Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[DVD Burner]

found this on this "MoisturePup's" site:

November 18, 2004

MAJOR NEWS ALERT:

Okay, this is far too important for me to stay on my break:

UC BERKELEY: Study released Thursday indicates the probability is that electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 - 260,000 or more in excess votes to Bush in Florida

Hard Data


The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections

Summary:

- Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may
have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W.
Bush in Florida.

-Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic
voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases
in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect
cannot be explained by differences between counties in income,
number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of
Hispanic/Latino population.

-In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received
approximately 72,000 excess votes.

-We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to
chance.

Details:
Because many factors impact voting results, statistical tools are
necessary to see the effect of touch-screen voting. Multipleregression analysis is a statistical technique widely used in the social and physical sciences to distinguish the individual effects of many variables. This multiple-regression analysis takes account of the following variables by county:

- number of voters
- median income
- Hispanic population
- change in voter turnout between 2000 and 2004
- support for President Bush in 2000 election
- support for Dole in 1996 election

When one controls for these factors, the association between electronic voting and increased support for President Bush is impossible to overlook. The data show with 99.0% certainty that a county’s use of electronic voting is associated with a is proportionate increase in votes for President Bush.

The data used in this study come from CNN.com, the 2000 US Census, the Florida Department of State, and the Verified Voting Foundation – all publicly available sources. This study was carried out by a group of doctoral students in the UC Berkeley sociology department in
collaboration with Professor Michael Hout, a member of the National
Academy of Sciences and the UC Berkeley Survey Research Center.


THE REPUBLICANS HAVE DECLARED THEMSELVES OUR RULERS! WE ARE IN A DICTATORSHIP! WE MUST ORGANIZE TO STOP THIS!

Posted by CitizenRob

[DVD Burner]

Not sayin that this "MoisturePup" has any credibillity.

[Simply Joel]

November 21, 2004
Postcards From Iraq
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

If all the images I saw on a short visit to Iraq last week, two stand out in my mind. One was a display that the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, in the Sunni Triangle, prepared for the visiting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. It was a table covered with defused roadside bombs made from cellphones wired to explosives. You just call the phone's number when a U.S. vehicle goes by and the whole thing explodes. The table was full of every color and variety of cellphone-bomb you could imagine. I thought to myself that if there is a duty-free electronics store at the gates of hell, this is what the display counter looks like.

The other scene was a briefing by Lt. Gen. John Sattler, the Marine commander in Falluja. General Sattler was explaining how well the Marines, Army, Air Force and Navy Seabees had worked together in Falluja as a combined task force. As General Sattler was speaking, I looked around at the assembled soldiers in the room. It was a Noah's Ark of Americans: African-Americans and whites, Hispanic Americans and Asians, and men and women I am sure of every faith. The fact that we can take for granted the trust among so many different ethnic groups, united by the idea of America - and that the biggest rivalry between our Army and Navy is a football game - is the miracle of America. That miracle, and its importance, hits you in the face in Iraq when someone tells you that the "new" Iraqi police unit in a village near Falluja is staffed by one Iraqi tribe and the "new" National Guard unit is staffed by another tribe and they are constantly clashing.

What unites these two scenes is the obvious fact, which still bears repeating, that we are trying to plant the seeds of decent, consensual government in some very harsh soil. We are not doing nation building in Iraq. That presumes that there was already a coherent nation there and all that is needed is a little time and security for it to be rebuilt. We are actually doing nation creating. We are trying to host the first attempt in the modern Arab world for the people of an Arab country to, on their own, forge a social contract with one another. Despite all the mistakes made, that is an incredibly noble thing. But for Iraqis to produce such a social contract, such a constitution, requires a minimum of tolerance and respect for majority rights and minority rights - and neither of those is the cultural norm here. They are not in the drinking water.

I have been to this play before, though. Fifteen years ago I wrote a book about the Arab-Israel conflict, including a chapter on the Marines in Beirut in 1982. I called that chapter "Betty Crocker in Dante's Inferno." It was my way of expressing the contrast between the truly pure intentions of those Marines trying to refashion Lebanon into a more decent, democratic polity and the harsh soil that was Lebanon of that day.

Cultures can change, though. But it takes time. And, be advised, it is going to take years to produce a decent outcome in Iraq. But every time I think this can't work, I come across something that suggests, who knows, maybe this time the play will end differently. The headlines last week were all about Falluja. But maybe the most important story in Iraq was the fact that while Falluja was exploding, 106 Iraqi parties and individuals registered to run in the January election. And maybe the second most important story is the relatively quiet way in which Iraqis, and the Arab world, accepted the U.S. invasion of Falluja. The insurgents there had murdered hundreds of Iraqi Muslims in recent months, and, I think, they lost a lot of sympathy from the Arab street. (But if we don't get the economy going on the Iraqi street, what the rest of the Arab world thinks will be of no help.)

Readers regularly ask me when I will throw in the towel on Iraq. I will be guided by the U.S. Army and Marine grunts on the ground. They see Iraq close up. Most of those you talk to are so uncynical - so convinced that we are doing good and doing right, even though they too are unsure it will work. When a majority of those grunts tell us that they are no longer willing to risk their lives to go out and fix the sewers in Sadr City or teach democracy at a local school, then you can stick a fork in this one. But so far, we ain't there yet. The troops are still pretty positive.

So let's thank God for what's in our drinking water, hope that maybe some of it washes over Iraq, and pay attention to the grunts. They'll tell us if it's time to go or stay.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[DVD Burner]

What unites these two scenes is the obvious fact, which still bears repeating, that we are trying to plant the seeds of decent, consensual government in some very harsh soil. We are not doing nation building in Iraq. That presumes that there was already a coherent nation there and all that is needed is a little time and security for it to be rebuilt. We are actually doing nation creating. We are trying to host the first attempt in the modern Arab world for the people of an Arab country to, on their own, forge a social contract with one another. Despite all the mistakes made, that is an incredibly noble thing. But for Iraqis to produce such a social contract, such a constitution, requires a minimum of tolerance and respect for majority rights and minority rights - and neither of those is the cultural norm here.

See this is exactly what behooves me about naive Americans. If you believe that America's original reason was and still is to give Iraq a democracy is a farce. but you are entitled to believe what you want.

Americans will still get killed and loose every battle in Iraq no matter how much firepower they think they can use there because they are fighting for a lie. Americans have and will continually underestimate what they are up against because they are accustomed to living in denial.


Too much Disneyland I suppose.

[DVD Burner]

Should have read:

If you believe that America's original reason was and still is to give Iraq a democracy, you're living a farce. but you are entitled to believe what you want.

[Simply Joel]

See this is exactly what behooves me about naive Americans.

Main Entry: be·hoove
Pronunciation: bi-'hüv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): be·hooved; be·hoov·ing
Etymology: Middle English behoven, from Old English behOfian, from behOf
transitive senses : to be necessary, proper, or advantageous for <it behooves us to go>
intransitive senses : to be necessary, fit, or proper

would you be so kind as to re-work the above sentence with the correct verb?

otherwise, your argument/position starts with a non-sensical statement, followed by further inaccuracies.

Americans will still get killed and loose every battle in Iraq no matter how much firepower they think they can use there because they are fighting for a lie.

incorrect word choice again... you used the word "loose" where the word "lose" would be more appropriate.

you poor spelling or word choices really detract from the limited value of what you actually are trying to say.

Main Entry: 1loose
Pronunciation: 'lüs
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): loos·er; loos·est
Etymology: Middle English lous, from Old Norse lauss; akin to Old High German lOs loose -- more at -LESS
1 a : not rigidly fastened or securely attached b (1) : having worked partly free from attachments <a loose tooth> (2) : having relative freedom of movement c : produced freely and accompanied by raising of mucus <a loose cough> d : not tight-fitting
2 a : free from a state of confinement, restraint, or obligation <a lion loose in the streets> <spend loose funds wisely> b : not brought together in a bundle, container, or binding c archaic : DISCONNECTED, DETACHED
3 : not dense, close, or compact in structure or arrangement
4 a : lacking in restraint or power of restraint <a loose tongue> <loose bowels> b : lacking moral restraint : UNCHASTE
5 a : not tightly drawn or stretched : SLACK b : being flexible or relaxed <stay loose>
6 a : lacking in precision, exactness, or care <loose brushwork> <loose usage> b : permitting freedom of interpretation
7 : not in the possession of either of two competing teams <a loose ball> <a loose puck>
- loose·ly adverb
- loose·ness noun

versus

3 entries found for lose.
To select an entry, click on it.
loselose outlose-lose

Main Entry: lose
Pronunciation: 'lüz
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lost /'lost/; los·ing /'lü-zi[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English losian to perish, lose, from los destruction; akin to Old English lEosan to lose; akin to Old Norse losa to loosen, Latin luere to atone for, Greek lyein to loosen, dissolve, destroy
transitive senses
1 a : to bring to destruction -- used chiefly in passive construction <the ship was lost on the reef> b : DAMN <if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul -- Matthew 16:26 (Authorized Version)>
2 : to miss from one's possession or from a customary or supposed place
3 : to suffer deprivation of : part with especially in an unforeseen or accidental manner
4 a : to suffer loss through the death or removal of or final separation from (a person) b : to fail to keep control of or allegiance of <lose votes> <lost his temper>
5 a : to fail to use : let slip by : WASTE <lose the tide> b (1) : to fail to win, gain, or obtain <lose a prize> <lose a contest> (2) : to undergo defeat in <lost every battle> c : to fail to catch with the senses or the mind <lost part of what she said>
6 : to cause the loss of <one careless statement lost him the election>
7 : to fail to keep, sustain, or maintain <lost my balance>
8 a : to cause to miss one's way or bearings <lost himself in the maze of streets> b : to make (oneself) withdrawn from immediate reality <lost herself in daydreaming>
9 a : to wander or go astray from <lost his way> b : to draw away from : OUTSTRIP <lost his pursuers>
10 : to fail to keep in sight or in mind
11 : to free oneself from : get rid of <dieting to lose some weight>
intransitive senses
1 : to undergo deprivation of something of value
2 : to undergo defeat <lose with good grace>
3 of a timepiece : to run slow
- los·able /'lü-z&-b&l/ adjective
- los·able·ness noun
- lose ground : to suffer loss or disadvantage : fail to advance or improve
- lose one's heart : to fall in love

Americans have and will continually underestimate what they are up against because they are accustomed to living in denial.

Too much Disneyland I suppose.

I am sure, based upon previous requests a verifiable credible source (a news article, a research paper, a conversation with someone other than your sock), a cite is too much to ask for regarding the statements above.

If you believe that America's original reason was and still is to give Iraq a democracy, you're living a farce. but you are entitled to believe what you want.

Original Reason? Try United Nations Security Council Resolutions. (see below)

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

Excerpt from White House background paper "A Decade of Deception and Defiance"
Washington, DC
November 8, 2002

Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Complete Index of UN Security Council Resolutions

Additional UN Security Council Statements
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The index for UNSC Presidential Statements is on the UN website. The list of statements includes:

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

[Simply Joel]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 21, 2004
Hawk Sightings Could Be Premature
By DAVID E. SANGER

SANTIAGO, Chile — Four years ago, the world thought it knew what kind of foreign policy George W. Bush would pursue. He had arrived in the Oval Office talking of a more "humble'' America that didn't tell countries how to conduct themselves inside their borders. His national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was viewed as a realist rather than an ideologue; she made a compelling case that the United States could not afford to tie up its military in nation-building efforts because that would "degrade the American capability to do the things America has to do.''

"We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten," she declared at the time, when few were thinking of her as a future secretary of state.

A lot has happened since, not least a terror attack on American soil that profoundly changed the President's world view, and with it Ms. Rice's. But just as it proved unwise to draw a straight line then between what the president-elect was saying and how he would act, it may be equally risky to race to the certainty - as many in Washington did last week - that a second Bush administration, unrestrained by the caution of Colin Powell, will lead the United States into an unending series of confrontations with the world, starting with bellicose approaches to controlling the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

It could turn out that way, for sure. But it has been quite a while since the words "Axis of Evil'' sprang from the president's lips. And during the election campaign, it was clear from the president's words and actions that the limits on American power had begun to sink in on this White House.

Instead, presidential advisers have been talking of repairing ties and acting within alliances when they can - a process for which an early test arrived this weekend, when the re-elected president arrived in the shadow of the Andes for the annual summit of Pacific Rim leaders. Here he will be setting the agenda for the next four years with the likes of Hu Jintao of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Junichiro Koizumi of Japan and Roh Moo Hyun of South Korea.

Gone from the President's pre-summit pronouncements was the "with us or against us" language that marked previous such meetings. And when the subject turned to Iran and North Korea - countries with weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein could only have dreamed about - there was no mention of the kinds of deadlines he set two years ago for disarming Iraq.

Some in the administration suspect that this is a pose, and point out that Mr. Powell was already talking last week of a worrisome (but barely understood) effort by Iran to develop small nuclear warheads for its missile fleet. If America can persuade the world that Iran and North Korea pose an imminent threat - a much harder task after Iraq - the hawks may have their day, led by Vice President Dick Cheney.

But that is still a minority view in the administration. The prevailing view focuses not on the dangers, but on the limited options for doing anything about them. In other words, Iraq has made it harder to be hawkish in this White House, not because desires to act have changed, but because it has tied down American combat troops and magnified the need to juggle scarce military resources.

With roughly 130,000 troops stationed in Iraq for a while - and hundreds of thousands more supplying them, training to replace them, or just coming off duty there - Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice lack the kind of flexibility to deal with crises around the world that they had four years ago. What's more, the president has now committed himself to some of the largest nation-building efforts since the Marshall Plan, from Iraq to Afghanistan and perhaps, if his vision is realized, elsewhere in the Middle East.

The result is that "we may have maxed out on hawkishness for a while,'' said Daniel Benjamin, who served on the National Security Council under President Clinton and was deeply involved in the first, unsuccessful, efforts to curb Al Qaeda in the 1990's. There will be "many opportunities to sound hawkish'' on North Korea and Iran, said Mr. Benjamin, but Mr. Bush has limited options in both places. While he remains fundamentally at odds with Mr. Roh, who wants a more conciliatory approach that would allow more countries to be involved in the bargaining with North Korea, Pentagon planners acknowledge that America has good reason to avoid any flare-up with North Korea. That would almost certainly require reinforcing the American presence in Asia, even as it is being reduced to bolster the effort to pacify Iraq.

Ivo H. Daalder, a Brookings Institution scholar who co-wrote one of the first books examining the revolution in foreign policy that Mr. Bush has wrought, notes that Iran "can make our life terribly miserable in Iraq'' by further fueling the insurgency there. Mr. Daalder does not believe that Mr. Bush will suddenly start embracing the United Nations or the International Atomic Energy Agency as partners in dealing with North Korea and Iran; the Bush White House views both with disdain.

"Instead, we may just do less in a second term, and learn to live with our limits,'' Mr. Daalder said, even if that means silently tolerating a nuclear capability that Mr. Bush has said would be unacceptable in either North Korea or Iran. Some administration officials dispute that view, saying that Vice President Cheney would not stand for such an outcome. They expect him to press for anything short of military invasion: harsh economic squeezes, even covert attempts to bring about a change of government.

In fact, the most important unanswered question about the second term may well be what power dynamic will emerge among Mr. Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Ms. Rice.

Mr. Cheney's office was already moving last week to put his disciples into key second-tier jobs. Mr. Rumsfeld, White House insiders said, was maneuvering to hold on to his job as defense secretary as long as possible. And Ms. Rice's views as national security adviser have been somewhat inscrutable. In that job she swung from her initial role as Mr. Bush's tutor in the ways of the world to a new one, as the woman who tried to read Mr. Bush's post-Sept. 11 instincts and shape them into a new national strategy.

Some people close to Ms. Rice think she is being sent to the State Department to make sure the diplomatic corps enables a more muscular American approach, rather than apologizes for it. "The reality is that she sided more often with Cheney and Rummy than she did with Powell,'' said an associate who witnessed many of the administration's internal debates. Ms. Rice, the friend said, has been heard expressing "complaints that State is not with the program.''

But she has also been talking about a mission of repairing breached relationships, and of delving into the opportunities in the Middle East that were created by the death of Yasir Arafat. The first goal could require striking a more flexible tone with the Europeans and the South Koreans; the second might involve putting pressure on Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, in a way that this administration never has. Both would require managing Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld, a task that her critics believe she has failed at, despite her closeness to the president.

The first test may come in her selection of a deputy. Mr. Cheney's wing is pressing for someone like John R. Bolton, an acolyte of the vice president who runs the State Department's proliferation office. A very different choice would be someone like Arnold Kanter, a former State Department official who now works with Brent Scowcroft, who was the first President Bush's national security adviser. Mr. Scowcroft was Ms. Rice's mentor until the two differed over the Iraq invasion. Choosing Mr. Kanter to run the daily operations of the State Department could signal a shift toward something more like the first President Bush's approach to the world.

Another litmus test may be Ms. Rice's handling of Russia, the country she has spent a lifetime studying. When she arrived at the White House, she viewed Mr. Putin as a K.G.B. throwback to the age of Soviet hard-liners. Her public description of Mr. Putin became much more charitable after the President declared that he had looked into the Russian's eyes and seen his soul, and after Russia cooperated in allowing American military forces to operate against the Taliban from formerly Soviet territory. Now she appears to be swinging back toward her original view, especially after reading (in the original Russian) Mr. Putin's hard-line speech following the terror attack on a Russian school, an event he is using to try to consolidate more power in the Kremlin.

"The place you really see the change from realism to ideology is in the way she talks about converting the Mideast to democracies,'' said one longtime associate. "The Condi that came to Washington would have raised an eyebrow and said 'Good luck.' Now she sounds a lot more idealistic, even ideological, than we've heard before.''

Indeed, Ms. Rice has been known to defend her boss's own bent toward idealistic and assertive American missions; she told French colleagues not long ago that without a good dose of American idealism, the United States might not have worked so hard to liberate Normandy. The question now is what happens when that brand of idealism comes up against the realities of managing the world, at a moment when the latest American experiment in using force to transform a nation - in Iraq - is still well short of the outcome the Bush administration envisioned two years ago.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[cowboyangel]

from pissing contests to battle of the cut and pastes........let's all have a cigar

[Force]

I would point out Joel's prediliction for attacking unimportant points (in this case, grammer for pete's sake) in people's arguments and playing (?) dumb as to understanding what their real point is in order to avoid having to respond in any kind of intelligent way to refute them, but what would that change?

Joel, would you use similar debating tactics on a non-english speaker, dismissing his sentiment if he couldn't phrase it perfectly in the "King's English"?

And finally, a request; how about a definition of "ugly American"?

[DVD Burner]

I would point out Joel's prediliction for attacking unimportant points (in this case, grammer for pete's sake) in people's arguments and playing (?) dumb as to understanding what their real point is in order to avoid having to respond in any kind of intelligent way to refute them, but what would that change?

you noticed that too.

[Simply Joel]

I would point out Joel's prediliction for attacking unimportant points (in this case, grammer for pete's sake) in people's arguments and playing (?) dumb as to understanding what their real point is in order to avoid having to respond in any kind of intelligent way to refute them, but what would that change?

Joel, would you use similar debating tactics on a non-english speaker, dismissing his sentiment if he couldn't phrase it perfectly in the "King's English"?

And finally, a request; how about a definition of "ugly American"?

to the best of anyone's knowledge, DVD, first and only language is english, and he/she/it doesn't use enlgish well.

as far as the salient points he was attempting to make, and make poorly i might add is...

the UN resoutions, and Hussien's predilection for ignoring the demands of the world community's demands for full disclosure are historics facts that don't require frther explanation.

do i think that democracy is the "original" reason for displacing the Batthist regime in Iraq? initiating or implementing some form of government was a requirement to fill the vacuum left by regime change.

and democracy is the best solution... and please note, once again, i haven't heard any alternateive solutions brought forth by the left. as best as i can tell, the left's position is/would have been, hey, it isn't our problem, so let's party.

simply not an acceptable "isolationist" policy that 59+ million could not accept on 2 Nov 04.

are these propositons so difficult of an idea for you, the reader to grasp?

i would still like to know what this sentence means

See this is exactly what behooves me about naive Americans.

but hey, being "right" in intent is better than facts, ask CBS about the National Guard letters... a lot of good intent did them.

[Simply Joel]

I would point out Joel's prediliction for attacking unimportant points (in this case, grammer for pete's sake) in people's arguments and playing (?) dumb as to understanding what their real point is in order to avoid having to respond in any kind of intelligent way to refute them, but what would that change?

proper word choice/use is important.

actually, i dopn't think my response was an attack as much as a request for clarification... as well, as laying out some facts for other readers that were respoons for displacing the Baathists.

Joel, would you use similar debating tactics on a non-english speaker, dismissing his sentiment if he couldn't phrase it perfectly in the "King's English"?

no, and that isn't the case here. DVD's arguments throughout the past 6 month's have been ridden with mispelled words, a disdain for grammar or correcting his errors, and very littlel development of logical, arguments with credible sources... but i am repeating myself when i list those things.

And finally, a request; how about a definition of "ugly American"?

www.ask.com has your answer

[DVD Burner]

Note:

While the world uses Google because it is the best Joel chooses to use "Ask Jeeves".

[Simply Joel]

Note:

While the world uses Google because it is the best Joel chooses to use "Ask Jeeves".

Arguing with a political neophtye and/or simpleton such as yourself, it behooves me to use a search tool focused for your level of intellect.

or better said another way...

use the correct tool for the task you are trying to accomplish.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

November 21, 2004
Postcards From Iraq
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

It was a table covered with defused roadside bombs made from cellphones wired to explosives. You just call the phone's number when a U.S. vehicle goes by and the whole thing explodes. The table was full of every color and variety of cellphone-bomb you could imagine.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Now I know what was driving up the telecommunications tech stocks up this past two weeks.

On a sad note, the congress has cut the college tuition loan and grants.
This means that for poorer students to get into college they will have to join the military to get that funding.

They may not have to start the draft, but they can find ways to increase the military troops without it. Sadly, many students will never collect on those benefits.

A II Z

[Simply Joel]

Sadly, many students will never collect on those benefits.
A II Z

please allow me to correct you

Sadly, many soldiers (students/sons/daughters/parents/co-workers... etc) will never collect on those benefits.

and me?

i am still supporting the idea of democracy in the middle east, despite the high costs in human life.

you can take that to the bank.

[cowboyangel]

Sadly, many students will never collect on those benefits.
A II Z

please allow me to correct you

Sadly, many soldiers (students/sons/daughters/parents/co-workers... etc) will never collect on those benefits.

and me?

i am still supporting the idea of democracy in the middle east, despite the high costs in human life.

you can take that to the bank.

Too bad you think so lightly of the cost in life. But that being said,
I wish Wellstone were alive now to push his legislation for increased Vet benefits. you fuckin guys deserve the world!


now the high cost of the Iraq debacle is also costing alot in terms of billions we don't have. Consider carefully the impending collapse of the US economy with the following


TO SOLARI ACTION NETWORK

http://www.jsmineset.com

Greenspan Ambushes the U.S. Dollar

by Jim Sinclair

Is the Chairman spending too much time in Basel? It almost seems that he’s falling back to his Ayn Rand roots. Maybe Alan is going to change his name to "Our Crowd." Maybe Alan is part of "Our Crowd?" Maybe I am related to Alan?

His ambush of the dollar has six points, all uttered by his own lips.

1. He said, "Anyone who has not appropriately hedged his position by now is obviously desirous of losing money." That can only mean that the U.S. dollar is going much lower, in my opinion.
2. He warned that the state of the U.S. Current Deficit was "increasingly less tenable." He warned of fresh falls in the U.S. dollar.
3. He said that foreign investors would eventually reach the limit of their desire to finance U.S. deficits.
4. He said that the U.S. dollar was going to bear much of the brunt of adjusting a Current Account deficit, now 5% of GDP. In English, this means the dollar is going a lot lower, in my opinion.
5. He said the falling dollar would cause increasing interest rates.
6. He played down the effectiveness of central bank interventions in currencies in order to attempt to change the trends.

How long have you been reading these six points here? Since 2000 is the answer. Now why in the world did the St. Louis Fed publish an article about 15 months ago, saying that the growth of the U.S. Current Account was basically meaningless. Why did the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury embarrass himself Friday by saying the U.S. Current Account Deficit had to be a shared problem of other nations, at the same time that Alan was dropping a smart bomb on the U.S. dollar?

.8197 of USDX, which is the 1995 low, might give some support, but as a short-cover place only. But after a small rally in the normal pull-back toward the last neckline break, all heck will break loose in the dollar, and all the King's men and ladies will not be able to put Humpty Dumpty Dollar together again..

Weekend Tidbits from the Mad Mad Financial World:

A. As the U.S. dollar falls, major credit agencies are considering upgrading guess what nation's debt? You got it, Russia. Standard & Poors said late last week that it might upgrade Russia's credit rating to investment grade, which Fitch has already done. This is 1982 in reverse, when the mechanism of the USSR's Trade, Federal Budget and Current Account Deficits caused communism to fall. Is capitalism about to fall? Maybe it has, and we don't yet know it. Is this laying the groundwork for Authoritarian Free Enterprise, supported by military power, in a quasi-democracy?

B. France's Central Bank, the financial genius of the world, announces its intention to sell 600 tons of gold over the next five years. That is $1.72 billion per year, at today's price. When will central banks ever learn that selling their gold into a bull market for gold only makes it more bullish, because it allows major interests to buy large amounts of gold at singular prices? Think about these guys selling a reserve that is appreciating, and holding a reserve that is depreciating. Thank God those central bankers do not have to trade for a living, as I have done now for 46 years.

C. The U.S. raises its debt level by $800 billion. That sure makes $1.72 billion worth of gold for sale look silly. Google's cap-value makes that amount of gold for sale look silly.

D. How about the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, a quasi-government entity that is going to blow sky-high sooner than the Wall Street financial wizards, who predicted its demise in 2021, think. My bet is 2008 to 2010. Right now this certain-to-blow-up entity needs $78 billion dollars injected into its treasury yesterday. Where will it come from? The U.S. Treasury of course. Now compare this cash call by the PBGC to France's $1.72 billion in gold for sale. France, as always in such matters, approaches the form of a joke.

The Fearsome Foursome from the New Orleans "OLD" Gold Love-In will have to start back-peddling at 200 mph, or the egg on their face is going to shrink their business. The amazing madness of this bull gold market where the so-called bright lights, almost to a person, have, from $248, spent all their time looking for tops. Well, there is a top, but it may be about $1250 higher. Right now $480 is calling, and $518 to $529 is possible. That would be fine for now.

[Simply Joel]

Too bad you think so lightly of the cost in life.

you say so much of what you know little about.

[cowboyangel]

Joel...."fuck you"

[Simply Joel]

Joel...."fuck you"

wrong thread, yet i think you already know that.

are we (actually meaning you) having a little difficulty being loving to the rest of the world tonight, CA?

[cowboyangel]

Joel...."fuck you"

wrong thread, yet i think you already know that.

are we (actually meaning you) having a little difficulty being loving to the rest of the world tonight, CA?

please visit other threads for an explanation of my fuck obsession fuck head

[DVD Burner]

CA is fucking everybody today.

[Simply Joel]

CA is fucking everybody today.

i pitch, and don't catch.

[Simply Joel]

DUMB BRIGHT GUYS
Wm F Buckley Jr

When Robert Bork was a professor at Yale Law School, he had a telephone call from the young editor of the Yale Daily News, who was in a tizzy. The paper was going to press with its findings on the faculty vote in the upcoming election, President Lyndon Johnson vs. Sen. Barry Goldwater. The editor explained that the paper was kind of embarrassed: As things stood, the next day's edition would reveal that only a single member of the Yale faculty (of approximately 1,000) was going to vote for Barry Goldwater on Tuesday. "Who is that?" Professor Bork asked.

"Some loony in the international relations department," the editor said. "We know you have right-wing leanings, Mr. Bork. Is there any chance we could give your name as supporting Goldwater? Otherwise it would be pretty unbalanced."

Bork shrugged and said, OK, count me in. When the paper appeared, he had a call from the one other Goldwater supporter: Would Bork lunch with him? "I did," Bork tells, smiling. "The kid was right. He was loony."

Forty years later (Nov. 18, 2004), The New York Times has published a revealing article by reporter John Tierney titled, "Republicans Outnumbered/In Academia, Studies Find." We are told that the political imbalance among U.S. faculty is as pronounced as ever. "At the birthplace of the free speech movement, campus radicals have a new target: the faculty that came of age in the '60s. They say their professors have been preaching multiculturalism and diversity while creating a political monoculture on campus."

Several studies are cited. One of them, a national survey of more than 1,000 academics, shows that Democratic professors outnumber Republicans by at least 7-to-1 in the humanities and social sciences. "That ratio," we are told, "is more than twice as lopsided as it was three decades ago, and it seems quite likely to keep increasing, because the younger faculty members are more consistently Democratic than the ones nearing retirement."

As a shrewd observer of the scene, David Horowitz, points out, "Right now, conservative students are discouraged from pursuing scholarly careers, because they see very clearly that their professors consider Republicans to be the enemy."

Another faculty study found a 9-to-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans on the faculties of Berkeley and Stanford. That study included the hard sciences and engineering (where good sense is reputed to prevail). The ratio was especially lopsided among younger professors of assistant or associate rank: 183 Democrats vs. 6 (loony?) Republicans.

The imbalance is continuing, and doesn't much bother anybody except, perhaps, students left to ponder the asymmetries. Learning brings wisdom, right? Waal, not on this campus.

And these aren't just wispy afterthoughts of a staid community that, one wild day, dived into the swimming pool with their clothes on. No, no, these are earnest fellows. For the first time last year, universities were "at the top of the list of organizations ranked by their employees' contributions to a presidential candidate," according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group. In first and second place in per capita contributions were: (1) the University of California system, and (2) Harvard (runners-up were Time Warner, Goldman Sachs and Microsoft).

When the jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty of killing his wife and her companion, the American people reacted along racial lines. Seventy percent of whites thought him guilty, 70 percent of blacks thought him not guilty. What everyone could see was an epistemological divide.

That divide is there in the academic world. People see things differently. The people who elected the government of the United States see things differently from those who trained them in how to weigh public issues. "Our colleges have become less marketplaces of ideas than churches in which you have to be a true believer to get a seat in the pews," writes Stephen H. Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars. On the other hand, those who get only standing room in the academies get also the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE[/b]

[tonytohono]

OJ? Who's that?

[Simply Joel]

and all of you were worrying about the Republicans... i imagine they'll self-destruct faster than Liza Minelli's marriages... right before your eyes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 23, 2004
Strength in Disunity
By DAVID BROOKS

Three weeks ago the Republicans won an impressive victory. So what have they been doing since?

First, they had an intraparty argument over whether to keep Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman. Then they had an anguished intraparty dispute over whether to bend their rules to protect Tom DeLay. Then on Saturday, they had a long, heated debate about intelligence reform, which ended with 80 to 100 House Republicans defeating or at least stalling a bill that was strongly supported by President Bush and the Congressional leaders.

Forget the Democrats. Bush's biggest problem over the next few years will be keeping his Republican majority together.

Republicans have banded together over the past few years because of the war and the need to re-elect the president. But that's over. The Congressional horses are spitting out the bits.

Three dynamics are going to erode G.O.P. discipline. First, there is a general sense in Congress that it is time to equalize the power relationship between the branches of government. The attacks of Sept. 11 elevated the status of the executive branch. The president leads in times of war. But Republicans in Congress won elections of their own and have just as much right as he to shape policy. On Saturday, two House chairmen stood athwart the presidential juggernaut and shouted no.

Second, many Republicans feel they sacrificed so the president could win this year, but the season of sacrifice is over. Dozens of conservatives voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, which they disliked, because the president wanted an education bill. Many more voted for a prescription drug bill they detested so Bush could have a victory on that. But the White House can't use the argument that "the president needs this for his campaign" anymore.

Third, there are important disagreements within the G.O.P. on every big issue on the horizon. There are disagreements on immigration, education, tax reform and the (vaguely defined) "ownership society." In the Senate, Bill Frist is serious about restricting the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations. Some Republicans think that's a terrible idea.

The divisions are deepest on Social Security. About 50 House Republicans don't want to mess with it at all. Those who support reform fall into rival factions. One group thinks you need some benefit cuts to pay for the transition to private accounts. The other opposes what it calls this Darmanesque, root canal approach.

In short, many Republicans feel that the expanded majority gives them the chance to finally win on issues they are passionate about, but they have fundamentally different views on what winning means.

My friends in the commentariat are worried about the rise of the conformist yes-men allegedly surrounding the president. But the real challenge will be disunity, not mind-numbing conformity. The Republicans will be acting more like a normal majority party - with long periods of fractious disagreement interrupted by short bursts of emotional party unity (the fights for Supreme Court nominations, for example).

How to cope? Newt Gingrich is reminding his former colleagues that this fractiousness is normal. He adds that it is important for the president to focus attention on three large challenges so that the party doesn't get bogged down in the inevitable day-to-day fights. He also says it is a mistake for the president to try to lean hard on members of Congress. Bush should go straight to the country to build support for his big initiatives.

"Individual members of Congress find it easy to stand up to the president," Gingrich says. "They find it difficult to stand up to voters."

I'd add that the president is going to find himself confronting a paradox: the bigger G.O.P. majorities will make it harder to establish one-party rule. The president will find that with Congressional Republicans increasingly discordant and assertive, he can't pass major legislation with Republican votes alone. On issues like, say, Social Security, he'll lose some Republicans whichever way he turns. He'll have to compensate by building unlikely coalitions of the willing, including some Democrats.

So the Republican win may actually mean less one-party dominance. Which would conform to my general approach to life: that everything turns out to be the opposite from what you expect.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[DVD Burner]

Slight twist in politics folks! This is one that is more farmiliar to anyone in San Francisco. Still makes for an interesting read IMHO

'Fajitagate' cop cleared
One acquitted, jury deadlocked on second officer.

By Alison Soltau | Staff Writer
Published on Tuesday, November 23, 2004
URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.c ... fajitagate

After two years and a storm of publicity, one of three police officers accused of assaulting two men over their steak fajitas -- the event which sparked the Fajitagate scandal, which toppled the department's top brass -- was acquitted Monday. The jury remained deadlocked in the case of a second officer.

After four days of deliberation, a jury cleared former police Officer David Lee, 25, of felony and misdemeanor assault and felony and misdemeanor battery of Jade Santoro and Adam Snyder outside a Union Street bar in the early hours of Nov. 20, 2002.

The jury continues deliberations today on whether suspended Officer Matthew Tonsing, 23, sparked the fight by demanding Snyder's fajitas and pursuing and assaulting Santoro, as prosecutors contend, or whether he acted in self-defense, with Santoro throwing the first punch, as Tonsing maintains. The jury is considering felony assault and felony battery charges, but did clear Tonsing of a misdemeanor of hurling a beer bottle at Santoro.

The case rocked the Police Department, and made national headlines because the third defendant, Alex Fagan Jr., is the son of then-Assistant Chief Alex Fagan. In the wake of the street fight, Fagan Sr. and other top brass were indicted for conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with the investigation of the case, but later declared factually innocent.

Fagan Jr. is slated for a separate trial in Sacramento in January because of the enormous publicity here.

During the trial, the defense undermined the alleged victims' credibility, pointing to Santoro's plea bargaining of a marijuana dealing charge to a misdemeanor with the D.A., and both men's pending civil suits. The court heard that Lee at one point tried to break up the scuffle, while the prosecution portrayed Tonsing as the instigator of the altercation.

Prosecutors declined comment on the trial until a verdict is reached for Tonsing.

"This is one of the happiest moments of my life," Lee said outside the courtroom, adding that it had been an agonizing two years, first suffering back and foot injuries in an on-duty car accident in June 2002, then the Fajitagate incident.

Lee, who was let go from the department last year for failing to complete his probationary period within two years, indicated that he hoped to return.

Police Officers' Association president Gary Delagnes said he hoped the Fajitagate verdicts would provide "closure."

"We always felt when it went in front of a jury there was a good chance he would be found innocent," he said of Lee.

Eric Safire, Snyder's attorney, said his client, who suffered a skinned knee, was "angry" at the verdict and accused the judicial system of being soft on cops.

"He gets the s--- beat out of him and calls police ... and the perpetrators are allowed to walk free," he said.

Santoro, who suffered a broken nose and back contusions, could not be reached.

Former D.A. Terence Hallinan, who brought the charges, said he was not surprised Lee walked because it was Tonsing, rather than Lee, who was allegedly the "main mover" in the fight.

He accused his successor, Kamala Harris, of not showing leadership in the prosecution.

The Police Department did not comment Monday on Lee or Tonsing, who remains suspended without pay and faces an internal disciplinary investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now you know. Cops are not corrupt.

[DVD Burner]

Canada sends back Bush-dodgers.The flood of

American liberals sneaking across the border into
Canada
has
intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols
to
stop
the illegal immigration.

The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among
left-leaning citizens who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt,
pray
and
agree with Bill O’Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of
sociology
professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their
fields
at
night.

“I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a
Hollywood
producer huddled in the barn,” said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.
The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry.
“He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken.
When
I
said I didn’t have any, he left. Didn’t even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?”
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher
fences,
but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields.
“Not real effective,” he said. “The liberals still got through, and
Rush
annoyed the cows so much they wouldn’t give milk.”
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet
liberals
near
the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive
them
across
the border and leave them to fend for themselves.

“A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions,” an
Ontario
border patrolman said. “I found one carload without a drop of
drinking
water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though.”
When liberals are caught, they’re sent back across the border,
often
wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives.
Rumors
have
been circulating about the Bush administration establishing
re-education
camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.
In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border.
Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy
cheap
Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young
vegans
disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began
stopping
buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers.
“If they can’t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk
Show,
we
get suspicious about their age,” an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are
creating
and organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies.
“I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just
can’t
support them,” an Ottawa resident said. “How many art-history
majors
does
one country need?”

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada,
Vice
President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged
that
the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source
close
to
Cheney said.
“We’re going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might
put
some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is
determined
to
reach out.”

By Joe Blundo who is a Columbus Dispatch columnist in the morning
edition
on Nov. 16, 2004

[Simply Joel]

STATE OF THE NATION
Wm F Buckley Jr

It is speculated that the president has already got his staff to hammer out preliminary drafts of the State of the Union address, though it will not be delivered until January. I remember in 1966 being seated alongside professor Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in a CBS studio. Our duty was to opine on the State of the Union speech being given by President Lyndon Johnson. He had defeated Barry Goldwater soundly a year before and had recently decided to challenge the North Vietnamese invasion of the South, summoning a great army to service in Indochina.
Schlesinger and I waited as the president rolled on and on with plum pudding after plum pudding, designed to appease those who disapproved of his venture in Vietnam. In despair, after 70 minutes, Schlesinger reached down for a bottle of whiskey, and we drank together our joint concern for Mr. Johnson's endless exploration of the state of the union.

There will be a lot of that kind of thing in President Bush's address. He is correctly concerned for any number of things that don't have anything to do with Iraq, but Iraq will be the subject on which the eyes of the nation will train. What's going to happen?

The election in Iraq is scheduled for the last week of January. This we have been holding up as the validating moment for our whole enterprise in Iraq. To the end of bringing on such an election, we have set up 9,000 voting sites, promising that they will grant the voter the security freely to express his mind. If only a small number of Iraqis show up, that will be prima facie evidence that threats of retaliation against prospective voters served their purpose.

The Iraqi voters will be selecting political representatives to serve them in a national legislature. What range of concerns will these legislators espouse? In our own critical election of 1800, we had the Federalists of Hamilton and Madison, the Democrats of Thomas Jefferson, the Southern slaveholding interests, the free-traders and the protectionists. There was no party pleading the cause of irredentism, a return to colonial status. That war had been fought and decided.

The war to jettison Islamic extremism has been fought -- but whether it has been won is not a settled question. There are at least 10,000 men who are determined that strife and tyranny shall prevail. So how do we adjust to the possibility that the election will fail to introduce working democratic order? The result can't be guaranteed, which brings us to obligatory concessions in the presidential message that have to do with national security.

Some writers and thinkers who are referred to as neo-cons aren't exactly that, Wilsonian dogmatists. This is the community, notably including the Center for National Security, that has over the years fought superstitions that have been generated so profusely about disarmament. The analytical axiom of this community is that fewer arms do not bring lessened risks. We have been told by President Putin, no less, that Russia has designs on a brand-new family of nuclear weaponry which, said Mr. Putin, would make his country mightier than ever, and perhaps even the mightiest.

We have heard such talk before, and it is wise not automatically to dismiss it.

Solidarity is encouraged by the party of President Bush in the matter of the war in Iraq. But the point that should not be lost is that the concern for national security is a concern that transcends the war in Iraq. That war can be said to have been, at distinct moments in the past, coextensive with the concern for national security. But policies that once conflated do not necessarily continue fused, any more than marriages that once brought two persons into singularity always survive as such.

We went to Iraq for the right reasons, a venture in affirming the palpable demands of national security. At this moment we can't say with absolute assurance that the venture will succeed in its stated purpose, but we know that the demands of national security will continue, that challenges aimed at our national security will continue, and that we will have to meet them in whatever theater they appear, and in whatever guise, with tactical energy and self-confidence, but with an eye to the strategic reserve.

That lesson was nowhere more vividly spelled out than in Vietnam. Our specific aims were not met there, but our grander aim -- our mightiest aim -- was not sacrificed. This is the point that Mr. Bush will need to make in his important address.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

[Rian Jackson]

Joel, are you familiar with the book 'Left Hooks, Right Crosses: A Decade of Political Writing'?

Some good stuff from both sides of the fence, with 2 editors: once again, one from each 'side.'