I think the following would be an interesting script for a commerical for a Democratic activist group:
1) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he's against nation building.
2) Footage of dead and dying American soldiers and dead and dying Iraqis, including some of that brutal footage from "F 9/11."
3) Footage of Bush declaring "MIssion Accomplished."
4) Footage of headlines declaring over a thousand Americans killed.
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without a word of protest from the White House, intercut with dead and dying young people or terrorists fighting assault weapons.
7) Footage of Bush saying that he's keeping us safer. Freeze Frame, and the following words appear:
"While he's lyin', we're dyin'."
Paid for by the Committe of People Who Don't Want to See More People Die On George Bush's Watch.
Just a passing thought.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 14, 2004 12:00 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI think the apostrophe in place of the "g" makes it sound rather glib, but other than that it sounds no worse than the many other Democratic ads I've seen suggested on other liberal blogs. The thing is, though, I'm personally not sure how well any of these ads work at this point, it seems like people who are voting for Bush are bound and determined to do so no matter what facts are raised. Doesn't mean people shouldn't keep raising them, but I just have my doubts as to whether any of them are effective with people whose minds are closed and made up to begin with...
I was going to vote for the Constitution Party's candidate for president but thanks to Mr. Moore, Moveon.org, the Dem's 527 ads, and this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left. The left thought they were energizing their base, but all they did was fire up the right...not smart.
So, PAD, I'd love to see your ad on tv. Add it to the list of crap and hate the left has been pumping into tv, movies, books, etc. All their hard work is really paying off:
WASHINGTONPOSTWABCNEWS Poll, John F. Kerry was viewed favorably by 36 percent of registered voters, down 18 points over the past six months.
Kerry finds himself in a dead heat with Martha Stewart and Joseph McCarthy, and behind Herbert Hoover...although he narrowly beats O.J. Simpson.
I'm personally not sure how well any political ads work at this point, it seems like people who are voting for Kerry are bound and determined to do so no matter what facts are raised. Doesn't mean people shouldn't keep raising them, but I just have my doubts as to whether any of them are effective with people whose minds are closed and made up to begin with...
this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left.
Well, there's a mature reason to vote for the leader of the free world.
Not because of ability.
Not because of a plan to save manufacturing jobs in the US
Not because of a plan to improve health care in the US
But because of spite.
Yes, that's really a responsible reason to vote.
Pity.
Keep your pity to yourself.
You want to talk about voting out of spite? How many people who normally vote green will vote for Kerry this year? The Dems were hard on Nadar and asked him a thousand times not to run. Why? Because they wanted the Green vote. They'd hate to see the Greens vote their heart and lose any precious votes.
I like George W. Bush. I think he has done a fantastic job. What he has or hasn't done was not my reason for wanting to vote for the Constitution Party. I voted for Bush the first time and thanks to the left I'll be voting for him again.
Richard:
>this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left.
>Well, there's a mature reason to vote for the leader of the free world.
Are you saying that the rationale for your, and others you know for a fact, vote for Bush is any different than the Left that you are attacking? How is "voting for anyone but Bush" any less mature than "voting for Bush in response to a group of people's rationale for voting against him"?
Not bad, PAD. But I like the suggestions from DailyKos - using Bush's "Ownership Scoiety" against him and getting him to "own up" to the mess on his watch:
"Mr. president, Colin Powell told you about this war that 'if you break it, you own it.' And now you're going around talking about an 'ownership society.' Well, Mr. President, let me tell you what you own. A million jobs lost. You own that. A thousand soldiers lost. You own that. 1.4 million new people living below the poverty line. You own that. 1.2 million less people covered by health insurance. You own that. A seventeen percent medicare increase. You own that. Health care costs skyrocketing. You own that. The tax burden increasing amongst the middle class. You own that. Mr. President, if you want to talk about an ownership society, let's talk about what you own."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/13/143648/865
If John Kerry wants to be president he needs to take the advice that Bill Clinton offered before undergoing heart surgery. Kerry needs to focus less on Vietnam and more on domestic issues. I think the fact that a lot of people aren’t working right now should take center stage of his campaign. I think he needs to start asking people are their lives better now than they were four years ago.
I really don’t think Kerry should run negative footage from the war in Iraq. First off those ads will only make people afraid which plays to the president strategy of constantly bringing up September Eleventh. Second and I could be wrong on this, but didn’t Howard Dean attribute losing the first Iowa primary due to going negative? If that strategy didn’t work for Dean why would it work for Kerry?
I'm not voting for Kerry out of spite. I'm doing it because I honestly believe that the current president has done a terrible job, both domestically and with foreign policy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: this election, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat; if the party runs a yellow dog against Mr. Bush, I'll vote for it.
If the attacks from moderate Republicans, Centrist Democrats and (yes) Liberals seem spiteful, it's indicative of the level of anger created by Mr. Bush's stated policies, not to mention the discrepancies of his public statements versus his actions.
By the bye, I need to mention to whom it may concern...the "Preview" key doesn't seem to work.
It may just be my computer, but when I clicked on it, it just reopened this page with my comments in the "Comments:" box, not an actual preview.
Thanks.
Man a lot of people have a definition of hate and spite that's extremely strident. There's certainly a few percent on both sides that's nasty and hateful but I don't see how expressing a strong dislike for the policies and performance of the incumbent qualifies as "attack."
Why is calling Kerry a flip-flopper for saying something and later saying something different any more fair than criticizing an incumbent for saying one thing and doing another?
"I was going to vote for the Constitution Party's candidate for president but thanks to Mr. Moore, Moveon.org, the Dem's 527 ads, and this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left"
Of course there are no such equivilent attacks from the right. No Mr Limbaugh, no Mr O'Reilly, no Mr Savage, no Mrs Coulter, no 'Swift Boat Veterens For Truth'
"I'm personally not sure how well any political ads work at this point, it seems like people who are voting for Kerry are bound and determined to do so no matter what facts are raised. Doesn't mean people shouldn't keep raising them, but I just have my doubts as to whether any of them are effective with people whose minds are closed and made up to begin with..."
Yes, exactly. That's exactly how I feel...except, y'know, substitute the name "Bush" for "Kerry"...
PAD
"Why is calling Kerry a flip-flopper for saying something and later saying something different any more fair than criticizing an incumbent for saying one thing and doing another?"
It's not.
The thing is, I really don't have trouble with the notion of politicians changing their minds about issues. But Bush has chosen to cite that as a weakness when it comes to Kerry. So if it's a weakness, then it has to cut both ways.
PAD
I've said this before, but it bears repeating..
If it wasn't for the get out the vote campaigns by the 527s, this election would have the lowest turnout in years. Why?
Because for the first time I can recall, we have an election where BOTH candidates are unpopular. I haven't looked recently, but for the longest time, Bush's approval rating was below 50% and so was Kerry's favorable view rating.
What this means is that no matter who wins, it is probable that more than half of the people he will be govering will not like him. Sheesh, talk about losing by winning.
As far as commercials, here's my plan (and both sides get to do it).
The basis of the campaign is "Are you better off now then you were 4 years ago." Each side gets to use billboards, commercials, news ads, whatever. The only rule is that any stats used in the ad must come from a non-partisan source.
For example (Sample Kerry Ads)
2000: US military Deaths : 12 (this is a made up number for example purposes)
2004: US military Deaths: 456
(Sample Bush Ads)
2000: Average Home Ownership: 47%
2004: Average Home Ownership: 54%
(Again, sample, I don't know the exact numbers, but it has been a statistically significant increase)
People can then look at CURRENT stats that mean something to them and make an informed decision. If you think things are better now or the same, vote Bush. If you think things are worse, vote Kerry. It really is that simple.
He who lives by the flip, dies by the flop?
George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left.
Sure, sure, it's always the left.
Or did you not catch any of the SBV ads?
Was Cheney's comments about another 9/11 not enough to show that the only thing they're doing is playing the negatives about Kerry?
Bush doesn't even attempt to focus on what he's done, other than the fact he bombed the shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
So if it's a weakness, then it has to cut both ways.
And yet, people have been too stupid to see that Bush is as much of a "flip flopper" as Kerry has been.
But hey, Bush doesn't have to say he's flip flopped on the issue of nation building, because he hasn't DONE any rebuilding - only blown shit up.
"Welcome back for another 4 years, President Bush. Here's your next target."
Fred C: Are you saying that the rationale for your, and others you know for a fact, vote for Bush is any different than the Left that you are attacking? How is "voting for anyone but Bush" any less mature than "voting for Bush in response to a group of people's rationale for voting against him"?
No, I was simply responding to James T saying:this stupid "anybody but Bush" mentality from the left has changed my mind. George W. Bush will now get my vote and I know for a fact others are being moved to vote for the President because of the attacks from the left.
With that statement, he said that he and others are voting for Bush BECAUSE of the attacks from the left.
James T: Keep your pity to yourself.
The pity wasn't aimed at you (in particular), it was aimed at a decision to vote for a candidate NOT for the issues, but because of "attacks from the left".
It's a pity that what should be an adult, and mature decision has become nothing more than name calling and childish rants.
James T: I like George W. Bush. I think he has done a fantastic job
Well why the hell didn't you just say that and be done with it? Why even bring up the "left" or the "anybody but Bush" mentality from some?
James T: I voted for Bush the first time and thanks to the left I'll be voting for him again.
??
Now what the hell does that mean???
You said that you think Bush has done a fantastic job.
Great, fine, but then you say "thanks to the left..." Thanks for what?
If you agree so much with what a cndidate or incumbent has done, why should the opinions of anyone else, left or right, sway your vote???
Not because of a plan to save manufacturing jobs in the US
Not because of a plan to improve health care in the US>
And Kerry has a plan? Seems to me that if that is your criteria, you really should vote for either of the big 2. Kerry hasn't offered ANYTHING solid, just ill-defined pipe dreams.
Chip S.:And Kerry has a plan? Seems to me that if that is your criteria, you really should vote for either of the big 2. Kerry hasn't offered ANYTHING solid, just ill-defined pipe dreams.
Why are you assuming that I'm voting for Kerry?
Hell, WHERE in my post did I state ANY preference for either candidate???
Did you actually read my post???
I'll try to make it simple.
I was responding to a post that stated that he was voting for a cndidate because of the "actions" by the left.
Voting out of spite, as it were.
While I realize that it's difficult to try to get points across on line, but I was TRYING to establish that voting for the leader of the free world should come down to WHAT can be accomplished and ther bettermeant of the people of this country, NOT because what the "left", or for that matter, the "right" are whining about.
Richard wrote:
"Not because of ability. Not because of a plan to save manufacturing jobs in the US; Not because of a plan to improve health care in the US; But because of spite. Yes, that's really a responsible reason to vote."
The thing about partisan bickering is that the bickerees often cannot see the forest for the trees.
What do I mean? Well, yesterday, in the Chicago Sun-Times, a Democratic columnist on Page 3 was going over some of the things she says Kerry should be doing to get re-elected. During her discourse, she cites her fear that if Bush is re-elected and attorney general John Ashcroft gets to come back after the election, he'll continues to trample on the civil liberties of Americans (an indirect reference to The Patriot Act).
Ironically, on the facing Page 4 of the same issue, there is a big article, with a screaming headline, announcing the (Democratic) mayor's new plan to install 2,250 cameras throughout Chicago to deter crime (this plan was also endorsed by an editorial in the Sun-Times today).
Considering the advanced state of facial recognition software available today, which do you think is more invasive to privacy and civil liberties on a day-to-day basis?
Personally, I'm not bothered by either the camera program or the Patriot Act, but I am bothered by people who only show their indignation when it follows party lines. That isn't free-thinking -- that's being a partisan zombie.
R. Maheras:
I am bothered by people who only show their indignation when it follows party lines. That isn't free-thinking -- that's being a partisan zombie.
Well said.
I'd be all for the ad. Of course, I think it would drive up Kerry's unfaivorable ratings, so you might take that with a grain of salt.
If I were advising Kerry--and he could (and has) done worse--I'd advise against any use of F9/11 in any ads. I think he's already getting the Michael Moore vote. Using him will only turn off further those who are not fans of Moore's work (and also really pump up the Right).
I really thought that Kerry was pulling ahead a few weeks back, but lately all the talk from his "supporters" has been A--What he SHOULD be doing; B- how stupid the average voter is and C--just wait and see how the Republicans steal this election.
When an opponent is already thinking about defeat before the battle is fought you have to give the likelihood of victory to the other side.
I for one am sick of hearing about losing manufacturing jobs. Guess what... they don't matter.
This is no longer an industrial nation. The idustrial revolution has come and gone... it's place is in third world countries now. The is the technology and information age and that is what we should be focusing on.
The fact of the matter is that in a decadge or so there wont BE any more factory jobs because everything will be done by robotics and computers. Blue collar workers slaving for minimum wage on the assembly line just won't exist in any large number.
What everyone SHOULD be focusing on is the fact that education and job skill training in this country suck. Honestly, it's horrible.
Our education system needs a total overall... yes I know they always TALK about education in election years, but the fact of the matter is its pretty much out of the hands of the president and federal government, as it's all local school boards and the god awful teachers unions that drive the systems into the ground. I say scrap it. Overhaul it from the ground up. Raise standards and expectation, fire teachers that are no good, raise pay for good teachers, and make college an expected follow up to high school for everyone... which of course means the government is hand out a lot more assitance.
The other side of the coin is job training. Companies don't do it anymore. Everyone has become so greey and shortsighted that they are no longer willing to spend a little time and money in the present to invest in the future. We have a huge untrained workforce, and an even larger one that needs retraining. They shouldn't be expected to pay for it all out of pocket.
But of course it's another election year, and the same pointless bullshit all over again....
Big business has for some time now neglected any responsibility to their stockholders, employees, customers, and the environment. In these last 4 years they not only were given a free ride, they were given the car they were riding in. You can rant all you want about manufacturing jobs (and I agree completely about needing to focus on education and job skills to compete in the coming years) but until we hold the corporations more accountable their greed is going to continue to line the pockets of a few, while not investing a dime in their workers or this country.
Mike:I for one am sick of hearing about losing manufacturing jobs. Guess what... they don't matter.
That is one of the most stupid comments that I've ever heard (read)
They don't matter.
Tell that to the people of the manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania, or Oho, or Missouri or any state in this country.
Tell that to the men and women over 40, or 45 or 50, hey too bad, but according to Mike your jobs don't matter. Now go and learn a new skill or new technology, because "idustrial revolution has come and gone"
Mike: Our education system needs a total overall
Of course it does Mike, but that does squat for the generation that are currently trying to live and work in this country.
Where's your answer for them?
But like you said Mike, " it's another election year, and the same pointless bullshit all over again...."
Real peoples lives don't really matter
Karen wrote:
"Big business has for some time now neglected any responsibility to their stockholders, employees, customers, and the environment."
This is a generalization, and from my recent personal experience, one that is not true.
Three years ago, I worked for an appliance manufacturer whose huge manufacturing plant was located in the middle or rural Iowa, adjacent a beautiful nature preserve, lake and wetlands area. The plant used well water, and its state-of-the-art (and expensive) water treatment facility was so advanced, the water that was eventually discharged after use and treatment was cleaner than what came out of the well. Engineers at the plant also created a closed loop cooling system for plant machinery to drastically reduce water consumption. In addition, the plant's separate sewage treatment facility actually treated the sewage of the nearby town, instead of vice versa. Finally, the company's emergency power generator plant was designed to supply nearby towns with power should the normal power grid be interrupted by lightning or other power glitches. Hardly seems to fit your definition of corporate America.
As a matter of fact, I'll bet plenty of people drive by that plant, set in the middle of rural Iowa and, in ignorance, curse its very existence -- even though it provides hundreds of high-paying manufacturing jobs at a time when manufacturing jobs in America are on the wane.
I'll admit that I haven't really paid that much attention to what other people have said during an election season, but to me it seems like this campaign has really divided people along near-violent lines. This current administration has been plagued from the start, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it continues to be plagued.
I do have to say that of all the reasons I've heard to support Bush, "he's being attacked, and I want to stick up for him" has got to be the lamest. Most people I hear speaking in support of Bush sound like Republican mouth pieces, spouting off one-liners straight from the Bush-Cheney website. The problem is, I haven't heard a single person be able to go beyond the soundbite and discuss how that list of accomplishments has actually benefited or improved our country, as a whole.
And the worst thing is, showing many of those people the "truth," that is, factual discussions of what impacts this administration actually has had, both good and bad, doesn't do one bit of good.
There's a storm, comin', people, and I'm not talkin' 'bout Ivan....
When it comes to people and voting, I have my pick and others have theirs. I respect that and I hope others will respect me on it.
This past weekend, I was at my club leader's house folding flyers and getting some prep work done for our convention. Me and a friend were discussing John Kerry, since we're both voting for him, when our leader's wife started the rhetoric of the purple hearts getting Kerry a desk job out of Vietnam. This ticked me off royally. I realized that all she had done was to listen to the media about the candidate.
Why am I voting for Kerry? Because it's time for someone different at the helm of our country. As another poster said, all Bush has done is campaign on his war effort and of 9/11 related actions. I want someone that cares about where we are, where we're heading, and what we can become. I think that Kerry is the choice for that.
Folks talk about Bush and his faith and of how he's 'restored decency to the White House.' All because of an infidelity has Clinton's eight years of office been wiped away.
I've given Bush the benefit of four years to show how he could bring us to higher places, and I think I don't want to give him four more to keep trying to do that.
Over ten thousand US citizens have been hurt, maimed, or killed over in Iraq now. A thousand are dead, but the rest are amputees or wounded. Its a number I think the media should be discussing a bit more.
That's my $0.02 and I'm glad I have a chance to share it.
As a matter of fact, I'll bet plenty of people drive by that plant, set in the middle of rural Iowa and, in ignorance, curse its very existence -- even though it provides hundreds of high-paying manufacturing jobs at a time when manufacturing jobs in America are on the wane.
I'd be interested in knowing where this plant was located.
I've seen other plants that, well, make you wish that more manufacturing jobs were lost (Cargill springs to mind), but, contrary to Mike's ignorance, these jobs are important. Particularly in the Midwest and through the Ohio River Valley as was mentioned.
But, even if the jobs could be lost... guess what? We're losing our information tech jobs too, and they're not being replaced fast enough either.
If you're going to choose to base your diet on apples and orange, and you throw your apples away, you better make sure you have enough oranges around so you don't starve.
Unfortunately, that's not the case with our national economy right now.
RJM,,
I appreciate the passion but how exactly DO we get the manufacturing jobs back? People will NOT pay 2 or 3 times the cost of items just so they can buy American. As long as Wal-Mart or any other retailer is able to advertise that they are selling Indonesian made widgets at half the cost of their competitor's widgets, more people will shop there.
So we'd have to have an embargo on foreign goods. They would retaliate against us. Which would lead to more job losses on both sides, kind of defeating the purpose.
If there is a good solution to this problem I haven't heard it. Mike's statement is blunt and may come off as insensitive but that doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue.
More food for thought:
"The U.S. information tech sector lost 403,300 jobs between March 2001 and this past April, and the market for tech workers remains bleak, according to a new report.
Perhaps more surprising, just over half of those jobs — 206,300 — were lost after experts declared the recession over in November 2001, say the researchers from the University of Illinois-Chicago."
Bill,
Well, that's kind of the point that I was making before. I read the earlier post by James Tichy and his picking our leader by spite. And I hear the radio and TV pundits describing this election to be nothing more than "my guy" over "your guy" because inane, benign reasons.
But never do any of the candidates tackle the REAL problems or to try to solve these issues.
If I knew the answers, I'd run for office.
But you would think, that these gentlemen and ladies, college graduates all, would have the intelligence to come up with solutions to the countries problems.
And you know what? BIG Business be Damed!
Sometimes it's more about the american people being able to live a contributional life than to make a couple extra million.
But I took issue to Mike's insensitive remark, because he sounds like so many of the radio and TV voices. Not giving a damn about the people of this country, just caring about their own wallet.
R. Maheras,
Perhaps I should have said a majority of big business. I know there are some conscientious corporations out there. When you look at the big corporations as a whole, well, I bet the percentage of those who do give back are far smaller than any of us would like. I wonder if the percentage even gets into double digits? But why don't we talk about businesses who declare no dividends while paying enormous salaries to the few on top, or about the thousands who lost any retirement because of shady practices, or the current push for "tort reform" so they have even less responsiblilty for the harm their products cause, since the penalty will be minimal, or the lastest bid by this administration to gut controls so companies are not only free to pollute, but don't even have to worry about cleaning up their mess. Sorry about the run on sentence.
Jason H,
Well said. I have yet to meet anyone who has truly benefitted from the current policies. I guess I don't travel in those rarified circles. But one thing they are very good at is getting people to believe the worst of their opponents. If I were voting only on soundbites they would win hands down. Since I am voting for real issues, Kerry wins every time. I don't want to vote for their brand of fear mongering. I want to vote for a better future.
Bill,
Well, one part of Kerry's plan is tax incentives to companies that keep jobs here. There is a part of the solution. Wal-Mart keeps it's prices low, but pays it's employees almost nothing, gives few benefits at very high cost to the employee, won't allow workers to unionize for a better future, and drives many small businesses into bankruptcy in the places it sets up. Is that the America you want to live in? Where all corporations do business that way? Yes, prices may go up, but so will quality of life for many.
Dig it!
Delare yourself a 527 and get that ad on the airwaves!
Mark W.
PAD wrote:
>The thing is, I really don't have trouble with >the notion of politicians changing their minds >about issues. But Bush has chosen to cite that >as a weakness when it comes to Kerry. So if >it's a weakness, then it has to cut both ways.
I would suggest that the problem is not that this doesn't cut both ways, it is that you are comparing apples to oranges.
Bush has changed his mind on some issues. Bush has had to "clarify" (spin, whatever you want to call it), some issues. But there are few examples that go to core issues of what he says he believes. Rather, they are ways to implement those policies, or similar issues.
My point: Give me just one example where Bush has backed down on tax cuts? Give me just one example where he has backed down on his opposition to abortion on demand? Give me just one way he has changed and told one group he is for gun control, then told another he is not.
Bush has a core belief. Iraq is a good example. Bush may now be emphasizing more (at least in the minds of some) the reasons for the war, but he is unwavering in his belief that the war was right and necessary. Agree or disagree, have some conspiracy theory that he made everything up (and ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary), I don't care. His core belief about the war has not changed.
Kerry has not done the same. Forget the silly quote about voting for the war before he was against it. Look at the numerous staments he made over a number of years that Saddam was a clear threat. (In one press interview, he said he was AHEAD of his fellow Democrats in pushing for immediate action.) What he says now changes. Perhaps his core conviction is still the same, but for the average person (not the political junkies such as you or me), it is not clear. I would suggest the flip/flop charge sticks because it is true. But even if not, it is Kerry's inability to express and maintain a clear conviction on core issues. (I won't bother listing them since there is an "excuse" for each of them that makes things worse.)
Back to your original post. I do not consider it a "flip/flop" for Bush to have said, BEFORE 9/11, that he did not believe in nation building, and to now be going down that road. As Bush stated in his convention address, he is "nation building" in Iraq in order to protect us at home. I know you think his policy is flawed, but that is beside the point right now. Having been attacked by one group without provocation, it is not a logical stretch to understand why Bush would preemptively strike against another country/power that has a clear history of terrorism and aggressive action invading their neighbors.
Bottom line, I find it both maddening and amusing. I have enough objectivity to step back and realize you do believe this. You really think Bush is lying. And I am convinced of the opposite: Bush is telling the truth, and Kerry is lying and unable to take a stand without playing to his audience.
I know you do not want another 9/11. But I am convinced that Kerry's policies are much more likely to bring that about than what Bush is doing. I don't want to see people die. As someone has said before, "perception is reality." I don't think terrorists will fear Kerry. I know they will fear Bush.
Jim in Iowa
>>>As a matter of fact, I'll bet plenty of people drive by that plant, set in the middle of rural Iowa and, in ignorance, curse its very existence -- even though it provides hundreds of high-paying manufacturing jobs at a time when manufacturing jobs in America are on the wane.
>>I'd be interested in knowing where this plant was located.
Someone may have answered this, but I didn't see it. The plant is located in the Amana colonies here in Iowa. The description given is very accurate. It is a great tourist stop (I believe the #1 tourist stop in Iowa) with the German homes and stores right nearby.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
The terrorists don't fear Bush. They don't fear anyone. One of the members of the 9/11 commission said on Hardball last night that the old ways won't work. You used to make your enemy fear that you would kill him, so this was a deterrent. The fanatics who are plotting against us now do not fear death. Death is a reward. Heaven and virgins are waiting for them.
And Kerry is not coming out against the war, as much as some of us wish he would. He has come out against the way it was waged. He has said he wouldn't do one thing differently, that he would do everything differently. Colin Powell just said in an interciew that, while he did not know how Kerry would implement any action, he did not doubt he would have a robust response. Or is Powell lying now? Bush may believe in all of the things you said. That does not make them right for this country.
I love to read some of the over the top fanatics that come to this site. It appears that every celeb in the world thinks they can run the country better than those that have spent their lives learning to do just that.
It's easy to sit back and blame others but no one wants to get in there and get their hands dirty. Maybe just maybe we should sit back and stop throwing BS at people and work towards solutions. Instead of bitching about supposed unemployment maybe find a way to work towards a solution.
By the way I see plenty of help wanted signs up around my area. Maybe people just think they are too good for the jobs that are out there. I know I'm not too good for a job that feeds me.
I do not consider it a "flip/flop" for Bush to have said, BEFORE 9/11
Of course you don't. That would be too easy, wouldn't it?
But then, Bush had this plan for Iraq before 9/11, so I'd say his comments about nation building more than qualify.
As for the Amanas, I've been through there a few times, but never stopped.
It appears that every celeb in the world thinks they can run the country better than those that have spent their lives learning to do just that.
When they've mucked the job up like Bush has, then hell yes, why not.
But if you really want to get into the "spent their lives learning", well, you definately don't want Bush to have the job - he only became an owner in the Texas Rangers so he could put on a good face to become governor.
By your logic, Gore should be president right now, not Bush.
Btw, just so you're aware, Reagan was a tv and radio guy, then got into acting and movies. He's just the sort of celeb you're trying to bash. Good job!
Bush also promised police he would keep the ban on assault weapons. Does this qualify as a flip flop?
I'll only vote for Bush!
I'll only vote for kerry!
What issues? If you've been around long enough, maybe three elections, it should be obvious that presidential elections are not about issues! They are about selling a product to the American people. "Buy OUR GUY" both parties scream and "Danger WIll Robinson, Kerry/Bush Presidency Ahead, DANGER!" and we buy into it.
Do the American people really want an issues campaign? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ for most people!
But many have their own personal wants and anyone that can sell them on the idea that Bush/Kerry will give it to them first gets the vote.
Those more fanatically devoted to their guy then climb in and offer their crap on each candidate.
The media (where have you gone Walter Cronkite, our nations turns its lonely eyes to you!)
Fox News, CNN or BSNBC which tells us the truth?
NONE! Unless they praise your guy and condem the other!
PAD will your ad make a difference?
No! But nice try!
Karen:
"Bush also promised police he would keep the ban on assault weapons. Does this qualify as a flip flop?"
I don't think so. Congress is the body that had to write the legislation to continue the ban. Maybe if a senator or two had bothered to pay attention or show up to sessions, they could have spearheaded a movement to extend the ban, instead of doing nothing and now wanting to make it a campaign issue.
May I present the cover to next month's "Reason" (a libertarian political magazine):
http://www.reason.com/0410/preview-0410.shtml
Carl Henderson
(who is seriously considering a write-in vote for one of several fictional characters)
Craig wrote:
>>I do not consider it a "flip/flop"
>>for Bush to have said, BEFORE 9/11
>Of course you don't. That would be too
>easy, wouldn't it?
>But then, Bush had this plan for Iraq
>before 9/11, so I'd say his comments
>about nation building more than qualify.
Your first point is absurd and insulting. Take a moment, forget it is G. W. Bush, and think about the situation. It is like someone who says they oppose the death penalty, but then he or she has a child who is brutally murdered. It is very understandable that they might change their position. This is not giving Bush a pass, this is being intelectually honest enough to realize that an event without precendent in American history has happened. Bush did not change his mind to please an interest group, he changed it in response to a new threat to the nation.
If you make the assumption that Bush had planned to invade before 9/11, then obviously Bush is worse than someone who flip/flopped. But contrary to what you and others believe, there is NO evidence that Bush planned this (other than the continuing plans since the first gulf war ended). You look at what Bush did for the 8 months before 9/11, and you find NO policy moving in this direction. None.
But put that aside for the moment. Even without 9/11, there is an enourmous amount of evidence that the policies of the prior 8 years were not being effective. Talk about giving someone a pass. Whether or not invasion was the best answer, the willingness of Michael Moore and others on this site to totally ignore the evilness of Sadaam is without excuse. Argue all you want that invasion made things worse. I can understand that (though I don't agree). But do it in the context that Bush was not just creating a war for the hell of it. There was a real problem that was not going away.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa wrote:
>>>Someone may have answered this, but I didn't see it. The plant is located in the Amana colonies here in Iowa. The description given is very accurate. It is a great tourist stop (I believe the #1 tourist stop in Iowa) with the German homes and stores right nearby.
The reason the description is accurate is because not only did I work at the plant nearly 18 months, I researched and wrote a story about about the water treatment plant in question, interviewing a number of key state and factory officials in the process. The advanced stainless steel filters of the treatment plant were such that they would not only exceed the existing environmental water standards for the next 20 years, they would exceed the PLANNED, more stringent standards that had not even been voted on to be adopted yet. THAT'S forward-thinking!
The moral of the story? Resist the temptation to broad brush all business as evil; rather, judge each business fairly on a case-by-case basis.
Big yawn.
"Mission Accomplished", which, you know, was in response to the remarkable amount of time in which we won the war and did not refer to the fact we still had more work to do, has been used ad nauseum by Democrats ever since he made it.
Soldiers dying have been reported on a daily basis.
We had the bash-Bush manifesto "Fahrenheit 9/11".
We even had the media obsession over Abu Ghraib.
And now, we have an entire network disgraced because they just couldn't wait to run a story that made Bush look bad.
Personally, I think a response to the proposed PAD ad would be negligible. If Kerry actually had a consistent position or anything substantial to say, THAT might work. But so far he hasn't.
Maybe he could run on all the bills he sponsored and policies he advocated strongly while in the Senate. Maybe somebody can make a fake tape of that and give it to CBS News, and they'll run it.
Too bad you’re not on Kerry’s campaign staff, Peter. Me, I’m upset that Kerry is not responding to the attacks on him, and that much of what he does say sounds somewhat rhetorical.
James Tichy: You want to talk about voting out of spite? How many people who normally vote green will vote for Kerry this year?
Luigi Novi: And how is that spite? Thinking that a vote for someone one considers to be more ideal will result in the election of one’s ideological opponent, and that voting for a less ideal candidate that one has less qualms about electing seems like a matter of practicality. Not spite.
Mark Patterson: By the bye, I need to mention to whom it may concern...the "Preview" key doesn't seem to work. It may just be my computer…
Luigi Novi: Nope. It just doesn’t work.
R. Maheras: The thing about partisan bickering is that the bickerees often cannot see the forest for the trees. Yesterday, in the Chicago Sun-Times, a Democratic columnist on Page 3 was going over some of the things she says Kerry should be doing to get re-elected. During her discourse, she cites her fear that if Bush is re-elected and attorney general John Ashcroft gets to come back after the election, he'll continues to trample on the civil liberties of Americans (an indirect reference to The Patriot Act). Ironically, on the facing Page 4 of the same issue, there is a big article, with a screaming headline, announcing the (Democratic) mayor's new plan to install 2,250 cameras throughout Chicago to deter crime (this plan was also endorsed by an editorial in the Sun-Times today).
Luigi Novi: The two aren’t even close to being analogous. The one involved jailing people without trial, invasions of privacy, and targeting people for totally innocuous exercises of freedom of assembly and speech. The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime.
Jim in Iowa: Bush has a core belief. Iraq is a good example. Bush may now be emphasizing more (at least in the minds of some) the reasons for the war, but he is unwavering in his belief that the war was right and necessary. Agree or disagree, have some conspiracy theory that he made everything up (and ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary), I don't care. His core belief about the war has not changed.
Luigi Novi: The problem here is not his beliefs about the war’s justification. It’s about the public’s belief in it, and whether the original reasons given for it have held up. Whether Bush thinks there are other reasons that can used to rationalize it in a post hoc manner is immaterial from the fact that the public was sold on it with one set of reasons that do not appear to be borne out.
Kerri Hilton: I love to read some of the over the top fanatics that come to this site. It appears that every celeb in the world thinks they can run the country better than those that have spent their lives learning to do just that.
Luigi Novi: Ad hominem. The fact that Peter (assuming that that’s who meant by “celebrity) is something of a celebrity has no bearing on the truth or falsity (or reasonability or lack of reasonability) of his statements. When he expresses his feelings about political issues, he is doing so for the same reason every other private citizen is doing so. Statements like the one quoted above stem merely from snobbery and resentment towards those they feel need to be taken down a peg or two, and have nothing to do with legitimate discourse. If someone derided a person’s views because he was a janitor or cop or construction worker, decent-minded spectators would react by pointing out that this is merely snobbishness and an ad hominem statement. But when the person speaking is a “celebrity,” somehow this is okay. Indeed, exercising one’s right to VOTE is a right we all respect, so why does exercising one’s right to EXPRESS THEIR OPINION constitute “thinking they can run the country better”?
Kerri Hilton: It's easy to sit back and blame others but no one wants to get in there and get their hands dirty. Maybe just maybe we should sit back and stop throwing BS at people and work towards solutions. Instead of bitching about supposed unemployment maybe find a way to work towards a solution.
Luigi Novi: Does voting count? Doesn’t discussing the issues on a public forum count?
Karen,
"Bush also promised he would keep the ban on assault weapons. This qualify as a flip flop."
Seeing as how Congress let it lapse (I'm soooo surprised Kerry didn't take the lead to keep it. It's much easier just to bash Bush on the issue than doing somethng substantial, I guess), I would say no.
Actually, THIS is a flip flop:
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
JOHN KERRY - December 16, 2003
"I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."
JOHN KERRY - August 9, 2004
Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
JOHN KERRY - September 6, 2004
Here's another one:
"We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing."
JOHN KERRY - September 4, 2003
"If it requires more troops..that's what you have to do."
JOHN KERRY - April 18, 2004
"I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops."
JOHN KERRY - August 1, 2004
"We're going to get our troops home where they belong."
JOHN KERRY - August 6, 2004
And yet another:
"We should increase funding (for the war in Iraq) by whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win."
JOHN KERRY - August 31, 2003
"$200 billion (for Iraq) that we're not investing in education and health care, and job creation here at home...That's the wrong choice."
JOHN KERRY - September 8, 2004
It is clear from these and other statements that o fundamental matters of war and peace, and on the major strategic and tactical questions that follow from them, that John Kerry will not or cannot hold to a position under pressure.
Bush lied! People died!
Oh gawd!
You're still clinging to that silly slogan, aren't you? Nevermind the fact that the 9/11 Commission, MI-6 Intelligence Report, Russian Intelligence Report, and others have all reported the same thing: That everybody thought Iraq did have WMDs. All the intelligence pointed to it. Not just ours, but everybody else's.
I also find it hilarious how you liberals love to toss around "Swift Boat Vets!" Where was the outrage when "Fahrenheit 9/11," which was basically a two-hours-long attack ad against Bush full of deceits and distortions, came out? If I remember right, PAD praised it. Even said something along the lines of "You must see this movie before you vote or you're being ignorant!"
Did you ever take up my offer to read "Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man"? Will you go out and watch "Michael Moore Hates America" if [when] it comes out in the theater? Just to keep things balanced? Or maybe at least mosey on over to MooreWatch.com? How are Moore's lies any different than those of the SBVs?
And hey, why have you been mum about memo-gate? Ya know, when Dan Rather and the "conservative" media leaked out lousy forges that "questions" Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard? Those forgies that were disproved in fifteen minutes flat by the blogosphere. Of course you don't want to say anything about that. That makes your side looks bad.
I love this. Everybody's so quick to scream, "Your side fights dirty! Our side is the clean, pure, innocent one! Your side lies! Our side tells the truth!" Here's news for you, pal. The Democrats are just as dirty as you think the Republicans are. To pretend otherwise is just putting blinders on your eyes and chanting "lalalala I can't hear you!"
So go ahead, make that ad. Keep on parroting the shrill "Bush lied! People died!" line. It just pushes more people to the winning side. I hope you enjoy four more years of Bush. I know I will.
Starving Writer wtote:Bush lied! People died!
Oh gawd!
You're still clinging to that silly slogan, aren't you?
I think it's interesting that you would apply the word silly and at the same breath tie that in with people dying.
You can shout and rant and whine and blame this on the "liberals" or blame that on the "liberals" all you want.
But the fact is a lot of people have died. And more will keep dying over a series of convnient lies and deceptions.
It's "nice" to read how smug and happy your post sounds while good men and women are dying over a incredibly poorly planned war.
"winning side"???! What, this is all a game to you??!
Jesus, I'm constantly amazed how all these partisan right wings and partisan left wings care ONLY that their side "wins" that no matter how many bodies have to be trod on, ignored or killed --just as long as they "win"
pathetic.
Bill Maher cummed it up succinctly the other night when he pointed out the many opportunities lost to the Dems to actively fight back in open confrontation against some of the 527s and other mud slinging.
What John Kerry must do now is use the opportunity for debate to hammer the President in person.
This will be very difficult to pull off without coming across like a reactionary, but the opportunity must be seized without fail.
This explains why the President's handlers are reluctant to have more than one debate and why they are trying to time it so that if John Kerry does seize this opportunity, the effects will be muted by election day.
The same goes for Edwards vs Cheney, and perhaps even moreso because Mr. Edwards strikes me as more likely to open up with both barrels.
This should be a very entertaining fall season.....
With apologies to Bill Maher, that's "summed", not "cummed". There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.....
I'm voting against George Bush because I believe that he believes that he is leading us in a Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that because we think we are the best and smartest in the world that we must force our ways onto the rest of the world.
Decade after decade, and even century after century, powerful countries have tried to force the rest of the world into their own self image. It has never worked. The biggest recent, non-communist dynasty was the British Empire. Look at all the troubles that are still ongoing in the countries that have broken away from the Empire. Trying to take over the world only works in fantasy.
We do not have a Manifest Destiny just because we are the United States of America. We have a responsibility to set a good example for the rest of the world. George Bush does not do this.
You're still clinging to that silly slogan, aren't you? Nevermind the fact that the 9/11 Commission, MI-6 Intelligence Report, Russian Intelligence Report, and others have all reported the same thing: That everybody thought Iraq did have WMDs. All the intelligence pointed to it. Not just ours, but everybody else's.
Yet, no one else felt there was a pressing need to invade Iraq to rid us of Saddam, except for the man whose father attempted it a decade ago and failed.
BTW, this week, what's the main reason we went in? It keeps changing so much, I forget.
James Tichy writes:
"I like George W. Bush. I think he has done a fantastic job."
Hmmm.... Let's see....
fan·tas·tic P Pronunciation Key (fn-tstk) also fan·tas·ti·cal (-t-kl)
adj.
1: Quaint or strange in form, conception, or appearance.
2: Unrestrainedly fanciful; extravagant: fantastic hopes.
Bizarre, as in form or appearance; strange: fantastic attire; fantastic behavior.
3:Based on or existing only in fantasy; unreal: fantastic ideas about her own superiority.
Yes, I'm forced to agree.
Alan -
That's pretty much the exact reason why I'm voting Kerry. Bush acts like he wants to be Emperor, not President. He talks about not letting the government run people's personal lives, but he wants to ban gay marriages, he imposed the godawful Patriot Act...every day I just want to slap him that much more.
Also, my now personal vested interest - my closest friend, the man I love more than anyone except my fiance, will be shipped out to Iraq as of Sunday. I do support our troops, but I have NEVER supported this war (there's a huge difference). If anything happens to Ben, I will hold Bush personally responsible, just like he's personally responsible for a thousand other dead soldiers.
I want him OUT. I registered to vote yesterday and damnit, I'm going to vote. Because all the protesting and finger-pointing and message board discussion won't do a damn thing when it really matters. I hope everyone on here at least agress on THAT point.
Peter, would it be better if soldiers died under Kerry's watch?
What's Kerry's alternative? He backs the Bush's plan and has said even in hindsight he would have voted to give Bush the authorization.
His plan for Iraq is to convince other countries that their soldiers should be under attack or beheaded in Iraq. If other countries say "Haha, I don't think so," Kerry plans to send more troops in--which is the same advice being given to Bush.
As many on the left, like Bill Maher, or on the right, like Patrick Buchanan, who were foursquare against the war, you have no vote in the presidential election (except for Nader).
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Did you see Buchanan on THE DAILY SHOW? He succinctly laid out the case against BOTH Bush (for the war) AND against Kerry (for voting for it before and in hindsight).
>This is no longer an industrial nation. The idustrial revolution has come and gone... it's place is in third world countries now. The is the technology and information age and that is what we should be focusing on.
So, when do we start setting up the resettlement camps for the large numbers of people whose built-in intellectual limitations PREVENT them from being ableto work in this wonderful new technology and information age? Training someone to put part "a" in slot "b" is one thing. Training them to be a software enginner is something else.
Nobody seems to be thinking about this.
Can you say "whistling in the dark"? Because this will come home to roost as a major societal problem and nobody seems to give a rat's ass about doing something now, before the fallout hits.
>The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime.
The UK has the largest number of surveillance cameras in use in the world.
Crime has gone up, and the IRA wasn't even slowed down while they were still in action (prior to NEGOTIATIONS solving the problem).
So much for cameras working.
Alan wrote:
"I'm voting against George Bush because I believe that he believes that he is leading us in a Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that because we think we are the best and smartest in the world that we must force our ways onto the rest of the world."
We may not automatically be the best and smartest in the world, but we're certainly a hell of a lot better than the dictatorships in the Middle East.
Gorginfoogle wrote:
"Alan wrote:
"I'm voting against George Bush because I believe that he believes that he is leading us in a Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is the belief that because we think we are the best and smartest in the world that we must force our ways onto the rest of the world."
We may not automatically be the best and smartest in the world, but we're certainly a hell of a lot better than the dictatorships in the Middle East."
So, Gorginfoogle, how much time have you spent living in the "dictatorships in the Middle East?" How many years' experience do you have to say that life there is so untolerable, so unbearable, so repressive, that people are crying out to the US and Bush's administration "save us, save us?" How many people do you know, personally, living in those "dictatorships in the Middle East" who complain about their standard of living, of their chances to provide their families with good, decent homes?
Because I don't know any. I do know a few transplants, and they've said that they were better off before they came over. There, they were engineers and doctors, highly regarded, respected, wanted. Here, the work in gas stations and drive taxis. That's not just a stereotype, those are people I know personally.
I've also met people who are happy to live and work here in the US. These folks have the had the good fortune to not only be doctors in their homeland, but also here. They often travel back, because they love their home so much, and they have friends and family who are happy and content to live within a "dictatorships in the Middle East."
When did a governmental dictatorship system become equated with evil? It's not the system, it's the leaders, and dictatorships are no less or no more susceptible to corruption and waste than, oh, say, democracies, or representative republics.
Then agian, if dictatorships, in your view, ARE a bad thing, well, hey, we're 2/3 of the way there. We're supposed to have a 3 level government that serves as a series of checks and balances on each other. Yet congress has pretty much ceded the ability to declare and wage war upon the executive. The only thing the office of the president lacks is the ability to pass laws. Oh, wait, with executive orders, he can do that. And the administrative agency system allows him to pass laws, er, regulations. Good thing he doesn't have judicial power...oh, wait, administrative agencies have primary oversight of their own decisions, so I guess in a way he does.
Seems we're maybe closer to a 2/3 dictatorship that I thought. Thank God we're not in the Middle East, huh?
I still fail to see how "staying the course" is automatically an admirable thing, while changing one's stance as the facts or situation changes is unilaterally a bad thing. If I'm driving down the road, and the road curves to go round a lake, I'm sure the hell not going to keep going straight simply out of the fear that turning will make me look indecisive. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't want to ride in a car driven by somebody who thinks that changing direction is for weenies.
There's a British saying I think's appropriate. "Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them."
Kerry has to play negative to elevate himself into position. Bush has to make the electorate scared of the devil they don't know.
Seeing as how Congress let it lapse
Yet, did Bush even ONCE suggest that Congress should renew the ban?
He's allowed to do that, you know.
Luigi Novi wrote:
"The two aren’t even close to being analogous. The one involved jailing people without trial, invasions of privacy, and targeting people for totally innocuous exercises of freedom of assembly and speech. The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime."
Oh, yes they are! You're looking at the two with partisan blinders on! Cameras, especially digitally linked with face recognition software are just as "intrusive" as anything in the Patriot Act. Cameras can show (and record) who you talk to, where you go (from-camera-to-camera-to-camera), when you are home, what you buy, etc. -- all with a nifty date/time stamp on it. They could identify you by name and address in seconds, simply by comparing your digitized face image on camera with your digitized driver's license image at the DMV. Some camera networks even have microphones, which means all audio is recorded as well. This adds an additional means of identification through voice print matching. All this recorded stuff, I might add, can be used against you in court. For example, existing date/time records from Illinois electronic "Speed Pass" lanes at toll plazas around the state have been used in court numerous times already to refute or prove date/time allegations.
Face it! It's a brave new world out there regardless of which side of the political fence you straddle, so stop pointing fingers and get used to it!
Oh, well. At least the congress never voted to authorize the war in... oh, wait. Well, certainly the Democrats on the Hill would never have voted to... what's that you say? Overwhelmingly, you say? Oh, but the opposition nominee for president would never have... really? But what if you asked him if he'd still vote for war even knowing what we know now... He said THAT? Hmm. Well, at least the nominee must have a clear and consistent plan for what to do in... before he voted against it, you say? We need 60,000 more troops in Iraq, while simultaneously getting all troops out in four years, make it six months? The Pro-Anti-Pro war considate who would still do even though it's wrong? (At least he doesn't believe life begins at conception while still demanding that what he himself describes as murder be... oh.)
And all this trouble, even though Saddam Hussein was no threat to... Red Cropss says 300,000 civillians in mass graves, huh, with the Iraqis saying up to a million? Celebrated the 9/11 attacks publicly? Attempted to assassinated a former US President? Founded, trained and orchestrated international terrorist groups, including al Qaida? Well, at least we know for certain no Democrat president would ever say Saddam had WMDs, that's for... really? Over and over again? And Albright, and Daschle, and Chiroc? Not GORE? And that's why we bombed unilaterally multiple times in the 90s, against the wishes of the UN security council? Well, if things were great under Saddam, things with the Taliban were SPIFFY, especially for women and little girls who... not so much, you say? I'll be darned.
Well, about the assault weapons ban, seeing as AK-47s were banned in the 80s, and machine guns have been under import embargo since 1934 I'm POSITIVE Kerry wouldn't have said anything about THOSE weapons being... oh. Really.
Well, one thing's for certain, no web site the great Peter David would host could ever grotesquely slander our fallen soldiers with some idiotic "lyin' dyin'" comment, and...
oh.
I suggest "While he is lying, they are diying". I can't understand people concern about soldiers dying, they are not the boy scouts, army is an organization with the objective of killing people. Soldiers know this. I know their families are in pain, and no soldier wants to die, but who is responsible? I feel sorry for the other people.
"I do know a few transplants, and they've said that they were better off before they came over. There, they were engineers and doctors, highly regarded, respected, wanted. Here, they work in gas stations and drive taxis. That's not just a stereotype, those are people I know personally."
No offense intended but why exactly did they come here? It seems like it would be a tremendous hassle to do so only to experience the thrill of going from doctor to taxi cab driver. Unless we are still in the business of chaining people to the bottom of ships and forcing them to come to America I have to wonder what they were thinking.
On the assault weapons ban:
Anyone interested in the truth will probably want to avert his or her eyes when the next big MoveOn.org ad comes on. A perfect case of misleading facts, it goes something like this:
"Announcer: This is an assault weapon. It can fire up to 300 rounds a minute. It’s the weapon most feared by our police. In the hands of terrorists it could kill hundreds. That’s why they’re illegal. John Kerry, a sportsman and a hunter, would keep them illegal."
"But on Sept. 13th, George Bush will let the assault weapon ban expire. George Bush says he’s making America safer. Who does he think he’s kidding?"
"MoveonPAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement."
Now anyone watching this ad will certainly be forgiven if they come away from it believing that the weapon shown--an AK-47--has just become available to the average Joe, thanks to the perfidious Bush. That's certainly what the ad wants you to think.
It isn't true, of course. Any weapon firing 300 rounds or more per minute is illegal for civilians without clearance by the Department of Justice.
And note that the ad DOESN'T actually say otherwise. "In the hands of terrorists it could kill hundreds. That’s why they’re illegal. John Kerry, a sportsman and a hunter, would keep them illegal."
"But on Sept. 13th, George Bush will let the assault weapon ban expire."
It doesn't actually say that this expiration will allow the gun to be sold, though that's the obvious assumption one should make. They just string together a few facts and let you make the (wrong) connection.
Good thing I'm too poor to have my own 527 organization. Imagine the irresponsible fun I could have:
(Pictures of kids playing on a swing set, monkey bars, etc. Carousel music.)
Announcer: “We all want our children to be happy and safe. The Child Protection Act of 1997 ensures that child pornographers and pedophiles cannot legally engage in acts of perversion against the most helpless of victims..."
(Change to black and white grainy footage of hairy men in evil clown costumes throwing what seems to be bags marked "Anthrax Spores" into the faces of terrified orphans. Music shifts to minor key)
"But John Kerry voted for Senate Bill 5411. Is THIS the kind of man we can afford to have around our kids???"
"This message was paid for by Dyslexics for hsub"
Ok, ok, so Senate Bill 5411 actually has nothing to do with child porn. It established October of 2003 as International Month of the Eskimo. The point is, the ad (or something like it with real laws and bills instead of ones I just made up) would be every bit as intellectually accurate as the MoveOn one (which is, admittedly, a low bar indeed)
"It is clear from these and other statements that o fundamental matters of war and peace, and on the major strategic and tactical questions that follow from them, that John Kerry will not or cannot hold to a position under pressure. "
No, it's clear that conservatives who howl bloody murder if a Bush or Cheney comment is not given its full three or four graf context will not hesitate to pull single sentences out of far lengthier and nuanced responses if it serves their purposes.
And by the way, several of those so-called flip flops actually don't contradict each other at all. They're nuanced responses to different sides of a question.
By the way, the current running tally for Iraq: this week, fourteen US troops killed, 219 wounded, with a total of 1018 killed and 7,245 wounded since March 2003.
Iraqis: 200 killed this week, at least 10,000 killed since March 2003. Foreign workers: 2 kidnapped this week, 130 kidnapped, 22 killed since March 2003.
I'm more inclined to go with someone who realizes that something might not be a good idea than soeone who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge it, and is so incapable of self-analysis that he can't even think of a single thing he's done wrong in the past several years (can ANYONE here not think of a SINGLE thing they've screwed up since 2000?) Furthermore, I kind of like my leaders a touch less Machiavellan. Less "ends justifies the means" types, as opposed to those (and their followers) who believe that because the world is better off without Saddam in charge, therefore absolutely everything and anything that was done in order to accomplish it was and continues to be acceptable.
Life isn't like that. Fantasy is like that. Which is why, yes, Bush is a fantastic president.
PAD
Any weapon firing 300 rounds or more per minute is illegal for civilians without clearance by the Department of Justice.
Take a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again, and you have something rather close to the truth.
But you wouldn't want people to learn the truth, would you?
Providing more information on immigrants I have known. They came here for the opportunity, for the travel, for the experience. What I mean is that some of them can't get jobs. Intelligent, educated, experienced professionals in fields where there are jobs don't get hired in our country because of prejudice and ignorance.
So, no, no one made them come here. But no one made them leave, either. The point I was trying to make was that the system of government had little to do with whether they had success or failure in their chosen career.
Why am I voting for Kerry? Because it's time for someone different at the helm of our country. As another poster said, all Bush has done is campaign on his war effort and of 9/11 related actions. I want someone that cares about where we are, where we're heading, and what we can become. I think that Kerry is the choice for that.
Then why hasn't Kerry pointed out his record in the Senate? I mean, if I didn't already know, I'd be hard pressed to know that he was EVER in the Senate. If he's going to do so much to change the future, shouldn't his past voting record reflect that? And if he's proud of that record, why not run on that instead of on a war that he personally campaigned against. Why try to hold himself up as a war hero?
eclark 1849 wrote:
"Then why hasn't Kerry pointed out his record in the Senate? I mean, if I didn't already know, I'd be hard pressed to know that he was EVER in the Senate. If he's going to do so much to change the future, shouldn't his past voting record reflect that? And if he's proud of that record, why not run on that instead of on a war that he personally campaigned against. Why try to hold himself up as a war hero?"
This mirrors some of my thoughts as well. As an independent voter, I find that Kerry has still not defined himself. Most of his statements are about what Bush is doing wrong, rather than specific examples of what Kerry would do right.
Kerry reminds me of a fan in the stands of some baseball stadium, shouting his displeasure to no one in particular about why the guy on the field sucks. Is the beligerent fan a professional ballplayer? Can he hit, field or pitch? Is he perhaps a professional baseball manager? No one around him really knows. He COULD be, but to most people within earshot, it is assumed he is just a loudmouthed, armchair critic.
However, unlike the fan in my example, Kerry actually has a stage available to SHOW onlookers what he can do. Such opportunities are rare in life. But does Kerry seize the opportunity and outline his plans and vision for the country? No. He just continues to spout off one-liners criticizing the player on the field ("W" is for wrong!"; "Bush created more excuses than jobs!"; etc.). Thus, while Kerry is now out on the field in the spotlight, he has yet to step into the batter's box to show us what he can really do.
Frankly, I'm seriously underwhelmed.
ObeeKris: Yet, no one else felt there was a pressing need to invade Iraq to rid us of Saddam, except for the man whose father attempted it a decade ago and failed.
Luigi Novi: George Bush senior never tried to rid us of Saddam. Once he was expelled from Kuwait, our UN mandate was fulfilled. Bush senior did not try to depose Saddam because he knew that to do so would’ve violated our UN mandate, and would’ve created an Arab Vietnam.
Luigi Novi: The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime.
The StarWolf: The UK has the largest number of surveillance cameras in use in the world. Crime has gone up…
Luigi Novi: And where was this? In areas where cameras were placed?
Kingbobb: Good thing he doesn't have judicial power...oh, wait, administrative agencies have primary oversight of their own decisions, so I guess in a way he does.
Luigi Novi: What does oversight have to do with the judicial branch. The judicial branch interprets laws. It does not conduct oversight.
Luigi Novi: The two aren’t even close to being analogous. The one involved jailing people without trial, invasions of privacy, and targeting people for totally innocuous exercises of freedom of assembly and speech. The other is simply monitoring PUBLIC areas, and has been shown to actually deter crime.
R. Maheras: Oh, yes they are! You're looking at the two with partisan blinders on! Cameras, especially digitally linked with face recognition software are just as "intrusive" as anything in the Patriot Act.
Luigi Novi: Not if they’re used in PUBLIC areas.
R. Maheras: Cameras can show (and record) who you talk to, where you go (from-camera-to-camera-to-camera), when you are home, what you buy, etc. -- all with a nifty date/time stamp on it. They could identify you by name and address in seconds, simply by comparing your digitized face image on camera with your digitized driver's license image at the DMV. Some camera networks even have microphones, which means all audio is recorded as well. This adds an additional means of identification through voice print matching. All this recorded stuff, I might add, can be used against you in court.
Luigi Novi: In other words…………if I’ve committed a crime. The Patriot Act targets people who have NOT.
R. Maheras: For example, existing date/time records from Illinois electronic "Speed Pass" lanes at toll plazas around the state have been used in court numerous times already to refute or prove date/time allegations.
Luigi Novi: And this is bad………why?
R. Maheras: Face it! It's a brave new world out there regardless of which side of the political fence you straddle, so stop pointing fingers and get used to it!
Luigi Novi: When did I point fingers?
Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.
Then why hasn't Kerry pointed out his record in the Senate?
And what exactly did Bush do as governor?
Bush senior did not try to depose Saddam because he knew that to do so would’ve violated our UN mandate, and would’ve created an Arab Vietnam.
Isn't it great ot see that Junior learned something from daddy? Oh, wait, he didn't learn...
Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.
Ahh, so now we're back to "one of yours for one of ours". But then, the argument still stands that the terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi, not Iraqi.
So I'm sure that the Iraqis are comforted by the fact that they have to die for the actions of others.
kingbobb wrote:
"So, Gorginfoogle, how much time have you spent living in the "dictatorships in the Middle East?" How many years' experience do you have to say that life there is so untolerable, so unbearable, so repressive, that people are crying out to the US and Bush's administration "save us, save us?" How many people do you know, personally, living in those "dictatorships in the Middle East" who complain about their standard of living, of their chances to provide their families with good, decent homes?
Because I don't know any. I do know a few transplants, and they've said that they were better off before they came over. There, they were engineers and doctors, highly regarded, respected, wanted. Here, the work in gas stations and drive taxis. That's not just a stereotype, those are people I know personally."
Gee, too bad for them. I also have a friend who is of Persian descent, though she has never actually been to Iran, since, you see, her mother had to flee the country before she was born. Jewish, you know.
"When did a governmental dictatorship system become equated with evil?"
Yeah, I doubt you're going to find many people on this board or anywhere else that are going to agree even slightly with you on this.
"It's not the system, it's the leaders, and dictatorships are no less or no more susceptible to corruption and waste than, oh, say, democracies, or representative republics."
Yes, because a system in which our leaders can be voted out of office by the public is equally prone to corruption as one in which there is no possible governmental oversight.
"Then agian, if dictatorships, in your view, ARE a bad thing, well, hey, we're 2/3 of the way there. We're supposed to have a 3 level government that serves as a series of checks and balances on each other. Yet congress has pretty much ceded the ability to declare and wage war upon the executive. The only thing the office of the president lacks is the ability to pass laws. Oh, wait, with executive orders, he can do that. And the administrative agency system allows him to pass laws, er, regulations. Good thing he doesn't have judicial power...oh, wait, administrative agencies have primary oversight of their own decisions, so I guess in a way he does."
I see. So someone you don't like is in office, and so that means we're already mostly a dictatorship as is. How quaint.
Tell you what. As soon as you can find something our government is doing that is as bad as, say, locking teenage girls in a burning school, letting them die horrible deaths rather than shame themselves by appearing in public without being fully covered from head to toe (gotta keep those women in line, you know, otherwise who knows what could happen), or carrying out ethnic cleansing against an unliked minority, or having a legal system in which a man can go to jail for a year for the crime of rape, while a woman will be sentenced to life imprisonment or death for the crime of BEING raped, or where a sports team can be tortured by the president's kid for losing a match, or where...well, you get my point. As soon as you can find our government doing things as bad as that, then I'll agree with you that we're no better than one of those Middle Eastern dictatorships.
Craig T. Ries wrote:
"And what exactly did Bush do as governor?"
Bush has had four years of policies as a president to show what he's like. He no longer needs to go by his record as governor. Kerry, however, needs to pull SOMETHING out to show, clearly, what his policies will be to convince us to vote for him. Simply saying that he'll do things differently from Bush isn't enough, we need to know WHAT he's going to do differently and HOW, otherwise it's just meaningless rhetoric (and yes, obviously even if he laid out a clear plan it could still turn out to be meaningless rhetoric if he gets elected and doesn't implement that plan, but he still needs to convince everyone that he's got a good plan for the future).
Zeek writes:
"Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell."
Wow, and the Red Sox haven't won the World Series yet. Which has exactly as much to do with 9/11 or the war in Iraq as they have to do with one another: Nothing at all.
Gorginfoogle:
First off, where have I said I didn't like our current administration? That's a leap I don't see my words supporting.
You're missing my point. Which is that you're painting with a broad brush. You claim dictatorships, and Middle Eastern dictatorships in particular, are bad. Saddam's regime in Iraq was undoubtedly a dictatorship, and horrible, terrible things happened because of and under his direct command.
However, my point was that dictatorships themselves are not bad, so it's dangerous to take the view that we're fighting "evil" by promoting democracy over kings. The Taliban, which you refer to, was run by a council of clerics. It wasn't a dictatorship. I've honestly now idea how those clerics attained their leadership positions, but there was no sole ruler of the Taliban regime. And before you start getting all "well, lookee what George W. did to the Taliban," consider that for 10 years or more prior to 9/11/01, the Taliban ran an oppressive country where, yes, women were stoned to death for showing an inch of skin on their ankle. Our country did little to counter that non-dictatorship regime during Clinton's term, and GWB's term, until, hey, 9/11. Then it was all "hey everybody, lookee over there! Them's oppressive Taliban's Evil, and they's got to go. Them and their terrorist freinds, AQ."
Want to know what our government is doing that's as bad as some of those things you mention? How about holding/detaining people in military camps for over 2 years, with no charges filed, no evidence presented, no due process of any kind. Our government approving the use of torture, aka "stress situations" in the "interrogation" of said detainees (when just about any compentent psychologist will tell you that torture of any kind produces, at best, information of questionable value. more often than not, torture is itself a tool of terror). Or how about our leader using a horrific attack as justification to wrest constitutional authority from congress to enable his little private war against Iraq, claiming that we're in immediate danger of suffering another attack from WMDs, and when those WMDs fail to appear, shrugging his shoulders and saying "shucks, just ignore the 1000+ American casualties and 10,000+ Iraqi civilians dead, getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do."
Luigi Novi, I was making a vieled reference to the administrative system many agencies have. Take the EPA. You get cited for some EPA violations, you don't get to go in front of a judge. You plead your case before and Administrative Law Judge, an employee of the EPA, which means that you're case involves a regulation written, administered, and enforced by the Executive branch. You do have limited appeal rights to the Judicial branch, but high deference is given to the executive agency.
And technically speaking, our courts only have "oversight" power. The judicial branch relies upon the executive branch for enforcement of its decisions.
And answers to those biased statements:
1) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he's against nation building.
Unless failure by the UN to enforce its own rulings and forced to do so by a rogue nation.
2) Footage of dead and dying American soldiers and dead and dying Iraqis, including some of that brutal footage from "F 9/11."
You mean, from the noted liar Michael Moore? So, I guess it would be better to have attacks in the streets of America to make us feel better about it?
3) Footage of Bush declaring "MIssion Accomplished."
Yep, it was, against the Saddam Regime, it didn't say "Entire Iraq Mission Accomplished".
4) Footage of headlines declaring over a thousand Americans killed.
Let's add the people from the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers too and pictures of the dead Rangers being dragged through the streets of Somalia. All on the Democrats watch.
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
Stats have proved that assault style weapons (rolls eyes) are used in less then 8 percent of crimes. Fully auto-weapons (full automatic fire for you people scared of guns means, a continious pull completely empties the clip) are used in 1 percent of all crimes. Wow, that law was great!!!
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without a word of protest from the White House, intercut with dead and dying young people or terrorists fighting assault weapons.
And those foreign fully-automatic weapons are affected how by an AMERICAN law?
7) Footage of Bush saying that he's keeping us safer. Freeze Frame, and the following words appear:
"While he's lyin', we're dyin'."
And who has said that? Democrats? And you left out the important buzz word: "KIDS". "Bush lied, kids died", like instead of a volunteer army we are like the PLO and send out 9 year old with bombs strapped to their bodies. Those people use children, we send men and women to fight there, so they won't fight *here*...
Paid for by the Committe of People Who Apparently Slept Though Terrorist Acts And Genocide (see Rwanda for a sample) On Clinton And 40 Years Of Democrat Party Slumber And Inaction
Thank you
"Take a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again, and you have something rather close to the truth."
"But you wouldn't want people to learn the truth, would you?"
Sure I do, though it might help if you wrote something understandable. I'll assume you're trying to say that with the ban now lifted it is now possible to buy guns that can be modified into something like an AK-47.
If true, a fair statement. Not what the ad said, but a fair statement.
But I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings picking on those swell MoveOn.org folks.
Queen Anthai -
"every day I just want to slap him that much more"
Here you go - spank away
http://www.spankbush.com
Craig -
"Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell."
When the towers fell 1000 soldiers had already died in Iraq?
Carl -
"Unless failure by the UN to enforce its own rulings and forced to do so by a rogue nation."
Since the 2 countries who have violated the most UN resolutions (AKA rulings) are Isreal & Turkey, does this mean we should invade them as well? Also, just when did the U.S. become the enforcement branch of the UN?
"So, I guess it would be better to have attacks in the streets of America to make us feel better about it?"
What does this have to do with invading Iraq, when the ones who committed the attacks were not Iraqi?
"Let's add the people from the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers too and pictures of the dead Rangers being dragged through the streets of Somalia. All on the Democrats watch."
Again, what does any of this have to do with the Iraqi's, When the terrorists were mostly Saudi & operating out of Afghanistan?
"40 Years Of Democrat Party Slumber And Inaction"
Those 40 years include Bush I, Reagan, Ford & Nixon. When did they become Democrats?
Craig,
By the way,are you under the impression that the assault weapons ban actually banned all assault weapons? Or that it is only now that you can get the "semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again"?
I'm no gun enthusiast but looking around the web it appears that the "ban" did not apply to existing guns and it has always been possible to illegally modify a gun.. It's easier to buy an illegal AK-47 though.
The MoveOn ad was misleading, pure and simple, but if all it takes to pass the smell test is to have it be anti-Bush, well, then it's just fine.
Carl wrote:
5) Footage of Candidate Bush stating that he supported the assault weapon ban.
Stats have proved that assault style weapons (rolls eyes) are used in less then 8 percent of crimes. Fully auto-weapons (full automatic fire for you people scared of guns means, a continious pull completely empties the clip) are used in 1 percent of all crimes. Wow, that law was great!!!
Yeah, here we go.
Carl, do you actually think before you type? You answer the statement that FOOTAGE showing Bush stated that he SUPPORTED the ban with some rambling about stats, polls and percentages of crime.
How does that answer the statement that there is ACTUAL footage of Bush stating that he SUPPORTED the ban.
Oh....it doesn't,
Silly me, expecteing the TRUTH from obvious, partisan posts.
Going back to yesterday for a moment:
"I for one am sick of hearing about losing manufacturing jobs. Guess what... they don't matter.
This is no longer an industrial nation. The idustrial revolution has come and gone... it's place is in third world countries now. The is the technology and information age and that is what we should be focusing on."
Since March 2001, over 400,000 of these jobs have been lost. Should we also consider these as jobs that don't matter?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&e=1&u=/ap/20040914/ap_on_hi_te/tech_job_slump
Yeah, he supported the ban. And did nothing to further it. Sometimes all it takes is for a good man to do nothing about a bad law. Do you think period RJM, does that stand for "Real Jerks Matter"? Thanks...
I was bored so I decided to look up the definition of partisan because I was unclear as to it’s specific meaning of the word can change from one political pundit to another. Of the definitions I found this was by far the most interesting 3. partisan, partizan -- (a pike with a long tapering double-edged blade with lateral projections; 16th and 17th centuries)
Anyway reading all of the pervious posts has given me a change of heart, as I initially thought Kerry should error on the side of caution and not run negative ads. I now think most people know one way or another which way they are going to vote so Bush and Kerry are really only campaigning for a few select undecided votes. So given the fact Kerry can’t alienate his camp or win over Bushes camp he should go for broke in winning the undecided vote by doing whatever it takes to convince them to cast a vote for him.
Also I think it’s imperative that everyone votes. Bottom line is that with the nation being polarized right now the right and left have cancelled each other out, so this is the election where groups, such as minorities, can have their greatest impact. Now is the time to make your voice heard if you are interested in effecting change.
Carl,
Why am I not surprised that the ONLY way you could respond to my pointing out that you couldn't defend your point was to call me names.
I can see though, why you support Bush. You're similar, you can't admit when you're wrong.
It's so easy for you RADICAL Partisan defenders, my guy right or wrong, to post ridiculious statements, not back up your arguments and hide behind anonymous names on the net.
RJM are my initials. It stands for my name, Richard John Marcej. I'm not some internet coward who finds that it's easy to spout out inane, asinine comments, then when found to be wrong, rather than be a man and admit it, call someone a name.
"Bush senior did not try to depose Saddam because he knew that to do so would’ve violated our UN mandate, and would’ve created an Arab Vietnam.
Isn't it great ot see that Junior learned something from daddy? Oh, wait, he didn't learn..."
Actually, Craig, I think he did learn from daddy. Because daddy was a one-term president, and I think W. looked at all the things his father did that cost him the election, and has worked like mad to do the exact opposite. For instance:
Senior's approval ratings were skyward when we were involved with a war effort. But once that subsided, limited American memories and the spiralling economy caused his numbers to plummet and made him vulnerable. Junior's answer? Make sure we stay at war, because electorates are reluctant to switch presidents during time of war. Don't allow for a lousy economy, or the inability to capture bin Laden, to cause polling numbers to drop.
Senior realized that circumstances sometimes require one to change one's mind ("Read my lips, no new taxes.") So Junior refused to allow for that. Never admit mistakes. Never change course. The Iraqis haven't greeted us with rose petals? Keep killing them until they do.
There's other instances, I'm sure.
PAD
James Tichy,
people like you scare the hell out of me. you'll vote *cough* bush *cough* because you don't like all the attack ads. What about the attack ads from the "right"?
Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
By Graydon Carter
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746
03 September 2004
1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida.
104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.
65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.
73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.
83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.
$1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.
1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.
79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.
3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" programme.
140 Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September.
14 Number of Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa'ida is active.
$3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks.
$0 Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents.
$10m Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget.
$50m Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia space shuttle crash.
$5m Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalised gambling.
7 Number of Arabic linguists fired by the US army between mid-August and mid-October 2002 for being gay.
George Bush: Military man
1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.
$3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service.
600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period.
0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service.
0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove the main proponents of the war in Iraq served in combat (combined).
0 Number of principal civilian or Pentagon staff members who planned the war who have immediate family members serving in uniform in Iraq.
8 Number of members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who have a child serving in the military.
10 Number of days that the Pentagon spent investigating a soldier who had called the President "a joke" in a letter to the editor of a Newspaper.
46 Percentage increase in sales between 2001 and 2002 of GI Joe figures (children's toys).
Ambitious warrior
2 Number of Nations that George Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into office.
130 Approximate Number of countries (out of a total of 191 recognised by the United Nations) with a US military presence.
43 Percentage of the entire world's military spending that the US spends on defence. (That was in 2002, the year before the invasion of Iraq.)
$401.3bn Proposed military budget for 2004.
Saviour of Iraq
1983 The year in which Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs as a gift.
2.5 Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq.
237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman.
10m Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history.
$2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003.
$4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in 2004.
$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.
$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.
2000 Year that Cheney said his policy as CEO of Halliburton oil services company was "we wouldn't do anything in Iraq".
$4.7bn Total value of contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan.
$680m Estimated value of Iraq reconstruction contracts awarded to Bechtel.
$2.8bnValue of Bechtel Corp contracts in Iraq.
$120bn Amount the war and its aftermath are projected to cost for the 2004 fiscal year.
35 Number of countries to which the United States suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.
92 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2002.
60 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2003.
55 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who were unemployed before the war.
80 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who are unemployed a Year after the war.
0 Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender in May 1945.
37 Death toll of US soldiers in Iraq in May 2003, the month combat operations "officially" ended.
0 Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home that the Bush administration has permitted to be photographed.
0 Number of memorial services for the returned dead that Bush has attended since the beginning of the war.
A soldier's best friend
40,000 Number of soldiers in Iraq seven months after start of the war still without Interceptor vests, designed to stop a round from an AK-47.
$60m Estimated cost of outfitting those 40,000 soldiers with Interceptor vests.
62 Percentage of gas masks that army investigators discovered did Not work properly in autumn 2002.
90 Percentage of detectors which give early warning of a biological weapons attack found to be defective.
87 Percentage of Humvees in Iraq not equipped with armour capable of stopping AK-47 rounds and protecting against roadside bombs and landmines at the end of 2003.
Making the country safer
$3.29 Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants.
$94.40 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa.
$36 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state.
$17 Amount allocated per person in New York state.
$5.87 Amount allocated per person in New York City.
$77.92 Amount allocated per person in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, Bush's alma mater.
76 Percentage of 215 cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors in early 2004 that had yet to receive a dime in federal homeland security assistance for their first-response units.
5 Number of major US airports at the beginning of 2004 that the Transportation Security Administration admitted were Not fully screening baggage electronically.
22,600 Number of planes carrying unscreened cargo that fly into New York each month.
5 Estimated Percentage of US air cargo that is screened, including cargo transported on passenger planes.
95 Percentage of foreign goods that arrive in the United States by sea.
2 Percentage of those goods subjected to thorough inspection.
$5.5bnEstimated cost to secure fully US ports over the Next decade.
$0 Amount Bush allocated for port security in 2003.
$46m Amount the Bush administration has budgeted for port security in 2005.
15,000 Number of major chemical facilities in the United States.
100 Number of US chemical plants where a terrorist act could endanger the lives of more than one million people.
0 Number of new drugs or vaccines against "priority pathogens" listed by the Centres for Disease Control that have been developed and introduced since 11 September 2001.
Giving a hand up to the advantaged
$10.9m Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet.
75 Percentage of Americans unaffected by Bush's sweeping 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.
$42,000 Average savings members of Bush's cabinet received in 2003 as a result of cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.
10 Number of fellow members from the Yale secret society Skull and Bones that Bush has named to important positions (including the Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. and SEC chief Bill Donaldson).
79 Number of Bush's initial 189 appointees who also served in his father's administration.
A man with a lot of friends
$113m Amount of total hard money the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign received, a record.
$11.5m Amount of hard money raised through the Pioneer programme, the controversial fund-raising process created for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign. (Participants pledged to raise at least $100,000 by bundling together cheques of up to $1,000 from friends and family. Pioneers were assigned numbers, which were included on all cheques, enabling the campaign to keep track of who raised how much.)
George Bush: Money manager
4.7m Number of bankruptcies that were declared during Bush's first three years in office.
2002 The worst year for major markets since the recession of the 1970s.
$489bn The US trade deficit in 2003, the worst in history for a single year.
$5.6tr Projected national surplus forecast by the end of the decade when Bush took office in 2001.
$7.22tr US national debt by mid-2004.
George Bush: Tax cutter
87 Percentage of American families in April 2004 who say they have felt no benefit from Bush's tax cuts.
39 Percentage of tax cuts that will go to the top 1 per cent of American families when fully phased in.
49 Percentage of Americans in April 2004 who found that their taxes had actually gone up since Bush took office.
88 Percentage of American families who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes.
$30,858 Amount Bush himself saved in taxes in 2003.
Employment tsar
9.3m Number of US unemployed in April 2004.
2.3m Number of Americans who lost their jobs during first three Years of the Bush administration.
22m Number of jobs gained during Clinton's eight years in office.
Friend of the poor
34.6m Number of Americans living below the poverty line (1 in 8 of the population).
6.8m Number of people in the workforce but still classified as poor.
35m Number of Americans that the government defines as "food insecure," in other words, hungry.
$300m Amount cut from the federal programme that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes.
40 Percentage of wealth in the United States held by the richest 1 per cent of the population.
18 Percentage of wealth in Britain held by the richest 1e per cent of the population.
George Bush And his special friend
$60bn Loss to Enron stockholders, following the largest bankruptcy in US history.
$205m Amount Enron CEO Kenneth Lay earned from stock option profits over a four-year period.
$101m Amount Lay made from selling his Enron shares just before the company went bankrupt.
$59,339 Amount the Bush campaign reimbursed Enron for 14 trips on its corporate jet during the 2000 campaign.
30 Length of time in months between Enron's collapse and Lay (whom the President called "Kenny Boy") still not being charged with a crime.
George Bush: Lawman
15 Average number of minutes Bush spent reviewing capital punishment cases while governor of Texas.
46 Percentage of Republican federal judges when Bush came to office.
57 Percentage of Republican federal judges after three years of the Bush administration.
33 Percentage of the $15bn Bush pledged to fight Aids in Africa that must go to abstinence-only programmes.
The Civil libertarian
680 Number of suspected al-Qa'ida members that the United States admits are detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
42 Number of nationalities of those detainees at Guantanamo.
22 Number of hours prisoners were handcuffed, shackled, and made to wear surgical masks, earmuffs, and blindfolds during their flight to Guantanamo.
32 Number of confirmed suicide attempts by Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
24 Number of prisoners in mid-2003 being monitored by psychiatrists in Guantanamo's new mental ward.
A health-conscious president
43.6m Number of Americans without health insurance by the end of 2002 (more than 15 per cent of the population).
2.4m Number of Americans who lost their health insurance during Bush's first year in office.
Environmentalist
$44m Amount the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and the Republican National Committee received in contributions from the fossil fuel, chemical, timber, and mining industries.
200 Number of regulation rollbacks downgrading or weakening environmental laws in Bush's first three years in office.
31 Number of Bush administration appointees who are alumni of the energy industry (includes four cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials, and more than 20 other high-level appointees).
50 Approximate number of policy changes and regulation rollbacks injurious to the environment that have been announced by the Bush administration on Fridays after 5pm, a time that makes it all but impossible for news organisations to relay the information to the widest possible audience.
50 Percentage decline in Environmental Protection Agency enforcement actions against polluters under Bush's watch.
34 Percentage decline in criminal penalties for environmental crimes since Bush took office.
50 Percentage decline in civil penalties for environmental crimes since Bush took office.
$6.1m Amount the EPA historically valued each human life when conducting economic analyses of proposed regulations.
$3.7m Amount the EPA valued each human life when conducting analyses of proposed regulations during the Bush administration.
0 Number of times Bush mentioned global warming, clean air, clean water, pollution or environment in his 2004 State of the Union speech. His father was the last president to go through an entire State of the Union address without mentioning the environment.
1 Number of paragraphs devoted to global warming in the EPA's 600-page "Draft Report on the Environment" presented in 2003.
68 Number of days after taking office that Bush decided Not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases by roughly 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States was to cut its level by 7 per cent.
1 The rank of the United States worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
25 Percentage of overall worldwide carbon dioxide emissions the United States is responsible for.
53 Number of days after taking office that Bush reneged on his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
14 Percentage carbon dioxide emissions will increase over the next 10 years under Bush's own global-warming plan (an increase of 30 per cent above their 1990 levels).
408 Number of species that could be extinct by 2050 if the global-warming trend continues.
5 Number of years the Bush administration said in 2003 that global warming must be further studied before substantive action could be taken.
62 Number of members of Cheney's 63-person Energy Task Force with ties to corporate energy interests.
0 Number of environmentalists asked to attend Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings.
6 Number of months before 11 September that Cheney's Energy Task Force investigated Iraq's oil reserves.
2 Percentage of the world's population that is British.
2 Percentage of the world's oil used by Britain.
5 Percentage of the world's population that is American.
25 Percentage of the world's oil used by America.
63 Percentage of oil the United States imported in 2003, a record high.
24,000 Estimated number of premature deaths that will occur under Bush's Clear Skies initiative.
300 Number of Clean Water Act violations by the mountaintop-mining industry in 2003.
750,000 Tons of toxic waste the US military, the world's biggest polluter, generates around the world each Year.
$3.8bn Amount in the Superfund trust fund for toxic site clean-ups in 1995, the Year "polluter pays" fees expired.
$0m Amount of uncommitted dollars in the Superfund trust fund for toxic site clean-ups in 2003.
270 Estimated number of court decisions citing federal Negligence in endangered-species protection that remained unheeded during the first year of the Bush administration.
100 Percentage of those decisions that Bush then decided to allow the government to ignore indefinitely.
68.4 Average Number of species added to the Endangered and Threatened Species list each year between 1991 and 2000.
0 Number of endangered species voluntarily added by the Bush administration since taking office.
50 Percentage of screened workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from long-term health problems, almost half of whom don't have health insurance.
78 Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from lung ailments.
88 Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who Now suffer from ear, nose, or throat problems.
22 Asbestos levels at Ground Zero were 22 times higher than the levels in Libby, Montana, where the W R Grace mine produced one of the worst Superfund disasters in US history.
Image booster for the US
2,500 Number of public-diplomacy officers employed by the State Department to further the image of the US abroad in 1991.
1,200 Number of public-diplomacy officers employed by the State Department to further US image abroad in 2004.
4 Rank of the United States among countries considered to be the greatest threats to world peace according to a 2003 Pew Global Attitudes study (Israel, Iran, and North Korea were considered more dangerous; Iraq was considered less dangerous).
$66bn Amount the United States spent on international aid and diplomacy in 1949.
$23.8bn Amount the United States spent on international aid and diplomacy in 2002.
85 Percentage of Indonesians who had an unfavourable image of the United States in 2003.
Second-party endorsements
90 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2001.
67 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2002.
54 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 30 September, 2003.
50 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 15 October 2003.
49 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president in May 2004.
More like the French than he would care to admit
28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2003, the second-longest vacation of any president in US history. (Record holder Richard Nixon.)
13 Number of vacation days the average American receives each Year.
28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2001, the month he received a 6 August Presidential Daily Briefing headed "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike US Targets."
500 Number of days Bush has spent all or part of his time away from the White House at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, his parents' retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, or Camp David as of 1 April 2004.
No fool when it comes to the press
11 Number of press conferences during his first three Years in office in which Bush referred to questions as being "trick" ones.
Factors in his favour
3 Number of companies that control the US voting technology market.
52 Percentage of votes cast during the 2002 midterm elections that were recorded by Election Systems & Software, the largest voting-technology firm, a big Republican donor.
29 Percentage of votes that will be cast via computer voting machines that don't produce a paper record.
17On 17 November 2001, The Economist printed a correction for having said George Bush was properly elected in 2000.
$113m Amount raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, the most in American electoral history.
$185m Amount raised by the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign, to the end of March 2004.
$200m Amount that the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign expects to raise by November 2004.
268 Number of Bush-Cheney fund-raisers who had earned Pioneer status (by raising $100,000 each) as of March 2004.
187 Number of Bush-Cheney fund-raisers who had earned Ranger status (by raising $200,000 each) as of March 2004.
$64.2mThe Amount Pioneers and Rangers had raised for Bush-Cheney as of March 2004.
85 Percentage of Americans who can't Name the Chief Justice of the United States.
69 Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks.
34 Percentage of Americans who believed in June 2003 that Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" had been found.
22 Percentage of Americans who believed in May 2003 that Saddam had used his WMDs on US forces.
85 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel on a map.
30 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map.
75 Percentage of American young adults who don't know the population of the United States.
53 Percentage of Canadian young adults who don't know the population of the United States.
11 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the United States on a map.
30 Percentage of Americans who believe that "politics and government are too complicated to understand."
Another factor in his favour
70m Estimated number of Americans who describe themselves as Evangelicals who accept Jesus Christ as their personal saviour and who interpret the Bible as the direct word of God.
23m Number of Evangelicals who voted for Bush in 2000.
50m Number of voters in total who voted for Bush in 2000.
46 Percentage of voters who describe themselves as born-again Christians.
5 Number of states that do not use the word "evolution" in public school science courses.
This is an edited extract from "What We've Lost", by Graydon Carter, published by Little Brown on 9 September
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
For a former college drop-out from Ontario and, briefly, a lineman stringing up telegraph wires on the railways of Canada, Graydon Carter, 55, has risen to impressive heights. The editor of Vanity Fair since 1992 after succeeding Tina Brown he is one of America's celebrity editors with clout, glamour and a nice line in suits.
It is hard to imagine Carter doing physical work of any kind, beyond exercising his thumb on his silver Zippo lighter. His labour is restricted to rejigging headlines in his magazine he is a self-confessed failure at delegation of duties and swanning to Manhattan parties. Martini in hand, he cuts an almost princely and dandyish figure, with billowing shirts and similarly billowing silver hair.
The spotlight on his activities has never burned brighter. In recent months he has transformed the regular editor's letter at the front of the magazine into less of a chat about its coming contents the spreads of Annie Leibowitz and rants of Christopher Hitchens and more a full-bore diatribe against the world of George Bush.
Regarding the article from Vanity Fair that James slapped on Peter's blog:
0 -- Probable number of people (even Bush-haters) who slogged through the irritatingly-long laundry list you posted
RJM,
I have to say, who gives a shit what your intials are or what a big man you are? If you use deductive reasoning (I know it's hard), you can see I leave my email address and it has cbooth in it? Duh? And you asked me if I think, that is the polite way of asking if you are stupid and a none-thinker.Wow,if you are the best that the liberals can field I can understand your squeamish hysterical panic.
Yours until the end of GWB's term in 2008,
Carl S. Booth II (or would you like my social security and pin numbers too, "Big Man"?)
A True Democratic Ad
1) Footage of Candidate Kerry stating that he's against defense spending and for slashing the intelligence budget at the height of the Cold War.
2) Footage of Kerry re-enacting his war hero days, especially shooting a fleeing teen in the back.
3) Footage of Kerry saying: "We raped, tortured, cut off ears, mulitated, etc.... much in the way of Genghis Khan..."
4) Footage of headlines from the '70 of Kerry's testimony against his "brothers in arms".
5) Footage of Candidate Kerry saying he is for gun-owner ship and supports the 2nd Amendment, while holding a gun gift that he would have banned.
6) Footage of newspaper headlines about the assault ban treaty being lifted without but lipservice from Democrats, Kerry or any one but die-hard gun grabbers.
7) Footage of Kerry saying the Genghis Khan speech again, with photos of prisoners in the Hanoi Hilton, freeze frame:
"While he lied, good men were tortured and died..."
Oh, my bad, the good men of the SwiftBoats already have most of this out here and Kerry's "Viet Nam Tour '04" has gone "number 10". Too bad, the mystery to me, is you field this no character, nothing to run on guy with nothing but his questionable Viet Nam record and expect people to just sit back and vote like blind slave schmucks. Guess again...
"So, I guess it would be better to have attacks in the streets of America to make us feel better about it?"
What does this have to do with invading Iraq, when the ones who committed the attacks were not Iraqi?
Maybe because so much of the terrorist organizations' focus is directed on Iraq. Iraq has become a kind of black hole sucking in every available violent Islamic extremist-- the sort of people who used to join Al Qaeda. I doubt the war planners were precognitive, but if the USDOD somehow could have planned that, that would have been the kind of lie about war aims that I could live with. (After all, so many people already think the Iraq hawks are evil, so why can't they be evil geniuses?)
Any weapon firing 300 rounds or more per minute is illegal for civilians without clearance by the Department of Justice.
Take a semi-automatic weapon that can be modified to fully, and the extra-bullet clips that are now allowed again, and you have something rather close to the truth.
Are you under the impression that any of this is different now than it was last week? The assault weapons ban had a grandfather clause. Every single item in existence at the time it was passed was still legal to possess or sell while the ban was in force. 30-round assault rifle magazines were mass-produced in anticipation of the ban before it took effect and were readily available for $20-30 each. The lapse of the ban may drive prices down somewhat, and there were a few new gun designs that necessarily didn't have grandfathered high-capacity magazines available, but generally the effect of the ban was trivial. Assault rifles could continue to be manufactured legally in the United States throughout the ban, as long as they complied with the requirement that the weapons could not have flash suppressors (which minimize the muzzle flare, to make it less blinding for the shooter at night), grenade launchers (no kidding), collapsible stocks (i.e. butts on the rifle which could be shortened for user convenience) and bayonet lugs. The bayonet lugs are the stupidest aspect of the ban-- who is worried about a man wielding an AR-15 in hand-to-hand combat? An AR-15 with a bayonet is a $900 spear. It is this staggering display of non-legislation that expired on Monday. The actual substantive weapons bans-- the ones signed into law by Presidents Reagan and Bush (41)-- remain in effect. And by the way, it's still illegal to manufacture a gun that can easily be converted into a fully-automatic weapon.
(For better illustrations, including some details that I didn't know until just now, see http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/ )
The "assault weapons ban" was an insult to gun control. Dianne Feinstein should be glad it's gone, because it lets her off the hook for writing a lousy statute. Maybe now she can write one that would achieve something if she managed to get it passed.
But you wouldn't want people to learn the truth, would you?
Well, I do try to explain things, but you just don't seem to be listening.
R. Maheras...then dont read it. I did, and found it very intersting.
"Maybe because so much of the terrorist organizations' focus is directed on Iraq. Iraq has become a kind of black hole sucking in every available violent Islamic extremist-- the sort of people who used to join Al Qaeda."
1) If we hadn't invaded Iraq, thereby destablizing the entire nation, it wouldn't be the magnet. However,
2) Most of the violence there is being committed by Iraqi citizens who are fighting against an invading force & it's puppet government.
3) This still doesn't answer my initial question, What does invading Iraq have to do with fighting terrorism when most of the terrorists come from & are funded by Saudia Arabia?
"I doubt the war planners were precognitive, but if the USDOD somehow could have planned that"
The USDOD didn't plan this war. The Bush administration / PNAC members did. The USDOD did anticipate much of what is happening, Warned that there weren't enough troops for the job, that it would destablize the region, but were overruled by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. They said no, it'll be a cakewalk, the troops would by welcomed with flowers, etc.
"that would have been the kind of lie about war aims that I could live with"
Unless you're in Iraq risking having your ass shot off, It's easy to say that you can live with the lies that led into this war.
Um, has EITHER candidate state what their "exit strategy" for Iraq is?
-- Ken from Chicago
I agree that the lengthy posting of nonsense anti-Bush statistics (Are we to take this guy at his word? Are there any sources for all of this?) from a British source is completely unpersuasive. And yes, I had the option of not reading it and largely didn't, except to skim it and notice the obvious bias.
Sheesh!
Dennis Donohoe
"Maybe because so much of the terrorist organizations' focus is directed on Iraq. Iraq has become a kind of black hole sucking in every available violent Islamic extremist-- the sort of people who used to join Al Qaeda."
1) If we hadn't invaded Iraq, thereby destablizing the entire nation, it wouldn't be the magnet. However,
2) Most of the violence there is being committed by Iraqi citizens who are fighting against an invading force & it's puppet government.
1) "Its puppet government." Not "it's puppet government." Pet peeve of mine.
2) Yes, most. Not all. There are significant numbers of foreign insurgents.
3) This still doesn't answer my initial question, What does invading Iraq have to do with fighting terrorism when most of the terrorists come from & are funded by Saudia Arabia?
Actually, it does. I'm assuming that you're questioning the decision-making process about going to war, rather than the (unintended) consequences. I think it's very likely that a result of the war has been a diversion of money, attention, and manpower from terrorist groups to insurgents in Iraq, but unless the DoD (see below) was unbelievably clever and highly dishonest, that doesn't affect their decision at the time of the invasion. As for the interpretation I believe you meant for your question, what the decision to invade has to do with keeping terrorists off the street, I responded with a counterfactual-- that it would be highly relevant if we had known in advance that invading Iraq would have redirected terrorists into a theater in which we could fight them with soldiers on our terms. That would have been a brilliant move, albeit underhanded. My use of the word "precognitive" should provide some hint as to whether I think that actually was the plan rather than an unintended consequence as I believe, but then again you seem to have difficulties with logical reasoning. Such as:
"I doubt the war planners were precognitive, but if the USDOD somehow could have planned that"
The USDOD didn't plan this war. The Bush administration / PNAC members did. The USDOD did anticipate much of what is happening, Warned that there weren't enough troops for the job, that it would destablize the region, but were overruled by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. They said no, it'll be a cakewalk, the troops would by welcomed with flowers, etc.
So you're saying that Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) and Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense) planned the war but the Department of Defense didn't? Do you seriously want to allege that the Secretary isn't part of the Department he heads? I'm sure the Department of Justice would be thrilled to know they're not responsible for Ashcroft.
"that would have been the kind of lie about war aims that I could live with"
Unless you're in Iraq risking having your ass shot off, It's easy to say that you can live with the lies that led into this war.
Hypothetical lies are always easy to live with. As are hypothetical locusts, frogs, and plague. I spun out a scenario in which the previous post made sense in the context you asked about. That doesn't make it any more real than an Air National Guard memo. However, I don't think the Administration lied. I think they believed that the Iraqi people would be more welcoming than they are, I think they fully expected to find significant WMD programs [As an aside, I base that opinion on 1) the fact that the Army ordered large quantities of body bags, which we would have known we wouldn't need in a conventional war and 2) I don't think the Administration was dumb enough to lie about the war in a way that would have exploded in their faces the moment they won and, gosh, found no WMDs, and 3) if they were dishonest enough to lie about the WMDs they'd have been dishonest enough to plant some plutonium in a spiderhole somewhere and say "We told you so."], and I believe that they saw Iraq as a way to combat terror because a democratic Iraq is a good first step toward remaking the Middle East in our image. It may not work, but I think that was the plan.
Much easier to keep saying 9/11 over and over than to do anything about it...
REPORT SHOWS BUSH NEGLECTING HUNT FOR AL QAEDA
In the months after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised America he
would make the hunt for al Qaeda the number one objective of his
administration. "[We] do everything we can to chase [al Qaeda] down and
bring them to justice," Bush said. "That's a key priority, obviously, for me
and my administration."[1] But according to a new report, the President has
dangerously underfunded and understaffed the intelligence unit charged with
tracking down al Qaeda's leader.
The New York Times reports "Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New
York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced
case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden
than it did at the time of the attacks." The bin Laden unit is "stretched so
thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to
90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any
meaningful work."[2]
The revelation comes months after the Associated Press reported the Bush
Treasury Department "has assigned five times as many agents to investigate
Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's" financial
infrastructure.[3] It also comes after USA Today reported that the President
shifted "resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq" in 2002.
Specifically, Bush moved special forces tracking al Qaeda out of Afghanistan
and into Iraq war preparations. He also left the CIA "stretched badly in its
capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from
Afghanistan."[4] That has allowed these terrorists to regroup: according to
the senior intelligence officials in July of this year, bin Laden and other
top al Qaeda leaders are now directing a plot "to carry out a large-scale
terror attack against the United States" and are overseeing the plan "from
their remote hideouts somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."[5]
Sources:
1. "President Calls for Ticket to Independence in Welfare Reform,"
WhiteHouse.gov, 5/10/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55681.
2. "C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells
Lawmakers," New York Times, 9/15/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55682.
3. "More Agents Track Castro Than Bin Laden," Common Dreams News Center,
4/29/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55683.
4. "Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA Today, 3/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55684.
5. "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.," CNN.com, 7/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2982450&l=55685.
And why we'll never find out the truth about what's going on...
Secrecy in the Bush Administration
A comprehensive report released by Rep. Waxman shows that the Bush
Administration has consistently undermined the laws that promote public
access to government records while systematically expanding the laws
that authorize secret government operations. Rep. Waxman and other
members of the Government Reform Committee are introducing the Restore
Open Government Act to reverse this assault on the principle of open and
accountable government.
"So you're saying that Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) and Wolfowitz (Assistant Secretary of Defense) planned the war but the Department of Defense didn't? Do you seriously want to allege that the Secretary isn't part of the Department he heads"
Point taken. Allow me to rephrase. The Generals, who spent their carreers planning & fighting wars, anticipated much of what is happening, warned that there weren't enough troops for the job, that it would destablize the region, but were overruled by civilian appointees with no military experience such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. They said no, it'll be a cakewalk, the troops would by welcomed with flowers, etc
"Hypothetical lies are always easy to live with"
Hypothetical or not, being a couple thousand miles from the result of the lie makes it very easy to live with. Like challenging people to "bring it on" when you don't have to face 'it'.
Kingbobb: When did a governmental dictatorship system become equated with evil? It's not the system, it's the leaders, and dictatorships are no less or no more susceptible to corruption and waste than, oh, say, democracies, or representative republics.
Luigi Novi: Of course they are. In dictatorships, the dictator’s power is unilateral, he is not accountable to the people he rules over, and cannot be legally deposed.
Zeek: Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell.
Luigi Novi: If you’re referring to Peter David’s statement “By the way, the current running tally for Iraq: this week, fourteen US troops killed, 219 wounded, with a total of 1018 killed and 7,245 wounded since March 2003, I think he was referring to U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, not the casualties from 9/11.
Kingbobb: Taliban was run by a council of clerics. It wasn't a dictatorship. I've honestly now idea how those clerics attained their leadership positions, but there was no sole ruler of the Taliban regime.
Luigi Novi: Mullah Mohammed Omar was the leader of the Taliban.
Kingbobb: And before you start getting all "well, lookee what George W. did to the Taliban," consider that for 10 years or more prior to 9/11/01, the Taliban ran an oppressive country…
Luigi Novi: Five. The Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996.
Carl: Yep, it was, against the Saddam Regime, it didn't say "Entire Iraq Mission Accomplished".
Luigi Novi: Hairsplitting. The meaning that the public was made to understand from such a banner was hardly that one part of the overall mission was accomplished, and that others were yet not.
Carl: Let's add the people from the first WTC bombing…All on the Democrats watch.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, when Clinton was in office for only 37 days. Let’s pin that on them.
James: Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
By Graydon Carter
">http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746
Luigi Novi: The page to which that link brings you indicates you have to be a subscriber. The matter is discussed in some detail at the Internet-myth debunking/confirming site Snopes, at: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/numbers.asp., where is it is indicated that it is still reviewing the veracity of those claims.
R. Maheras: Regarding the article from Vanity Fair that James slapped on Peter's blog: 0 -- Probable number of people (even Bush-haters) who slogged through the irritatingly-long laundry list you posted
Luigi Novi: I read the entire thing.
Yes, it is possible to convert certain semi-automatic weapons to fire in full-auto mode. It destroys the barrel, of course, and the accuracy is even worse than the usual automatic fire, but it is possible.
It's also possible to convert a length of ordinary lead pipe into a deadly explosive device.
We must immediately ban the sale of all new lead pipes in this country!
"Footage of Bush declaring "MIssion Accomplished.""
Bush never declared "mission accomplished." He declared "an end to major military operations in Iraq." He chose to do this at a ceremony that was already celebrating the conclusion of the USS Abraham Lincoln's mission in Iraq... hence the banner which read "mission accomplished." This appears to be a common misconception which liberal pundits have tried their best to perpetuate.
Craig -
"Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell."
When the towers fell 1000 soldiers had already died in Iraq?
This may be a nitpick, but, I don't really like my name being attributed to somebody elses comment. :)
By the way,are you under the impression that the assault weapons ban actually banned all assault weapons?
No, and I think it's a sad loophole in the law.
I see no reason whatsoever for a private citizen to have any fully automatic weapon.
If you need a fully automatic weapon to go hunting, you should find a new hobby.
0 -- Probable number of people (even Bush-haters) who slogged through the irritatingly-long laundry list you posted
Actually, I read the whole thing. The sad part is that you find the truth so damn irritating.
He declared "an end to major military operations in Iraq."
Last I checked, that was still as far from the truth as one can get.
Ok, reposting for the sake of the fact I apparently missed a closing tag, and otherwise nobody will be able to tell what I'm quoting. :P
Craig -
"Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell."
When the towers fell 1000 soldiers had already died in Iraq?
This may be a nitpick, but, I don't really like my name being attributed to somebody elses comment. :)
By the way,are you under the impression that the assault weapons ban actually banned all assault weapons?
No, and I think it's a sad loophole in the law.
I see no reason whatsoever for a private citizen to have any fully automatic weapon.
If you need a fully automatic weapon to go hunting, you should find a new hobby.
0 -- Probable number of people (even Bush-haters) who slogged through the irritatingly-long laundry list you posted
Actually, I read the whole thing. The sad part is that you find the truth so damn irritating.
He declared "an end to major military operations in Iraq."
Last I checked, that was still as far from the truth as one can get.
"Craig -
"Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell."
When the towers fell 1000 soldiers had already died in Iraq?
This may be a nitpick, but, I don't really like my name being attributed to somebody elses comment. :)"
Sorry. My bad.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, when Clinton was in office for only 37 days. Let’s pin that on them.
Worked for people that wanted to blame GWB for 9/11, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...
"Luigi Novi: Yeah, when Clinton was in office for only 37 days. Let’s pin that on them.
Worked for people that wanted to blame GWB for 9/11, what's good for the goose is good for the gander..."
I think people were more inclined to blame GWB because he spent nine months ignoring the call to create a Department of Homeland security and was too busy focusing his attentions on Saddam to the exclusion of bin Laden. Hardly analogous.
PAD
Nothing to do with the topic, but my unabashed opporunity to wish you Peter and your family L'Shanna Tovah, as well as any other members of the threads or forums who are of the Jewish faith. May the coming year bring you all peace and happiness, good health and joy, success and love.
Simple facts:
Under Bill Clinton
-The highest budget surplus in U.S. History.
-Lied about blow-job, didn't affect my life what-so-ever.
Under George Bush2:
-Largest Budget deficit in the last 10 years, (possibly in U.S. history)
-Lied about reason to invade Iraq resulted in dead U.S. soldiers.
-Bin Laden still not captured, world sympathies squandered resulting in increased Anti-U.S. sentiment World-Wide.
Republican? Democrat? Who care.
Facts should determine who gets your vote.
"-Lied about reason to invade Iraq resulted in dead U.S. soldiers."
Show me where he lied. Not that he had bad information that everyone else had, but actually lied.
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/000958.html
Rather: "Prove I'm Not Queen of the Space Unicorns"
NEW YORK -- For the fourth time in as many days, CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather interrupted his telecast tonight to reiterate his claim that he has been crowned Queen of the Space Unicorns.
Glaring into the camera, Rather leveled a stern denunciation of his skeptics, terming them "hateful" and "jealous."
"I have told you again and again the tales of my ascension, my travels and adventures amongst the Cloud People, my ongoing struggle with Lord Gnarl and the Carved Army of the Fateful Forest. You've heard the facts, and that's the end of it. You think you can challenge my claim to the throne? Go for it. But you can't, can you? You can't, and you know it. So let's just get past this."
Holding up a document that he insisted was proof of his royal lineage, Rather repeated his demand to be addressed as "Queen Alareol the Wise, Protector of the Rainbow-Flame." The document appeared to be a doorknob menu for a local Chinese restaurant.
"I don't expect you people to understand what I'm going through," continued Rather. "I don't have to take this. All I want is a little consideration here. A little consideration, and some nice green grass. Crunchy, delicious grass. Nnnnnyaaaaar."
The CBS Evening News airs at 6:30 p.m. EST.
Sorry, already old news. My bad.
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/000965.html
Rather Alters Stance on Space-Unicorn Royalty
NEW YORK -- In a stunning reversal yesterday, embattled CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather renounced his claim to the throne of the Space Unicorns, instead declaring himself to be the Bonnukarr, culmination of human evolution, sent back in time from the 857th Century by the warrior-god Kobaltine IV to prepare mankind for the coming Insect Wars.
"All light flows through me," Rather explained. "All vision is mine."
Poking himself in the left temple with increasing force and rapidity, Rather noted that this revelation of his true nature has brought with it a host of supernatural powers, including the ability to dissolve most solid matter with invisible beams from his fingers, great physical strength and endurance, and the ability to sense the presence of his arch-enemy Lord Gnarl, who "flits from one soul to the next, never far, always just out of reach."
Rather then finished the remainder of his newscast without using vowels.
(Spokesmen for Kobaltine IV could not be reached for comment.)
Jesus! The news is coming in so fast i can't keep up!.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/09/rather_blames_r.html
RATHER BLAMES ROVE IN ROCKET-SKATE MISHAP
NEW YORK - Veteran anchorman Dan Rather implicated White House Political Director Karl Rove as "the mastermind behind the so-called Acme Group" after his rocket-powered roller skates exploded during a Wednesday CBS Evening News investigative report.
Rather had donned the controversial Acme skates -- along with an Acme brand Bat-Man suit -- in a complicated sting operation to reveal what he termed a "deep conspiracy between the White House and internet partisans to cover up George Bush's shameful military records."
The investigation went awry soon after Rather lit the skates, releasing what NYU Physics professor Alan Sokol estimated as "20,000 to 30,000 pounds of thrust." The heat of the initial explosion was so intense that it singed the hair off several nearby CBS reporters, including Rather's anchor heir-apparent John Roberts.
The blast sent Rather hurtling along 53rd Street toward the Hudson River at speeds estimated upwards of 200 miles per hour, scarcely slowing as the runaway skates drug the helpless journalist over, under and through stalled rush hour traffic.
Rather frantically righted himself just in time to hurtle cleanly though the side of an MTA bus at 7th Avenue, leaving a gaping Rather-shaped hole. The impact sent Rather careening down the stairs of the 50th Street subway terminal, through a turnstile, and onto the tracks of the Uptown-bound 1 train.
"The incoming tunnel was sparking and lighting up, I thought there was some kind of power problem," said Carla Robertson, who witnessed Rather speeding through the tunnel at the 34th Street platform. "Later I realized it must have been his ass hitting the third rail."
Robertson said she didn't pay much attention whe she saw a spread-eagle Rather, screaming along the tracks on rocket roller skates.
"This is New York, so we see celebrities all the time," said Robertson. "Then I realized he was heading downtown on the uptown tracks."
Witnesses as far as Chelsea report hearing the collision as Rather met the next oncoming train, which sent the newsman rocketing skyward through a man hole cover at 31st and Broadway, arms flailing wildly, his rocket skates sputtering their last spare ounces of fuel.
Midtown bystanders looked on in horror as the award-winning broadcast titan began plummeting from his 3000-foot apex. Amazingly, though, Rather's arm-flailing and prescient decision to wear the Bat-Man suit had paid off. Regaining composure after the initial shock, he began soaring over the skyline of Manhattan, swooping through its concrete canyons.
Rather's high-flying antics came to a abrupt conclusion when he splattered into the New York Times building. Momentarily stunned, he peeled off the side into a desperate pummet, not realizing his Bat-Man wings remained adhered to a 38th floor window.
Gasping for breath as he climbed from his Rather-shaped crater on 43rd Street, he quickly faced another ignomy: his impact had jarred loose a grand piano that was hanging from a rope outside William Safire's 30th-story office. As the shadow of the piano slowly grew, Rather pulled out a tiny umbrella and picket sign that read "Yipes!!"
His lump-covered head peering through the demolished keyboard, Rather finally played a off-key rendition of "Taps" on his piano-key teeth.
Rather remains in guarded condition at Cedars-Sinai hospital, but says his legendary investigative ferocity "is as healthy as Olympic weightlifter's liver."
"Batten down the barn door, Aunt Gussie, we're got more stories coming, and I promise you that these will sting the Bush boys like syphillitic urine," said a defiant Rather.
Rather said that the CBS news team was already working on a new story that would "prove, once and for all, that Karl Rove made those rocket skates."
"I can't reveal much right now," added Rather. "We're still trying to line up the necessary catapult."
These sound like the types of articles the Bush Administration used to justify the war in Iraq.
Craig wrote:
>>>Actually, I read the whole thing. The sad part is that you find the truth so damn irritating.
No, I find it irritating that someone would cut and paste such a looooooooong laundry list on someone ele's blog, a piece which is, as it's presented (without footnotes and references), merely an unsubstantiated opinion list -- and not even James' direct personal opinion, at that. A link would have been much more thoughtful.
"Republican? Democrat? Who care.
Facts should determine who gets your vote."
You'd think that, wouldn't you.
You will generally find that Bush supporters are able to support him, not because of the facts, but in spite of them. The facts you put forward--which really are indisputable--will be disputed. Will be aggressively denied. They know in their hearts that no rational person would vote for someone with Bush's track record, so they deny the track record with an almost religious fervor. Bush never lied, he was...misunderstood. Or he himself was lied to. Bush has made no mistakes, it's just that his success is taking much, much longer than planned. A body count far outpacing Vietnam's? A result not of bullets and bombs, but instead a liberal media focusing only on corpses instead of all the "good stuff" that's going on in Iraq.
I will agree that Kerry hasn't helped himself. Carving out a position on Iraq that is similar to Bush's was just flat-out dumb. People need an alternative to Bush, not Bush redux but with a better vocabulary. The biggest problem, though, is that people prefer single mindedness, even simple mindedness, to complexity. If nothing else, it plays better in soundbites. Many people can't hold more than one thought in their heads at a time, and so someone as intellectually disengaged as Bush is able to portray someone who can do so as uncertain instead of simply more aware of the shifting world around him.
Eighty percent of the people in the United States didn't read a book last year...including, supposedly, its leader. Welcome to Bush country. You get the president you deserve. Unfortunately, we get him, too.
PAD
>2) Most of the violence there is
>being committed by Iraqi citizens who
>are fighting against an invading force &
>it's puppet government.
On what basis do you make this claim? My personal contacts with first hand knowledge disagree.
I have a friend who has worked with Iraqi refugees for well over 15 years. He lived in Jordan for 12 of the last 13 years. He is Lebanese and speaks fluent Arabic. He knows numerous families who still have relatives in Iraq. Some of those families are making plans to return to Iraq.
My point: According to my friend, the overwhelming majority of "average" Iraqi's are *not* invovled with the insurgency, nor do they support it. They understand we are not an "invading force" come to rule their country.
The so called "insurgency" is made up of 3 groups:
1.) Sadaam friends and allies who have lost power and want to regain it. While we have captured many of Sadaam's top men, by no means have we caputred everyone. All over the country, there are Sadaam loyalists who were corrupt and gained enormous amounts of money while Sadaam was in power. Now their "money supply" has been ended, and they don't like it. They were well armed by Sadaam, and they are now using those weapons.
2.) Shiite radicals. This should be obvious from watching the last 2 months of news. There is a power vacuum, and certain radical elements want to seize the power.
3.) Foreign fighters. This is the smallest of the group, but they are a real part, and help supply others.
Most of the people in Iraq do NOT want America to leave yet. Why? Because they know things would revert to an all out civil war. Most are very glad Sadaam is gone. Most want us to leave as soon as possible. But most are not trying to fight us. They want a stable government, and whether they like that we "invaded" or not, they want us to end what we started. They don't see the current government as a puppet government.
Let me finish by saying that I realize this was one person's perspective, not a "researched" news item. But my friend is not even an American citizen, nor does he have a western mindset. He does not have any reason to support Bush. He was just telling me what he has heard in working with Iraqi refugees.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa:
I think you may be leaving out a fourth faction - young Iraqi males who for whatever reason ( hatred of US; Islamic fervor; being easily influenced) have joined up with one of the three previously menioned groups.
PAD,
I still can't wrap my head around your point. Most of the decisions to come out of this administration have been detrimental to the average American, yet so many still support him so totally. I keep trying to figure out why. I don't really believe people want a simple-minded answer to everything, but with the assaults on our liberties, the catastophe in Iraq, trying to turn our secular government into a fundamental religious one, allowing development in so many of our wilderness areas, not funding programs they proposed...
Just how is all this reconciled with the "good-ol-boy" compassionate conservative image? No one can tell me how these policies have made their lives better, but the keep defending all these poor choices. Do you have any insight? Does anyone?
PAD wrote:
"I will agree that Kerry hasn't helped himself. Carving out a position on Iraq that is similar to Bush's was just flat-out dumb. People need an alternative to Bush, not Bush redux but with a better vocabulary."
I think the biggest mistake Kerry made there was by not emphasizing that he won't immediately pull US troops out of Iraq because Bush made a huge mess in Iraq and its up to the US to clean it up before we can leave.
Just how is all this reconciled with the "good-ol-boy" compassionate conservative image?
It can't, because the actions just don't match with the rhetoric. This is the same old right wing ideology, hostile to gays and minorities, dressed up in PC terms (which is why it works, I guess; it's OK coming from conservatives, but not OK coming from liberals).
KAren:
I think its all become ( on both sides, though moreso for the Republicans) about "my side winning" as opposed to who would do the best job running the country.
Carl: Worked for people that wanted to blame GWB for 9/11, what's good for the goose is good for the gander...
Luigi Novi: I never blamed GWB for 9/11, and 9/11 didn’t occur only 37 days after he took office. But whether anyone has is beside the point. If you decide that baseless finger-pointing is wrong, then it’s wrong, period. It also ignores the fact that there is also information that Clinton’s outgoing National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who met with his successor, Condoleeza Rice and Richard Clarke, and that the Feb 2001 Hart-Rudman report, which warned that the U.S. was unprepared for a “catastrophic” domestic terrorist attack, and recommended the creation of a Homeland Security agency, were ignored by the Bush administration. Arguing that blaming Clinton for the ’93 bombing is justified because others blame Bush for 9/11 is the argument of a child. “Goose and gander” rationalizations may work for grade school. They do not work in an adult discussion.
They know in their hearts that no rational person would vote for someone with Bush's track record, so they deny the track record with an almost religious fervor...
People need an alternative to Bush, not Bush redux but with a better vocabulary. The biggest problem, though, is that people prefer single mindedness, even simple mindedness, to complexity. If nothing else, it plays better in soundbites. Many people can't hold more than one thought in their heads at a time.
Guess what. Some Bush supporters do consider the alternatives. Personally I wish Joe Lieberman would have been nominated. At least then I think there may have been a choice. We have two mediocre alternatives - and Bush is the better option, IMHO.
Kerry, as you rightly say, hasn't helped himself. I'm more than willing to listen, but so far I can't tell that he's said anything worth listening to. His Iraq policy boils down to "get us out, put NATO in" - as if the NATO allies are going to go marching in once we are pulling out. His terrorism policy is "get them after they get us" - which is intolerable to me after 9/11. His spending policy is no better than Bush's - but I don't like Bush's much either. They both want to spend more money than we have. The surplus was an accounting myth anyway - and anyone who paid attention knew it - but both sides were trumpeting how to spend it rather than something novel like pay off some of the debt.
So, domestically, it's a toss-up for me. Internationally, I prefer Bush's policy. Now, you can call me simple-minded, you can say I have a religious fervor, but the "simple" :) fact is that - in my consideration - Bush is the better choice.
Karen:
>Just how is all this reconciled with the "good-ol-boy" compassionate conservative image? No one can tell me how these policies have made their lives better, but the keep defending all these poor choices. Do you have any insight? Does anyone?
From the people I've spoken with individually and what I've seen in group conversation, on the news and online, it appears to me to be:
1) Fear
2) The tendency that nations have to become blindingly nationalistic when there is conflict with outside forces.
or...
3) A combination of the two.
Fred
Okay, that's the third time I've put in a multi-paragraph bold quote and it's ended it early. I'm going to run a test here to see if my editing has just been THAT off lately:
This is a test
This is a test
All right, I guess the newline is ending the tag. Good to know.
PAD wrote:
"You will generally find that Bush supporters are able to support him, not because of the facts, but in spite of them. The facts you put forward--which really are indisputable--will be disputed. Will be aggressively denied. They know in their hearts that no rational person would vote for someone with Bush's track record, so they deny the track record with an almost religious fervor."
Excuse me? I find your comments insulting. I am a rational, well read person who fully supports George W. Bush. I read at least 30 books last year (and not just fiction books like the 3 or 4 I read of yours). I read extensively on both sides of issues. And I DO reject many of the opinions disguised as facts posted on this site about Bush, including the one in the post you cite. I feel no need to ignore any facts about Bush anymore than you ignore facts about Kerry and his record. You can support a candidate without agreeing with everything they say or do.
So let's deal with specifics.
>Under Bill Clinton
>-The highest budget surplus in U.S. History.
The fact is true, but one question: How, exactly, did Clinton bring this about? He did NOT cut overall spending (and other than the military, most programs went up). Furthermore, a rational person may point to the fact that many of the corporate scandals were going on during Clinton's time. Some of the recession came from the bust of the inflated internet bubble. Does that mean Clinton is to blame for the recession as well? (If Bush had been president, he would currently being blamed for the scandals and for the recession. Oh, wait, he is. Never mind,)
-Lied about blow-job, didn't affect my life what-so-ever.
First, this is an opinion, not a fact. Second, there is an interesting correlation between the missle lobs Clinton made towards Iraq and Suddan that conicided with the investigation of his blow-jobs. One might also wonder if he had paid more attention to an attack on the World Trade Center than to getting his next blow-job if we might have avoided 9-11. (Unfair? This is the kind of logic being used against Bush today.)
>Under George Bush2:
>-Largest Budget deficit in the last 10 years, (possibly in U.S. history)
Again the problem is not the fact, but the implied analysis of the fact. No mention is made of the recession Bush inherited from Clinton. (And history shows the start of the boom Clinton is given credit for began before he ever took office.) No mention is made of the financial impact of 9-11. Bush did not just decide to buy a car for everyone in America and squander the surplus.
Let me insert my opinion: As a conservative, I do have a problem with the deficit. It did not come from the tax cuts, which were tiny in the big scheme of things. They have come from spending, and not just on the war in Iraq. So I do have a problem with Bush on this issue to some degree. But 20 years of Kerry's Senate votes (what, he served in the Senate? wonder why he seldom mentions it??) demonstrate pretty well that Kerry is not a fiscal conservative. While Bush (and yes, a Republican congress) have failed to control spending, the only reason a Kerry administration might possibly do better is because the Republicans would oppose a lot of what Kerry proposes. (However, I doubt the Senate Republicans will ever be as vicious about it as the Democrats have been for the last 4 years).
-Lied about reason to invade Iraq resulted in dead U.S. soldiers.
Once again, the "Big Lie" that Bush lied. Nice try. There is an *overwhelming* amount of evidence for the last 10 years of Republicans and Democrats and leaders of other countries who all believed what Bush said about Iraq. Yes, some disagreed with what to do about it. Yes, we have not found stockpiles of weapons. Does that mean Bush lied? No.
(By the way, for those willing to do a little research, here is one of many articles clearly showing that Sadaam was actively involved in WMD's :
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml
The lack of finding WMD's makes for a quick sound bite, but the truth is clear that Bush did not lie about WMD's.)
>-Bin Laden still not captured, world
>sympathies squandered resulting in
>increased Anti-U.S. sentiment World-Wide.
Again, this is more of an opinion than a fact.
Let me give an analogy. A few weeks ago, President Clinton had heart surgery. Most conservatives, myself included, hoped for his recovery. If I then say he is out to lunch with his views, does that mean he "squandered" my sympathy? This whole argument is bogus. Sympahty for us after 9-11 never meant they agreed with our philosophy.
But let's dig deeper. Take France as an example. There is a large amount of evidence that France actively supported Sadaam. The same with Russia. We did not lose their support because of our haste, we never had it because they wanted their "bribe" from Sadaam. (Which is also why Kerry's proposals are a joke. There is NO reason for these "allies" to suddenly join in after Bush is gone, and every reason for them to not do so.)
Of course, I have no "facts" to support this, but I have never met a Republican who supports Bush "in spite of" the facts. I strongly doubt I am the exception. Your generalization implies a bias and contempt for those who look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion.
One final thought: Of the two candidates, I would suggest that it is Kerry (and his supporters) who is tryint to distance himself from his track record. Bush and those of us who support him may disagree with how his record is portrayed, and may disagree with parts of it, but we are overall in agreement with him.
Why is Kerry afraid to have his statements to congress after he returned from Vietnam replayed? (I am fine with playing them in their entiriety (sp??) and not just the "juicy" sound bites.) Why does Kerry say virtually nothing about his 19+ years in the Senate? Didn't he sponsor at least one bill he is proud of? From listening to Kerry, two things are being said: he served honorably in Vietnam and he would do a better job than Bush. From listening to many Kerry supporters on this site, it still comes down to him being better than Bush. There is very little said about any other agenda.
Oh, I did forget to mention I also read comics. Does that count for being literate and informed? Don't care, I will still check out Madrox anyways.
Jim in Iowa
>I think you may be leaving out a
>fourth faction - young Iraqi males who
>for whatever reason ( hatred of US; Islamic >fervor; being easily influenced) have
>joined up with one of the three previously >menioned groups.
My friend did not mention them. I would be curious to ask.
My suspicion is that they mainly fit under the second category, the radical Shiite groups. Read the news stories carefully. Where did one of the last bombs go off? In a group of Iraqi people who were training to be police. There is clearly a group of young males who agree with what is happening in their own country and want to help. Do they not count?
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa:
>>I think you may be leaving out a
>fourth faction - young Iraqi males who
>for whatever reason ( hatred of US; Islamic >fervor; being easily influenced) have
>joined up with one of the three previously >menioned groups.
>My friend did not mention them. I would be curious to ask.
>My suspicion is that they mainly fit under the second category, the radical Shiite groups. Read the news stories carefully. Where did one of the last bombs go off? In a group of Iraqi people who were training to be police. There is clearly a group of young males who agree with what is happening in their own country and want to help. Do they not count?
Jim in Iowa
I've heard that one of the prominent pushes of the new leadership in Iraq has been to get these young men jobs to keep them focused on a positive change in Iraq, rather than the destruction, chaos and death that they are surrounded by. It has been theorized, some discussion with a few *whohiswhatshisnames experts* that these men see no future in their country, are unemployed and have too much idle time.... this is why they are joining. Not sure that I buy into this fully, but it makes as much sense as many of the other belifs floating around.
A link would have been much more thoughtful.
Actually, if you bothered to read the article, instead of dismissing it outright, you would have seen that the link for where the article came from was posted.
Now, granted, the site it goes to is a registration site, so it does little good.
But, either way, you dismiss the article when it was posted, I rather doubt that you would've bothered to follow a link had it alone been posted, or read the article anyways.
Your own comments prove that.
"They know in their hearts that no rational person would vote for someone with Bush's track record, so they deny the track record with an almost religious fervor."
This would be equally silly emotional partisanship if it were a Bush supporter claiming "in their hearts, Kerry fans KNOW that he will be an inferior president to Bush but they will make any rationalization to avoid admitting their mistake".
If you want a rational reason to vote for Bush ask a few of your friends who are planning to do so why they think that way. If you don't have
any such friends...the problem lies elsewhere.
Since a couple people have quoted one or two lines of what I wrote without bothering to read the whole message... I will elaborate on my point (I posted my message after an all night shift, so perhaps I wasn't clear.)
My point was that manufactoring jobs are not as important as they once were. They are quickly becoming obsolete in the modern era, and within a decade times WON'T EVEN EXIST in any large number except in third world countries.
The assembly line worker has been being replaced by robotics and computers for decades now. Robotics and computers are becoming more complex and versitile by the day. If you want to see what factories will look like in the near future, watch Minority Report and pay attention to the chase scene in the car factory. Notice there were no people there.
The REST of my point was that instead of spending huge amounts of efforts to save jobs that, in the long run, will be gone soon anyways doesn't make much sense. Focusing on RETRAINING and EDUCATING the EXISTING workforce for the changing workplace, as WELL as properly EDUCATING FUTURE workers is a MUCH greater priority.
Of course the problem is this is America. We don't think about things long term, only about the here and now and what can make us the most profit in the short term.
People will lose their jobs. Thats a given. Instead of focusing on that, focusing on training them and assisting them to find NEW jobs that will have long term benefit makes more sense than trying to keep ones that are soon to be gone regardless.
Instead of giving tax breaks to corporations that are the most evil and underhanded in increasing their bottom line, the government should give them to those that invest in the future of our society by helping to shift the workforce into a more future ready group. The government also needs to take a more active role in this themselves, though sadly its rare to find a President who has dreams for the future (Kennedy and to a much lesser extent Clinton are all I can think of really) instead of their own personal power, wealth, and agenda. Not that they don't all have that as well...
Anyways... go ahead and quote me out of context again and go about thinking of things in your petty, partisan, close-minded ways.
Mike,
You still haven't answered the question, what do we do for the people NOW.
Yes, of course we need to improve the education and training for the future (though there's no guarantee that corporations will send techical jobs overseas, especially if they can save money) but you're neglecting the people, ages 35-55. What do they do?
New training? New education? So, what, they can compete with people years younger for the same jobs? And who will companies hire? People in their 20's, right out of a four year school or some middle aged person, having just finished training classes.
It's very easy to bring up EDUCATING FUTURE workers, but forgetting the people of today shouldn't be forgotten.
Craig wrote:
"Actually, if you bothered to read the article, instead of dismissing it outright, you would have seen that the link for where the article came from was posted."
OK, let me re-phrase what I said, even though my point was obvious: "JUST THE link would have been much more thoughtful."
And let me point out one more thing. In addition to being inconsiderate to other bloggers, reproducing someone's entire copyrighted story, without his permission, tramples the author's ownership rights and violates copyright law. It's no different than if someone cut and pasted one of PAD's books and posted it on a Web site or Web log somewhere. It's wrong.
Craig also wrote: "But, either way, you dismiss the article when it was posted, I rather doubt that you would've bothered to follow a link had it alone been posted, or read the article anyways.
Your own comments prove that."
But that's MY decision to make anyway, isn't it? It's still a free country, isn't it? Actually, I did start reading it, but when I realized it went on and on and on and on, I scrolled all the way to the end and continued reading other posts.
As a public service to those who read this site, here is a non-partisan review of what each candidate believes on various issues:
www.presidentmatch.com and click on "compare" and then select Bush & Kerry.
As I read through the list, I am in agreement with Bush on about 95% of the items, and disagree with Kerry on about 85% of the items (a little lower than agreeing with Bush since Kerry and Bush agree on some things). As a rational individual, I have looked at the records of both and see that overall their actions match their stated position. Therefore I am voting FOR Bush (and not just "against" Kerry).
Guess there really are a few of us rational people who are not avoiding Bush's record and voting in spite of what he has done.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
That just means you are a simple-minded Republican drone who only understands black-and-white, not the real, gray world.
(tongue planted firmly in cheek since I'm a Bush-voter too)
Okay, I have a couple of comments to make. None of them are that important but seems like as good a time as any to post them.
I will not be voting for Bush this November. I may, or may not vote for Kerry, mostly it doesn't matter my state is not going to be swayed that easily anyway (I live in Michigan, a very Conservative part of Michigan. My Township will go for Bush, but I am pretty sure the state will go for Kerry).
"-Lied about reason to invade Iraq resulted in dead U.S. soldiers."
Show me where he lied. Not that he had bad information that everyone else had, but actually lied.
Personally (so you may or may not agree with this stance) I think it doesn't matter if he had bad information. If someone presents me with bad information, wether intentional or not. They lied to me. I'll usually understand and have no real problem with it when they apologize (depends on the fall out and wether it was inentional or not).
lie
Function: noun
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
So Clinton lied, may have been unintentional (maybe he truly believed that what he did, did not constitute as "sexual relations") it may have been intentional. Bush also lied. Once again, intentional or not he did it. To know that it happened hurts me, but what annoys me more than anything is this constant "passing the buck." If he would have simply come out and said something like "I am sorry for misleading you all; we operated on world class intelligence, but some of that intelligence proved faulty. Ultimately, it came down to me and I made the mistake. However let us not deter now, while mistakes have been made we cannot abandon the Iraqi Citizans to anarchy and turmoil. Please support my administration as we stay this course..."
Something like that. Then I would have much more respect for the PotUS. I have respect for leaders that claim some culpability even when it is those that serve him that failed. Then again, that isn't good politics (which is one reason I get disillusioned with politics).
I am not going to say Kerry would be a better President. I am not going to say that in the same situation he would have done it much better. I can't really know. I just wanted so much for someone who was going to "bring integrity back to the white house" to actually make me happy and not play politics because in a couple years they'd be up for re-election.
--
On another point: the economy. Okay first off (to let you know 'where I am coming from' again) As a result of many factors I lost my government job during this administration. I have also found a new job (at a nice pay cut) as well. One of the factories in my home town just closed down causing atleast 471 people to lose their jobs directly (thats a little more than 1% of the town's population directly laid off).
So needless to say I don't have to be told that the economy has been kind of stingy lately. However I do have this economic theory, and while I don't want to bore anyone with the details of it I like it. In this thoery we did kind of need republicans in power during this past four years, and while this administration has been a little off of the "norm" for "fiscal conservatives." They did perform the trickle down part that I wanted quite nicely. However, due to the high impact time of being centered right after an economic boom/bust it had a stronger/quicker effect than normal. So to fit with my plan we need a government that does pump priming for the next four years. Now full-throttle pump priming will fail too, so a bit more fiscally responsible pump-priming would be better, So I think a republican congress with a strong democratic backbone would be best. Then in four years we should be (if done well) ready for some more TrickleDown goodness.
--
This has already gotten to be a long post so I'll stop here.
Alright so theres a little opinion on the matter from me. Any comments on it?
In addition to being inconsiderate to other bloggers, reproducing someone's entire copyrighted story, without his permission, tramples the author's ownership rights and violates copyright law.
Well, PAD hasn't complained about the article (and I get the feeling he won't), as atleast some of us find it rather informative, so I don't see it being inconsiderate in the least.
YOU find it inconsiderate because it paints Bush in a bad light, apparently.
As for the story itself, it was quoted, in full, with source and author. This isn't the first time that this has happened, nor the last.
So, if you feel like whining to the company that posted the article, be my guest.
Andrew/Andy/Me wrote:
"If someone presents me with bad information, wether intentional or not. They lied to me. I'll usually understand and have no real problem with it when they apologize (depends on the fall out and wether it was inentional or not)."
Here are my comments:
It is important to understand the difference between a noun and a verb. When you say Bush "lied," that is a verb, not a noun. According to my Webster's Ninth Edition Collegiate dictionary, the definition for the VERB is as follows:
1: to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive;
2: to create a false or misleading impression
In normal, everyday English, we do not call someone a "liar" or say he "lied" if he said something he really believed at the time to be true. Yes, if the fact was untrue, then it is a lie. So you could say, technically, that Bush told a lie. But it is misleading and deceptive (dare I say a lie?) to say Bush "lied" (a verb) if he truly believed the fact to be true at the time.
I agree that if a fact is later shown to be not true, then it is best for the person to correct the record. I would argue that while we have not found WMD's, it is inaccurate to say we have proved there were none. In fact, as the link I posted suggests, what Bush said was not a lie in the first place.
One further thought: Step back for a moment and view this objectively. In my opinion, the Democrats have been so partisan about these issues that for Bush to make a statement like you suggest would be political suicide. This is not about Bush being arrogant and unable to learn from his mistakes. Why do I say that? An arrogant man would still be pounding his fist and saying there are stockplies of WMD's. Bush has adjusted what he now says based on the evidence (not on speculation one way or another). The fact is, which so many choose to ignore, the UN resolutions demonstrate that a large number of countries believed Sadaam had WMD's. Sadaam used WMD's. Sadaam refused to provide any evidence he destroyed those WMD's. I would suggest that General Tommy Frank's analogy is the best statement of what happened: We did not find a loaded gun when we entered Iraq, but we did find all of the parts there ready to be assembled (and it would not have taken very long to do so).
Bottom line, Bush did not lie, nor was he deliberately deceptive. Our intelligence was wrong in some regards, but it was not completely wrong. So I stand by my statement that it is the "Big Lie" that Bush lied.
Jim in Iowa
" I would argue that while we have not found WMD's, "
Clarification: I meant to say "stockpiles" of WMD's. I believe he had the components for WMD's, and suspect some of the stockpiles he was known to have for the last 10 years were shipped out to other countries before the war began. Just a suspicion, can't prove it. But the undisputable fact is that they did exist at one time. The question should be what happened to them.
Jim in Iowa
Condemning soldiers to death on false information that he didn't bother to check because he was just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, Bush commited the lie of omission.
When a man has as much power as the president, I hold him to higher standards and expect full examination of all facts when deciding to declare war. Bush is a war criminal who invaded and is occupying a sovreign nation.
Bladestar wrote:
"Condemning soldiers to death on false information that he didn't bother to check because he was just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, Bush commited the lie of omission.
"When a man has as much power as the president, I hold him to higher standards and expect full examination of all facts when deciding to declare war. Bush is a war criminal who invaded and is occupying a sovreign nation."
And once again, the lies continue.
On what basis do you say Bush was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq? What credible source can you give? There is none, or the Democrats would have posted it by now. All they have is a poorly constructed web of deceit that they claim proves their case when all they are really doing is making the assumption in the first place then trying to piece the facts together in a way that fits their point.
Furthermore, your post fails to answer my point in a much earlier post. Why do you and so many others totally ignore the truth about Sadaam. Iraq was under sanctions to begin with because they chose, without provocation, to invade a neighbor. Sadaam fired every day on our planes, planes that in part were flying to prevent Sadaam using WMD's again against people in his own country (or have you forgotten about the Kurd's?). Sadaam failed to provide proof of what he did with his WMD's. And the list goes on.
To use your logic, police who raid the house of a convicted drug dealer and kidnapper, who suspect he again is doing the same, are criminals violating the rights of an individual. Sadaam was given every opportunity to allow inspections, and he played games with us. So don't give me this idiotic nonsense that Bush is a war criminal. It may play well to the Bush haters, but it has absolutely no basis in reality.
Jim in Iowa
What credible source can you give? There is none, or the Democrats would have posted it by now.
What's the name of that journalist? Woodward or something? Didn't he write a book?
There's been plenty of evidence, but you, like the White House, dismiss it all on a whim.
"What's the name of that journalist? Woodward or something? Didn't he write a book?
"There's been plenty of evidence, but you, like the White House, dismiss it all on a whim."
Do I actually have to define what a "credible source" is? A journalist analyzes facts, but is not the SOURCE of the facts.
A credible source is a person or document that has first hand knowledge that something is true. For example, General Tommy Frank states for the record that at no time prior to (if I remember right) December, 2001, did the issue of invading Iraq come up. That was not before 9-11, and it was 2 months after. Or do you dismiss his first hand knowledge on a whim?
There are many books out there on both sides of issues. That does not mean the author is right (or do you believe the Swift Boat Vets book is true?).
So try again. Give me a credible source that Bush was just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq.
If you are honest, you would admit that it will be very difficult to do so. Woodward and others might piece some evidence together, and others (such as you or I) then need to decide if the evidence fits the facts. That is what a lawyer does. He lays out the facts, makes his argument, and lets the jury decide. It is a mistake to consider the lawyer the source of the facts. It is also a mistake (for either side) to not look at how the lawyer might be spinning the facts to best fit his case.
Would it be clearer if I said give me an "original" source? Give me the actual evidence that Bush's goal was to invade Iraq and 9-11 was merely a convenient opportunity?
Jim in Iowa
Clarification (I hate it when I get a phone call while writing a reply!):
"evidence fits the facts" should read "conclusion fits the facts."
You get the idea.
Jim in Iowa
Wasn't Woodward himself privvy to some of these conversations that he writes about in his book?
For crying out loud, I've seen nobody disparage this guy about what he did before this book, and, truth be told, I still haven't seen alot of complaining about him after the book - the Repubs just prefer to ignore it altogether.
But you guys are never happy. You want credible sources? I could provide them, but you want more, or you want other sources, or the sources I provide aren't credible enough for you.
Case in point - the bs surrounding Bush's guard records. People that are supposedly credible sources are, essentially, being called liars by anybody in the Bush Admin because they're not falling in line.
"To use your logic, police who raid the house of a convicted drug dealer and kidnapper, who suspect he again is doing the same, are criminals violating the rights of an individual."
You aren't very intelligent Jim in Iowa...
Police need a warrant for which they must show JUST CAUSE to do that AND last I checked Iraq is NOT part of the US and therefore NOT subject to American laws. America attacked the sovreign nation of Iraq and removed its leader because Bush didn't like him.
Hopefully you'll be so understanding next time the terrorists attack American soil because they don't like us... You did like the way terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, didn't you?
Craig,
I will try to find a copy of Woodward's book. My undestanding is that he quotes a lot of sources, but that there is no "smoking gun." About Bush. In other words, there are some people who think Bush had a mad obsession to invade Iraq, but that is a subjective opinion, not one based on something Bush actually said to them.
I get your point and honestly am not trying to ignore what you are saying just because it pokes a hole in my belief about Bush. However, for a variety of reasons, I believe Bush is being honest in what he says. As I read these posts and others, I find that ones belief about Bush greatly influences how you interpret the facts.
When looked at in context, and taking what Bush actually said at face value, his attack on Iraq does make sense as part of his war on terror. I've said before that I can understand disagreement on whether this was the best option. I have moments of doubt. But it is pointless to demonize Bush by applying evil motives to his actions when the facts just don't prove that to be true (at least in my opinion).
Regarding the National Guard stuff, the truth is that for 5 out of his 5 1/2 years, Bush served well (go to this link for a good summary of his time in the National Guard: http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx ).
There is a lot of focus on 6 months. For the sake of argument, let's say Bush was a major slacker and got away with something. Would I be upset that he is now avoiding telling the truth about it? Of course. But I find it ironic that the same people who gave Clinton a pass for avoiding telling the truth about Monica are the ones focusing on 6 months of Bush's service.
For the record, I think the truth is in between. He did not go AWOL, but I suspect he did (as did many at the time) use the opportunity to his advantage. The question is, what does that matter today? In reality, absolutely nothing. He did serve his time (as the linked article shows) and he did get an honorable discharge. He was probably not the best example, but that is true by his own admission. (There is a clear contrast in how Bush and Kerry portray their pasts. Bush may downplay his indiscretions, but he does not treat them as points of honor.)
Jim in Iowa
Bladestar wrote:
"You aren't very intelligent Jim in Iowa...
"Police need a warrant for which they must show JUST CAUSE to do that AND last I checked Iraq is NOT part of the US and therefore NOT subject to American laws. America attacked the sovreign nation of Iraq and removed its leader because Bush didn't like him.
"Hopefully you'll be so understanding next time the terrorists attack American soil because they don't like us... You did like the way terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center, didn't you?"
I am sorry if you are unable to understand what an analogy is. It is a comparison. But if you need it spelled out, here it is:
The United Nations, in essence, gave numerous search warrants. They passed article after article condemning what Sadaam was actively doing. Go live in your own little fantasy world if you want, but we did not invade because little Georgie Bush got his feelings hurt by what Sadaam did to his dad and decided to go attack him because he did not like him.
I noticed that you have continued to ignore my point about the truth about Iraq and Sadaam. Do you wish Sadaam was still in power? Do you feel he was a good man? Was Iraq a good place to live before we invaded? I have no problem with those who believe there was a better solution to the problem. I have no time for someone who offers no solution to the problem Iraq presented.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa:
>I noticed that you have continued to ignore my point about the truth about Iraq and Sadaam. Do you wish Sadaam was still in power? Do you feel he was a good man? Was Iraq a good place to live before we invaded?
It wasn't necessarily a good place to live, but the neighborhood certainly has gone to hell since W moved in. Add to that the terrorists that moved in and became active as soon as it became an obvious free-for-all.
>I have no problem with those who believe there was a better solution to the problem. I have no time for someone who offers no solution to the problem Iraq presented.
I've always been doubtful as to any real possibility of democracy in a nation where its religious have more power than any political leader, but there are other options that may not immediately smack as "the right way" for Americans.
While it has become an unwinnable mess with our current actions, I remain convinced that with new leadership in our country and mended International ties, Iraq can be turned around.
Fred
What Saddam did in Iraq is MEANINGLESS to me. I don't live in Iraq, I don't live near Iraq, I don't do business with Iraq. Iraq wasn't bothering anyone, they tried that with Kuwait over a decade ago and a true coalition of nations put them in their place.
George Bush is a rogue with no respect for the sovreignty of other nations. Remember that when other nations start treating the US like the unstable vigilante it's "leader" is. God know Bush doesn't lead by example...
What Saddam did in Iraq is MEANINGLESS to me. I don't live in Iraq, I don't live near Iraq, I don't do business with Iraq. Iraq wasn't bothering anyone,
The men, women and children who were tortured at the hands of Saddam and his sons might disagree on how much Iraq wasn't bothering them - or did you miss the story about the men from Iraq who just got replacement hands after being freed from Saddam's torture cells.
But, hey, Saddam was contained, right?
But I find it ironic that the same people who gave Clinton a pass for avoiding telling the truth about Monica are the ones focusing on 6 months of Bush's service.
Clinton eventually told the truth though, didn't he?
Bush has yet to do that, and likely never will - he'd prefer to "stay the course" regardless of the madness.
There's a point where he needs to just come forth and say "Yes, we fucked up with Iraq." I'm not the first person to suggest that on this forum, but obviously it needs mentioned again.
About the only thing he's said is that we've "misunderestimated". ;)
But, hey, Saddam was contained, right?
Another weapons inspection report is coming, and if the article I read was forthright, the report says, once again, that Saddam had no WMD.
However, it does say he intended to rebuild them at some point if he could. But this is merely a case of woulda/coulda/shoulda. No guarantees.
The fact remains that bin Laden was and still is our #1 threat, yet he went from important, to "no longer important" to the fact that he hasn't been mentioned again in awhile.
We've totally blown what we needed to do in Afghanistan, and we're blowing it again in Iraq.
What the flying fark is next?
Maybe the best democratic commercial of all is one made with John Kerry's own voting record and his own statements to the press. The Kerry on Iraq documentary shows that we can not trust John Kerry to even remember where he stands on issues, much less lead our country. He can't even show up for important votes in the Senate, so how do we trust him to be there when our country would need him if he were President.
How can even a die hard democrat view this video and not be disgusted with their choice for the person running on the democratic ticket for President.
I'm flabergasted.
btw ~ I still think it's hilarious that he slams Bush for not pushing Congress to renew the ban on assault weapons when he as a member of said Congress could have and more importantly should have done the same.
Novafan
Bladestar wrote: You aren't very intelligent Jim in Iowa...Police need a warrant for which they must show JUST CAUSE to do that AND last I checked Iraq is NOT part of the US and therefore NOT subject to American laws. America attacked the sovreign nation of Iraq and removed its leader because Bush didn't like him.
At least he can spell "sovereign." And he can comprehend metaphors and similes. Maybe you should pass 9th grade English before you disparage someone else's acumen.
What Saddam did in Iraq is MEANINGLESS to me. I don't live in Iraq, I don't live near Iraq, I don't do business with Iraq. Iraq wasn't bothering anyone, they tried that with Kuwait over a decade ago and a true coalition of nations put them in their place.
What was it that someone else on here said to me? Ah yes: Unless you're in Iraq risking having your ass shot off, It's easy to say that you can live with the lies that led into this war. Same idea different way around: As long as you're not in Iraq being tortured, it's easy to say what Saddam did in Iraq is meaningless to you. I was opposed to the war for similar reasons: I didn't think liberating Iraq was worth the political and human capital (for "human capital" read: "dead American soldiers") it would take to accomplish that feat. Morally, Bush's position is easier to justify than mine: there's no ethical ground for believing that 1000 American lives are worth more than 25 million Iraqis. Had I been President I would have made the less moral choice of leaving Saddam in Iraq. Had I, or anyone but George Bush, been President there would be another brutal despotism in the world today than there is now. US prestige would be higher and Bladestar would be happier (or at least vituperatively angry over other things) but I can't say Bush made the wrong choice morally. From a standpoint of realpolitik it's not the decision I would have made, but that may just mean that Bush is a better person than I am.
R. Maheras,
I think my opinion was plainly obvious. Did you read my post? oh, guess not since you made that stupid statment. Do you think I would post that list if I LIKED bush?? I could careless what you think is "thoughtful" or not. I posted it for people to read, If you don't want to read it, then don't. Do what most people do on long feedback post like this...skip a few instead of shooting off at the mouth like your views are the only ones that matter.
" No one can tell me how these policies have made their lives better, but the keep defending all these poor choices. Do you have any insight? Does anyone?
"
I think it's because when you see Bush and hear him talk, especially informally, he comes across as the kind of guy that you could sit down and have a beer with, the kind of guy you could go fishing with, a regular Joe, without complicated airs.
For some reason he has this in his favor and so is able to make folks feel comfortable. Its' an intangible, but it does help to explain why he keeps getting away with what he does and nothing seems to stick. I'll bet John Gotti was just like that.....
So, which one of you "proud" Dimocrats are proud of this:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040917-010155-8041r.htm
Democrats accused of ripping Bush signs
By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A West Virginia man said yesterday that Democrats stole his family's Bush-Cheney campaign signs at an event featuring Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.
"They just pounced on us," said Phil Parlock, who took his 11-year-old son, Alex, and 3-year-old daughter, Sophia, to the Democratic rally at Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va.
Sophia became briefly famous yesterday when an Associated Press photo showing her in tears after Democrats tore her sign to pieces was posted on Matt Drudge's Web site, www.drudgereport.com.
"She was crying; they were pushing and shoving her," said Mr. Parlock, a Huntington real estate agent. "She was scared."
Sophia is the youngest of 10 children in a proudly patriotic family. The oldest two Parlock children, a 22-year-old daughter and a 21-year-old son, are members of the West Virginia Army National Guard, and a third Parlock — who recently turned 18 — will be sworn into the guard tomorrow, Mr. Parlock said.
The Parlocks went to Mr. Edwards' airport rally yesterday "to support the president," Mr. Parlock said, and brought nine Bush-Cheney signs with them.
"We stood there quietly while Senator Edwards went through the receiving line," he said. Then, as the North Carolina Democrat prepared to leave, Mr. Parlock said, "I took out a few Bush-Cheney signs, gave one to Alex, and Sophia and I held up one jointly."
Immediately, he said, the family was set upon by supporters of Mr. Edwards and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry — "mostly the painters union guys" — who "started stealing my signs." Soon, "old women and college students joined in the fracas," said Mr. Parlock, describing himself as "strictly a volunteer, grass-roots supporter" of the president. Mr. Parlock ran unsuccessfully for his local school board this year.
After the family returned home from the rally yesterday, he said, a friend called to tell him about the AP photo on the Drudge site. "In the picture, you can see one of the painters union guys has a piece of one of my signs in his hand."
A call to the Kerry-Edwards campaign last night was not returned.
Anti-war demonstrators have complained in recent weeks that they have been manhandled by security agents at Bush-Cheney campaign events.
-------------
Yep, gotta to be a moving moment. Sheesh, 3 year old baby girls and what's this accused crap?! You can see a Dim thug on the left (in the drudge.com picture) with pieces still in his hands! Yeah, GWB is Hitler, man-handling ADULT protestors, so what does that make Kerry and his supporters? Satan and the minions of hell? GWB doesn't have to defeat Kerry, all he has to do is let you guys keep up the "good" work...
So, which one of you "proud" Dimocrats are proud of this:
Good lord, nobody ever said we're proud of this stupidity on either side of the political Great Wall.
I'd think you'd have to be a friggin moron to be proud of it. Or to assume that others are proud of it.
Dimocrat? My ass. You sure put the "con" in conservative.
James wrote:
"I think my opinion was plainly obvious. Did you read my post? oh, guess not since you made that stupid statment. Do you think I would post that list if I LIKED bush?? I could careless what you think is "thoughtful" or not. I posted it for people to read, If you don't want to read it, then don't. Do what most people do on long feedback post like this...skip a few instead of shooting off at the mouth like your views are the only ones that matter."
Thanks for reminding me why I became a non-aligned voter. Is it any wonder that independent voters are feeling more and more alienated by the Democrats these days?
If you go back and re-read my posts, you'd see that I didn't criticize your viewpoint at all. I just said it was inconsiderate (not to mention illegal), to take a huge copyrighted article belonging to someone else, and then slap it into a blog belonging to someone else, when a simple summary of your opinion and link to the article would have sufficed.
I was just asking how you felt about thugs that attack children and are part of a labor union that officially endorse the candidate. Nice to see your answer was balanced and not hysterical nor insulting. Hmmmm, well, I feel so bad, I put the con in conservative, yet my side doesn't have a self-admitted war crimal running for prez, my side doesn't have a man that left a girl to drown in a river nor several former Klansmen that never apologizied or anything. Wow, I want to be a Dimcrat! I could be a baby-burner, a murderer and a racist and get away with it!!! Man, if I was you, I would be very proud Craig, those thugs were just following the fine example put out by the Dimocratic Nazi Party...
Ok Carl, settle down. You can't call people "dimocrats" and then get insulted when they fire back. And while the Dems do have a pretty good rogue's gallery you can't think that there are plenty of Republicans that don't bring disgrace to the name of carbon based life forms as well.
Kennedy and Byrd aren't running.
It should also be noted that the president of the union members who tore the little girl's sign down issued the following statement (nice to see someone who doesn't act like a weasle in this kind of situation)
"The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades believes in the fundamental right for civil discourse, freedom of speech and activism to support our candidates and issues."
"What happened in Huntington, West Virginia yesterday is an affront to everything we, as a union, pride ourselves to represent. We extend our apologies to the Parlock family, especially Sophia, for the distress one of our overzealous members caused them."
"I have personally taken steps to address this issue internally, and will take immediate disciplinary action to the fullest extent allowed under U.S. Department of Labor regulations and the constitution of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades."
"It is my hope that this incident reminds all of our members that every last citizen in this country has the right to express his or herself freely. Not one single one of us has the right to tell them otherwise."
Ok Carl, settle down. You can't call people "dimocrats" and then get insulted when they fire back
Thank you, Bill. I was going to say the same thing in reply.
Man, if I was you, I would be very proud Craig, those thugs were just following the fine example put out by the Dimocratic Nazi Party...
Actually, most people agree that the Nazis were right-wingers, not left-wingers, which would put them on the same side as the Republicans.
Make of that what you will.
Jim In Iowa,
First off, thanks for the comment, and for not insulting me for that little mistake. Some people on the internet forget that little bit of courtesy.
My main reason to post the definition of the noun is that a LIAR, is defined (By M-W) as someone who tells lies. Which I neglected to mention (sorry, that was my fault, I wasn't thinking straight). I did it also to note that it is a lie wether it was intentional or not.
I would still say that it would fall into your posted definition of lie as a verb as well. He did mislead (I believe, and I could easily be wrong about this because I never looked into it, that he was briefed before the state of the union and recommended to take that section out because their were doubts on the intel. If someone could verify that for me one way or the other I would appreciate it. If that were true it makes it much more dubious, if its false then it was a simple error and more easily forgiven).
On the apology note, I understand it would be political suicide to come out and take that hit. I am not saying I expected it, I am saying I would have respected it. As it was he didn't do it, politically a smart move. I am not going to harp on him about it, and it isn't the reason I am not going to vote for him. I just wanted to 'vocalize' my little pipe dream where we have politicians who accept blame rather than spin it. This isn't saying I think anyone currently running would do that, so don't take this as an endorsement for one candidate over another.
I am not voting for Bush simply because I think he is the wrong person for the job this next term. I still haven't made up my mind if there is a right person out there yet. However, my decision won't be made on catchy taglines.
Complete Side Note: Around here there are some Bush/Cheney '04 Signs. I really liked them, graphically speaking. They make my drive time a little more colorful, if nothing else.
Is Bush a liar?
Well, he's a politician isn't he?
As far as I'm concerned, a polician lying is just like a dog licking its genitals in public. It's just what they do.
And yes, that goes for Kerry, too.
"Actually, most people agree that the Nazis were right-wingers, not left-wingers, which would put them on the same side as the Republicans."
There's a number of problems with this statement. For starters one can quibble over whether or not "most people" is true and, if so, whetther that matters. If most people vote for Bush, believe in Creationism, or make WifeSwap the TV hit of the year, I don't think that will matter much to you.
Second. the nazis were socialists, so right wingers, who tend to be pretty nati-socialist can effectively disavow them.
Thirdly, using this logic, one could counter with the equally vaid (which is to say, not at all) statement that "Actually, most people agree that the communists were left-wingers, not right-wingers, which would put them on the same side as the Democrats."
In neither case has a good argument been advanced.
Actually, most people agree that the Nazis were right-wingers
Not that it would make any difference in your opinion, but actually they were fascists. They believed in a strong one party government.
I think I can honestly say that most right wingers actually have a high distrust of government.
And Bill, I think the socialism in "Nazi" was more for public consumption than for truth. Although, most of the party rank and file believed fervently in it.
[quote]Zeek writes:
"Over 1000 dead? Uh it was way above 1000 after the Towers fell."
Wow, and the Red Sox haven't won the World Series yet. Which has exactly as much to do with 9/11 or the war in Iraq as they have to do with one another: Nothing at all.[/quote]
Ah. I was just lumping them all together as "Americans". That was "my bad" for ignoring PAD's stats.
..back to your regualarly scheduled rude-ness everyone...
"What Saddam did in Iraq is MEANINGLESS to me. I don't live in Iraq, I don't live near Iraq, I don't do business with Iraq. Iraq wasn't bothering anyone, they tried that with Kuwait over a decade ago and a true coalition of nations put them in their place.
George Bush is a rogue with no respect for the sovreignty of other nations. Remember that when other nations start treating the US like the unstable vigilante it's 'leader' is. God know Bush doesn't lead by example..."
Let me put this simply for you.
Iraq has not been a sovereign nation for over ten years. As you put it, a coalition removed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Iraq was not merely boxed in; no-fly zones were instituted in their air-space; the Iraqi government was forced to allow inspectors from the United Nations to poke around Iraqi facilities. Iraq was beaten. Governmental entities from outside of Iraq dictated terms and allowances for actions within Iraq and Saddan's regime took it. President Clinton ordered missiles fired into Iraq... and Saddam didn't even have any say...
Iraq hardly has the qualities of a sovereign nation.
So you're saying America like to victimize the helpless too? America does have the bully mind set down pat
Jim L:
Trying to dismiss unfavourable facts as opinion is a good tactic, but futile.
In the U.S. there are no sins that are unforgivable. It is not a case of “this is wrong, I won’t support it” it is really a case of “support my party/candidate regardless of what they do”
The fact that Bill Clinton lied about his blowjob really had no effect upon my life. I didn’t lose my job, my neighbourhood didn’t become scary, hell it didn’t even inspire my wife (sooooo kidding on that one!:)
The fact that Anti-U.S. sentiment is stronger then ever is not an opinion. While America has always had to face some “hey you’re starting to bug us” feelings because, as Lewis Black put it, standing up and loudly proclaiming that America is the best Country on the face of the Earth to all of the other countries is obnoxious behaviour.
Having Middle-Eastern countries hate you is in my book, not so bad. Having peaceful countries starting to think that the U.S. is becoming a bully (instead of just obnoxious) is not something to be proud of. It is amazing how much feelings of sympathy & wanting to support the U.S. have changed because of Bush and his actions.
If the good of your country or even just the good of your Republican party mattered to you then you would be outraged that Bush is president and was nominated for presidency instead of more worthy republican candidates such as John McCain.
It works this way for the other side too. There were far better candidates then Al Gore last time and better candidates then John Kerry this time, but the American people care more about supporting their party then the good of their own country.
Admit it, some part of you probably wants to try to defend Nixon too. Why? Because he was a Republican.
TheWorse lie a president could ever make? A lie about his personal life, which is of course, not many people’s business. Why? Because he was a Democrat.
Bush2 in a best case scenario was extremely misinformed and committed America to war for untrue/inaccurate reasons, worse case scenario he lied about the reasons to invade. You’ll continue to support him though because Bush is a Republican.
Historically speaking:
How well does the Republican look on the issue of abolishing slavery and racism?
How well does the Republican look on the side of civil rights?
How much was the budget surplus under Reagan? Bush? Bush2?
How well was the economy doing under George Bush? Didn’t the “are you better off now then you were 4 years ago” question come back to haunt him? Wouldn’t that question hurt Bush2 as well?
How will history view Bush2’s presidency?
He didn’t win the popular vote and his Electoral College victory is mired in controversy, his first term has brought record deficits, higher unemployment, & increased anti U.S. sentiment. He has not made capturing Ossama Bin Laden the number one priority as he promised he would, it clearly falls way behind invading Iraq.
The way Bush2 is going he has the potential to end up as much of an embarrassment to the Republican party as Nixon was/is.
Yet republicans support him blindly.
ATTENTION CARL and other interested parties.
Go to this link
http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2004/09/bogus-assault-father-freeper-of-year.html
and you will discover that this is not the first time that this man has been "accosted" at a Democratic rally. It is the third time in the last three elections.
I think he should be arrested for child endangerment. He knew that he was there to cause a scene and to get anti-Democratic publicity. By putting his three-year-old daughter in that situation, he had reasonable knowledge that his daughter could get hurt.
Shame on him. Bad parenting.
Actually, most people agree that the Nazis were right-wingers, not left-wingers, which would put them on the same side as the Republicans.
Make of that what you will.
Sorry that you don't know your history, li'l amigos. Nazi is short for "National Socialist", a leftist form of fascism. But I am not surprised. And I am sorry, I have been spelling it Dimocrat since you boobs built an altar to the draft-dodging scum, Bill Judas Clinton.
And so sorry again guys, those asses are already in office doing damage to their states and this country, they don't need to run. Oh well, like the Native Americans used to say, you can judge a person by his enemies. Still waiting for those worthies to show up. Thanks for trying...
Yes, it is a shame, a child with his parent can't be safe from Democratic assholes at a political rally. I swear to God if I took my daughters to a political event were my rights are guar-damned-tee'd by the 1st Amendment and some bastard attacked my child, I would be responsible for that sumbitch's condition afterwards. Man, defending a person that made a 3 year old cry and then blaming her father. I am ashamed that such "Americans" exist...
It is true that John Kerry has not defined his plan to withdraw the troops from Iraq.
It is also true that Bush *has* defined his plan to get the troops out of Iraq.
5 to 10 a week in caskets.
Carl
Make your point, express your viewpoint, but stop calling people names.
Your arguments lose all there power when you are insulting others.
And I repeat, this so-called father deliberately put his daughter in a situation that he knew from past happenings could get out of hand. That is simply wrong and probably is criminal.
I said: "Your arguments lose all there power when you are insulting others."
I meant to type 'their', not 'there'.
This is frightening:
*Historically speaking:
How well does the Republican look on the issue of abolishing slavery and racism?
How well does the Republican look on the side of civil rights?
How much was the budget surplus under Reagan? Bush? Bush2?
How well was the economy doing under George Bush? Didn’t the “are you better off now then you were 4 years ago” question come back to haunt him? Wouldn’t that question hurt Bush2 as well?*
The Democrats were the party of slave owners and plantations. Look it up.
The Republicans were the party of "Lincoln The Emancipator" (sp?) and abolitionists, look it up.
The Republicans cast the votes the past the Civil Rights laws, many Democrats voted against including Lil Algore's daddy, Al Senior.
The Reagan economy set records and it was a booming time. It ended when George H tried to get along with Dems and raised our taxes. And then GWB was left with the Clinton resession and Clinton's "surplus" was our over-taxes that he himself admitted in a speech, remember?
I am way better off then I was just 3 years ago, I thought America might be under daily attacks like Israel and my family and I living up in the woods or something. Now the economy is coming back, unemployment rates just dropped again and there's hope, unless you listen to Democrats trying to voodoo us back to the Depression. Go out, read something besides the Democratic Talking Points/Lies and learn some history too, jeez...
Also, Carl, I don't understand how you can have so much hatred and vileness in your heart.
I hope someday that you can find the Lord and find some peace in your heart and soul.
Be well.
I'm sorry, until Mr. David tells me different, I assume I have full freedom of speech here. I am trying to control my anger but to blame a father for thinking he had the same freedom not to be attacked and attend any open venue is just wrong and you know it. And might I ask whom put you in charge, did I miss the word MOD behind your name Alan? If so, please enlighten me so might understand your position of power over my speech...
Mr. Coil, your side calls GWB "Hitler" and "liar" and says he was an AWOL deserter from the NG and worse. I have anger at that, but not hate nor vileness, where you got that I have no clue? Is that what you say when people call you on what you said? Goodness me then, I wish you luck and peace in the future too 'cause when GWB wins another term I fear for your and other Democrats's well mental being. Adios and be well also...
Obviously, Carl, I have no power over you or your speech. If I did, you would have been stifled a long time ago. I was merely trying to point out that politely stating your point makes your viewpoint more likely to be accepted by others.
I stand by my point. The father is a criminal. His three-year-old daughter was put in danger by his actions. Reckless endangerment, in my opinion.
I am done posting in this thread. Peace, my brother.
Okay, but he took his kids to a political rally and was there peacefully minding his own business. I read the "blame-the-father" article before you posted it via Michelle Malkin's site earlier today. And I sure don't know where you get off on saying an American apparently can't take himself and his family to anything period and then blame *HIM* for his and his civil rights being violated. Doesn't matter how much or if this has happened before, perhaps you should look at who is doing the attacking? All right, if you want to quit this thread, fine by me, I support your rights as a fellow American to do, say and go anyplace and express your freedoms. Oh yes, thanks for your patience, I feel much better now knowing you are out there with your level-headedness (hmmm, is that a word?). Good night, be well...
"And I repeat, this so-called father deliberately put his daughter in a situation that he knew from past happenings could get out of hand. That is simply wrong and probably is criminal."
Whoa whoa whoa, Alan. You CAN'T believe this! Go help us all if it gets to the point where it is CRIMINAL to take one's kids to a political event because we all KNOW that the other side is going to assault any dissent.
Even if the guy suspected that something like this might happen, this is a far greater condemnation of the state of the Democrat party than of his parenting skills.
And in the ineterst of fairness, I was also appalled by an earlier photo that showed a republican pulling on the hair of a protestor as she was taken out of a meeting. There is NO excuse for this level of violence. It's also stupid beyond all belief.
You're right Bill, taking kids to a political rally where you expect trouble from the opposition is a lot like bringing civilians to military targets to try to block them from bombs and missles....
Obviously, Carl, I have no power over you or your speech. If I did, you would have been stifled a long time ago.
I'm confused now. I thought we were supposed to be the Nazis. Guess not.
I stand by my point. The father is a criminal. His three-year-old daughter was put in danger by his actions. Reckless endangerment, in my opinion.
There is a difference between your opinion and truth. My state doesn't happen to have a reckless endangerment statute, but the definition of the offense, where it exists, is reckless behavior that creates a substantial risk of injury or death to another person. There are two hurdles to prosecuting the father. First, there is an "intervening wrongdoer" doctrine: a person can't be prosecuted because another person committed a criminal assault, even if the first person did something to make that assault possible. (Specific child endangerment laws, which do apply to a parent letting someone else commit a crime against his child, apply to abuse and neglect, not to some guy on the street assaulting the child.) The second is that there wasn't a serious risk of injury or death to the child, so that even if you believe (wrongly) that he violated part of the statute by being reckless in taking the child there, that recklessness doesn't rise to the level of a crime.
I think we can all agree that he shouldn't have taken a 3 year old to a protest, but that's a different issue. Personally, I find all protests such as this boorish. I didn't like the protests outside the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and I think it's obnoxious for Republicans and Democrats to turn up at each other's rallies. Interfering with one's opponent's attempts to get his message out is Mr Coil's approach, not mine.
Whoa whoa whoa, Alan. You CAN'T believe this! Go help us all if it gets to the point where it is CRIMINAL to take one's kids to a political event because we all KNOW that the other side is going to assault any dissent.
And if it's true that this guy has distrupted events in the past?
I for one think that is one damn good script for a commercial, really makes ya think... and can it be any worse than Bush using 9/11 footage to further his own attempt at another term? I don't believe so.
"And if it's true that this guy has distrupted events in the past?"
I'll make this simple. Holding a sign is not a disruption. You have the right to go to the next Dick Cheney event and hold a Kerry sign. If anyone tears it down, hits you or tackles you to the ground, they should be arrested. YOU, on the other hand, have the right to go to the next event. And the next. And the next.
Good God, do you think that Republicans had the RIGHT to attack any of the protestors holding signs in New York?
And I'll say it again. This. Is. Idiotic. It doesn't LOOK good when you grab a little girl's sign. It isn't smart. It makes your candidate look bad.
None of this occurred to the dopey ape that did it--the picture shows him grinning like schoolyard bully who has just jerked the chair out from behind the kid in health class with Down's Syndrome. Don't defend him. The union boss wrote a great letter condemning the whole thing and apologizing. That's class but his efforts will probably get lost in the whole "circle the wagons, we can admit no wrong" attitude of those who would try to blame the father.
Did the guy KNOW that he and his kids would be attacked? Maybe, but if so, isn't that a bit worrisome for the Democrats? Thuggery is the refuge of those who see no other path to victory.
Good God, do you think that Republicans had the RIGHT to attack any of the protestors holding signs in New York?
No, but you obviously missed my point (no surprise).
If this has disrupted events in the past, there remains the possiblity that he would do it again. And he had his 3 year old.
Again, bad parent.
Your right, Craig, you can't count on the Democrats to not rip the sign out a 3 year old girl's hands and think it is funny. He shouldn't have expected mature people out supporting Kerry/Edwards that day. What was he thinking? Bad parent.
Thank you to Alan and Craig for putting a political spin on the "she was asking for it" rapist defense.
Welp, I can't improve on the last few posts except to say, yep, what were they thinking? That they had this:
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Guess that was their mistake thinking they lived in America and that Democrats shared our belief in the rights of all people...
Thank you to Alan and Craig for putting a political spin on the "she was asking for it" rapist defense.
That's the second comment I've read on two boards saying this exact thing.
And I'll say the same thing I said on another board: don't put words in my mouth, because that argument is a crock.
If anything, it rape offense - Kobe screwed that girl knowing the risks, and ignoring them. It's his own damn fault that he was accused of rape. If he didn't want to be accused, he shouldn't go cheating on his wife (more than once, possibly).
That idiot took his kid to a rally and he's caused trouble in the past, and could have caused trouble again, so he knew the risks and ignored them.
A bit off topic, but as long as the subject of "rapist defense" has come up, let's assume that yo9u're on trial for rape. You didn't do it, but the woman insists it was you. She even picked you out of a line-up. Why would she lie? Further, there's no dependable DNA evidence to prove your innocence or guilt, and you have no alibi save being home asleep by yourself.
The newspapers have plastered your picture all over the front page along with your name and address. And your lawyer tells you that it looks like the jury might come back with a guilty verdict unless you can make the girl look like a slut or a flake. What do you do?
What do you do?
I think the problem stems from the fact that, even if it isn't a "he said, she said" case, like with Kobe Bryant, the defense will try and make the victom out to be a 2-bit whore.
It's like that's the only case they've got.
Why can't I just vote for Bush because I think Kerry is not trustworthy? Because I agree with his policies, and because we need to be stomping the guts out of terrorists? Some people think I'm WRONG because I agree with him. I think YOU'RE wrong and the proof of it has been coming out this week. Two more beheadings by these madmen!
And some of you simps say, "That wouldn't happen if we hadn't gone to war there." I would have to work hard to find a more naive idea. Actually I wouldn't- I can get it from John Kerry's campaign speeches about how he will get help from our allies to combat terrorism. I guess the 39 nations Bush organized isn't enough.
I hate to see American soldiers dead as much as anyone, but I don't want to see anymore terrorists attacks in the US. Funnily enough, I HAVEN'T in over three years now...
One more HUGE reason to vote for Bush!