Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Republicans

Journal pudge's Journal: Don't Be a Hater 39

Journal by pudge

With elections approaching, it is useful to look back to where we've been, to give us perspective about where we are now.

Once war began, our President became the object of many attacks.

He was often compared to an ape.

The Chicago Times wrote that Americans must be filled with shame because of a speech he gave during the war, describing it as "silly, flat, and dishwatery."

In London, the capital of our closest ally, it became accepted as simple fact that the President was brutal, a warmonger, a nightmare.

The U.S. itself split in two, with half the country despising the man and his war of aggression.

He was blasted for using unappropriated money to wage the war, and accused of lying when his projections of the cost of the war were proven woefully inadequate, and debt continued to mount dramatically.

He was slammed for demolishing the Constitution, abridging civil rights in favor of security.

The war I am speaking of is the Civil War; the President, Lincoln; the speech, the Gettysburg Address.

Our current President has, of course, been through much of the same, now 150 years later. As with Lincoln, the short-term pain of Bush's war was inevitable, but it is the long-term -- and currently unknowable -- effects that he will be judged by.

Lincoln's actions helped preserve the Union and made it stronger. Will Bush's actions help transform the Middle East, making it more free, more prosperous, and more peaceful? What fate awaits Bush in history books of the future?

Only time will tell, and none of us may be around to find out. In the meantime, it might serve us well to keep some perspective, lest our own words become similar fodder for writers 150 years from now.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Don't Be a Hater More

Don't Be a Hater

Comments Filter:
  • "Don't change horsemen mid-apocalypse"?

    Seriously, I think you're saying "I know things look horrible right now, but who knows, maybe 30 years from now it will all have turned out great, so... vote Bush!"

    Not a slogan I think Karl Rove will try :)

    • This post has nothing to do with supporting Bush just because we are at war. It is not a call to support Bush or to vote for him. It has to do with keeping perspective. Before you say the end of the world/country/whatever is coming, take a deep breath, and realize many have said the same thing many times before in similar circumstances, and in retrospect we believe they were largely wrong. Maybe this time you'll be right, but you should realize you very well might not be.

      Or, in other words, when asked
      • OK, so your message is "at least the country that Bush will plunge into civil war isn't the United States" :)

        Did Bush really say that? Good Lord.

      • Bush replied: "We don't know. We'll all be dead."

        First... that answer is a cop out. He was clearly being asked for his opinion of how the war will be judged and his answer equates to "I don't care". Obviously nobody knows how they will be judged by future historians. And second, we won't all be dead. World War II is history, and people who participated are still alive. Vietnam is over and done with, and Bush and Kerry are still alive to bash each other with it. But to be fair, it's probably only hi

        • that answer is a cop out

          The whole point of our actions in Iraq is transformation of the region, and he recognizes that the war will be judged by how the region turns out, and we won't see how it turns out for decades. None of us can know how the region will turn out. We're all guessing.

          Obviously nobody knows how they will be judged by future historians

          And obviously, Bush believes he's done the right thing in invading Iraq ... so what's the problem?

          we won't all be dead

          I took it to mean the leader
          • The whole point of our actions in Iraq is transformation of the region, and he recognizes that the war will be judged by how the region turns out, and we won't see how it turns out for decades. None of us can know how the region will turn out. We're all guessing.

            True - but the British wanted democracy in the region 80 years ago, still no luck there. I just don't believe that the Bush administration has the length of vision to do what is needed to affect positive change in the region. So far it's all be

            • the British wanted democracy in the region 80 years ago, still no luck there

              They also had no luck in Afghanistan, compared to our successes there.

              I just don't believe that the Bush administration has the length of vision to do what is needed to affect positive change in the region.

              Based on what? The bad things that have happened? Bad things were inevitable. An immediate increase in terrorist acts and insurgency against our troops was inevitable. Pockets of resistance were inevitable. These are no
              • They also had no luck in Afghanistan, compared to our successes there.

                Successes? Huh. My understanding is that warlords still control most of the country and the Taliban is gaining strength again. Oh, and national elections are deteriorating into ethnic factions (led by Warlords, of course) and the Bush administration, fearful of failure is pressuring Karzai to make some backroom deals for votes that will stave off a wolf or two but will probably sacrifice the country to the pack in the long run. A

              • They also had no luck in Afghanistan, compared to our successes there.

                We have had some success there, and I hope we have more. But the situation is and always has been very different from that in Iraq.

                Based on what? The bad things that have happened? Bad things were inevitable. An immediate increase in terrorist acts and insurgency against our troops was inevitable. Pockets of resistance were inevitable. These are not necessarily signs of anything lasting or long-term, as they were inevitable.

                Wel

                • But the situation is and always has been very different from that in Iraq.

                  Yes, so? Britain's exploits in Iraq are also very different from ours in Iraq.

                  they are attacking our soldiers and the Iraqi government simply because they can.

                  Yes, of course. This eas inevitable and simply remarking on the fact is not interesting one way or another.

                  that's what I mean by all negative

                  But you're wrong. It has not been all negative, as I have clearly shown.

                  Removing Hussein was *good* but it did not and has
                  • Now you're just taking my words out of context to paint me as a flip-flopper! I didn't misquote Bush - he said "I don't know" -- I suggested that his answer meant "I don't care" because "we'll all be dead". I still think his answer to the question was a cop-out.

                    You can do a good thing and have a negative outcome. My point is that good != positive. It's good that there's more electricity - but demand is almost double, so it's still being rationed. So what is that? Positive or negative? I'd say it n

                    • I still think his answer to the question was a cop-out.

                      Then I repeat my question: what's the problem? You said there was, then there wasn't, now you're saying again that there is.

                      People living in fear, hundreds dying every week, and an economy that's still terrible all outweigh any good things being done over there. When I said "all negative" I should have said negative on the whole.

                      And that's what I was -- I thought clearly -- getting at. And I would say the removal of Hussein, Iraqis controlling t

                    • Then I repeat my question: what's the problem?

                      And I'll say again - "It's not a real problem, and I wasn't trying to make a big deal of it, I just thought it was funny/ironic" But I stand by what I said - I really don't think he cares. I don't think he cares about the Iraqi people who are dying. To him they're just numbers. For that matter, to me they're just numbers [iraqbodycount.net]. But it's really unfortunate that one man decided to sacrifice all these lives. Even if the goals are completely benevolent (i.e. no b


          • It was all about oil then just as it is now

            No it isn't.


            This makes for some scary reading. Makes more sense of the Cheney oil/energy advisor fiasco. Oil Gone [metroactive.com]

    • Actually, strawmen aside, it is much the same message as this JE of my own [slashdot.org].

      When it boils down people simply hated Lincoln, Roosevelt (Teddy and Franky), Truman, Reagan, Eisenhower, and Kennedy because they were leaders. It was only later that they were admired for it.

  • Those who forget history... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LinuxWhore ( 90833 ) * on Sunday September 26, 2004 @12:33PM (#10355250) Homepage Journal
    I recently made a similar posting [linuxwhore.com] in my own blog [linuxwhore.com]. Except, in my case, the historical example was a quote from Winston Churchill:

    "You ask: What is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

    I was reading a book on Winston Churchill [barnesandnoble.com] (excellent btw) when I came across this statement and thought how relevant it is in our own time. And furthermore, how irresponsibly the politicians used anti-war, appeasment sentiment for poltical gain both then and now. I read those words and thought "Bush could have said the same thing in about as many words today".
    • I find it rather interesting that of all the words in this passage, you chose to bolden out the word 'terror' (in the article in your blog, that is). Clearly, Churchill didn't use this word in the sense it is used today, so making the word 'terror' stand out more doesn't really make this quote more relevant to the war on terror.
  • I would argue that in Lincoln's case, the good things he did were done to achieve certain goals -- preventing the collapse of the union, winning the civil war, etc -- in short term (for 5-10 years is a rather short time compared to your 150 year term), not for the long term effects they have had, which couldn't have possibly been foreseen in that time.

    I would also argue that the same goes for Bush as well, as relying on things to work out for you in the term of a century is not really beneficient for a pol

    • I would argue that in Lincoln's case, the good things he did were done to achieve certain goals -- preventing the collapse of the union, winning the civil war, etc -- in short term (for 5-10 years is a rather short time compared to your 150 year term), not for the long term effects they have had, which couldn't have possibly been foreseen in that time.

      And I would argue that the preservation of the Union was done for future's sake. The short-term benefits of the preservation of the Union were small compar
  • They laughed Thomas A. Edison... Nikola Tesla... and Albert Einstein... and Alexander YC Chiu IMMORTALITY DEVICE STOPS AGING PERMANENTLY. [alexchiu.com]
  • I hardly think President Bush is Lincon. And I very much doubt history will view him that way.

    On the other hand your point is well taken that we are far too close to current events to claim the opposite is true either.

    In any case regardless of what your personal opinions are Pudge is right, The Republic has suffered some very dark times in the past and survived them. Regardless of the outcome in November be assured that things will likely work out in the end.
    • I hardly think President Bush is Lincoln. And I very much doubt history will view him that way.

      And most anti-Lincoln Americans hardly though Lincoln was Washington or Jefferson, and could not see how a man who took us to Civil War could possibly considered a great President in the future.
      • Here's one of the things that is funny (among many) about comparing Lincoln and Bush.

        Sure, we judge and admire Lincoln because of history. The fact that he was assassinated probably helps his acclaim somewhat as well. However, it is his own private and public words that we cherish. He was an amazing orator and writer and the nobility of his words carry as much of him forward in history as does anything else.

        The problem with Bush is that he is a terrible orator. Sometimes he does a good job if he s

        • However, it is his own private and public words that we cherish.

          Right, like the "dishwatery" Gettysburg Address.

          And no, Lincoln is remembered far more for what he did and why than what he said about it.
        • While I'll agree with you that a need for exceptional oration ended with the demise of radio broadcasts (which coincided with the invention and common use of television), I'd hardly say that Lincoln was only known for his oratory. Ask a typical child that knows a bit about history what they think of Lincoln and, unless they were forced by a teacher to memorize the Gettysburg Address, they will say something along the lines of ending slavery or reuniting the country as one nation (possibly "being on the pen
          • if Iraq becomes the first dictatorial state turned truly democratic Middle Eastern country, that is what will be remembered.

            I agree. By the same token, If Afghanistan, Iraq (and whichever other countries we decide to invade... Iran? Syria? North Korea?) spiral into chaos and rise as united terrorist strongholds bent on toppling the United States, that is what will be remembered as well.

      • Let me put it this way, my reaction to anyone who claims that history will view Bush the same way it views Lincoln or FDR is likely very similar to what yours would be to anyone who claims that history will view Clinton or Carter as being on the same level as Lincoln or FDR.

        Personally I think it is a little too soon to claim that either Bush is among the greatest Presidents ever or among the worst.
        • Personally I think it is a little too soon to claim that either Bush is among the greatest Presidents ever or among the worst.

          Which was precisely my point. Well, my point is that we can't claim him to be one of the worst, but that we can't claim him to be one of the best is a corrollary.
          • To be perfectly honest my personal opinion is that Bush will probably rank toward the lower end of the scale. Then again I could be considered somewhat biased.

            In any case it is possible to respond effectively to what you think are over-the-top accusations without being over-the-top yourself. Unfortunately far too many this election cycle are resorting to playground rhetoric. I'll admit I've engaged in some of it myself.
            • I don't think I was being over the top. If I had been saying Bush would be regarded as Lincoln is, then perhaps you could say that, but I was not saying that.

              Anyway, I think he will certainly be ranked near the higher end of the scale if he succeeds in bringing a stable democracy to Iraq and starting the transformation of the region, which I believe he will, as it is the primary reason I supported the war in the first place.
              • I don't think I was being over the top. If I had been saying Bush would be regarded as Lincoln is, then perhaps you could say that, but I was not saying that.

                No, I don't think you were being over the top at all. Just saying I get a little frustrated at this from other people.

                Basicly I feel that when people engage in over-the-top rhetoric the only ones listening who care are fellow partisans on your side. People on the other side are going to think you are crazy and those in the middle will think you shou
                • I don't think this is likely, at least as long as we still have troops there.

                  But this is a long-term thing. Troops won't be there in full force forever.

                  His attempt to bankrupt the Treasury via huge tax cuts and huge spending increases doesn't sit well with my fiscal conservative side either.

                  Tax cuts don't bankrupt the Treasury. The government should live within its means.
                  • Tax cuts don't bankrupt the Treasury. The government should live within its means.

                    The problem is the Republicans cut taxes while increasing spending on Defense and Medicare. While by their own figures their Social Security privatization plan will eventually save money it will cost more during the first 20 years or so. Intrest on the debt is pretty much untouchable.

                    Yea you could say "cut the rest of the waste" but once you take Defense, Medicare, Social Security, and intrest on the debt off the table ther
                    • The problem is the Republicans cut taxes while increasing spending on Defense and Medicare.

                      Well ... I would say the problem is increased spending in general. I support tax cuts and increases in defense, but cuts in Medicare and education, for example. But the point is that the bottom line is the problem, not necessarily specific revenue cuts or spending increases.

                      I would cut taxes a lot more than they have been, across the board, and cut spending a whole lot more.

                      Yea you could say "cut the rest of th

Slashdot Top Deals

"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"

Close