Bush endorsement -- from IRAN.

[kuangning]

That's gotta sting.

Excerpt -- emphasis mine, of course.

"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said of the former Democratic president. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era - despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran - he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Kerry against Bush.

... yeah. See, that's a problem for some of us over here. He hasn't done anything about y'all out there in Iran, who are a bigger threat than Saddam ever was. But, y'know, I wouldn't be so quick to say so, if I were you; he might decide that cracking down on you tomorrow morning would boost his ratings, and then where would you be?

Comments

*sigh*

[rare.livejournal.com]

That would make an awesome Republican campaign commercial: “Vote Bush, Iran Would!”

Re: *sigh*

[kuangning]

*raises an eyebrow.* Yes, the Axis of Evil country wants Bush back in power. Reason given? For all his talk, he hasn't hurt them any. I would actually love to see them try that. It'd take approximately two minutes before they got smacked with the ridicule stick.

[heronblue.livejournal.com]

I guess it would be too much to hope for the Kerry campaign to pick this up: "Terrorist supporters endorse Bush!"

[kuangning]

They'd get smacked if they tried it, I'm certain. Such is the unfairness of life. Kerry's got to keep himself above petty ploys like that, or the scaremongering muckrakers will all scream at him for muckraking and scaremongering. Fortunately, I'm not running for office, and I can point out little things like this when I see them. ;)

[primis.livejournal.com]

*shakehead*

I do find this whole post ludicrous...

Since if Bush had gone after Iran instead, you'd be bitching about it and wondering why nobody has done anything about the dude in Baghdad yet.

You're not anti-policy, you're anti-*Bush*. And for you to somehow say that going after Iran wouldn't have drawn the bitching and moaning from you that Iraq did is both convenient and asinine. You sit here and claim that it's not the country's job to go in and root out dangerous leaders and countries, and then at the same time turn around and want to wonder aloud why the US hasn't gone after Iran.

Are you kidding me?...


-- Primis.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

You do know it's possible to be both anti-policy and anti-Bush, right? I mean, it isn't that hard a concept to grasp that there's people who are annoyed at US actions who aren't simply bandwagoning, anti-American, Bush-bashing trendroids, right?

[primis.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course. That's actually part of my point though, that once someone just becomes plain anti-Bush or anti-$whateverofficial, sitting there and talking about policies and everything else becomes quite irrelevant, because one's decision of support of opposition has very little to do with anything policy-wise or decision-wise, and everything to do with the person who's making, pushing, or sponsoring them.


-- Primis.

[kuangning]

The trouble is, I think you see any statement criticising a Bush decision as coming from an anti-Bush person. And that lends itself easily to attempting to silence criticism by yelling partisanship. Just because someone has an opinion one way or another doesn't make the underlying facts wrong. I'm not jumping into other people's journals going "you're just anti-Kerry!" If I see something that isn't complimentary to Kerry, nine times out of ten, I'm going to go find out if it's true or not. Thus far, though, it isn't.

Hell, I think it ought to make people stop and think, just by itself, that there's so much stuff that's true and available to say about Bush that isn't complimentary. I don't have to spend any time digging for dirt, and I've never tried -- it's right there, all the time, in front of us and the world. None of what I've said here even involved anything but his bad judgment and flawed decisions: when there are enough of those to fill pages and pages of reports, you have a problem.

As a private citizen, he'd affect himself, his employees or co-workers, his friends, and his family. As President of the United States of America, he becomes everybody's problem. I just happen to think he should be a private citizen again, and as far as I see, the facts bear me out.

[primis.livejournal.com]

The trouble is, I think you see any statement criticising a Bush decision as coming from an anti-Bush person.

No... I just see what you say on IRC about the election, and Bush, how you've specifically wished gruesome death upon him numerous times and in numerous fashions, for numerous reasons... I've seen you lob random personal (stupid even) accusations at him as Bush the Person and not even the Administration or anything like that... and geee yeah... I pretty much *have* to add that up as being anti-Bush and not anti-specific policies or even anti-administration. I have to because that's what that is.

And see... if you REALLY WANT I can dig through IRC logs and post numerous examples of you doing this and saying these exact sort of things... but I think you already know what I mean.

So no... this isn't a case of "you're not one, so you're the other". I think wishing the gruesome death of someone is where it crosses the line into being "anti-$specificperson", and that's pretty indefensible.

I don't sit around taking shots at either candidate because I don't need to. There's already enough out there to let me know the score. Bush will probably continue to screw things up domestically in terms of privacy & security, etc and freedoms/rights, Kerry and if he holds to what he's claiming would likely open up a whole new can of worms re: terrorism and foreign issues & problems. Not much of a choice is it?

That's why I find it truly sad that people continue to vehemently post in blogs, on sites, and on IRC, backing one in particular and trying to down the other... flaming one another over it all...

And I also find it sad that people would watch the debates rooting for particular individuals. Is that what it is now, just a sick sort of reality TV? The debates are meant to be informative. But why anyone would want to watch that tripe to "root" for "their" candidate is well beyond me.

You only see your little corner of the universe in re: to me. That little segment happens to be the radically-left segment that is #spork, where, apparently, if I don't completely fall in line and rank with everyone else (or even just fail to want to speak anythign about it at all) I'm "The Enemy". You don't see the other areas (one other channel in particular) where I'm complaining and arguing with the exact opposite side about the exact same things. You're too caught up in your own little isolated area.

And even if I open my mouth to say anything, trying to get people to be realistic about things, I'm immediately branded the enemy one way or the other.

All I know is this: I don't care what anyone else thinks about it all, and I don't need to hear all about how they're joygasming over this candidate and literally wishing death for the other. And I sure as hell have a life outside of arguing and commenting about politics, which very few other people seem to be able to claim anymore.

And sorry no, I won't just shut up when and if I see people making asses of themselves by saying or claiming stupid things just because they've drunk in full the kool-aid of one side or the other.

Cope.


-- Primis.

[kuangning]

I just went through the logfile of #spork myself, searching every mention of "Bush". Granted, my file starts in early June, when I got the machine running. I have yet to finish going through the old mirc logs. However, all I came up with on the subject of "wishing him death" follows:

Jul 21 16:02:24 the BBC news headline was "US slashes space budget on anniversary of Moon walk" or something similar. I damn near cried.
Jul 21 16:02:25 Howls of outrage?
Jul 21 16:02:34 that's worth it just for the path alone
Jul 21 16:03:01 Sev: Yeah, there was some ideological flaw in it which doesn't appeal to randroids or something
Jul 21 16:03:19 aio: Yeah. It's very specifically anything that would permit further moonwalks, too. %P
Jul 21 16:03:24 Aaah. *snrk*
Jul 21 16:04:25 *sighs.* well, maybe we'll get lucky and Bush will die before his next term in a freak accident that takes out all his cronies and we can have someone who gives a flying fuck next time.

Oct 17 17:24:28 I'm telling you that if Bush manages re-election, I wouldn't bet a plug nickel for his surviving his second term.

So very hate-filled, isn't it? One expression of bitter disappointment and one opinion that he's not popular and enough people dislike him that he might not make it through another term. As for the stupid personal accusations, if you know what you're talking about, please enlighten me.

[kuangning]

Jul 21 16:02:24 < aio> the BBC news headline was "US slashes space budget on anniversary of Moon walk" or something similar. I damn near cried.
Jul 21 16:02:25 < Sev> Howls of outrage?
Jul 21 16:02:34 < ph4nyx> that's worth it just for the path alone
Jul 21 16:03:01 < Zibblsnrt> Sev: Yeah, there was some ideological flaw in it which doesn't appeal to randroids or something
Jul 21 16:03:19 < Zibblsnrt> aio: Yeah. It's very specifically anything that would permit further moonwalks, too. %P
Jul 21 16:03:24 < Sev> Aaah. *snrk*
Jul 21 16:04:25 < aio> *sighs.* well, maybe we'll get lucky and Bush will die before his next term in a freak accident that takes out all his cronies and we can have someone who gives a flying fuck next time.

Oct 17 17:24:28 < aio> I'm telling you that if Bush manages re-election, I wouldn't bet a plug nickel for his surviving his second term.

[kuangning]

While I'm on the subject of this... why yes, yes I do only see what you say and do in front of me. That's all anybody ever sees, what we show them. And like anybody else, I form my opinions based on what I see. Contrary to what you think, though, what I see hasn't made the enemy or even an enemy, just a friend who doesn't agree with me. You're seeing great emotion and energy where none exists.

As for rooting for one side or the other -- well, yes, I prefer one side over the other. I'm glad when Kerry does well, frustrated with him when he doesn't. I'd argue that this matters a thousand times more than any athletic event, and the stakes are higher, and everyone who lives in this country has a stake in it. Why on earth wouldn't people be supporting one side or the other, eager to see how they do? I'd be worried about apathy if they weren't.

Furthermore, looking back here in my journal, I see fractal posts, poetry, a fiction piece, a rather personal essay, a weight rant, talk about going back to school, SpaceShipOne, a couplefew pieces that are posted personal still, other small talk... David and I just celebrated a year together. So I have to say that I really don't see that talking about politics means I have no life outside of it. A few weeks before a closely-contested election, talk turns to politics. That's kind of natural. And even so, my journal has hardly become All Bush Hatred, All the Time.

[kuangning]

Where in there did I say I think he should have invaded Iran? 'Cause I missed that part. "doing something about" something, on an international level, has a lot more steps than "walk in with guns blazing". I think it's kind of sad and scary that some folks have forgotten that.

[primis.livejournal.com]

Well first of all then, where did *I* say anything about "invading" or "going in guns blazing"? No, I didn't. You came up with that on your own... because I'm "pro-Bush" as you stated while talking shit about me behind my back the other night after I left the channel, all because I didn't want another 200 lines of debate play-by-play I didn't want or need to hear spamming my window.

So don't sit there and start lecturing me on putting words in someone's mouth or making assumptions.

Anyhow, well... because we're already trying to do everything else re: Iran and it doesn't seem to be getting anything much of anywhere. You can pass resolutions and legislation all you want but it doesn't mean jack when France, Germany, and Britain's solution to problem in Iran is to... abruptly give Iran whatever they want including nuclear fuel... and Iran still is totally disinterested. That doesn't bode very well, and pretty much speaks to Iran's intentions re: their program.

So for you to say you expect more to be done re: Iran... I don't know what "more" you think could be done about them. If "We'll give you whatever you want if you DON'T DO THIS!" doesn't work or stop them, one can hardly say that anything very productive is happening there.

So just what exactly *DO* you expect the US to have done instead re: Iran that isn't already being done or hasn't already been done anyways? It sure sounds to me like Iran is playing everyone for suckers and knowing nothing they do right now will or would have any teeth.

And I have to freely admit that as it relates to Iran, right now I don't see how there'd be any advantage whatsoever (at this point) to going back, having the invasion of Iraq never happen, and having *BOTH* Iran and Iraq sitting there still ignoring the UN and everyone else and being deliberately misleading and shady, which is probably the most-likely scenario...

And given this record of how similar situations have gone, my faith in the UN and the "global govenrment community" to resolve an issue involving a fierceley-stubborn opponent is riding down at around Zero.

And my point *still* stands. REGARDLESS of what country or situation was being focused on (whether it be Iraq, Iran or North Korea), you'd still be pointing to a different situation crying and wondering wondering why nothing had been done there yet, simply because you've hated this entire administration since Day One and it makes a handy way of bashing them and making whoever the other candidiate runnign against them is, somehow look better for it.


-- Primis.

[kuangning]

Okay. We're going to slow down and take these one by one, shall we?

Since if Bush had gone after Iran instead, you'd be bitching about it and wondering why nobody has done anything about the dude in Baghdad yet.

Bush's means of "going after" Iraq was an invasion. Unprovoked and unjustified invasion, boots on the ground and guns blazing. Yes, if he'd done that to Iran, I'd be bitching about it. And when you say "gone after" in reference to Bush, I think I can be excused for assuming invasion, since that's the action on record. It's a large part of the reason I prefer Kerry, as a man who understands that there are other ways and means to accomplish things.

Second, I said nothing about you behind your back that I wouldn't say to your face, and what I said was that you left whenever someone started criticizing Bush, that you do seem to be pro-Bush, and that I found it amusing. I can find the logfile for you if you'd like. I do find it amusing, and will continue to do so. Since you have yet to point out, denounce, or criticise a single dirty trick pulled by Republicans, and yet you are quick to denounce me as "anti-Bush" and accuse me of "bashing" him whenever I post something that isn't complimentary of his regime, I think calling you Pro-Bush is a logical assumption. Nor is that an epithet with me, as you seem to think. It's just my assessment. You've swung more and more to the right as the months go by, and my politics and yours don't mesh. That's plain, and getting plainer, and it's all right. I don't expect you to love every word out of my mouth. I'm perfectly happy for you to disagree with me -- as long as you can do so in a civil manner. (This last response was a lot of things. "Civil" isn't it.) I will point out that I haven't attacked you personally, unless, of course, you consider speaking out on my own political views a personal attack.

Fact is, I haven't even called Bush any names. I have said that I don't believe him, don't agree with him, have no confidence in him, and want him out of office. None of that is muckraking, none of that is a personal attack, and all of that is completely permissible, even with the current black-and-white "dissent is disloyalty" atmosphere some would like to foster. I am perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone I happen to like personally -- in fact, this current exchange is proof of that.

Now, regarding Iran, I can't say what is and isn't working, or what is eventually going to work. I can tell you what hasn't happened, though, and that because Iran itself says so: he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran. He hasn't helped the situation there at all, and the situation there is much more serious than Iraq ever was. No matter what you think my feelings are towards Bush, that's the plain, bald fact, and coming in and screaming partisanship at me doesn't make it go away.

The fact is, I could not care less about Bush the man. Once he's no longer Bush the President, he ceases to be my concern. I won't stay awake nights plotting against him, I won't pray for him or against him, and if I ever met him personally, I doubt we'd have much to say to each other. You're accusing me of a level of vitriol that just isn't there. All your yelling can't manufacture it out of thin air. Do I prefer Kerry? Fuck yes. Does that add up to hating Bush? Sorry. Afraid not.