October 11, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:Open thread
So here's the debate: if we shouldn't listen too much to what candidates say, what should we look at? Their advisors? Their previous record? The interest groups they depend on? Economic developments coming up? And in each case, what do you think the effects will be? Please discuss.*
*Without profanity
Posted by Jane Galt at October 11, 2004 11:14 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksLook for "Who Really benefits." What interest groups are behind them. What do those interest groups get.
With the spin and jargon being used, I frequently need to get out some sort of decoder ring, like Moral Politics (G. Lakoff). And to analyse why ProjectX can or cannot cure terrorism/dependance on oil/cancer the way that the spinmeisters claim it will, I get out Beyond Fear (B. Schneier) and Normal Accidents (C. Perrow).
I suspect that we, as a country, have devolved into a couple of competing tribes. The words each tribe use look like words that the other tribes use, but mean very different things. With the vandalism of campaign offices (both D&R) and cars (both D&R) of supporters, I think that if we cannot tone down the incivility, we will end up with a civil war in the next few years. The nastiness may get so bad that the 2008 elections are the last that will be held in the US.
Winner take all = Loser gets screwed.
Isn't it obvious that past behavior is the best predictor? Kerry cut and ran after 4 months in Vietnam. He came home and recommended the nation do the same thing.
He ran for the Senate as a proponent of the Nuclear Freeze, and opposed weapons such as the F-15. He supported the Sandinistas, he opposed the invasion of Grenada. He hated Reagan's conduct of the Cold War. He opposed Gulf War I.
Why would he be any different today?
As much as possible, pay attention to their record as a public official or private citizen. Bush has been just about what I expected domestically; a guy who made his pile by having taxpayers directly subsidize his business is very unlikely to be a good steward of public monies, or have an acceptable view (to me) of what constitutes the legitimate role of government. Of course, there is nothing in Kerry's record that indicates he will be more acceptable to me.
In the international arena, I had very little to to go on regarding Bush in 2000, but much more so with Cheney and Powell. To state the obvious, events rendered may expectations superfluous. Kerry's record of siding with the nuclear frezze movement indicates to me that his view of the world is so fundamentally in error that he would be an unacceptable President, more so than Bush, whatever reservations I have of him.
I agree that past behavior is the best indicator. It's not infaliable, but it's far better than campaign promises -- unless past behavior indicates an unusual fidelity to campaign promises. That doesn't mean we should not listen to what the candidates say. It's just, absent some obvious reason for a change in behavior -- such as 9/11, we shouldn't put too much faith in a candidate's promise to change.
Kerry "cut & run" after 4 months? What, did he go AWOL? No, he was honorably discharged.
Have you ever had someone shoot at you? Anyone who has faced that for 4 *minutes* - I'm not going to question his/her valor.
Yeah, it's a good thing the US didn't cut & run from Vietnam after Kerry got back. Look at all the benefits we got for staying there a few more years.
I suggest we look at what Bush has done in the past four years. Sure, he's done some good things. But, he's been overall more incompetent than competent.
And, it's something other than just incompetence to play politics with the Iraq war by waiting until after our elections to try to retake Fallouja and Ramadi.
A majority of Americans think Bush has been a failure. The problem is that they aren't so keen on President Kerry.
I'm not so keen on that either, but, then again, Kerry will not be in charge of everything.
We'll have divided government. Not only will all those GOPers keep Kerry in check, Kerry will also feel the need not to be perceived as weak. If anything, he might be even more hawkish than Bush.
And, there's no doubt that Kerry will - quite unlike Bush - attend to the messy details of things and see them through rather than neglecting things as Bush has done.
As far as domestic policy (i.e. social issues) both Kerry and Bush have been fairly clear on their positions of late and I have no reason to doubt either of them (compassionate conservatism not withstanding). I agree with Kerry and I disagree with Bush. Period. With the Supreme Court most likely up for grabs in the next four years I would rather have centrist or even liberal judges appointed to the court as opposed to conservative ones.
As far as economic policy goes I think both candidates suck (insert specific anatomy of horse here). However, I know that I don't like what Bush is spending money on and I suspect with a decidedly Republican senate (the latest projections I've seen show about 46 Democratic seats, possibly 47) I would rather have a Democratic president in office. Fewer spending bills (especially the stupid ones) are likely to get passed.
From a foreign policy standpoint I again go for Kerry. I find the justification for war with Iraq awful. There is a huge difference between voting to give the President the authority to go to war and actually choosing to go to war. I find that the mission in Iraq was entirely botched at every turn. Generals were not listened to. Quite honestly at this point I find the situation we are in as a nation one that it will be difficult to extract ourselves from. So why would Kerry be better? I suspect just about anyone would be better. We need a new face on American politics. Kerry has an exceptional amount of foreign poicy experience, is fairly well respected around the world (as opposed to our current President) and it would not surprise me if Kerry did get some more support for our troups in Iraq by saying, "hey, look, we made a mistake but we've kicked the bum out and if you're willing to share the spoils of oil, would you come in and help us out?" Someone, probably a bunch of someones, would be willing to go in because of the monitary benefits down the road.
In general I think Kerry would make a very good president. He has an understanding of the political process and the need to compromise, which is more than I can say for what I have seen from the President and is capable of re-evaluating his position when he may have made a mistake, again, our sitting President does not seem able to do this and I find this an unacceptable flaw in a leader.
'Kerry "cut & run" after 4 months? What, did he go AWOL? No, he was honorably discharged.'
Actually he wasn't. At least not on time. Kerry enlisted in 1966, for a six year obligation. He was supposed to serve three years active duty, two in ready reserve (week-end warrior), and one in standby reserve. He should have been out completely in 1972.
But he didn't get a discharge until 1978. And he didn't put in a single day after January 1970. Eight years to get a discharge? I've never heard any explanation for that. And even the 1978 discharge may not be correct. Some are disputing it.
Kerry refuses to clear the matter up by signing a form 180.
Patrick,
Why should we care? Look, Kerry went to Vietnam, fought for a while, then was honorably discharged. Bush got into the National Guard, flew for a while, then was honorably discharged. I can not imagine deciding an election based on something that happened over three decades ago.
If we were all judged on the actions we took thirty years ago, then I'd be judged for being whiney and eating my own snot and Jane would be judged for being a spaz (which she was 28 years ago, but then again, she was about three at the time). Fortunately my boss did not look at my nursery school transcript when he hired me. He looked at what I can do for him now, which I have recently been informed has everything to do with my ability to get him Yankees ALCS tickets and nothing to do with my abilities on the job.
At times, I'll take a Venn like approach; listen to both sides and see where their statements coincide.
To pick a semi hypothetical example, medical insurance. Candidate "A" may promise coverage for everyone. Candidate "B" may claim that candidate "A" is going to eliminate private health care. I decide that the two statements are two sides of the same coin. Then I analyze the composite statement and, as a quasi libertarian, decide to support candidate "B"s position.
I do listen to what politicians say, but I dont invest belief in their agenda proposals. What I want to hear in the debates is that the candidates really know the issues, so they determine policy answers, not just listen to their appointees. I dont think the agenda put forth in the debates is what gets done by the winner, there is partisan opposition and the world is always changing, what makes a good answer now, might be completely stupid in a couple of years.
In the case of the incumbent, don't listen to a word he says, just look at his record. For Bush, this means he will:
Not risk any political popularity to oppose a nickel of government spending, and is a huge fan of loading up bills with leave no lobbyist behind special tax breaks.
Has no intention of balancing the budget.
Will talk about social security reform but not do anything about it.
Will push to make permanent the temporary tax cuts and will push for more. As noted above, the size of the deficit is irrelevant to Bush.
On Iraq, it doesn't matter who wins, the place is a disaster and will remain so.
As for the challenger, I think you look at what he emphasizes the most. For Kerry, as with Gore, his greatest emphasis is bring the budget back to balance. My guess is Kerry will spend less than Bush, particulary if he was a republican congress. He will veto pork laden legislation that Bush would pass to curry favor on K street.
His tax plans will likely be dead in the water in Congress. So he'll have to start over with new ideas.
On Iraq, it doesn't matter who wins. We're screwed. But at least putting new people in charge who didn't create this mess in the first place gives us some hope.
I agree that one thing to look at is Simple and clear proposals that the candidate mentions as Jane mentioned in her previous post about the $4k education credit. Another example was the Bush tax cut, relatively simple 2000 promise that was carried out according to plan.
I would be cautious about judging Kerry's Senate voting record because one of his Strengths is his attention to details (or so it seems to me) and some bills get voted against more for the crap that not in the bill's name, and these aren't always easily judged in short sound bites.
I think a very important issue is the Clinton/republican congress phenomenon of inability to spend because of deep division. I think this is very productive for the economy to stop changing the rules all the time and stop all the partisan pork. Only important, bipartisan things have the chance to pass. (Jane - for this reason I disagree with your assessment of Bush being better for the deficit.)
Another issue that may be important is leadership style... Bush is very MBA-ish - hire good people and listen to them - in which case you should judge his advisors (I personally dislike the neo-conservative foreign policy). Whereas Clinton was very smarter-than-everyone-and-I-know-it type style and was probably responsible for most administration decisions. Kerry's style is probably in between the two and I don't know enough about his potential cabinet members to judge. I wonder how decisive he can be though.
The Supreme court nominees which have a really good chance of coming up in the next four years are hugely important, and i personally like the constructionist approach of Bush. His picks would probably be more conservative than my taste but preferrable to the really liberal justices Kerry would pick. I hate lengthy new rules that are made up to explain the meaning of a really short document (the constitution) and often can change it's meaning and create more uncertainty. On the other hand a republican congress would probably be a good check on Kerry's nominations.
Finally, (and most likely to sway any Bush supporter to kerry) there are larger strategic questions that I would consider, such as the low risk, high damage scenario that follows if Bush is elected:
1.he is very partisan
2.congress becomes more democratic in 2002/2004 elections
3.Non-incumbant republican must contend with the somehow popular Hillary Clinton in 2004, who seems to be the favorite democratic candidate....
resulting in a hillary president with a democratic congress able to pass all kinds of crap (like Hillary-care)
"Why should we care? Look, Kerry went to Vietnam, fought for a while, then was honorably discharged."
Didn't you read my post? He DID NOT get an honorable discharge when he should have. Since it was Kerry's idea to make such a big deal out of his Vietnam service, I'd say that's why we should care. His own idea of putting his best foot forward is an obvious lie.
And the last time we listened to Kerry (and friends) millions of people paid with their lives in SE Asia. He wasn't three years old in 1971. He was a man. A weird man, who hasn't changed one iota.
Lets have a little fun, and look at their wives.
We can all get exercised about how horrible Bush or Kerry is depending on your point of view, but it seems that they have fairly clearly defined themselves. It would appear that we have two clear and different ideas of government both domestically and internationally.
Bush is a believer in individual rights. Kerry is a believer in communal rights. That defines the domestic agenda.
Stretching that just a bit, it applies to foreign relations. Bush believes in asking for other nations to help, but if they don't wish to, then America will do it. Kerry believes in asking for other nations to help, and if they don't wish to we must not act. Again, individual versus communal rights.
It makes the choice very easy for me, and I suspect for many others. Simply choose the candidate that represents the role you believe government should have.
Patrick,
Yeah, better his daddy should have gotten him in the National Guard. Really, I think that the thousands of people who died in vietnam died for other reasons, like Johnson was unwilling to admit it was a mistake (sounds familiar....). You want to use that to decide how Kerry shouldn't be president, fine. I think it's dumb.
On the other hand AllenS, I'd vote for Teresa in a second. She's bitchy and I like bitchy as opposed to Stepford Bush. But then again, they did both wear white suits after labor day at the first debate....hmmm....
"Kerry believes in asking for other nations to help, and if they don't wish to we must not act."
C'mon -- do you really believe that? Kerry's made it pretty clear that he would act unilaterally if necessary.
The issue in Iraq was that international cooperation was essential to the success of the mission. The Americanization of the occupation is the reason why Bush is losing the war.
It's not a critique for all occassions.
And Bush believes in individual rights? The man who has locked up US citizens on just his say so, with no right to counsel, right to present evidence, or right to challenge their imprisonment? The man who believes in a terrorism exception to all individual rights granted by the Constitution? The man who believes that his application of that terrorism exception should not be subject to judicial review. The president who kept a man in solitary confinement for two years, without any opportunity to address the charges against, and then, when forced by the S.Ct. to give the guy some semblance of due process, lets him go. That's an advocate of individual rights? The Bush whose justice department advocated grounds for torture? The Bush who believes there is no fourth amendment?
Oh good god, can we drop the Vietnam issue for the next three weeks? I promise I'll never bring up the National Guard again.
In my view, we're back to the basics - what the pundits were touting at the beginning of the summer: this vote will be viewed by the world as a referendum on Iraq. Domestic issues aren't that interesting to the other 5.7 billion people on this planet. If we vote Bush back into office, it will be as if the entire country sanctioned the war, regardless of the actual count of votes. We will live with that decision for at least a decade (a surely optimistic timeline) and quite possibly longer.
I have no doubt that if we continue this foreign policy as it stands, the next US terror attack will come with a greeting card, "This is for Iraq". And the world as a whole will tell us, 'Tough shit, you brought this on yourselves.".
If we vote Bush back in, we're sanctioning the last three years of jingoistic polices. I certainly have my doubts about Kerry being able to do much, but I know we can't continue down this road.
Jack, we've already gotten that greeting card from Al Qaeda. Several times beginning in 1993. Right now the dopes are hitting our soldiers in Iraq, not our civilians in the U.S.
They're losing. They know it. As goes Afghanistan...so goes Iraq. Afghanistan held their elections last week-end. Iraq will in several weeks. The only thing that can beat us is electing a guy like Kerry who has a history of surrendering.
pj-
I'm not familiar with the case of this man who was incarcerated for two years. What was his name? Why was he arrested? What did the administration claim he had done? What did the administration stand to gain (or think it stood to gain) from these actions?
It's not that I doubt the veracity of your claims, mind you, it's just that there is almost certainly more to the story, and so many of Bush's critics make their cases with obvious hyperbole (like "he believes there is no fourth amendment") that it's really hard to know what to make of any of it without hearing the full tale.
"Oh good god, can we drop the Vietnam issue for the next three weeks?"
Why? Kerry ran his campaign on that. That seems to be central to his campaign by his choice. Now people check on the details of his service and they don't check out. So change the subject.
Kerry will continue Clinton's policies - police action. 9-11 proved to me that that is not good enough. Whether the nuke that goes off in NYC has a greeting card on it or not I don't care. I want to get to a world where I don't have to turn on the TV each morning to see if NYC is still there. Kerry will try to finesse the problem -- lots of meetings, photo ops, non-verifiable treaties --feel good stuff. Bush seems to have a more nuanced position. Aggressive short term, long term try to fix the broken states. I'm afraid if that does not work large parts of the world will be turned to glass. So I'm voting for Bush, Kerry will get us and lots of others killed us much quicker.
" I do listen to what politicians say, but I dont invest belief in their agenda proposals. What I want to hear in the debates is that the candidates really know the issues, so they determine policy answers, not just listen to their appointees. I dont think the agenda put forth in the debates is what gets done by the winner, there is partisan opposition and the world is always changing, what makes a good answer now, might be completely stupid in a couple of years."
Begbee - this is the first intelligent thing that you have written so far in not only this, but all other replies you have made on the AI comment boards.
Now if you would only take the time to do what you so eleganlty state above, you might just someday be able to extricate your head out of your rectum.
"resulting in a hillary president with a democratic congress able to pass all kinds of crap (like Hillary-care)"
You are forgetting that Mrs Clinton-Care(?) went down in flames with the dems in control of the house, the senate and the oval orifice oops i mean Office.
I don't think Mrs Clinton will ever get elected to the presidency, she may not even get relected to the senate or if the dems are still in the minority when her time is up she might not even run.
On domestic policy, Kerry will get simple stuff through even a hostile Republican Congress if he is organized enough to push hard for it immediately. The election "mandate" will earn him that. Note: Reorganizing health care does NOT qualify as simple stuff. Kerry will also do his best to get the things he has run on passed because he has to keep his base happy for the next election. How much he succeeds depends on how well he can compromise with Congress. I have no predictions there. I have no basis to judge his administrative talent except for his campaign and that's not real encouraging.
Bush is actually more of a wild card on domestic issues. He has done a lot of things that look like they were done strictly to get re-elected. He doesn't have to worry about that anymore. I don't think he's going to change completely, but he could have some surprises in store both positive and negative (for any position).
Yeah, it's a good thing the US didn't cut & run from Vietnam after Kerry got back. Look at all the benefits we got for staying there a few more years.
Or rather, it's too bad that after persons like Kerry came home and did their best to help sway public opinion against the war, the US finally pulled a cut-and-run rather than exploit the enemy weakening after Tet. At that moment, all the lives previously spent in that awful war were officially wasted, and the next twenty years didn't turn out so hot for the Vietnamese, either.
There may be a lesson in there somewhere with applicability to the present circumstances, but probably not the one you were hoping to find.
If we were all judged on the actions we took thirty years ago, then I'd be judged for being whiney and eating my own snot and Jane would be judged for being a spaz (which she was 28 years ago, but then again, she was about three at the time). Fortunately my boss did not look at my nursery school transcript when he hired me. He looked at what I can do for him now
If I were evaluated based on the actions I took thirty years ago, the evaluator would be staring at a "reserved for future tenant" sign. In fact, my parents would not even meet each other until a couple years later.
On the other hand, if I were running for a position of accountability that requires some degree of character evaluation, and thus judged based on the actions I took five years ago, the judicator would be examining a person past the age of legal accountability and have every right to ask if my actions then are representative of who I am now -- and if not, to ask what has changed since then, and why.
What's so difficult to understand about that? I would also be content to leave Vietnam and other activities from thirty years ago out of the picture. So, if Kerry thirty years ago was an unseasoned youth prone to callow behavior, all he had to do was say so, and then move on. Instead, it was he that brought up his Vietnam-era service as being relevant to his abilities now, and consequently he will be judged thereby. Deal with it.
I posted this in the earlier thread but it appears things have moved on to here, so I apologize in advance if anyone sees this twice.
Jane, that is where you have to look at their basic philosophies, and that is where Kerry scares me. True, he will say anything, but he will do what he has done. I had an old boss that was always saying that about people, don't listen to what they say, look at what they have done because they will do it again because what they do comes out of their basic beliefs about themselves and their world, whether they even know it or not themselves. She was not just almost always right, she was ALWAYS right. Our sales depended on being right about that, and she retired early as a wealthy woman.
Andrew Sullivan is over thinking this issue. He is hoping to believe Kerry, but not only will Kerry return to form as an anti-war pacifist, he will be under tremendous pressure to do so by his party, to bail on Iraq and reduce the war on terror to some kind of criminal police action. His statement about getting back to where terror is a nuisance is something that he really believes, as do most Democrats. They don't want to believe that there is true, monstrous evil in the world because their basic beliefs are that all humans are at bottom loving and given enough love they will come around. Having had a long career as a psychotherapist, I can tell you that that is not true, not all people are like that. But that is their belief, what they want to believe and they will always come back around to it. What did Alice Walker say, her way of dealing with Osama Bin Laden would be to throw her arms around him and just love him? I bet she is a big Kerry fan. That is what you are going to get if you vote for Kerry.
And that is also what you are going to get from yourself and everyone else you know, not just Presidents or Presidential candidates. People do change but it is not frequent, and not over stuff like political policies. Even neo cons who used to be liberals like myself still hold a lot of liberal views.
"I think that if we cannot tone down the incivility, we will end up with a civil war in the next few years. The nastiness may get so bad that the 2008 elections are the last that will be held in the US."
Peter, 19th Century politics were often far nastier. When Democrats start murdering Republicans in the street (like in Kansas in the 1850's), then I'll start worrying. And hope for a somewhat more measured Republican response than John Brown's...
Although if the northeast coast states and California want to secede and form their own People's Republic, I'm all for it.
Bush is a believer in individual rights. Kerry is a believer in communal rights.
Great post, JR. Excellent assessment and simplification of their core beliefs. I had not thought of it that way before.
The Mommy the only head in my rectum is yours, when you toss...
I find it hilarious that jr stated "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible", and the reps gave him a pass. Yet the reps now go after Kerry for the valor he displayed 35 years ago in Vietnam. So much for consistancy...
"... if we shouldn't listen too much to what candidates say, what should we look at? "
With Bush we know what to look at.
With Kerry look at his 20-year record in the Senate -- which he has very conspicuously chosen *not* to make the basis of his campaign.
Begbee
Your rediculous analogy above only proves my point.
Some people can't see the forrest for the trees, you don't even see the trees.
What a pity.
It's a terrible thing to see a mind goto waste.
Begbee, thedaddy, Jane asked for a civil discourse and neither of you are in any way acting civilly. Please behave.
Begbee, don't make fun of thedaddy's name. Please, the best name I could come up with is "Kate", which is what people call me in real life so I hardly think making fun of handles is acceptable.
thedaddy, responding to someone's obsure statement attacking your guy by saying it exemplifies the problem with "libruls" and then making your own obsure statement does not enhance the discourse.
Play nice or I'll tell Auntie Jane on y'all.
You know, the way things are around here, Jane could start a thread about hamburgers and asparagus, and you guys would turn it into a Kerry vs Bush thread.
JR
You've never heard of the Hamdi case?
As for my hyperbole, if you can explain any circumstances in which Bush believes that the government's right to search and sieze property should be subject to any limitations outside the arena of gun rights (where Bush and Ashcroft rely on the 2nd, not the 4th, Amendment), you win the prize. He's for sneak and peek without notice -- there are thousands of people whose homes have been repeatedly raided while they were away, and they don't even know it.
I've read several first person accounts of people how have noticed footprints in their carpeting, or small items out of place, and wondered what the hell was going on -- government agent's had gone into their home, without their consent, and without notice to them, often repeatedly. Welcome to the world of GWB's individual rights.
Patriot act aside, the judges he says he admires are the ones who have created the dozens of exceptions to the 4th amendment that have completely swallowed the rule.
I don't especially care for either man, but then when in my 43 years have we ever had two truly stellar men to vote for? Indeed, when in the history of our country has the electorate been unanimous.
Ideas matter. For all his flaws, and they are many, I prefer Republican ideas, however poorly they may be implemented. Centrist Democrats realized this; how quickly they were banished by the true believers on the left. To me, that speaks volumes.
Besides, I lived in Massachusetts for 4 years. Hell will freeze over before I ever voted for a Massachusetts Democrat.
Although if the northeast coast states and California want to secede and form their own People's Republic, I'm all for it.As long as SD county remains in the US I'm fine with this.
At this point so close to the election, it is unrealistic in my opinion to expect any substantive policy debate.
The Republicans have circled the wagons and the Democrats are in desperation mode and shooting at anything that moves. Bush is causing high pump prices, Bush is the cause of the upcoming flu epidemic, Bush is the reason you look fat, etc.
Leaving party politics aside for a moment, I see the upcoming election partially as a referendum on the viability of the old media mindset, and it's power to manipulate the electorate.
I have not witnessed a sustained multimedia onslaught such as this against an administration in my lifetime.
The fact that Botman and Rob'em, given what they are actually selling, are running so close to the incumbants in the polls is a testament to the continued relevance of media induced mass delusion as a substitute for innovative thinking.
Globalization is upon us whether we like it or not. Protectionism is retrogressive in this context. Worker displacement is an issue that must not be ignored, and yet we hear little of substance about it. I will not find it reassuring at all to learn that John Kerry has yet another plan that will deal with this issue. We live in an dynamic evolving world; plans themselves are static and the claim of having a plan that is likely to be obsolete when implemented is hollow at best.
The world devoted most of the last century proving socialism a failed reaction to issues resulting from the industrial era.
We are moving out of the industrial era, 20th century trade union thuggery will not keep us competitive in the emerging global economy.
The NEA's lock on our public schools damns our young people to a socially enforced mediocrity that will ill serve them and the nation against potent and aggressive competition in the world marketplace.
Preaching class envy and this type of determinism is defeatist and the opposite of empowerment, which will yield more benefit to a greater number of people than any technocrat's plan possibly can.
I believe in the Bush Doctrine. I believe that personal empowerment combined with responsibility both at home and in the wider world is the single greatest step forward we ourselves can take and encourage in others.
What is interesting to me about your post John is that most of the items you list are items that I feel Kerry is stronger on. I almost thought you were going to support Kerry for a moment.
You ridicule Kerry and his running mate, but you don't discuss the substantive issues or why you feel they are weaker. For someone who complains about the "regular media" manipulating the election, you don't seem to have any general understanding of how the media does manipulate things...and interestingly enough I have been hearing the same arguements from the left side of the blog-sphere.
Also Interestingly John, you are right, there is a "sustained media onslaught" against the Bush administration (although I am more likely to call is a sort-of-kind-a-pointing-out-the-occasional-problems and hardly and "onslaught") because he did, in fact, mislead the country into supporting war in Iraq. Dick Cheney, despite his protestations to the contrary in his only debate, did claim there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. Rummy did, in fact, said that we would be cheered by the Iraqi people, and when that did not come to pass the administration not only claimed that they needed to continue their failing plans (to quote you, "plans themselves are static and the claim of having a plan that is likely to be obsolete when implemented is hollow at best") but that anyone who was not in agreement with the actions they took was helping the terrorists.
You say:
"Worker displacement is an issue that must not be ignored" but it has been ignored by the Bush administration.
You say:
"union thuggery will not keep us competitive in the emerging global economy" Of course it won't. I don't understand when Kerry said that we should unionize the world. For all your belief in, "personal empowerment combined with responsibility both at home and in the wider world." why is it Kerry's fault that union leaders are going to have to learn that they either need to play nice in the new, global economy or they are going to be broke.
It seems to me that you've been manipulated by the Media John. You've watched too much Fox News and read too much NRO and have dismissed all other news media as "biased". That's a sad, sad thing.
"Patriot act aside, the judges he says he admires are the ones who have created the dozens of exceptions to the 4th amendment that have completely swallowed the rule."
Would that be the Exclusionary Rule you are referring to? Which is not per se constitutionally mandated? It's merely a Supreme Court, i.e., judicially imposed, remedy that theoretically removes the incentive on the part of government officials to conduct unconstitutional searches and seizures.
What the Court giveth, the Court may taketh away.
Kate, I've never heard Cheney or indeed anyone from the administration claim that there was a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. I've heard this accusation made before, and when challenged, no one has come forward with a link. Do you happen to have one?
Rex,
I don't have a link per se, but after the vice presidential debate NBC played a clip of Cheney on Meet The Press, or whatever their Sunday News Program is, where he indicated there was a relationship between Al Queda and Saddam. I belive the clip was from September '03. Subsequently I recall at least one left-wing blog linking to a page which listed every single time the vice president had made the assertion, followed by the date.
When I get a moment I'll see if I can find the page.
Rex,
Here is some back-up:
CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
SFGate (okay, that is liberal media):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/
NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1610113
Common Dreams (libral):
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-02.htm
Another NPR station:
http://www.here-now.org/shows/2004/06/20040618_9.asp
And keep in mind, I'm having difficulty finding stuff more than a year old because people take down the internet sites. Want me to find some more, it wasn't very hard to find. Try for yourself!
In the meantime, I am sure none of this counts, since it's liberal media, so I went to Fox News and found this pretty easily as well:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122724,00.html
Kate,
Rex said that he’s never heard either Vice President Cheney or anyone from the administration claim that there was a “direct link between Saddam and *9/11*.”
If your links don’t count it’s because none of them show Vice President Cheney claiming that there was a “direct link between Saddam and *9/11*.”
Now if you have something showing that the Vice President claimed that, please feel free to show us.
Thanks for the links, Kate. But when I looked at them, they were all about linkage between Saddam and Al Qaeda, not between Saddam and 9/11. The latest report confirms that there were indeed links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and every reference I've seen has the administration, especially Bush and Cheney saying that they never said that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. When Cheney was asked point blank if there was such a link, he replied, "We don't know."
But that's why I asked. In your earlier post you stated that the Administration had said that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, not that there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and knowing you to be a rational person (simply from reading your comments on this site over the years, even if our world views are different because of our different backgrounds), I wondered if you would be able to provide what others haven't.
But I guess not.
Peter,
Clinton loved hamburgers and George H.W. Bush hated broccoli, so maybe we could twist it that way.
pj
Your response should have been directed at rpl not me. I have heard of the Hamdi case, and did not question your statements.
Although, (that's very similar to a Sen. Kerry but, it means you can disregard everything that precedes it) I think you're too paranoid for words. People have noticed their things out of place and strange fingerprints; ipso facto, the evil Republican administration has been searching their homes without cause, or a warrant?
Statements such as that tend to invalidate any reasonable thing you might say.
Kate,
I appreciate that my post interested you for a moment, whatever the reason.
I see worker displacement as one of the toughest nuts to crack in the dynamic marketplace.
A pure market based solution would imply that it is soley the obligation of the worker to keep his or her skills current with the demands of the marketplace, now and into the future.
The opposite approach would tend to involve artificially protecting non-competitive industries, and or public assumption of the obligation to support and retrain displaced workers.
I believe that Democrats, including Kerry and Edwards automatically assume that it is the public's responsibility to write the wrongs in human terms of the marketplace under most circumstances.
The Republicans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that there will be some government involvement in easing the transition and retraining of those who are involved in industries that are no longer competitive. We simply cannot let people become destitute.
The thing to bear in mind is that any solution which takes productive capital and diverts it to non-productive activities ultimately weakens us in comparison to those who do less of it.
If you haven't realized yet that the Democrats are offering 20th century solutions to 21st century problems, then perhaps you are not as perceptive as you believe yourself to be.
You should know that I have never voted Republican in my life, this time will be a first, and at present do not have access to Fox News.
I do not believe it is in the best interest of the nation for the Democrats to implode. We need two world class and world leading political parties. Unfortunately, the Democrats are not world leading but world following.
It might interest you to know that I mostly stopped watching television for a period of about six years. Having done without it for a significant period of time I believe that I can sense the extent and power of media pollution on the way I experience my life.
During the run up to the Liberation of Iraq, I had the pleasure of residing in a charming and very liberal urban neighborhood in Minneapolis. I stopped at my neighbood grocery one evening and the woman at the counter asked if I would be attending the protest rally, she had apparently already reverted in time to Vietnam Era protest mode. It struck me as odd that among those who reflexively opposed our actions regarding Iraq, there was absolutely no serious analysis of the present state of affairs post 9/11. It seemed more like a fashion statement of the retro vein. Let's face it, the majority of those who hem and haw about the difficulties in Iraq have opposed the action all along.
I agree with you that there were overly optimistic expectations in some quarters, but disagree on the lack of dynamism in adapting to events on the ground. It is morbidly ironic that we are criticized for not getting it 100 percent right the first time around by those who are appalled by the fact that we chose to do take this action in the first place.
The Kerry argument of "no plan to win the peace" may have some appeal to the deep thinkers on the left in this country, but not to our opponents, who change tactics as needed to exploit their strengths and our weaknesses.
John Kerry and the American Left take many of their cues from the Euros and the international labor movement. All you have to do is look at the economic growth rates in France and Germany to see that there are serious structural problems related to the practice of artificially manipulating markets and forcing producers to be less competitive than they might otherwise be.
look, I'm probably going to vote for bush for other reasons, but I don't possibly see how bush supporters can be giving kate such a hard time.... come on! cheney has been so deceptive in his reasoning for war in iraq, which he wanted to invade from day one of his VP stint. just from the first link of hers that i went to (fox) the first paragraph states:
"Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Saddam Hussein had "long-established ties" with Al Qaeda, an assertion that has been repeatedly challenged by some policy experts and lawmakers."
how much clearer does this have to get?
publicly stated war reasoning started with an imminent threat from WMD, then the argument decayed into a link between AQ and iraq and insinuating involvement in 9/11, then there were arguments about how brutal of a dictator he is by referring to actions against the kurds a decade ago, now were at a point of nation-building or spreading democracy.
all along the real reasoning has been the same.... it's a launching pad for neoconservative fantasies of an american empire and we'll start with permenant bases in iraq (i believe Kerry mentioned 14 in the first debate) sure there were other aspects like how fantastically wealthy their oil friends get from $54/barrel oil that the uncertainty there breeds, multi-billion dollar sole-source contract for halliburton to dig them out of serious financial woes that cheney created, and of course the support for isreal implicit in taking out their biggest threat. he's deceptive.
they try pretend as if there were clear cut reasons for invasion but in reality there is no clear doctrine for this. if it's about a dictator with WMD, why haven't we invaded pakistan yet? if it's about 9/11 why aren't we in saudi arabia and egypt. if it's about a brutal government and genocide of their citizens why aren't we in sudan yet. the answer is clear - none of these publicly stated issues matter, what matters is the strategic position of iraq with regards to oil and the middle east plus a little side benefit to help their friends and avenge daddy bush.
The whole democracy in the mideast as a cure for terror argument never existed until we didnt find WMD in Iraq. Bush said over and over we were going into Iraq to enforce the UN resolutions on wmd. He stated very plainly "NO NATION BUILDING IN IRAQ." If the reps now claim that democracy in Iraq is the main reason we went into Iraq, they are calling Bush a liar. The first time jr dropped the nation building scam he said the "Iraqi oil will pay for the reconstruction." If thats not a lie, what is? Another question that isnt being asked is if the removal of Saddam for hundreds of billions of dollars a timely and cost effective use of the war on terror funds? Saddam had no ties to 911. Saddams military was 90% destroyed and in further decline. There werent even existing wmd programs let alone stockpiles. Remember when the wmd stockpiles werent found, the administration claimed there was proof of "wmd programs". Wrong again, we now went to war so that Saddam on some date in the future, after sanctions were lifted, couldnt attempt to reconstitute wmd programs. All while Iran and NK accelerate their Nuke programs. BTW, Cheney had continued linking Attas supposed meeting with Iraqi intell in Prague as Iraqi linkage to 911 up until the VP debate. We also have Fox news clips of Powell and Rice stating in August of 2001 that Iraq had no wmd or capacity to produce them. Meanwhile, Iran and NK accelerated their nuke programs after we called them evil and did nothing about it.
Look at the record. Bush has served 4 years as president and Kerry has served 20 years in the Senate. The records each has compiled should give voters enough information to make an informed decision.
Kerry is on record as favoring diplomacy over military action. Bush has ordered a large scale troop deployment.
Kerry is on record favoring large expenditures on social programs, such as subsidized health care and education programs. Bush favors tax cuts more than Kerry, although he has supported a lot of spending on social programs.
Kerry would choose liberal judges; Bush would choose conservative ones.
These are the major differences between the candidates. Voters have to decide whether they want an aggressive foreign policy, more or less spending on social programs, and conservative or liberal judges. Once they've done this, their choice of candidate will be obvious.
OLD MATTERS
“in 93 the ATF waged successful war against a family that ended with a teenage boy being shot in the back and killed, a mother being shot and killed while holding her new baby, a friend wounded and a million dollar wrongful death award against the governments jihad at Ruby Ridge, Oh yea did I say that the Dem’s wouldn’t “arrest” Ossama bin Lauden when he was given up on a platter? More of the same.
Hey TNT, Ruby Ridge was in August of 1992. Who was the President then? Are you ever able to tell the truth or did you get a transfusion of Bush's DNA?
Posted by Boonton at October 10, 2004 03:35 PM”
When wrong admit it, August 22, 1992, I was wrong on the date. My bad.
Of course I notice that Boonton didn't comment on the report (in 93) on the 91 (80-100) dead in Waco, wasn't enough, Huh? My point does still stand. This did not justify the resultant bombing in OK City. At least the perpatrator was put to death, promptly. Not so the rejected "terrorist served on a platter", several times. Ossama wasn't "arrested" because we didn't know if we could convict him. So much for the law enforcement approach to terrorist.
As always I note a Lib's disingenuousness in discussion. Ah well. As to the other rebutt's posted on Sunday, I'll take the word of those who were there, besides the guy who wasn't in Cambodia on X-mass of 68', because Nixon made him go (oh my God, I must have gotten a bug of Kerry's DNA). Well at least I now have cart blanche to lie at will.
Subject done.
“As for the challenger, I think you look at what he emphasizes the most. For Kerry, as with Gore, his greatest emphasis is bring the budget back to balance. My guess is Kerry will spend less than Bush, particulary if he was a republican congress. He will veto pork laden legislation that Bush would pass to curry favor on K street.”
Of all the recent fairy tales this one has me laughing the most. I remember reports of those on the platform after Mondul accepted the nomination, smirking and saying under his breath, “we’re going to tax the h__l out of you.” As for the tough on crime/terrorists, arrest the bad guy BS, the worst we would do to them is make them listen to Oprah or Doctor Phil and “repent”, turn Zen or what ever atheist/agnostics libs do in their really, really bad place.
Hear the tune of the good-hearted terrorist who was released on Sept. 25 from the inhuman Gitmo, and has already kidnapped two Chinese engineers in Pakistan who were there to build a bridge or dam.
While I really, really try to listen, but one of them makes my head spin with his spin and mercurial positions. How I can disagree with the guy so in touch with his feminine side is beyond me, apparently proclaiming each new stand as the only stand, on each and every item in debate. As far as the advisors to Kerry calling the Jihad declared on us, several times, a “war in concept”, he might want to do a little soul searching. I find that, maybe, we should go back in time, go with the guys (dems/libs) ignore the acts of war committed against us all over the world, and oh yea, the critical part of this genius plan, not “arrest the bad guys”, cuz that only makes them mad. Not.
Folks, the Islamists slit the throats of Americans in France. Crime, they were Americans. When running countries, they cut the heads off of women for really bad deeds, like working or wearing makeup, going to school, but they do it in places like soccer fields (hey, maybe they could make an Olympic event out of it). The time for “can’t we all just get alone” is long gone.
Clinton went to the UN (IAEA) to get atomic fuel for the little wacko pot bellied pig, gave China our GPS technology, who would Kerry appease with the same? How many Americans would have to be murdered before Kerry went to the “oil for food specialists”? We’ve had a pot full of sanctions against bad behavior in naughty states. Well at least Libya was a success. Part of Bush’s problem prosecuting the war on terrorism is the American “French factor”, those of us who think the statis quo is a world wide permanent law. It is in both parties interest to “fix” the economy, the manor of how separates them. The attack on 9/11 was in hope of killing “50,000” people, as or more importantly they aimed at the government bodies and our economy. 3,000 deaths aside, the more insidious attack was against our financial heart. Kerry just don’t get it. His plan for ending the Vietnam war, was the original plan he espoused at first for Iraq, immediate withdrawal.
Of the statements quoted,I find the following the biggest grab at the pot at the end of a non-existant rainbow: “He will veto pork laden legislation that Bush would pass to curry favor on K street.” John Kerry and Ted Kennedy were two of the worst perpetrators and supporters of the GROSS cost over runs of the “Big Dig” in Boston. Give us a break.
I remember the VVAW and their actions and I remember the devastating results of groups like them on the millions of men who served honorably and were in 'Nam. Maybe my bar is too high, but I just don't need to vote for a war criminal, who in my estimation commited treason against my country, my family, my friends. I certainly don't need another president who's excuse for doing devastating and illegal things "because he could", like the last Dem.
Jim, Kate and all, I agree Kate is very nice, but Cheney's assertion that there are a long history of connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda is correct. Just to clear up the confusion about what Cheney said, he did on one occasion say that 9/11 and Saddam were connected, on Meet the Press which is the clip Chris Matthews was spouting off about over and over. What Matthews did not say, which I felt was terribly unfair, is that the next day Cheney retracted that statement saying he had been mistaken. President Bush then took the unusual step of correcting Cheney in public and also asserting there was no known connection between Saddam and 9/11. But not Al Qaeda, there was clearly a relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
My belief and some speculated this at the time that is that Cheney does in fact believe there is a connection between Saddam and 9/11, and Bush either doesn't believe that or doesn't want to say that for whatever reason, so Cheney slipped and said it on one occasion then got upbraided by the boss.
Jim, you have no proof that Cheney is deceptive at all. What is deceptive is for Democrats to be continually saying that there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. No one has ever proved that there isn't, and there is a lot of evidence that there were interactions between them. Just what the whole relationship is is unknown, but since Saddam did help Zarqawi, among a lot of other things, there is no doubt he was supporting terrorism.
Here is some evidence for you:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15458
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/619ntbla.asp
Shamus, Kerry doesnt favor diplomacy over war, he favors diplomacy until it fails, and war is the only remaining option. Kerry gave jr the authority to go to war so he could better negotiate with Iraq. It worked, the UN inspectors were allowed back in, firmly stated they were making good progress and wanted to continue. Bush then chose to ignore the UN, the body who's resolutions were his basis for going to war, and unilaterally attack Iraq. We found NOTHING, and the world no longer trusts us.
The tax and spend allegations against Kerry, from a president that chose tax cuts responsible for two thirds of the current administrations debt is ridiculous. Lets see, we were going to have the tax cuts prior to 911, prior to the creation of DOHD, prior to the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, prior to pharmaceuticals for Srs, prior to not funding no child left behind in full, so it somehow makes sense to have even more tax cuts in the face of unanticipated, greatly increased expense? That sort of budget plan is how companies go bankrupt, and that happens to be the only thing jr has a record of success on in the private sector.
Now the lies about Bin Laden. When UBL was held in the Sudan, their government refused to turn him over to a non Islamic state. Clinton pleaded with our good friends in SA to take him, then release him to the US, but they refused. In Afganistan, the predator never had photos that could provide positive ID of Bin Laden, all we knew was it was a tall guy in white robes. The Predator wasnt armed anyway, not because of Clinton, but because of a turf battle between the military and the CIA. What evidence did we have on UBL when Clinton was in office? We never determined Al Qaeda responsible for the USS Cole until Bush took office, and he chose to do nothing. To the best of my knowledge Clinton had very little evidence of Bin Ladens DIRECT involvement in the African Embassy bombings, and considering jr chose to ignore the USS Cole, its laughable to theorize that jr would have been more aggressive towards Al Qaeda prior to 911. Especially when you consider he was 20% through his term, with no terror policy in place, on 911.
911 wasnt about body count, if they wanted a body count the closer to the ground the planes struck, the higher the number of dead. Even in NYC, population density increases the closer you get to the ground. UBL never thought the WTC would fall. 911 was all about the symbolism of attacking THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, as UBL believes global trade in oil is why we prop up the Musharaffs and Saudi royal families at the cost of dirt poor muslims. Im in no way condoning any terrorism, but we have to understand their reasoning if we are to determine were they will strike next.
911 wasnt about body count
Oh please, and that's why they cherry-picked planes destined for cross-country flights, i.e. carrying the greatest fuel load? "Not being certain of a topple" and trying your best anyway with the knowledge you have, are not mutually exclusive. Stop making stuff up.
Begbee: The UN inspectors only got in because our troops were on the border ready to invade. The chief inspector thought the Iraqis had WMD but had concealed it so well that it would take many years to find. We couldn't keep an army in place and ready to invade for that long - and as soon as we brought those troops home, the UN inspectors would have been kicked out again.
Saddam had 12 years to comply by showing that the poison gas he certainly had had been disposed, the production facilities dismantled, and other WMD projects we knew about ended, and to let the inspectors look around enough to be reasonably sure there wasn't anything else going on. He didn't. Clinton should have taken him out a long time ago.
Or do you think that, if a bank robber gives all the loot back when the SWAT team shows up, instead of arresting him we can just let him go, but keep following him with the SWAT van in case he decides to rob another bank?
Begbee:
Nevil Chamberlain also preferred diplomacy until it failed, and war was the only remaining option. This was his guiding principle at Munich in 1938.
Within 2 years, Chamberlain's preference for diplomacy - coupled with his abhorrence for conflict - nearly cost Britain its existence. Within a decade, it did cost Britain an empire.
Chamberlain's waiting until war was the only remaining option enabled the Nazi subjugation of nearly all of Europe; abetted the resulting mass murder of millions; caused the resulting war to be global rather than regional; and, indirectly, led to Soviet domination of Eurasia for 50 years.
Sometimes war - and not continued diplomacy - IS the correct course of action.
I'm a Bush supporter, let me say from the get-go, because I think entitlements are generally crap and Reps are at least technically less entitlement-happy than Dems. That said, I do wish Bush would be more fiscally responsible. But then, look at Reagan. And I'm not the MBA in the family (my husband, who is, also deplores the deficit, but we spend more time ranting about foreign policy than fiscal policy).
OK, now, in looking at the candidates I've been focusing on tactics, and on the company they keep. Who celebrated the forged memos? Who stuck Bush's face on the body of a Special Olympian? Who claims that Jim Crow is back in the driver's seat in this election season? Who, for heaven's sake, said that a second Bush term could result in legal rape?? Who keeps on claiming there's going to be a draft, there's going to be a draft, there's going to be a draft...sponsors a bill for a draft...votes against their own bill? Then continues to go to that well with the presumably distracted youth of the MTV generation, who somehow haven't noticed that the Dem-sponsored draft bill is DOA? Who is making threatening comments about the Sinclair Group, First Amendment notwithstanding?
On the other hand, which party applauded when its leadership gave credit to Mr. Kerry for his long-past military service? (That would be both parties, I guess.) Who, under duress to be sure but still with reasonable grace, praised Kerry for his personal traits in the middle of a @#)(*$# DEBATE? Who sat there calmly while his opponent smilingly slammed him and his family, then simply thanked him "for his kind words"? Who did NOT throw up their hats and cheer when Disney refused to distribute the execrable F9/11, nor make threatening comments when it did get distributed anyway, but rather stayed the heck out of it (of course while exercising their own First Amendment right to counter)?
My gosh, just the fact that Michael Moore has thrown in with the Dems is enough to put me off.
Then you have their past and current jobs. It'd take a lot for me to elect a senator, for the very reason given somewhere above: too much "nuance" (=the necessity in a legislative body to live constantly in the gray areas of life, with blacks and whites only emerging at reelection time) is not, IMHO, a good trait in a head of state. A governor has at least led a state - is familiar with the give-and-take of bicameral lawmaking but knows the necessity in some circumstances of making a decision and sticking to it.
Anonymouse Bin Laden cherry picked planes loaded with fuel to damage the targets as much as possible. Theres a widely publicized UBL video from just after when 911 occurred. The videotape was recorded at the residence of an Afgan Mujahadeen that was crippled and confined to a wheelchair since the eighties, due to injuries recieved fighting against the USSR. He recently turned himself into the SA amnesty for terrorists program, and the tape was back in the news. In the tape, UBL explains that from his expierience in the construction of skyscrapers that he didnt expect the WTC to fall. He theorized that the heat generated from all that jet fuel is what caused the structure to collapse, but it was completely unexpected. If those planes, with that amount of fuel were crashed into ground level of the streets of NYC the casuality rate would have been staggering. I suggest you do some research before accusing anyone of "making stuff up".
Mark M your thoughts on Saddams motives for letting the inspectors back into Iraq are pure speculation. The fact is Saddam let the UN inspectors back in, the UN was the governing body that produced the resolutions on Iraqi wmd, and the UN was satisfied with Saddams level of cooperation. S Ritter of UNSCOM had confirmed 97% of Saddams wmd stockpiles had been destroyed in 1998. Both Rice and Powell are on record on Fox news in August of 2001 stating the sanctions on Iraq had worked, and that Saddam had no wmd or active wmd programs. Saddam was contained, and was a threat to noone. Btw, your robbing a bank analogy is completely off base, Saddam had not demonstrated any aggression towards his neighbors since Desert Storm.
Begbee:
Since Clinton had nothing to link bin Laden and/or Al Qaeda to the African embassy bombings on August 7, 1998, why the attacks on the pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum and the Afghan terrorist camps two weeks to the day later? And why did Clinton administration spokesmen clearly state these attacks were in retaliation for the African embassy bombings?
If you are correct and Clinton had no knowledge of any bin Laden/al Qaeda connetion with the African embassy bombings, the only logical alternative was that these Clinton administration statements were disinformation. This implies these attacks were a "Wag the Dog" operation to distract from Clinton's domestic political difficulties.
Both obviously can't be true. Which one is it?
By the way: I've read the transcript of the bin Laden tape you reference. The transcript very clearly indicates that bin Laden knew in advance of the plot and that he expected the collapse of the portion of the WTC above the impact point and resulting death of everyone above that point. What surprised bin Laden - an engineer by education and training - is that the ENTIRE WTC collapsed.
Hondo diplomacy had nothing to do with Chamberlains lack of action against the German aggression in the early days of WW2. Chamberlain, like Hitler, was a believer in Eugenetics and had no problem with the Germans until they moved on Poland. Invading Poland forced the UK into the war because of the war guarentees England had with Poland.
Jamie the most expensive new entitlement in the past decade is jrs prescription drug plan for Srs. Kerrys record as a Senator isnt overly distinguished, but its far superior to jrs across the board failures in the private sector. And if you doubt the factual veracity of F-911, you can check all of Moores sources at Michael Moore.com War Room.
Begbee -- It certainly is true that favoring one course of action doesn't preclude taking another. But Kerry clearly feels the US did not pursue all our diplomatic options. People who agree with this view are likely to vote for him.
Kerry is also clearly on record as favoring social spending. Many Americans favor spending for health care and education, and they are likely to vote for Kerry.
These positions are nothing to be ashamed of. Diplomacy and social programs may provide benefits that military force and laissez-faire capitalism cannot.
Hondo I said Clinton had very little evidence of UBLs DIRECT involvement in the bombing of the African Embassies. I used these words specifically anticipating the typical rep attack on Clintons strike on the alleged chemical weapons facility in the Sudan and the terror camps in Afganistan as "wasting 200 million dollars worth of cruise missles, on a half million dollars worth of infrastructure." And also to defend the anticipated attack on Clintons subsequent lack of pursuit of the assassination of UBL. Btw, at the time when Clinton hit the chem weapons factory in the Sudan it was an aspirin factory according to reps, now since its been linked to UBL post 911 its back to a chem weapons facility, which is it?
Dude, for a building to "collapse" the whole thing has to come down. I stated UBL said he never thought the WTC would fall, so thanks for the back up.
Shamus I dont have a problem with spending on social programs. And neither does jr, as the drugs for Srs program demonstrates. The difference is, Kerry and I believe in balancing the budget, and jr believes in tax cuts that favor the wealthy and pass massive debt on to our children. And its not just Kerry that feels we didnt pursue diplomacy enough in Iraq, much of NATO and most of the world agrees with him as well.
"Saddam had not demonstrated any aggression towards his neighbors since Desert Storm."
You really shouldn't be telling others to go 'do their homework', Begbee. From a bit of quick Internet searching:
1994 - Iraq massed troops along Kuwait border, threatening repeat of 1991 invasion
1997-1998 - Iraq refused cooperation with UNMOVIC inspection program; documented to have developed missiles with ranges > the 150km max range permitted by UN sanctions
2000 - Iraq increased support for MEK operations against Iran
2003 - Iraqi FM Tariq Aziz directly threatened Kuwait if US it was used as a base for US forces operating against Iraq
You have further demonstrated this by showing your ignorance of the background of World War II. For starters, the beginning of World War II in Europe is generally taken as September 1, 1939; Chamberlain's Munich cave-in occurred roughly a year earlier. Second, your assertion that diplomatic appeasement at Munich had nothing to do with World War II is laughably foolish - but not totally unexpected, considering its source. For your sake, I hope the kool-aid was tasty and gave you pretty visions.
Third, no the "whole thing" doesn't have to come down in a structural collapse. A structural collapse can be either partial (only a single span in a multi-span bridge need drop for the bridge to have collapsed) or complete (the collapse of the WTC was indeed virtually complete). A structural collapse need not be anywhere close to total to destroy the usefulness of a structure, or to totally destroy its value. Take a look at an "after" photo taken after a major hurricane; at least part of every destroyed building is generally left standing, and the ruined buildings are generally recognizable - but unusable.
I don't know if the Khartoum factory was making poisions, legitimate pharmaceuticals, or both. However, you never did answer my question: if Clinton didn't have good evidence of an al Qaeda/bin Laden connection to the African embassy bombings, why did his administration publicly use this as justification for the Afghan/Khartoum attacks 2 weeks later? Was it "Wag the Dog" or not?
Finally: you imply that Kerry wants to balance the budget and doesn't want to pass on huge debts to the next generation. Then when will Kerry propose an end to Social Security as we know it today?
Begbee -- I dont think Kerry has actually proposed balancing the budget. He's advocating use of paygo to moderate fiscal imbalance, and this could lead to a balanced budget if it were combined with tax cuts. However, Congress has the responsibility is this area, and all Kerry could do would be to threaten a veto. He couldn't force Congress to adopt paygo.
The real problem isn't balancing the budget, but paying for entitlements when boomers start to retire. Some estimates put this cost north of 60 trillion dollars. Budget deficits rarely come up to 1% of that amount, and the entire national debt is only 10% of it. Kerry has not addressed this issue.
Hondo Saddam was a threat to noone. He amassed troops at the Kuwaiti border in 94, yet Kuwait still didnt agree with this war 03. And I know he shot at our planes in the NO FLY Zones, as well. But theres the question of the timeliness and proportionality of the attack on Iraq. There was no wmd, or even a single active wmd program. Saddams closest neighbors opposed this war, while I will admit error in the statement Saddam "showed no aggression post Desert Storm", the threat of Saddams aggression didnt even disturb his closet neighbors in 03.
Im not a WW2 expert. But my comments on Chamberlain and the UKs entry into WW2 is a near direct quote from Buchannons "A Republic, not an Empire".
I said to the best of my knowledge, Clinton did not have much evidence of UBLs direct involvement in the African embassy bombings. The evidence was that Al Qaeda had plotted the bombings, but UBL was not synonomous with all of Al Qaeda cells throughout the world pre 911. Thats why Clinton could be sure of Al Qaedas responsibility for the embassy bombings, but not UBLs culpability under US law, and why he attacked the chem factory and terror camps, and doubts about the ability to convict UBL in US courts.
I meant balance the yearly budget while trimming the overall debt. SS is a big problem getting closer and closer, and Im not sure who will have to bite the bullet, but SS withholding is going way up. No way SS gets privatized and nobody messes with AARP. Nobody.
Hondo I never said anything about a "structural" collapse. I said "collapse", as in the whole thing falling down. In fact, I first used the word "fall". I also said UBL didnt expect the entire structure to collapse.
Why should we even attempt to listen to the Republican or Democratic candidate! They are not honest, don't keep their promises, and will say whatever it takes to get elected.
The whole so called presidential "debate" was a sickening joke.
This is because the only true *small* government candidate Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party was excluded. Instead of hearing about ways to reduce the size and cost of government, restore our rights and freedoms, and get the government out of people's lives all we heard was different opinions on how government can solve every social ill.
His website is located at http://www.badnarik.org
Michael Badnarik is the only candidate that desires to reduce the size and scope of our bloated government, abolish legislation such as the Patriot Act that violates our rights, and abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing.
He believes the government's job is to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens and not to stray from the limit's imposed on it by the constitution.
If Michael Badnarik (who will be on the ballot in 48 states and DC) had been allowed to participate it would have been a REAL debate! A *small* government voice would have been heard instead of the blathering of two *big* government politicans.
JR
My mistake -- missed the name. And the persons I'm referring to who noticed things out of place for a period of time eventually were brought in for official questioning, confirming that persons had been investigating them by sneaking around their home without notice for months. And, as your probably aware, very, very few people have actually been charged with terrorism related offenses. Out of the 2000 or so people imprisoned as "witnesses" in 2001, none were ever charged with a crime.
There's a line to be drawn here, and common sense about terrorism requires the line to be redrawn from pre-9/11, but Bush and Ashcroft have just thrown away the chalk.
And Rex, I wasn't talking about the exclusionary rule, a was talking about the rule that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particulary describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed."
What Thomas Jefferson gave us, Antonin Scalia takes away.
Begbee - As I said in my first paragraph, I wish Mr. Bush would be more truly conservative than he's been. Both my husband and I were pretty appalled about the Medicare thing. However, besides Michael Moore's War Room (which is apparently full of people doing their durnedest to make silk purses out of sow's ears, to put it politely, and surely even his fans know it by now), you didn't counter anything I said.
We have a couple of friends who are pulling for anybody-but-Bush. Ask them why, and they say it's because, and I quote, "Bush is an idiot." They point to his accent, his verbal lapses, and generally his everyman persona. Incidentally, it's hard to reconcile the dual positions on the liberal side that, on the one hand, Bush is just a dumb Joe who would probably bowl, line-dance, and drink beer if he hadn't found Jaysus and AA (please, oh please, let no one miss the irony!), but on the other hand he's an elitist always looking out for his rich and powerful cronies at the expense of the common people. But back to our friends. Their only other substantive critique is that Europe hates him. They seem to believe that's a bad thing. (I should note that one of the couple is a Romanian citizen, but too young to remember her nation's debt to Reagan, another man hated by Europe.)
Need we get into the Mary Cheney thing? Or the DNC playbook stuff that came out today urging regional DNC people to trumpet "voter fraud!" even if there's no sign of it? I repeat that the tactics and the company candidates keep are my criteria for which candidate believes that the ends justify the means. Which goes double - triple - for Michael Moore, the disingenuous filmmaker himself.
kate:
"thedaddy, responding to someone's obsure statement attacking your guy by saying it exemplifies the problem with "libruls" and then making your own obsure statement does not enhance the discourse."
I don't see any reference to "libruls" in any of my posts.
My discourse has been polite but correct. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen-- to coin a phrase.
Jamie, dirty politics cuts both ways. The reps have airbrushed Jane Fondas picture next to Kerry at a VVAW event. The infamous "voted for the $87 billion..." comments are clipped, dont mention Kerry voted for a different version of the same bill, and doesnt mention that Kerry had already voted Aye for the initial $400 billion allocation to Iraq and two other supplemental Iraq funding bills. The most disgusting thing either party has done in this election was when the reps suggested our troops were dying because Kerry voted no for the $87 billion, keeping the troops from possessing body armor and fully equipped humvees. Those troops died because jr rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.
The middle is disgusted with Bush exclusively by substanitive issues, not just for being semi retarded. The Iraqi wmd lies, the no nation building lies, the redaction of 27 pages on SA in the 911 report, the debt, the tax cuts that hugely favor the top 1%, etc.
There is no dualing opinion on Bushs lack of intelligence. The middle thinks his stupidity makes him a great tool for the interests he represents. He sits on Cheneys lap, Cheney puts his hand in his back and makes his mouth move, and Rove throws his voice to give the appearence jr has a will of his own.
Theres nothing wrong with Kerrys mention of Cheneys lesbianism. He didnt out her, and the fact she is gay highlights the division on gay marriage within the rep ticket. Was it done with the intent to alienate the evangelical vote? Absolutely. But its no different than the reps claiming the dems take the black vote for granted. I doubt the veracity of the existance of the dem playbook you speak of, but the scandal of reps in Colarado destroying dems registration looks like a story with legs.
I believe the words are “to provide for a common defense and promote a common welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution of these United States of America”. The words are pretty specific. They don’t say provide for the common welfare. The idea of a cradle to grave society is a relatively new one, principle starting with Roosevelt and engorged by Johnson in an effort to buy a better aroma. Our county was established on the basis of a strong union with “one man – one vote” principles (later accomplished), and the majority rules. It was in fact predicted that when we voted ourselves “largess” we were down the tube. We are at that door. The Dems have been the principal motivator of the tail wagging the dog. In a fit of “minority rules”, the modern Dem party has pushed an agenda that mandates 6% of the population sets the “religious public life”, 6% to 10% sets the moral priority, and 15% sets the ethnic agenda. In having the courts mandate laws they couldn’t get passed in congress the modern day Dem Jihadists have perverted the entirety of our founding fathers vision. That is the true perverting of Jefferson’s vision of a separate but equal division of power.
American politics has been no more rough and tumble than any other country, and much less violent than the euro-trash. America helped most of modern Europe have a parliamentary democracy, most notably Germany. While always less than high-minded, the last two Presidential races being most tawdry in recent memory. Nixon didn’t demand a recount in a very tight race to avoid the type of problems we had in 2000. He knew what shadow would be cast on the following elections. In short he was the better man than Gore. To find the horror of vote fraud you would have to go back to the 1830’s through the 1860’s. Unfortunately the Dems have become suicidally preoccupied with getting back in the White House. They have become a pathetic vision of has-beens and never weres.
Also:
The murderers of 9/11 were surprised at the “taking” down of the towers, an added bonus. But in an economy of purpose they used 4 tools to strike a death blow, while there stated goal was to kill 35,000 to 50,000 in the Towers (in the heart of our financial world), the two other planes had specific targets, the Pentagon, and either the White House or the Senate. They struck against our citizens (at 8 AM they should have accomplished the body count), financial (30% immediate drop in the stock market), military (this was less spectacular) and legislative or executive hearts (stopped by real heroes). They will do it again if given the chance. The war on terror has killed or captured 3000 terrorists in 106 countries. The most laughable thing I’ve seen to date is that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq (apparently they couldn’t find a map to get there).
As for the stupid Texan, I often wonder if the proponents of that have had too much Kool-Aid or perhaps just don’t have opposable thumbs. Slick doesn't fool me any more. Maybe it does others.
TNT we are not a liberal democracy, and we never have been. If 1 man equals 1 vote, Gore would be President. Your comments on a cradle to grave society are also inaccurate. Most of whats labled as socialism today isnt based on providing for citizens from the cradle to grave, but based on Benthams Utilitarianism, that government should act in a way that provides the most good for the greatest number of people.
Body count was not nearly as important to Al Qaeda as the symbolism of the attacks. I have never read the stated goal of a 30,000 to 50,000 body count, and Ive read both Imperial Hubris and Against All Enemies. As to the plane that crashed in Pa, the black box recordings released suggest that there was never any breach of the cockpit by the passengers, and that the hijackers intentionaly crashed the plane as soon as the second plane hit the towers.
I have read nothing that states Al Qaeda was definitely in Iraq. The supposed terror camp in the no mans land of Iraq, near the Iranian border has proven to be a Kurd outpost, and was in the no fly zone Saddam had no control over. The only other "evidence" that Al Qaeda was in Iraq is that in the late 90s Al Zaharwei was treated in a Bahgdad hospital. But Al Zaharwei was never active in terror while in Iraq, and was running a terror camp in Afganistan when the military action in Afganistan began.
Bush not stupid? Misunderestimate. Grecians. Kosavoins. Catastrophic Success.
Oh, Begbee... looks as if you have your talking points and I have mine. Naturally I believe mine have more merit. (Naturally you believe yours do.) Everybody who keeps track knows what Kerry's $87 billion comment was in its proper context; it still doesn't move him any closer to the mainstream of American life, where, IMHO, the President ought to reside. Of course the Dems have countered by calling W ultra-right-wing - which everybody who keeps track knows he's not. Everybody who knows anything about the American public's on-again-off-again appetite for politics must acknowledge that Mary Cheney's sexual orientation came as a surprise to some significant number, which you'll claim is irrelevant because she's out; I contend that Mrs. Edwards's comment is as insulting as anything I've ever heard in the public arena, and right up there in private life. And before you bring up Mr. Cheney's F-bomb in the hallowed halls of Congress, surely even a true believer can acknowledge that the circumstances are vastly different. I won't defend Cheney in his use of inappropriate language, but what Mrs. Edwards said about the Cheneys is as bad as a playground double-dog-dare, and has about as much place in a political campaign.
As to Reps' claims that Dems take the "minority vote" for granted, show me how that isn't true. Simultaneously show me how "minorities" as a group are better off when they embrace liberalism as currently practiced. Why was Mr. Obama's speech so impressive at the DemCon? Not because his life story demonstrated the stunning success of liberal entitlements, but because it was a fantastic rags-to-riches story that relied on Mr. Obama's own determination and hard work. Which are not, need I say, the particular traits on which the Dem platform in its current incarnation rests. Please note that I do not say people of a Dem persuasion do not possess these traits, since patently many do - just that the platform isn't based on them.
Heavens, is there still anybody out there who believes that "Bush lied, kids died"? The WMD lie, seems to me, is being reported by credible sources, as well as CBS, as perpetrated on the world by Hussein himself.
"No nation-building" - you have a point there, albeit a minor one, and if W had been as privy to foreign affairs during his campaign as Clinton was while in office, I doubt W would have made that statement. Let's bear in mind that it's Kerry who claims that 9/11 didn't change him at all (in an obvious gambit to counter the chorus of "flip-flop, flip-flop" that even Bushies are tired of by now). Bush acknowledges, correctly, that 9/11 changed everything.
The debt - can you tell me a Dem president under the same circumstances would have maintained a balanced budget? OK, can you say it with a straight face now? I'm not crazy about the deficit, but I'm certainly not about to jump ship to bring in a liberal to "fix" it.
It's easy to trot out "Bush the Cheney/Rove puppet," isn't it? Sadly, it's not terribly convincing, since the perpetrators give Cheney and Rove credit for brains (evil brains, probably in jars) while at the same time claiming that Bush is a big boob. Why would Cheney and Rove pick a guy who can't even read his lines right? (On the Rep side, speaking of stories with "legs," which your CO voting story does not seem to have after all, there's some contention out there that the Kerry-Edwards ticket is a fabrication of the Clinton team, so that Hillary can get her hat in the ring in 2008. You've heard that, right? It would explain so much...)
I have to doubt that you speak for "the middle," given your good command of the aforesaid talking points. I commend to your attention the writings of Tammy Bruce, not to mention Orwell. Then go check out Kerry's health care plan, and pretty much everything Jesse Jackson has said during this whole campaign. And for heaven's sake, think, don't just recite your talking points. I promise to do the same if you can actually counter my point of view without recourse to hyperbolic anger. This is still the best damn country on earth, regardless of which party holds the White House.
Jamie, I have no talking points. The $87 billion quote from Kerry was taken out of context. For that quote to be in context, it would have to have stated that the $87 billion was the second supplemental funding package in Iraq, and that Kerry had voted yes on the initial $400 billion for Iraq, and yes on the first supplemental funding bill for Iraq. Further, if they were going to mention lack of body armor and fully equipped humvees, they have to lay that at the feet of the Commander in Chief that sent our soldiers to war without proper protection. The Brits wouldn't even allow their troops to patrol Northern Ireland in the type of humvees our troops are using in Iraq. The UN doesnt allow their Peacekeepers to wear the type of bodyarmor most of our troops are forced to wear in Iraq.
Dont even try to compare Dick Cheneys use of vulgarity on the Senate floor to Edwards or Kerrys comments on Cheneys daughter. First, as you said, Cheneys daughter is out. Second, Cheney himself first commented on his daughters sexual preferance while on the stump prior to any of the debates. Third, the rep ticket is split on the ammendment on gay marriage, which the reps have interjected into the current campaign and for that reason very relevant. Fourth, Cheneys gay daughter is part of his campaign staff. Fifth, Cheney himself thanked Edwards for the kind words about his daughter, almost the exact same verbage Kerry used, a week earlier. The main reason Cheneys gay daughter was brought into the debate is because Bush is pushing the gay marriage ammendment, that doesnt have a chance of getting the super majority needed in the Senate to pass, as red meat for the evangelicals.
All the poor, not just blacks are better off with liberalism. The idea that people that cant afford housing or food are better off outdoors and hungry is a very conservative concept. The fact is most blacks like dems, and most reps dont like gays, and thats why these comments were made by the respective parties.
Bush lied about the Iraqi wmd. Theres Fox news clips of Powell and Rice in Aug of 2001 stating Iraq had no stockpiles of wmd, and no capacity to produce wmd. Im not typing out all the other information again, read the Senate Report on Intelligence and learn exactly the distortions and single sources Wolfy built his war on.
Two thirds of the current debt were caused by Bushs tax cuts. Check the CBO yourself if you dont believe it.
Its not just that jr said, "No Nation Building in Iraq". Now that theres no wmd, building a democracy in Iraq has morphed into the entire plan, when we went in it was supposedly to only enforce the UN resolutions on wmd, despite the UN not wanting us to.
Im sure Rove and Cheney would have preferred a more articulate and lovable puppet, someone like say Reagan, but jr had the right last name, and the right friends. Surely your not going to argue his record in the private sector gave him the credentials to govern Texas, let alone the US.
Obamas speech went over because hes a gifted orator, and he sold it like he believed it. I remember little of what Obama actually said, but I very well remember thinking, "This guys good, very good." Having seen him interviewed since the speech, I can also state hes very smart.
For your repeated insults on talking points and anger, Im tempted to call you "toots" or "Lil Miss", but Im not here to hurl even veiled insults. I have read much of Orwell, but none of Tammy Bruce. The only female author I read is Xaveria Hollanders Dear Madam column. I see nothing in Orwell reflective of Kerry or Jackson.
Anonymouse Bin Laden cherry picked planes loaded with fuel to damage the targets as much as possible.
Huh? I thought the symbolism was what mattered. Are you now acknowledging (contraditory to what you said earlier) that other factors WERE in consideration, even if they were not foremost?
Theres a widely publicized UBL video from just after when 911 occurred. The videotape was recorded at the residence of an Afgan Mujahadeen that was crippled and confined to a wheelchair since the eighties, due to injuries recieved fighting against the USSR. He recently turned himself into the SA amnesty for terrorists program, and the tape was back in the news. In the tape, UBL explains that from his expierience in the construction of skyscrapers that he didnt expect the WTC to fall.
And yet, as Hondo pointed out, he was expecting part of it to, with significant loss of life. Your assertions left no room for that possibility, hence I maintain that they were not valid as presented.
He theorized that the heat generated from all that jet fuel is what caused the structure to collapse, but it was completely unexpected. If those planes, with that amount of fuel were crashed into ground level of the streets of NYC the casuality rate would have been staggering.
Crashed into the streets...compared to expectations of killing everyone above the impact point AND knocking the top off of WTC 1 & 2 (with a possibility of each chunk pulverizing other occupied structures below)? I doubt it. Also, this wasn't a video game; it's considerably more difficult to get a large passenger aircraft low in a dense cityscape, unless you don't care too much where it hits. Suffice to say the hijackers could, at minimum, have crashed the planes much lower into the towers themselves, but how much lower reamins a mystery since nobody (yet) has tried it twice.
You explicitly stated that 9/11 wasn't about body count, your defense was that the towers weren't expected to fall, and with this you justified assertions that 9/11 was about symbolism. Note that I did NOT contest the symbolism aspect, only your fraudulent, absolutist mischaracterization of whether body count was also a factor. In with the symbolism was a very real desire to kill a bunch of people. If all you meant is that body count wasn't the primary factor, then you should have said that, instead.
So I reitterate: You made stuff up.
I suggest you do some research before accusing anyone of "making stuff up".
I suggest you dedicate more of your research to basic nuances of informal communication before attempting to engage in the same. Only you can solve the translation problems caused by sloppy use of language; all I have to go by is what you write. And given your past history here of creative interpratives when the facts don't go exactly as you would prefer to frame the argument, I'm not inclined to judge that writing charitably on first pass.
Anybody see an insult in my posts? If I have been insulting, I apologize. If I have expressed myself clearly and with spirit and anyone subscribing to a different view has taken offense simply because I have not changed my mind on the issues, I don't apologize at all. (Just like Bush.)
Of course Mr. Obama is an intelligent man and a gifted speaker. But the content of his speech was a singularly poor defense of an entitlement culture; in fact, it was a beautiful articulation of the American dream. Mr. Obama is where he is through his own efforts and those of his family - not a set of government programs.
As for the underequipping of our military, I misdoubt that Bush - either Bush - could be blamed for that. I think we all know whose door to lay that one at. Check the military's poll numbers to see which former military member they support.
Orwell: "some animals are more equal than others." Did Bush make a mistake taking us to war in Iraq? The answer to that question is surely debatable, but Bush is repeatedly brought on the carpet to "admit" it and much is made of his "stubbornness" in not doing so. (That is, if the Left thinks you're wrong and you think you're right, your unwillingness to admit that you're wrong only points up other character flaws, regardless of the merits of the question.) On the other hand, Edwards and Kerry inject Mary Cheney into nationally-televised debates when she has clearly not injected herself into the limelight in this campaign, her parents are offended by the references on privacy grounds (which surely parents have a right to be, even if they're Reps), AND Americans on both sides of the aisle groan at the chutzpah of it; but does either Kerry or Edwards admit a mistake? No, they go on the offensive: she's out, she's fair game, and above all, she's a means to an end.
I saw 2 Dem strategists discussing the issue last night on Hannity & Colmes (I mention the show so you can deride me about it if you choose). Hannity, of course, took the "it's wrong on principle" stance. One of the 2 Dems took the "it was stupid because it didn't work" stance, and the other took the "Well, Cheney brought it up!" stance, which, again, everyone who's paying attention knows was in answer to a question rather than a "cold call," so to speak. I thought the three attitudes were a nice sum-up of my voting rationale.
Feel free to call me "Toots" or "Little Miss." My mom favored "Grace" because of my klutziness. "Four-Eyes" is good too. Just, for heaven's sake, don't call me liberal! (Probably little danger of that.)
Boy, you two sure make me type alot.
Anonymouse the more the targets are damaged, the more successful the symbolism of the attack. Do you think 911 would have had the same impact if the WTC didnt fall? If not for the fuel, would the damage to the WTC have been as significant? I never said that the only factor in 911 was the symbolism involved in choosing the buildings to strike with the planes, but it was certainly the most significant factor. As I said previously, if body count was UBLs goal, he would have achieved a much greater body count by simply crashing the planes into the streets of NYC. If body count was the priority, there were much better targets than the WTC, the Pentagon, and the White House. Also, the pilots were capable of flying the planes hundreds of miles directly in to the WTC, they certainly could have crashed them into the streets. If those planes hit the streets of NYC with that much fuel on board the number of dead would have been staggering. Further, the planes arrived at the target 20 minutes apart, if the second plane would have been crashed into the streets all the first responders would have been slaughtered, and who knows how many bystanders would have died along with the medical personell and firefighters.
You could have disagreed with my conclusions without resorting to a sentence as incendiary(pun intended) as "making stuff up". I provided a source on UBLs comments about the WTC, I certainly didnt "make that up". Further, to take my phrase "911 wasnt about body count" and to extrapolate that into the totality of your argument is absurd, and is certainly not a problem with my informal communications skills, but the desperate attempt of one who has been thouroughly rebutted to keep an argument alive on a single phrase taken out of context. How very republican.
Jamie provide a source of Obama discrediting government programs as having no role in his success. I remember his describing the hard work of his immigrant parents, but I must have missed the attack on affirmative action or what ever other attack on "entitlement" programs you claim took place.
When you start a war, you dont send your soldiers in underequipped. Its not like Iraq attacked us and we had to respond immediately. Those soldiers that have died due to lack of armor, died because of poor war planning. Thats all on jr and Rummy. And give the tired bs about Clinton letting the military decline a rest, there was bipartisan agreement on downsizing the military after the cold war ended. "Misdoubt", you really love jr dont ya Jamie?
I have no clue what relevance you think Orwells quote on more equal animals has. Is that veiled racism? There is no argument on the war in Iraq being a mistake, it is a catastrophic mistake. We went in to enforce the UN resolution on wmd, when the UN didnt want us to. There was no wmd, we acted the fool, and the whole world is laughing at us. A mere two years after crying with us, they hate us. This was never about democracy in Iraq until there was no wmd. jr plainly stated "No Nation Building in Iraq". America would have never accepted this war on the basis of bringing democracy to Iraq. jrs daddy said we didnt go into Bahgdad the first time because "it would be a blood bath with NO EXIT STRATEGY". Congratulations jr, you have proved daddy right.
Edwards and Kerry didnt inject Cheneys gay daughter into the debates. jr injected her into the debate by bringing the unpassable no gay marriage ammendment into the election as red meat for the evangelicals. The moderator injected her into the debate with his question on if being gay is a choice. Its completely legitimate to comment on Cheneys gay daughter, because she is the reason Cheney disagrees with jr on the issue of gay marriage. I have never heard so much whining about comments that were originally welcomed as kind words, by Cheney himself. Its nice to know reps care so much about the feelings of gay people and their parents. Kinda reminds of the movie Heathers when the redneck father tearfully states, "I love my dead gay son." Btw, I just saw Gephardts gay daughter interviewed, and she says the gay community saw nothing wrong in Kerrys comments.
My gender related barbs in my previous post were out of line, I apologize.
“Bush lied about the Iraqi wmd.”
If so, so did Kerry and Edwards, both believed the reports, as did, apparently Sodamn Insane. If it’s, Bush was stupid to believe the “slam dunk” statement of Clinton’s choice for the CIA, then so was Kerry and Edwards. Discriminating between Bush and Kerry on this particular matter is showing the fraud in your argument.
America is a representational democracy based on the principal of one man one vote, majority rules. It is augmented with the provision of a electoral college. That was done in order to give everyone a better than even chance for their one vote to count. Our founding fathers were smart for being of the “great unwashed”, most without formal education. All suffered because of their involvement, most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence lost every thing.
We provide welfare for those who can’t afford the cost of pregnancy and birth. We bury those who can’t afford the cost of the final act of kindness. Cradle to grave. These things are reasonable acts of social kindness, providing college educations to illegal aliens or their children is a ridiculous demand on society, as are the social programs or teaching programs that has 10 year olds tasting rubbers.
If you think that “the great society” had any real benefit for any greater good and did in fact try to provide, cradle to food to education to job to housing to burying the dead, then you haven’t seen the breakdown of the family, with a minority out of wedlock birth rate of 80%, higher crime rate, lower education success and most egregious lost hope. The dems keep pushing the same failed social programs, with a twist, they now want us to provide the same welfare system for those here illegally.
Your disputing numbers means nothing to me, the body count was one of the stated goals, as for the heroes in the 4th plane, sir you do yourself dishonor in trying in any way to disparage their actions. The first recommendation of the industry was to make the cockpit door a barrier. Disingenuously you tout facts and figures I have never heard. I take them at face value, for the most part that is simply; they must give you some consolation. I’m sure you want to believe the party line that of 106 countries, most in the mid-east, Iraq stands singularly in not having any thing to do with them. That is pathetic.
“Bush not stupid? Misunderestimate. Grecians. Kosavoins. Catastrophic Success”
If you were trying to make a point here, you didn’t. Genius Clinton was charged with war crimes for Kosovo/Serbia, disparaged for the handling of Rwanda by PBS of all sources, wouldn’t take bin Lauden, because Sillery and Reno said we couldn’t hold him, wouldn’t bomb him when he was in the Pakistan because of the mess bombing the Chinese embassy, gave bin Lauden the idea that America would cut and run when challenged in Somalia, gave nuc's to N. Korea, and got caught lying.
Kerry – same advisors, same agenda, more of the same, with a twist, he’s to the left of Billery. Did I say that Kerry claims to be a war criminal? Ya know he was in Viet Nam.
Hey, just a shout out to the C’s, thanks for the flu shot mess. Apparently government involvement does mess up the works.
Source Links
http://www.counterpunch.org/complaint.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/
Interview with Dick Morris.
Just catching up.
“Jamie, dirty politics cuts both ways. The reps have airbrushed Jane Fondas picture next to Kerry at a VVAW event.”
Actually only one of two pictures were “sexed up” (the one on the stage) the real on was of Kerry a couple of rows back from her. Fonda, funded the VVAW and was involved with it picture or not. But yes, dirty politics does cut both ways, sort of , when Kerry’s daughter showed a lot about herself in Canas, the republicans didn’t make the obvious poor taste an issue, nor have they made much national hay with the "let them go naked" statement of Ms Moron. Still, at least with Kerry’s daughter you really do see what you get.
TNT explain why Powell and Rice both stated in Aug of 2001 Iraq had no wmd and no capacity to make them. Explain why Wolfie filtered every antiwar on Iraq point of intell out of the record. Explain why Wolfie took only the word of known liar, forger, and Iranian double agent A Chalibi for the location and quanity of Iraqi wmd, when he was the only source. Explain why Wolfie accepted the word of a single, alcoholic Iraqui informer as proof of existance of mobile wmd labs. Explain why none of this was told to congress until the Congressional report on Intell came out. Explain why jr keeps lying by stating that "they saw the same intell as I did" in reguards to the Iraqui intell when the Congressional report says just the opposite.
TNT you stated one person equals one vote and your wrong. The dems arent the big spenders on social programs anymore, Clinton signed the bill that has all but eliminated welfare. The fact is the most expensive social program of the last decade is jrs prescription drug plan. Further, there are no cash benefits, food stamps, housing, or health care from "the cradle to the grave" in the US. But there are in every single other western democracy. Btw, when comprehensive welfare existed, there were more whites recieving it than minorities, so much for your claim on welfares devastation of minority families. The devastation of minority families has alot more to do with the quality of education in minority neighborhoods, unequal access to good jobs, the absence of affordable daycare, etc, than any effect of welfare.
There was never any stated goal of body count on 911, provide a source, or accept that fact. I dispareged noone with the facts on the jet crashed in Pa, I stated exactly what was learned from the black box recordings.
I said jr was stupid. War crimes and Clinton have nothing to do with the semi retarded scumbag in the White House.
I dont care if Kerrys a war criminal. He is so far superior to jr in every aspect I will be very proud when he wins the election. And to tell you the truth I dont care about the airbrushed pictures or any dirty tricks, its part of the game, but dont act like one side has cornered the market on dirty tricks.