George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Him, no one else. You either back him up or you are not supporting America.

Translation: George W. Bush is America.

Hey DJ, did you unflailingly support President Clinton? If not, were you not supporting America?

Also, are you familiar with our Constitution? The President is just a man, and being elected does not shield him from dissent or disagreement, nor does it guarantee him support from the citizenry. Furthermore, such dissent or disagreement are decidedly American, as enshrined by our unique 1st amendment.

In other words, get bent you jingoistic twit.

George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Him, no one else. You either back him up or you are not supporting America.

Wow. I mean... really... wow.

That is probably the most un-American thing I've ever read on here. Cuban, Soviet, or Chinese, perhaps. But it is diametrically opposed to the very DNA of America.

And it's also highly hypocritical, as I suspect you did not hold that opinion during 1992-2000.

It's just... wow.

Thanks, DJ, for a great post.

Get ready for some harsh criticism--you'll undoubtedly hit a few nerves with this one.

Oh wait--it appears that Mantis has started things off already.....

In other words, get bent you jingoistic twit.

The problem is, Mantis (and many like him) will be the first to damn Bush for not doing enough to prevent the next terrorist attack after it happens.

God help us all. This country is in trouble.

Does anyone think that BDS will evaporate in January 2009?

The twice-elected President of the United States talks in detail about what we are doing in Iraq and why, but it’s George “Me-Time” Clooney who gets attention.

By the way, don't feel so picked on. Three federal judges decided separately that Bush is breaking the law, yet that received scant media attention.

Hey Mantis,

I bet you were a liberal dickhead when Slick Willie was getting blown in the Oval Office while desecrating a fine cigar.

Brian:

You raise a valid point. Many of us on the right certainly criticized Clinton during his presidency and didn't consider ourselves unpatriotic. Yes, criticism of our government (without fear of reprisal) is a distinctly American activity. I, for one, wouldn't want to take that away from anyone.

But you'd have to admit, wouldn't you, that what we see today goes far, far, far beyond criticism? If the rhetoric (primarily on the Left, mind you) were toned down, we'd all be better off. But I don't think we'll see this anytime soon.

(Yes, I know, there's plenty of rhetoric on the Right. But we never called Clinton Hitler, we didn't produce a movie depicting his assassination, etc. etc. etc. I know you--or someone else--will cite examples "proving" me wrong. But what really concerns me is how much of this hate-filled rhetoric has made its way into the mainstream of the Democratic party.)

"George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Him, no one else. You either back him up or you are not supporting America. Yes, he earned that support, by getting elected. Like it or not, it comes with the job."

That is the most stunningly authoritarian piece of writing I've ever read on this blog. What country are you from? Do you even understand what you've written? The office of the president is lasting. The PRESIDENT is temporary -- a man employed by you and me to run certain affairs of state, in conjunction with a co-equal legislature. I think you need to read the constitution, my friend. And as the first commenter noted, I doubt you felt the same way about Bill Clinton during the Kosovo campaign.

Equating the president with "America" is the very definition of authoritarianism, fascism, or both. Worshipping the head of state is what they're required to do in countries with a dictator or an emperor, not a president.

You would have made a good Soviet citizen, dude. Or a damned good Fidelisto.

The problem is, Mantis (and many like him) will be the first to damn Bush for not doing enough to prevent the next terrorist attack after it happens.

That's interesting, I don't blame President Bush for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks, but for some reason you assume that I would blame him if/when the next attack happens.

I have no doubt that there are many that would blame the President, but I doubt I would be one of them. I do believe that many on the right would blame him for not securing the border if the next attackers came in illegally, but I wouldn't (mostly because it's impossible to secure the border, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't try).

I would blame the administration if the next attack involved airplanes and the attackers were on the terrorist watch list, because we still haven't implemented the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that we compare passenger lists with the watch list. We haven't implemented a number of other recommendations on that list, some due to the administration's lack of will, some due to the Congress'. If another attack happens, and it isn't prevented due to a lack of security procedures, I might place some blame on the administration and/or Congress. My guess, however, is the next attack will be something we aren't expecting, and it isn't really possible to stop terrorist attacks entirely. Just ask Israel.

But keep on assuming what other people think or would say in a hypothetical, Doug. I'm sure it helps you maintain your deluded sense of superiority. Too bad you don't know what the hell your talking about.

Mantis:

Thanks for your response, especially the first three paragraphs. (The last one stung; I do think I know what I'm talking about. However, that "sense of superiority" you mentioned probably hit too close to home. I'll try to be more careful in future posts. My apologies.)

Just so I know where you're coming from, Mantis, could you tell me what you think about the Geneva Conventions being applied to terrorists? Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not?

(You realize that those of us on the Right really have a problem with this, for a number of reasons. And--rightly or wrongly--when these protections are afforded to our enemies, we conclude that the people who insist on these protections are more concerned about the terrorists' well-being than they are about the present and future safety of Americans.)

Here you are, dear:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Teddy Roosevelt

That's my kind of Republican.

I must admit this one took me by suprise. I have spent over 20 years in the military, I didn't always like the President, and Mr Clinton's behavior really left me disgusted, but as the President he was my Commander in Chief and NEVER would I even think about saying something disrespectful about him, Especially to someone from another country. I feel that although it is your right to say what you feel as an American, You should have the good sense not to further tarnish the image of America by adding your ignorance or hate to the fray. Celebrities should be seen and not necessarily heard, if they want to take up causes, let them work for literacy or the homeless. Better yet take those mega bucks that you earn bad mouthing the current administration and actually go and see what is happening, go on a patrol with the soldiers being ambushed by the "innocent civilians" we are subjegating with our empire building. I would love to drag that Fat Ass Micheal Moore out on an actual fact finding mission, and not one he has arranged where his people have everything all set for filming. As for the Dixie twit, she needs to go talk to the troops personally and see what there opinion of her is. I would Rant more, but it would be pointless.

Calm down. You are taking DJ's comments to the extreme.

First, many including myself, did not approve of Clinton's actions with Lewinsky & more importantly the lying in court about them. Nor did I ever vote for him. However, I was behind him when he chose to go (without UN approval) into Bosnia, & his occasional days of bombing things/people in the mid-East. He was the leader of my country, commander-in-chief, so he should know more than the basic citizen.

DJ is saying once Bush won the election, made the decision to go to Afghanistan/Iraq with CONGRESS's APPROVAL, it is our job to want to win at that point, thus supporting in any way we can. Dissent & discussions until the time of war, & discussions of how you would do things differently in the future are always important and acceptable. But once the war is started, be for the home team. And if you do feel the need to dissent---do it in an appropriate manner (in other words, WITH MANNERS) at an appropriate place.

If you think we need to leave Iraq because it is a mess, then let's call off all public schools for good tomorrow--a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Just so I know where you're coming from, Mantis, could you tell me what you think about the Geneva Conventions being applied to terrorists? Do you think this is a good idea? Why or why not?

Sure I do, however I would point out that it is entirely possible that some detainees may not be terrorists. To assume guilt without presenting evidence is a pretty nasty thing to do, and quite unamerican.

Anyway, concerning the Conventions for detainees. For one thing, to not adhere to the Geneva Conventions is to break the law, and we are a country of laws. Secondly, if we ignore the Conventions, of which we are a signatory, we cannot expect any other nation to adhere to them if they capture our soldiers. Third, to counter the inevitable argument that the Convention does not provide protections for these types of prisoners, the Third Convention states:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

There's more, but that's enough for now. In any case my concern is not for terrorists over the safety of Americans. My concern is for our Constitution, our laws, and our moral and ethical duties. If the detainees are found to be terrorists in a legitimate court, I see no problem whatever with executing them. How openly trying these people and punishing them accordingly threatens the "present and future safety of Americans" has never been demonstrated to me.

And anyone who wishes to claim "the terrorists don't follow the Geneva Conventions", save it. American does not determine its actions relative to those of terrorists, but according to our ideals and our Constitution. By that logic suicide bombing, televised decapitations of innocent prisoners, and targeting civilians are acceptable for Americans.

Hi Mantis:

Thanks for your thoughts on terrorists & the Conventions. Just so you know, I was nodding my head in agreement to much of what you said.

The real challenge here is that this is a war unlike any war that's been fought before--wouldn't you agree? As a result, there will be (and have been) mistakes by this administration (just as there will be with the next administration--Democrat or Republican--and the administration after that).

As I've said before, I simply wish that everyone could tone down the rhetoric and learn to disagree in more civil ways. (Diane made some good points in that regard, I think.)

You said:

How openly trying these people and punishing them accordingly threatens the "present and future safety of Americans" has never been demonstrated to me.

Well, that's just it. Will they be openly tried and, if found guilty, appropriately punished? All this discussion about the terrorists' rights--and, more importantly, assuming they are granted rights under our Constitution--is unprecedented in a time of war. Why are lawyers involved now? Shouldn't the legal process wait until hostilities are over? (And that will be... when? that's another new and confusing factor in this war.) Or am I missing something?

Re: threatening our present and future safety--what I was getting at was the fact that there have been reports of xx number of prisoners being released from Gitmo, only to be recaptured on the field of battle. That really doesn't make sense to me.

Thanks again for explaining your position. I really appreciate it!

Well said mantis, that post was very well worded and extremely hard to disagree with.

JReid,

Good quote.

I'm more with Doug on this. It's the manner, the viscousness and the intention of the criticism that is of import. I think some amount of common decency or courteous restraint wouldn't be difficult would you?

Mantis and Doug:

Thanks for the interesting back and forth. I agree with Doug - too bad there can't be more like it. The author's posted statement as quoted below is an example of the rhetoric that does no good for anyone. Equally as offensive is the Bush lied accusation so often tossed out by my side.

“Don’t question my patriotism” is nothing but spineless evasion if you cheer for people who want to kill Americans.

Name me those "who cheer" for people who want to kill Americans. That's a disgusting accusation from someone with an empty mind.

I fully support the notion that even if you don't respect the man, you should respect the office and the authority which comes from that. But that doesn't mean that you have to "back him up or you are not supporting America." If he has the authority to do what some may not like, people are of course free to complain and to voice their displeasure in the most meaningful way, at the ballot box, but to deny him the authority which he does have is not upholding or defending the Constitution, but degrading it, just as an attempt to silence critics would be regardless of where that criticism is pointed. Critics can even criticize the critics who criticize the critics of the President, and so on. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, after all.

There is simply no need to fall back on the "you're either with us, or with the terrorists" line of reasoning, though, as if it were a legitimate argument rather than an effective sound byte. The president does have a legitimate argument for pursuing the course he has chosen--not just because he's the president and he can. I find it very unfortunate when anyone, on either side of the aisle, chooses to use such weak arguments, particularly when stronger arguments are known: "The twice-elected President of the United States talks in detail about what we are doing in Iraq and why".

But notice where the focus is (or was at the time I started this post) in the comments. Is it really what matters? What if we put less focus on the president--whom many on the left absolutely loathe for reasons I can't quite fathom, and whom they would loathe no matter what he did or didn't do--and more focus on the war itself?

RE: George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Him, no one else. You either back him up or you are not supporting America.

First, my frame-of-reference:
1. I voted for President Bush both times.
2. I support the war in Afghanistan.
3. I support the war in Iraq.
4. I'd volunteer if the Army would take me.
5. I think that the reasons to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq were valid.
6. I'd like to threaten Iran with an unrestricted air war if they don't immediately end their nuclear program.
7. I'd like to have a debate about turning Syria into a radioactive barbeque pit.
8. I have a lot of disagreements with the way that Bush has fought the war. For example, I don’t think that he’s killing the enemy fast enough, and he hasn’t been straight forward about teaching the Arab Street what this is really all about.

Now, concerning the statement above: you can’t be serious.
This is totally wrong.

VENT-ON

It is perfectly reasonable for people to disagree with President Bush on a variety of issues. Hell, I voted for him, I support the war, and I don’t agree with him. It is perfectly reasonable for people to say, "I think that President Bush's decision to go to war was wrong." It is reasonable to even consider the proper constitutional remedy for that problem: impeachment.

The trick is that when the country is at war, what is not reasonable is to fail to support victory. For example, while it is reasonable to consider impeachment of President Bush (and I don't think that it can or should be done), it must also be said -- at the same time -- BUT we are at war in Iraq, and WE ARE GOING TO WIN. PERIOD. Thanks to Bush, we have a whole bunch of new enemies in Iraq. We expect President Cheney to pound them into paste.

We’re Americans. You may not like us. You may not respect us. You may protest us. If you take up arms against us, then we’re going to kill you. We would prefer it if everyone would just “get along”. You don’t want to do that? You just can't help yourself? OK, we can handle that, too.

This is where, IMHO, the Democrats have totally screwed up: they have embraced an anti-war position. Their supporters are openly carrying signs that say, "War never solved anything." Senator Kerry and others are openly calling for our retreat -- oh, sorry, "redeployment" -- on a fixed timetable. That is beyond stupid. They are embracing or at least accepting defeat.

VENT-OFF

If anyone believes that they have to support the President in a time of war – no matter what – then please consider this: what do you do when the President isn’t playing to win or isn’t doing everything that you believe should be done to win? If you believe that the President is not doing enough to win or not acting in the country's best interests, then the President isn’t fully supporting the country.

JGrams:

I like what you had to say but disagree with your concluding point. I am one who strongly dislikes Mr. Bush, may even loathes. But the reason I do is not because of who he is but what he does.

The real challenge here is that this is a war unlike any war that's been fought before--wouldn't you agree?

I do agree, and I also agree that we need to rethink our strategies regarding military conflict in combating terrorism.

As I've said before, I simply wish that everyone could tone down the rhetoric and learn to disagree in more civil ways.

Absolutely.

Well, that's just it. Will they be openly tried and, if found guilty, appropriately punished? All this discussion about the terrorists' rights--and, more importantly, assuming they are granted rights under our Constitution--is unprecedented in a time of war. Why are lawyers involved now? Shouldn't the legal process wait until hostilities are over?

The question of whether to try detainees while we are still "at war" is a difficult one. The problem with that, of course, is that the War on Terror, so to speak, has no end. Does that mean that we can detain people forever with no trial? Does it mean we should? I'm not sure if we can, considering we haven't actually declared war on anyone, but I definitely don't think we should, or it gives us license for all sorts of abuses.

Let me present a hypothetical. We could, conceivably, detain a candidate for office in Iraq or Afghanistan, say because we want his opponent to win. We could label that candidate an enemy combatant and detain him indefinitely. With no requirement upon us to try him in court until the end of hostilities, and no foreseeable end to hostilities (when does the War on Terror end?), we could just lock him up and forget about him without ever presenting any evidence that he was an enemy combatant. This is a very far-fetched hypothetical, to be sure, but it is one that is possible if we don't have to try anyone until the War on Terror ends, i.e. never.

Re: threatening our present and future safety--what I was getting at was the fact that there have been reports of xx number of prisoners being released from Gitmo, only to be recaptured on the field of battle. That really doesn't make sense to me.

This is an unfortunate consequence of our enlightened system. If we cannot reasonably hold a person without evidence of him being a threat, there is the possibility that we will encounter him again on the battlefield. The flipside to that is the released prisoners who have not been fighting. Presumably there are many who were wrongfully imprisoned, or at least were considered to not constitute a continued threat, and simply went back to their homes to live their lives peacefully (I have read a number of reports of such people, though usually in the context of them discussing their treatment). What if we did not release those people? What does that say about us?

Thanks again for explaining your position. I really appreciate it!

Likewise. It's always a treat to have reasonable discussion with intelligent people, especially on the web.

Hugh, Heralder, Mantis, Diane, and JGrams (sorry if I'm leaving people out):

Thanks for your thoughtful posts. This is turning into one of the more interesting threads on this site (I'm not trying to be self-serving; I'd be saying that even if I weren't involved).

I'm not looking for kum ba yah moments here, but wouldn't it be great if (most of the time) we could calmly express our views without name-calling and inflammatory comments? We'd probably still disagree on a lot of stuff, but we might understand the "other side's" positions more clearly.

To coin a favorite catch-word of bogeymen everywhere; GOTCHA!

I posted an article which pointed out the hubris of people making comments and voicing opinions without all the facts [ some without any ], and lo and behold my trigger trap produced the expected results. Only one reader - congrats Diane - considered my statements in context, the rest jumping to their favorite conclusions in the same way that tapping on a knee with a rubber mallet in a certain way will cause the lower leg to kick.

Predictable.

More detail in my next article about Clinton, the Presidency, human nature, and the Liberal disconnect. I'm glad to see there is some attempt at dialogue, but without beginning in the proper context, I fear that the discussion will soon breakdown with the usual partisan sniping.

Mantis:

Yes, yes, yes! [nodding my head vigorously to almost everything you said in your 5:07 post]

To further expound on this war: My take is that on 9/11, the unthinkable happened on American soil and President Bush saw it as a monumental failure to carry out one of his basic duties as President--to protect American citizens. Since then, he's done everything he can to do a better job in protecting us (and, might I say, all of us--regardless of race, sexual orientation, party affiliation, or whatever else we use to define and divide us).

Has Bush made some mistakes? Yep. No argument from me there. But the bottom line is this--these terrorists now know that we're fighting back! And we haven't been attacked again here at home (thank God [hope that's OK!]).

I wish that this were a "clearer" war:
--enemies who were clearly identified (by country, uniform, etc.)
--battles that primarily involved soldiers, not civilians
--and as you said, Mantis, a war with a clearly-defined end.

But these things aren't going to get clearer (at least, not anytime soon). Like it or not, we're in this for the long haul.

One last thought: under these conditions, can most of us agree that a nuclear Iran is a very, very scary prospect?

dude you're a douchebag

OK DJ:

I'll consider myself "gotcha'ed." But only reluctantly.

Please do a better job of defining the "proper context." Otherwise, I fear that those on the Left will accuse you of begging the question (or of stacking the deck in your favor).

Einstein:

dude you're a douchebag

Are you referring to me, or to DJ? Or someone else?

Doug, given his level of repartee', does it really matter whom "Einstein" meant?

And I think tomorrow's piece will shed a lot of light on this. For now, please consider that the context is critical to the point. It is a matter for reflection, and not of the moment.

DJ:

Thanks for your recent post. Count me as slow and dimwitted but iI certainly didn't get from your post what you just stated. Perhaps the author plays some part?

But at any would you explain to me what you mean by...."you either back him up or you are not supporting America..." in reference to George Bush. I'm not trying to trap you or engage in a shouting match. I really want to try and understand your view of that comment.

I posted an article which pointed out the hubris of people making comments and voicing opinions without all the facts [ some without any ], and lo and behold my trigger trap produced the expected results. Only one reader - congrats Diane - considered my statements in context, the rest jumping to their favorite conclusions in the same way that tapping on a knee with a rubber mallet in a certain way will cause the lower leg to kick.

Translation: (Waving hands) Pay no attention to what I wrote! It was all a trick to get you to disagree, even though you should have known I meant something else, maybe. I'm not going to clarify, I'll just use the magic word "context", and allude to some future post in which I bash Clinton. Gotcha!

Nice try. Too bad that "in context" you are saying that anyone who disagrees with the President regarding foreign policy is unamerican and wants us to lose.

You either back him up or you are not supporting America.

That's pretty clear. The only contextual qualifier is that you are only talking about military matters. What difference does that make? So if I disagree with the President's immigration policy, that's ok, but if I disagree with his foreign policy, it's unamerican? How does that compute?

In short, how is your post not simply jingoistic rhetoric? How did you "get" us, exactly?

“Bush lied” is a baseless lie, shouted by people who do not want anyone to look too closely into their own closet.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

Ummm...how is that NOT a lie? The President looks pretty well rested to me. bin Laden's probably sleeping well, too. Well, why not?! They're 2 chief executives who aren't being held accountable for their actions...

If it's too hard for you to read the article and consider its context, Mantis, I will walk you and your friends through it tomorrow.

Interesting, that a rational reader like Diane picked up on the message right away, while those inclined to insult and shout let it slip over their heads.

As usual.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by context? I understand that you start the piece by talking about celebrities, preachers, etc. talking about subjects with which they are unfamiliar. However when you state,

George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Him, no one else. You either back him up or you are not supporting America.

you make no attempt at limiting your assertion to only those who aren't familiar enough with the subject. Are we to believe that you think we should back the President up or we're not supporting America, unless we are knowledgable on the topic, in which case we're allowed to disagree without being accused of not supporting America?

I understand the context just fine. You don't like that celebrities and such get attention from the press when they don't know what they're talking about. Fine, but that in no way translates to "support the president or you're unamerican".

And unless your post tomorrow details all of the ways in which Republicans did not support President Clinton in his military endeavors, I don't see how it will shed any light on your meaning, or be in any way consistent with the statements you've made in this post.

But since you don't feel compelled to explain your ridiculous statement, I guess we'll just have to wait for the exciting conclusion. Oh, the suspense!