NYT forum on National Security, FISA, BUSH

Well doesn't that beat all. I read an editorial and noticed the forum link. I think spend time every now and then typing my own ludicrous thoughts and then the service is too congested and I'm instructed to try back later.

Well I don't want to do that, so here it is;

I’m not sure why I am getting involved in this discussion especially since I have not read the entire thread, nor do I have the time. Perhaps many questions I may ask have been answered; they may also be rhetorical for all I know, as it will be up to you all to decide based upon how you take my words.

I am likely the wrong audience or wrong to even discuss this since I have never had an issue with the decision to go into Iraq, so there was no need to convince me. As this has all progressed then, it is likely certain of the details passed me by since I was already in agreement.

So many arguments (too many) have passed over these four (five) short years so that I may offend or bore readers Please don’t think I may skip various of them as it isn’t my intent to gloss over, but to eventually get to my point (if I have one other than to insert my two cents). I’m not writing to change any minds, that is not possible.

President Bush did not give enough time to allow the inspections to come up with results. When did the clock start on this observation? ’92? ’94? ‘99? ’01? Or the likely late ’02, early ’03. Should a new timeframe really have been necessary? Should it not continue from ‘02? It strikes me that starting anew is just doing the same thing over and over the same way, yet still expecting different results. You’ve heard all the arguments and disagree with some and agree with others. But to me the bottom line is the history of Hussein’s non-compliance and why on earth would we expect any different?

Hussein had no link to Al Qaeda, 911 and vice versa, nor did he have any part in the events of that day. I don’t care what anyone says; where was it ever said he was behind it? Certainly in the days following his name had to have come up (I going on memory). It often seems that we all get confused about so much, although I don’t blame us due to reporting by the media these days.

Politicians do sound bytes, pundits do sound bytes, media does sound bytes, we and others do sound bytes. It appears that according to some that we won’t understand unless spoken to or written to in this manner. Eventually so many different people are screaming this that or the other thing until we get to the point that we don’t know what is going on. I blame the media in part for this, since these days they interject their opinions into some much of what they say or write. They do a story, then have an analysis of it. Do we need analysis? How is it that a particular person is qualified to do this analysis? They often don’t cover everything except what they feel is pertinent. But then, what about that which they exclude? Maybe it was pertinent.

I’ve heard people on the right say that the media is left leaning and liberal. I’ve also heard those on the left say the media has been cutting Bush too much slack and making life easy for him. Where do I fit in there? Well, I honestly cannot comprehend where it is that the media has gone soft on Bush/Iraq/Bush/Bush etc. What am I not seeing that others apparently do? How much in the positive sense has there been about Bush since before the 2000 elections? It seems as though everything he touches is torn to bits. I do think that we get too little from the media that has anything to do with facts. I don’t care how much of any idiot anyone can be, odds are they have to get something right sometime. The same goes for Iraq. Too much negative comes out with very little positive (if any), it is just not possible that nothing positive is happening. This to me appears to be a case of picking and choosing to toe their line of though or logic and/or selling ad time/space. Based on that, don’t you all agree that we would all be better off if they just told all like it is and leave the analysis up to us? We’re not stupid. It does a disservice to both sides of any argument when anything is withheld.

Back to Hussein. I truly do believe and have very little doubt that he would have continued to be the problem that he always was. Does anyone really believe that for the US to back down that he wouldn’t have taken this as a victory (and rightly so). Would the sanctions, fly zones, etc. then not logically be lifted and normalization with many countries restarted. Countries, which by the way were still doing business with him. Would France (among others) not have screamed bloody murder until the sanctions were dropped? They had been doing this since roughly ’95, why would they act any differently now.

Hussein did not have to have anything to do with Al Qaeda to be considered the next target in the “war on terror.” Do not his $25k donations to families of suicide bombers in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict suggest anything? In the scheme of things these days his best option would have been to work on the QT with various groups. I do not need to hear of ties to envision this scenario. Also, as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out with regard to WMDs. But I’m not basing it on that, nor am I holding my breath on any results in that regard.

Anyway, I’m growing awfully bored with my prattling on right about now. But it does occur to me that we on this planet (with the exception of some), expect resolution over night. It is all a lot more complicated then we give it credit.

As to FISA and all that stuff. There appears to be a lot of paranoia out there. So many immediately think the worst and some are too accepting. As someone in this thread said, they won’t believe otherwise until it has been looked into and proven one way or the other. That sounds pretty open minded to me, however the catch there is that it all has to be pulled apart and investigated before you will accept that nothing dirty is going on. That strikes me as not terribly realistic and would thwart any honest good it was meant to accomplish. Once you were satisfied, would there being any point in continuing the directive? It would truly be out there for all to see then. If this investigation was done by some committee, would you believe the results? Or would results that didn’t fit just right prove to you that Bush and his Administration cannot be trusted?

We can’t worry about every detail otherwise I think we would be overwhelmed. Can you imagine if we did know every detail of everything? It is my firm belief that one has to let some things go into order to let them be. It strikes me that since Bush has been in office the idea has been to come up with to paint this guy as some type of zealot and nut; then develop the stories around these theories. Wouldn’t you think someone of this conspiracy minded/Bush lied/etc. would eventually not know the truth when it bit them on the *ss? I think an awful lot of truth has passed them by due to it being convenient to ignore.

The Mexico analogy really misses the point as far as I’m concerned, the tone and exaggeration really accepts the worst of what has been said/written about Iraq/Bush, which belies your overall belief. You would not be satisfied with the truth as many haven’t when it was/is out there. You just have to believe there is more and that no truth will ever truly come out of Bush’s mouth. How are you going to see/hear it in any way, shape or form unless it conforms to your preconceived beliefs?

How many times has the opposition to Bush or the media asked what the plan is? I’ve heard the answer many times, but it doesn’t seem to satisfy. The more it is asked by the media, the more it is implied that a response has not been given. Perhaps it would behoove the media to say up front what answer would satisfy them, then give that one a try.

Do you (most of the time “you” is whoever can stand reading my drivel), ever listen to talk radio? There is the one side Air America, which seems to be the one accepted as “mainstream” and intellectual and then there is the other side; which consists of Right wing, fascist nuts etc. After Hurricane Katrina I was listening to Hugh Hewitt, he was going on and on about linking sites/blogs whatever to enlist aid and donations for those effected. I then switched over to Air America and listened to Randi Rhodes (not sure of the spelling), who was railing against the administration and putting all the blame for the response and hurricane itself on Bush. Unfortunately she is for the most part my only example for Air America based on my drive time, so apologies go out for my ignorance on anyone else. There was a true and unmistakable contrast between the two.

Most recently I listened to Hugh Hewitt after the “Bush Spying” debacle. He was spending his time discussing the Constitution this, the Constitution that, this amendment, that amendment, the Judiciary has never made a decision on this executive power or that executive power. I then switched to Air America and got to listen to a guy that was in for Ms. Rhodes (sorry, can’t remember his name), it was basically the opposite. No details, just Bush ranting and raving and the worst of the worst possibilities because Bush cannot be trusted. The callers in to Air America were interesting to, in that they tended to really kiss the hosts butt, not unlike one would kiss a bullies to stay on their good side.

Anyway, I digress, which I’m sorry to say that my digression began almost immediately. This whole thing is a digression. But, I suppose if you don’t speak up much, and then take some time to do so, it all just piles up and comes flowing out as it has just done for me. Apologies to anyone I’ve pained with my rants.