| Author | Message | ||
     1-2many Citizen Username: Wbg69 Post Number: 782 Registered: 6-2002 |
giving credit where it's due? that's a loaded assertion, and full of assumptions. but, anyone who cares about human rights has to be happy Hussein was captured. the official pretense now that the US cared about those human rights violations, conveniently ignores that the list of Hussein's worst crimes is from a period when he had FULL US SUPPORT. it is morbidly dishonest to pretend now that that was the US concern in acting when it did. it bears repeating, this was NOT the basis stated at the time. rather it has become the fall-back position, when the other bases just proved untrue. further, this capture, and indeed the invasion of Iraq to accomplish it, was a diversion from and morbid capitalization on Americans' sentiments about 9/11 - which, by the way, are skewed becaused they are based on misinformation. see, for example, polls listed at http://www.pipa.org/ further, this war on Hussein had been planned and was in the works since, what, 1998? after he stopped being someone who obeyed orders? 9/11 provided a shocking and unprecedented pretext to do something overt in the region, (something other than adhering the rule of law, I mean) and Hussein, being the true bad guy that he is, plus a post-9/11 thirst for vengeance, combine to provide a quasi-legitimate basis. all of this debate ignores the real issues, of the US' actions and omissions internationally. we have played in terrorist rings, many times. generally, we only fight those who can't fight back. sound familiar? and if a country or people do fight back, we express shock - as if WE wouldn't oppose an invasion, even one stated to be undertaken for our "own good". all the rhetoric and debate about Hussein is a distraction from the real point: that the US' (NOT the populations) hands are dirty. our questions should go to doing what we can to take the dirt off our hands, such as reparations, and keep it off by changing policy going forward. | ||
| lseltzer Citizen Username: Lseltzer Post Number: 2018 Registered: 5-2001 |
Today's Washington Post has an editorial that confirms every negative impression I have of Dean. The man is a two-faced, condescending cynic. Before too long most of the fools who supported him will wonder how they could have been so deceived. | ||
| 1-2many Citizen Username: Wbg69 Post Number: 784 Registered: 6-2002 |
this very biased, name-calling, not-too-substantive editorial ends with the phrase: "to rally the country behind him, he will have to describe more compellingly where he would lead it." um, yeah, like Bush has? if his story is more of the same, then no, Dean just has to be anyone other than Bush to get my vote. though a bona fide 3rd or 4th party candidate would be nice, too. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 533 Registered: 7-2003 |
3rd or fourth partys will hurt the dems. I'm voting for Bush but if you really want a change the other partys are not the way to go. | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 882 Registered: 6-2002 |
Mr. Seltzer: Whom do you prefer? Isn't two-faced cynicism a good strategy for getting elected? Wasn't the last totally honest presidential candidate Walter Mondale? | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 124 Registered: 6-2002 |
From Today's NY Times: "A C.E.O.'s skills are essentially the same, no matter the size of the company," Dr. Dean said. "Clearly, with the presidency, you've also got to deal with defense. But otherwise, the basic problems are the same and the difference is the number of zeroes in the budget." That may be understating the difference, even close supporters believe. "The governor's staff was maybe five or six people, plus clerical help, and only two or three of those are really close to you," said Dick Mazza, a veteran Vermont senator and an ally. "You have, what, one state police officer assigned to you? It's a lot different from being president of the United States." Makes you wonder..... Still waiting for good fact based reasons to support a dem, and waiting and waiting | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 884 Registered: 6-2002 |
Sylad: One fact: A Dem will not appoint judges who might reverse Roe v. Wade, but I don't know how you feel about that issue. | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 126 Registered: 6-2002 |
While he and even perhaps his supreme court appointee might not believe in it I don't think it will ever be overturned. Support it or not, and I do, R v W is here to stay. Is that issue enough alone not to vote for him? I know many people that did not vote for Bush in 2000 because of this issue and the Sunday after the election they ran to mass and opened their wallet for the catholic church...kind of strange. | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 885 Registered: 6-2002 |
Sylad: There are three or four members of the Supreme Court who would now vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, so why are you so sure it is here to stay? A second Bush administration would continue to weaken environmental protection and consumer protection and continue to be pro big business. It would continue to weaken the separation of church and state. It would not push the issue of health care coverage for all Americans. Despite campaign rhetoric, foreign policy and the War against terrorism would not be very different under a Democratic President. Almost all the Dem candidates substantially agree with Bush on those issues, and once elected, Presidents almost always adopt different foreign policies than the ones they campaigned on. Candidate Bush was totally opposed to "nation building" but that is exactly what he is doing in Iraq. Necessity and unforseen circumstances dictate foreign policy. | ||
| 1-2many Citizen Username: Wbg69 Post Number: 785 Registered: 6-2002 |
in fact, the war on terrorism had been totally primed for Bush by Clinton. Clinton spent more time and money on counter-terrorism than any other president. he left office with a fresh plan to implement, to continue that strategy. unfortunately, despite the early-2001 recommendations of former Clinton-cabinet members who were kept on by Bush, Bush took a vacation during his first 8 months in office. as we all know. 42% of his first 8 months, in fact, was spent on vacation. and we all know what happened the week after he came back. had Bush implemented the Democratic/Clinton plan to counter terrorism, there is a real chance that not only could 9/11 have been avoided, but the war on terrorism might have gone in a totally different direction, without the suffering and loss of life as has occurred since 9/11 in Afghanistan and in Iraq. surely, then, the Dems, any Dem, could easily pick up where Clinton left off, and do a FAR better job in the so-called war on terror, than Bush II has "done". beyond the war on terror, under Bush we have frightening rollback of protections of human life and the condition of human life - in favor of one thing: corporate profits. corporate profit motives are inherently at odds with the motives of the population: to preserve, if not enhance, human life. and NO ONE is more a slave to the corporate machine than Bush. for this reason alone, ANYONE BUT BUSH is a reasonable campaign slogan. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 213 Registered: 3-2003 |
Wow! 1too2many, you really have it nailed???? Tom: your 12/27 post @ 1040hrs is meaningless. It's from a President who sees more background noise on threats daily then you and I will see in a lifetime. Ever consider that a President's comments on OBL are a feint? I do. Meanwhile, OBL is looking over his shoulder more and more. especially since the mass genocidal killer has been captured. Wonder why the Orange alert was issued? Lybia! Among other info, Kaddafi's military chief, Kusa, is talking about bio-chem weapons AQ has. And he has identified several hundred AQ operatives. More islamic fanatics, then OBL, are looking over their shoulders and re-assessing plans. Is the threat reduced, no. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and now Lybia are in AQ's sights. Anyone of these countries taken over by AQ would set us back. The point of this is that a couple of comments posted by Tom miss the point. GWB said early on that this war would be long, and that we need to be patient. 1too2, you really need to visit some other countries and compare to us. 1too2many, you ain't very smart. ( I could make it rhyme, but Dave might object) | ||
| 1-2many Citizen Username: Wbg69 Post Number: 792 Registered: 6-2002 |
why would this war be long? there is no one there to really fight hard against us. there are no WMDs. the opposition has had its head cut off. so why is this such a "hard" war when we all know there is not and can be no organized retaliation? it's a horrific laugh that people can actually buy this Bush line. the answer is because the people oppose the US invasion. they don't have to have centralized operations to know and be angered enough to fight against, the same country that has economically strangled them for the past 12 years, and also directly and indirectly strengthened their most direct oppressor, Saddam Hussein. why not give the Iraqi people what they are demonstrating they want? why forcibly impose our will on them, at the cost of lives on both sides of the fence, and more human suffering on the Iraqi side? | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 230 Registered: 11-2003 |
Someone needs to go over to 1-2's place to help him out of his hole. The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 805 Registered: 5-2001  |
1-2many is making more sense than most of you. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 801 Registered: 10-2001 |
"had Bush implemented the Democratic/Clinton plan to counter terrorism, there is a real chance that not only could 9/11 have been avoided, but the war on terrorism might have gone in a totally different direction, without the suffering and loss of life as has occurred since 9/11 in Afghanistan and in Iraq." How can you say this with a straight face? It is arguable whether anyone could have prevented 9/11. It is way too easy to sit back on your fat ass now and say, "We should have done this. We could have done that." It is all meaningless now. Typical of people of your ilk looking to point the finger of blame rather than getting up, dusting yourself off and solving the problem. Its no wonder you despise your corporate job. I work with people like you all the time. They spend more time looking for someone to blame when the damage is already done and they should be looking for solutions. | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2518 Registered: 5-2001  |
1-2, You said, "NO ONE is more a slave to the corporate machine than Bush." Well, I have to disagree. I am pretty much a corporate slave, if I wasn't, I wouldn't have my home and way of life. Without it, Bush would still be rich, me, I would have nothing. Same with many, many other Americans, as well as people throughout the world. | ||
| Kenney Citizen Username: Kenney Post Number: 231 Registered: 11-2003 |
December 16, 1998 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said. "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said. "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton. Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. 'Without delay, diplomacy or warning' The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way. "Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said. The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering. Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in. "Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said. "In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained. Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors. Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years. "If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction." Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world. •Timeline •Maps •Where They Stand •Flashback 1991 •Forces in the Gulf •Bioweapons Explainer •Message Boards •UNSCOM Documents •Related Links "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said. Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces. Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House. "Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said. "But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so." You mean this Clinton/Democratic plan????? The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR.. Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W. Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W. Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 807 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nice job keeping the discussion friendly, Sportsnut. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 606 Registered: 8-2003 |
If Howard Dean can't pronounce the guilt of Osama....how could he credibly wage war against the Taliban and Al Qada in Afghanistan if they didn't possess some level of at least theoretical guilt? He's not a moron -- I have to disagree with the title of the thread. But his straight-talk express is not straight-talking. He's trying to make political calculations now, and it's tripping him up in the process. | ||
| 1-2many Citizen Username: Wbg69 Post Number: 794 Registered: 6-2002 |
I bring up Clinton's actions with respect to terrorism, and his then-future plans for dealing with it, because Bush walked in to a clean house, with a clear plan that should have been easy to implement and follow. or, instead of that, he could have come up with one of his own. he didn't; he decided to keep on some of Clinton's cabinet members, because they were so well-prepared and had good information to share. but rather than actually hearing out some of that information, and acting on ANY of it, or creating his own plan, he just put it off. he went on vacation. he went on vacation before he had really even been in the job. how many people here would be ballsy enough to take substantial vacation during the first 8 months on a new job? Bush took more than any other President in history, taking 42% of his first 8 months in office, on vacation. Clinton-terrorism-preparedness is an important fact in terms of comparing Dems and Reps for the upcoming election, and the frequent but very incorrect complaints that Clinton did nothing to prepare the administration and other appropriate gov't agencies. so this is why I bring up the issue, not to blame, though it certainly can look like blame when you realize there was something someone could have done. could he have prevented 9/11? who knows. probably not totally, but if people had been on alert, as some families of victims have pointed out, they would have gotten the hell out of those towers, IMMEDIATELY, rather than assuming the first hit was just an innocent accident. the same would be true for the Pentagon. so even assuming 9/11 wasn't predictable, it's a very real possibility that a lot less people would have died. in terms of where we go from here: Dems were certainly prepared in the Clinton admin. any Dem winner in 04 could hire members of Clinton's admin that worked on these preparations, and pick up where he left off - which was, it should be known, with a real expectation of terrorist activity on our own soil, and an accompanying, real plan of action. as for mem's observation: I agree with you. but I find it sad, and misguided - to the detriment of all of us. that's a whole other huge point entirely, for another thread. |
