For Real Change, Vote on the Real Issues
More from this column:
- Obama Part II: What Remains to Be Done
- Obama Part I: Those Who Made It Possible
- Address Apartheid in Israel-Palestine
- Forget Ayers, Let's Talk About Kissinger
- Spread Cost of War to All of Society
- For Real Change, Vote on the Real Issues
- Hill's Far From Extreme, Even if She's a Woman
- How College Can Change You if You're Open-Minded
- My America Is One of Action
- Pope Must Atone for the Sins of His Past
This summer marked the 45th anniversary of the murder of Medgar Evers, a community organizer shot in the back by a Klan member who found integration frightening enough to justify murder. That same year Bob Dylan put to music a diagnosis of that murder, a song whose relevance today lies not so much in the possibility of another assassination, but in the broader strategy by which rulers distract those they rule.
“A Southern politician preaches to the poor white man, ‘You got more than the blacks, don’t complain. You’re better than them, you been born with white skin,’ they explain. And the Negro’s name Is used, it is plain For the politician’s gain As he rises to fame And the poor white remains On the caboose of the train But it ain’t him to blame He’s only a pawn in their game."
The strategy of “divide and conquer” has been employed as long as there were institutionalized power disparities in society. Every company thug knows that the best way to break a union is to make sure the scabs are from a different ethnic group, because workers fighting amongst themselves will not be effective fighting bosses. So when the Reagan administration facilitated the destruction of family farms in America, driving hundreds of thousands off the land they had farmed for generations in support of multinational agribusiness, there were plenty of church leaders and right-wing politicians ready to goad the victims into the ideology of the militias and talk radio. It’s the blacks with all their welfare; it’s the immigrants stealing jobs for sub-minimum wages; ignore the men in suits behind the curtain. Rally around race war, never class war.
“From the poverty shacks, he looks from the cracks to the tracks, And the hoof beats pound in his brain. And he’s taught how to walk in a pack Shoot in the back With his fist in a clinch To hang and to lynch To hide ’neath the hood To kill with no pain Like a dog on a chain He ain’t got no name But it ain’t him to blame He’s only a pawn in their game.”
The massive Reagan-era buildup in military spending — begun in the last years of the Carter administration — was designed, so we were told, to bring about the fall of the Soviet Union. But a funny thing happened, the enemy collapsed but the budgets remained. There was a brief small drop, and then a new gradual buildup from Bush I, through Clinton I, and culminating in Bush II. Now we spend more than the rest of the world combined on the military. Now we sell more weapons worldwide than the rest of the world combined, and the Bush administration wants to sell more. But don’t get the wrong impression: It has nothing to do with profit. As quoted recently in most major press:
“This is not about being gunrunners,” said Bruce Lemkin, the air force deputy under secretary who is helping coordinate many of the biggest sales. “This is about building a more secure world.”
I certainly feel safer knowing the Saudis and Israelis are well-armed. So what if a few executives get rich? Those Muslims hate us because we are free. And what kind of name is ‘Obama’ anyway?
We are, right now, facing the most serious collapse of U.S. financial institutions since the great depression. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans have lost their homes and major banks are in collapse. None of this impacts the people who caused it. “Corporations” — imaginary legal constructs created to transfer the risk of capitalism to the people while leaving the profit with owners — may fail, but the CEOs retire with millions. If an assembly-line worker screws up and costs the company a few thousand dollars, he’ll be fired and left with nothing. If a CEO’s greed wrecks an entire industry, he goes home to his mansion with a multi-million-dollar pension. All of this is facilitated by reckless deregulation and massive tax cuts for the rich, but don’t get upset children: That Hussein guy wants to raise our taxes, and he taught kindergartners about sex, and McCain was a war hero.
“Today, Medgar Evers was buried from the bullet he caught. They lowered him down as a king. But when the shadowy sun sets on the one That fired the gun He’ll see by his grave On the stone that remains Carved next to his name His epitaph plain Only a pawn in their game.”
Electing Obama, on its own, won’t change anything fundamental in this country. It won’t save the environment, won’t end poverty, won’t transform our militaristic foreign policy and won’t restore civil liberties. Only community organizers like Medgar Evers will do that. But their job will be a hell of a lot easier with Obama in the White House than McCain. If you are going to vote for McCain, at least do it with your eyes open. Do it because you are already rich and want to be richer, consequences for others be damned. The real power brokers in the Republican Party don’t care whether gays get to marry. They don’t believe that Obama would hand the country over to Arabs. They don’t believe in apocalyptic religious struggles, love cheap illegal immigrant labor, and know perfectly well that the bulk of our military budget is welfare for the rich. And if Americans ignore this and base their votes instead on gay sex, moose skinning and racial animosity, you can be sure of one thing: In every penthouse in America a CEO will be, in the immortal words of Lou Reed, laughing ’til he wets his pants.
Mark Lance is a professor in the philosophy department and a professor and program director in the Program on Justice and Peace. He can be reached at lance@thehoya.com. COGNITIVE DISSIDENT appears every other Friday.
Sep 19 2008 at 1:20 p.m.
I'm glad to see that once again we get to the crux of the issue - students at Georgetown will so easily get riled up in the big political game, and spend countless hours volunteering for national campaigns, but I wonder how often they stop to think if they're just playing the part of pawns, when they could very well be kings/queens - doing a world of good if such effort was spent on their local communities (at home or within GU). When I was a student there, I was involved in GUSA and the residence hall council, and I always thought that the general apathy for such groups came from their lack of real power. However, it is a lack of "call-to-arms" issues that feeds apathy.
When the keg ban was proposed by the GU administration, GUSA was able to use it to capture the attention of students, and have them simultaneously vote in protest to the keg ban and for a reform to GUSA's constitution, something that required an unprecedented level of student participation. Without that scary, single issue GUSA would never have garnered enough interest for students to take 2 minutes to login and vote online. We even went door to door, set up voting stations, staged demonstrations, and gave away free t-shirts just to make sure that we could finally cross the apathy gap that was holding back our reforms. I'm proud to have taken part in that and to later be elected one of the first GUSA Senators in my senior year (even though since then the administration continued its unilateral policy-making and produced even more insulting, nanny-state rules).
In an ideal America, we would all understand and really care about the real issues that will affect our lives and our future, and focus on all the simple things we can do close to home - that would amount to much more than the sum of its parts. Honestly, though, I really don’t think that’ll happen. Thus, even people with the best of intentions still have to play the game to get anything done, with their “useful idiot” pawns and all, and I’m sure that’s what the best of candidates say to themselves so they can sleep at night. All the same, however, the winners and losers in this game remain the same.
Someone making $40K loses $10K to taxes, and both candidates are talking about $200K earners as if that’s middle class, just like they did four years ago. Homeowners are being blamed for being irresponsible just because they wanted to put their families into a nice neighborhood even if they could barely make ends meet, and on top of that they’re paying taxes to bail out the lenders who still collect their payments at increasing rates. The students now in the Georgetown bubble won’t know the meaning of true outrage until they try to make a living out in the real world. When you do, the old guns/gays/God/environment/war/abortion/whatever crap the Democrat/Republican two-headed monster keeps throwing just won’t stick to the wall.
Kevin Murphy
COL ‘07
P.S.
Prof. Lance, how exactly will Obama make community organizers’ jobs easier?
Sep 21 2008 at 2:02 a.m.
Mark Lance
Kevin: Thanks for the comment. The first way Obama is likely to make an organizer's job easier is by not starting another war. McCain is much more likely to launch a war on Iran which in addition to being a disaster for the US, Iran, and the rest of hte world, would draw enormous energy away from local organizing. In addition, though neither would do what is needed in terms of civil liberties, one can expect more of the recent infiltration of activist organizations under a McCain-Palin administration. And of course the more the government does to deal with social problems, poverty, and the like, the more organizers can focus on changing structural things and less on immediate aid.
Sep 21 2008 at 2:34 a.m.
I strongly disagree with the sentiment expressed in this article. My support for McCain is based on a whole lot more than 'gay sex, moose skinning, and racial animosity'. Actually, it is based on none of those. It is based on my belief that what one earns one should get to keep. That doesn't mean any of the following: "I hate the poor." "I don't care about the working class." "I hate charity."
Nope. It simply means that I believe I can put my hard-earned money to work helping the poor better than the government can. So instead of letting the government take my money and dole it out as welfare, why not keep my money, start a business, and employ men and women who would otherwise be on welfare?
I also strongly disagree with the sentiment expressed in your recent comment. You don't back up your claim that war with Iran would be a 'disaster' for the US, Iran, and 'hte' rest of the world with any evidence. And then you state that such a war would take enormous 'energy' away from local organizing. How, pray tell? Our armed forces are a volunteer organization. Your local organizers aren't getting drafted.
Sep 21 2008 at 1:42 p.m.
Sam:
Under Bill Clinton, the US balanced the budget. Under Bush, we have record deficits that are going to put us in debt for generations. You talk about taxes being paid out in welfare, but like most Republicans, you say nothing about the vastly larger corporate welfare that is the military industrial complex. Bush waste more of our money invading Iraq -- to say nothing of the lives -- than all the welfare programs this country could conceivably put in place in a decade. A vote for McCain is a vote or tax -- the middle class -- and spend -- on wars, arms trade, and corporate welfare.
As for taking people from local organizing, it isn't through a draft, oviously, but through the fact that organizers have consciences. When an illegal war is killing people and draining our economy, people of conscience feel compelled to devote their time to stopping it, as we did with the Iraq war that effectively killed many promising activist campaigns.
Mark Lance
Sep 21 2008 at 11:23 p.m.
Sam - Please don't get caught up thinking we're invincible just because the politicians you like are posturing as crusaders and the ones you don't like are naive/wimpy/defeatist. There is a middle ground in between flag-burning-antiwar-hippies and "bring 'em on." Professor - the military-industrial complex has by-and-large grown into what Ike warned us about fifty years ago, but I object to the common trend of bashing contractors and dismissing all defense spending as corporate welfare. A more nuanced analysis would be more appropriate considering many private-sector workers are doing important work for national security along with the men and women in uniform, and more oversight of awarding contracts is the solution to the legitimate concern of "welfare" for those companies.
Sep 22 2008 at 1:21 a.m.
Prof. Lance- Once again, I find my opinion at odds with yours. This 'corporate welfare' that you speak of (referring to defense contracting, if I am correct) doesn't exist. Defense contractors are dong business with the United States where both parties benefit (Defense contractors get paid, U.S. Government is no longer burdened with whatever task it just outsourced). Welfare is one-sided. The recipient is getting paid and the government is getting nothing.
Your statement about conscience is getting a bit touchy-feely, don't you think? First of all, I disagree with your label of the War in Iraq as part of larger global war on terror as 'llegal'. I suggest that you add 'War and Decision' by Douglas J. Feith to your to-read list. It outlines the U.S. government's policy in regards to terror ad the War in Iraq and offers a new narrative which is FIRMLY at odds with the current 'Bush lied, people died!' drivel. I might also mention that Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law in 1998, essentially mandating regime change in Iraq. Also, it's highly subjective to state that 'people of conscience' feel compelled to gravitate toward your side of the debate.
KMM- That's a false dichotomy. I don't ascribe to or live by either stereotype.
Sep 22 2008 at 3:26 a.m.
Mark Lance
Sam:
Sorry, but the vast majority -- and KMM, I've been quiet clear every time that it isn't all -- of military spending achieves nothing for this country. Things like extra nuclear weapons when we already have enough to end all life on Earth many times, are pure welfare. In the case of arms sales to both sides of wars, it is far worse than getting nothing. Such sales, not to mention the vast majority of US wars, have made America less safe. But the corporate welfare nature does not stop there. Many US wars are carried out at the urging of non-military corporations. (Here's an old and famous quote from the decorated general Smedley Butler that is at least as true today: " "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.")
Conscience is "touchy-feely"? Wow. I'm actually sad to hear you say that.
As for illegality, this is not a close call. The only legal justification for an invasion of another country not approved by the UNSC is imminent threat -- which is defined quite clearly in international law and requires things like an active massing for invasion. The Bush crowd belongs in prison. (And I have read Feith's self-justifications. It was pretty embarrassing, if such is possible at this point in time for someone with his record. Just out of curiosity, which part do you think is drivel -- that Bush lied, or that people died? I'm curious since both are patently true.)
But the bigger point is that you have made it very clear where you stand. You want the government to serve the interests of the ruling class, you defend US militarism, and you eschew the very idea of conscience. As I said in the original article, a person with those views has a clear-headed reason to vote Republican. I suspect you are wrong to think that a life without conscience will make you happy, but at least you are pursuing your own self-interest as you see it. My column was directed towards a different group of Republican voters.
Sep 22 2008 at 2:34 p.m.
It's a pure fallacy to believe Democrats are less guilty than Republicans of being "in bed" with corporations and special interests. What facile analysis. This piece is pure ideology.
Sep 22 2008 at 5:25 p.m.
Mark Lance
Wow E lautrec.
Unfortunately you are the one committing fallacies. It is absolutely true -- as I say in this article, and have in many others -- that the Democrats are also in bed with special interests. Both are supported by, and get elected through, contributions that come mostly from the wealthy. That is an endemic feature of our current political system and one of the most important things in America in need of change. But it is actually one of the paradigm facile fallacies to infer from similarity to equality. There is not the slightest doubt that Republicans- especially the most recent ones - have done far more to cut taxes on the rich, to unregulate corporations, and to transfer spending to the military, than the Democrats. The Bush administration has brought us massive de-regulation, huge windfalls for the rich, and one of the most economically disastrous wars in our history. One can argue about whether any of this is a good thing, but not about whether it happened.
Please try to engage with issues out of some knowledge of political reality rather than merely calling me names. Nothing is more facile than calling someone 'facile' without any engagement with the arguments.
Sep 23 2008 at 4:11 a.m.
I admit I made my first comment flippantly and appreciate your response. I maintain that your reduction of the Republican ticket to a voice for thinly-veiled corporate interests is a gross oversimplification. I do not contest that tax cuts for the rich and corporations have "happened," as you say. Nor do I contest that they happened under the aegis of Republican-controlled legislative and executive branches.
I argue two points, however. First, that Republican advocacy for social and cultural issues is not a purely cynical ploy to advance corporate interests. To view the American political discourse in this light dangerously disregards the importance of these issues and smacks of conspiratorial theorizing. Second, that it is not insignificant that John McCain has risked his political career to challenge the Republican establishment on many of these issues, including the very tax cuts you mention. I would caution anyone against conflating McCain with the "Republican establishment," lest we forget who fought most vociferously against his candidacy: yes, that very same establishment.
I would love to delve further into these two arguments and feel adequately prepared to do so. In the interest of my writing assignments that actually earn me credit at this institution, however, I must cut this discussion short.
Cheers.
Sep 23 2008 at 6:39 a.m.
"Just out of curiosity, which part do you think is drivel -- that Bush lied, or that people died?"
I'm not Sam, but the drivel I would take issue with is the assertion that "Bush lied."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story
and
http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/01/28/actually_bush_didnt_lie
and
http://action.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/posts/list/1164410.page;jsessionid=D51019D21E4296141EFFDA4865D8F2D4
Sep 23 2008 at 11:58 a.m.
Mark Lance
THanks E. I appreciate the tone. I don't really know what to make of the charge that something "smacks of conspiratorial theorizing". The charge of "conspiracy theory" is tossed around these days to discredit any suggestion that people in power ever strategize. I think there is overwhelming evidence that the Republican Party thinks very hard about how and how much to support the Christian Right agenda. I think it is perfectly clear that the Bush crowd adn the McCain crowd don't believe in any of this. (Remember Cheney and his daughter?) As you say, a real debate on this would take a lot of time, but I find the connection every bit as cynical as that between the Saudi royal family and the clerics they support.
McCain wasn't the first choice of the Republican establishment because he has not been as reliable in supporting their interests as others. But we are talking 90+ % support of Bush. ANd in the election he's made it clear that he will drop any commitment he made before in the interests of being elected.
ADJ. The Bush administration lied. Many many times. Cheney and Bush tied Iraq to 9-11 repeatedly knowing that this was absurd. Even more than the faked evidence on weapons -- yes faked, and while there may not be enough evidence to prove in court (MAY not be) that they did, there is more than enough to make it clear to any reasonable person that this was not just a huge collection of errors -- this was a blatant lie that swayed many many Americans.
Sep 23 2008 at 2:32 p.m.
Mark,
Post one statement by the administration that you consider a "lie."
If there's not enough evidence to prove in court that the administration "faked evidence on weapons" then why would you expect "any reasonable person" to believe they did?
Your arguments here are extremely flimsy with no evidence to support them but your own biased assertions that "any reasonable person" will come to your conclusions.
Sep 23 2008 at 3:52 p.m.
Mark Lance
Oh heavens: Meet the Press 2003, Dick Cheney, said that Iraq was the launching ground for the 9-11 attacks.
Sep 23 2008 at 4:13 p.m.
Mark,
Read the transcript yourself:
"MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know."
And later on in the interview:
"MR. RUSSERT: So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No, I was careful not to say that. With respect to 9/11, 9/11, as I said at the beginning of the show, changed everything."
So, yeah, he never said Iraq was a launching ground for the 9/11 attacks, he did, in the same interview, say that AFGHANISTAN was, so maybe you were, you know, confused about that.
Anyway, still waiting for a quote from the administration that you consider a demonstrable lie.
Sep 23 2008 at 4:44 p.m.
Mark Lance
Wow, so you choose selections from one transcript out of the numerous times Cheney tied the two and you actually can't get one where he tells the truth. The entire discussion of "not knowing" about the credibility of the Atta meeting is a lie. This was utterly discredited by the intelligence community long before this interview.
Saying that he doesn't know whether there was a connection between Iraq and 9-11 is also a lie.
The claim about training for BW and CW was in all liklihood a lie. Numerous intelligence officials have said that there is no evidence of this.
For more on the pattern: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html>
And for a systematic discussion listing 935 false statements in two years from senior officials (!) go here: http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/>
And with that, I'm going to end this thread of discussion.
Sep 23 2008 at 4:57 p.m.
Bob Woodward wrote 4 books about the Bush administration and the handling of the "War on Terror".
* Bush at War - (2002) ISBN 0-7432-0473-5
* Plan of Attack - (2004) ISBN 0-7432-5547-X
* State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III - (2006) ISBN 0-7432-7223-4
* The War Within: A Secret White House History (2006–2008) - (2008) ISBN 1-4165-5897-7
I've only read "Plan of Attack", but it seems objective, highly critical, and not afraid to portray the administration in a very unflattering light. It covered the planning and events leading up to the Iraq War. Correct me if I'm wrong, but never once did Woodward say the administration or Bush lied about the reasons for going to war or that there was a vast malevolent conspiracy. Incompetence isn't a constitutionally valid reason for impeachment and removal for office and from Woodward, it doesn't seem like he met the conditions for criminality either.
Sep 23 2008 at 5:21 p.m.
Mark Lance
Cataline:
Haven't read the books, so I have no idea what Woodward said. I also have no idea about a "vast malevolent conspiracy," which as I said above is rhetoric that is used to discount any claim that those in power strategize.
But lie they did.
I also give the argument for criminality above. The war was quite patently illegal under various treaties signed by the US -- and this depends nothing on their having lied. If everything they said had been true, the war would still have been illegal. Note also, that constitutionally a signed and ratified treaty is "the supreme law of the land".
Sep 23 2008 at 9:27 p.m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_Attack
and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19691-2004Apr17.html (there are supposedly 4 other articles in this series)
Nowhere did I see accusations of "lies" (again correct me if I am wrong and missed the evidence) just tons of ineptitude, pigheadedness, and hubris, but not criminality.
What treaties were broken? I know the UN allows defense in face of hostile aggression but besides that, am I missing the illegitimacy of the US invasion?
What treaties/agreements were you referencing, Prof Lance?
Sep 23 2008 at 9:39 p.m.
Mark Lance
Look Cataline: one can always say that every false statement was just remarkably stupid. That a person really forgot briefings, didn't know about evidence that was present, etc. So sure, the fact that there are hundreds of false statements which were widely known to be false at the time they were made doesn't absolutely entail that the person lied. But if that is the standard, one could never convict anyone of lying. There is always some level of stupidity and forgetfulness consistent with the data. But while there is some independent support for charges of stupidity with Bush, there isn't with Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. This is the interpretation of the desperate.
The UN allows defense ONLY in the face of hostile aggression or when approved by the UNSC. The grounding treaties, among others, are the Charter of the UN, and the Geneva Conventions.
There was no aggression by Iraq nor any threat of it. (Even if they had had weapons, they had absolutely no way to use them against us. And in any event, the standard for attack without UNSC authorization is that an attack be underway. So, for example, if Iraq had massed troops on the Canadian border, or had intercontinental bombers in the air, the US could arguably have been justified in attacking without authorization. But these are so ridiculously far from what happened, that they are not really worth discussing.
Sep 24 2008 at 12:11 a.m.
Prof Lance,
I'm sorry, but a postmodern deconstruction "reading between the lines" of the relationships among the Bush administration players does _not_ equate with irrefutable evidence of their lying; if anything, it is only speculation. Unless we have hard proof they purposefully and willfully changed, hid, or distorted facts, no one has the validity to say they lied. Anything less just doesn't stand up to tighter scrutiny. The burden of proof is on the accuser, or so the American legal system goes.
As for aggression, perhaps the US was not facing aggression, but perhaps it actually was. In trying to enforce the Iraqi No-Fly Zones, US and British fighter jets would receive fire from Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries. That seems like outright aggression.
Also a UN resolution asking for a resumption of weapons inspections had gone unheeded by Iraq and stated there would be "serious consequences" if Iraq did not let in inspectors. I guess the only mistake here was that no one realized Saddam Hussein would be crazy enough to get rid of his weapons program and still thumb his nose at the UN and US. That's probably more of a critique of the rational actor model than of the US.
Sep 24 2008 at 2:24 a.m.
Mark Lance
Cataline:
Now you're just being silly. "postmodern deconstruction"? "Reading between the lines"? You guys wanted me to do your research for you and provide lies. I did. Then you claimed that hundreds of patently false statements, many that had been shown to be false earlier were all the result of a level of a mixture of stupidity and amnesia. When I pointed this out, and that it was a standard that would make it impossible ever to demonstrate anyone to be lying, you just throw out bizarre insults.
As for the idea that an anti-aircraft shot and a dispute over weapons inspection constitutes a direct attack on the US, well, this standard would justify most of the countries of the world attacking the US. But thankfully international law is a good deal more principled than your defense of the Bush-administration.
OK. That's all I have to say on this issue. Thanks to everyone who wrote in.
Sep 24 2008 at 3:04 a.m.
My apologies, actually didn't see you posted some links of proof above. Good debate, until next time...