November 3, 2004

CANADIAN ARMY FORTIFIES BORDER TO REPEL REFUGEE ONSLAUGHT FROM THE SOUTH

refugeesweb2.jpg
Above: Led by the "Quest for Burgers" Champion Michele Moore in Search of Free Health Care and a Perpetual Government Grant, the Wretched Refuse of America's Left Trudges North.
Below: Canadian Army Masses to Enforce Canada's ""No Flee Zone" Policy with the Latest in Advanced Canadian Weaponry

AMERICAN DIGEST NEWS SERVICE
DATELINE: OTTOWA, November 3, 2004

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin (pronounced Pawl Mar-teen) today ordered all 215 members of Canada's armed forces south to stem the tide of millions of disgruntled members of MoveOn, Democratic Underground, IndyMedia, and Daily Kos that have begin to surge towards the socialist haven to the north in search of asylum.

"We feel their pain," said Martin speaking to 2 reporters at a hastily called press-conference in the Sauron province headquarters, "but we simply can't let in any more 'sunshine' Americans. We did that during the Vietnam years and our mental health care system is still groaning under the load. To let in more of Les fou Americans at this point would pretty much overload the sidewalk spaces already staked out by Canada's homeless.

"Alas, mon amis, we must say to you, as that great French general said at the crisis of the First World War Ils ne passeront pas.

"Please take your laptops and your bongs and go back and make what life you can in the ruins of your once celestial city."

* * *
upuplouisberg.jpg
It's up, up and away in Louisberg Square this afternoon.

DATELINE: BOSTON
In other news, AMERICAN DIGEST reporters embedded in the remnants of the John Kerry campaign in Boston observed an attache case contain the Kerry Plans for Peace in Iraq and a bigger and better United Nations of America being smuggled aboard a helicopter as Teresa Heinz and her consort prepared to flee to an undisclosed location on the French Riviera.

Developing.....

==
Note: As God is my witness, the above item was written, posted and filed before I knew anything at all about this: CNN.com - No Canada safe haven for Democrats - Nov 3, 2004

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Posted by Vanderleun at November 3, 2004 1:08 PM | TrackBack
Save to del.icio.us

Comments:

AMERICAN DIGEST HOME
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Very funny, if you are not a Canadian. I am not
amused. Well, actually I am! But need to stick
up for Canada. I do it for America too!

Anyway, great day today with President Bush's
speech very well done.

The truth is Americans are welcome here, we have
quite a lot of them, but we really do not, in any
way shape or form need more liberals. We have
been sucked under their platform too many times
and it is time for a change. We are working on
it, and it will come. Just wait and watch.

Posted by: Carole at November 3, 2004 1:35 PM

Imagine an America with just the red states and you get an idea of what would happen if the "liberals" left. As a result of this election, there is going to be a serious brain drain in the US in general and in red states in particular: educated people do not want to live with those who are so incredibly misinformed and/or irrational as to think that four more years of Bush is a good idea.

Posted by: Gene at November 3, 2004 4:10 PM

I'm a Canuck in the US (been here 10 years in two different blue states), and I'm going home. And any American that wants to join me, well you're more than welcome. Tabarnack!

Posted by: A Leblanc at November 3, 2004 4:26 PM

Gene, are you serious?

Posted by: 6Gun at November 3, 2004 4:39 PM

You guys still don't get it. It's not stupid to elect a president, it is called democracy.

But, sigh, should all you smart folks choose to work,or not work, for Canadian dollars, all one can say is:

"Door. Ass. Bang."

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at November 3, 2004 4:40 PM

Genius liberals like Gene calling everybody who voted for Bush idiots remind me of another super genius.... Wiley E. Coyote.

Instead of learning from the election they are just going to order another Acme election catapult and wonder why things never go their way:)

Hint: Its not because the Bush voters are idiots.

Posted by: TJIT at November 3, 2004 6:11 PM

Laugh out loud funny! Thanks.
I've got a good buddy from Canada who's working hard for his green card and can't wait to become a citizen. He likes Bush, too. Guess the hard working ones come south?

Posted by: tim at November 3, 2004 6:21 PM

6Gun,
Yes I am absolutely serious. I dont think that too many people will leave the United States as a result of the election, but the immigration of educated people will slow down. And educated people will stay away from states in which people believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11, that gay marriage is the one of the greatest problem facing the world (or anyone's damn business), that tax cuts are good idea during war time, etc.
This will tend to amplify the already polarized demographics. People around the world are stunned and I dont think that Bush supporters realize that.

Gerard Van Der Leun,
Its not stupid to elect a president, but its stupid to elect a president with Bush's record. Regarding the "Door Ass Bang" comment, it reminds me of the "Love it or Leave it" motto which implies that disagreement is somehow unpatriotic. The success of democracy depends upon its citizens being informed and expressing opinions based on that information. I find very many that label themselves as patriotic are profoundly uninformed. They base their votes on prejudice disguised as faith and morality. Such people are simply not fulfilling their duty as citizens of a Democracy and offer an internal challenge to our country far greater than that of outside terroists. Its a shame (but no accident) that the ignorant tend to travel less and hence are less likely to feel the Bang of the door as they leave the US.

Posted by: gene at November 3, 2004 6:49 PM

Actually Gene, the success of democracy depends on people honoring the compact to abide by the results of elections and to continue working for and in the country that they are a part of, not just preening about with the attitude that says 'Humph, I'm going to take my ball and go elsewhere."

Indeed, you seem to think that being "informed" means that others have to measure up to some internal notion of yours about what consitutes "informed." Please be apprised that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires being "informed to a certain standard." There is, you will be surprised to know, no IQ test for being and remaining a citizen. There is no law that someone measure up to whatever mistaken and arrogant notions you may have about being informed and not ignorant.

One of the real beauties of a democracy is that, wait for it, all those in it are equal. Equal. One man. One vote. Regardless of intelligence. Everybody gets to have their say and they don't have to have a degree to say it.

That's the rules, that's the compact, that's the grand agreement that allows us to thrive.

Let me put it this way: Democracy is simple. Everybody's in. Nobody's out.

I wouldn't have it any other way. Would you?

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at November 3, 2004 7:00 PM

Gene,
54,000,000 "misinformed irrational" people voted for George Bush. Interesting that you believe you can speak for educated people. Smacks of self serving arrogance and ivory tower isolation.

Posted by: Lee at November 3, 2004 7:10 PM

Don't most of you read? Bush had a higher IQ than Kerry does (see Brokaw interview recently). Kerry was defeated because he is anti-american, traitor and pro-communist. If you want that go to a communist country!

Posted by: KOM at November 3, 2004 7:19 PM

Gerard Van der Leun,
I have no intention of taking my ball home as I am already home. Yes we have to abide by the results, but the results can be disasterous if the voters are not informed. Talking about that fact is not preening, it is a critical part of the democratic process. I agree that there is no simple measure of who is informed and no such measure should be imposed in any case. But when 40% of the populace STILL believes that Iraq was involved in 9/11 I maintain that those citizens are not pulling their democratic weight. Their ignorance is a threat to democracy and I doubt if many of those people voted for Kerry.

TJIT,
Ah couldnt you have compared me to the Tasmanian Devil instead?! BTW Wiley was captured recently (though his ACME WMDs were mysteriously absent).

Posted by: gene at November 3, 2004 7:26 PM

Debate is degenerating abit (sorry for my contribution to that): Can some of you Bush supporters tell me why you voted for him? That is the first step.

Thanks,

Gene

Posted by: gene at November 3, 2004 7:38 PM

Yes I can tell you at much greater length than you might like although the basic reasons can be extrapolated from all sort of material on this page.

It's a fair question and one that interests me, especially since I have never voted for a Republican before in my life.

But that will, I think, have to wait. I have other large projects to accomplish and would like to take some time to reflect on this.

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at November 3, 2004 8:09 PM

I voted for Bush because I think he reached the conclusion after 9/11 that facist, non-democratic, human rights abusing states were the "root cause" and source of terror attacks. These states supplied the people but most importantly the setting for attacks to be planned, incubated and executed. He decided the only effective way to end terror attacks was to replace these facist, non-democratic, human rights abusing states with functioning democracies.

I supported this in Afghanistan, I supported this in Iraq, I will support this in Iran and wherever it is possible to do this. Iraq was the obvious next target after Afghanistan. Just as Syria and Iran are the next logical targets after Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the major source of most of the problem but the presence of Mecca and Medina make it a very difficult problem to deal with.

I thought spreading democracy and improving human rights was something most liberals would support. However, I soon found out about the we only support spreading human rights if a Democratic president does it mindset of far to many "liberals".

Posted by: TJIT at November 3, 2004 8:10 PM

TJIT, You really think we have the troops to invade Syria and Iran next?!

Posted by: gene at November 3, 2004 8:24 PM

If we have to, we can. That's one of the main reasons for being in Iraq in the first place.

You have been keeping up with the pace of base building in that country, haven't you?

Pace invasion, just being able to sortie airplanes out of Iraq at the levels that holding bases in the country makes possible is highly significant in both strategic and tactical terms.

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at November 3, 2004 8:52 PM

Gene--
I used to live in Massachsetts, and have also lived in DC, Tokyo and San Francisco. I have travelled and worked on every continent except Antartica. I have an undergraduate degree from Brown and an MBA from Harvard. I now live in Colorado where I work with gays, blacks, Hispanics and other minorities. One of my business partners is a Jewish lawyer with undergraduate degree from Brown and a law degree and an MBA from Stanford. The other is a woman with a BA from Stanford and an MBA from Harvard. All three of us are working for less money than we earned in our prior lives in order to live and work here in Colorado.

You need to rethink your facile generalizations about those of us who live in the red states.

The Islamo-facists killed my friends and family on 9-11. You and I will never be safe until we eradicate this global threat--through force of arms, and by bringing oportunity and democracy to the Islamic world. Look at Turkey and Indonesia for examples.

Bush shares this vision. Kerry does not. And don't tell me that you can't impose democracy by force of arms--I lived in Japan for four years and have worked extensively in Germany.

Colorado has the highest percentage of college graduates of any state in the union. We are also home to one of the most rad-lib communities in the coutry (Boulder) and one of the most conservative (Colorado Springs--home to Focus on the Family).

So, shed your stereotypes and pre-conceived notions. Get out to the red states, spend some time and get to know us. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, and I'm sure you'll feel welcome.

Colorado

Posted by: David Roberts at November 3, 2004 9:35 PM

I'm a Vietnam veteran. I voted for the re-election of President Bush largely on the basis of the war on terrorism issue and Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your photo of course is of the last Vietnamese refugees, those who were friends of America, dependants, and a host of others who were trying to flee Vietnam in its last hours before the arrival of North Vietnamese troops.

I find no satiric wit nor clever attempt at humor in the use of the photo. It's disgusting and, much like the left, shows that the right is as insensitive on many topics.

This is a frequent criticism of any satire, i.e., the material is too sensitive, brings back too many memories, etc. I don't know of any good way that someone making that contention can really succeed.

But this much I do know. I've seen that SAME photograph used by liberals, now conservatives, for their own purposes. The same photo. Think of that. The same photo. Different agenda? Maybe. But what attracts the right to the same image as the left?

Simplistic conslusion (but I like it anyway): both groups with their extemist views are completely divorced from where the rest of us live. It's not somewhere in a narrow defined middle. That's where the left and right wing live: in narrowly defined areas, perhaps in adjoining crawl spaces. We occupy the residency. And we're not "moderates" or "independents" or any other neat and handy label. More of us voted for Bush than for Kerry.

So some among us are more pleased after the election than those who are unhappy with its outcome. But neither the right nor the left should find any cheerful or happy (or this sad attempt to be always "clever") about what has happened.

The "red states" are largely filled with compassionate and understanding people who have values which include resisting terrorism, raising good families, and being left ALONE by extremists of all persuations.

So where are the Right Wing Extremists going, Nicaragua or Chile where they once mucked things up a good deal? Is there any haven now that Franco is dead? Perhaps some enclave in Africa where they can erect a high fence, keep out all the nasty natives with H.I.V., and set up a more proper defense than the old guard in South Africa? Maybe pack up the lot of you (not that many really) and move you to Afghanistan where you can enjoy the view while railing against the drug traffic and poppy crop while railing against it (but putting the profits in your pockets)?

I hope all the so-called Liberals in this country do "moveon"somewhere else just as the so-called Conservatives are packing their bags as well.

Or is all of this just a reflection of the jealousy the extreme right feels of the left wing which has generally now been their equal in the practice of idiocy?

And heck, you can use that Nam photo a second time while you turn the satire on yourselves? Hah. That will be the day.

Posted by: SteveoBrien at November 3, 2004 10:58 PM

Gene, i voted for Bush last month from Mosul, Iraq. True, I am from the ignorant unwashed South, but even in my county the republican victories(100%) were seldom more than 55-45. Besides the joy of an absentee ballot for Florida sent from the 'warzone', I had trouble putting into words my reason for initially supporting Bush. Kerrys constant blathering about whatever he thought we wanted to hear("I would have caught Osama" was the last straw for me) just made it easier to go with what i knew was right.
-assuming once 'informed' a mind can only reach your given conclusions is the Faith of the left
-had many Kerry supporters(most just anti-Bush) who were as ill-informed as my ignorant right leaning brethren, as you see in any college the impetus to 'rebel' feeds more liberal causes than any belief in the actual issues
-and if only picking Kerry because of anti-Bush feelings, good riddance to the fleeing enlightened intellectuals who couldn't find a more original and reasonable alternative course
-this election mirrored the country i have known for thirty years, what surprised you all was that you thought we were a myth...
The Silent Majority Has Spoken!

Posted by: kilr0y at November 3, 2004 11:00 PM

Steve,
you've got a point that I hadn't thought of. So I swapped it out for another one. Probably won't satisfy you since it references the same image. Still, it does speak to that point without directly exploiting that image.

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at November 3, 2004 11:29 PM

To all of you who believe that it was the "non-educated" people who voted for Bush, look at the demographics: More than sixty percent of the people who voted for Kerry had a high school education or LESS! More than sixty-five percent of the people who voted for Bush have at least some college. But don't send the liberals to Canada (they are good neighbors despite what people think), send them to one of the Muslim countries and see how they like it there.

George

Posted by: George Taplin at November 4, 2004 3:00 AM

Thanks for all the pro-bush explanations! I am sorry if I seemed to imply that all pro-Bush supporters were ignorant (never mentioned unwashed) -- obviously many are more informed than I am. And many pro-Kerry people are indeed not educated and/or are misinformed (BTW George where did you go demographic information?). Arguments based on the neocon agenda are at least arguments and certainly the idea of democracy spreading is quite appealing. But if Democracy can be sometimes be imposed by force, this obviously depends upon the situation -- Hopefully demoncracy will take hold in Iraq but it looks like a quaqmire at best to many (now and before the invasion). Moreover, Iraq was not an immediate threat and did attack us on 9/11 (also Sadaam might be characterized as a fascist but not an Islamo Fascist). BTW I have lots of relatives in the red states and know that red state people can be quite caring and welcoming. But I also know that many are quite insulated and their picture of the world is painted with broad "moral" strokes ("axis of evil" and the like) -- this tendency has been understandably amplified by the fear and anger elicited by 9/11. Unlike the debate found here, this tendency towards emotional righteous "reasoning" is, I still maintain, a bigger threat to democracy than is outside terroism. "Liberals" have likewise become VERY guilty of such righteous arguments. Americans of all types should try to quell such reactionary instincts and listen to reason from wherever it comes. I think when the emotional dust settles, we will all realize that Iraq was a collosal mistake. [and then there is the environment, the economy, stem cell research etc etc].

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 7:14 AM

Like (apparently) several people above, I think that Arab CULTURE is a theocratic feudal anachronism, which can only exist thanks to oil riches, and is incompatible with Western civilization. In a world without air travel and biological weapons, the West could have isolated Middle East and waited a few centuries for an Arab version of Reformation. As things stand now, we have no such luxury. Bush understands it. Kerry does not.

But another reason I voted for Bush is so obscure, probably one voter in a thousand even thought of it, and far fewer based their vote on it. That issue is - nuclear energy.

In my opinion, as a physicist and a computer scientist, nuclear power is the only realistic replacement for fossil fuels. Renewables such as wind and solar are too diffuse, too expensive, and if they are ever produced in significant amounts, their environmental impact is considerable. All anti-nuke hysteria notwithstanding, fission is FAR safer than oil and coal, and unlike renewables can be produced in quantities the world actually needs. Bush has shown support for nuclear power. Kerry showed nothing, but given Democratic Party's record on the issue, Kerry Administration would be certain to stop Bush initiatives in this field.

Although I did not think about it until Nov. 3rd, what I suspect sunk Kerry is that he ran a purely negative campaign. He defined himself as "un-Bush", without any coherent policies, other than vague bromides such as "more international involvement in Iraq". A week ago I read Kerry's space policy statement. That "space policy" manages not to mention words "shuttle" or "station" even once, yet mentions the word "Bush" nine times. That says something about the candidate.

Finally, speaking of "educated voters" - I noticed no lack of Bush support among engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists. And I live in Massachusetts!

Posted by: ilya2 at November 4, 2004 7:53 AM

You all might be amused (or not) by this:

http://mena.typepad.com/dollarshort/2004/11/canada_20.html

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 7:54 AM

Gene,
The emotional dust has settled on the right. That is how we made an educated decision and elected the right person to lead this nation. I have several friends that are Democrats and nearly every point they tried to make in discussions leading up to the election were motivated by nothing more than emotion. Just the fact that you cannot get by the old "quagmire" analogy and the reference to "the evironment, economy, stem cell research, etc." as a problem reflect this same mentallity.

The economic numbers for the GDP and unemployment are better than they were during Clinton's second campaign yet they were glorified then and not now. And when you take into account the fact that the 9/11 attack literally TKO'd our economy, that we've been able to recover to the point we're at now in such a short period of time is amazing.

Stem Cell research is a big red herring that Democrats love to toss around. Embryonic Stem Cells(which is what Kerry/Edwards were pushing for) will not even be tested in humans because there is overwhelming evidence that they cause serious(ie: inoperable) cancer in EVERY test where they have been used. President Bush is the ONLY president to allocate federal resources for stem cell research, just not Embryonic because there is no proof of their benefit yet.

As for Iraq, the 9/11 commision found that there was "No operational connection between Saddam and Al Qaida with regard to the attacks". This is to say, Saddam didn't help them with that particular attack. The amount of evidence linking Saddam, Osama, and Al Qaida is, quite frankly, stunning. Not to mention the mountains of evidence of Saddam's promotion and use of terrorism through numerous other avenues. When the President said we were fighting a war on terror, he didn't say "only those folks that we can definitively link to Al Qaida".

The fact that most Democrats are willing to ignore it all to forward a Liberal agenda is, to be honest, frightening.

When you get past the emotion, you can actually see.

~ Semper Fi ~

Posted by: Led_Boots at November 4, 2004 8:25 AM

Led_Boots,
Sorry but I didnt really catch your argument about my mentality. I was appealing for removing emotional name-calling from the debate. Quagmire is descriptive not an analogy -- do you really think things are going well in Iraq? Saddam was bad news alright, but there all lots of bad news dictators out there -- we cant take them all out by miltary force. We must choose our targets and methods carefully and intelligently. Time will tell (maybe) if the Iraq invasion was a net good but it looks bad to me. Regarding the economy , dont you think that the deficit is scary and must be reduced rather drastically if the next generation is not going to get stuck with the bill? The Bush tax cuts account for a large percentage of that deficit (simple math) so should we make that cut permanent? Why do you discount concerns about the environment? Do you think that concerns about global warming (for example) is simply unfounded? I agree that stem cell research is actually one of the smaller issues on the table but the argument against it was based on religious fundamentalism not on morality or scientific facts. Its that tendency towards moralistic thinking that I find to be the world's biggest threat...

sic transit gloria mundi

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 8:49 AM

Gene,

You keep harping about the voters not being informed. If you are right (and you're not,) what does that say about Micheal Moore, George Soros, the entirety of Hollywood, the Dixie Chicks, the MSM, the Histerical MSM (ie: Rather and the NYT,) MoveOn.Org, and all the other hacks who howled throughout the campaign? Not informed? I'd say you put your talking points out for all to see and the public was not swayed by it.

The public is smarter than you give them credit for - and they don't like to be talked down to. They looked at what you had to say and remain unimpressed.

The dems will not win if they distain and disparage the values of those they disagree with. If the dems don't respect the people, the people can't be expected to vote for them.

Posted by: Jason at November 4, 2004 8:56 AM

There was a legitimate winner, it may be to the sadness of some, but there was a clear winner. Arguing over who is better makes no sense anymore. Kerry conceded...Bush accepted and they both agreed it's time to come together as a country united, not divided. Everyone has good arguments and that tells me that people have strong beliefs to stand on. The problem is it's over, done, finished, etc... There is nothing we can do as Americans but:

Keep complaining.
Start moving forward.

I am no better than anyone here and feel that my vote counted and there is nothing more I can do. It's time to grow up and start trying to make this country better and more united. If you have children, you must help to make this country better no matter who is in charge! If you don't have children, you still have the same responsibility! We are Americans, whether left or right, we are Americans.

Let's start acting like Americans who care!

Posted by: Big Bob at November 4, 2004 8:57 AM

Jason -- I am making an honest attempt to understand the various reasons for supporting Bush. I appreciate and even sympathesize with some of those arguments (i.e. I find the neocon ideas seductive, but ultimately highly dangerous). Its true that MoveOn.Org, Moore etc propagated some suspect information. But so what? I didnt write-in Moore's name when I voted. I think that the Bush administration spread lots of misinformation and that is a much bigger problem. The Bush administration made an obvious and prolonged attempt to falsely link 9/11 with Iraq and many people bought into that. I find that frighteningly dishonest but apparently many dont --- I am just trying to appreciate their reasoning. Maybe Ill come around so help me out. More generally, such an exchange of information and views (rather than vitriol) is important dont you think? People on both sides of the Bush debate are baffled and angry. We must try to chase away the darkness that keeps each from understanding the other.

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 9:15 AM

Gene,
You must have mistunderstood something I wrote. I never called you anything but Gene in the entire post. As for reference to mentality, that goes to your assertion that conservatives are making their decisions about the war based only on emotion. I made several points to the contrary and outlined how the left is doing exactly what they accuse the right of and you respoond that I'm calling you names. The term "Quagmire" is used specifically to elicit an emotional response. I know for a fact that things are going extremly well in Iraq. Over 80% of the country is stable. Things are tough in a small portion of the country(and that will be corrected soon) but going very well despite efforts by some to disrupt things. As for your comment that the Bush tax cut's are the reason for the deficit, you aren't even willing to admit that the slowing economy(at the time), the 9/11 attack, and the war have no real effect, it's just those damn tax cuts. Wars cost alot of money. Money that we didn't intend on spending at the time but needed to spend none the less. It will be recovered exponentially if the tax cuts are left in place. Yes, all those cuts should be permanent and more should be implemented. No economy has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

Posted by: Led_Boots at November 4, 2004 9:20 AM

Big Bob -- I agree with you completely and have told my whiny liberal friends essentially that: Stop whining but keep arguing. I am going to stop both on this forum for abit as I have work to do. Love live freedom!

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 9:23 AM

I have an idea for everyone. If you feel that there is something wrong with this country, quit your freaking complaining and do something about it! Complaining about has done nothing but divide this country more. Shut up the bickering, no matter what side you're on! You are above the age where whining and moaning works. There are many things Bush could have done better, and there are many things that Kerry sttod for that were wrong. We are humans, and as humans we have the ability to solve problems. So quit complaining about your problems and try to fix them! So Kerry didn't win...does that mean it is time to give up hope(for Kerry followers) and just piss and moan? SO, Bush won, is it a time to gloat (Bush supporters) or mend bridges broken and continue on to better America as a whole? We are all in this together as a nation, no matter your beliefs!

Posted by: Bobby at November 4, 2004 9:35 AM

I'm off to Canada as soon as I can arrange it. I don't want to live in a country with a "gun toting", evangelical Christian group in charge. They've already destroyed the environment, are taking away our personal freedoms (bit by bit) and have saddled us with a war & deficit that we didn't have 4 years ago. They elected Bush on their VALUES, but feel that there's no problem killing our boys for no reason & slaughtering thousands of innocent Iraqis. Bye, bye . . .

Posted by: 2much4me at November 4, 2004 9:38 AM

2much4me,

One of the most offensively stupid comments ever made! I don't that you could survive in Canada!

NEW RULE--If you are under the age of 12 or at least your mind is, please do not write anything!

Posted by: Big Bob at November 4, 2004 9:45 AM

2much4me,

One of the most offensively stupid comments ever made! I don't that thaink you could survive in Canada!

NEW RULE--If you are under the age of 12 or at least your mind is, please do not write anything!

Posted by: Big Bob at November 4, 2004 9:45 AM

2much4me,

One of the most offensively stupid comments ever made! I don't that think you could survive in Canada!

NEW RULE--If you are under the age of 12 or at least your mind is, please do not write anything!

Posted by: Big Bob at November 4, 2004 9:45 AM

Dear 2 Much,
Can we call you a cab, pack you a bag lunch, oil the wheels of your little red wagon?

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at November 4, 2004 9:47 AM

If there are any lingering doubts about the benefits of liberating Iraq, try reading this.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_9114.shtml

There is no greater commodity than individual liberty.

Posted by: Led_Boots at November 4, 2004 9:55 AM

Gene--
I appreciate your open and thoughtful response. There are several other points I'd like to make about this campaign and election:

1) We have proved conclsively that the Viet Nam war is finally over,and the US won. Neither Kerry's absurd posturing as Cincinnatus "reporting for duty" nor the angry attempts of the SwiftVets to expose his distortions and exaggerations in his military record (driven by righteous anger over Kerry's postwar conduct) nor the media's repeated exhaustive attempts to prove that Bush was a deserter or AWOL in the Air Guard had any meaningful effect on the outcome. Can't we now bury this carcass and "move-on"?

2) The mainstream media have damaged themselves very badly--probably forfeiting their position as the only credible source of news and information. Rather's lame attempt to use forged documents and ridiculous "unimpeachable sources" to attack Bush's guard record, and ABC's internal memo telling reporters to go easy on Kerry because Bush was communicating his message more effectively are just a few of the outrageous examples. It is obvious to most of us that there is a leftist media bias, and they will never again have the naive trust of their viewers. Maybe it is inevitable (and constructive) that their ratings are declining,and that alternative news sources--talk radio and the internet sites and blogs are growing.

3) The mainstream media really gave Kerry a pass in this election. There is no excuse for this.
Why didn't they demand full release of Kerry's military records and the circumstances of his discharge--not recorded as an "honorable" discharge until Carter offered amnesty to deserters and those less than honorably discharged in the late '70s. Not that they were huge issues, but if these were questions about Bush, you and I know that they would have been pursued relentlessly.

What about Kerry and Theresa's tax records? Why weren't they fully disclosed, and why didn't the press demand disclosure? In all the "tax the rich" rhetoric, why didn't the media report that the Kerry's were paying a 12.8% on their income, well below the top rate and below the average rate paid by US families? If that were true of the Bushes, you know that it would have been widely publicized.

Similarly, why wasn't there a simple effort to compare Kerry and Bush's academic records, given the widespread assumption that Kerry is brilliant (because he is articulate) and Bush is a dolt (because he is not)? Bush went to Harvard B-School after Yale, Kerry went to Boston College Law School. I think that suggests that Kerry was a mediocre swtudent at Yale, and Bush did much better, but since Kerry refused to release his academic records, we will never know.

Then, there is the obvious question of Kerry's Senate record--why wasn't the record of his votes and the bills he introduced and sponsored reported by the networks, wire services and newspapers? Answer: it is embarassingly mediocre. Why not his attendacnce records in committees and votes? Same story...

I'm not trying to re-fight the election, but to point out that the media didn't pursue some obvious inquiries and press for disclosure from the candidate they favored. Obvious and shameful.

4) Looking at Iraq through the lense of Viet Nam has led many of us Baby Boomers astray. In Viet Nam, the news media did a good job (at first) in bringing new information about the conduct of the war to the American public. They were telling the real stories of what GIs in the field were experiencing, when those stories were being surpressed by LBJ, Bob MacNamara, Westmoreland and others in power. In Iraq, they didn't get out of the Green Zone and find out what is really going on. What all of us who know people on the ground in Iraq have heard from them is 100% different from what we hear in the mainstream media. I think the lense of the East Coast establishment--Viet Nam, Pentagon-avers, Eurocentric, UN oriented--put them way out of touch with what most of the people know from thier own personal sources.

You are more than entitled to think that Iraq will become a quagmire, but what is your solution? Contrary to what we learned in the 60s and 70s there is NOT a population bomb ticking in the developed coutries, but there IS one in the Muslim world. Over a billion people with much higher birth rates than the developed world, breeding frustrated young men in great numbers. Until we change the game, creating opportunities for these young people and their families, we will have to protect ourselves from their anger and frustration, given the democratization of firearms and explosives. As long as the repressive regimes in the Middle East blame the condition of their people on Western oppression and humiliation, supported by radical Islam, we will be the target of their anger. Take a look at Southeast Asia to see what can be achieved in a generation. This is what can also be done in Arab countries with educated people--Iraqis, Lebanese, Jordanians, Egyptians--and is the only feasible solution to combat terrorism. In the short run, we must discourage and disable them with force of arms; in the long run we need to make it more attractive for them to work and vote than to fight. That's why the neo-con vision of Muslim freedom and democracy, though astoundingly revolutionary and ambitious, makes sense for those of us willing to take the long term view.

David

Posted by: David at November 4, 2004 10:23 AM

Carole,
At least it should have been the RCMP lancer team rather than Haradrim guarding the border between Crookston and Winnepeg :-)

Posted by: Puzzled at November 4, 2004 11:18 AM

oh oh looks like cultural warfare has broken out again! Cant we all just get along? 2much4me, wheel your little red (or is it blue?) wagon back (good gas mileage I bet -- good for you!) and try to engage BigBob and the other good folks at this site without rancor ... We have to reign in those dumb and ancient parts of our brain that elicit an "us vs them" knee jerk response. Those instincts presumably served us well in our evolutionary past
but they have no current survival value. If we cant chat civilly here,we are not going to make it....

gene

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 1:24 PM

Was there supposed to be a joke in here? I didn't laugh. Tards.

Posted by: Bla at November 4, 2004 6:04 PM

Bla
What does "Tards" mean?

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 6:33 PM

"... And educated people will stay away from states in which people believe ... , that gay marriage is the one of the greatest problem facing the world (or anyone's damn business), "

Such as Califoria? Passed an amendment to their state constitution barring gay marrage in 2000. Passed by 60+%, I believe. Only two counties went against it, and one of those was San Francisco.

Face it, if gay marrage won't fly in California, it won't fly anywhere in the U.S.

Posted by: LarryD at November 4, 2004 6:45 PM

GO YOU LIBERAL BASTARDS. GO TO CANADA, OR BETTER YET, GO TO FRANCE.

RARU NOVEMBER 4, 2004

Posted by: RAY COUNTRYMAN at November 4, 2004 6:51 PM

LarryD -- I cant tell from your message whether you are a despondent gay man or anti-gay. If the latter, why do you think people become so fired up by the issue of gay marriage? And what is the justification for interfering with another person's freedom?

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 6:55 PM

RAY COUNTRYMAN, Not sure if I am a "liberal" but I know who my father is. And Im staying put. Do you have anything of substance to contribute?


g

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 7:00 PM

Great article. If the Left would do what they say they'd have some credibility. Its little wonder that Kerry lost given his record. We now see the same morlocks who said they'd leave digging in.

The problem with Kerry is that he had no plan for the election after he'd won the primaries. I guess there is a limit to even what the Canadians will tolerate.

Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at November 4, 2004 7:43 PM

another bush/iran related article:

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=316095

Posted by: gene at November 4, 2004 7:54 PM

Gene, I believe the highly articulate if humor challanged but aptly self-named "bla" meant with the use of the word "tards" was to call the participants of this discussion "retards" or "retarded."

In some circles, this word still cuts to the quick. Alas, those circles are pretty much composed of boys under the age of 9.

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at November 4, 2004 8:19 PM

Reading all the "smarts" on this blog make me so proud to be an American and having chance to vote for the leader of our entire country. Pres. Bush is on the job four years then I'll vote for someone else. In the meantime I support our soldiers and am humbled by their courage and dedication to duty with such honor. I read their blogs also. I do believe in one God. I pray for our country to someday be able to build tractors for farming instead of weapons for war. But evil abounds in this world and when good people turn their backs for whatever reason, evil will not rest. I've learned in life that if you see abuse and do nothing then you are not much better than the abuser. I lost family in WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam. Good men with families. Families now fat and sassy in America because they were kept safe by the sacrifice of young men who came home in boxes or lame. Weak people need dope to feel high, calm, or happy. I get high, calm or happy being reminded that I am citizen of the greatest country on the face of this planet. Thank you for allowing me write here. Great-Granny B

Posted by: Granny Jan at November 4, 2004 8:21 PM

Gene--
The connection of Iraq to 9/11 has been muddied by both sides. There is lots of circumstantial evidence of a link between OBL and Iraq through Sudan. After the first Gulf war Iraq outsourced a lot of its chemical and bio weapons development and production to Sudan, where OBL was also active building roads and factories for the new Sudanese Islamist regime using his family construction company. Among the factories he built was the "aspirin factory" that we hit with cruise missles after the African embassy bombings. For more info, look at "The Connection" by Stephen Hayes.

The broader question of Saddam's links to and support of the transnational Islamic terrorists is far easier to establish--training facilites, harboring Abu Nidal, supporting the Islamic "fighters" along the Iranina border in Kurdistan, funding the Palestinian suicide bombers, etc. So, the link you seek depends on the definition--if you define it narrowly enough, you can't find it, but if you think more broady, it is clear that Saddam was helping our enemies.

I am one that doesn't believe we need legal proof beyond reasonable doubt of a tightly defined linkage--I lost too many friends and family on 9/11 to take any comfort in legal niceties. I firmly believe that Iraq was trying to undermine our country, support our enemies and kill our people. I'm not waiting for another murderous attack to prove their bad intent.

By the way, I also believe that in time we will conclude 2 things about Iraq's WMD program. First,that Saddam wanted everyone in the world, especially the Iranians and the Saudis to believe that he had WMD as a deterrent to his enemies. However, he overplayed his bluff, and actually got most of the world to believe that he had more active weapons and production capability than he actually did. Too bad he was such a good actor, he created the case for war by overplaying his hand.

Second, we will find that the actual weapons and their supporting research and production equipment were hidden and/or moved to Syria and perhaps to Iran. Remember that there are still planes fron the Iraqi air force stranded in Iran where they were moved in the run-up to the first Gulf War..Hope that clarifies how an educated, internationally oriented person could support regime change in Iraq...

Posted by: David at November 4, 2004 10:22 PM

Crookston? You forget the proud cities of Hallock, Stephen, Argyle and Warren. Not to mention Angus and what ever the name of that other town is.

Posted by: stan at November 5, 2004 7:23 AM

David,
Dont want to rehash that debate (I do think you overstate the link - you have heard those arguments) but I think you have to define the link quite broadly to justify the invasion of Iraq on the basis of a retaliation for 9/11. Even the Bush administration has been careful to not explicitly offer that argument. They linked Iraq and 9/11 simply by mentioning them in the same breath again and again. The evidence of a DIRECT link was very very much less than a reasonable doubt. You can make the argument that the invasion was preemptive to avoid another 9/11 type invasion but I think that is a very dangerous slippery slope. Saddam was fairly well contained. There are very very many potential threats out there on the horizon if we define the link broadly enough. We could have invaded a host of countries out there on the basis of such links (I know that some of you want to do just that!). We must chose our targets wisely, not on the basis of emotion. We must also chose policies that minimize the creation of terroists (the Bush team needs to be more involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict). I agree, in theory, with those that want to spread democracy but think the neocons have misunderestimated (I apologize!) the ease with which that will happen. But there is a grand "experiment" (unfortunately involving the daily loss of many lives) taking place in Iraq, lets see what happens.

Posted by: gene at November 5, 2004 7:24 AM

Gene--

I'll be the first to agree that we don't know how the experiment will turn out, even in Afghanistan. But, if we take the long view (say the last 100 years or so) I think we will both agree that democracy is the long term outcome for most societies on the planet, and that it is a good thing for all.

With regard to the 9/11 link to Iraq, I really do think that it is a problem of definition. I agree with you that there is no clear chain of evidence that would prove Saddam's involvement in the 9/11 attack; certainly not to the standards we would demand in a US criminal court.

However, I believe that is the wrong question. There certainly have been many terrorist attacks on US and Western targets by Islamic radicals going back many years--Munich, Klinghoffer, Lebanon, the East African embassies, the Cole, the '93 truck bomb at the WTC, etc. Also, there have been many other attempts which have been thwarted. Even if you don't accept the "one per week" that Tom Ridge cites, there were the Algerians trying to bring explosives across the border from Canada, the shoe bomber, etc.

So, I think we must ask the broader question--not simply Saddam's link to the specific 9/11 attack, narrowly defined. That's just the most obvious and most successful attack we have experienced in a much larger and more extensive war. It implies that if 9/11 hadn't occurred, or hadn't succeded, we would not be justified in using our military to attack the terrorists. Rather, I think we have to consider a country's role in sheltering, funding and supporting the broader multi-headed Islamic terrorist phenomenon. If we define the problem this way, Saddam's regime was a threat to the US, as I argued in my earlier post. And, as Cheney said in the debate, the intersection of Saddam's WMD efforts with the growing Islamic terrorist movement would have been a much more serious threat in the future.

In my personal opinion, Saddam's violation of the terms for the cease-fire gave us the justification to invade and push him out (that's what I mean by overplaying his hand). However, if he hadn't blundered, I think we eventually would have found a way to get him out.

I don't believe that he was "well-contained" and I think that the eventual full report on his WMD program will establish that fact. Not that Iraq was about to directly attack or invade the US or even Israel, Saddam was to clever to get caught at something like that. He would supply the terrorists with training, money and WMD, and defy us to prove his involvement. This is what Bush meant after 9/11 that nations are either with us or with the terrorist--it's pretty clear to me that Saddam was with the terrorists.

Now, I'm not in favor of invading every country that has links to or has supported the Islamic terrorists in some way. I agree with you that we must choose our targets wisely. In an ideal world, Iran is the most serious threat we face. The mullahs are funding many terrorist organizations (Hezbollah, for example) although these are more of a threat to Israel at the moment. Their oil revenue, their ambitions to spread the theocratic Islamic state and their development of nuclear weapons are probably the most serious threat we face for the next five to ten years. The only reason to invade Iraq before we dealt with Iran is that Saddam gave us the reason we needed. Carpe Diem.

I really do think that there was/is an "Axis of Evil" defined as states who support terrorist attacks on innocent civilian populations for political purposes. Perhaps this was not a very diplomatic statement, but it was accurate. Before we invaded Afghanistan i would have added Pakistan to the list (i.e Dr. Kahn's nuclear technology sales). All are/were working on developing nuclear weapons, and have shown little restraint in selling arms to and/or providing support for the terrorist organizations

To me, one of the most astounding diplomatic achievements of the Bush administration was gaining the support of Pakistani Presisdent Mushareff. Despite Pakistan's religious, ethnic and financial links to the Taliban, we somehow persuaded Mushareff to "stand with us". Without Pakistan's support, the invasion of Afghanistan would have been much, much harder. Contrast that to NATO ally Turkey's reluctance to let us use their airspace and territory to support a drive south into western Iraq to seal the border with Syria in Gulf War II.

Re: Israel/Palestine, I would dearly like to see that boil lanced. Perhaps with Arafat's death, we will have a chance to re-open discussions. After Arafat pulled out of the Camp David agreement, I think that Bush, Rice and Powell decided that there was not going to be a negotiated solution as long as he led the Palestinians. Now, with new leadership and new "facts on the ground"--such as Israel's withdrawal from Gasa and the erection of the wall/security barrier, we may get some pragmatic leadership from the Palestinians. Perhaps they will finally realize that they only get rhetorical support from their Arab brothers, and figure out that they are being used as a pawn and a distraction device by their so-called friends.

So, I think I'm out of new ideas and explanations here--thanks for reading and thinking. Let's watch what happens in the next four years.

May you live in interesting times...

Posted by: David at November 5, 2004 11:33 AM

David,
No time to respond in detail now except to note that that your "May you live in interesting times .." has been said to be a chinese curse. The actual origin is uncertain but may be from chinese proverb roughly translated as, "It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time that be a man in a chaotic period." Id rather be a man in either case. But yes its damn interesting thats for sure. Lets hope that the chaos is kept to a minimum.

Posted by: gene at November 5, 2004 6:38 PM

Gene:

Thanks for your condescension. Just as an example of how "stupid" and "ignorant" some Bush supporters are:

* I have two Ph.D.s, am fluent in five languages (plus bits and pieces of three more), and have a job that some people would kill for. (I am considered a minor authority in my line of work --- which is the reason why I blog under an alias.)

* My wife speaks six languages, is a concert-level classical musician, and has two college degrees. She knows enough about some "different cultures" to write a book about one of them.

Yet she voted Bush (her first-ever Republican vote: she is a registered Democrat), and I would have if I had American citizenship.

A number of things drove me away from the left. Its insufferable intellectual condescension towards those who dissent from it was not the chief factor, but an important one nonetheless. It is good to remember sometimes why one slammed the door on one's old home.

Posted by: Former Belgian at November 7, 2004 3:35 AM

Former Belgian,
Sorry for sounding condescending. You are responding to my early messages I guess. Those thoughts arose from talking to my colleagues (scientists -- American, European, and Asian) who apppear rather overwhelmingly anti-Bush. Obviously there are very many educated smart pro-Bush supporters (some of my best friends..). I am trying to figure out the basis of these support. Most of what I hear at this site is basically an embracing of the neocon agenda. These pro-Bush arguments are well articulated(though I still think they are very wrong). It is true that I have been guilty of thinking that much Bush support came from voters with narrow concerns (again from my view) about Gay marriage and the like. This view was re-inforced by finding that many Bush supporters have never even heard of the neocons, still think that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11, etc. I thank all of those responding with thoughtful comments.

Posted by: gene at November 7, 2004 8:55 AM

Neoconservative is a pejorative term that only those on the left use. Iím so sick of the righteous know-it-all types who condescend to anyone who would be ďstupid enoughĒ to vote for Bush. You really donít know why people voted for Bush? Does it really seem to you as though Kerry was such an ideal replacement?

I will not tell you that I believe Bush is an ideal president, heís far from being one. I will tell you, however, that for many people party trumps person. In an election where both candidates are flawed we vote for the party that corresponds more closely with our beliefs.

So, why did I vote for GOP? Because the GOP represents:
-relatively smaller government (neither party is an advocate of small government)
-the promotion of business (I donít think corporations are evil as some do, and the GOP is more business friendly)
-school vouchers (i donít think throwing money at the problem will fix our schools)
-strong national defense (not because I want to bomb anything that moves in the middle east)
-lower taxes (Anyone who pays taxes should get a tax cut, and Bushís ďtax cut for the richĒ were not just for the rich)
-less government spending (this is my biggest disappointment with Bush)
-the privatization of social security (government is inefficient and Iím for privatizing most things)
-the promotion of US interests even when they donít correspond with those of the UN. (The UN is in desperate need of some modernization.....why does France get a veto again? Why doesnít India or Pakistan?)
-free trade (protectionism is economically inefficient)
-work-visa programs (letíem work...and pay taxes)
-and more.....

And finally, Iím for the invasion of Canada. Itís a terrorist state and Iím convinced that they have WMDs. Besides, it'll only take a day or two and it will ease our reliance on mid-east oil. :-)

Posted by: ConservativeByTheBay at November 7, 2004 4:56 PM

I didnt intend it as perjorative but agree that it is unclear what it encompasses. More generally, and unfortunately, almost all political labels have become dirty words ... Maybe we should invent new ones? I was referring mostly to the foreign policy agenda of the PNAC, which the Bush administration is following and many Bush supporters appear to ignorant of. Yes by all means lets invade Canada.

Posted by: gene at November 7, 2004 6:30 PM

Very interesting political satire, I am Canadian and hey our Government will take anyone from any country, particularly if they have a criminal record. As one observer said we don't need anymore liberals, they have systematically eroded our military and made a mockery of our parliament. I for one is very pro United States, in case of an attack, who would be the first to help. I'm sick of politicians on both sides of the borders, painting each other side with the same brush, case in point Carolyn Parrish, MP for Mississaugua who three times has made venomous comments about americans and not once has been relegated to the back benches. It was suggested by someone in Canada, for every American we let across the border, the U.S. will let one of our Canadian beef cows maybe that will open the border. god bless our cooperation and friendship Don

Posted by: don at November 10, 2004 8:38 AM

Very interesting political satire, I am Canadian and hey our Government will take anyone from any country, particularly if they have a criminal record. As one observer said we don't need anymore liberals, they have systematically eroded our military and made a mockery of our parliament. I for one is very pro United States, in case of an attack, who would be the first to help. I'm sick of politicians on both sides of the borders, painting each other side with the same brush, case in point Carolyn Parrish, MP for Mississaugua who three times has made venomous comments about americans and not once has been relegated to the back benches. It was suggested by someone in Canada, for every American we let across the border, the U.S. will let one of our Canadian beef cows maybe that will open the border. god bless our cooperation and friendship Don

Posted by: don at November 10, 2004 8:38 AM

Hey Don, our cattle are no more tainted with BSE than any cattle found in the U.S.A. The bad beef scare was a hoax perpetrated by the U.S. media to keep our dollar from appreciating too fast. In fact, much of the shrill crap found in the media regarding our two countries has its roots in the quickly depreciating American dollar. The Canadian dollar would appreciate much more quickly if it wasn't for 'manufactured' news events to manage a controlled rise.

As for Americans coming to Canada, I expect more of this. Like Gold, the higher it goes up, the more people want it. Canada, through the mirror of it's appreciating currency, will act the same way. By the time we are at parity, in about 4 to 8 years, we'll have over half a million new Americans calling Canada home.

Posted by: peter at November 14, 2004 1:31 PM