The first sign should have been Ari Fleisher's resignation. If things were coming that were so bad that he couldn't find positive ways to spin them, that was a tip-off right there.
American soldiers are continuing to die and, at this rate, within a month or two more will have died since Bush declared fighting was over than before that point. The Iraqis who were supposed to have loved us are shooting at us while we pour billions into the new Vietnam. Saddam is just fine, thanks (as is bin Laden.) Deficits and unemployment are spiralling out of control. And it appears that the administration lied to the American people about matters of greater consequence than oral sex with an intern.
Am I happy about this? No. The wheels are coming off the wagon, the worldwide sympathy we had as a result of 9/11 is long-squandered, but hey...let's get right to work on trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. Thank heavens our priorities are in order.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at July 16, 2003 10:58 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingJam: Since when is dead US soldiers a partisan issue? Or that the current administration lied to place those soldiers in harm's way, let alone kill thousands of others in the process? Please enlighten.
Thanks for more partisan bullshit. Thanks a lot.
Funny how the same people who spent the economically successful Clinton years crowing over a man having *gasp* extramarital sex are now screaming "partisan" every time someone points out how badly the current administration is dropping the ball.
O.K. Peter, what would you do right now? Would you pull them out? Would you send more? Don't just say you wouldn't have sent them in, what would you do today if you were in charge?
Why are the reasonable explainations put forth by the administration just brushed aside?
The president didn't say that the fighting was over, just that the major military conflicts were behind us. Lone snipers in trees and four guys with machine guns do not make military engagements. On top of that, there is a significant, but not majority, segment of Iraqis that want us out, namely anyone who benefitted from the Baath administration, or about 35% of Iraqis. Clearly, not all Iraqis love us, and there are enough of them there to damage us. That doesn't make the president a liar.
And as for the nuclear weapons lie, it's unfortunate that it's all come down to those 12 words which were technically correct[1], but turned out to be based on faulty intel. It was always supposed to be about WMDs, chemical, biological and nuclear. I still believe, as does a good portion of the US, that Iraq has or recently had, WMDs that we needed to get rid of.
But, as Carville said, it's all about the economy. We're still paying for the excess of the 90s[2], but I think that we'll eventually catch up and regress towards the mean in the macro-evironment.
And I agree with you, the gay marriage thing is a useless argument, but I agree with the writer for the National Review Corner, that no one has thought about this hard enough. Here's the link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_07_13_corner-archive.asp#010869
If we allow for Gay Civil Unions, we must also allow lots of others, or we risk reverse discrimination.
Londo
[1] As the president said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Which is technically true, since the Brits did and do believe it. Turns out they are probably wrong.
[2] This isn't partisanship, in the 90s, we produced so much stuff, such as networking hardware, computer chips, automobiles, etc, that we still have to burn through the inventory before we get back to normal. The 90s showed overemployment so we're now faced with underemployment to compensate.
Wow! Open mind huh Jam?
Clinton was a moral blackhole yes, but his lies to the American people didn't result in people dying or millions of more people hating America. Yes his actions strenghtened the American stereotype that we're all a bunch of morally free sex-aholics. Oh, and Gore didn't spend his time with the CIA making sure whatever intelligence was collected agreed with what Clinton "knew for sure."
But wow? "Partisan" huh?
"Funny how the same people who spent the economically successful Clinton years crowing over a man having *gasp* extramarital sex are now screaming "partisan" every time someone points out how badly the current administration is dropping the ball." - Some Dimwit
Funny how people ASSUME (remember that old joke about ASS - U - ME) that because I would call PAD's obviously onesided comments partisan that I'm somehow a Republican.
Far from it, I think both sides of this 'debate' are equally retarded. Sean Hannity is as much a political dumbass as PAD is.
The use of the word partisan was purposeful, I think America's political system has been almost entirely corrupted by it's current two party system. Both parties are equally corrupt, and anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.
Just so happens PAD is a fool who can write comics I like.
As for dead US Soldiers, to be brutally honest, dying is part of a soldier's job. They knew what they were signing up for, one does not join the military thinking it's going to be all fun and games.
As for the Iraqis, I think the majority of them are better off now than they were a year ago.
That there's a few Saddam loyalists still fighting doesn't suprise me.
Tobin sez: "but [Clinton's] lies to the American people didn't result in people dying or millions of more people hating America"
True, but what his lies did do was lower the bar for what we expect from our Presidents forever more. Since we've now accepted that our president wont be truthful with us, there is little incentive for them to be so. While I agree that Clinton's untruths were more petty in nature, they were more of the gateway drug for the rest of the politicians to say, "let's see if I can get away with this..."
My mind IS open, that's why PAD's closed minded, onesided, political hack-isms bothers me.
This whole "Republicans are evil!" thing is just as silly as the right's "Democrats are the pawns of Satan!" thing.
Same difference, anyone who buys either side strikes me as a foolish sheep.
Can't call me partisan, I hate all politics equally. :)
The problem is that the U.S. forces are trying too hard. They insist on remaining in Iraq in force until electricity, water, medical systems, etc are in place, and meanwhile the bickering about how to best go about giving the Iraqis democracy drags on for months.
It's not the soldiers' presence that's the problem, it's the lack of action stateside that's causing Iraqi impatience. To them, it seems like they've gone from one military regime to another one, and their hope for finally getting a democratic government is waning.
Geez Peter, you're such a bitter, angry little man. God, I swear Matt Groening based the 'Comic Book Guy' after you.
...and this is why I hate politics:
It seems to be all about how to spin lies correctly to make them believable, and then, if the lie fails, make the 'other side' take the blame.
That all seems to phony to me.
As far as presidential "escapes" an argument could be made that it didn't start with Clinton, because there was the whole Iran-Contra thing with Reagan, but there was also Watergate.
I agree with you Londo. I think politicians as a whole rely on the voters having short-term memory. In Clinton's case I think it was the idea that if he could drag out the scandal long enough the people would eventually get apathetic towards the whole thing.
One of the reasons W's SotU sentence has not been dropped is becuase no WMDs (or evidence) have been found and soldiers keep dying. People are begining to ask whether we needed to go in like we did WHEN we did. Could we have waited a little longer and formed a better post-Saddam plan?
The only way democracy works is if the people can continually Question Authority. The Bush administration has been excellent, until recently, at soundly pounding on those throwing out the questions.
Tobin
"My mind IS open, that's why PAD's closed minded, onesided, political hack-isms bothers me."
Though Mr. David is a far better wordsmith than I and would have no trouble defending his stance, should he feel it worth the bother, I'll ask one little question:
Can you quote [verbatim, mind] where Mr. David specifically stated "All Republicans Bad, All Democrats Good"? Because, if he didn't, then your assertion of his being closed-minded and one-sided doesn't hold up, does it?
I only wish I could hold my [Canadian] head up proud, but our governments suck, too. Take the municipal government in Ottawa, where I am ...
A billionaire buys himself a shiny toy - the NHL's supposedly hottest franchise - well below market value, and has a world-class, spanking new venue practically given him (10 cents on the dollar or thereabouts) yet cries buckets because he has to pay taxes on these. "Oh, no", immediately respond the geniuses at City Hall, "We'll give you a 75% tax break on that."
And they wonder why they have trouble making ends meet come budget time? Who elects idiots such as these?
Boy PAD seems to have stirred up the hornet’s nest. Did anyone see Good Morning America today reportedly US Soldiers were openly complaining to the cameras about being stuck in Iraq for too long, not a good sign. The funny thing is that one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia, now if we have to abandon Iraq we might wind up without US troops in SA and Saddam back in charge of Iraq.
I must admit I agree with Peter on this one. The main question I ask myself is "Am I, and is this nation, in better shape now than it was four years ago?" My answer to that one is pretty obvious.
While I'm not a fan of either party, I like the Republican Party less. Bill Maher, I feel, said it best when he stated that "The Democratic Party is bought and owned by a slightly less scary set of special interest groups than the Republican Party is."
That said, of all the people who ran in the last election, I liked McCain the most. He had the political career and backgroup and war experience and a solid set of priorities and knowledge of the issues, but that can't compete these days against money and name recognition.
As for dead US Soldiers, to be brutally honest, dying is part of a soldier's job. They knew what they were signing up for, one does not join the military thinking it's going to be all fun and games. –Jay
Maybe so, but does that mean we should just accept their deaths as S.O.P. and not question whether or not those deaths could have been prevented? Yes, they're soldiers. But they're also Americans who believe they are fighting for their country and rightfully expect that they will not needlessly be put in harm's way. We just don't seem to be doing anything productive over there right now and my perception is that our soldiers (who are also fathers, mothers, sons and daughters) are dying for no good reason other than our president wrapping up a questionalble job his father left unfinished a decade ago. Meanwhile, we let North Korea do whatever the hell they want to do.
Whether you agree with Peter's comments or not, can you at least concede that some of us have good reason to feel frustrated and consider that maybe our current president is not acting completely in our best interests as a nation?
True, but what his lies did do was lower the bar for what we expect from our Presidents forever more. Since we've now accepted that our president wont be truthful with us, there is little incentive for them to be so.
I think Nixon had already accomplished that long before Clinton did.
Den sez: I think Nixon had already accomplished that long before Clinton did.
I would agree with you, had Nixon not resigned. But Nixon, who didn't go so far as to lie to a Grand Jury, realized that remaining in the office would make a mockery of both the position and himself, eventually did resign, which separates himself from those that followed.
I voted Republican for years. I was even registered Republican for a great number of years. However, thanks to the Bush family, unless the Democrats nominate a Hitler clone, I doubt I will ever vote Republican again. We were totally mislead and I just want the freaks out of office.
Presidental Lies
Ike was the first President to really get his chops busted over lying to the American people. The CIA assured Ike that Gary Powers would kill himself if shot down. So Ike denied spy flights over the USSR, when the Soviets produced a live Powers, Ike ate crow. That was a big deal in the 50s. In many ways I think the Powers episode set the stage for what would come later, LBJ in Vietnam, Nixon, Reagan & Iran-Contra.
"I must admit I agree with Peter on this one. The main question I ask myself is "Am I, and is this nation, in better shape now than it was four years ago?" My answer to that one is pretty obvious."
And what the !@#$%^ does the president have to do with that? In the last year I have lost my job due to the economy and have not nearly yet recovered. But I don't expect the government to somehow save me. It's up to me, no handouts. All the president can do is lobby to lower taxes and spending as much as possible, then get out of the way of the markets. Bush has done half of that (he's a little too Democrat spend-happy), which is much more than a democrat president would do.
And I love the comment about Peter D. as the Comic Book Guy, always speaking in absolutes. Can you picture his "Worst. Administration. EVER." about Bush?
A few points to consider (or not):
If Saddam did not have WMD, then his behavior prior to March must be considered the most irrational in world history. I think it is far more likely that the WMD were hidden or smuggled out of the country than that they never existed.
True, there are people in Iraq who don't like us. Some of them were supporters of Saddam. Some of them want to establish a theocracy. That those elements should be engaging in guerilla warfare should surprise no one. Anyone who ever thought this stage would be easy wasn't thinking it through. I certainly don't recall the President or anyone else saying it would be easy.
When Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky, he did it to defraud the judicial system. A lie about sex is highly relevant when being sued for sexual harrassment.
This leads to the statement about uranium. Assuming Saddam did not try to obtain uranium from African nations, and I am not willing to make that assumption yet, we still haven't established Bush's motive for saying they were. Did Bush honestly believe it was happening? Did he trust British intelligence in that matter? Was it a mistake, or was it a lie?
I don't see what Bush might have gained from lying about it. He already had Congressional authorization to act in Iraq, and I don't remember the statement being discussed between the SotU address and the war, to think it swayed public opinion in any detectable way.
If Saddam did not have WMD, then his behavior prior to March must be considered the most irrational in world history.
Do you mean behavior like letting the inspectors back in and allowing them to investigate suspected WMD sites or allowing the over flight of U2 spy planes?
I don't see what Bush might have gained from lying about it.
I have a little theory about this. It centers on the fact that for years many of us were taught that the USSR might drop nukes on us at any second. We grew up watching films of a-bomb tests, countless movies and at least two TV mini –series were built around the concept of nuclear war. IMHO the Administration wanted there to be a nuclear threat because for almost 60 years the American people were taught to fear the bomb above all. It has a psychological impact that chemical and bio weapons don’t.
I gotta chip in just to commend Londo. He's showing the conservative angle and the considered angle ain't mutually exclusive.
I don't ask that the President share my political views, just that he be _competent_ at the job.
Here's hoping John McCain somehow manges to usurp the nomination in '04.
The worst part of it PAD?
There isn't really any other better country out there. America has followed it's own political credo, America is the lesser of the world's evils.
Former Senator Gary Hart was on the Daily Show last night, and during his interview it was mentioned that President Bush would be spending $250,000,000 (a quarter of a billion!) on his re-election campaign. It is highly doubtful that any Democrat will be able to compete with that kind of backing. But since everyone knows it is the candidates stand on the issues that gets them elected, that shouldn't be a worry, should it?
Matt Wieringo said: "...can you at least concede that ... maybe our current president is not acting completely in our best interests as a nation?"
No, I cannot concede that, as I see no evidence to support such a claim. Since there are probably 350 million opinions on what's "best for our nation" I believe the president is considering all factors, and acting in what he and his advisors believe to be in our best interests.
In no way do I think he's acting against what he believes to be in our best interests, but I'd be interested in hearing why you'd think so.
Den sez: I think Nixon had already accomplished that long before Clinton did.
I would agree with you, had Nixon not resigned. But Nixon, who didn't go so far as to lie to a Grand Jury, realized that remaining in the office would make a mockery of both the position and himself, eventually did resign, which separates himself from those that followed.
By the time Nixon's lies were revealed, he hadn't been before a Grand Jury. If he had been and was asked about Watergate, I strongly suspect (based on his history of actions) he would have lied as facile as he'd done before. Praising a man for not committing a crime when he didn't have the opportunity to commit said crime really doesn't wash.
And resigning before you get fired is perhaps a tad more noble than getting fired, but not by much (especially if you know you will be pardoned which is what the strong concensus is).
Tackling same-sex marriages & everything else? It's called multi-tasking! ;)
O.K. Peter, what would you do right now? Would you pull them out? Would you send more? Don't just say you wouldn't have sent them in, what would you do today if you were in charge?
Sorry, but I'm not abiding by your curtailment of what I can or can't say. I wouldn't have sent them in.
PAD
My mind IS open, that's why PAD's closed minded, onesided, political hack-isms bothers me.
This whole "Republicans are evil!" thing is just as silly as the right's "Democrats are the pawns of Satan!" thing.
Same difference, anyone who buys either side strikes me as a foolish sheep.
I wonder why it is that some people feel the need to put quotation marks around things they themselves say and then attack that as if I said them. Seems a masturbatory way to go about things.
I don't know that Bush lied. I do believe that anyone who makes the claim that we had "darned good intelligence" is, at the very least, delusional.
PAD
From Sasha: Praising [RMN] for not committing a crime when he didn't have the opportunity to commit said crime really doesn't wash.
I am not Praising Nixon, nor do I consider him particularly noble. He committed a crime, tried to cover it up, when it was obvious that he was caught, he threw in the towel and resigned. Nothing really noble there. However, it did set the precedent that the president cannot committ a crime, and remain president for very long.
However, to committ a crime, be found guilty, and basically say, "So what you gonna do about it?!" Is in a different league in my thinking.
"I must admit I agree with Peter on this one. The main question I ask myself is "Am I, and is this nation, in better shape now than it was four years ago?" My answer to that one is pretty obvious."
And what the !@#$%^ does the president have to do with that? In the last year I have lost my job due to the economy and have not nearly yet recovered. But I don't expect the government to somehow save me. It's up to me, no handouts. All the president can do is lobby to lower taxes and spending as much as possible, then get out of the way of the markets. Bush has done half of that (he's a little too Democrat spend-happy), which is much more than a democrat president would do.
Since the president sets the agenda, the president is in no small part responsible for what happens to the country (and W has really had a strong and free hand in setting the agenda since 9/11). If the plans he sets into motion helps you find a job then great, but if his initiatives result in the disappearance of yet more jobs, then that's his trumpet to play too (whether he likes it or not). I agree that the government isn't meant to be an enabling parent or girlfriend allowing you to avoid working altogether, but if it can help you find a job and perhaps keep you from being evicted, I really don't see a problem.
And I love the comment about Peter D. as the Comic Book Guy, always speaking in absolutes. Can you picture his "Worst. Administration. EVER." about Bush?
That image is hilarious although I've noticed that everyone tends to speak in absolutes on this board when politics are the topic.
And the Worst. Administraion. Ever. would probably be Hoover or Harding. But the current crop is probably in the top ten.
I would agree with you, had Nixon not resigned. But Nixon, who didn't go so far as to lie to a Grand Jury, realized that remaining in the office would make a mockery of both the position and himself, eventually did resign, which separates himself from those that followed.
Nooo, Nixon realized he was going to be impeached and thrown out of office. He didn't resign out of some great noble concern over how the office would look. He resigned because it was better to walk away than be kicked out.
PAD
I think what really bothers people is that the army was sent in because of these weapons of mass destruction.
The idea of regime change/links to terrorists/mas graves/etc all came later to justify the fact that no WMD were found.
As of the idea that soldiers know they may die in their duties.
You're correct but it is the administration's duty to be sure they are fighting and dying for a proper reason and not some tale based on poor (or worse fabricated)intel.
PAD said: "...Nixon realized he was going to be impeached and thrown out of office..."
Sure, and Clinton realized he was going to be impeached, and had a 60/40 shot of staying in office, and decided to roll the dice. While neither action or result is particularly admirable, with Nixon resigning (or escaping, however you wish to state it) at least there wasn't a known criminal in office.
"I must admit I agree with Peter on this one. The main question I ask myself is "Am I, and is this nation, in better shape now than it was four years ago?" My answer to that one is pretty obvious."
And what the !@#$%^ does the president have to do with that?
Depends. If the president is GOP, then nothing. If the president is Democrat, then everything.
Now if the economy is going well, the GOP Prez gets the props. If things aren't going well, it's the fault of whenever the most recent Democratic administration was.
That's just how it works. I'm surprised not everyone is aware of that.
PAD
"While I'm not a fan of either party, I like the Republican Party less. Bill Maher, I feel, said it best when he stated that 'The Democratic Party is bought and owned by a slightly less scary set of special interest groups than the Republican Party is.'"
Ha! I like that.
I like to put it like this- The Democrats have their hearts in the right place, but are incredibly stupid. The Republicans on the other hand simply have no hearts...
Election 2000 was the imcompetant moron with his right hand up his ass vs. the insufferable twit with his left hand up his ass.
re: Peter's original post & subsequent comments throughout the entire string - *ahem* [small voice] Absolutely correct.
On the subject of Richard Nixon and known criminals in the White House:
This is a man who attempted to plant campaign literature from his opponents in the homes of convicted criminals in order to smear them. This is a man who created an illegal black ops group in order to wiretap and sabotage political enemies. This is a man who deliberately attempted to plant false stories in the press. Just two sources (which contain numerous others) can be found here and here. To even pretend there is any sort of moral equivalency between Nixon and any other President until evidence of similar misdeeds comes to light is grossly unfair and inaccurate. The man was quite simply in a league of his own. Occassionally brilliant, certainly ruthless, capable of great political acumen and unrestrained vituperation, totally and completely unconcerned with the means by which power could be attained and held. Quite honestly, Clinton was a rank amateur when it comes to this kind of behavior. I further find it less than genuine to compare Clinton's attempt to deflect unwarranted (yes, unwarranted) efforts to snoop into his sex life with Nixon's full-fledged misinformation campaign.
Of course, it is impossible to dispute that Clinton did indeed lie just as Londo says he did, and possibly for the reasons listed. But he didn't have any of his people try and plant wiretaps in Ken Starr's offices so far as anyone has alleged (and considering how much time and effort Starr put into finding absolutely every single scrap of even possibly objectionable behavior in the Clinton closet, I think he would have alleged it if there was any evidence of it) much less attempt to steal anyone's medical records (as Nixon ordered done to Dan Ellsberg to prevent the leaking of the Pentagon Papers).
Clinton, for all his flaws, did not wind up impeached. Nixon didn't go through the process, and was then pardoned by his successor, a man he'd appointed because his original Vice President resigned under a cloud for Tax Evasion charges, so there was no legal way to attempt to prosecute Nixon for any crimes he certainly committed.
I should also point out that by any other President one should include all of his successors, not just Clinton. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II...none of them have been proved to have anything like Nixon's cavalier disregard. I say that as someone far less than thrilled with the current administration and willing to believe they might be capable of that scale and scope of activity...but again, without actual evidence of it, there's simply no way to compare any of them with Nixon.
Matt said: "Clinton, for all his flaws, did not wind up impeached."
Well, of course he was impeached, he was even sanctioned, he was just left in office. It's not the crimes that I'm comparing, like I said before, I think Clinton's were fairly petty, it wsa the reaction afterwards. It was the "Yeah, I'm guilty, now what are you going to do about it?!" Stance that the administration took that rubs me the wrong way.
Having a president who is found guilty of crimes remain in office lowers the standard for all future presidents. While Clinton's crimes were probably lesser than other president's, it's what happened next that makes it worse...
The idea of regime change/links to terrorists/mas graves/etc all came later to justify the fact that no WMD were found.
No.
Seeking Iraqi regime change was the official policy toward Iraq since 1998, when Bill Clinton was President.
That Iraq was a hellhole on the human rights front was part of the President's public statements on Iraq since roughly the time of the "Axis of Evil" speech and part of the public record long before that. The possibility of Iraqi links to terrorism have been endlessly hashed out since 9/11.
The mass graves found in Iraq are not an "idea" but an empirical fact. There are those of us in this country who think getting rid of a regime that has jails for children, tortures political dissidents, and uses rape as a tool for suppressing dissent is A Good Thing.
On the WMD front, I wonder why it is PAD hasn't mentioned the Iraqi nuclear scientist whom it turns out was ordered to bury documents and other materials relating to the Iraqi nuclear program in his backyard...an act which certainly suggests that any "cooperation" Saddam was displaying with the weapons inspectors was in bad faith, just as his worthless report to the UN last December was, and that Saddam was in fact hoping to rope-a-dope the inspections and attempt to restart the weapons program he agreed not to pursue when he thought the coast was clear.
And, I mean, honestly, it's not like PAD and other antiwar liberals have been right on one single solitary thing when it came to Iraq...weren't you saying a coupla months ago about how we were going to "slaughter" hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with shock and awe? Ah, yes, these and other lies we were told about Iraq (http://www.porphyrogenitus.net/archives/week_2003_07_13.html#001477)...
Ah, well. It's not like it matters. The antiwar left will continue to self-destruct into an impotent, inchoate blob screaming "What about Floooooorida" and "it's all about the oooooooil" and slapping each other on the back and waiting for the revolution. And the grown-ups of the world -- those of us who aren't disappointed that a murderous dictator has been deposed and can watch Bush on TV without having an anyeurism, even if we didn't vote for him, that sort of thing -- will deal with reality.
I mean, I didn't vote for Bush and I know that it's misleading at best to say he declared "fighting was over" when he actually said major military operations were concluded. Hell, a kindergartener knows that.
I gotta say, though, a PADtrum is always great free entertainment...
The thing that scares me isn't the people who back either the Republicans or the democrats... The real enemy is among us, folks.
Anyone who makes infantile statements like "all politicians are crooks" or "I don't back either party because all politics is BS" is, pure and simple, the real problem. These people do more harm to this country than any regime can ever hope to do.
They remind me of the old MST episode where Crow is satirizing stand-up comics by trying to end every joke with some line about a sex scandal involving X and saying "I didn't know X was in Congress."
I can only conclude that these people have never met a politician and that their understanding of politics is like the average D&D gamers understanding of real warfare.
As a reporter, I met a lot of politicians and some were every bit the cartoon people would expect and many were people with genuine concern about their constituents.
What these nay-sayers don't understand is that there are frequently no easy answers. Does a politician vote with her conscience? Then what about all the people she represents who disagree with her? Does he vote with the will of the majority? Then what about the special information he may have access to because of his position?
Hey, I even see politicians get crap because they attach the building of a highway or the placement of a ship-building plant to a bill. Trust me, I've lived in depressed towns and it don't seem like pork when it's going to bring jobs to a dying town.
I'm not arguing that all or even most politicians are good but politics isn't good or bad, it's a process that is defined by the way it's conducted and the people who involved.
But these creeps who just sit back and sneer, hell, they don't even have the guts to choose the wrong side. They just take no side at all and get satisfaction in the way they gauranteed the results they wanted: "See, I told you things would get worse."
The worst part is their dishonesty about their part in the process. Their apathy doesn't keep them out of the problem, it creates it because a cynical, disinvolved public makes good politicians bad and makes bad politicians even more powerful.
Silence isn't not using your voice it's letting someone else speak in your place and trust this, someone else will.
Oh, and PAD, if you've got information to the effect that Saddam and bin Laden are "just fine, thanks" -- which seems to imply that you know where they are and what they're up to -- you might want to let someone like, I dunno, the Army know about that. Unless, of course, you DON'T actually know that...which I'm guessing you don't with any degree of certitude.
And can you provide more information about this proposed amendment to ban gay marriage? As far as I know this hasn't gotten any farther than a trial balloon foolishly floated by Bill Frist on a Sunday talk show. Can you tell me which member of Congress has introduced such an amendment so I can write to him and tell him it's a terrible idea?
You wouldn't be trying to mislead so you can score cheap rhetorical points, would you?
"Geez Peter, you're such a bitter, angry little man. God, I swear Matt Groening based the 'Comic Book Guy' after you. "
PETER DAVID IS NOT LITTLE
with a divorce rate so high, the defense of marriage act is laughable.
"On the WMD front, I wonder why it is PAD hasn't mentioned the Iraqi nuclear scientist whom it turns out was ordered to bury documents and other materials relating to the Iraqi nuclear program in his backyard..."
It could be because the White House itself has already stated (and did so mere hours after the original announcement) that those materials were not the 'Smoking gun' that they needed.
Just like the "Mobile Chemical Weapons Labs" that turned out to be nothing of the sort.
This is just me, but I have to wonder why, if Saddam had these terrible WMD that GWB (and Clinton as well) told us that he wouldn't hesitate to use against the USA, why he didnt use them when we attacked?
GWB made the case that these weapons were there for the explicit purpose of killing Americans.
Well, we're there now and have been there for a while. If the intent was to use them against us, and they have supposed stockpiles of this stuff, and it really exists, why were none used?
PAD comments (hopefully) in bold...
The first sign should have been Ari Fleisher's resignation. If things were coming that were so bad that he couldn't find positive ways to spin them, that was a tip-off right there.
Fleisher resigned months ago. He must have a hellofa crystal ball to have seen all of this coming.
American soldiers are continuing to die and, at this rate, within a month or two more will have died since Bush declared fighting was over than before that point.
Bush never declared fighting was over. For someone that often complains how his comments are changed, this statement is ironic. Bush declared major hostilities over. As in no more major war actions.
The Iraqis who were supposed to have loved us are shooting at us while we pour billions into the new Vietnam.
No, the Iraqis that were supposed to love us are out helping our troops and working with them. The ones shooting at the troops are probably the remains of the Iraqi army that scattered once the bombing started.
Saddam is just fine, thanks (as is bin Laden.)
Being alive is much different than being just fine.
And, I mean, honestly, it's not like PAD and other antiwar liberals have been right on one single solitary thing when it came to Iraq...*
So you know where WMDs are? Cause no one else can find any. I seem to remember where liberals were asking for more time for the inspection teams.
No, the Iraqis that were supposed to love us are out helping our troops and working with them.**
And getting shot at and attacked for it. Many of the Iraqi police forces have had to be isolated from their own population to protect them from harm.
Tobin
-tpl
I would be careful labeling presidents as criminals, since George W. Bush is the one who has been convicted of a crime. And he was caught lying about it on camera!
"Geez Peter, you're such a bitter, angry little man. God, I swear Matt Groening based the 'Comic Book Guy' after you."
At first the Comic Book guy was based on PAD, but no one would believe that such a creature existed, so they changed it.
After all who would believe of some creature put together on an assembly line using parts of dead Losers and Fat 30 years old and the brain of a Dead jelly fish??
Highly unlikely.
That link where the guy says if we alow gay marriage then we must allow any pair to marry is screwed up. he misses the point entirely by equating homesexual marriages to platonic relationships.
anyone completely off topic, but I have no idea where else to ask this. Is One Knight Only actually out yet? Because not a single store in Toronto has it. you can order it online, but i don't want to put it on my credit card.
Ari's resignation has nothing to do with anything other than he felt it was time to go. He announced it a few months ago, and it's entirely normal for communications directors and other high level aides to head back to the civilian world during a presidency. Nothing what so ever to read into here.
"Is One Knight Only actually out yet? "
Yup. I got mine at the local Waldenbooks last week.
First, let me say that I have a friend over there right now in the Army. He's 29, a father to a great little boy, who's clutching a GI Joe at night, pretending that its Daddy and that he's still around. Every time I hear about a GI getting killed over there makes me wonder, "I hope that wasn't Craig." I feel sorry for the families and hope things get somewhat better. My friend was told that he would be over there for a year and a half for 'cleanup duty.'
The only thing Clinton can be said about from 8 years was that he was unfaithful to his wife and hid the fact the best he could?Ooooh...pity that the President can have a sex life?
Before 9/11, Bush didn't have much of a plan toward this country. Because of 9/11, he had us all pushing to route terrorism where we could. He set up a new branch of the government to fight terrorism, and had the troops go into spots where terrorism was happening....
....in the process, not keeping an eye on the US economy and things on the HOMEfront. To promote business, Bush would do speeches at factories where there were military contracts, not the small mom and pop stores he often talks about in his speeches. Supposedly this tax cut that has started will jumpstart the economy and things will get better. Today, my tax cut gave me 8 bucks more than I have been getting. Wow, I guess I shouldn't be spending that in one place, huh?
Bush said what he said to encourage us all to go for war, and to forget what the country has been having trouble about. Now the fallout is happening for it. When 2004 comes around, all Bush is going to do is push what he did against terrorism, and show how stoic he was in the days after 9/11.
Even if you are against or for gay marriages, it should be agreed that all spouses should have the same rights and privileges no matter what gender they are.
How frickin' frightening is Bill Frist though? - "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between — what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined — as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment."
Has it occurred to him that he's ascribing his singular religion to the entirety of western civilization, trying to Amend his perception of its values into a document designed in part to protect religious plurality (to a reasonable degree, anyway)...While much of the democratic leadership annoys the hell out of me, Republicans like him scare the hell out of me.
Londo:
I understand your point of view but I have to disagree with it.
[Nixon] committed a crime, tried to cover it up, when it was obvious that he was caught, he threw in the towel and resigned. Nothing really noble there. However, it did set the precedent that the president cannot committ a crime, and remain president for very long.
However, to committ a crime, be found guilty, and basically say, "So what you gonna do about it?!" Is in a different league in my thinking.
Personally, I never got the impression from Clinton that you attribute to him. He was impeached, was censured, and had his political stock poisoned for a good long while afterwards.
The bother that a lot of people seem to have with Clinton is his attributed attitude that he thought he really didn't do anything wrong. Well of course he did, and he admitted it (admittedly after he had no choice), but I can sympathize with his POV. Clinton was IMHO railroaded into prosecution. The ostensible reason for the Starr Investigation was to investigate Whitewater. Going out of field like Kenneth Starr did (why the hell would he even need to interview Monica Lewinsky, whose age could be measure in single digits when Whitewater supposedly occurred) for what seemed transparently partisan purposes pissed me off, and I am sure pissed Clinton off too.
Having a president who is found guilty of crimes remain in office lowers the standard for all future presidents. While Clinton's crimes were probably lesser than other president's, it's what happened next that makes it worse...
Personally, I think the fact that Nixon committed so many provable crimes and got away with it is far, far worse. Although he had to leave office (before he was removed), that was the end of it. He was never impeached, sanctioned, or in any meaningful way punished. He was allowed to retain all the benefits of being a former President of the United States, and for many, was able to remain a hero. Hell, I don't think he had to admit to any wrongdoing at all, and went the rest of his life being technically innocent (since he never 'fessed up to anything and, thanks to being pardoned, could never be found guilty of anything). The fact he was pardoned by a man he himself appointed as opposed to a man who was elected just makes it that more galling. Nixon committed multiple felonies and the consequence of such was being allowed to become and elder stateman.
*That* in my mind, the fact the someone could commit crimes in office and not only get away with it, but profit from it, is what set the precedent that a president could try to get away with things they shouldn't (including Clinton) and lowered the bar. The fact that Clinton was caught and punished, I would argue, increases the likelihood that future presidents will try to keep their nose clean -- they know that if someone as politcally savvy as Clinton can get slapped, so can they and they may not be so lucky (if Clinton had committed crimes approaching those of Nixon, he certainly would have been looking at hard time).
The "new Vietnam", Peter? There were 58,000 casualties in that war! Are we anywhere near that yet? Of course not. Mindless hysteria is no substitute for a well thought-out critique. You're usually better than that (many of your Buffy reviews come to mind.)
Let’s face it, throughout out the 90s, U.N. weapons inspectors found 48 Scud missiles, 40,000 chemical munitions, 500,000 liters of chemical weapons agents, as well as large stocks of biological warfare equipment, and knew of 6,000 unused chemical bombs manufactured for the Iran-Iraq war that are still missing. The capability for producing weapons was there, the intent to deceive inspectors was there, and there was no sign that Saddam Hussein was ever going to fully cooperate with the U.N. on any of its resolutions. Jeez, the man barred inspectors from entering Iraq for four years before Bush pushed for inspections to resume! (By the way, I don’t remember too many people on the left crying for inspections during that period of limbo, or holding rallies demanding that Hussein let inspectors back in, so why should anyone pay attention to those same voices now?) Add on to that the numerous human rights violations, the frightening prospect of his two sons coming to power someday, and the ever-growing need of democracies to take a stand against dictatorships (as opposed to the patented Clintonian wrist-slaps of the 90s), and it would’ve seemed foolish not to topple him.
Oh, and by the way, Saddam is not fine. I don't know if you've heard, but he's NO LONGER RUNNING IRAQ! No longer torturing dissidents, or having his soldiers rape women, or his aides disfigure national athletes, or firing up that human shredder of his. You know, pleasant stuff like that.
As for bin Laden...wasn't he the one who said that the Arab people prefer "the stronger horse over the weaker horse"? Given that he's on the run, and some of his key associates have been captured, I think we can safely place him over in that stable where we keep the weaker horses.
Why place undue attention on such a powerless individual?
As for the gay marriage thing, you're right---what a non-issue.
I'd be all for an amendment separating marriage and state, but that's just the libertarian in me talking.
-Dave O'Connell
How frickin' frightening is Bill Frist though? - "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between — what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined — as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment."
Has it occurred to him that he's ascribing his singular religion to the entirety of western civilization, trying to Amend his perception of its values into a document designed in part to protect religious plurality (to a reasonable degree, anyway)...While much of the democratic leadership annoys the hell out of me, Republicans like him scare the hell out of me.
Oh, God forbid anyone would ever accuse the United States of Western values. Or are we even allowed to mention his name? The United States has always been founded on the moral and ethical values that come from Western religion. That we are straying from those values in every way from sodomy to abortion to same-sex marriages, all the while decrying the very nation and its core beliefs, will be our endoing. To Hell with those who speak for religious plurality, multiculturalism and any other catchphrase for the degredation of society as we know it. We've gone from the land of the free to the land of as much shit as you can get away with.
Yes, you are correct, Clinton was in fact put through Impeachment hearings. I was referring to the fact that he was not successfully removed from office. My mistake. Sasha stated the rest of my points fairly succinctly, so I shall not retread them.
The "new Vietnam", Peter? There were 58,000 casualties in that war! Are we anywhere near that yet? Of course not. Mindless hysteria is no substitute for a well thought-out critique. You're usually better than that (many of your Buffy reviews come to mind.)
Uhm...so we now have to wait to criticize what looks to be (and will be, according to the testimony of Gen. Tommy Franks) a multi-year boondoggle costing billions and which if it continues at this rate will cost many thousands of American lives just because not enough of them have died yet? Good to know there's a threshold on that sort of thing. Vietnam's casualties did not all happen in a day, or a year. There were plenty of opportunites to end that war before we'd reached 58,000 dead, and we refused to take them. Indeed, Nixon (to name only one President) deliberately stalled peace talks.
According to Seymour Hersh's 1983 book, The Price of Power, Kissinger learned of Johnson's peace plans and warned the Nixon-Agnew campaign. "It is certain," Hersh wrote, "that the Nixon campaign, alerted by Kissinger to the impending success of the peace talks, was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government making it clear that a Nixon presidency would have different views on the peace negotiations."
The chief emissary was Anna Chennault, an anti-communist Chinese leader who was working with the Nixon-Agnew campaign. Hersh quoted one former Johnson Cabinet official as stating that the U.S. intelligence "agencies had caught on that Chennault was the go-between between Nixon and his people and President [Nguyen van] Thieu in Saigon. ... The idea was to bring things to a stop in Paris and prevent any show of progress."
You can check out Chennault's book, The Education of Anna, for more details, as well as actual cables intercepted by US Intelligence from Ambassador Bui Dhien mentioning that he spoke directly to Nixon and his campaign. In that case, we didn't pay attention, we didn't criticize, and thousands of Americans who would not have died if we had been aware and alert to deception on behalf of those seeking to use a war to manipulate an election.
Obviously there may well be no such intention here. Still it behooves us to learn the lessons taught to us then and keep watch on those in power or who want it. And criticizing a situation that may resemble Vietnam in the making is neither hysterical nor mindless. We can choose to accept the picture we are given, as America did before Tet showed us that we were in fact in a war we could not win without resorting to genocide, in a land that did not want us, or we can question. It may well be the case that we are in fact welcome in Iraq (as indeed we were welcome in Vietnam by a great many) but that doesn't change the fact that it's better to question early and often rather than simply accepting what we're given. We may well prevent ourselves from approaching those numbers of dead you mentioned before. Of course, maybe that's the threshold now, and so we should sit back and wait for the number of dead to reach 60,000 or so before we can complain.
Peter David said: Depends. If the president is GOP, then nothing. If the president is Democrat, then everything.
Now if the economy is going well, the GOP Prez gets the props. If things aren't going well, it's the fault of whenever the most recent Democratic administration was.
That's just how it works. I'm surprised not everyone is aware of that.
PAD
Sasha: "Nixon committed multiple felonies and the consequence of such was being allowed to become and elder stateman."
I think you and I are dancing around pretty much the same thing. Both Nixon and Clinton committed crimes while in office, and both got away with them. Nixon's crimes were worse (though obstruction of justice is pretty bad...) and he was able to avoid paying for his crimes, but he was unable to hold onto his office. Clinton's crimes were lesser, but he got to stay in office.
Forgetting the men themselves, my opinion is that Clinton's committing crimes and staying in office did more damage to the Office of the President than Nixon's did. Even though both got away with it, Nixon was ruined, while Clinton only lost some popularity in his lame duck term.
I don't think that we can ever reach a definative conclusion, but we can agree both men damaged the position, and we can agree that you think Nixon did more damage by committing worse crimes, and I think Clinton did more damage by keeping his job after being sanctioned.
Of course, my other opinion is that little of this has to do with GWB. Even if he knew the intel was wrong (which I don't think anyone knows for sure) then it's still possible he thought he was doing right by the country.
Jason said: That link where the guy says if we alow gay marriage then we must allow any pair to marry is screwed up. he misses the point entirely by equating homesexual marriages to platonic relationships.
I didn't follow this, do you mean that people can only be considered married if they are having sexual relations? That would leave out many of my married friends, and make a few of my unmarried but living-in-sin friends eligible :)
Oh, God forbid anyone would ever accuse the United States of Western values. Or are we even allowed to mention his name? The United States has always been founded on the moral and ethical values that come from Western religion. That we are straying from those values in every way from sodomy to abortion to same-sex marriages, all the while decrying the very nation and its core beliefs, will be our endoing. To Hell with those who speak for religious plurality, multiculturalism and any other catchphrase for the degredation of society as we know it. We've gone from the land of the free to the land of as much shit as you can get away with.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Matthew 7: 1-3
Sound like some good Western values, there. As opposed to those that justified slavery by calling the slaves accursed by Cain, or those who tortured the accused to death by piling rocks on their chests until they confessed to crimes of witchcraft they had not committed, or those that shipped blankets to native tribes knowing they were infested with smallpox.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven:
for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not
even the publicans the same?
Matthew 5: 43-46
Some more good old fashioned Western Values to consider. Thankfully, we stopped killing people just because some teenagers said they were witches. And we stopped enslaving, raping, beating and working a whole race of people to death because they were 'marked by God.' And while it may be cold comfort to those we dispossessed in God's name, at least we finally grew satisfied enough to stop before we entirely wiped them out.
You can see that as degredation if you'd like. To me, the real degradation is the excess of zeal that leads to praying for the deaths of Supreme Court Justices just because they don't agree with your exact interpretation of a religious document composed over three thousand years and translated repeatedly for the following two. Or lighting a cross on fire on someone's lawn to scare them out of speaking their mind or trying to vote. Or beating a young man in Laramie to death because he was gay, tying him to a fence in a mock crucifiction. These are the horrors, the straying from that aforementioned moral and ethical center.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake
Matthew 5:3-11
In other words, worry about your own sins and omissions before casting aspersions: love those you think you should hate, and keep in mind that those you most revile may well be beloved of the same God you keep in your heart. Perfectly good and valid Western values, I suspect, and ones that I'd suspect have no need to fear what others do in the name of consentual love.
According to cnn.com(http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/), "There have been 267 confirmed coalition deaths in the war as of July 16, 2003." It then goes on to list each casualty. The earliest recorded death was on March 21st. That's almost 4 months of fighting, and includes the one month, ONE MONTH, of actual military combat. To take the cold route and compare averages, this would mean in a year's time we'd be looking at 750-800 deaths. It would take 72 and a half YEARS for this to be comparable to a Vietnam in terms of the death count. Add to that the fact that Iraq, unlike North Vietnam is now occupied territory; and there is no large nation supporting the enemy with manpower and resources in any way shape or form comparable to Chinese and Russian support for the North Vietnamese.
Anyone who tries to compare the two wars is, in my opinion, a damn fool who doesn't know what he is talking about, and who'd happily shout "The sky is falling!" at the top of their lungs.
Ezrael, Sunday School also told me to "hate the sinner, not the sin." I'll go to my grave believing homosexuality is a damnable sin,. but that doesn't mean I intend to send any homosexual there myself. They have as much right to life as I do. There are certain basic rights we all share.
I've never called for the deaths of Justices, or burned a cross (as a Southerner, I revile the Klan and the image they've given the South). I've never called for the death of any homosexual, nor will I in the context of his sexuality. I do call for the death penalty in certain criminal cases.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Well, yes, I do believe in this passage. What use are laws if they're not enforced. What use are Judges, if not to Judge?
As for any of the examples you listed, men have always done evil, and probably always will. We are, at heart, a people who are capable of great evil. We're also capable of great good. THAT's why we have those Westerm morals and values that you'd scoff at, to remind us when we go astray.
Rob, Did Sunday School really teach you to hate the sinner , and not the sin? Wow. That runs against any Western religion to which I have been exposed. H
Rob, Did Sunday School really teach you to hate the sinner , and not the sin? Wow. That runs against any Western religion to which I have been exposed.
it would take 72 years to make this war comprable to Vietnam... tell that to the families of that 267 troops whose names are on that page and see if they agree... especially if they died as nothing more than political pawns
Ra!
The idea of regime change/links to terrorists/mas graves/etc all came later to justify the fact that no WMD were found.
Actually I'm fairly sure the mass graves were there before we went in.
The great thing about Bush is that thier is absolutely no way that any of the current crop of Democrats can beat him. I have lived in Vermont for the last 15 years, and I cannot bring myself to vote for Howard Dean. I think Kerry has some interesting ideas, and the war record is certainly a plus, but he lacks real charisma. Al Sharpton? Ahem. And of course, Dick Gephardt, who as the great Dana Carvey said in a 1992 SNL sketch, couldn't beat David Duke in Harlem.
I also enjoy the level of debate that is going on about Nixon. Nixon has always been fascinating to me, a man who committed perhaps the most heinous of crimes in the history of the presidency, both here and abroad. And yet, on the other hand, Nixon was a brilliant statesman, an arch diplomat, and created many of the institutions that liberals cherish, such as the EPA. Despite his own prejudiced views, he also did a great deal for certain minority groups, especially native americans. Which leaves the casual observer rather confused about what to think. Which is more important, the scandal or the successes? In this case, I think the crimes outweigh the virtues. Still, Nixon has a mystique, a sense of complexity and tragedy about him. To make a silly comicbook comparison, Nixon struck me as Dr. Doom. A deeply flawed but also capable individual, deeply scarred by childhood events and determined to amass great amounts of personal power. Both committed both great attrocities and great acts of benevolence (just read Emperor Doom this morning).
Compared to this, Clinton pales in comparison. He is merely a man of great potential constantly sabotaged by his own uncontrollable desires. The movie Primary Colors was moving because it showed a man with the desire and potential to change things and really make the world better, but unable to control his appetites. He is perhaps the Hank Pym to Nixon's Doom, a man that is basically good but forever tainted by the one giant mistake of his life.
Thus far, Bush the younger reminds me of the Rhino. Not really a bad guy once you get to know him, but not really the kind of man you want in charge of your nation. I have no doubts about Bush's sincerity or his convictions, but I don't want him in the office anymore. So for the love of God, Democrats, get your freaking house in order!!!
I think you and I are dancing around pretty much the same thing.
. . . .
I don't think that we can ever reach a definative conclusion, but we can agree both men damaged the position, and we can agree that you think Nixon did more damage by committing worse crimes, and I think Clinton did more damage by keeping his job after being sanctioned.
It's not so much that I think that Nixon did more damage by committing worse crimes so much as I believe he committed said crimes and did not receive (IMHO) any significant punishment for their commission -- essentially getting off scot-free for something for which he really should have been harshly sanctioned.
But regardless, I agree that we disagree and that's all that can be said about that. :)
Of course, my other opinion is that little of this has to do with GWB. Even if he knew the intel was wrong (which I don't think anyone knows for sure) then it's still possible he thought he was doing right by the country.
Well, good political discourse almost always leads far and astray from the original topic.
But my opinion on the topic?
It's very unlikely (though entirely possible) that W didn't know the intel was bogus, but he well should have. If he didn't, then he was very deliberately misled and the appropriate people need to be investigated and probably sacked. If he did know and lied anyway because he thought it was the right thing to do . . . well, I appreciate his belief but he'd best realize that he's still liable for deliberately misleading the country into war and that he may very well suffer serious reprecussions and should be prepared for it. (Personally, I believe that if the nation is to go to war, the reasons must be clear, conclusive, and unequivocal. If you have to fudge facts to justify your motivation [likd the Gulf of Tonkin], you have no business sending troops into a hot zone.)
Oh, God forbid anyone would ever accuse the United States of Western values. Or are we even allowed to mention his name? The United States has always been founded on the moral and ethical values that come from Western religion.
Well, I suppose you could almost say that. After all, most of the Founding Fathers came from countries that had some flavor of Christianity as the government-approved religion. And I must give you credit for not claiming that the United States of America was founded by Christians, although you probably believe that.
By the way, the most prominent Christians among the Founding Fathers were Thomas Paine (who wrote some good propaganda about why the colonies should rebel) and Paul Revere (who was more a PR stunt than a Founding Father). Washington and Jefferson and Franklin and Hamilton were either agnostic, or were religious in a very vague there's-a-creator-but-I-know-nothing-about-him sort of way.
To Hell with those who speak for religious plurality....
Are we going to start beating up on the Jews again? Or claim that JFK should never have been elected President because you can't trust those damn Catholics? Or do you support religious plurality, as long as it's Judeo-Christian? Just where is the line, anyway?
Keith Steiger
(who still doesn't know why bigamy is a crime if everyone involved knows what's up)
So many topics, so many comments...
When it comes to gay rights, I believe in equal treatment, plain and simple, for consenting adults. So let 'em marry, divorce, stay together for decades, split up after a year, marry for true love, marry for tax breaks, and enjoy all the ups and downs men & women have been hogging for centuries. (And for those who think this would remove the sanctity of marriage, what about commonlaw marriages?)
As for Iraq, there's a deeper problem than us just going there. After 9/11, the United States was no longer spared from terrorism; we were part of the community that had suffered these attacks on innocents. And we went after the perpetrators, with large success. (We may not have Bin Laden, but he doesn't have Afghanistan.)
Unfortunately, we didn't consider why we're hated. We didn't consider how countries like England and Ireland deal with their terrorism. Instead, we decided on a "we're completely good, they're completely evil" policy. We decided that Bin Laden and Hussein were buddies, and if there wasn't proof of that -- heck, there were more Bin Laden statements against Hussein -- who cares? We decided to go after Iraq based on Bush using the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" over and over, and if the U.N. didn't approve, we'd go anyway. (We did have a strong international coalition, with nations like England, Britain, the U.K....) We opted on a policy of "preemptive strikes" which translates into shoot first, ask questions later. And now? When the rest of the Middle East is polarized against us, when countries may try to get their own WMDs in case we decide to go after them with no evidence or international support...
Bush tells the world "Bring it on."
As for the economy, shouldn't the burdens be shouldered by those best able to bear them? The people struggling to afford housing and insurance and schooling need tax breaks, not the people with hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Wow, Peter, you sure have a lot of small minded posters here. How long did it take you to find so many?
I dropped in to visit the site and thought I had gone to Ann Coulter's site by mistake.
Sorry, but I'm not abiding by your curtailment of what I can or can't say. I wouldn't have sent them in.
PAD
Ah, the Clinton approach. With 3000 extra dead on the side.
Saddam is just fine, thanks
Get real.
Deficits and unemployment are spiralling out of control.
Get extra real.
Rob,
I'm sorry that the death toll is insufficient for you to find fault with it. Again, I was unaware that the death rate in Iraq is guaranteed to not go up or down but rather hold steady as it is, or that we must wait until as many years have passed as we did in the Vietnam Conflict before we can find it lamentable. My mistake was assuming that when one sees a problem similar to an error made previously, that one can use the lessons learned by that previous error to premptively avoid making such a similar mistake. In other words, I don't think we should have to wait until this is as bad or worse than Vietnam to stop it.
As far as judges and judging is concerned, they did. They judged that it is none of our business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. If you believe that judges are here to judge, that should be good enough for you. Quite honestly, what Sunday School taught you is irrelevant. Your religious beliefs are irrelevant. You belief that homosexuality is a sin is irrelevant, becaue while you are free to hold any and all such beliefs, you are not free to impose them on me or anyone else. The combination of the 1st and 4th Amendment allow me to practice whatever faith I so desire and to be secure from unreasonable intrusion in my person and domicile. It's very possible I could well believe that you commit the sin of idolatry, or of heresy, or any number of other sins against my god. However, this also doesn't matter, inasmuch as my religious beliefs have no bearing on you. This has been the case in the United States since the Constitution was ratified, and as such it seems it can hardly be counter to the beliefs of the values the founders held.
I won't bother to reiterate the list of founders who weren't especially Christian because it isn't relevant if they were or not. Many of the original colonists to this land came here fleeing religious persecution...my own home state, RI, was founded by the man who most eloquently formulated the doctrine of the seperation of church and state, a firebrand preacher named Roger Williams. If a minister could understand that his right to swing his fist ends where others noses' begins, even extended metaphorically to the right of faith, then it hardly contradicts any of the values that started this nation.
As for any of the examples you listed, men have always done evil, and probably always will. We are, at heart, a people who are capable of great evil. We're also capable of great good. THAT's why we have those Westerm morals and values that you'd scoff at, to remind us when we go astray.
Again, I don't scoff at western morals and values, I embrace them. What you failed to notice about my examples was that they came exactly from the desire to force others to believe and behave in a manner consistant with a specific religious doctrine. Therefore, it behooves us to remember the specific morals and values that led to the foundation of this country...an escape from tyranny, a desire to speak freely and practice one's own beliefs, freedom from the onerous intrusion of others into our lives.
Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them
If you would have me tolerate your faith and your lifestyle, you would need therefore to tolerate mine. In other words, I'm one of those sinners you so loathe that you wished Hell upon me...a religious pluralist. I'm also bisexual, although sadly I've never actually committed the sin, merely felt the emotion, but that's enough to make me remember children killed for their feelings, beaten to death or shot in the name of God, and that's enough to make me say that this judgement of our Supreme Court was fine by me. I'm glad to allow anyone the freedom to behave as they choose in their consentual (and that word consentual implies with another willing adult) sex lives as long as I'm allowed the same leeway.
"Oh look, look around you.
See what we have done.
Where's the world that God intended,
With love for every one?"
from 'A Summer Prayer For Peace', recorded by The Archies, circa 1970.
Anyone else prefer Lex Luthor as president? Show of hands.
Lex Luthor is the President?
((runs off to check some websites))
Man, I need to read more comic books.
To the idiots ranting about how it'll 72 years for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq to reach Vietnam levels...
ONE DEAD IS TOO MANY!
IF Iraq was a threat to America, I might support the war, but it isn't...
Gay marriage:
No one has suggested forcing churches recognize gay marriages -- people want the government to recognize them.
If you or Pat Robertson is against gay marriage, why do you need a law to enforce your beliefs? If your religious beliefs are strong enough and right enough, wouldn't you be able to convince gay people not to marry, and perhaps not even be gay?
Why should the government enforce your religious beliefs?
Ezrael,
We're occupying hostile territory. I expect there to be dead. I don't like to see our soldiers dead, but understand that some will die. I think we're right and just to be there. I'm quite capable of seeing the mistakes of the past. One mistake, far too often made, is letting a fire long enough to become almost impossible to put out before it causes widespread, massive damage. We almost made that mistake here, after over ten years of sitting on our hands, before someone did anything about it. The comparisson to Vietnam, is, in my opinion, completely unfounded and exists only to attempt to cause damage to the current administration. The majority of the US is aware it's a crock.
However, this also doesn't matter, inasmuch as my religious beliefs have no bearing on you. This has been the case in the United States since the Constitution was ratified, and as such it seems it can hardly be counter to the beliefs of the values the founders held.
Except that's not what the Supreme Court has said, except in the last thirty years. If it were, why would we have ever had sodomy laws on the books? Blue laws? Laws making prostitution illegal? How we act as a moral and ethical society has a direct correlation to our growth and progression. And again, in my opinion, we're going backwards with every immoral act the Court defines as ok. The Supremem Court takes its own path, hat does not always fall within the best course for America. A month ago, "Roe" came forward with a changed mind, asking that Roe v. Wade be overturned. She wasn't even given a hearing. The number of people who are anti-abortion in this country never even came into the picture; she was just told "no," and pushed away. Just because we are capable of some acts does not make them right, and just becaue the Court allows it, does not make it just in the eyes of all.
So many varied topics, there isn't space or time enough to comment on all. So just some quickies.
As for same sex marriage (re: the overturning of the Texas law), this cogent column, which should still be web-accessible:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/6955623p-7904764c.html
As for the mass graves in iraq, let's keep in mind who is in some (perhaps many, though certainly not all) of them: those who rose up against Hussein when entreated to do so by the former Bush administration, but received no material support or backing.
As for the founding of the U.S.A. being made on religious grounds, or even traditional Western values, I take exception to both arguments - there was no viable precedent for the system put into place in contemporaneous (or their recent precursors) Western nations at all. Some of those who founded the nation were indeed religious. Others were not at all. Others were somewhat, in the sense of being Deists, believing in a supernatural or extraordinary, prima facie, concept of a controlling force of existence. All, though, were well aware of the history of the state professing a religion, or professing allegiance to a particular religion, and came to agreement to temper such things in their bold experiment.
As for other topics above, well, I could go through a whole Python-esque sketch, substituting 'lying weasels' for 'dead parrot,' but will refrain, and rather offer this link, which might bring a smile to some:
"Well, we're there now and have been there for a while. If the intent was to use them against us, and they have supposed stockpiles of this stuff, and it really exists, why were none used?"
I have been reading the threads on this particular subject with some zeal. I think the statement, whomever said it, about Americans have short term memory is true. Does anyone remember a little tiny place that got blasted with Chemicals, by Mr. Hussein? If you don't, check out the History Channel. What, you think maybe it was just some talcum powder with bad PR? If you can at least accept the fact that Mr. Hussein at one time had chemicals, which he used on his own people, what makes you think that just enough was made for that one instance and no more? "Aziz, come here. I want you to make an example of that place so that no one else gets out of line. Use the chemicals. Yes the good ones, not the Dr. Scholls foot powder. Make sure that the factories make enough for this attack, then go ahead and shut it all down. I don't think we'll need any more after that. I've been watching 20/20, that infidel show of the infidels, and I've seen how the Infidels crack down on drunk driving, whatever that is, and it works, no one does it ever again. So we'll make just enough for this time and make sure we don't have any more. Good? Now go."
Just because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just like a certain bearded prophet that was supposed to be alive some two milennia ago. Oh no! Did I cross politics with Religion?! Oh Mondieu!
"Silence isn't not using your voice it's letting someone else speak in your place and trust this, someone else will."
Especially some kind of goofball, lunatic liberal with blinders on. Blame the public, or at least those who use their constitutional right to make the choice they want, which is no choice (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice -- Thanks Geddy) for the actions and consequences of the few or one. Good job!
Did you ever think that some people don't want to make a choice between the evil you do know and the evil you don't? Some people don't feel comfortable to make a decision about something in the lines of leadership for the country because they feel that no matter how hard they try to figure what the politicians are talking about, they just don't get it. For the life of me, I still don't know what a GOP is, or a leftist or a rightist! People that insist on talking in Politically Correct terms, or throwing around political jargon are just as annoying as the ones who insist on using acronyms and modified latin for everything. If it is my duty to get informed on the issues so that I can make a clear and concise decision when it comes time for elections, then it is the duty of the politicians, and not to mention the reporters that are supposed to be working for the public (The Public Has A Right To Know my ass) to ensure that Joe Voter knows what the issues are, and where they stand, and use clear and easy to understand definitions, so that no one hides behind ambiguity and double talk. Until that happens, I'll exercise my Constituitional right to not make a choice, which is actually making a choice - just not one you particularly like, and still fight to the FRIGGIN' DEATH to ensure that you have the right to point fingers at me and claim that I am at fault for not voting for someone else that is most assuredly going to be a politician.
A month ago, "Roe" came forward with a changed mind, asking that Roe v. Wade be overturned. She wasn't even given a hearing.
Of course she wasn't. That's not how it works. You cannot request a "hearing" by the Supreme Court. You must file suit in a lower court, and find reason to appeal until you reach the Supreme Court, which may then take or not take your petition.
But to do that, you have to have a reason. Which of Norma McCorvey's rights have been violated in this case, giving her grounds for a lawsuit against the State?
Rob,
It's fine for you to accept casualties. That doesn't mean I have to. I don't see anything just or moral in what we've done here...for one thing, in the creation of the doctrine of pre-emption, we have justified any future terrorist strike against us. (We believed the United States posed a direct threat to our national security) It's an argument that comes down to might makes right, and eventually, someone (be it North Korea, be it someone else) is going to decide it's better to strike first than to bear the potential threat of American interests.
Iraq posed absolutely no threat to us. Now, according to National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, we've actually managed in our attacks on Afghanistan (still at war there, by the way) and Iraq to increase the threat, not decrease it. We didn't douse a fire here, we threw fuel on it. There's no agreement among our agencies as to policy, as to operational direction...we've set a maniac loose, where he is being hidden from us by the very people who supposedly wanted him out so bad, in possession of vast sums of stolen money and quite frankly, I don't see how that could be a good thing. You may consider it a crock, but I consider it only the tip of the iceberg: at least in Vietnam we weren't simultaneously in Mongolia while contemplating a peacekeeping operation in Angola at the same time. Considering all the discussion, its hard to say yet whether the majority agrees with you or not, but the majority once agreed that slavery was acceptable and the majority had no problem with the dispossession of the native population of this continent: for that matter, the majority doesn't have a problem with the recent Supreme Court decision, yet I don't see you bowing meekly to the majority opinion on that one. I'll take my cue from you here and continue to oppose what I believe to be the wrong decision whether or not it is the majority opinion.
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
John Stuart Mill On Liberty
As to your beliefs as to the morality or immorality of our nation, if anything I think our moral compass has improved over time. We've come to recognize that moral soverignity is the individual's responsibility. The degeneracy of the past, where the religious beliefs of some could be used to justify the oppression or even death of others, is less common now. The Supreme Court only truly came into the opinion that all of us have equal right to education and enfranchisement under the law regardless of race over time. Rulings change, precedent changes. I don't see a degeneration into immorality here. I'm waiting to hear anything that would prove, as an example, that Texas or any other state has any business in my bedroom. In the time since the law was struck down, it doesn't seem to me that the state of Texas was swamped in an orgy of fellatio and anal intercourse, as an example. Any activity taking place is probably now, just as it was before, private and small scale.
Daremo, the use of Chemical Weapons you're referring to took place 12 years ago. Even the CIA and Defense Department hold that those chemicals would be inert by now. They know this because we sold them to him in the first place. Without the use of chemical weapons, bacteriological weapons or any other so-called WMD in the most recent conflict, it does become hard to see what, exactly, Hussein had and why he didn't use it this time. Granted, I am not in the military. It's quite possible he did use them and we simply haven't been informed, as strange as that would seem considering we're still looking for the weapons now.
I'll admit right now that I felt no sadness at the idea of Saddam Hussein being removed from power. But when the President's own father, a former President himself, is arguing that we simply haven't made our diplomatic case and that we shouldn't act without attempting to convince our erstwhile allies, you have to wonder at our motives. Saddam Hussein certainly was an evil bastard. Yet, at a UN which has in the past two decades only upheld Security Council resolutions against countries the US doesn't support (the US has always blocked resolutions against its allies) we couldn't manage to swing enough support and now it's looking like everything we claimed at the UN was an exaggeration or a mistake on the part of our intelligence. We're not even allowing the UN inspectors in to look for WMD's, when if they found them it would prove a great deal of our arguments to be valid. So there's a pattern of either duplicity or simple unwillingness to operate within the bounds of the international system we helped create and which we used to our benefit over the past five decades. It's fine to call the UN spineless when the most recent refusal to accomodate us is the only display of spine they've had in decades, and it's fine that we are now actively engaging in the same obstructionist behavior we used as a justification for invasion in the first place. It's even fine that we've created a doctrine for the use of military force that justifies attacking before you have any actual sign of direct hostile intent (and don't tell me that we had good intel to justify it, because clearly not only didn't we have good intel, we had such bad intel that the head of the CIA had to apologize for it) but in the end, we're the ones who will end up paying the price for our arrogance here. We quite simply cannot police the whole world, and as we attempt to do so, we create the perception of the US as a hostile culture-killing imperial power (see this article for this quote: Referring to the inculcation of values, "what is in the Muslim world's head, how people are being raised and educated," as "the software" of Islamic societies, Fandy said, "We have to rewrite that software, if you will. And if we don't rewrite it, nobody else will rewrite it." - I agree that we should attempt to win hearts and minds all over the world, but couching it in terms of software and rewriting is a very good way to further polarize those who are already willing to send their teenagers after us with homemade bombs strapped to their chests).
In the end, we may yet come out of this far better than I dare dream: we may convince the world that we were right, we may create friends and allies in the nations we have invaded, we may usher in eras of peace and prosperity in those lands and even in our own. If we do, I will be the first to admit I was wrong to doubt. But right now I do doubt, and doubt heavily. I see Afghanistan almost two years later looking like the surface of the moon. I see Iraq sliding into a quagmire that will cost us billions and take us years to extricate ourselves from, with no guarantee that Hussein won't strike from hiding and no ability to determine if all our work will create a new dictator. I see terrorist strikes on our people continuing. Meanwhile, I'm reading that the nation's moral fiber has been eroded away because we've finally come to grips with the idea that the state has no business telling you who you can love based on religious tenets that are not part of our nation's governance and were deliberately divorced from its operation by the very founders.
I respectfully disagree.
" Anyone who makes infantile statements like "all politicians are crooks" or "I don't back either party because all politics is BS" is the real problem."
No. The lying crooks who inspire them to make the statements are. Respect for government and for the law are cornerstones of any civilized society. And when politicians and bureaucrats bring bring such disrespect down upon them, we all suffer.
Case in point: Cana da really has only two political parties federally. The Natural Governing Party (as some call them) and the Opposition. The Opposition (right wing) unfortunately made it to power in '84 and set about to systematically break pretty much all their promises and brought in a wide variety of major [hotly contested] changes. The Natural Governing party decried them and swore the changes would be gone almost as soon as they made it back to power. The Opposition were pretty much destroyed by the voters in the '93 election. Funnily enough, that Natural Governing Party still hasn't changed ANY of those initiatives 10 years later, save give us more of the same. When nothing changes but the name on the doors, voter turnout drops like a rock and that can't be good for democracy.
"I can only conclude that these people have never met a politician"
I have. And I'm still trying to get the stench off. The guy was an imbecile whose response to there being a big problem wi the way we did something and the fix is simple and demonstratably effective was to inanely shrug and reply "we've always done it this way, so ..."
" many were people with genuine concern about their constituents."
And they can be bought off by a Cabinet seat as we've seen in Canada. Suddenly their "concern for their constituents" slips quietly away.
" Does he vote with the will of the majority?"
Isn't that what Democracy is supposed to be about? "Power to the people as represented by..." And if he doesn't represent the wishes of the majority, why is he there?
"Then what about the special information he may have access to because of his position?"
Then be candid and come forth about it. Oh, sorry ... I forgot. "National security" and all that crap.
For example, just what the true costs of the Gun Registry have to do with national security I'm not sure, but we trust our politicians to be telling us the truth, so it must be so, right?
"it don't seem like pork when it's going to bring jobs to a dying town."
It does to taxpayers on the outside who see that same area dying for decades and wonder when the politicos will just give up on an obviously bad deal? Even the loons in California eventually got it through their heads that, after the third time a house is knocked down by an earthquake, you stop giving the idiot money to rebuild in a known earthquake zone.
"Their apathy doesn't keep them out of the problem, it creates it because a cynical, disinvolved public makes good politicians bad and makes bad politicians even more powerful"
As george Bernard Shaw once remarked, "the power of accurate observation is often referred to as 'cynicism' by those who do not possess it." There are reasons why the public is so cynical. maybe they HAVE gotten involved in the process and seen what a waste of time it turned out to be. I _have_ 'gotten involved'. All it did for me was give me high blood pressure as I'd be faced with twits who would put on big song-and-dance numbers about solving problems ... which were on the way to solving themselves and they as much as admitted so, but they had to appear to be doing something, you see. Your tax dollars in action ...
"GWB. Even if he knew the intel was wrong then it's still possible he thought he was doing right by the country."
One of the things my parents laboured hard to get me to realize is that the REASONS why one does something are often (though not always) as important - if not more so - than the actions themselves. By perhaps knowingly starting a war for manufactured reasons (if it turns out the reports were false) Bush and his cronies have done major harm to America's standing on the world stage. That many Americans either refuse to see this, or to admit it is a problem is in itself a big part of the problem.
"Nixon has always been fascinating to me, a man who committed perhaps the most heinous of crimes in the history of the presidency..."
I'd say Truman and the very hard to justify dropping of the SECOND A-Bomb on Japan (it turns out perhaps really just to send a message to Stalin) would win that prize. I say "second" because I have spent a lot of time there and know many Japanese who agree that, crazed as the military leaders were at the time, the first bomb was indeed justified in terms of eventually saving more lives than it took.
"(who still doesn't know why bigamy is a crime if everyone involved knows what's up)"
You'd think divorce lawyers would be in favour as it would make divorce trials more complicated and thus more money for them.
">>Saddam is just fine, thanks
>Get real."
Show us the body, or even just bits recognizable through DNA. Some of the top-ranking Nazi war criminals were either never caught, or were at large for a long time before facing trial. And you think it's impossible for Saddam to have similarly crawled away somewhere? based on which intelligence reports? The ones from the same military who used ten-year-old ESSO maps to plan bombardments in Granada?
"ONE DEAD IS TOO MANY!
IF Iraq was a threat to America, I might support the war, but it isn't..."
OK, may I have your address, please? I'd like to move in next door to you so that, if I see someone breaking in through your back window, I can just sit back and ignore it because it isn't a threat to me.
First of all, bravo Ezrael! I don't necessarily think that way, but that took guts to post... across the board... religion is something that most people think as an intrusive look into their private lives. You appropriately interspersed your religious beliefs in a well thought out discourse, without, at least I believe, trying to shove it down our throats. I can respect that...
and now, for the rest of the story:
The "new Vietnam", Peter? There were 58,000 casualties in that war! Are we anywhere near that yet? Of course not. Mindless hysteria is no substitute for a well thought-out critique. You're usually better than that (many of your Buffy reviews come to mind.)
Vietnam was not about casualties, it was about being somewhere where we shouldn't have been and where we weren't wanted. That's why Iraq is the new Vietnam.
To point out a few other things: Clinton Bad. Bush Good. Reagan Bad. Clinton Good. Republican Bad. Democrat Good. Democrat Bad. Republican Good.
Believe any of these?
Then ya might as well drink Drano.
Why?
Democrats and Republicans (and I mean the politicians, not the individuals) have been railroading us for years. They will continue to railroad us as long as we lay the tracks for them.
Clinton/Gore were the soft money kings, Dubya was funded by Enron and their friends. The Economy of the 90's was great (hey, I made a little money) but it was false. Why? Because of overemployment?
NO.
Because of Enron, WorldCom and other accounting lies. Because GREED was high (watch "Wall Street")...
when over 80% of Americans have zero percent invested in Wall Street (including no 401k, etc)... how can the economy be based on it? That's why the so called tax cut sucked.
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush all pandered to the Rich. Clinton was just a bit more creative in it.
Everyone talks about the Regime Change in Iraq. We now need one here... getting rid of the two party system. Because it has now worked us into the ground.
By rant for today.
Travis
Touche Ezrael!
I will be the first to admit I was wrong to doubt.
You wouldn't be wrong to doubt. You would have been wrong in your assertions stemming from the doubt.
**" Does he vote with the will of the majority?"
Isn't that what Democracy is supposed to be about? "Power to the people as represented by..." And if he doesn't represent the wishes of the majority, why is he there?**
A politician who just does whatever the majority of the people in his district do is a very poor legislator. Most people are painfully ignorant of the realities of the day. A representative who reduces himself to a mere delegate of the popular whims of his constituency lets these uninformed people set policy, and that is dereliction of duty.
A good representative keeps one eye on the mood in his district, one eye on the realities of the world, and does his best to balance between them. He is more informed than his electorate, therefore his opinion is generally more justified, and should therefore outweigh public sentiment.
Ezrael,
You certainly have the right to disagree. I support fully the right to discourse, whether I agree with it or not.
On Vietnam/Iraq, I don't see the sky falling in on us as you do. Nor do I get what you got our of the linked article in your comments; One researcher said one thing, and another disagreed with him. The commission itself made no statement either way, only suggestions on how to further improve the situation. In fact, the same researcher who made the statements you use to support your claim also said this on cnn: GUNARATNA: Yes because it is more difficult for them now to attack military and protected diplomatic and political targets. So because of that, they are going mostly for population targets and economic targets. So, we are seeing a shift from hard targets to soft targets with the decline in the capability of this organization to mount attacks on protected targets. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0306/08/sm.19.html
So, some damage to terrorist capabilities has definitely been done.
As to morality, it is obvious that you have your own compass, as I have mine, and neither spins the same way. If i'm pessimistic in one area, it's certainly the moral health of this country. That's one area where your optimism far outshines my own.
"As for dead US Soldiers, to be brutally honest, dying is part of a soldier's job. They knew what they were signing up for, one does not join the military thinking it's going to be all fun and games." - Jam
I don't know what kind of military you are or where in, but dying was most certainly NOT part of my job.
"A good representative keeps one eye on the mood in his district, one eye on the realities of the world, and does his best to balance between them. He is more informed than his electorate, therefore his opinion is generally more justified, and should therefore outweigh public sentiment."
More informed? Two obvious retorts come from this:
1 - instead of spending millions in broadcasts advertising how well the government is doing (as it does in Ontario), how about braodcasting useful information on those issues and letting the elctroate decide based on accurate input?
2 - the idea that politicians are better informed than the voters is often a very funny one. In this instance 'informed' consists of whichever lobby group had the most leverage to gain access to his ear.
It was a sobering revelation, for example, that in our technological and complex age, only ONE member of Canada's largest ever [federal] Cabinet had more than a high school grounding in science and technologies. Yet it's these scientifically ignorant sorts who pretend to be able to tell us how it's going to be with cloning and other technologies? From what we hear it sounds as though they got their 'informed' status on the subject from watching bad STAR TREK episodes.
One Nixon vs. Clinton:
Nixon got caught in a massive coverup first and tried to use the powers of the government (CIA, FBI, IRS, etc) to, in his own words, "screw" his political opponents. He got caught and resigned before he could be impeached.
Clinton had plenty of allegations of wrongdoing attached to him, but no president was ever the subject of more in depth investigation ever before. In the end, he got caught lying under oath about sex. No one ever denied that this was a serious offense, but that maybe, it didn't quite rise to the level "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the Constitution demands for removal of a president. In the end, his impeachers failed to make their case before the Senate.
My only original point was that Nixon got caught being a sleezebag first and, therefore, deserves the blame for destroying people's expectations of the president's personal honor.
On the war:
I think it's clear to everyone that this administration decided that Saddam needed removal and then went in search of a justification. They settled on the issue of the WMD angle because they thought it was the most saleable and there were specific UN resolutions covering it. It's also clear that intelligence reports were "massaged" to favor that conclusion. Now this administration is facing embarrassment because they are having trouble finding the WMDs that they (In my opinion) honestly did believe were there.
In my opinion, this administration has proven to be very good at toppling weak third world regimes. What they are proving to be incredibly inept at, though, is the post-war "nation building" phase. Which, given the disdain that candidate George W. Bush expressed for it, probably is not that surprising.
I don't think they had any clear plan or idea on how they would rebuild either Afghanistan or Iraq, so unrest gets glossed over as "stuff happens" and rampent looting is "untidyness."
On the gay marriage issue:
This is such a non-issue. Like flag-burning, the "defense of marriage" acts are solutions in search of a problem.
Religions should have (and do) the right to decide what marriages that they sanction. For example, the Roman Catholic church does not recognize any marriages that were not performed by an ordained priest.
But, if the government and the courts are going to recognize common law marriages between heterosexuals, then homosexuals should have the same rights.
Most of you clearly know more than I do about, well, just about everything. So, in my simplistic view, I look at the Catch 22 that any President is in when it comes to intelligence. Example:
* 9/11 occurs and it is 'discovered' that the administration has some intelligence that they "should" have acted on.
* We gain some seemingly-strong intelligence on a known despotic ruler who kills his own people in droves, who has also been known to be lusting after WMD, that indicates this psycho is pursuing nuclear weapons. So the admin. acts on it.
* If he had not, and SH did deploy a WMD toward us, that same intel source would have been used against the administration.
Why anyone would want the job of PotUS is beyond me. Damned if you do, damned if you don't on EVERYTHING.
No wonder politicians are crazy.
"ONE DEAD IS TOO MANY!
IF Iraq was a threat to America, I might support the war, but it isn't..."
OK, may I have your address, please? I'd like to move in next door to you so that, if I see someone breaking in through your back window, I can just sit back and ignore it because it isn't a threat to me.
Or, as in the case of invading Iraq because they might attack the US someday, rather than ignoring someone breaking through the window of his house, you can instead ignore someone walking by his house that you know has done bad things and might break through the window.
Regarding the validity of "Dubya's" reasons for attacking, the ever-shifting rationales, coupled with recent stories in Time and on CNN's web site suggest to me that "Dubya" was simply looking for an excuse - any excuse - to attack Hussein/Iraq. The recent Time article stated that, in March of 2002, "Dubya" stuck his head in Condoleezza Rice's office, grinned and said, "F--- Saddam. We're takin' him down." The CNN article featured a general who stated that, on 9/11, he received instructions coming from someone in the White House prior to an interview, to blame the attacks on Iraq.
The absence of the alleged "weapons of mass distruction" is also quite telling to me. Per "Dubya," we knew where they were before we went in. The Iraqi government threatened to use them during the war. Logic suggests that they would/should have been used, seeing as conventional weapons weren't doing any good against the US forces. But they weren't. And now, these weapons that the US "knew" were there can't be found.
Yep...Lex does look better as president more and more. And he looked like the best candidate back in 2000, too. I mean, yeah...he's a reprehensible scumbag, but at least he's a competent reprehensible scumbag.
NO REALLY A PRESIDENT THAT LIES...HEAVEN FORBID. Anyway now that my "Dennis Miller" rant is finished. What did you think a president that shouldn't have even been elected to office was going to do once he got there. Honestly I would prefer [i]LEX LUTHOR[/i] in office. At least you know what you are getting and I believe Mr. Luthor could balance the budget.
That's just my opinion I could be wrong.
Regards:
WSJ3
I think what we find so objectionable in the UK is the fact that certain members of both the UK and the US government are saying 'Well, we were right, so whether all our sources were as reliable as we said, it all turned out well."
This a) sets a dangerous precedent that being lucky is considered more expedient than being fully honest and b) seems to reflect the atmosphere that a few patriotic comments and inferences are better than fully factual answers and basic accountability.
It's fine to honour the very brave men and women who sacrifice their lives. I just object to not being given the full picture as to why they are being asked to do so and simply asking that question is seen as somehow dishonourable.
Let's forget the sound-bites. They aren't a patch on the necessity of debate.
John Mosby
Tobin - yes, it would have been my conclusion that were wrong, not my doubt itself, I misspoke.
Rob - I'm glad that's the case (that the discourse itself is important enough for you to support it) because if nothing else I've feared lately that we're developing a national inability to engage in it. Glad to see I was wrong on that one to some extent.
Honestly, though, I can't feel pessimistic about the moral fabric of our nation, because frankly, the current debate seems to me to be the case of two points of view colliding which both want to do what's the most moral and ethical thing they can imagine. They may imagine totally different moralities, but in many cases they still want to do what would be considered good as best they know how. Not that believing that you are doing the right thing hasn't been horribly twisted again and again in our history, but it does at least seem a step up from cynically exploiting others. (Keep in mind I see this desire for the moral action mostly in the people...I don't see it in our leadership, and have not for quite some time, decades perhaps.) Any nation so filled with people who really, truly want to help others, even if they don't always know how or are not always presented with the full picture...I'm unable to lose faith in those people, even when I disagree with what they're doing.
I think gay marriage is ridiculous, who needs recognition for immoral acts? Just because there is a piece of paper with a government seal on it does that mean that a square peg now fits in a round hole? Of course not, homosexuality is a mental disorder and needs to be treated as such. Everyone loves people in a different way. There is love for family, the love you feel for your spouse, the love you feel for your kids. All are different and unique, but we know that sex is out of bounds as an expression of love in some cases. Homosexuality is based on a sexual act. No one is born wanting to have sex with another man, at some point they begin thinking that this is ok.
As for the war, one day people will actual sit back and realize that whenever the Republicans are in office the entire worlds suffers, they'll smarten up and never vote for those idiots again. I myself would like to see Bush put on trial for his war crimes, not that the truth has come to light. A truth that anyone with a brain realized all along and those without one still defend with their shield of ignorance.
Pepper wrote:
No one is born wanting to have sex with another man, at some point they begin thinking that this is ok.
Um, I don't think ANYONE is born wanting to have sex with ANYBODY. What they do as adults, however, is their own damn business.
Rob
I myself would like to see Bush put on trial for his war crimes, not that the truth has come to light. A truth that anyone with a brain realized all along and those without one still defend with their shield of ignorance.
So, in one breath you accuse Bush of war crimes, and in the next you acknowledge that there's nothing proven or generally accepted to be true, that would constitute war crimes? Bill Shatner put it best: "A double dumbass on you!"
Could somebody PLEASE tell me where in The Bible that God or Jesus said Homosexuality was a sin? The only place I can find it is in Leviticus 18:22. Before and after that passage are quite a few things that seem out dated.
http://www.internetparodies.org/followthebible.html
Yes, I know that it's humorous, but I like to make a point using humor. Now, MOST people would look at these articles and say,"Those were rules for another time. They don't stand up to life today." My question is WHY does homosexuality still count as a sin and not these?
"It's not normal." Normal? Meaning majority? Then all left-handers are going to Hell too?
It's always been my experience that NO ONE really READS the Bible. At least not with an open mind. They have their preconcieved notions and ideas before they read it. Whether those ideas are given to them by society or by their upbringing it is still there. When they read the Bible, they are looking to find scripture that could be interrupted to support what they believe or have been taught to believe.
So, very few people, at least in my experience, have ever read The Bible with an open mind.
It should have read I myself would like to see Bush put on trial for his war crimes, now that the truth has come to light. A truth that anyone with a brain realized all along and those without one still defend with their shield of ignorance.
Rob wrote:
Um, I don't think ANYONE is born wanting to have sex with ANYBODY. What they do as adults, however, is their own damn business.
What people do is not exclusively their own damn business, perhaps anything that happens behind closed doors is ok according to you. Would you call the police if you knew your neighbour was beating his wife, or abusing a child in their home? Consent has little to do with anything, no law can make something spiritually moral.
Everything can be subjected as a case of morality and that is something that some people hold true to themselves and others do not. Some people drink beer just because other people do, to fit in, same with drugs and so on. If you take upon yourself to be moral and do moral things you are not being a slave to a bible, you are being true to your own self. How do you cure AIDS? Do you use it as a commercial for condoms and leave it at that? Will there ever be a cure for AIDS if it takes away the revenue of big business? Have they stopped selling tobacco because it's a murder weapon that happens to make much more money than they think the average life is worth? If you follow the bible you may find some valid guidelines that make alot of sense. If everyone waited to get married to have sex and was tested prior, or didn't do drugs or drink, AIDS would be wiped out within a matter of years, along with drunk driving fatalities and countless other things. People still continue to do these things and smoke as if it is ok to be a slave, not to the bible, oh no they can't actually take advice from a moral source, instead they rather take it upon themselves to make their own decisions because they have the right to suddenly kill themselves. Last time I checked suicide was wrong, but when a smoker dies I guess they want us to celebrate because, heck they put alot of effort into their stupidity for so many years, not to mention contributing to the failing health of their kids or teaching them to continue the cycle through influence. It isn't the folly of the bible, it is the folly of human beings who would rather do immoral acts to fit in than respect themselves and be individuals whether it be in the mind of God or their own.
Hey Peter, you ever notice that you get more responses to your political posts than to anything else?
So when's the regime change? Do we really have to wait til November, 2004?
Are you pointing out the foolish attempt of the current administration to blame the softening economy on the Clinton years, or just being sarcastic?
I was just being sarcastic.
PAD
**Sorry, but I'm not abiding by your curtailment of what I can or can't say. I wouldn't have sent them in.
PAD
Ah, the Clinton approach. With 3000 extra dead on the side.
Saddam is just fine, thanks
Get real.
Deficits and unemployment are spiralling out of control.
Get extra real.**
The Onion did a wonderful piece you would probably appreciate. Okay, actually, you wouldn't get it at all. But basically it's a liberal and a conservative discussing the war. And the liberal puts forward reasoned arguments, and the conservative responds with "That's stupid." "Get real." "You don't know what you're talking about," "That's dumb" and "Just shut up."
PAD
What scares me most about this war is the fact that NO ONE is allowed to question it... i'm a true southern democrat and i live in the home of the 2nd Marine Division and it's gotten to the point where i get hissed at for even looking questioningly at Bush's Administration... What happened to this country when it's Un-American to question the gov't? That's one of our fundamental rights... and when i'm told i'm un-American for asking for a visualization of the Sadam-Bin Laden link...there is something wrong...
Moral source? You mean the book that said it was o.k. to own slaves? The Bible is a book written BY man. Henceforth, it is flawed.
You can get all the morals you want from it. I have no problems with that. As long as you realize that anything written by man will be flawed and you need to approach it with an open mind. To not do so is just being a slave to the ideas of people that have been dead for centuries.
IF ANYTHING is going to be the solomn word of God to me, it'll be the Ten Commandments. The stuff in the Bible(written by man, remember) are their own takes on it. To me, the Bible just points out ways the desciples believed of getting brownie points. "Hey! These Ten Commandments are THE word of what God DOESN'T want you to do! BUT, if you break any of them, here are some other things that if you don't do, might help you get back in His good graces!"
I think what we find so objectionable in the UK is the fact that certain members of both the UK and the US government are saying 'Well, we were right, so whether all our sources were as reliable as we said, it all turned out well."
On the other hand, what I find cool about the UK is that regular thing they have where Blair has to go head-to-head with his opposition in an oratorical free for all. Man, can you *imagine* how Bush would fare in something like that? It'd be the most watched thing on television for the sheer entertainment value.
PAD
PAD: "Man, can you *imagine* how Bush would fare in something like that? It'd be the most watched thing on television for the sheer entertainment value."
You're right, Bush would probably consider "holding his own" as a major victory. However, his inarticulateness and quick thinking isn't really at issue -- its the issues that are at issue. Were it the doves in Congress vs. Rumsfeld, that would be a free-for-all worth watching.
What people do is not exclusively their own damn business, perhaps anything that happens behind closed doors is ok according to you. Would you call the police if you knew your neighbour was beating his wife, or abusing a child in their home? Consent has little to do with anything, no law can make something spiritually moral.
Uh, where did you get this nonsense that consent doesn't carry value?
">>OK, may I have your address, please? I'd like to move in next door to you so that, if I see someone breaking in through your back window, I can just sit back and ignore it because it isn't a threat to me.
>Or, as in the case of invading Iraq because they might attack the US someday, rather than ignoring someone breaking through the window of his house, you can instead ignore someone walking by his house that you know has done bad things and might break through the window."
Not surprisingly, you missed the point.
The point being, just because _I_ believe that _I_ am not at risk, I shouldn't get involved to help someone else who is? Remember Kitty Genovese? "We didn't want to get involved." Translate that to the thousands upon thousands killed in Rwanda(sp?) because we "didn't want to get involved" and one would be a sorry sentient who didn't realize there's something inherently WRONG with turning a blind eye when one has the ability to help.
Well before reading my first PAD book (ROCK...) I was a staunch believer in Quintin Stone's Prime Directive: "Always lend a hand when things go down."
We could do worse than to adopt that philosophy on the international scale. With, of course, the caveat that our help IS actually wanted and will count for something. For example I don't mean throwing aid money to starving nation when their totalitarian rulers will simply abscond with it.
What people do is not exclusively their own damn business, perhaps anything that happens behind closed doors is ok according to you. Would you call the police if you knew your neighbour was beating his wife, or abusing a child in their home? Consent has little to do with anything, no law can make something spiritually moral.
That is so logicially warped that it's almost impossible to track.
A neighbor beating his wife does not involve consent. Nor does child abuse. When speaking of "what people do in their own homes," implicit in that is that the activities don't involve victims. No one is claiming that right to privacy supercedes right to safety.
This is just another case of wretched argumentation. Of taking something that people didn't say, twisting it into an untenable position, and then pretend that's what was said in order to tear down the people holding an opposing viewpoint. It's transparent.
PAD
The Onion did a wonderful piece you would probably appreciate. Okay, actually, you wouldn't get it at all. But basically it's a liberal and a conservative discussing the war. And the liberal puts forward reasoned arguments, and the conservative responds with "That's stupid." "Get real." "You don't know what you're talking about," "That's dumb" and "Just shut up."
Actually, that sounds like Bill O'Reilly to me.
PAD said, "A neighbor beating his wife does not involve consent. Nor does child abuse."
I agree, that post was hyperbole. However, there are situations where adults can "consent" to performing illegal acts, which don't make them any less illegal. Prostitution, for instance. A man and a woman -- in private -- can agree to exchange money for sex, and upon completion, both of them can feel that the other fulfilled their end of the contract. However, that's still illegal.
I conclude from that that "consent is not enough."
I agree, that post was hyperbole. However, there are situations where adults can "consent" to performing illegal acts, which don't make them any less illegal. Prostitution, for instance. A man and a woman -- in private -- can agree to exchange money for sex, and upon completion, both of them can feel that the other fulfilled their end of the contract. However, that's still illegal.
Yeah, I don't quite understand that one, either. I think George Carlin said it best: "Selling is legal. F*cking is legal. How can selling f*cking be illegal?"
If we're to defend a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body after it gets pregnant, how can we deny her the right to do so before it gets pregnant?
PAD
I think George Carlin said it best: "Selling is legal. F*cking is legal. How can selling f*cking be illegal?"
No argument from me. Outlawing Prostition seems anti-Liberty to me, since you should be free to do something to your own body without anyone's permission. Plus, it's enterprising :) If you have no other means of support, at least you have something, natch.
While I'm still up in the air about Pro-Choice, this one seems clearer to me. With the baby, I can at least see the POV that the unborn is a "victim." With protitution, I see no victim at all.
Wow, I'm glad I scrolled down on the thread before I posted a reply. Peter's rebuttal was much more concise than mine would have been, and heck, I have a train to catch. But thanks for devoting a rant to me, Pepper. It makes me feel special.
Rob
If we're to defend a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body after it gets pregnant, how can we deny her the right to do so before it gets pregnant?
It's a matter of how you look at it. I believe in pro-choice, that is the "choice" to have or not have sex. Once you decide to do so however you should take all the responsibility that goes along with it whether that be pregnancy or disease, we all know the consequences. What makes this even an issue is not morality or immorality but a case of medical advancement being capable of removing an unborn fetus within a certain time span. Technology doesn't become basis for an act just because it is possible. I'm sure if we found a cure for death no one would ever allow themselves to die. The most ironic thing I've ever heard was the phrase "Born to choose." It is funny that it is supposed to be a slogan for a group who believes that 20 minutes of sexual activity is worth more than actually allowing someone to be born. Pro-choice should only refer to the fork in the road type of decisions, not as a way out of a mess.
Leave it to me to refute Mr. David again. Mr. Fleisher was not a spin machine like most American liberals are today. The Democratic Party has become so used to deception that they assume it exists in the same volume in the Republican Party. There still is an American political party of virtues.....The Republicans. Just to let you know, this is war, and people die. Our completely volunteer servicemen and women know this when signing up and we should commend them and lift up our heads and be proud for their ultimate sacrifice. It is sad but sometimes necessary in order to deliver the natural yearning of freedom to people. Arabs deserve liberty just as Americans do. The only Iraqis firing at our troops are militants and hold offs of the old regime. They hope to continue in the old ways of extremism and seeing women as less than human. We will eventually find UBL and Sadaam if they aren't dead already and I will expect an apology from Peter David. Deficits are high due to the repairs needed to our much needed military after the devastating cuts implemented by Bill Clinton. Deficits are also high due to overspending but the coming tax cuts will help. Jobs will get better with the tax cuts helping and the economy rebounding at the end of the year. Markets have hills and valleys and September did not help our economy at all. Things are changing for the better though and I hope you Dems are ready for a world of hurt in 2004 and 2006. Bush did not lie at all in his speech and I hope you guys know that you are opening the door into your own face on that one. Bush's offensive began with the recent Tony Blair speech. Oh yeah, it wasn't about oral sex silly, it was about perjury and obstruction of justice. I told you guys that you have been jaded by Clinton. Mr. David, the wheels are coming off the wagon, but there is a logo on the side of that wagon and it is a donkey. Have a nice day!
Richard
The idea of regime change/links to terrorists/mas graves/etc all came later to justify the fact that no WMD were found.
Did you listen to Colin Powell's speech? Links to terrorism were in there. As were two weapons labs that were labelled "cartoons" by opponents, which were found in Iraq.
By the way...if Bush is the biggest liar ever for Iraq and Clinton was an innocent person (guilty of perjury in reality), then why are you not roasting him over bombing Iraq in 1998 (conveniently before his impeachment vote)? Clinton went on the air and listed all the weapons of mass destruction Saddam possessed and then bombed Iraq for 4 days and then stopped (thus, sparing Saddam's rule again).
If you choose to believe and trust clinton, where are all the weapons he said were there first? Do you think it is in Saddam's nature to give them up once he finally got rid of inspectors?
Or what about Tony Blair? He stood by Clinton in 1998. He stood by Bush in 2003. You think he would stand by Clinton, then stand by Bush (an unpopular person even in his own country) if the Iraq claim was a lie?
Come now, think through this logically...could we have gotten the support of all those countries that we did if there were no WMD? Could we have gotten the UN to declare Iraq had WMD in 1441 if there was nothing to the claim?
Of course not.
Deficits are high due to the repairs needed to our much needed military after the devastating cuts implemented by Bill Clinton. Deficits are also high due to overspending but the coming tax cuts will help.
Wrong.
"Deficits are also high due to overspending but the coming tax cuts will help."
What a crock that is. Let's say you don't have enough money to pay your bills every month. Then your boss cuts your wages by 10%. How do you now propose to pay your bills?
Tax cuts do not significantly spur the economy. Jobs do. There are no jobs available for those who want or need to work. We currently have the highest unemployment rate since some other idiot put "trickle down economics" into effect. Even this president's father called that theory "voodoo economics".
Deficits are high due to the repairs needed to our much needed military after the devastating cuts implemented by Bill Clinton. Deficits are also high due to overspending but the coming tax cuts will help.
Remember my earlier posting about the standard issue GOP stance? If it's going well, it's to the GOP's credit; if it's not, it's the earlier Democrat's fault?
There y'go.
PAD
You don't have to justify yourself for any of your posts, PAD... But thanks.
I won't say anything about this war (I don't want to be drown in a tidal wave of angry answers or insults towards Frenchies), but I'm glad that american people finally open their eyes...
PS : remember the Fremen?
FYI,
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Romans 1:26-27 NIV
Men committed indecent acts with other men and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The ability to flawlessly accessorize?
PAD
"Mr. Fleisher was not a spin machine like most American liberals are today. The Democratic Party has become so used to deception that they assume it exists in the same volume in the Republican Party."
Here's Ari The Not Spin Machine, spinning away merrily:
"[D]uring the campaign the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building. What the president has said is, the military should be used for the purpose of fighting and winning wars, exactly as we did in Afghanistan."
—Ari Fleischer, answering a reporter's question at the Feb. 27 White House press briefing
"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."
—Candidate George W. Bush in the second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000
As to the economy, the White House Budget documents don't say a word about Clinton's cuts to the military. Their 'fact sheet' does say this: "The budget returned to deficit because of war, recession and emergencies associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11th".
Inside the budget itself, however, some spoilsport bureaucrat wrote this: "The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief … produced a drop in the surplus to $127.1 billion (1.3% of GDP) and a return to deficits". Didja catch that? Together with income tax relief!! Oh, and of course the deficit now stands at $455B, as we all know.
Yes, the Bush Administration is so spin-free...
Just for fun, here's Ari's successor, the Also Not A Spin Machine:
QUESTION: Regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the White House for that line, I'm wondering where does the buck stop in this White House? Does it stop at the CIA, or does it stop in the Oval Office?
Scott McClellan: Again, this issue has been discussed. You're talking about some of the comments that -- some that are --
QUESTION: I'm not talking about anybody else's comments. I'm asking the question, is responsibility for what was in the President's own State of the Union ultimately with the President, or with somebody else?
Scott McClellan: This has been discussed.
QUESTION: So you won't say that the President is responsible for his own State of the Union speech?
Scott McClellan: It's been addressed.
QUESTION: Well, that's an excellent question. That is an excellent question. (Laughter.) Isn't the President responsible for the words that come out of his own mouth?
Scott McClellan: We've already acknowledged, Terry, that it should not have been included in there. I think that the American people appreciate that recognition.
QUESTION: You acknowledge that, but you blame somebody else for it. Is the President responsible for the things that he said in the State of the Union?
Scott McClellan: Well, the intelligence -- you're talking about intelligence that -- sometimes you later learn more information about intelligence that you didn't have previously. But when we're clearing a speech like that, it goes through the various agencies to look at that information and --
QUESTION: And so when there's intelligence in a speech, the President is not responsible for that?
Scott McClellan: We appreciate Director Tenet saying that he should have said, take it out.
QUESTION: But it's the President's fault.
Scott McClellan: In fact, if you look back at it, I mean, we did take out a different reference, a reference based on different sources in a previous speech because it was said -- the CIA Director said, take it out.
QUESTION: Let me come back to your "nonsense" statement here, and let me slice it as thinly as I possibly can, just growing out of what Scott asked. Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information included in the State of the Union and negotiated with the CIA to find a way to put it in to the State of the Union?
Scott McClellan: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and went through negotiations with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: That there were discussions? Speech drafts go -- we've stated that these speeches go out to the principals, it goes out to the State, it goes out to DOD, it goes out to CIA, when it's going through the drafting process.
QUESTION: Scott, you said it was "nonsense" to say that the White House was pressuring the CIA to put this in the speech. Is it nonsense to say --
Scott McClellan: I think the question that you asked about was that someone was insisting --
QUESTION: Durbin said, a White House official insisted --
Scott McClellan: -- insisting that it be put in there in an effort to mislead the American people, I think is what --
QUESTION: You didn't explicitly give a motive.
Scott McClellan: And I said I think that's just nonsense.
QUESTION: I'm just trying to slice it a little bit narrowly, to say, is it nonsense to say that the White House wanted this information in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: Are you asking me to characterize the discussions that occur going on during the speech drafting process? I don't --
QUESTION: I'm saying, does your "nonsense" statement apply to the idea that the White House wanted it in the speech and negotiated with the CIA on a way to get it in the speech?
Scott McClellan: I think that it still goes back to, these drafts go to the various agencies, it goes to the CIA, this is an intelligence matter. It was based on information in the National Intelligence Estimate. That's the consensus document of the intelligence community, and that's what the information was based on in that speech.
QUESTION: So what I asked you about in that speech, your "nonsense" statement --
Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you --
QUESTION: You're trying to walk me out the door. (Laughter.)
Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through this.
QUESTION: So your nonsense statement doesn't apply to what I just asked you?
Scott McClellan: I'm trying to walk you through the drafting process. And that's why I was trying to put it in context, so you understand how this occurs.
QUESTION: Scott, on Keith's question, why can't we just expect, basically what would be a non-answer, which is, of course the President is responsible for everything that comes out of his mouth. I mean, that's a non-answer. Why can't you just say that?
Scott McClellan: This issue has been addressed over the last several days.
QUESTION: Why won't you say that, though, that's, like, so innocuous and benign.
Scott McClellan: The issue has been addressed.
In response to the person quoting Romans 1:26-27:
1. This passage is referring to heterosexuals who go against their own nature by committing homosexual acts, as a consequence of denying God. I know of several homosexuals who not only do not deny God, but are devout Christians. (And if you feed me the line about not being "born that way," I don't buy it. I can't imagine anyone actively choosing a lifestyle that would possibly entail alienation from one's parents, being stigmatized among one's friends, and [until recently] being an outcast from society. [Hey, wait a minute! I'm a science-fiction fan-- I have all those in spades! :-p])
2. It is ironic that you use the New International Version, which has two homosexuals on its translation committee.
--BV
In reply to Brother Vinny:
1. If Romans 1:26-27 does not imply that all “sex” between two people of the same gender is
detestable, then it is a contradiction to Leviticus 18:22:
"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
I do not believe that people collectively violate the other commands in Leviticus 18 as
frequently as they violate the one in verse 22. This neither makes those commands archaic, nor
does it make Leviticus 18:22 archaic. Nevertheless, they still apply today as much as they did back
then with regard to the “Law of Moses.” In addition, Hebrews 13:8 states, “Jesus Christ is the
same yesterday and today and forever.” This may apply to God since, “He [Jesus] is the image of
the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15). God does not call something
detestable and change his mind several thousand years later. Therefore Romans 1:26-27 must
refer to all forms of homosexuality so that the continuity of the Bible may be maintained. If there
is a contradiction in the Bible, then it is not creditable, and all Christians must “start from square
one”.
However, if your interpretation of the aforementioned scripture and your belief that
some/most homosexuals are “born that way” are correct, then God made man without the freedom
to obey his command (Leviticus 18:22). If this is so, then the Bible is contradictory (“It is for
freedom that Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1).) and either Christians’ faiths are futile,
Christianity in not the true religion, and the Bible is not creditable; God is unjust and the Scriptures
are unreliable (“What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!”(Romans 9:14)) for salvation;
or that God is just according the Scriptures and his ways are unfair according to humans. I do not
like any of these choices (If you think of any preferable choices, I appreciate any input).
Furthermore, I have heard an eyewitness report by some missionaries from Italy that those
who convert from Catholicism to Christianity (get immersed) are almost always alienated from
their families. In fact, one man even told the missionary that his father threatened to kill him if he
ever saw him again. Therefore, people have chosen to live a lifestyle such that they would face
alienation from their parents. In addition, countless Christians have been persecuted by their
“friends” for their faith. As for being an outcast from society, being thrown in jail is the closest
example I can think, and there are several instances throughout the book of Acts where Christians
are thrown in jail for their faith. I believe that a person chooses to become a Christian, especially
in Biblical times, and I can imagine those people choosing to live such a lifestyle. If you cannot
“buy” any of this, then we may have to agree to disagree.
2. Although I am a homophobe according to my human nature, the fact of two homosexuals
serving on that translating committee can only show that God chooses to work through everyone,
and it demonstrates the glory of God such that he will work through all of us for his glory.
In reply to PAD:
Although my fifteen-year-old self does not understand your statement, I am sure that it was
hilarious. However, I think that AIDS developed within the homosexual community and that
could possibly be a “due penalty for their perversion.” (If I’m wrong, please correct me.)
Disclaimer: Of course this all seems like nonsense to those who do not believe the bible, but this is
all based on the Bible being true, since LARRY brought it up. All references are:
Taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNA-
TIONAL VERSION © 1978 by the New York
International Bible Society, used by permission of
Zondervan Bible Publishers
Bible Reader,
I hope that, in your cusade to keep the Levitical law and then impose it upon others, you remember to not eat pork or shellfish, and not to wear mixed fabrics.
Sheesh!
The Onion did a wonderful piece you would probably appreciate. Okay, actually, you wouldn't get it at all. But basically it's a liberal and a conservative discussing the war. And the liberal puts forward reasoned arguments, and the conservative responds with "That's stupid." "Get real." "You don't know what you're talking about," "That's dumb" and "Just shut up."
PAD
Hmmm...not one of The Onion's stronger pieces. I hope you don't actually believe that stereotype. Some of the conservative-minded posters here have made some well-reasoned arguments.
Right now, I think the prevailing stereotype about liberalism is that it's a joke. Certainly not across-the-board, but definitely a joke when it comes to the Iraq situation. Let's look at the facts: For the most part, liberals weren't pushing for inspectors to resume their work after Hussein kicked them out. Then when Bush decided to get tough on Hussein after four years of that nonsense, liberals suddenly thought inspections were a good thing. Earlier this year, when war seemed inevitable, the liberals decided, 'Hey, North Korea is a greater danger than Iraq---why aren't we attacking them first?' This in stark contrast to a) their earlier howls of protest when Bush included North Korea in the Axis of Evil and b) their gloating over having "defused" the North Korea situation back in the mid 90s when they (led by Clinton and Jimmy Carter) threw large sums of money at their leader in exchange for something of great value to all Americans: a promise from a dictator. So why the protests? They voted for this war when they supported U.N. resolution 1441, right? Yeah, but...they changed their minds?
That's what liberals are calling reason? Sounds to me like more of the emotional 'let's not hurt anyone's feelings, ever' attitude that too often characterizes liberalism than anything having to do with intellect.
-David O'Connell