[Osx-nutters] AHMADINEJAD

[Patrick Coskren]

On Sep 28, 2006, at 12:26 AM, Google Kreme wrote:

> On 27 Sep 2006, at 20:08 , Patrick Coskren wrote:
>>> Sorry, but the US in Iraq is no better than Saddam was.  Huge  
>>> body counts, torture, and 'secret' prisons sounds like the same  
>>> old same old.  Except fucktard has imported that brand of  
>>> 'justice' to the US and is shipping US citizens into secret  
>>> torture prisons to.
>>>
>>>> Bush blew up the trade center, etc.
>>>
>>> Bush ignored the warnings of an imminent attack and did nothing  
>>> to stop it.  He went on VACATION after the warning was received.   
>>> He's as responsible for it as anyone.
>>
>> Come on, Kreme, sure the US isn't as much better than Hussein as  
>> it should be, and the Administration seems to be testing the  
>> depths that the American people will tolerate, but the US is still  
>> better than Iraq under Hussein.
>
> That's not what I said.  I said the US **IN IRAQ** is not better  
> than Saddam **IN IRAQ**.

... right... and then you added "has imported that brand of 'justice'  
to the US".

But even taking it on the Iraq side.  A sectarian civil war was  
entirely predictable (I remember somebody posting a flash animation  
to that effect here on Nutters at the time... ), and the  
Administration is responsible for that, but I still don't feel like  
it's quite right to say "the US is no better than Saddam", even in  
its actions in Iraq.  For one thing, I believe that most of the  
soldiers on the ground are sincerely trying to make the place better;  
they've just been placed in an impossible situation.  Maybe I'm  
splitting hairs, though: the living standards in Iraq are clearly  
worse than under Hussein, I completely agree on that point.

> In fact, a very convincing case could be made that Iraq is far far  
> worse off now than it was in 2000.

I think it's certainly worse off.  Torture is reportedly up, when you  
factor in the militias.

>> I don't see Bush ordering his political opposition slaughtered.   
>> And while I agree that he ignored the bin Laden threat and was  
>> (and remains, in many ways) staggeringly negligent, I still kind  
>> of think bin Laden and the hijackers are the ultimately  
>> responsible party.
>
> Ultimately, yes.  But Bush certainly is to blame.  Fine, not as  
> much as anyone, but as much as anyone excepting the dead guys and  
> bin Laden.  Happy?

Yup.  It's an important distinction, especially when the guys on the  
Right are constantly accusing us of forgetting it.  You don't  
persuade people by calling the President a terrorist, when he's  
"merely" staggeringly incompetent.

> His administrations current ploy of trying to pin 9/11 on Clinton  
> is reprehensible.

Absolutely.  And lying to do it, no less.

-Patrick