Absolutely right, G-man.

I see that Whomod is again alleging that anyone who disagrees with him is "blindly supporting Bush".

To which I again respond with this dose of reality, which I fully expect Whomod to ignore, as he did previously:

from the Nearly 200 killed in Madrid explosions topic, page 4:
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=251436

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
Quote:

whomod said:
.
It's amazing to me that Bush is never wrong, never misinformed and anyone who disagrees with his Administration is instantly and always wrong. Entire nations are wrong, millions of voters are wrong or afraid if they don't vote to Bush's satisfaction, countless millions worldwide who protest the war are wrong. Sceientists and beuaracrats who speak out on what they know to be to be lies are wrong (ONLY when they contradict or dispute an Administration assertion of course If they happen to agree with Bush, then their expertise is impeccable). Any reports contradicting Bush's conclusions are wrong of course. After years of this logic, I think people are starting to wise up.
.
Now that Congress has pending legislation (S 89 and HR 163) to prepare for a military draft (after the election), we might think twice about the consequences of continuing to believe what President Bush tells us.
.
Incidentally,when the French resisted our call to invade Iraq, French fries became "freedom fries," etc. So are we to now get "freedom rice" and (my favorite) "the freedom inquisition" ?


.

Do you really believe your own rhetoric, Whomod?
.
Since this post immediately follows mine, I assume you're sweeping me into this "Neo-cons who blindly support Bush and believe everything he says" category.
.
Which is certainly far from the truth. Whether it's me, or Rob Kamphausen, or G-man or whoever, I think we've all made clear that we don't believe everything G.W. Bush or his administration says. They're politicians, just as Clinton, Gore, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon and the rest were before them.
.
I've not said or implied that G.W. Bush has never made a mistake or is eligible for sainthood or anything. I think most of us have made it clear we would have preferred McCain as our Republican presidential candidate, if he'd been offered to us instead of Bush.
.
But at the same time, I still largely support Bush, especially on his foreign/military policy.
.
I again say, neither Gore nor Kerry nor Dean would have had the courage to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, and eliminate the gathering and obvious threats in those nations. And we would have been "9/11-ed" again as a result.
.
And I'm confident that Al Qaida, the pro-Saddam insurgents in Iraq, and enemies of the United States worldwide would jump for joy if Bush were voted out in November.
And that domestic "useful idiots" such as yourself as well would jump for joy (and again, that term is one used by anti-American Muslims in Al Qaida and other islamic radical groups worldwide for Western leftists' opposition to the U.S., Britain and other governments fighting terror).
.
I've certainly not been shy about my criticism of Bush, which I've posted on many threads here on the RKMB boards.
.
Here's one example I recently re-read:
.
Do liberals HATE the President", page 3 of topic:
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=205476
.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
Quote:

Originally posted by JQ:
.
Quote:

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
.
Quote:

Originally posted by JQ:
.
It's true that the Koran is more extreme than the Bible. I read somewhere that 1 in every 55 versus talks about "killing infidels."
.
Even though the Koran is more violent, more people have been killed in the name of Christianity.


That last statement I find particularly hard to swallow.


.
What's so hard to swallow? It's true!


.
First of all, look at Europe and the rest of the democratized West, and look at the Middle East.
.
The level of violence and repression in the name of Allah certainly far exceeds that of the Christian world.
.
This was already explored in at least one other topic (although as usual, opinions varied) :
.
"islamic ignorance"
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=206064
.

If we fully explore this here, it will hijack this topic into another topic of Christianity vs Islam, and I think I've already taken this page further off-topic than I wanted to (sorry about that, G-man !)
.
~
.
On topic, I think we've established a hatred for Bush among his liberal/Democrat critics.
.
And as it relates to the topic, as well as many other RKMB discussions here, I would be far more open to concede Bush's flaws, if not for the white-hot hatred (and resultant distortion of the facts) of the majority of criticism I see of Bush.
.
Has Bush made mistakes? Absolutely. And I hope everyone here can see that despite my sensibilities leaning toward the Bush perspective, I've voiced considerable criticism of his policies...
.
( a quick review:
  • Bush should be more public with disclosure of information, the perceived secretiveness breeds distrust of Bush, whether or not he is guilty of anything;
  • in hindsight, he should have had a larger occupation force to invade Iraq, to prevent forseeable looting,
  • Bush should be expanding U.S. military recruitment/enlistment by 400,000 or more, to insure we have the reserves to meet any situation in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or elsewhere.
  • And although I'm less convinced now there is a military solution possible in Korea, I think Korea should have been invaded first instead of Iraq. Iraq could have waited a year or so, but Korea was clearly more immediate. In the six months of buildup and invasion of Iraq, Korea was known to be building nuclear weapons, and Bush allowed it to happen. (Although negotiations in Korea, though currently fruitless, now include China, Japan, Russia and South Korea, and are no longer just bilateral talks between the U.S. and North Korea. Which now puts more pressure on North Korea, particularly from China, to de-nuclearize.)

    ** I hasten to add, I give primary blame to the Clinton administration for enabling Korea to build nukes. THAT was the time to invade Korea, in 1994, instead of Clinton giving huge concessions and requiring no verification, that allowed Korea to go on secretly building nukes. Although again, Bush had his window of opportunity that he allowed to close as well.
  • I'm not wild about the Bush tax cut, even though little of it has been enacted yet. And I think that tax cut should be repealed, to cover the additional homeland security and war expenses.
  • And although I posted a few months ago I wouldn't re-elect Bush, at this point the Democrats' bitterly partisan opposition makes me far more inclined to re-elect Bush over the forseeable Democrat alterative in 2004. )

.

I consider that constructive criticism of the President. As opposed to the vitriol over the last year from many (but clearly not all) Democrats.
Senators McCain, Biden and Lieberman are examples of constructive criticism.
Howard Dean and John Kerry are examples of pointlessly divisive, Bush-can-do-no-right, scorched earth rhetoric, that selfishly divides the country just so they can exploit liberal anger and get more votes.
.
When Democrats "hate" the President, and produce venomous, deliberately misrepresentative and highly partisan articles and speeches accordingly, they don't convince moderate Republicans. They drive them defensively behind the president.
I'm a personal example of that.



So once again your ludicrous, venomous accusations have absolutely no substance.







Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
And this post, from page 22 (January 26, 2004) of the It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic:

http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=204167

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

whomod said:
Bush chose evidence that had already been discredited, to present to the American people. Evidence that was known to be false long before he presented it to the American people as PROOF of our imminent doom.


.
Wrong again.
.
Bush presented--and made clear he was presenting--evidence that we received from British intelligence which, at the time, the British believed to be accurate. In fact, Britain still stands by that intelligence.
.
So, other than your own emotional reaction, you don't have one shred of actual evidence that Bush deliberately misled anyone.


.
That's what bothers me about what Whomod is saying (and many other liberals as well ), voicing a relentless stream of unproven allegations against Bush, as if they are facts.
.
I don't have a problem with voicing the possibility of wrongdoing under any President, investigating, and asking tough questions.
But I do have a problem with slander, relentlessly saying these allegations as if they were proven, to the point that the uninformed actually believe that these allegations are proven.
That's deliberate and bitter misrepresentation.
.
No proof of "blood for oil".
No proof of "Bush fought the Iraq war for his father".
No proof of "Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened" (as Dean alleges).
No proof that Bush and Cheney gave the contract to Halliburton through cronyism.
No proof of a war profiteering motive by Bush's administration, to allegedly get themselves rich.
No proof that Bush's White House leaked information about ambassador Wilson.
And ultimately, no proof that Bush deceived the public in any way to persuade the nation to invade Iraq.
.
Allegations, not facts.
.
And relentlessly asserting these allegations as if they were facts is inflammatory and divisive.


.
.
.
.




And this post from page 21 (January 25, 2004) of the same topic:
.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

.
Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
.
Quote:

whomod said:
.
I think that is part of the reason it's become a question of partisanship rather than a question of intelligence and fact.


.
no, the reason its become a question of partisanship is because every time someone disagrees with you, you say something similar to:
.
Quote:

whomod said:
.
you support Bush because of an unflailing, unwavering, partisanship and not because ...yadda yadda.


.
why you'd still think that, i'm not sure. i believe many of us "pro-dubyers" (??) have all freely said we would have rather have had mccain in office. i believe many of us "blind george lovers" have said we strongly disagreed with some of his calls (like nasa spending or gay marriage stances or the illegal alien decisions, etc, etc). i believe many of us "flag waving supporters" have clearly shown we're anything but.
.
i shouldn't have to point out all the situations where i agree or disagree with the president to clarify whether or not i'm capable of making up my own mind. reading through this forum, or even just this thread, you'll see dozens of instances where you can get a handle on our views.
.
this is such a strong partisan division because you are making it out to be.
.
in reality, this is simply a disagreement, and (should be) nothing more.
.
Quote:

whomod said:
.
I'd feel better about that if I were given reasons of why Bush earns your trust.


.
but we've given those reasons. 20 pages worth. you disagreeing with them is one thing. thats fine. you ignoring them and stating they have no basis simply because you're ignoring them and feel they have no basis is silly.
.
we don't like or agree with your viewpoint, but we respect that you have one, and respect that its different. i think you'll find the conversation flow much smoother were some of that respect returned.
.
Quote:

whomod said:
Now I know Sadaam was bad and everyone feels rather good about him being deposed. Again, I'm not discussing that. I'm discussing assertions made exactly one year ago today that Iraq couldn't wait because we were in immimnent danger from him.


.
a valid gripe.
.
if anything, i'm frustrated over the lack of wmd's, and the "egg on your face" outlook it gives. but i still agree with and support the decision, even above and beyond the "iraq is now free" sentiment.
.
i feel the story broke down like this:
.
the world knew saddam's iraq was a bad place. for decades. we hadn't done anything (major) because there wasn't an imminent need (for us).
.
9-11 hits.
.
the world changes. view points change. realities change. things taken for granted change. this was now a world where silly bad people in funny sounding countries who made threats had to be looked at seriously.
.
saddam was that target. not that he had any direct link to 9-11, but a very strong indirect link. judging by his own past, and the future of this changed new world we live in, i find it perfectly acceptable to believe he could be the next osama, and help plan the next 9-11. accurate or not, i find zero fault with that suspicion.
.
fact: we knew that he had wmd's. we had discovered and encountered them, first hand. we knew that he had the gusto to use them. we knew that he hated the US. we knew he had the ability to hide them with incredible skill (due to blix's inability to discover enormous stockpiles despite nearly 20 years of searching).
.
all of these facts were not simply based on bush, or US intelligence. this was a common knowledge, spreading throughout the globe. everyone from france to russia to japan to canada "knew" there was stuff going on in there -- completely separate from the bush admin.
.
the UN knew saddam had things he shouldn't. that's why there were inspectors in the first place. there are large amounts of chemicals and weapons that the UN (not the US) has on record of being in iraq that are, somehow, missing. tons of items that are unaccountable, to this day. again, [known ] completely separate from the bush admin.
.
adding all of that with the 9-11 outlook (with the US, of course, bearing the brunt), and you have your [ basis for ] iraq invasion -- which was based on many things, including and highlighting iraq's decade of UN rebellion.
.
yes, i agree, the "urgency" viewpoint was based on the wmd belief. and yes, that urgency may turn out to have been misguided.
.
but even assuming that, because of the events that led to the decision, i do not fault it. i do not feel it's a cover up. i do not see it as a lie. i do not feel the bush admin is the scourge of the planet -- especially when the planet shared with the viewpoint.
.
and to you, thats all blind loyalty.
.
i'm hoping you now see otherwise.


.
I agree with this post so strongly, I wish I could make it my signature.
.
Outstanding post, Rob.





I fully expect Whomod to go on bashing the very people who are trying hard to preserve the freedom he so thoroughly abuses.

--------------------

Quote:



( from the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic, page 24: )
Mister JLA said:
.
That doesn't change the fact that blahblahblah neocons this, neocons that, conspiracy...Haliberton...Cheney, where was Bush on 9/11...? he duped the American public...lies, lies, lies, the average American doesn't question things like I do, since I care more and am smarter...here in California...blahblahblah.


Signed,

whomod.



"The Whomod Technique"
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=258330