OT: Bhutto Assassinated

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I believe mistakes were made. I do not believe, however, that the President of the United States knowingly started a war as a political diversion.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"hindsight is always 20-20. Tell me who was there actively opposing the Iraq campaign at the time? Do you really believe Bush allowed arrogance to trump his judgment based on what his intelligence was telling him, combined with Saddam's absolute intransigence in the face of sanctions, diplomatic pressure, etc.?"

Peter, I ( along with millions of others protesting on the streets in cities across America in 2003) must have been psychic because all of this is turning out exactly as we predicted: no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq falls into complete chaos and civil war, terrorists gather and build strength, Afghanistan and Al Quaeda get virtually ignored, and we find ourselves in an endless war with an amorphous enemy. We did not predict the erosion of civil rights or the use of torture as an instrument of war being condoned by Americans, but nobody is perfect.

Let's not forget that the pretense was weapons of mass destruction. Weapons inspectors were in Iraq for months and found nothing. I would hardly say that "intelligence" was telling Bush otherwise. It was telling him exactly as it turned out to be. At best, Bush was selective and stupid in the information he chose to follow. There was absolutely no reason to rush to war with Iraq. They were an impotent threat to nobody. But Haliburtin is powerful. A $26 million retirement package to Cheney in 2000 sure paid off. Talk about lobbying! No bid contracts for an endless war. Cha-ching!
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Peter, you dope. Don't you know it was all about the oil?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

first:

Congrats to all of us; we've kept this on-topic and civilized.

Second:

I went to a speech given by a former Reagan aide a couple of years back. His point about Iraq was that we got rid of a very evil man in Sadaam Hussein and that was not a bad outcome. In addition, the shock and awe campaign did exactly that. The biggest problem was that the after effects of the invasion was not as well planned as the military part. This was was before the surge; but his statement was basically that America did not plan for the after the warfare conclusion.

If we had the troops then we do now; much of what occured in Iraq may not have happenned and many lives could and should have been saved.

Third:

Personally; like with anyone else; there are things I believe people have good viewpoints on and things people don't. But we're in Iraq and I'll repeat one thing I said earlier; no matter if you like or don't like how we got there; for crying out loud; please support our troops who are performing their jobs. It's dangerous work for not a lot of reward and they deserve our respect.

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

"Once we lose the war over there..." Ouch. Just 'cause you don't like the management doesn't mean you should be a team cancer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

JimB, right, we went to war so Haliburton could get contracts. That is truly lame.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

I read these posts and it's mind-boggling....the majority of the comments posted here smack of a myopic and uninformed view of
what the freedom loving people of this world are facing in the form of evil.

We are in a 21st Century WAR against evil. In many ways it is no different than what we faced in WWII. Except that this enemy
values life even less than the Nazis or Japs did, since they are willing to blow themselves up (or their children) in order to murder
innocent human beings.....this is sheer evil in its most diabolical form. And, Benazir Bhutto is the latest victim of this evil.

We fought evil on multiple fronts during WWII.....the Nazis in France, Germany, the Balkans and Africa. We fought the Facists in
Italy. We fought the Japs in the South Pacific Islands.

So, now we are fighting evil on just two fronts.....Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly in a lot less battlefields than in WWII. I do not
understand what you naysayers problem is ? And, this obsession to get Bin Laden....where was this obsession when Clinton had
him targeted back in the mid-1990's and let him go ?
In all probability he is dead by now. We have not seen his evil face since Oct. 2004. We only see his cohort, Al Zawahari, and he
looks like he is on his deathbed spouting out the Liberal "talking points".

My suggestion to some of you is to find a well-written book on WWII and try to be more informed before you post this crap you
see and hear on the Commie News Network....CNN.

The bottom line guys and gals is we have not had a terrorist strike in our country in 6 years and 3 months....and, that is not due
to just plain luck or coincidence. Bush and Co. must be doing something right.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

By the way what ever happened to the Nancy Pelosi promise to take the supposed mandate from the midterm elections and cut off funding for the war?

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

It was only a matter of time before someone invoked Godwin's law. By the way, if comparing WWII to what we are facing today isn't myopic, then I don't know what is. I would try to explain further, but I'm sure someone who is a member of the NRA, or one of the anti abortion people would just pile on next. Hope this link is
OK Leon; just in case someone hasn't heard of Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

It's all how you say it, isn't it? Pro life sounds SO much better.

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

And by the way, "Japs" is an offensive term. Perhaps dinosaur is an appropriate moniker.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"JimB, right, we went to war so Haliburton could get contracts. That is truly lame."

I could not agree more.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"The bottom line guys and gals is we have not had a terrorist strike in our country in 6 years and 3 months....and, that is not due
to just plain luck or coincidence. Bush and Co. must be doing something right."

Anthrax aside, many more Americans have been killed since 9/11 due to our misdirected efforts than on 9/11. Just with regard to American deaths, they are on the rise. But let's not forget the tens of thousands of our innocent Iraqi brothers and sisters who have been killed and whom we love so much that we are willing to make the ultimate sacrafices to insure their democracy and prosperity. Humans are humans in my book. 3000 killed on 9/11. Hundreds of thousands killed since. We live in a very confused time. What is ultimately important?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: DD

Who was on watch 6 years and 3 months ago? Good leaders take responsibility, regardless. I can't remember, but I don't think Mrs. O'Leary let the cow stand watch after the fire. "By the way, here's a gas lamp for light and warmth Bessie".

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

"And, this obsession to get Bin Laden....where was this obsession when Clinton had
him targeted back in the mid-1990's and let him go ?"

Um, 9/11 hadn't occured yet.

I don't think wanting to take down the architect of that horrible day should be dismissed as being obsessive, as if it were some kind of psychological disorder..

"In all probability he is dead by now. We have not seen his evil face since Oct. 2004"

Reported today:


Group: Osama Bin Laden to Release Internet Message on Iraq, al-Qaida Linked Insurgent Group


(AP) 10:36:20 PM (ET), Thursday, December 27, 2007 (NEW YORK)



Terror leader Osama bin Laden will release a new Internet message that focuses on Iraq and an al-Qaida linked insurgent group, a terrorism monitoring group said Thursday.


The SITE intelligence group said the al-Qaida leader will discuss Iraq and the group the Islamic State of Iraq, a longtime foe of the Iraqi government and U.S. forces.


SITE, which provides counter-terrorism information to government and private groups, said the announcement of the impending message was posted to Islamic militant Web sites earlier in the day.


The posting said the message _ titled `The way to contain conspiracies" _ would last 56 minutes. It did not say when it would be released, but such ads usually precede the actual message by one to three days.


The authenticity of the posting couldn't immediately be determined. But SITE said it was signed by As-Sahab, the production branch that releases al-Qaida messages. The Internet message didn't say if bin Laden's statement would be in a video or just audio form.


The message will mark the sixth public statement by the terror leader this year. Audio or video communiques were sent over the Internet on Sept. 7, Sept. 11, Sept. 20, Oct. 22 and Nov. 29. A video on Sept. 7 was his first in three years and was issued to mark the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.


Al-Qaida has dramatically stepped up its messages _ a pace seen as a sign of its increasing technical sophistication and the relative security felt by its leadership.


The terror group has also been campaigning to reach a broader audience, announcing that its No. 2 figure, Ayman al-Zawahri, would respond to journalists' questions sent over the Internet. The deadline for the queries was Jan. 16.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Pennsylvania Ted,

What a load of crap. The US was attacked in 1993 and the Sheik and the people behind that attack were captured and inprisoned under Clinton. 9/11 happened during Bush's term and the people who were behind THAT attack are still free and running around.

As far as Bin Ladin, he is alive and is sending out video messages. Just because Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh don't think so doesn't make it true.

As far as another attack, there were eight years between attacks. To do what the terrorists want to do, make a LARGE impression for all the world to see, it takes time. Just because it has been six years and so many months doesn't mean anything. The longer Bush stays in Iraq and leaves Afghanistan and Pakistan to their own devices, the more likely an attack will occur.

What will YOU say when an attack happens under Bush (again) even though he has decreased our Civil Liberties by increasing surveillance here in the US (some of which is illegal) and increased our budget deficit?

Our phone lines are being tapped without permission (that is why Bush wants the FISA Bill re-enacted with amnesty for the telephone companies). Our trust around the world has been eroded because of Bush's lies and also things that have happened (waterboarding) under his authority. Our Justice Department has been put to shame because of Bush's lust for COMPLETE power. Finally, our economy is being wrecked because of high oil prices and the inflation it brings, the lack of trust in the US (lowers the value of the dollar) and the HUGE budget deficits Bush has caused.

During Bush's term in Office, the budget deficit has almost doubled. do you know who buys out debt? Foreigners, with China being a leading purchaser. The last I heard, China owned almost a TRILLION dollars of US debt. Do YOU like that? I don't. The three ways to reduce this debt is to 1) stop or slow down spending. 2) grow our way out of it or 3) raise taxes.

Bush wont stop the Wars, so stopping the spending or slowing it down is NOT an option. Even though the Democrats have tried, it is the Republicans who keep thwarting their efforts.

Growing our way out is looking dimmer by the month because of the housing problem, the continued high oil prices and the decreasing purchasing power of the dollar. If (when) a recession hits, the US is REALLY in trouble.

Instead of raising taxes, something EVERY President in the history of the US has done during a time of War, Bush keeps lowering them and wanting to lower them more. With low taxes already, a recession will hit the Governments revenue stream HARD. But that wont be Bush's problem. No, he will leave THAT for the next President to deal with.

Bush's diatribe about the Democrats raising taxes will become a self-fulfilling prophecy because of his NOT being responsible and raising taxes to pay for HIS Wars. Of course, if Bush had done the responsible thing in the first palce, we wuld NOT be in Iraq, our troops wouldn't be getting injured and killed and our deficit would not be going through the roof.

As far as Saddam being a bad man. Yes, he was. But there are others in the world just as bad and we are not going after them. Heck, Bush going into a soverign country and overthrowing their leader might be looked upon by other countries and other people as Bush being a bad man....

David

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Bill,

No, taking out AL Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan wouldn't stop them but it WOULD put a huge dent in their world wide operations. Stopping the poppy growth and sale of opium would decrease their cash flow. Capturing and/or killing thier leaders would also hurt their efforts.

Bush NOT finishing the job in Afghanistan is inexcusable. Because he didn't finish the job, he lied to the American people and the rest of the world. He further lied about Iraq. These lies (and others he has told) have caused the trust in the United States to fall around thw world. We are less a shining beacon now and more of a thug nation. A nation that will say and do whatever it takes to get it's way.

I would like my Niece and Nephews to grow up in a world that trusts the United States. A world where people from other nations think of us as something special. That we do things the right way. Right now, because of Bush and Cheney, THAT is not the way it is.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

I lived in the 3rd World as a Foreign Service Officer for over 20 years from the late seventies to the mid nineties. Anyone who believes that widespread mistrust and dislike for the United States started with the Bush administration hasn't a clue what they're talking about and is living in Lalaland.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

That might be true BUT Bush is just making things worse instead of better. Also, many Americans, for the first time, are coming to this realization.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

OK, I tried to stay out of the thread, but I just couldn't. So here goes.

Last year, I went to a talk given by Edwin Chemerinsky, who I believe is recognized to be one of the leading Constitutional scholars of our generation. I don't think any lawyer who knows anything about the Constitution can seriously argue that point. They can argue his polictical bent, but they can't argue his knowledge or qualifications. The topic of his lecture was the Constitutional crisis that the Bush administration has created. Chemerinsky listed and discussed the 6 generally agreed upon previous constitutional crises, almost all of which were war-related, but indicated that in his opinion, the current erosion of American's Constitutional rights was the most pervasive and the most insidious. I think he is right. And it scares me that so many people seem to unthinkingly accept the loss of their Constitional rights as if its no big deal. It is. Those basic rights are what we are purportedly fighting for when we say that we want to "allow" the Iraquis to create a democratic form of government, whether they want it or not. They are the same rights that are being eroded here on a daily basis.

I read with some degree of dismay the amount of revisionist history that is being spouted here by some. As best as I can recall, we didn't invade Iraq due to terrorism issues. At least purportedly, we invaded Iraq because it wasn't complying with various UN resolutions that we unilaterally decided to enforce -- a decision that even the UN disagreed with. By the way, I think the UN is, on the whole, pretty much a worthless organization. Nonetheless, it strikes me as both extremely disingenuous and hugely ironic that we can unilaterally decide to invade a country to enforce resolutions that the entity issuing them, of which we are a member, chooses not to enforce, then later use our propaganda/disinformation machine to convice many, if not most, of our citizens that the reason we went there in the first place was to fight terrorism. That is a pure crock of ****. Ted Z, if you truly believe that nonsense, and the nonsense you spouted about the similarities between this problem and those involving Nazi Germany [which we stayed strictly out of, while the Nazis were committing incredible atrocities, until they declared war on us], then I suggest that you need to read more and think more. The comparison you attempt to make is inapt at best.

As for Bush, I agree that he made a great speech after 9/11. His writers are to be commended. He then proceeded to completely trample our civil liberties and constitutional rights, in the name of fighting the war on terror. In fact in my opinion, he violated the very Constitution he swore to uphold and defend and, I think it is clear, authorized things that we as a nation purport to abhore. Among other things, he sanctioned torture, confinement for unlimited periods of time, violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments, etc. Those sorts of things violate not just our laws, but international laws and conventions. Consequently, by not only condoning but authorizing those sorts of activities, it seems to me that Bush has lost whatever moral high ground he might once have held. It also seems to me that we, as a society, almost always lose when our "leader's" position is that the end justifies the means. That is the position that has historically been taken by all of those dicatators that our schoolbooks tell our kids are evil.

I guess it all comes down to who's ox is getting gored. In that regard, I understand the slipery-slope argument (which I think suffers problems of proof), that by violating the Constitition, American lives were saved here at home. Maybe so. However, aren't those same American lives being lost over-seas in defense of purported Constitutional ideals that are currently being violated at home? How can we say that we want to bring a democratic, constitutional regime to Iraq [whether they want it or not, which is yet another issue], when our President no longer respects the very constitutional rights he is purporting to fight for?

Joann is right -- Dubya is by far the worst President that our nation has ever had to endure. I think history will judge him harshly. It should. To say he deserves harsh judgment is kind.

All that being said, I also agree with Mr. Klein that we must support the troops. They're there, generally not of their choosing, but because they were sent there by people with a political agenda -- people whose own children are not and will not ever be there. Nonetheless, that fact does not diminish their efforts or their sacrifice. It simply makes the fact that we are losing them that much more tragic. 'Nuff said.

Kenny Cole

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Kenny,

Excellent post. I was thinking the same thing earlier tonight. Over the course of the history of this nation and even before, millions of people have given their lives and many millions more have been injured, in defense of the Constitution and OUR Rights. Yet, during Bush's term in Office, he has pretty much torn each and every one of those Rights down and deemed them insignificant in his Sociopathic quest to become King George.

What troubles me is, he has done ALL of these things and there STILL might be a terrorist attack on the US. One which is planned outside the country and which NO information can be gathered before hand using his domestic spying tactics and surveillance.

With all the information gathered by the Government, you SURELY don't think that they haven't also used those technics to gather info on business leaders and members of the opposite political party do you? I think so and if they haven't used it, members of the Democratic Party may feel they have it and will use it if they don't vote for what Bush wants.

The problem with this logic comes when another President is elected. The next President isn't going to have the same views as Bush, so they could use all these powers he has accumulared in a different way. I don't know what religion Mike Huckabee is but I do know he is an ordained Minister. What if he chooses to use these domestic spying programs to filter information and find out who the pro-abortion supporters are and go after them?

What if Hillary uses the info to go after Republicans or men? What if Obama uses it to go after women or white people? Once these powers are used and the Congress and Senate allow it to happen, then future Presidents will think they have the same rights to that power. That is why it MUST be stopped NOW.

That is why the domestic spying program must be scaled back and put under the control of people other than politicians. That is why the telephone companies should NOT get any amnesty for allowing the government to use them illegally. That is why waterboarding incidents should be investigated and thsoe responsible for them convicted, just like the United States convicted Japanese soldiers after WW II for doing it to American soldiers.

That is why the hypocrisy must stop.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

As a Bush supporter I would agree that there are three very large mistakes which have hurt the USA.

The first mistake was to not properly fight in Afghanistan. By making politics part of the war planning, the administration seemed to avoid casualties at all cost. Instead of American Marines sweeping through the country we paid "warlords" to do it for us. I don't want any US soldier to die, but lets face the fact that the US army had the motivation to totally destroyed Bin Laden and his crew instead of paid ex-Taliban supporters letting him get away at Tora Bora.

The second mistake was the invasion of Iraq. Yes Sadam was a really bad guy, but there are about 20 other really bad guys leading nations. I personally believe that Bush both listened to some very bad advice (from the group of "neo-cons") and had personal leanings against Sadam due to the assassination attempt on his father. The cost of this Iraq war will hurt us economically and within the world community for another 5-10 years. And lets not forget that the intelligence community failed in a big way, and this is a community that aside from a few political appointments is a "career civil servant" organization - its broken and needs to be fixed.

The third mistake is our reaction to 9/11. We should have clamped down hard on certain country's citizens coming to the US - but not Japan, Korea, UK, Italy, Czech Republic, Spain, Russia, etc, etc. Single out Saudia Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt etc - and for whomever cried that its discriminitory against Muslims too damn bad. Allow students to come and study just like we always did. Think of how much we could have done with all the money wasted in Iraq - both in the US and around the world. Allowing increased immigration from Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Japan, Korea, Russia, New Zealand while cutting it off from most Arab countries would have been the right move. Additionally, I agree that the constitution and the freedoms it enspouses are extremely important and that we (USA) should strive to set the example for others - some of the programs and stances currently taken don't do that and they need to be changed.

Finally, I'd just add that its always much easier to make decisions after the fact. I believe that Bush had made some very bad decisions, listened to the wrong people. He is the president and he is responsible. But lets not pretend that removing him will cure all ills...the breakdown in our intelligence happened over many years...the reduction in our Armed Forces happened over many years...the building of our budget deficit and current account deficit happened over many years....and it will all take many years of hard work to get us back to where we all want to be.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Funniest line of this whole thread:

CNN= Commie News Network

Ted, where do you dig this stuff up?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

even though I promised myself (and the board) I would not.....


hindsight is a wonderful thing.... and yes there have been strategic mistakes in these wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) -
but there is a one major success:

On 9/11 the Terrorism War was fought in NYC, in America.

Today Al Qaeda is very preoccupied in Iraq in Afghanistan.

Thank you President Bush, and thank you to our fine men and women in the armed services - for moving the battlezone to the middle east and for fighting this battle.



So you can call it an unintended benefit (if you are a bush basher) -
I personally don't care what it is called....
the reality is - the warzone moved.... and no doubt Al Qaeda would have hit America again if they were not so preoccupied with Iraq.

For that reason alone - this war was worthwhile.

Did we go in for the wrong reasons? - perhaps.
Did have we had military strategic mistakes? - sure did - and hopefully from the mistakes we are getting better at fighting this war and not running from it.


Some people seem to forget:
this is a real enemy. Real death and destruction.
Daniel Pearl knew all about how real al Qaeda is.
The people in Iraq know all about how real al Qaeda is with the constant suicide bombings.
The people in NY know all about how real al Qaeda is.
On 9/11 - I was close enough to smell, taste, feel, hear the destruction. I watched people jump to their death. I fealt the rumble of the buildings as they came down.

Some people on this board seem to have a very scholarly, very removed and sterile view of the situation. They seem to get their reality from a newspaper clipping. I got mine right in front of me.



lets see....
Joann - I used to like you! ( - just kidding, you are still cool. I just look at is as a differing opinion - hopefully others can look at my post the same way.)

Ted Z - you the man! We have got to go out for drinks one day - on me!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

CNN = Clinton News Network.

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I've never voted for a republican in my life.

That being said, to suggest that we went in to Iraq due to oil is embarrassing. I echo what Joe D said: the reasons we went in were apparently not what Bush said they were -- which is an appalling lack of intelligence -- but we did tie up Al Qaeda and Iraq is stabilizing (at least until we leave). And whoever said they feel safe here just because the Islamic fundamentalists are only going after big ticket items in NYC -- and the poster doesn't live in NYC -- well, that sounds like the kind of guy I'd want in my foxhole! I can tell you as someone who watched the towers fall that day, everyone in NY was scared, not just the poor people who died. And if you think that Islamic fundamentalists only strike big ticket items, just ask the Israelis or the Spanish, or the English, or the (add 19 other countries) in which they struck places as mundane as pizza parlors or supermarkets or buses.

Sadly our country has become so partisan that no matter what the administration does the Democrats will be against it -- at least until the election ends (and same goes for the Republicans against the Dems). As one Dem senator said "If the surge works that's bad for the Democratic party." Very sad. I think the last time I felt that we lived in a united country, all for one and one for all, was during the few days after 9/11. After that it was back to slimy partisan politics.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

I feel that in some cases the Dems have not acted as a constructive and loyal opposition. That said, politics used to be about solving problems, such as improving transportation or making sure drinking water was safe. It seems that now, on both sides of the aisle, it's about exploiting problems and keeping them festering for partisan political gain. Sadly, there is no end in sight.

As to those who posit what the Bush legacy will be, you are much too intelligent to be wasting time in the inconsequential world of baseball cards. You might consider hiring yourselves out as philosopher-kings with your Nostrodomus-like foresight.

Finally, I hope everyone will continue to check in with this forum. With King George's government surveillance of this thread, it will be comforting for me to know that no one has been carted off to a secret prision.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think another of the many systems broken in our country is our political one. There are about 15 people who are running for president at this moment, and none of them on either side seem to be particularly talented or even principled. I get the feeling they all just say whatever it takes to get them votes. And I understand that it is expected that $1 billion will be spent by the candidates on the 2008 election. How appalling.

While I am one who believes that Bush will in fact go down as one of our worst presidents ever, my greater fear is whoever replaces him may be no better. Wish I could feel more optimistic but I just don't.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Barry you might not have agreed with Patrick Henry but you wouldn't have accused him of waffling or lack of talent.

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/henry.htm

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Yes, there was a time when politicians had passion. Now, they have advisors telling them what to say and what not to say. It's really a joke. How do you believe any of them? All of them say they will radically change health care, but I already know none of them will be able to. Once the powerful lobbies intercede the new president will be virtually powerless. It's a very different world we live in.

Anyone notice how civil and respectful this thread has been compared to other political ones we've had? I think Net54 is growing up!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

Are all old enough to remmeber this. And if I'm forgetting some of our New York area posters; I apologize.

But there was a time when being a Republican did not automatically mean you were right of center. We had Senator Clifford Case in NJ and New York had Govenor Nelson Rockefeller and Senator Jacob Javitz.

But one of the great shames of our recent political system is that the more extreme and devoted groups have learned that you can control things in primaries and many times the more reasonable candidate (either Republican or Democrat) loses because the group with the special interest does a great job of getting the vote out.

It's a shame that many times the centrist candidate never gets a real chance to campaign. And it's also a shame that people with tons of money have such an advantage nowadays in politics.

Frankly, I suspect part of the fundraising success of Ron Paul is that his supporters tap into a populist background and not the wealth of one man.

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Jeff,

Didn't you know there are no liberals in foxholes. Or is it atheists?

Now they are saying Bhutto died by hitting her head and not from a bullet or shrapnel. Does anyone believe this?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

A few other thoughts ..

1) First, BRAVO to this board for this thread. It has, with the exception of a few snide remarks (that actually stick out like sore thumbs this time), been civil and productive. I have strong views that I probably won't be talked off of. However, it is still very instructive for me to see well-thought out arguments for the opposite side, especially from people that I respect and even admire. I have saved this thread because it does have such a good debate.

2) Yes there has been revisionist history. We went in to Iraq for WMD. When none were found the spin machine seamlessly said we went in for terrorism, and no one blinked. Then it changed to spreading democracy, and no one noticed. I don't know if it reminded me more of "1984" or "Star Wars" (these aren't the droids you're looking for), but it was wierd the way people just accepted and repeated whatever was said.

3) The civil rights thing is scary. We have a whole generation of people coming into young adulthood that have no memory of the Soviet Union and how it operated. All of the internal spying, wiretapping, neighbors turning in neighbors, etc, was done in the name of Homeland Security. To uncover internal enemies of the state. You know, like the Al Qaeda among us. To them, a totalitarian society has to be some banana republic or tinhorn dictatorship. I don't think they really see that those things can happen in a superpower. So they don't really recognize the parallels between what's going on with our civil liberties now and how the Soviets ended up once they started down the same path of being obsessed with internal enemies. (And yes, China is a totalitarian superpower. But it's domestic policies are oddly underplayed here, and most people don't really have a good idea of that structure.)

4) And finally, one that I think is kind of funny. Did anyone catch a week or so ago when Bill Clinton said that, if Hillary were elected, he and his friend Bush 41 planned to go on a world tour to let other countries know that the US is "back in business for commerce and cooperation" or something like that? Well of course Bush 41 immediately said he'd never planned any such thing. Clinton clearly spoke wrongly to say it - no doubt he stuck his foot in it - but I don't think he just completely fabricated it either. I have this mental image of the two of them (who are fairly close) sitting on some train to some humanitarian effort they were on, playing cards and drinking too much scotch, and basically hatching this plan of doing the World Apology Tour as soon as Bush 43 is out of office. Bush 41 is a decent and smart man, and he has quietly but very obviously distanced himself from the arrogant, bullying and graceless administration of his son. Yeah, Clinton completely screwed up by mentioning it on the record, but my money is on the two of them actually having had some conversation about it - even if not entirely serious. The visual of the cards and the scotch really cracked me up.

Joann

Oh, and Joe D - I still like you too. But I do doubt that Al Qaeda is at all preoccupied in Afghanistan or Iraq. It sounds like they have enough space in Afg to do what they want or need to. Also, the people that did 9/11 were very educated and even wealthy. They stayed in small pockets in and planned the attacks, with a lot of technological and financial resources, plus college and graduate educations. Somehow I just don't think these are the same guys we see on TV hiding behind brick piles in Baghdad or making IED's in the outlying areas.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

What I find interesting is that there can be someone who I find very little in common with when it comes to cards that I am completely in sync with when it comes to their political views and vice versa.

Take Ted Z--he and I do not see eye to eye on graded vs. ungraded cards but I am completely in snyc with his political views. And whether CNN is the Commie News Network or the Clinton News Network there is no doubt that it is a left-leaning network as are ABC, NBC and CBS and 95% of the news media.

On the other side, I think Joann is won of the smartest people on the board when it comes to her views on cards and for that matter I think Jeff and Barry are smart too and I generally agree with what they say....but I agree with little they say politically...although Jeff and Joe D are right on the money that ones perspective can change if you live and work in NYC.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I can cure the ills of our political system with just one sentence.

That's right, I said it.


All I need is one amendment to the Constitution (if that where it belongs? I guess so... read on....)


Here it is:
"A political party may not hold more than 30% of congress."


Thats it. So simple. No longer a two-party system....
I just forced there to be at least four parties in congress, none ever having a majority.
Imagine that - they would have to work together to get things done. Compromise, debate, talk with one another --- a working system.

Sure in the beginning the two major parties will split off sister parties and will have allegiances. But - I believe in the greed and egos that go with politics... and for sure each party will diverge to become independent of each other.


Imagine four or five or more candidates for President. A congress that can't rely on favoritism by the President and can't rely on a 'majority'. This country would have no other choice but to work together to get things done.


So there you have it:
"A political party may not hold more than 30% of congress."

Thats all that needs to be done.

Its not such a new idea. I believe George Washington warned of the perils of the two-party system.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"I lived in the 3rd World as a Foreign Service Officer for over 20 years from the late seventies to the mid nineties. Anyone who believes that widespread mistrust and dislike for the United States started with the Bush administration hasn't a clue what they're talking about and is living in Lalaland."


I have lived in the 3rd World as well and if you think mistrust and dislike for the US has not increased exponentially during the Bush administration, you are the one in La La Land.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Yeah, next time Muslim extremists come to America and kill 3000 of us we should really just shut our mouths, turn the other cheek and throw veils on our wives -- that will get them to like us more.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- if ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and 95% of the media is left leaning (your words), doesn't that tell you that that may be what America wants? Maybe we are all growing weary of the ultra-conservative claptrap we've been spoonfed for the last seven years.

I know I'm sick of it. Maybe our day has finally come!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jeff- we continue to post at the same minute. We do this all the time!

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"Thank you President Bush, and thank you to our fine men and women in the armed services - for moving the battlezone to the middle east and for fighting this battle.



So you can call it an unintended benefit (if you are a bush basher) -
I personally don't care what it is called....
the reality is - the warzone moved.... and no doubt Al Qaeda would have hit America again if they were not so preoccupied with Iraq.

For that reason alone - this war was worthwhile."



THis is just about the most morally bankrupt statement made yet in this thread. Basically you are saying that there is nothing wrong with killing, death and destruction as long as it is those Arabs in the Middle East who suffer instead of us. WHat makes their lives less valuable than yours?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

you are officially invited to join Ted and I for drinks!

but Barry must wait outside

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

So I'll have to get my drink to go...no sweat!

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Russo

I was going to stay out of this one but have to respond to the comment that Bush is our worst president ever. In fact, he is arguably not even the worst president in my lifetime. We had a run of Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. Remember? All very competitive in the crappy leadership department. "Professor" Robert Wuhl (HBO)also refers back to John Tyler, Franklin Pierce (a Bush ancestor), Millard Fillmore, Zachary Taylor, Warren G. Harding and others in support of the proposition that bad leaders are as American as apple pie. Given the current field of candidates, several of whom agree with our president that the jury is still out on the theory of evolution, we may be in for more of the same. This country has prospered not because of the strength of our leadership but in spite of the mediocrity of our leaders.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jim, I think Joe was not referring to innocents; I think he was referring to the Muslim fanatics that are trying to kill us. I know you might find this hard to believe, but rumor has it that not all Muslims are peace-loving pacifists and not all Americans are blood thirsty killers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

edit: thank you Jeff for that clarification. Yes - I most definitely am not talking about innocents. I am talking about the terrorists.


"THis is just about the most morally bankrupt statement made yet in this thread. Basically you are saying that there is nothing wrong with killing, death and destruction as long as it is those Arabs in the Middle East who suffer instead of us. WHat makes their lives less valuable than yours?"

cool - I broke a record 'most morally bankrupt'

First let me say to the others in N54 land - that I very much like Jim B and consider him a friend - so none of our bicker (his words above or mine below) will sway that.


Jim,

It seems you rephrased my words - for your own extremes or tangents... and suggest they are something that came from my mouth. "Basically you are saying..." isn't this better phrased as "Are you suggesting...." "Would you then say....." As a question as opposed to an assumption of fact? I find it morally reprehensible when somebody rephrases something I say and claims it to be 'basically what I am saying'


What I am saying - if I should rephrase it differently myself....
with the benefit of hindsight - I believe agression worked out to be EXACTLY the right thing for our nation. We were attacked and more would have come. But.... like a bug-light on a dark porch, the al qaeda bugs are attracted to Iraq right now instead of heading to America to bite us in the behind.

We can sit back and look to defend ourselves... but in this case, the best defense is a good offense.

Personally - I am not saying any particular strategy within Iraq or Afghanistan was correct - but I think aggression was necessary.

That is the key point: aggression was necessary.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

Jeff,

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it seems to run counter to many perceptions on this board. Well, at least when the United States has a Republican president, no doubt.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Tom- your list is rather lengthy. How about we say Bush is in good company with that motley crowd. Fair enough?

[Archive]

Posted By: GHG!

Most of us are, in fact, partisan in our political beliefs. Recent elections suggest such partisanship to be divided almost evenly. While message board discussion of personal political leanings may be entertaining, it is unlikely to change many opinions.

Criticism of our present administration is certainly fair game, but not at the risk of our nation's best interest and security. (And, comparatively speaking, those among us who remember the Clinton or Carter administrations as the 'good old days' must have greater powers of recall than have I.)

Wouldn't we best be served by trying to support those chosen to make informed decisions...regardless of party affiliation?

GHG!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Joe- even though we disgaree politically, you were one of the few to spell Al Qaeda right. So all is forgiven.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

JimB,

Where were you posted? Somehow I get the feeling you probably did a few West African tours. There's third world and then there's WA (among other places).

Ok, we're going from Bhutto's assasination into US politics. I guess it might be difficult to seperate the two, but things are getting a bit heated. I think this is the reason why political OT is limited in the VBC.