Handy Winter Reference
Just saw this over at RedLipstick. Might come in handy this winter, especially since I promised Christian and Robin some mittens.
How about that election, eh?
The English medical journal The Lancet is publishing a report that there have been at least 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths by violence since the U.S. invaded.
Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S.
He didn’t have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons that could threaten his neighbors, much less the U.S. when we invaded. He didn’t have programs in place to make them. He might have been able to restart them after the U.N. sanctions were lifted. The U.N. wasn’t planning to lift sanctions on him when the U.S. invaded.
I don’t understand why President Bush was re-elected.
November 4th, 2004 at 9:49 am
It is so encouraging to see this coming from a Texan.
November 4th, 2004 at 10:52 am
Because of the BABIES and those nasty gays and because ‘In God We Trust’ and fear and greed. Also, I had restrain myself from slapping a co-worker the other day when she said that she didn’t agree with a lot of Bush’s policies, but at least you know where he stands so she would be voting for him. Logical reasoning? What’s that?
ARGH!! Stopping now.
November 4th, 2004 at 10:56 am
Unfortunately, I think his re-election says something about how warped Americans’ views have become–and perhaps the “Texan mystique” has played into that . . .oh yes, and the Christian fundamentalism that is now so pervasive in the Republican party. There’s a kind of romanticism in the whole cowboy thing–the symbol still greatly appeals to Americans–and the self-righteousness of Bush’s kind of fundamental Christianity gives those who are in his camp a kind of “carte blanche” to do whatever the hell they want.
In short, I think that Bush was re-elected because he constructs an image/identity for America that Americans (some of them, anyway) like–even though that image is only a fiction, and an extremely dangerous one at that.
November 5th, 2004 at 9:57 am
Sometimes, when looking for understanding, it helps to critically analyze the question rather than trying to rationalize possible answers.
November 5th, 2004 at 10:33 am
I hate to say this, but I agree with Spoon. We’re (those who did not vote for said Pres.) are not asking the right questions. We’re not starting with the same set of assumptions, even - so of course we’re not going to understand the result.
In college I took a few journalism classes from an amazing, Pulitzer-prize winning guy. (What he was doing at a CSU is questionable.) He reminded us again and again that during times of serious conflict, an entirely different set of priorities comes to fore in people’s minds. Civil liberties are always threatened. Media outlets are always afraid of being thought too leftist. It’s like hyenas bringing down zebras - inevitable but damned hard to watch. NONE of it has anything to do with reality - just what’s perceived as reality. Remember the Cold War? How much of that was about perception?
November 5th, 2004 at 12:45 pm
Let’s start with…I don’t think Bush was elected the first time around…
November 6th, 2004 at 5:30 pm
I would be happy to hear your perspective, Spoon.
November 8th, 2004 at 10:38 am
your political analysis and defense of a genocidal maniac who would kill you in the blink of an eye (along with your entire family) leaves something to be desired.
But thanks for voting…
November 8th, 2004 at 2:59 pm
No, not really Matt.
The reason we went to war in Iraq was because Saddam Hussein would not disarm. (Dept. of Defense link)
Except we now know that he wasn’t “armed” in the first place.
If we’d gone to war to stop his genocide of Kurds or Kuwaitis, you’d have a point. But we didn’t, so you don’t.