tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post5561638429933586963..comments2023-09-11T08:58:24.710-06:00Comments on Reach Upward: On the Other Hand …Scott Hinrichshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-50565534912930949542007-05-26T06:19:00.000-06:002007-05-26T06:19:00.000-06:00Cameron, Johnson is aware that the Congress that ...Cameron, <BR/><BR/>Johnson is aware that the Congress that gave Bush this power was dominated by Republicans and provided no oversight whatever to the Executive Branch. He is aware that even the Intelligence Committees were not given the full and complete picture before the launch of the war.<BR/><BR/>The Bush Administration is not really incompetent, they are obviously malicious. They do not believe in the Constitution. They have no respect for the ideals that made this nation great. They did not make a misjudgment in leading us into this war - there is ample evidence that they did so intentionally in spite of the evidence that it would be a grave mistake. <BR/><BR/>Too many people are willing to take the word of this administration at face value instead of looking at the facts. Most of the top officials of this administration belong in prison, not in the White House.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-44682431538275548012007-05-25T17:22:00.000-06:002007-05-25T17:22:00.000-06:00I guess my problems start when Johnson goes down t...I guess my problems start when Johnson goes down the road of calling for us to impeach Bush for misuse of intelligence to get us into a war, all the time snickering behind his black cape with evil lackey Carl Rove at his side. Johnson chooses to ignore that this has been vetted in Congress and by the 9/11 Commission. Johnson ignores the fact that members of the legislature with access to the same intelligence information agreed with the proposed action. Poor judgment and incompetence simply do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.<BR/><BR/>And Johnson continues in this same vein throughout his piece. He broadly interprets some matters, narrowly interprets others, and completely ignores facts when they don't support his views. Although his point is clear by paragraph 3, he drags the reader through a tangled swamp of one twist after another, all seasoned heavily with arrogant bitterness, to finally arrive mudcaked at his uninspiring conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Don't feel bad. People on the right do this all of the time. And when their agreeable readers show the stuff to their liberal friends, their friends shake their heads and wonder how they could have their heads so stuck in the sand.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-79850909902441926792007-05-25T08:47:00.000-06:002007-05-25T08:47:00.000-06:00I fail to understand what part of Johnson's analys...I fail to understand what part of Johnson's analysis you found objectionable. Seems pretty clear to me. Of course, he doesn't like Bush - virtually no one does. After 6 years of criminality and incompetence, it is difficult to find a reason to treat this President with respect.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-69445332751780770012007-05-24T18:36:00.000-06:002007-05-24T18:36:00.000-06:00Johnson makes some good points, such as alluding t...Johnson makes some good points, such as alluding to the fact that if the Democrats succeed in retaking the White House in 2008, they will find their new president suffering from a reduction of prerogatives that they caused.<BR/><BR/>However, Johnson's diatribe, couched in much more scholarly language than most of the expletive-laden hate-Bush dreck out there, is little more than a polished version of the same. If this is what qualifies as "progressive," then it is no wonder that all of the insitutions (even left leaning ones) that Johson derides find little affinity for his positions.<BR/><BR/>When I referred to Kerrey as a staunch liberal, I was merely echoing the Wikipedia declarations concerning him. While these admittedly may be less than fully objective, I believe that a majority of Americans looking at Kerrey's political positions as a whole would label him firmly in the liberal column.<BR/><BR/>Those on the bitter end of the left may find Kerrey and others like him too right leaning for their tastes, just as the harsh ends of the right find just about any GOP politician far too left leaning for their tastes. One can argue about semantics, but its simply a matter of perspective.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-3751018786587981572007-05-24T08:39:00.000-06:002007-05-24T08:39:00.000-06:00I would hardly call Harry Reid or Bob Kerry "staun...I would hardly call Harry Reid or Bob Kerry "staunch liberals". Most progressives would consider them both right of center. That aside, it seems all these arguments miss the point. Buckley sees us as powerless to overcome terrorism which is probably true, but that is not relevant. The world has always had terrorists, the objective is not to eradicate the use of the methodology, but to avoid being the victim of it. That is possible.<BR/><BR/>Kerry and McCarthy seem to think that the US is in Iraq to build democracy - a preposterous assertion. Their arguments are hollow because they are based on an irrational premise.<BR/><BR/>I would suggest you read a well-informed and truly staunch liberal on this topic, <A HREF="http://aep.typepad.com/american_empire_project/2007/05/evil_empire.html" REL="nofollow">Chalmers Johnson</A>, and see how much more sense his analysis makes than those you cite here.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.com