"aided by a compliant media"...lol lol lol

There went what little credibility this lte had if it had any at all.

As far as increased anxiety as the election draws near, it is the democrats that appear to be experiencing high levels of anxiety, as polls increasingly show that republicans are trusted more with national security. For example, the democrats had already checked the "win" column for the senate seat in Pa., but it appears that it is now a dead heat. Not because of some imaginary "club of fear" wielded by Karl Rove, but a real fear of the Dick Turbin/Jack Murtha types in charge of defending the country.

"Asleep st the wheel on Sept.11"... I would have loved to hear the outcry from the Jerry Meisners of the country, not to mention the ACLU, had Bush tried to get the patriot act passed prior 9-11.

In the face of the rising apocalypse as described by Mr. Miesner, who among the Democrats will we elect that will be competent enough to conquer this monster? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? Al Gore? Howard Dean? Dick Durbin? Harry Reid? Or, gulp, Nancy Pelosi?

The irony of this LTE is the reference to the "club of fear" and how it raises the anxiety and fear of Americans.

This followed by a litany of doom and gloom scenarios that, well, raise anxiety and fear.

Sooo, the LTE writer claims that R's raise fear while doing the same thing himself.

I'm not holding my breath, but I've yet to see a Bush bashing LTE that actually offers any kind of ideas or solutions, just whining about how bad Bush is.

Democratic Campaign '06 and '08 theme: Bush is bad, so vote for me!

Some blame Bush for letting 911 happen. It was on his watch, so naturally the buck stops with him. However, when faced with that reality, Bush defenders say Clinton should be blamed because he did nothing to stop it either.

Some blame Bush for going into Iraq based on lies. It was on his watch, so naturally the buck stops with him. However, when faced with that reality, Bush defenders say the Democrats voted for the war too and should be blamed as well.

Notice that in both cases, the Bush-lovers (those who suffer from Bush Endearment Syndrome) actually imply that they accept and agree with the accusations. It’s like, “Yeah, our guys are bad but your guys are worse.” Rather than defending their side or even addressing the accusations, they instead start comparing the incompetence and/or lies of the other side. When you look at this aspect of their debate tactics, you realize they are arguing out of desperation at this point. The left does this as well.

You cannot reasonably blame Clinton or Bush for either attack on the Trade Centers, unless you think they were actually involved in the attacks. These are moronic, circular arguments. I think both sides are guilty of these tactics, but the Bush die-hards clearly have nothing else left. They are making a science out of it.

Dear Mr. Meisner
Wake up. And stop making statements for which you have no factual support. How do you know al Qaida and the Taliban are gaining strength? Do we have no strategy for success or just one with which you don't agree? How can you say that the public has an irrational fear when you state that terror attacks have doubled?

The problem is that people like the LTE writer believe sound bits, without facts. They listen to talking heads, giving opinions, without educating themselves. They read the things they want to read, with a jaded and cynical eye.

People like the LTE writer do not acknowledge the good things that are brave soldiers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan every day.

By taking the time to write a letter, that is based on few facts but plenty of vitriole and emotion, the LTE writer spreads disinformation and noninformation through ignorance.

Morally the only true blame for any intentional attack upon unarmed civilians lies with those who initiate the attack themselves, although historically and militarily such attacks have often been based upon arguable tactical or strategic considerations.

My personal take on this? The Clinton Administration did not give anti-terrorism activities their proper priority and prior to 9/11 the Bush Administration did nothing to correct that error.

Given that we are a democratic republic whose policies will always be at least somewhat influenced by public perception and opinion it can be considered a given that in the long term most major policy shifts will be a result of reactive rather than proactive political initiatives.

Ex post facto assignment of individual blame is much less important than identifying and preventing the recurrence of past mistakes.

Identify the carcinogen, avoid or eliminate it as a future threat, but in the meantime you'd damn well better treat the cancer it caused.

Instead of looking backward for someone to blame for the problem, I’d much rather look forward for someone to credit for the cure.

Their being a Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, doesn’t matter to me in the least.

Dan:

I'm not a Dem', but in addition to Bush bashing and modesty aside, I do actually offer ideas and solutions.

I'm not holding my breath, but I've yet to see a Bush Supporting LTE that actually offers anything beyond the BS being loosed by the Adminstration, e.g., "They hate our freedoms."

Stevie D: I think you're right-on:

"Sufferers of Bush Endearment Syndrome) ... imply ... our guys are bad but your guys are worse.

"Both sides are guilty of moronic, circular arguments tactics, but the Bushies make a science out of it."

Good points, Julian56. I'm all about limiting the vitriole and emotion, stopping the spread disinformation and noninformation through ignorance - so - a couple comments:

... that while al Qaida is clearly suffering now (but not defeated), the Taliban clearly has gained strength.

I've not heard a clear strategy for success - only vague BS ala "we'll know it when we see it". Does that mean there is none or it's just not communicated - one cannot agree with the unknown.

"How can you say that the public has an irrational fear when you state that terror attacks have doubled?" ... because these terror attacks are mostly in Iraq and have nothing directly to do with America - but Rove is spinning it like it these could be on American Soil were it not for truth, justice and George W. Bush.

My guess is People like the LTE writer DO acknowledge the good things that are brave soldiers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan every day .. but Julian56 seems to be ignoring the bad things Karl Rove is doing to assure "his people", right-or-wrong, stay in absolute power.

Jan:

It true but a damm shame "major policy shifts will be a result of reactive rather than proactive political initiatives."

All the statesmen have been replaced by policitians. See what you can do to get me a seat at the Prez' Cabinet and I'll work on correcting that tradegy.

"intentional attack upon unarmed civilians"

Jan's description of terrorism highlights an important distinction. For example, the bombing of the U.S.S Cole was not really an act of terrorism. Those who are beheading and maiming our soldiers in Iraq are not really committing acts of terrorism either, in the technical sense.

Acts like these are the price of militarism in the world. In the case of the Cole Bombing, like so many others, don't blame the players, blame the game.

Why is this important? Because we have to realize that it's our leader's manipulation of the Middle East and their leader’s manipulation of us that is at fault. Our one-party, two faction government and their dictators and holy men are at fault. No, we are at fault. The citizens of the Middle East are at fault. We are all at fault for continuing to take this crap from our leaders here in the new millennium.

Jan also said, “Identify the carcinogen”. Amen! However, I am not expecting the citizens here or there to inject the necessary chemo to rid ourselves of carcinogenic leaders any time soon.

Damn those arguments meshed well! Jan, we really should collaborate. How about War and Peace Volume II? Whatta ya say? (The Long Letter shtick, will it ever end?) ;-)

Stevie, I see your point on the whole "my guys are bad, but yours are worse".

However, there is another way to look at it. The pot calling the kettle black. Before I condemn someone else for their actions, shouldn't mine be clean?

The problem I have is that so many people voted for the war. Many democrats have reversed course. Fine. Perhaps they now have a different understanding than they did 3 years ago. I don't have a problem with this.

But what I do have a problem with is everyone now talking about how it was such a terrible idea to go to war IN THE FIRST PLACE and trying to distance themselves from their votes. If they made a mistake 3 years ago, fine. Reverse your vote and make ammends and I'll respect you for it. But don't act like it was 100% Bush that brought us into Iraq. That is a fabrication.

Speaking of fabrications, it is very often claimed that the intelligence was a lie. I don't believe it was falsified, but that it was inaccurate. But I know no more than you do. Until anything is proven, these claims of lies are just baseless allegations that cannot be used to support one's position.

Bush Endearment Syndrome...That was pretty good wasn't it JDR? I just thought of it on the fly. I don't know if anyone else has coined it already but we should definitely keep using it. If I had a nickel for every time I saw “Bush Derangement Syndrome” typed in this blog, I could buy a gallon of gas!

Amen, Janherman.

Stevie D,

While I agree with a lot of what you say about the blame game, I do think there are a few differentiating circumstances that should be mentioned.

First, there are near daily letters bashing and blaming Bush for his preparation and response to September 11. We don't see the same letters bashing Clinton for his failure to deal with terrorism. So when repubs cite these failures they are pointing out facts that the letters don't state.

Secondly, the Bush administration has stood behind its decisions. The folks who write in laying the blame for the Iraq war at the feet of Republicans are making an unfair accusation. They need to acknowledge that the democrats they leave out of the bashing were just as responsible as they gave the go-ahead to Bush. Of course, I can see why they might be confused as the democrat leaders themselves seem to have fuzzy memories when it comes to those events. Perhaps if democrats stopped trying to mislead the public and acknowledged their own blame then Republicans wouldn't feel the need to point it out for fairness sake.

Third, most republicans do acknowledge the past and a good many of them still support the decision to invade Iraq. It's the hypocrisy of democrats that voted for the war and then decided they were against it that republicans cannot let go unchecked.

I would say that both administrations and earlier administrations failed along the way when it came to addressing terrorism. We need to open our eyes to that fact instead of trying to blame one party or the other for political and election purposes.

Stevie,

When I used the term "intentional attacks upon unarmed civilians" it was in reference to the World Trade Center and similar attacks and was not an attempted definition of terrorism per se.

Although we probably disagree on many of the particulars I do agree with your basic assumption that military entities and personel fall into a different quantative category in regards to any attack upon a real or perceived enemy.

That's not meant to belittle the deaths and injuries of those targeted, only to point out that it is a more easily rationalized response within the realm of human conflict.

The use of the word "rationalized" as opposed to being by default "justified" is intentional.

P.S. Sign me out for the rest of the day, I'll be busy trying to get JDR appointed to Bush's Cabinet and attamepting to round up a publisher for the book Stevie and I need to write.

And I thought retirement would be easy :).

.... also I might need to take a few minutes to learn how to spell "attempting".

Stevie, you are technically correct that the Cole bombing wasn't an act of terrorism, as the definition of terrorism involves acts of violence against civilians. The Cole bombing should have been an act of war instead, but it was basically ignored as were all the other attacks in the 90's.

As for those beheading and maiming our military in Iraq, gee what happened to all those anti-torture Geneva Convention rules (The Terrorist Bill of Rights) that McCain et al. insist upon? How come the thugs in Iraq didn't get the memo?

As for our manipulation of the Middle East, that is a smokescreen that affords jihadists yet another excuse to come after us. Let's say we pulled out all influence, companies, troops, etc. in the Middle East. We relocate all Israelis over here, Jersey would do well. So if we do all this do you honestly think jihadists would leave us alone? I have some swamp land to sell you.

JDR, I can't figure out what you are. You seem rather conservative on some social issues and non-interference of govt. in our personal lives. On the other hand you are socialist leaning on eeeeeeevvvvvvvviiiiiiilllll corporations in your advocacy for strict govt. control on them.

I know you offer solutions, you are an exception, but you are not running for office or writing LTE's that simply criticize.

ORR, if you don't like the obvious favorites, how about Barak Obama?

And to all who criticize Clinton for not doing enough, remember how the Republicans kept harping on his "draft-dodging?" Why do you think he was reluctant to send any troops overseas? He knew he'd hear about it. Maybe all of the partisan bickering (both sides) doesn't serve the country well. I'm sick and tired of both the R's and the D's posturing so they can get re-elected.

Of course King George served in the National Guard, when he wasn't away partying! I wonder if his old Guard unit has been deployed to Iraq, how many times and for how long? It's a shame he's too busy screwing up the country to go with them!

"Maybe all of the partisan bickering (both sides) doesn't serve the country well."

followed by:

"Of course King George served in the National Guard, when he wasn't away partying!"

If you are sick of partisan bickering then why do you engage in it yourself with stupid names like King and insults about partying?

Pot meet kettle.

"And to all who criticize Clinton for not doing enough, remember how the Republicans kept harping on his "draft-dodging?" Why do you think he was reluctant to send any troops overseas?"

Clinton was so obsessed with poll numbers and scared to death that a military casualty would harm those precious numbers.

He did however send troops overseas. We bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and an aspirin factory in the Sudan.

Clinton was a little too obsessed with making everyone like him. The "Maya Angelou is a national treasure." comment is a good example. I would still take that over a President and Cabinet who blatantly act as if they don't give a damn what the people think. I’ll take Clinton’s acting over theirs any day.

Conservative author David Horowitz made the "national treasure" comment about Ann Coulter recently as well. Of course they are like two peas in a pod (more like two nuts in a shell).

Maybe I should have said: "All of the partisan bickering by our leaders doesn't serve the country well." These folks are the ones that can do something about what's happening in this country. They're supposed to be in the know and have power to change stuff. All I can do is vote every four years and complain in the meantime.

phillipa,

"ORR, if you don't like the obvious favorites, how about Barak Obama?"

How about him? What special attributes does he have that would make him qualified to be the leader of the U.S.and the free world? What has he actually accomplished? What has his claim to fame been since being sworn into office less than two years ago?

Nitpicker:

I remember shouting Kerery on the TV screen, when GWB said Kerry had the same war intellegence - 'cause while that may be true - Kerry should have taken the position that as President, GWB had significantly MORE sources of intel that any Senator - so it's highly likely that Kerry had NOT the same war intellegence.

Another blown opportunity by a looser - an dwhen he later said he'd not have changed his vote even with the value of hindsight - that was the final proof that he's a looser.

As much as I hate what GWB has done to America, Kerry was the lesser choice.

Dan - thanks for the complement - while branded otherwise (imho due to misunderstanding by my critics), I am rather conservative on most social issues. I do believe in non-interference by the govt. UNLESS it makes financial sense - and example may be prenatal care, where I sense if it was "given away" at "taxpayer expense", ultimatels it would be cheaper, 'cause one $1,000,000 baby - who would have been normal with prenatal care - will pay for all the other prenatal cares. I do not have statistics to back that up - it's just a concept.

By the same token, I'm not in favor of unlimited spending to keep the brain dead alive - that money is better saved for another situation.

I do have stats on this one:

I encourage people to smoke - just no one I care about and never in my house or around me. When people smoke - it's typically startes as a young habit; for years they work jobs, pay taxes, spend money supporting various industries, etc. About the time they stop working and start to suck on the system, the develop cancer and die. Yea we spend a hundred-grand that last year in medical care, but that's cheaper than thirty years of social security and medicare followed by a couple years at $3000 / month in a nursing home - all expense you and I pay for.

I have a newspaper clipping at home - Phillip Morris did an overseas study on this effect, and found the government of Romania is ahead $30,000,000 per year 'cause folks die of cancer rather than living too long.

Maybe I'm a psychopath, I dunno.

As for eeeeeeevvvvvvvviiiiiiilllll corporations, I see it NOT as advocacy for strict govt. control on them, but advocacy for removal of government intervention.

What is a corporation besides a legal entity to whom g-men afford special protection?

Now I am also about Conservation or resources for my kids, and that includes being a sort-of environmentalist. That may be considered "government intervention", but I see it as protecting what's mine; after all if your neighbor was dumping his trash in your yard, wouldn't you call the cops if the neighbor ignored your requests to stop? How is that different than Love Canal and all the other Super Fund sites out there?

... and the funny part? I have work with many of these major corporate customers. Some are very responsible, some have the attitude that if they do not get caught, then it's legal. The bottom line difference between them is about 3% - the added cost of doing things responsibly vs. sliming a project.

Currently, all my clients are in the former category - one of them alway's shocks me with how far they go to do things right.

James,

Unfortunately, I'm probably not rational or mature enough to call the cops if someone keeps throwing garbage in my yard. I'd probably resort to something my neighbor and I would both regret. So, I think you're safe on the psychopath thing and I am as well (as long as nobody pushes me too far :) )

I agree that Kerry was the lesser choice and unfortunately, that's the way I've felt when voting in elections for a while. I mean, when George Bush says something stupid, I think it's often because he just isn't good at making off-the-cuff statements. However, talking for long periods of time is what Kerry does for a living. When he said something stupid, I thought he was just clueless. Besides being a liar (like almost all politicians) and wishy-washy over issues, he couldn't even play politics well. If he couldn't make sense even to himself, how could he lead us out of Iraq?

Now, given Bush's second-term performance, I can see why folks might question if Kerry really was the lesser of the two. But, at the same time, when was the last time a president had a decent second term?

SD and Jan, after reading some of your long (but informative and sometimes funny) posts, I think I will wait for the movie. What cabinet post are we puttin JDR in? Opps, ended with preposition...make that "What cabinet post are we putting JDR in, yawl"

For those who keep saying the dems have no plan, is stay the course a real plan?

Barak Obama seems to be able to build concensus. He's not somebody's attack dog, he's young, I think he can energize and inspire this country. I'm ready to vote for an iguana for president as long as he doesn't spout the divisive rhetoric. Yes, I complain about W. My taxes go to pay his salary, whether I voted for him or not and I'm not happy with his job performance. You bet I'm gonna complain!

Have any of you suffering from BES seen the biographical film on Barry Goldwater--on HBO as his daughter or granddaughter did it?

Goldwater was a conservative who said that one day he would be considered a liberal---he was right. He hated what the religious nuts were doing to his GOP.
I would recommend all the Bush "apologists"...ooops, I meant "Bush Endearment Syndrome" sufferers watch the film. I can remember the election and how so many were scared of Goldwater--my how times change.

first, the lte writer doesn't even warrant a response, same crap, different day. i would only remind him that he only knows what the media allows him to know.
with that being said, the plot thickens.

DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report that Ahmadinejad also talked persuasively to Chavez about making a show of deploying a few Iranian-made 2,000-km range Shahab-3 missiles – first in Venezuela then in Cuba – as a menace to the United States.

Chavez has not given Tehran his answer. But both he and Castro will think twice about granting this request, for fear of crossing one line too many for the Bush administration to swallow. However, Iranian ambitions to harm American know no limits.

The three-cornered meeting in Havana between the Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raoul Castro at the beginning of the week reached a number of decisions in principle although they remain to be fleshed out with operational details. Castro was reluctant to make final decisions because he said his brother would soon be back at the helm.

They did agree that anything decided during the Iranian and Venezuelan presidents’ Caracas talks would be put before the Cuban ruler. They also decided that their intelligence teams would meet again during the UN General Assembly session in New York later this week. After discovering this plan, Washington refused the Iranian president’s “aides” – presented as journalists - entry visas to New York on Tuesday, Sept. 19.

I'm with you on this, Lilbean; there does seem countries starting to align against superpowerusa, which is one reason I'm so upset about Iraq - where we have spent a sizable portion of our wad .. we should have saved it for "Iranian ambitions" - and other.