anniversary the families of the dead are able to gather and focus their grief. Sorry that isn't enough for Mr. O. As far as construction, infrastructure has been laid and WTC 7 is built and occupied. (Despite the fact that, unlike an unemcumbered field in Pennsylvania, the WTC site is in the heart of a densely urbanized island.)<< Talk about your spinning! Olbermann is quoted correctly and plainly then the most basic facts are refuted as somehow wrong because of whom Olbermann blames for the lack of a building and a memorial. It's not a crock at all, it's simple fact. I've been there as well, a few times now, and the temporary memorials change and they were largely done by local city officials and the families. The hole is empty because of a clear lack of leadership at multiple levels, including the top. But apparently we're supposed to absolve Bush of responsibility from *anything* - be it this, Iraq, or Katrina. It just ain't his fault, apparently. >>Yup. And Lincoln's words were dismissed by the media elite of the time (newspapers). Or, as this excellent site from Cornell University put it: Reaction to Lincoln’s address was frequently divided along political lines. Newspapers critical of the President had snide things to say about the speech’s brevity and inappropriateness to the occasion. Lincoln supporters, on the other hand, published glowing reviews and noted the classical elegance and heartfelt emotion of the address.<< Pure misdirection that has zero to do with Olbermann's comments. But then, Lincoln also went on to win the war be a great President. We'll see how Bush turns out in the history books. I'm sure given all of his amazing successes, it'll be remarkable. Only his most partisan, and strangely bizarre defenders would actually look at his Presidency as somehow successful or accomplishing much of anything. But if Bush has done some great good, just point us to the evidence; I'm all ears. Of course, there isn't much of anything at all. Instead, we're treated to how nothing is Bush's fault. Playing defense isn't the best sign things are going swimmingly for your Presidency. >>If the Olbermann feels that 16 empty acres in the heart of lower Manhattan are proof that the terrorists are winning, he's either willingly being obtuse, lying through his teeth, or grandstanding. There are at least 4 different municipal layers (federal, state, county, and city), dozens of special interest groups (ranging from grieving families to neighborhood watch groups to environmentalists), and the Port Authority (who actually owns the land and needs to derive income from it) all engaged in an epic struggle to both honor the reality of what happened, and assure that life will go on. The only terrorist victory here is the terror of the committee.<< Finally, some actual substance. I can agree that Olbermann overstates his case by citing the lack of construction at the WTC then tying it to Bush. That said, I think Olbermann's overall point, that is spot on, is that we've were diverted by the President to Iraq and it is where our resources and our focus has gone. 9/11 was Bush's excuse. As Olbermann so eloquently points out, it was personal for all of us, especially those like Olbermann who lost friends in the attacks. But we've forgotten so much of it because of Iraq. The only time the President mentions it is in connection with Iraq - not with bin Laden or Afghanistan, which is rapidly becoming failure #... oh, well I've lost count, for Bush. It's amazing that we even discuss Iraq in the same breath, but people seem to think it was appropriate. We were attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan. We went after them with the support of nearly the whole world. We lost bin Laden at Tora Bora, so we decide to attack a country that hadn't attacked us? That's our solution? Genius, I tells ya! >>Mr. O shouldn't use glib phrases as a substitute for history. "Unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics?" Really? The moment George W. Bush arrived in DC he was assailed by critics. (It happens to every elected President, by the way.) The relentless drumbeat against this sitting President has been accelerated by a willing press with a 24 hour news cycle. And the notion that the rest of the world actually would love us if it wasn't for the present Administration is sheer nonsense. As long as we are a powerful nation, we will be a lightning rod for criticism and hatred. I agree that recent actions have given these attitudes powerful focus, but nothing more than that.<< What's sheer nonsense is somehow even implying or suggesting that Bush didn't squander the near-unanimous support we had for going to Afghanistan following 9/11. Bush had over 90% approval from Americans following 9/11 and during the invasion of Afghanistan. So apparently, it was the critics that did it because they became critical after bin Laden suddenly morphed into Saddam and Iraq. Man, how dare they mention those small details like Iraq never attacked us and had nothing to do with 9/11. But facts are pesky little things, aren't they? Bush had our support (mine included) for many months after 9/11. Suggesting it was taken away by critics is beyond spinning. It's just dishonest. Bush made unpopular decisions. Some people call that great leadership because he doesn't listen to polls. In rare instances, that's the case with leaders. In this case, however, he was just incompetent and ignored the world and did whatever he wanted. It sure is going well though in Iraq. Hey, I wonder where bin Laden is... >>And now we get to the crux of this rant. It's all Bush's fault. No logic, no sense of history, and not a shred of balance. Just blame Bush. (Maybe Mr. O craftily assumes that everyone who disapproves of Bush will approve of his broadcast, and get around to tuning in.)<< So just curious, whose fault is it that we lost most of the world's support? The Democrats? The terrorists? Are you suggesting France and Russia support bin Laden? Are you suggesting Democrats do? Funny, I thought we were all on the same page with that. But we weren't with Iraq. But apparently that's everyone's fault but Bush's. If only we would just all go along for the ride and let him do whatever he wanted, then we'd all support him! Ya, that's it. That's the ticket! It's our fault for not swallowing whatever Bush does hook, line, and sinker. But we sure showed the French, didn't we. We renamed french fries and french toast. Take that, rifle droppers! >>I suppose if one were truly partisan, they would have to urge the impeachment of Senators Clinton, Rockefeller and Kerry, since they drew the same conclusions as Bush. And their intelligence, in many instances, predated the Bush administration. (When Senator Clinton was First Lady, and Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bush was running for governor of Texas.)<< Ah, more of the same nonsense and misdirection. Like we haven't heard this argument before. Point a finger at Bush and instead of a response about Bush we get, "But Kerry and Clinton did it too!" That argument didn't work on my parents when I was six, and it doesn't fly now. >>I can only imagine the hue and cry if the President attempted to take over the reconstruction of the WTC. It staggers the imagination. (I am certain that the bloggers and the press would immediately find a Halliburton/Cheney/Saudi connection in the planning and construction. And I'm not even that much of a cynic.)<< I don't think anybody has suggested he take it over. But how about offering even a smidgen of leadership to bring the parties involved together to get it going? Neither Ronald Reagan nor Bill Clinton would have stood by and allowed it (but then, they wouldn't have attacked the wrong country, either). As for Halliburton, are you suggesting that their profits haven't skyrocketed in the last three years and that they aren't running multiple contracts out of Iraq? I guess that was all just made up. >>And how, praytell, could ANYONE take responsibility for the "curdled version of our beloved country?" Where to start? Bush? The two parties who won't even talk to each other? Bloviating commentators who do stand ups in front of the WTC site, while deploring politicians who do stand ups in front of the WTC site? Actual terrorists? Michael Moore? Rush Limbaugh?<< No doubt about it, we've been divided before 9/11 and we would of course be divided after it. But we were united for a time. It could have stayed that way a little longer had we got bin Laden. But instead it's all Iraq, all the time. The teeny fact that Saddam was contained and not a threat according to many in the U.N. and around the world just doesn't count. Attacking Iraq makes about as much sense as if my house was robbed, so I go testify against the guy who did it. But I'm still kinda pissed after he gets off so I go gun down another buglar - at least, I think he is. And people who say I shouldn't have done it obviously just want that other buglar walking the streets, right? Makes perfect sense to me. >>This much I do know: the moment Bush offers even the slightest form of apology for anything, his political opponents will use it as an excuse to excoriate him. The days of gracious rhetoric are over. When it comes to pontificating in today's political arena, scorched earth is the order of the day.<< You mean like the Swiftboat Liars? Or the Karl Rove "Bring up Gay Marriage Only in Election Years" program? Or the attack John McCain at all costs in 2000 movement? Funny how Bush likes to go after the guys who did bother to serve. But he did a bang up job defending Texas from Arkansas. >>Gee, I hope Mr. O's soapbox isn't actually on the WTC site. It might get tippy. As far as the above goes, How Dare YOU, Mr. O. Which "documented truths of the last 15 years" are being "replaced by bold-faced lies?" The truths surrounding 9/11 and the war on terror have been so twisted and spun for partisan ends that even when confronted with direct quotes and unassailable documents, some still prefer newly drawn conclusions based on nothing more than the interpretor's own animus.<< Hey, finally something I can agree on. The truths of 9/11 and who perpetuated it and who didn't sure have been twisted. Bush tells us we've forgotten the lessons of 9/11 in relation to blowing up Baghdad? How anyone can defend that with a straight face I'll never know. But of course, Olbermann is referring to the documentary produced by a right-wing Christian group whose stated goal is to change Hollywood into a Christian organization. The very people involved in the events documented said it was nonsense. But they're all liars apparently - the right-wing writer is the real truth-teller. Actually, I think Stephen Colbert's word, truthiness, better describes this docu-drama - heavy on drama, lite on doc. >>I will not sully my keyboard by parsing Mr. O's use of the phrase "unanimity and love" in this context. (I mean, really.) But how much more breathtaking is his assertion that Bush has somehow managed to place a fictional docu-drama on the ABC TV network. It strains credulity to the breaking point.<< It doesn't strain it as much as you'd like to think. I don't think Bush got this on the air - that is pushing it. But try looking up who produced and wrote the documentary. They're about as objective as Michael Moore. But wasn't it you demanding that liberals stand up and denounce Moore? Why didn't Bush stand up and denounce these people? But who needs fairness or a two-way street when we've got to cling to those partisan beliefs, truth be damned, right? >>And here, my friends, Mr. O's commentary has definitively jumped the shark. Whenever you find yourself thinking, "Rarely have I seen something that speaks so closely to my own feelings and emotions," just read this aloud: "And long ago, a series called the 'Twilight Zone' broadcast a riveting episode entitled 'The Monsters are Due on Maple Street.<< Er, so fiction can't be worthwhile. Or just because it's the Twilight Zone? Yep, it is easy to blithely dismiss it without looking at the point it makes and how it fits into Olbermann's comments. It's really a very appropriate example, but it definitely provides ammo if you're just trying to mock Olbermann and the person who started the thread. But you never make it personal, I forgot. Too bad you didn't actually bother to address the episode in question and what it's point might be. >>(BUT THANKS FOR PLAYING, KEITH!!! After the break: an exclusive interview with John Mark Carr's high school sweetheart.)<< No, thank YOU for playing, Dug. You've done a marvelous job mocking Keith Olbermann about as much as possible. But he doesn't agree with you, so he's game, right? Too bad there wasn't more substance to your remarks. But we're used to it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << So just curious, whose fault is it that we lost most of the world's support? The Democrats? The terrorists? Are you suggesting France and Russia support bin Laden? Are you suggesting Democrats do? >> Yes.
Originally Posted By cmpaley "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Your quote is stupid. Why do you keep putting it up like it means anything? Some of us get the war on terror, others want to blame Bush and help the enemy. It's that simple at this point. You can quote me.
