[Skybird]

My stand on the Iraq war is not because my stand on the Republicans. It is based on the motivation and intention, the execution, and the outcome of that war, and the long-term consequences. It all was planned and executed dilletantic to the max.

You often tend to think of single oieces supoorting your view as being representative for a wide majorty of such hints and opinions and claims, by that you end up discrediting opposing other views as "minority thoughts" and dismissing them as being meaningless, "tin-hatting" and conspiration theory build along party-ideologic orders. But, well, that says more about you than about others. The history of the Iraq war is such a case. Your characterization of the octobre surporise story being a minor view only after you googled it, also is such an example. Becasue meanwhile, after that discussion, I googled it a bit, too, and found it to be like I described it to CaptainHaplo: that it is ciontroversially discussed, and that those supoorting the idea at least are as strong in camp soze than those dismissing the idea. I said to Haplo that I tend to agree with the story becasue most pieces and hints I got seem to indicate that it is true, while some speak against it. And right this way it is being described by very, very many people, some of them being poltical analysts and book authors. that'S what Google told me, and I cannot imagine that I have used so different search terms than you have. in that thread I gave a link to Neal that is a site giving a nice list of the pros and cons. Read that and then tell me that the evidence it all is just conspiration theory is overwhelming! It is not, the hints and views and arguments are pretty much balanced in numbers, with a slight advantage for the "it's true" camp.

Comparing two camps is no issue of finding a politically correct numerical balance between the two. If the one scores 3 positives and 2 negatives, and the other scores 7 negatives and 2 positves, then the one scores +1 and the others scores -5, and then I am not willing to distort it all to come to a conclusion about claimed "justicee" and seeing it "balanced and fair" when calling it a -2 for both, and both camps are claimed to score equally often in positives and negatives. I see republicans more often overstepping the line during the last campaign, in tone and agressiveness, than their opponents, and I see that to be a pattern that repeats itself since at least my late youth when I started to observe poltiics with at least some interest. I see them using big-mouthed bullying more often as a replacement for argument tha n the Democrats seem to do it. the republicans generally are the more aggressive and unscrupelous demagogues, and it has become especially clear in the absolutely unaccptable attacks on Obama over the health insurance story (Nazi claims, Palin: death camps for old people, etc). This is not free speech. This is the destruction of free speech. whenever in our local media a new info is published on some defaming event having taklen place, some overly aggressive phrasing: chances are that it has not been coming from the democrat'S sides. And when Pelosi for example called for some more self-restraint and that hate-filled language will necessarily lead to hatefilled violence on the streets sooner or later, or Carter pointing at latent racism, they get attacked by these very same voices for being just that "bitching Pelosi", and just that "whining Carter". I was as well, although back then people could not know my attitude towards Pelosi (I have none, btw, neither a positive nor a negative).

I base my thinking along party-ideologic borderlines, you say? I don't. But many people attack this or that politician or figure just he represents the wrong party. what (s)he actually said, does not interest them much. How's that for basing one's thinking along party-ideologic frontlines? the current level of bipartisanship in american politics seems to be unrivalled in the western world. I have no example on mind that compares to that, currently.

I will not slam Obama as massively as I slammed Bush, because so far Obama has not commited stupidities and crimes as serious as those of Bush. Nevertheless it should have become clear by now that I am far from being a great fan of him, and that I am a critical observer of him. as I said repeatedly: I recognize he is a brilliant speaker in that he is extremely clever in using those phrases that trigger the emptional responses in the audience that he wants to see being triggered. that I take anything as gold and as true what he says - I never have claimed. He makes instrmental use of his ability to effect the audience emotionally, and only sometimes, not always, intellect and emotions are in match. For example his famous speech on religion i found very convincing. His speech in Berlin however, was poure effect only, a rethoric masteropiece, yes - but by content? It was phrases. And the crowds cheered. He is very skilfull a speaker, no doubt. Compared to him Bush was a melancholic bull in a china shop. He was a lousy speaker, and only could beat that same old dead horse once again and then more: nationalistic and relgious pathos, and that was it. Like a musical score by Hans Zimmer turned into verbal phrases. Most scores by Zimmer I hate, really.

I could put it sharper and say Obama is the most skillful verbal manipulator I have ever seen, using words like a fencer uses a sabre, Errol Flynn style. But speeches do not really impress me. I want to see deeds. So far he has not delivered anything really remarkable, and some of the deeds he aims at I find quesitonable. But he has not produced desatewrs and fualures and betrayals like the decision to invade Iraq, or to massively favour big business linked to close buddies who are running his government, like Cheney and Halliburton et al. That's why all in all the current balance between Obama and Bush nevertheless is positive for Obama, all in all. I think he will not make that great an impact as was hoped for by his fans, for expectations have been pushed to too exaggerated heights. But he also will not mark such desastrous decisions like Bush has made, as far as we can tell until today.

If this assessment qualifies as being biased against republicans becasue I do not see both presdients as comparable in negative attraction, then so be it. I couldn't care less for an understanding of justice being limited to numerical euqality only. I try to see things unbiased, no matter the results this priduce. That is what I consider to be just.