Us presidential election 2004

[seafire6 0]

Happily I can report to you that I am a male, unhappily I can see that this forum is a bastion of libralism. You guys just don't 'get it' and by that I'm not being condescending or insulting, as I've seen others here demonstrate. I'm mature enough to disagree without the barbs. Hussein could have easily avoided the war by simply abiding by the UN resolution that was passed unanimously and threatened "serious consequences" if he didn't comply with full accounting and unlimited inspections. So no one was tricked into into war, Bush even stated to the UN if they didn't stick to the teeth of the resolution, others would led by the US. As far as trusting news sources I think my friend of over 10 years is being truthful and actually I've heard very simlar descriptions from many friends returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. First hand accounts from those actually there without an agenda to push in personal conversation.

It will probably surprise you all that I'm not a republican and voted for Clinton twice and Gore the last go around. I do understand your reservations about Iraq and Bush; I havn't agreed with all of his decisions, but he is the better alternative to Kerry. I don't dislike Kerry but I think Liebermann would have been a better alternative, but he didnt pick up much support. Its just my opinion as you all have yours.

N. Korea will have to be dealt with differently and with much help from China. China or at least part of its leaders wants to join the world and become a respected player in world events, not just their region so this offers them an opportunity to prove themselves. Their growing economy and increasing energy needs pretty much mandates this approach and again conflict at/near home is bad for business. In any case N Korea is at least partly their creation, so Frankenstein in a sense is returning home. Also the hard liners wouldn't likely tolerate the US making preemptive move there.

One last thought to those who felt my reasoning was rubbish. Chaos is bad. People suffer and mutiply creating whole generations of those who see no future and no alternative than to pick up a gun or a bomb belt and who else better to hate than the US even before Bush/Clinton...

I really hope that as Bono as preached we can truly take a more active role in fighting AIDS and perhaps in the process not only save lives but transform their lives and their goverment.

[Bernadotte 0]

I do understand your reservations about Iraq and Bush; I havn't agreed with all of his decisions, but he is the better alternative to Kerry.

Why?  

[seafire6 0]

To Bernadotte, because I believe he does 'get it'. I believe that he will be proactive rather than reactive, and not meaning invading any country we wish but hopefully to exert all means possible to bring positive changes to areas otherwise too long ignored. I'm sure he like most politicians will fall short of the goal but at least he has the guts to try. We are currently paying a bitter price for too long ignoring places in the world where it wasn't expedient or popular to try and change. Idealistic ? probably but you got to start somewhere. You would surprised how much of my reserve depoyment time with the navy, usually in support of the marines, is spent giving care to the natives of wherever we find ourselves and there is a world of good to be done out there.

[billybob2002 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....t_911_2

Quote[/b] ]

Moore to Pursue Best Picture Oscar

Mon Sep 6, 6:51 PM ET  

By ANTHONY BREZNICAN, AP Entertainment Writer

LOS ANGELES - Michael Moore says he won't submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration as best documentary at this year's Academy Awards (news - web sites). Instead, he's going for the bigger prize of best picture.

AP Photo

 

Moore's critically acclaimed film slams President Bush (news - web sites)'s war on terror as ill-advised and corrupt. The movie has cheered Democrats but enraged the president's supporters, who booed Moore when he visited the Republican National Convention last week.

"For me the real Oscar would be Bush's defeat on Nov. 2," Moore told The Associated Press during a phone interview Monday from New York.

The $6 million film has become a sensation that collected $117.3 million in the United States this summer, despite an early roadblock when the Walt Disney Co. banned its Miramax Films division from distributing the political hot-potato.

In the midst of the presidential campaign, Moore's announcement is a strategic move for his Oscar campaign. Documentaries and animated films have their own categories, but the conventional wisdom in Hollywood is that those niche awards can limit a film's appeal in the overall best picture class.

Moore said he and his producing partner, Harvey Weinstein, agreed "Fahrenheit 9/11" would stand a better chance if they focused solely on the top Oscar.

He also said he wanted to be "supportive of my teammates in nonfiction film."

So many documentaries — such as the gonzo fast-food satire "Super Size Me" and the sober look at Arab television news in "Control Room" — have made the rounds in theaters recently that Moore, who won the best documentary Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine," said he wanted to give others a chance.

"It's not that I want to be disrespectful and say I don't ever want to win a (documentary) Oscar again," Moore said. "This just seems like the right thing to do. ... I don't want to take away from the other nominees and the attention that they richly deserve."

Moore also hinted in a recent interview in Rolling Stone he would like the movie to play on television before the presidential election. According to the rules of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (news - web sites), playing on TV would invalidate its contention in the documentary category, but not for best picture. With the movie coming out on DVD Oct. 5, it's not clear whether the TV deal would happen.

Regardless of who wins the election, Moore said the movie's presence at the Academy Awards in February will provide another forum for Americans to think about its message.

"The issues in the film — terrorism, the war on terrorism, the Iraq (news - web sites) war — will be with us five months from now, sadly," Moore said. "The issues that the film raises will be no less relevant, in the new year."

I cannot see his movie playing on network television. It would be like that Reagan movie and be bumped to cable. I personally believe his movie should be played after the election because his film can is not truth but a mixture of a lot things (half-truths; falsehood; and etc.). It does not take a rocket scientist that Moore wants Bush out of the white house and he thinks his film can do it.

*Please do not give me that BS about you never saw the movie. My fucking philosophy teacher basically over the summer ran her mouth about that movie. Sometimes I had to put her in place because she ran her mouth like some parts were the truth. Anyway, she missed me up from getting a 4.00. Why she have to give me a B....

[Bernadotte 0]

I personally believe his movie should be played after the election because his film can is not truth but a mixture of a lot things (half-truths; falsehood; and etc.).

It holds a lot more truth and relevance than the Swift Boat ads and we don't see you disagreeing with their repeated broadcast on network TV.

[Kuja- 0]

Democracy is an exercise in naive idealism, giving people the fuzzy feeling that they have the ability to determine the future direction of the country in exchange for gross inefficiency and decision making which is essentially a lottery based on specious moral arguments and ignorance.

This thread is no different. It strikes me that it is abhorrent to have people voting on little more than what they personally feel (with no education in the relevant areas) is correct policy, largely guided by media reports, which, to quote Oscar Wilde:

Quote[/b] ]By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.

Of course, this stance will be attacked. However, it amusing how frequently I am vindicated when I refer to my litmus-test-for-unfounded-political-beliefs* free trade. The number of politically-active individuals who unhesitatingly respond 'free trade is evil', thus bringing all their other similarly baseless opinions into doubt....quite funny

*which is actually a misnomer - nothing is intrinsically political - politics is based on real world issues. You, nor the media, do not automatically assume the knowledge of experts, or at least knowledge sufficient to make a competent decision, as soon as an issue becomes 'political'. It is amusing to see how a subject that people would ordinarily never profess to be informed upon instantly are capable of lengthy (albeit pointless) debate when it enters the political arena. War materiel, international relations, quantum physics, stem cell research, the economy - oh yeah, I know all about those!

[denoir 0]

Hussein could have easily avoided the war by simply abiding by the UN resolution that was passed unanimously and threatened "serious consequences" if he didn't comply with full accounting and unlimited inspections. So no one was tricked into into war, Bush even stated to the UN if they didn't stick to the teeth of the resolution, others would led by the US.  

The term "serious consequences" was introduced as a compromise between the US "we'll bomb you" and the rest "we don't care". There was never a security council approval of the war. And a war resolution wouldn't have passed because a majority of the countries were against, including some with veto power.

From a legal perspective that makes the US invasion of Iraq equally illegal as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Quote[/b] ]As far as trusting news sources I think my friend of over 10 years is being truthful and actually I've heard very simlar descriptions from many friends returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.  First hand accounts from those actually there  without an agenda to push in personal conversation.

I'm not questioning their honesty, I'm questioning their experience. What one person sees is very limited, especially as a westener. The guys killing your troops arn't exactly going to hang out and debate with American doctors.

There are three primary indicators, which I now bring up the third time - after you have flatly ignored them.

1. Statistically reliable opinion polls - that show that a majority of Iraqis think that things are as bad or worse than under Saddam. A majority think the occupation was a 'humiliation' to Iraq and over 30% support the killing of US troops.

2. Rebuilding process. In may the world bank reported that out of thousands of planned projects, only a dozen had been started. There is no shortage of money, but an acute shortage of people willing to risk their lives.

3. For Afghanistan, the best indicator is that all the help organisations have left because of the anarchy. The Doctors Without Borders, which you will find in any shithole on earth where nobody else dares to go, have left the country after a 26 year presence.

Quote[/b] ]People suffer and mutiply creating whole generations of those who see no future and no alternative than to pick up a gun or a bomb belt and who else better to hate than the US even before Bush/Clinton...

Yes, Bin Laden is a perfect example of poverty and desperation leading to terrorism  

Seriously, you can't expect people to like you better when you start dropping bombs on them. The idea that establishing a democratic Iraq will show the Arabs how great the US is... well, it has a certain "My Pet Goat" level of reality to it. And the Iraqis are far from the only problem. The invasion was seen as a humiliation by most Arab countries. Not to mention that having a Christian fundamentalist like Bush leading it isn't quite the way to get along with the Muslim world.

Quote[/b] ]We are currently paying a bitter price for too long ignoring places in the world where it wasn't expedient or popular to try and change.

Hehee. That's a good one.

It's the exact opposite. You are currently paying a bitter price for playing short-sighted realpolitk games. Who helped Saddam get WMD in the first place - to fight Iran?

Who armed and financed Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets?

And that's the ultimate irony - you got in this place by pissing off a lot of people through your direct and indirect meddling in their business. And now you are trying to fix things by doing it all over again.

The overall trademark of Bush as a 'war time president' is the astonishingly short sighted thinking. This ranging from practical invasion to the long term problems that you've created. You have created at a couple of generations of future terrorists that will hurt you later.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Hussein could have easily avoided the war by simply abiding by the UN resolution that was passed unanimously and threatened "serious consequences" if he didn't comply with full accounting and unlimited inspections. So no one was tricked into into war, Bush even stated to the UN if they didn't stick to the teeth of the resolution, others would led by the US.  

and Iraq was abiding by the resolution 4226(?) until Bush decided to push in. the inspectors asked US to provide locations of WMD which never happened. the ultimate failure lies on TBA to cooperate with UN and let the whole thing work at the first place.

Quote[/b] ]As far as trusting news sources I think my friend of over 10 years is being truthful and actually I've heard very simlar descriptions from many friends returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. First hand accounts from those actually there without an agenda to push in personal conversation.

Goebels thought Hitler was a good friend and truthful.

Quote[/b] ]I really hope that as Bono as preached we can truly take a more active role in fighting AIDS and perhaps in the process not only save lives but transform their lives and their goverment.

use of condomns, along WITH abstinence is the key. but guess which one TBA prefers?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well, at least the pattern seems to be holding up. Also: uni kicks ass.

Quote[/b] ]Happily I can report to you that I am a male, unhappily I can see that this forum is a bastion of libralism.

I made it this far, and then it was all just white noise.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

seafire... go look up liberalism. And afterwards you can tell me what negative connotation this term has!

resembles to:

I am unhappy that this forum is so "open minded".

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ] N. Korea will have to be dealt with differently and with much help from China.In any case N Korea is at least partly their creation, so Frankenstein in a sense is returning home. Also the hard liners wouldn't likely tolerate the US making preemptive move there.

seafire6 now we are geting somewhere.So you do realise that in fact Bush is not a "strong" "decisive" leader but an opourtunist who realised that unlike North Korea,Saddam Hussein has an army devastated by 12 years of sanctions,an inexistant air force and no nuclear capability but instead vast suplies of a critial resource.

So why else could you possibly vote for Bush,even some republicans acknowledge that Kerry would handle the economy better as it is an obvious fact.

Quote[/b] ] China or at least part of its leaders wants to join the world and become a respected player in world events, not just their region so this offers them an opportunity to prove themselves. Their growing economy and increasing energy needs pretty much mandates this approach and again conflict at/near home is bad for business.

So a country led by a dictator,responsable for the masacre of thousands of students is ok with you just as long it has a growing economy?

Quote[/b] ]Chaos is bad.

Tell me about it.Look at Iraq,they are masacrated in their own country.Just like they were in 1991 when the US government refused to back the Shia uprising as they promised leading to tens of thouands of deaths.

So I must ask as I can see you condone better relatioship with countries led by dictators,negotiations with countries that threathend USA,how can you suport a war against Iraq knowing what you know now.

Again I must raise your attention at the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed.Dozens more are killed on a daily basis.

Thousands of children,fathers,mothers killed as a result of this war,would you like to explain your per capita GDP and globalisation theories to the orphans,widows and the vast majority of Iraqis who never wanted this war?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

well.. am I right or wrong but in the current polls I see Bush leading 60 to 40.

[seafire6 0]

Its clear that I'm wasting my fingertips here.Hell there's even someone here talking about how futile democrasy is for the people. I'm very happy though that at least we have the freedom to disagree on these things. I think it will be a close election but not even for so much foreign issues as much as econmic reasons. Ultimately though I think he will win.

Oh and Denoir for all of your arrogance and dogmatic thinking you'd make a fine American.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So why else could you possibly vote for Bush,even some republicans acknowledge that Kerry would handle the economy better as it is an obvious fact.

Some democrats think Bush would handle the economy better..

Quote[/b] ]well.. am I right or wrong but in the current polls I see Bush leading 60 to 40.

Bernadotte.......

Quote[/b] ]

It holds a lot more truth and relevance than the Swift Boat ads and we don't see you disagreeing with their repeated broadcast on network TV.

So, you are comparing a 30 sec or so ad against a movie.... Furthermore, I have rarely (never) seen those ads on my local channels. But, about three times on cable.

To get Billybob's seal of approval....During Moore's movie, they should show how he disrespect the american public overseas and have people disprove some of his truths. Moore will never do it...

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]It holds a lot more truth and relevance than the Swift Boat ads and we don't see you disagreeing with their repeated broadcast on network TV.

So, you are comparing a 30 sec or so ad against a movie....

No, I'm comparing a documentary that TV viewers would have the choice to watch at a predetermined time with a series of 30 second ads played repeatedly over several months that viewers don't have much choice about watching if they don't want to miss any of their favourite program.

And naturally you've come down against the freedom to choose.  

[xawery 0]

Oh and Denoir for all of your arrogance and dogmatic thinking you'd make a fine American.

Oh this is rich. Naturally I don't doubt that Denoir is more than capable of defending himself (even though defending may be too big a word in this case), but I feel compelled to comment.

Denoir has done little else than post facts and well-founded analyses which can be easily confirmed by verifiable statistical data. This is more than can be said of the fundaments of your arguments, which are little more than hearsay.

Still, you have the nerve to call Denoir arrogant and dogmatic. The biting irony of this all is only heightened by the fact that it is you, good sir, who gives a blatant display of nationalistic arrogance by suggesting that Denoir would "make a good American". I am truly amazed at this sentence. What in the Lord's name was going through your head when you wrote it?

Furthermore, your calling this forum "a bastion of libralism" (sic!) is another myopic projection of American political conditions on the rest of the world. This surprises me. You seem an educated man, and judging by your statement that Denoir would "make a fine American", you are also aware that the majority of posters on this forum is not a denizen of the USA. You would thus do well to bear in mind that the rest of the world does not fit in the dichotomous political structure of the USA, and that by labelling this forum as "libral" (in the American sense of the word, which incidentally does not correspond with the meaning the rest of the world attaches to it) you commit a gross over-generalisation.

On another note, it is my opinion that the aforementioned dichotomy in the anglo-saxon political systems is the breeding ground of mediocrity and lack of variety in actions: both parties start to resemble each other in the battle for the political centre. Just look at the UK - there is de facto very little difference between Labour and the Tories. As a matter of fact, the Tories are in deep crisis because Labour 'stole' the majority of their action items (I suggest reading the last issue of the Economist for more details). But this is a subject for a whole different thread.

kind regards,

Xawery

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Okay... wow... quite a lot of new difficult terms ... PLEASE take into consideration that there are semi-intellectual germans here that might have slight problems with the terms you used in your posts!

Runs into the library to search for grandpas Oxford dictionary of 1875!

[Akira 0]

OMG! OMG! OMG!

Quote[/b] ]Bush: OB-GYNs Kept from 'Practicing Their Love'

Tue Sep 7, 9:27 AM ET

POPLAR BLUFF, Mo. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) offered an unexpected reason on Monday for cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

The Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, included the anecdote about obstetrician gynecologists in his stump speech attacking Democratic presidential rival Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites), a former trial lawyer.

At a rally of cheering supporters in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Bush made his usual pitch for limiting "frivolous lawsuits" that he said drive up the cost of health care and run doctors out of business.

But then he added, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

Unfazed, Bush went on to deride his rivals as "pro-trial lawyer," and concluded, "I think you've got to make a choice. My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket. I made my choice. I'm for medical liability reform now."

Super Idiot strikes again!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]To get Billybob's seal of approval....During Moore's movie, they should show how he disrespect the american public overseas and have people disprove some of his truths.

To get Balschoiws approval: Never talk about a movie you haven´t seen at all.

Else you´ll look like a complete ignorant, mangling with hot air...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]Else you´ll look like a complete ignorant, mangling with hot air...

okay... well that is about an 80% approximation to the definition of an "AlbertSchweizer."

[ralphwiggum 6]

.

http://money.cnn.com/2004....cnn=yes

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. budget deficit will balloon to $2.29 trillion over the next decade, congressional analysts said Tuesday. This represents a worse outlook than previously forecast and one likely to stir election-year debate about President Bush's economic policies.

The forecast from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office compares to its March outlook for a cumulative deficit of $2.01 trillion for the 2005-2014 period, if current economic policies stay the same.

"The outlook in terms of the deficits in 2004 and 2005 has improved, but the projection of the cumulative deficit over the 2005-2014 period has worsened," the CBO said in a summer update of its budget outlook.

The CBO confirmed a preliminary forecast made in August for a record deficit of $422 billion for the 2004 fiscal year.

That number compares to the White House's latest deficit outlook of $445 billion for this year and was better than earlier estimates. The White House no longer provides a 10-year deficit forecast.

CBO is expecting the deficit to decline to $348 billion in 2005, if current laws and policies do not change.

"This report underscores that our policies are working to create a stronger economy, more jobs and a lower deficit," said House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican.

The economy, particularly the deficit, has become a key theme between the two presidential candidates.

Bush blames the 2001 recession, the costs of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terror for the growing budget shortfall.

Democrats say Bush's tax cuts are responsible for turning the surplus he inherited into a record deficit, which they say threatens the future of Social Security and the Medicare health-care program for the elderly.

"Only George W. Bush could celebrate over a record budget deficit of $422 billion," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said in a statement Tuesday.

Kerry said he has a plan to restore fiscal discipline, rein in "out of control" spending and cut the deficit in half in four years.

CBO warned that even if the economy grows more rapidly than projected, "significant long-term strains" on the budget will get worse within the next decade as the baby-boomers begin to retire.

The report projects economic growth of 4.5 percent in 2004 and a slightly slower 4.1 percent next year.

CBO also forecasts that the federal government will reach its $7.384 trillion debt limit in October.

The U.S. Treasury has asked Congress to raise the borrowing ceiling for the third time in three years, a sensitive vote Republicans would like to avoid ahead of the election.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]To get Balschoiws approval: Never talk about a movie you haven´t seen at all.

Else you´ll look like a complete ignorant, mangling with hot air...

Hmm.... You must of skipped the rest of post about my rant of my philosophy teacher..... I do not want to movie to be aired on network television and even cable before the election (I not saying a ban) because there is nothing really to balance it. It is no secret that Moore would like to movie to kick Bush out. He talks about his movie will stirring up a debate which is BS for him. He goes for the petty shit when on talk shows like would you give up your daughter/son for the Fallujah fight when he knows he is backed in a corner about his movie. Anyway, I have no problems with political ads because both sides have them and most are BS. For example, the swift boat ads attacked Kerry's service during Vietnam and after the war. While, the moveon folks attack Bush's NG and accuse him of being AWOL. Again, I do not have to see the movie because I already know a lot of that stuff and Moore's movie is not the complete truth. Only Bush can do that!!! It was sad that my philosophy was saying crap about that movie like it was the truth and some of the shit was not.

So, shut-up...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Kerry said he has a plan to restore fiscal discipline, rein in "out of control" spending and cut the deficit in half in four years.

He still thinks that taken back the tax cut for the upper class is going to pay for his healthcare; education; and etc..... I wonder what is he going to cut like Bush will have to do....

Quote[/b] ]

CBO warned that even if the economy grows more rapidly than projected, "significant long-term strains" on the budget will get worse within the next decade as the baby-boomers begin to retire.

What to do what the baby-bommers.... *evil laugh*

[denoir 0]

Its clear that I'm wasting my fingertips here.Hell there's even someone here talking about how futile democrasy is for the people. I'm very happy though that at least we have the freedom to disagree on these things. I think it will be a close election but not even for so much foreign issues as much as econmic reasons. Ultimately though I think he will win.

  Oh and Denoir for all of your arrogance and dogmatic thinking you'd make a fine American.

Really a repeating pattern here for Bush supporters - same three stages:

"The media is twisting everything - it's actually much better in Iraq than they claim. A guy I know was in Iraq and he told me how the Iraqis love us. Look what this Iraqi blogger writes!"

In short ignore any solid media reporting and filter it by using anecdotal evidence.

"   "

When confronted with facts, ignore them. Just don't respond and they'll go away. "There's no place like home, there's no place like home..."

"There's no point in debating with you"

Declare everybody a Saddam-loving un-patriotic commie liberal and walk away.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content....sp?pg=1

Quote[/b] ]Bush's Greatness

Fr om the September 13, 2004 issue: There's a good reason he infuriates the reactionary left.

by David Gelernter

09/13/2004, Volume 010, Issue 01

IT'S OBVIOUS not only that George W. Bush has already earned his Great President badge (which might even outrank the Silver Star) but that much of the opposition to Bush has a remarkable and very special quality; one might be tempted to call it "lunacy." But that's too easy. The "special quality" of anti-Bush opposition tells a more significant, stranger story than that.

Bush's greatness is often misunderstood. He is great not because he showed America how to react to 9/11 but because he showed us how to deal with a still bigger event--the end of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 left us facing two related problems, one moral and one practical. Neither President Clinton nor the first Bush found solutions--but it's not surprising that the right answers took time to discover, and an event like 9/11 to bring them into focus.

In moral terms: If you are the biggest boy on the playground and there are no adults around, the playground is your responsibility. It is your duty to prevent outrages--because your moral code demands that outrages be prevented, and (for now) you are the only one who can prevent them.

If you are one of the two biggest boys, and the other one orders you not to protect the weak lest he bash you and everyone else he can grab--then your position is more complicated. Your duty depends on the nature of the outrage that ought to be stopped, and on other circumstances. This was America's position during the Cold War: Our moral obligation to overthrow tyrants was limited by the Soviet threat of hot war, maybe nuclear war.

But things are different today. We are the one and only biggest boy. We can run from our moral duty but we can't hide. If there is to be justice in the world, we must create it. No one else will act if the biggest boy won't. Some of us turn to the United Nations the way we wish we could turn to our parents. It's not easy to say, "The responsibility is mine and I must wield it." But that's what the United States has to say. No U.N. agency or fairy godmother will bail us out.

Of course our moral duty remains complicated. We must pursue justice, help the suffering, and overthrow tyrants. But there are limits to our power. We must pick our tyrants carefully, keeping in mind not only justice but our practical interests and the worldwide consequences of what we intend. Our duty in this area is like our obligation to show charity. We have no power to help everyone and no right to help no one. In the event, we chose to act in Afghanistan and Iraq to begin with--good choices from many viewpoints.

The end of the Cold War means that our practical duties have changed too, in a limited way. Since the close of World War I in 1918, our main enemy has been the terrorist-totalitarian axis--still true today. Different nations and organizations have occupied this axis of evil, but the role itself has been remarkably stable. Until the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the main terrorist-totalitarian power (except when it was eclipsed by Nazi Germany and Warlord Japan). The Berlin Wall fell in 1989; in 1990, Saddam marched into Kuwait. Radical Arab terrorism and totalitarianism go way back; the Nazis and then the Soviets supported them. When the Soviets fell, Arab tyrants and terrorists were ready for the limelight. Our job was to find new ways to do what we had always done--fight and (ultimately) beat our terrorist and totalitarian enemies.

President Bush had to respond to these post-Cold War realities; 9/11 meant that our pondering period was over. He announced, with deeds and not just words, that we would meet our moral obligations, police the playground, and overthrow tyrants; we would meet our practical obligations and continue to lead the fight against this new version of the terrorist-totalitarian axis.

We have often been told that we face, today, a whole new kind of war. Only partly true. For more than half a century we have battled totalitarian regimes (the Soviets, North Vietnam, Cuba . . . ) and the terrorists they sponsored. Today we are battling totalitarian regimes (Baathist Iraq and the Taliban's Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea) and the terrorists they sponsor. What's changed? Since we became modern history's first monopower, our obligations and maneuvering room are both greater. But the basic nature of the struggle is the same.

Lincoln said, "Let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." Bush answered: "Okay; let's roll." We accept our obligation to be the world's policeman. If not us, who? If not now, when?

THE WAR IN IRAQ is dual-purpose, like most American wars. Take the Civil War. At the beginning, the North fought mainly for pragmatic reasons. No nation can tolerate treason, or allow itself to be ripped to bits or auctioned off piece-wise by malcontents. Midwesterners couldn't allow the Mississippi to fall into foreign hands; they needed their outlet to the sea. And so on. Slavery was overshadowed. But as the war continued, slavery emerged as the issue, and the war's character changed.

The Iraq war started as a fight to knock out a regime that invaded its neighbors, murdered its domestic enemies with poison gas, subsidized terrorism, and flouted the international community. Obviously such a regime was dangerous to American interests. But as the war continued and we confronted Saddam's gruesome tyranny face to face, the moral issue grew more important, as emancipation did in the Civil War. For years the Iraqi people had been screaming, in effect: "Oh, my God. Please help me! Please help me! I'm dying!" How could America have answered, "We don't want to get involved"? We are the biggest kid on the playground. If we won't help, who will?

I have just quoted the death-cries of Kitty Genovese, who died on the streets of New York 40 years ago. And I have quoted the response of an onlooker who didn't feel like helping. Her case still resonates in America's conscience, and tells us more than we want to know about the president's enemies.

The New York Times ran the story in March 1964.

For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens.

Twice the sound of their voices and the sudden glow of their bedroom lights interrupted him and frightened him off. Each time he returned, sought her out and stabbed her again. Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead.

The left wanted America to watch Saddam stab Iraq to death and do nothing. That is the left's concept of moral responsibility in the post-Cold War world.

Miss Genovese screamed: "Oh, my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!"

The Iraqi people were dying. The left had no pity. The Bush-haters were opposed to American "arrogance." The New York Times shrugged.

It was 3:50 by the time the police received their first call, from a man who was a neighbor of Miss Genovese. In two minutes they were at the scene. . . .

The man explained that he had called the police after much deliberation. He had phoned a friend in Nassau County for advice. . . .

"I didn't want to get involved," he sheepishly told the police.

Let's not get involved, said the Bush-haters. It's none of our business. Let the U.N. do it.

One couple, now willing to talk about that night, said they heard the first screams. The husband looked thoughtfully at the bookstore where the killer first grabbed Miss Genovese.

"We went to the window to see what was happening," he said, "but the light from our bedroom made it difficult to see the street." The wife, still apprehensive, added: "I put out the light and we were able to see better."

Asked why they hadn't called the police, she shrugged and replied, "I don't know."

We have paid a steep price in Iraq, a thousand dead; but if you choose duty, you must choose to pay. Speaking for America, the president has said: We choose duty. What do we get in return? Nothing. Except the privilege of looking at ourselves in the mirror, and facing history and our children.

Opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq goes even further than the Kitty Genovese defense. Its real nature finally came clear when I heard about an anti-Bush harangue by a survivor of Hitler's Germany. He was a young boy when he and his family got out, just in time. "I hate Bush," this man said--or words to that effect--"because America today reminds me of Germany then. Bush is on his way to creating a fascist America." Other Bush-haters have said similar things.

Notice (it is a thing we will have to explain) that this man hates Bush not because of but despite the facts. Has the Republican Congress decreed a U.S. version of the Nuremberg race laws? Has the administration transformed every American news source into a propaganda machine? Demanded that Jews (or anyone) be fired? That Jewish (or any other kind of) shops, businesses, professionals be boycotted? Propaganda posters everywhere? Students thrown out of schools? Secret police grabbing people off the streets? Children urged to inform on parents? All opposition parties banned? Churches harassed? A "Bush Youth" that every "Aryan" boy must join? Storm-troopers holding torchlight parades, singing hate-mongering war songs? Gigantic communal fines levied against Jews (or anyone else)? State-sponsored pogroms? Massive regimentation and rearmament? A führer cult and special schools to train disciples? Brutal suppression of all regime opponents? No? Actually America under Bush resembles Nazi Germany in no way whatsoever, isn't that so? Then why did you lie and say it did?

One hears many similar accusations nowadays. The Bush administration is spending blood for oil, hopes to expand its imperialist reach, intends to dominate and oppress the Iraqi people, is the world's leading threat to peace. Hates Muslims, despises our allies, plans to suppress the Bill of Rights. There is a name for this kind of hatred--the kind that shrugs off reality, loves to mock its targets and treat them as barely human, capable of any outrage, unspeakably stupid and evil. There is a name for the kind of hatred that applies automatically to any member of a designated group--in this case to American conservatives and especially white, religious American conservatives. The name of this hatred is racism.

We can't understand hatred like the German survivor's or Michael Moore's or a million self-righteous left-wingers' unless we understand that their Bush-hatred is racist hatred.

"Race" has traditionally meant any group that seems like a group, with a recognizable group identity--Americans, British, Jews, Japanese were all called "races." The Oxford English Dictionary says that a "race" is (among other things) "a group or class of persons . . . having some common feature or features." Thus "the race of good men" (1580), "a race of idle people" (1611), "a new race of poets" (1875). The newspaper humorist Don Marquis once wrote about "the royal race of hicks." Racist hatred has clearly recognizable characteristics:

* The hater knows all about his target automatically; no research required. Recall how many leftists were shocked when Bob Woodward informed them, in his Bush book, that the president was an alert, hands-on manager. They had known this to be false a priori.

* The hater harbors a stupendous conceit. Not long ago an Ivy League philosophy professor explained the political homogeneity of so many philosophy departments. Pure merit, he said; you have to be smart to be a philosophy professor, and conservatives are dumb, so what can you expect?

* The hater is moved by a terrible, frantic eagerness to set himself apart from "them." In the spring of 2003, an American pop-singer announced to her London audience, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

* The hater just knows that his opponent acts not on principle but out of greed or stupidity. At an anti-Iraq war demonstration in March 2004, the actor Woody Harrelson read a poem. "I recognize your face, I recognize your name. / Your daddy killed for oil, and you did the same." We often hear this "blood for oil" accusation. After the first Gulf War we had Iraqi and Kuwaiti oilfields in our grasp. If our goal was to steal oil, why did we give them back? Are we that stupid?

* The hater has no shame--because he knows (not by reason but automatically) that he is right. Thus a decent and likable retired businessman, rich and with every reason to be grateful to America--the survivor of Nazi Germany I've mentioned--accuses the president of closet fascism.

That's racist hatred.

I DON'T SAY that all Bush-haters are racist. By no means. We have a long tradition of super-heated politics in this country. Everyone is entitled to hate the president and do his best to get rid of him.

The racist attacks I have in mind come from the reactionary left--not from the average registered Democrat, in other words, but from the liberal elite.

Reactionaries recoil from new ideas and try to suppress and defeat them. They want things to stay the same. Hence their racist hatred of uppity white conservatives, who have developed the cheek to threaten the left's cultural power. Such institutions as Fox News and the conservative Washington think tanks are hugely disturbing to reactionary liberals. The president faces the same thinking as he tries to set policy for post-Cold War America. Reactionary liberals want everything to stay just the same. All trends must continue just as they have been. (Judges must continue to subvert democracy; Congress must continue to create new entitlements.) We must treat the new totalitarians just the same as we once were forced to treat the Soviets--gingerly. Our goal must be not to liberate their victims, not to defeat and disarm their military machines, but to arrange détente with their dictators--just as we once did. (Détente with Saddam was French and Russian policy until we screwed things up.) Our antiquated pre-cell phone, pre-microchip laws and regulations must stay just the same (kill the Patriot Act!), and we must sit still and wait politely for the next terrorist outrage, just as we always have.

Bush has a simple message for the reactionary left: The times change and we change with them. He is a progressive conservative--and a progressive president in the best sense. And he has established his greatness in record time.

David Gelernter, a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, teaches computer science at Yale.

bias but what the hell...