This thread self-destructs on 3 November 2004

All things outside of Burning Man.
lurker
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:23 pm

Post by lurker » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:20 am

Nobody loves a unilateral war-monger
.


Poland is a country. Great Britain is a country. Italy and Australia are countries.

Do you have any idea how repellent ity is to hear Americans dismiss these allies as if they don't matter?

There are other nations involved in this war. Nations that count, not matter how much the anti-Bush faction dengrates them for not being as large or as strong as America.

Ask yourself how it must feel to have the person seeking the highest office in the country--perhaps the world--disparaging your country
because the soldiers you've sent to help aren't dying enough.

How must it feel to know that this person will throw away your alliance in favor of a nation or nations who have said that they will not be of any service no matter what happens.
"Life is like a box of razor blades. Sharp, shiny, and good for removing unwanted body hair"

User avatar
Alpha
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by Alpha » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:11 am

Uh, lurker, are you claiming that the U.S. is not acting unilaterally in its decision to invade Iraq? Come on, sure bush was able to pursuade our closest allies to hang in the fight with us but don't think for one minute that Poland or Italy decided to invade Iraq. Great Britain, maybe... though I seriously doubt they would have been in the game if our executive office hadn't deceived them about WMD.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:17 am

Main Entry: uni·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: "yü-ni-'la-t&-r&l, -'la-tr&l
Function: adjective
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : ONE-SIDED c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
2 a : having parts arranged on one side <a unilateral raceme> b : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts <unilateral exophthalmos>
3 : UNILINEAL
4 : having only one side
- uni·lat·er·al·ly adverb

or

Main Entry: mul·ti·lat·er·al
Pronunciation: "m&l-ti-'la-t(&-)r&l, -"tI-
Function: adjective
1 : having many sides
2 : involving or participated in by more than two nations or parties <multilateral agreements>
- mul·ti·lat·er·al·ism /-'la-t(&-)r&-"li-z&m/ noun
- mul·ti·lat·er·al·ist /-list/ noun
- mul·ti·lat·er·al·ly adverb


by simple definition from Merriam-Webster Online, there was a multilateral coalition against Saddam Hussien.

User avatar
Alpha
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by Alpha » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:22 am

You're bending my words, Joel. I said the DECISION to invade Iraq was unilateral. (And in fact, I will accept that Great Britain was equally complicit, so technically speaking I'd say it was a bilateral decision in a multilateral world)

User avatar
samtzu
Posts: 3403
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:56 pm
Location: Portland,OR;Columbia,CA;Emigrant Wilderness
Contact:

Post by samtzu » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:28 am

Aflaq?

Image
The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing ~~ Eric Hoffer

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:28 am

Alpha wrote:You're bending my words, Joel. I said the DECISION to invade Iraq was unilateral. (And in fact, I will accept that Great Britain was equally complicit, so technically speaking I'd say it was a bilateral decision in a multilateral world)
i am bending words?

i simply offered definitions and a fact... Saddam Hussien was removed from power by a mulitlateral coalition.

hell, the Democratic Party might be considered multilateral coalition if the members could agree on anything besides being anti-Bush.

and allow me to make it perfectly clear, i am not pleased with the handling of the Iraq War and aftermath... yet i don't see any feasible plans being put forth for review by Kerry/Edwards platform.

User avatar
Alpha
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by Alpha » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:43 am

Fair enough... you put forth a definition and a fact in response to my use of the term in a (slightly) different fact.

After watching the first debate it became clear to me that electing Kerry will not have much impact on the ongoing U.S. operations in Iraq. It's a mess and there's no easy way to get out. If there were, Bush would have gotten out by now (he got what he wanted, 'cept maybe the oil).

Personally, I'm voting for Kerry for domestic issues, not foreign policy. No president has threatened the country's natural resources with the magnitude and impunity as Little George.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:01 am

Alpha wrote:No president has threatened the country's natural resources with the magnitude and impunity as Little George.
oh, be patient, i am sure there is someone out there willing to do worse.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:29 am

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

October 19, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
War of Words
By TOMMY FRANKS

President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history.

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.

As we planned for potential military action in Iraq and conducted counterterrorist operations in several other countries in the region, Afghanistan remained a center of focus. Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

We are committed to winning this war on all fronts, and we are making impressive gains. Afghanistan has held the first free elections in its history. Iraq is led by a free government made up of its own citizens. By the end of this year, NATO and American forces will have trained 125,000 Iraqis to enforce the law, fight insurgents and secure the borders. This is in addition to the great humanitarian progress already achieved in Iraq.

Many hurdles remain, of course. But the gravest danger would result from the withdrawal of American troops before we finish our work. Today we are asking our servicemen and women to do more, in more places, than we have in decades. They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices. The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not.


Tommy Franks, a retired general and former commander in chief of the Central Command, is the author of "American Soldier." He is a member of Veterans for Bush.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

lurker
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:23 pm

Post by lurker » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:36 am

given that the US intent was no secret...and given that we had allies prior to attacking anyone...then yes, I am saying that the 'decision' to attack Iraq was not made unilaterally.

allies...one other country kills the charge of 'unilateral'...so your allowing of the UK destroys the entire premise of unilaterality, ergo you were wrong, as Kerry is wrong about the issue.

worse, you all crow about that unilateral action--dismissing reall allies. England has ever been our ally, as has Australia. Yet you toss them aside infavor of Germany, Russia and France.
"Life is like a box of razor blades. Sharp, shiny, and good for removing unwanted body hair"

User avatar
Alpha
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by Alpha » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:23 pm

1. You can debate my use of the word all you want, but the fact remains that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq outraged the vast majority of world opinion. Bush had an agenda and it had nothing to do with defending America against terrorism. (Don't take my word for it, ask Richard Clark)

Your comment reminds me of something I saw during the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade one year. They had equestrians from Canada in the parade, and the commentator said, "making this a truly international event." Sheesh.

2. I made no claims as to whether Kerry is right or wrong about our illegal occupation of Iraq.

3. How many of those allies would have been there if they'd known the WMD charge was a load of crap?

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:44 pm

how many of those allies would have been there if they had not been bribed or bullied is a better question

Russia is there for 1 reason and 1 reason only. Chechyna. Before Iraq they were those bad bad human rights denying russians. Now they are a willing partner in the war on terror.
call me baby

User avatar
Alpha
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 4:55 pm

Post by Alpha » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:55 pm

Thanks for that, Stuart. I've been thinking the same thing (bullying) but I don't have cites so I've stuck to what I CAN cite -- that the WMD charge was BS from the beginning, and the administration knew that (or at the very least, turned a blind eye to the facts).

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:22 pm

stuart wrote:how many of those allies would have been there if they had not been bribed or bullied is a better question

Russia is there for 1 reason and 1 reason only. Chechyna. Before Iraq they were those bad bad human rights denying russians. Now they are a willing partner in the war on terror.
may i add that Saddam also owed Russia about 8 billion dollars for equipment and expertise?

Russia Agrees to Ease Iraq's Debt
Listen

Morning Edition, December 23, 2003 · After months of resisting U.S. pressure, Russia agrees to forgive more than half of the $8 billion that Baghdad owes Moscow. Russia is one of Iraq's largest creditors. The pledge came as members of Iraq's governing council visited Moscow and held talks with President Vladimir Putin.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=1566801

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:02 am

samtzu wrote:Aflaq?
Image
I really like the duck.

a little something for your indigestion...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Year of Fear
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON — Down the block from The Times's Washington bureau is a Christian Science church, which, since 9/11, has had this message on its wall: "Be strong and of good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest."

That's comforting, because the Fear Room at Kerry campaign headquarters is on a hair trigger to turn any breaking news into a personal threat.

You an oldster? The fearmongers' pitch is that President Bush is plotting to snatch your Social Security check. Bush's sound idea of setting aside a small portion of your payroll tax as a personal nest egg for your retirement is twisted by the fearmongers into the dread word "privatization." Many older Americans safely covered by Social Security now needlessly worry about being thrust out into the snow.

You a youngster? The fearmongers noticed an urban legend floating around the Internet about a "January surprise" to bring back the draft and throw you into the first wave into Falluja. Never mind that it won't happen, because the military knows that a volunteer army works best; the scare tactic is sure to whip up the old fears in the young voters.

You got a cough? The Fear Room says it is probably the flu and that anti-health Bush stole your vaccine. With the shortage caused partly by drug companies' concern about punitive lawsuits, millions who never bothered with flu shots last year now have to have them. By pushing the panic button, the Fear Room pushes up demand and worsens the shortage.

The fearmongers used the death of Christopher Reeve as a news peg for its stem cell desk. Kerry had been gloomily denouncing Bush's "ban" on such embryonic research when there isn't a federal prohibition - indeed, some federal funding has begun, and Harvard is likely to compete with the State of California and others to develop new cell lines. Meanwhile, John Edwards outrageously used Reeve's death to offer false hope that paralyzed people like him would "get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

After approving ads that strike fear into U.S. television viewers by exploiting terrorist beheadings of Americans, John Kerry had the chutzpah to say of Bush's reminders of 9/11: "He's scaring people." That was a classic Fear Room maneuver: as soon as editorial revulsion at scare tactics breaks into print, direct that reaction at the other side.

Ethicists, pundits and other goo-goos can all tut-tut about scare tactics, but the big question for political strategists is: do they work? We'll know in two weeks.

A similar question faces journalists and judges: will fear of jail force reporters to reveal their sources, and will such fear dry up leaks from whistle-blowers?

Example: back in May, Europe's largest bank, Swiss-based UBS, was fined $100 million by our Federal Reserve for sending U.S. cash to countries then under our sanctions: Cuba, Libya, Iran and Yugoslavia. I don't know how many dollars were illegally transferred, but a source I know to be reliable tells me it runs into the billions, and of that illegal flow, $783 million in U.S. $100 bills has been found so far by our forces in Iraq.

Another regulatory source tells me that forensic detection has tracked the flow of cash to Iraq through Iran, Jordan, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Our investigators are asking whether some of these numbered, traceable dollars - issued by our Federal Reserve Bank of New York - were used in the U.N. oil-for-food kickbacks and payoffs. For the heftiest heist in history, my two sources say, nothing beats truckloads of American cash.

These are sources I'll never reveal; we use each other to move the investigation along. But on another story, a runaway prosecutor has persuaded a judge to sentence a Times colleague of mine, Judith Miller, to jail for contempt - for doing her job and protecting her sources. That sends a chill throughout journalism and government.

My advice to voters in this political Year of Fear, as well as to journalists and our sources, is from Joshua 1:9: "Be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed." Courage and freedom will win, and the purveyors of panic will lose.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

User avatar
buckethead alien
Posts: 2456
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:07 am
Burning Since: 1997
Location: Wrong Island

Post by buckethead alien » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:27 am

Yeah, I saw this Joel. It's pretty stupid of Safire not to mention that the GOP is also wrapping itself in fear, perhaps more viscerally than the Kerry people by continually evoking the spectre of 9/11. Safire is usually less of a party hack. In fact, this looks like the kind of stuff we get here a couple of times a day from the RNC.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:45 am

buckethead alien wrote:Yeah, I saw this Joel. It's pretty stupid of Safire not to mention that the GOP is also wrapping itself in fear, perhaps more viscerally than the Kerry people by continually evoking the spectre of 9/11. Safire is usually less of a party hack. In fact, this looks like the kind of stuff we get here a couple of times a day from the RNC.
yeah, i agree BHA.. i didn't even re-post the one on Kerry/Cheney's lesbian daughter...

i did think the Kerry's mention of her sexuality was a blatant statement to make some point, which is apparently beyond my comprehension... as a republican, i know that an amendment on marriage is DOA... it won't happen, never, so everyone... unbind your panties... it isn't going to happen... for the most part, the amendments that have been successful are inclusionary, not exclusionary.

BHA... on the other hand, i enjoy Safire getting his dander up... and no, i don't agree with everything he says, but i do learn how to build an argument by reading his... it is all about learning, folks.

User avatar
stuart
Posts: 3325
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 10:45 am
Location: East of Lincoln

Post by stuart » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:42 am

it won't happen, never, so everyone... unbind your panties... it isn't going to happen...
of course not. That's not the point. The point for it is to get the evangelical base in wisconsin, ohio, and pennsylvania out to the polls. Nothing more.
call me baby

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:35 am

stuart wrote:
it won't happen, never, so everyone... unbind your panties... it isn't going to happen...
of course not. That's not the point. The point for it is to get the evangelical base in wisconsin, ohio, and pennsylvania out to the polls. Nothing more.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Frank Morgan (I) as 'Wizard' Of Oz:

User avatar
Silver 2
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: DC/Northern VA

Post by Silver 2 » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:05 pm

OK, I have avoided all the political threads and I figure that this will be my only posting on one.

First, I have voted for Republicans, in fact I have a very nice thank you note from President Nixon. I voted for Ronnie on his first go around; I had spoken to him for a while back in the '70's when he was talking much more like a Libertarian than he turned out to be; that and his opponent couldn't lead a cub scout troop. I was working here in Washington (on the hill, Democratic Congressman) at the time. I believe that was the last time I voted for a Republican presidential candidate. Starting before Reagan and descending with every election the Republican Party has sold out to the religious right until at this point I tend to hear Republican and think religious nut. I could go on but I won?t.

My opposition to the President was firmed up before 9/11 (and has been subsequently reinforced). His anti-science and anti-personal freedom attitudes and his appalling appointments to just about everything preclude my ever voting for him. His willful ignorance of facts does not endear him to me either.

As far as Iraq goes, to call it moronic would be engaging in massive understatement. It has taken money, men and material that could and should have been used to track down and kill those who could actually do us harm. To those who talk about 'bringing democracy to the Iraqis'; all I can say is: read some history, read about Islam then come back and we can argue about how long after American attention is turned from Iraq that the civil war begins and how long it will take for a new strongman to take over.

ANYWAY, here is a site that I look at every morning lately to cheer myself up:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/
I like playing with fire.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:37 am

SO MARY'S GAY?
by Wm F Buckley Jr

This will require magnanimity, savoir faire and intense concentration. The objective: to opine on whether it was correct for John Kerry to make references to Mary Cheney as a lesbian.
The pros hold that an objective of the Democratic presidential challenger is inclusivity, and they make the point that there is nothing in the least invidious in calling attention to Ms. Cheney's lesbianism.

Sen. Kerry was commenting on the referee's question, previously answered by President Bush, whether to be gay is a matter of choice or a matter of biological determination. Bush had said he couldn't give the final answer to this. Kerry said: All you need to reflect upon is that the daughter of your running mate is herself gay and isn't for that reason in the least thought less of by her parents, or by me, or by the voting public.

Mr. Bush said nothing more, and there were no indications, on leave-taking, that he had been offended by the use of Ms. Cheney's lesbianism to make a political point.

But that was not at all the reaction of dad and mom. Vice President Cheney said that Kerry's remark about his daughter showed that the senator was "a man who will say and do anything in order to get elected." He added that his indignation was not just that of a father, indeed a "pretty angry father," but that of "a citizen."

Lynne Cheney -- and she is a highbrow with a highbrow's attention to the use of words -- said that the episode had given her a chance to take the full measure of candidate Kerry. "And the only thing I could conclude is this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I am speaking as a mom and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

It is not in question that Mary Cheney's gayness had already become a part of the cast of characters in the political play. Senator Kerry was in no sense "outing" someone who had hidden her sexual impulses. So that the question narrowed to whether what was said was an expression of magnanimity and inclusiveness, or whether it was a bid for votes from the bigoted.

This last interpretation of it was taken by an evangelical Christian politician, Gary Bauer, who ran for the presidency four years ago. He reasoned as follows: that traditional-values voters would react to the public reference as to an animadversion against the Bush ticket, and that by saying what he had said, Kerry could reasonably hope "to knock l or 2 percent off in some rural areas by causing people to turn on the president." This view holds that Kerry was in fact trading on bigotry.

That position is of course irreconcilable with the position that Mr. Cheney has profited politically from publicizing his daughter's gayness -- that he has, in effect, said to the gay community: Look, my own beloved daughter is a member of the Cheney family, and a member also of the gay community. You can hardly suspect in the GOP ticket prejudice against gays, when you see that we have one in the family, whom we cherish.

Ah then, but another point is being made. It is that Cheney and Bush diverge in their view of the gay-lesbian questions. Early in the campaign, Cheney said that he believed any gay should have the identical rights of non-gays. Bush travels in that direction, but balks at marriage, which he holds to be a social institution devised to unite man and woman. Bush has therefore backed a constitutional amendment that would remove from the courts any authority to change that around by superimposing rights-language on the law, as has been done in Massachusetts and elsewhere, resulting in marriage ceremonies of man and man, and woman and woman.

The episode will put such questions on faster tracks than those they have been moving on. We will learn whether there are voters who don't like the idea of a lesbian woman as a part of the royal family. We will learn whether Mary Cheney, who is working for the election of her father, will emerge as a great expediter of the constitutional amendment -- whether she will emerge as the lady who called out that the rights she has are sufficient to guard the freedoms identified with the GOP ticket.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

This one's for you, DVD...

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:48 am

INMATES 'HAVE A PLAN' TO RUN THE ASYLUM
by Ann Coulter

While the people of Afghanistan are celebrating their first democratic election and the Iraqis are taking their first steps to democracy, the great thinkers in the Democratic Party are still polishing up their conspiracy theories about the war to liberate Iraq.
There's no consensus position, but the Democrats are pretty sure the real reason we went to Iraq was one of the following:


Bush family's connections to the Saudis,

Halliburton,

the Carlyle Group,

something about the Texas Rangers needing more left-handed pitching,

the neoconservatives,

the Straussians,

oil,

the Jews,

oily Jews.
This may be the first time in American history that the decisional calculus for many voters will be: Do I really want to throw my hat in with these crazy people?

John Kerry has called the war with Iraq "a huge mistake, a catastrophic mistake." He said it was no excuse that "Saddam might have done it 10 years from now" -- use weapons of mass destruction against Americans, apparently. (New Kerry campaign slogan: "Let Radical Islamic Iraq Be Radical Islamic Iraq!")

The Democrats want Saddam back. I suppose it was only a matter of time for the party that also welcomed back Marion Barry, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Al Sharpton, Frank Lautenberg, Hillary Clinton, etc., etc.

When Bush pointed out that Saddam would still be in power if Kerry were president, Kerry contradicted him, but provided no theory of how Saddam would be gone. Instead, he simply said: "Not necessarily be in power" -- and then trailed off into a long-winded explanation of one of those positions on which he's "always been consistent." Maybe Saddam would still be in power -- but there would have been an extremely effective and persistent opposition led by brave media pundits!

Speaking of which, where are the feminists on war with Iraq? Cameron Diaz' statement about Bush's policies -- "if you think rape should be legal, then don't vote" -- would have been perfectly true had she been speaking to an audience in Iraq. These people think it is constructive rape to have sex with your husband. America has just gone to war against a regime for which rape -- not date rape, or pseudo-rape, or virtual rape, but real rape -- was part of the official policy, and they're against regime-change.

Among his other pointless carping about the war in Iraq, Kerry keeps claiming the military is overextended. His supporters claim Bush has a secret plan to bring back the draft. Whatever happened to all those gays who wanted to join the military? We haven't heard a peep out of them lately. How about rounding up a "Coalition of the Fabulous," Sen. Kerry? And what does his good pal Mary Cheney tell him about that?

With the election a few weeks away, the two main reasons Kerry has settled on for why you should vote for him are: (1) Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter, and (2) Halliburton!

The highlight of the debates for Moveon.org members came whenever Edwards or Kerry managed to work "Halliburton!" into an answer. Kerry explained he voted against the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq because, "I didn't want to give a slush fund to Halliburton." (Nor equipment to the troops, apparently.) This week, he also tied Halliburton to the flu shot shortage, telling a Florida audience, "If Halliburton made flu shots, there would be more flu here than oranges."

Edwards raised the Democrats' brilliant "Halliburton!" point, saying: "While (Cheney) was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company -- just like Enron and Ken Lay." Not only that, but Bush and Cheney have offices -- just like Enron and Ken Lay. They have employees -- just like Enron and Ken Lay. They pay their employees -- just like Enron and Ken Lay.

The Party of Ideas is now equating Halliburton with Enron. The only surprise is that Edwards didn't throw in Watergate and Abscam just for good measure.

As even The New York Times admitted the day after the vice presidential debate, "(T)here is no evidence Mr. Cheney has pulled strings on Halliburton's behalf" and "The independent General Accountability Office concluded that Halliburton was the only company that could have provided the services the Army needed at the outset of the war."

Most amazingly, the Democrats have the chutzpah to complain that Bush claimed he was a "uniter" and yet(!), "have you ever seen America more divided?" -- as the Democrats' Demosthenes Edwards put it.

This from a candidate (I almost said a "man") whose campaign falsely accused the president of stealing an election, barring a million black voters from the polls, and sending a thousand American soldiers to their deaths just for oil.

Coincidentally, the very day of the vice presidential debate, a gun was fired into a Bush/Cheney campaign office in Bearden, Tenn. -- one of a series of violent attacks on Republican offices around the country. (You can tell it was Democrats firing those guns because none of the shots ever hit anything.)

Also that day, a group of liberal loonies stormed a Bush/Cheney office in Orlando, Fla., and ransacked the place. A few weeks earlier, a 62-year-old woman in Manhattan was beaten with a cane by an 86-year-old woman for carrying a Bush-Cheney sign.

On the basis of their own insane, violent behavior toward Republicans, Democrats demand to be put in the White House -- so the violence will stop. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before the Kerry campaign announces that anti-Bush insurgents control most of the Bush-Cheney 2004 headquarters, and that the sooner the U.S. pulls out of those quagmires the better.

If only we could get Democrats to show a little of that manly anger toward the terrorists, maybe Americans would be able to trust them with national security.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:32 pm

October 23, 2004
The More Things Change...
By DAVID BROOKS

Why is this country still tied?

Over the past four years, we've experienced a major terrorist attack, a recession, a dot-com shakeout, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, corporate scandals and an active and tumultuous presidency. We've had an influx of new citizens. Millions have died of old age, and tens of millions have moved to new towns and new states.

Yet the political landscape looks almost exactly the same. We're still divided right down the middle. We're still looking at razor-thin margins in states like Florida. If you compare the demographic breakdowns of the Bush-Kerry race to those of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, you find they are quite similar. Why does everything in America change except politics?

That is the central mystery of this election.

The only possible conclusion is that there is some deep, tectonic fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks we've felt over the past four years. Remember, it is very unusual to have two close presidential elections in a row. This hasn't occurred for about 120 years.

But what explains this stable divide?

Let me first tell you what it is not. Foreign, domestic and social policy debates do not explain the current tie. The election of 2000 was fought on a different set of issues. Then, we were arguing about things like lockboxes, compassionate conservatism and how to use the surplus. Now, we're arguing about war, terrorism and the deficit. The issues have changed, but the political landscape has not.

Moreover, as the Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina has shown, Americans are not that polarized on issues. When you ask people about policies - even abortion - you see a big group of moderates. If issue differences were shaping this campaign, you'd see these centrists sloshing back and forth and breaking the tie.

But two forces do account for the stable political divide. First, partisanship. We've just seen how passionately some people care about the Yankees and the Red Sox. Many people care that passionately about being a Democrat or a Republican.

Human beings are tribal. When they find themselves in a closely fought contest with a rival group, they become ever more tightly bound to their tribe. They see reality in ways that flatter the group. They nurture the resentments that bind the group.

In this campaign the two candidates do not just describe different policies. They describe different realities. In short, the partisan rivalry fuels itself. Once an electorate becomes tied, there is a built-in emotional pressure that keeps things that way. Even people who claim to be independents find themselves sucked into the vortex.

Second, and probably more important, we're in the middle of a leadership war. Underneath all the disputes about Iraq, we're having a big argument about what qualities America should have in a leader. Republicans trust one kind of leader, Democrats another. This is the constant that runs through recent elections.

Republicans, from Reagan to Bush, particularly admire leaders who are straight-talking men of faith. The Republican leader doesn't have to be book smart, and probably shouldn't be narcissistically introspective. But he should have a clear, broad vision of America's exceptional role in the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are more apt to emphasize such leadership skills as being knowledgeable and thoughtful. They value leaders who can see complexities, who possess the virtues of the well-educated.

Republicans and Democrats have different conceptions of the presidency. Republicans admire a president who is elevated above his executive branch colleagues. It is impossible to imagine George W. Bush or Reagan as a cabinet secretary. Instead, they are set apart by virtue of exceptional moral qualities. Relying on their core values, they set broad goals and remain resolute in times of crisis.

Democrats see the presidency as a much more ministerial job. They admire presidents who engage in constant deliberative conversations. Democrats from Carter through Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry have all been well versed in the inner workings of government. It is easy to imagine each of them serving as a cabinet secretary.

It just so happens that America is evenly divided about what sort of leader we need: the Republican who leads with his soul or the Democrat who leads with his judgment. Even the events of the past four years have not altered that disagreement.

That's why we are still tied.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Oct 23, 2004 4:42 pm

So let's eee now.......you belive that only democrats belive the war is because of:

Bush family's connections to the Saudis,

Halliburton,

the Carlyle Group,

something about the Texas Rangers needing more left-handed pitching,

the neoconservatives,

the Straussians,

oil,

the Jews,


And let me guess......you feel it's all bullshit and that none of the reasons above are true. :shock: Image
Dood you need to start proving that Bush & Co. are not doing these things before you post such info.

I'm not a democrat nor a republican or independent.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:10 pm

DVD Burner wrote:I'm not a democrat nor a republican or independent.
i am aware of what you are... and for public consumption the nouns and adjectives please?

incestuous ill-bred, illogical, mouth-breathing parasite.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:31 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:I'm not a democrat nor a republican or independent.
i am aware of what you are... and for public consumption the nouns and adjectives please?

incestuous ill-bred, illogical, mouth-breathing parasite.
Image

Joel why you do that?Every time someone comes up with a point that's right you call them names?
Image
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:34 pm

Hey wait a minute Joel.......are you whining? :shock: Image
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:11 am

DVD Burner wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:I'm not a democrat nor a republican or independent.
i am aware of what you are... and for public consumption the nouns and adjectives please?

incestuous ill-bred, illogical, mouth-breathing parasite.
Image

Joel why you do that?Every time someone comes up with a point that's right you call them names?
Image
a point, like the one on your head?

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:14 am

Nope, the points like these:

Bush family's connections to the Saudis,

Halliburton,

the Carlyle Group,

the neoconservatives,

oil,

the Jews,
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
KellY
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:32 am

Post by KellY » Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:52 pm

When you think things can't get any weirder...talk about strange bedfellows:

Bush turns Eminem into Michael Moore

With his history of homophobia and his long-running beef with MoveOn supporter Moby, Eminem is an even less likely lefty hero than Howard Stern. But the just-released video ( http://www.gnn.tv/videos/video.php?id=27 ) for his new anti-Bush song "Mosh," makes "Fahrenheit 9/11" look like a GOP campaign spot, and it will almost certainly reach an audience that wouldn't think of shelling out for a documentary.

The beautifully animated spot, which is directed by Ian Inaba, opens with a classroom. At the front is a man in a blue suit, his face buried in an upside down children's book that says "My Pet," with a picture of a bush. Just as the man is revealed to be Eminem, the scene changes, and we see the singer taping up newspaper stories to a wall -- "Sick Wounded Troops Held in Squalor," says one. "Civil Liberties at Stake," says another. "Bush Knew," says a third.

In five minutes, Eminem manages a furious indictment of the administration that will likely resonate among many troops in Iraq as well as disaffected kids here at home. In one scene, a smiling soldier returns home from Baghdad, only to be handed a notice announcing that he has to go back. As Eminem sings, "fuck Bush," the soldier mouths the words.

Then we see a woman walking home in the rain, carrying groceries and an envelope. Inside is an eviction notice. As she reads it, we hear Eminem saying, "Maybe this is God just saying we're responsible for this monster, this coward that we have empowered." The woman looks at her TV, where Bush is speaking over a banner that says "Tax Cuts." She looks at her terrified children, then back at the screen, which says, "Breaking News…Terror Alert."

It all ends amazingly earnestly, with Eminem leading a black-clad army to the voting booth. Once again, Bush proves he really does have wonder working powers -- by behaving even more callously and irresponsibly than the most outrageous rapper, he's turned music's foremost enfant terrible into a role model of civic engagement.

Now we just have to see if MTV has the guts to air it.

-- Michelle Goldberg (salon.com)
"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes

Post Reply

Return to “Open Discussion”