Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Hippies?

Justin,

To begin with, Justin, I think that you are not only being political when it comes to Mr. Garamendi's comments, but that you are political on most things that we talk about. But this is not bad thing to be. It means (at least to me) that you are engaged in the topics and take you take stances based on rational conclusions.

--

I didn't realized that I made any sort of comparison between you and hippies. In fact I'm not sure that I've made any accusations against you about anything.

But I am more than happy to respond to things that you think are directly Bush's fault:

1. Turkey vs. the PKK

I didn't realized that Bush was responsible for a conflict that was created by the Treaty of Versailles. Now I guess that you could state that Bush's policies liberated the Kurds from Arab domination and therefore caused national Marxist groups like the PKK to become more brazen in their attacks against the Turks (and coincidentally against the Syrians and Iranians). But there is one caveat to that; It was the no-fly zones of the 90s that gave Kurds in Iraq their autonomy, and the PKK has had northern Iraq as a home base there ever since. So Bush is not directly responsible for this situation, but could have possibly added to it.

2. The ice caps

I didn't realized that Bush is directly responsible for global-warming. I understand political attacks on Bush by environmentalists over policy issues. I understand Democrats attacking Bush on global warming to score political points with liberal constituents. But I can't believe that Bush is solely and direct responsible fore the recession of the ice caps. If the scientists are correct then this melting has been going on for quite some time. And I believe that there is a great deal of earth science left to be understood before we have a full scope on global warming.

3. NG equipment and natural disasters

Now this one I will give you. A great deal of equipment is in Iraq. And the NG and reservist depots are much below there normal capacities. But I don't think that we need military equipment to fight fires. I think that we need fire hoses, and fire trucks, and perhaps some of those helicopters that can scoop up a bunch of water from a lake and dump it on a fire.

4. Cold people

I'm unsure what you mean by this. I'm guessing that you think that Bush wants poor families to be cold (as in a continuation of poverty so that they can't afford to heat their homes). This one definitely needs some elaboration.

5. Missing bin Laden

Is Bush solely responsible for not catching bin Laden? I don't know, and neither do you.

6. The cost of war

You are partially correct. Bush is only a piece in the governmental budgetary process. The current process is based on the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (from a Congressional standpoint). This act set up a relationship between appropriating and authorizing committees, and created a budget committee to keep things in order. For the executive branches side, I believe it was during the Hoover administration that the White House for the first time began to send joint budgets to Congress, up until then each department would send budgets to the Hill independently of each other.

But to get back to your point.... yes Bush has responsibility for the cost of the War in Iraq, but he is by no means directly responsible.

7. Hack job science

Once again I need more elaboration.

2 comments:

yootskah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
yootskah said...

Dude, you ripped on me for criticizing current policies without offering suggestions and said that makes it hard for you to take me seriously.

That is an insult.

You then go on to accuse me of being political and blindly blaming Bush for all the world's problems.

Two more insulting comments.

As for your interpretation of my elaborations on the links I said, I am not surprised by your ability to again completely miss the point of every single one.

So let's try again, maybe you can keep up.

1) Bush had us invade Iraq. The place is a ethnic and political shit storm. He put our soldiers in the middle of a situation that is drowning in such complications. Now we are directly involved in a dispute between our "allies" in Turkey and our "allies" in Kurdistan. Then we have our issues with our "allies" the Shia militias and our "allies" the Sunni tribes. We also have our "allies" in the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Army. The place is slowly imploding and we're stuck along for the ride because Bush led the invasion.

I don't need you to explain the situation and the history, I ALREADY KNOW IT. I really wish you'd stop thinking you are addressing a point with some haughty historical summary. You aren't answering anything, do you realize that?

I am pointing out that yet ANOTHER bucket of shit has fallen in our soldiers laps in what has been an endless supply of shitty buckets in Iraq. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any good resolution in sight because things start falling apart in places we weren't even focusing on.

Not only that, but the administration has bungled this brewing firestorm so badly that our Envoy resigned in protest.

Is this really a complicated concept? I don't understand why it would be.

2)Are you fucking kidding? You think I am saying Bush is responsible for global warming? Do you think before you write that kind of crap?

I am pissed at Bush's disregard for the obvious warming and pandering to industry lobbyists. I am outraged at his political censoring of federal research that shows his position is full of shit.

Do you not have a problem with having a 24 year old college drop out political hack editing the published works of Nobel Laureates? Cause I do.

3) Well, there are military fire-fighting resources, but that wasn't my point. I was merely pointing out what you agreed to, that there are consequences and limitations to our ability to respond to disaster when much of the equipment that would normally respond isn't available.

The reason it isn't, is... Bush.

And yes, I'm sure the guy was working it for political points. I only included his comments because I thought it was a fun snarky bit that "he has a disastrous record dealing with disasters" because our resources are dealing with his own disaster.

4)Sigh. Is it that hard to understand that I find his position that we can't afford to provide heating for poor families a little hollow when we spend hundreds more to continue a questionable (at best) occupation of Iraq?

If we are in Iraq because it benefits the American people, then that seems a trifle foolish if it costs us programs that would cost far less and tangibly benefit far more.

5) Bush has made Iraq THE priority. AQ is just a small part of his grand vision. Of course I don't think Bush is the only one responsible.

But again, THAT WASN'T THE POINT!!!

The point was here is an example where even a conservative is astounded at the incompetence of the administration.

But I guess that that is someone else's fault. Clinton's?

6) Again, I don't need context. I get it. I'm not an idiot.

My point: He lied or was delusion about what this would cost. Either one is not good.

He got us into Iraq and it is going to cost us BIG time, far more than it will ever benefit us. We are now way past the break even point.

As a country at least. I'm sure there are plenty who are doing quite well because of this.

7) You apparently don't read my emails because I've talked and sent link, after link, after link about this.