This statement would not hold up in a HS logic class on the 1st day of school. One would have to believe in a war against something that you believe does not exist, according to your either/or. Give it another try. :cool:

This is a war against terrorism. Iraq is ground zero in that war, whether you or the left likes it or not...It could not have been a more brilliant tactical move to centralize the war in Iraq. Saddam had and/or was seeking to enhance his warring capacity. Saddam had links to terrorism...Bush is cleaning up the incompetent mess Clinton left behind.

Yeah, I've heard this somewhere before. Oh wait, never mind. It was from you. :)

"Bush's greatest failure has been allowing the media to slander and falsely malign his and the nation's credibility."

Yep. Bush could have been more successful if he had formed an SS type of security force to make sure the media doesn't slander or malign him. Actually, in his first term and especially after 9/11, the national press gave him a pass and failed in their duty to adequately question his policies and decisions. They're slowly getting their cajones back. Even fellow Republicans are realizing their errors in having backed Mr. POTUS and Mr. VPOTUS, currently at 34% and 18% respectively, or is that approval rating a vast left-wing Commie conspiracy, the same conspiracy when it was once 65% in the early days of the invasion?

Sherwood

This is a true article, although a couple of items have been added.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the
Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance,"now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.
Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement?
Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
---God Bless America---

I would not know where to start w/ that essay, it is as weak as a newborn kitten, IMO. Actually I would have no problem starting, but I need to go to work so it will stand here today.

Mull Bull :rolleyes:

werd

Gawd, Denis! Now you're painting yourself as a misogynist, a racist, and a homophobe! What's next for you? A subscription to the Rush Limbaugh newsletter? :rolleyes:

From: ... "Do or Die"
.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=257135&perpage=20&highl ight=shame%20humiliation&pagenumber=2
.
An Arab Muslim living in America for decades called into a talk show the other day. He said he wished that more Americans would wake up to the reality that the mind-set we're facing understands only one thing - "... overwhelming force."

I thought of an article by David Gutmann, clinical psychologist, that I saved back in '03. As a psych-minded fellow, the article's message spoke to me. Namely, re: the guilt-based vs. shame-based personality/character structure. A few paragraphs from his article:
.
"Guilt-dominant individuals tend to mistrust their own native aggression, and they will act to protect others from it.

When they are in the majority, they tend to maintain societies that will go to war only after they have been attacked. Tolerance, moderation, and charity are the official virtues of “guilt” societies, and play a part in shaping their educational practice, legislation, and foreign policy.

By contrast, shame-vulnerable individuals are constantly vigilant toward aggressions of others against their sense of honor. If insulted, they feel humiliation and rage. The shame-prone willingly submit only when the external power appears so invincible that there is no alternative but surrender. Beneath their outward defiance, the shame-prone often hold unconscious yearnings to be submissive; the seemingly omnipotent conqueror allows them to be passive without shame.

The cultivation of victim-hood is common in shame societies. Shame-prone men will look for malign external agents to rationalize any humiliation, for the victim is, by definition, not responsible for his own troubles. And the claims of victim-hood eliminate any guilty inhibitions against aggression, and unlock the fury that drives the terrorist legions of shame-based societies.

At present, the Islamic Middle East is where we see shame-based cultures in their purest form. The war against terror puts us in conflict with the most militant factions of highly shame-avoidant societies. While we are told much about the economic, ethnic, and sectarian influences that motivate these opponents of America, psycho-cultural elements of their radicalism have been neglected.

Middle Eastern Arabs in particular are currently suffering from a deep crisis of shame. Their physical, scientific, and economic backwardness in relation to the West is mortifyingly evident. Their military defeats at the hands of the Israelis and of the various coalition forces in Kuwait and now Iraq are plain to see. Throughout history, when Arabs have gone to war, it has not primarily been for strategic or economic reasons but rather to escape the stigma of shame. By prevailing in battle, they export shame to the defeated enemy. Today, Arab agitators insist that their honor has been taken from them and replaced by shame. They call for whatever means will get honor back.

Shame societies are most likely to attack an enemy who appears weak, rather than strong and threatening. The weak enemy is corrupt, effeminate, and ready to surrender his honor. The enemy’s perceived weakness is like catnip to shame-mongers, as they fantasize about the foe’s humiliation. Since 1947, Israeli-Palestinian relations have oscillated between war and peace, depending on whether the Arabs saw the Jews as shamefully weak or as intimidatingly strong. A brief history of that conflict tells us much about Arab management of shame.

The militaristic, authoritarian Germans and Japanese would not give up their fantasies of global conquest until the “decadent” democracies destroyed their armies, burned and atomized their cities, and sunk their fleets. Their arrogant, shame-obsessed rulers had to be jailed, or hung, before more sensible leaders could be installed.

Paradoxically, these total wars did not lead to a cycle of violence and enduring hate, but to lasting peace. After waging pitiless war, we showed great mercy to the former Axis powers and helped rebuild them from a rubbly waste into our major economic competitors. But in order to win their hearts and minds, mercy had to follow might, not precede it. When mercy shows first, the shame-prone will view it as a sign of guilt and weakness; but when generosity follows total war, it is like Allah’s mercy, a blessing from a power of unquestioned omnipotence.

In the shame calculus, the guerilla is like David talking on Goliath: Morally speaking, he never loses. Thus, defeatist reporters document a “quagmire,” and driven by unmanly fear, the enemy’s civilians may begin to demand an end to the costly struggle. Like the French in Algeria, the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Israelis in Lebanon, the humiliated enemy, defeated by a numerically inferior but spiritually superior force, will carry the weight of Arab shame with him as he slinks away.

America cannot allow such a show of weakness in Iraq. The terrorist organizations must be smashed, and their sponsoring nations made to pay the price. If we withdraw in feebleness, triumphant Islamic terrorism will increase catastrophically."
.
Read the entire article here:
.

Condi is brilliant. She excelled in college earning her high posts. I would vote for her, David

You missed my point. Bush's failure has been letting the left and their media cohorts define him. He, perhaps because he doesn't like to respond to ass holes, has decided that nonresponse is the best way to handle the incessant lies and slander he suffers. This is a failure. This is not a true failure, but when you are being opposed by dirtbags, it seems that response would be a better option.

The media and the Democrats have been anything but soft on Bush. Since 2000 in has been a nonstop Bush bash. From the attempted hijack of the election, all the way to today, the media has ran defense and offense for the Democrat party. The media has forged documents, lied to the American public, blamed Bush for Katrina, lied that Bush lied. Cajones indeed; I suppose cajones wouldn't be expected when the animal in question is a snake.

The media should be held to account. There should be required drug testing and they should be forced into disclosing their political affiliation. They are most responsible for manipulating public opinion and it is about time they take some credit for it, as opposed to acting as if the public formulates their opinions spontaneously...The media should disclose how they poll, who they poll and why they only poll and release polls when they most favor their pet political projects.

The media teaches the students and then polls to monitor how well the public responds to their brainwashing. They often will not release polls until they favor what they want the public to believe, so they keep up the drumbeat until they achieve what they want. When the polls reflect the brainwashing, they work so hard to achieve, they run these polls as a news story and use these polls to further erode or support whatever their favored perspective is.

This explains Bush's current approval ratings.

Actually, you have it exactly backwards. The press has been incredibly, irresponsibly easy on Bush for most of his term. For a long time after 9/11 he was considered off-limits, (a very dangerous thing for any free press), really given a free pass in terms of criticism in the mainstream press. I would not even really categorize any criticism now as brave, the pendulum of public opinion has swung so profoundly against him due to his failures that it's now "safe" for the nutless press to hang him out to dry some. You have the cause and effect reversed, but you frequently miss major points like this so I am not taken aback. You are a "True Believer" my friend. No one can accuse you of disloyalty to the modern GOP, I'll give you grudging respect for that. You "can't quit them", no matter how badly he stumbles as a leader. ;)

The reason that Bush never has a response for criticism is because he has no response for it. Not because he has risen above it all or does not wish to dignify it. It is a combination of absolute arrogance bordering on contempt for the democratic process combined w/ just good old lack of brain power. If he had given press conferences like every one of our leaders before him he would have been skewered weekly and looked exactly like the "not Presidential" material that he truly is. Any time that he has ever had to think on his feet in this job he has come off like an absolute moron. His supporters say that this usually reliable indicator of a person's intelligence does not apply to him. Riiight. :rolleyes:

He's an empty suit of a man, propped-up by cynical political operators and given a free ride because of some extraordinarily unprecedented circumstances. He has been a dismal leader.

x2

No, the fact that Bush is a catastrophic failure is responsible for his approval ratings, and nothing else.

once again, x2.

What failure? The economy? Iraq?...Since the economy is off the table, I suppose you are implying Iraq is a "catastrophic failure"?...Since you imply Iraq is a catastrophic failure, on what historical precedent do you compare Iraq to conclude catastrophic failure?

Perhaps Iraq is an unmitigated success. Perhaps if Bush hadn't listened to the best and brightest military leadership, those still in the field, it would have been 10x worse.

Actually Bush has been hammered mercilessly by the press. They spun the invasion was "unilateral", it was not...they spun that Bush lied about WMD, he did not...they spun that Joe Wilson was credible when he lied about Niger's connections to Saddam, he was not...they spun that Valerie Plame was covert, she was not...they spun there were no connections between Saddam and Osama, there were...the media bury the economy, they blame Bush for Katrina, they slander Cheney for accidentally shooting a friend, they paint him as incompetent.

You have it exactly backwards?...Have you heard one interview or grilling of Sandy Berger or Bill Clinton, for stealing documents from the National Archives?...Have you heard the media grill Al Gore for giving a pep rally to fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia?...Have you seen any media coverage of Bill Clinton's connections to Dubai?....Has the media followed up on John Kerry's failed promise to release his form 180?

The media have been falling all over themselves to embarrass and bring down Bush, it has backfired because they are lying and resorting to petty petulant attacks to do it.

He said he wished that more Americans would wake up to the reality that the mind-set we're facing understands only one thing - "... overwhelming force."

Alrighty then, Arab genocide it is.

There are two ways to defeat an "eastern" enemy. You kill every last man, woman, and child, or you make them believe that you will kill every last man, woman, and child.