<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What Bush hath wrought</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/</link>
	<description>She escaped from the belly of the liberal beast</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ymarsakar</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17112</link>
		<dc:creator>ymarsakar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:05:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17112</guid>
		<description>&lt;B&gt;Who appointed these men to their senior positions in the ministry? Moqtada al-Sadr. &lt;/b&gt;

Like I said, this is just what happens when you go soft on evil. I recommended that Bush execute more folks, but he doesn't want to go that route. And so this is what happens. Thjis is what happens when you try to push the buck unto somebody else, like the Iraqi government mired in political problems post 2005. The United States Executive Branch could execute hundreds of enemies, not just Al Sadr, when we were occupying Iraq in the absence of any government. The Iraqi government was doing well enough just by keeping their politicians &lt;B&gt;Alive&lt;/b&gt;. They had neither the power nor the authority to order the executions of political enemies and rivals, like Al Sadr. The US President had both the authority and power though, but not the will. Never the will.

All this is water under the bridge, but it is still a hard earned lesson in how it is always a mistake to go easy on those that do violence. It is always a mistake. As I said before, Bush's primary problem is that he just doesn't kill enough people.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Who appointed these men to their senior positions in the ministry? Moqtada al-Sadr. </b></p>
<p>Like I said, this is just what happens when you go soft on evil. I recommended that Bush execute more folks, but he doesn&#8217;t want to go that route. And so this is what happens. Thjis is what happens when you try to push the buck unto somebody else, like the Iraqi government mired in political problems post 2005. The United States Executive Branch could execute hundreds of enemies, not just Al Sadr, when we were occupying Iraq in the absence of any government. The Iraqi government was doing well enough just by keeping their politicians <b>Alive</b>. They had neither the power nor the authority to order the executions of political enemies and rivals, like Al Sadr. The US President had both the authority and power though, but not the will. Never the will.</p>
<p>All this is water under the bridge, but it is still a hard earned lesson in how it is always a mistake to go easy on those that do violence. It is always a mistake. As I said before, Bush&#8217;s primary problem is that he just doesn&#8217;t kill enough people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Webloggin - Blog Archive &#187; What Bush Hath Wrought</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17121</link>
		<dc:creator>Webloggin - Blog Archive &#187; What Bush Hath Wrought</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17121</guid>
		<description>[...] [Discuss this post with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room&#8230;] Share Article  Sphere: Related Content   Trackback URL [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] [Discuss this post with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room&#8230;] Share Article  Sphere: Related Content   Trackback URL [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Lemieux</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17108</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Lemieux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:12:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17108</guid>
		<description>More very, very bad BadFacts from Iraq...for JoeyB and his fellow travelers....

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016021.php</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More very, very bad BadFacts from Iraq&#8230;for JoeyB and his fellow travelers&#8230;.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016021.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016021.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ymarsakar</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17120</link>
		<dc:creator>ymarsakar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17120</guid>
		<description>Doublethink is a very useful and critical tool because once mastered, a user will never have to think once, let alone twice, about forbidden subjects and ideas. They literally will never even consider it. Just as a person may block out unwanted memories, have distorted time perspectives, and use all kinds of mental defensive constructs, so will doublethink automatically use such resources in order to allow a person to live free and without worry.

The Soviets knew that with the correctly trained lapdogs, aka journalists and Western observers, they could show them what they wanted to believe and therefore acquire instantaneous agents willing and eager to propagate Soviet propaganda in the United States. Because this view will come from Americans themselves, other Americans will be far more likely to believe and adhere to the same kind of programming.

Good propaganda campaigns always propagate by word of mouth, through the magic of peer pressure and social hierarchy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doublethink is a very useful and critical tool because once mastered, a user will never have to think once, let alone twice, about forbidden subjects and ideas. They literally will never even consider it. Just as a person may block out unwanted memories, have distorted time perspectives, and use all kinds of mental defensive constructs, so will doublethink automatically use such resources in order to allow a person to live free and without worry.</p>
<p>The Soviets knew that with the correctly trained lapdogs, aka journalists and Western observers, they could show them what they wanted to believe and therefore acquire instantaneous agents willing and eager to propagate Soviet propaganda in the United States. Because this view will come from Americans themselves, other Americans will be far more likely to believe and adhere to the same kind of programming.</p>
<p>Good propaganda campaigns always propagate by word of mouth, through the magic of peer pressure and social hierarchy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ymarsakar</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17119</link>
		<dc:creator>ymarsakar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17119</guid>
		<description>Productive work is illegal in the Democrat controlled Senate and House now a days. First they got to deal with that problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Productive work is illegal in the Democrat controlled Senate and House now a days. First they got to deal with that problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ymarsakar</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17118</link>
		<dc:creator>ymarsakar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:14:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17118</guid>
		<description>&lt;B&gt;When “Goodfacts” are involved - no need to ask questions. Right, YM?&lt;/b&gt;

Questions are okay, so long as they are questions that adhere to quality scientific methods and statistics. One must have standards after all.

&lt;B&gt;I guess that for Ophi and his fellow travelers, associating the cachet “international” to an organization or a climate report (IPCC) confers instant credibility.&lt;/b&gt;

It seems like it. The Soviets understood this natural tendency for people to look towards their own for backup when the Soviets created their espionage and recruiting strategies for Western agents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>When “Goodfacts” are involved - no need to ask questions. Right, YM?</b></p>
<p>Questions are okay, so long as they are questions that adhere to quality scientific methods and statistics. One must have standards after all.</p>
<p><b>I guess that for Ophi and his fellow travelers, associating the cachet “international” to an organization or a climate report (IPCC) confers instant credibility.</b></p>
<p>It seems like it. The Soviets understood this natural tendency for people to look towards their own for backup when the Soviets created their espionage and recruiting strategies for Western agents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allen L.</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17117</link>
		<dc:creator>Allen L.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17117</guid>
		<description>I would like to comment on Congress' recent inaction for the Iraq funding bill.  I think it might fit here. Regardless of how we got to this point we are there. The President asked Congress to give him the authority to take the nation to war. One might parse it anway you wish but the law that was duly passed and signed is the law of the land. I am reminded of Senator Byrd's speech on the floor of the Senate. "I will not give this President a blank check to take the nation to war." He knew, as I did, it was a Congressional authorization to go to war. Whether you agree with the need or not, that is what Congress did.

My point. If they wish to stop it then rescind the law they passed initially. Not some craven financial battle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would like to comment on Congress&#8217; recent inaction for the Iraq funding bill.  I think it might fit here. Regardless of how we got to this point we are there. The President asked Congress to give him the authority to take the nation to war. One might parse it anway you wish but the law that was duly passed and signed is the law of the land. I am reminded of Senator Byrd&#8217;s speech on the floor of the Senate. &#8220;I will not give this President a blank check to take the nation to war.&#8221; He knew, as I did, it was a Congressional authorization to go to war. Whether you agree with the need or not, that is what Congress did.</p>
<p>My point. If they wish to stop it then rescind the law they passed initially. Not some craven financial battle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bookworm</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17116</link>
		<dc:creator>Bookworm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17116</guid>
		<description>Thank you, Danny.  You're right.  I didn't agree with Ophi's views, and thought that they were informed with a lot of naiveté, especially when it came to the Middle East.  Still, he never showed the kind of ugliness that Joey B -- all of whose comments I've deleted -- showed here.

Incidentally, I want to thank all of you again for the high level of discourse you maintained during Ophi's visits.  Sometimes things got a little sharp and sarcastic, but they never developed into the kind of hurtful, damaging stuff that I periodically have to crawl around and delete from my site.  I think that's a testament to the really high quality of my readership, and for that I am most grateful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Danny.  You&#8217;re right.  I didn&#8217;t agree with Ophi&#8217;s views, and thought that they were informed with a lot of naiveté, especially when it came to the Middle East.  Still, he never showed the kind of ugliness that Joey B &#8212; all of whose comments I&#8217;ve deleted &#8212; showed here.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I want to thank all of you again for the high level of discourse you maintained during Ophi&#8217;s visits.  Sometimes things got a little sharp and sarcastic, but they never developed into the kind of hurtful, damaging stuff that I periodically have to crawl around and delete from my site.  I think that&#8217;s a testament to the really high quality of my readership, and for that I am most grateful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Lemieux</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17115</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Lemieux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:55:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17115</guid>
		<description>Not fair, Trigem - Ophi put up a good fight and he was honest (if mistaken) in his views. This is something entirely new and, frankly, pretty ugly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not fair, Trigem - Ophi put up a good fight and he was honest (if mistaken) in his views. This is something entirely new and, frankly, pretty ugly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bookworm</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/11/16/what-bush-hath-wrought/#comment-17110</link>
		<dc:creator>Bookworm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=2138#comment-17110</guid>
		<description>I deleted a comment that simply reprinted a lengthy newspaper article.  My blog is not a forum for other people's newspaper articles, so this is a reminder that you can feel free to use select quotations or link to other reputable media sites, but you can't incorporate other media wholesale into my blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I deleted a comment that simply reprinted a lengthy newspaper article.  My blog is not a forum for other people&#8217;s newspaper articles, so this is a reminder that you can feel free to use select quotations or link to other reputable media sites, but you can&#8217;t incorporate other media wholesale into my blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
