Some folks got annoyed when I posited a scenario which had Gore as President and Congress not only not letting him attack Iraq, but going into month eighteen of an investigation trying to prove 9/11 was his fault.
Well, here’s one that’s even more annoying.
Considering Congress spent eight years investigating virtually every business tie the Clintons had, and delving into everything from Whitewater to travel bureaus to Clinton’s sex life…
Let’s say that Gore HAD been given the okay to attack Iraq. If that attack resulted in lucrative clean-up contracts for businesses that either had been major contributors to Gore’s campaign, or that Joe Lieberman had previously been involved with…
Am I the only one who thinks you could clock with an egg-timer how long it would take for a full-scale investigation to be put into motion?
PAD
• 
I believe Ted Rall wrote something similar in a recent column, only his “retrospective” on President Gore seemed to be based on real events, with Bush’s name replaced with Gore’s.
No point, just an observation.
HA!
And let’s just talk about:
What if Gore’s Secretary of Defense had been on the board of directors that helped North Korea develop a Nuclear Reactor?
Or possibly, that Lieberman had been the CEO of one of the cleanup companies of Iraq?
Or that the “Poorest” of Gore’s cabinet had an Oil Tanker named after her?
Eight more years of investigations… wouldn’t it have been fun?
Travis
It’s the endless argument, Peter, as I’m sure you know. Both Republicans and Democrats are hypocritical on these things, justifying it when it’s one of their own and condemning the other side when they do the same thing.
The only thing that gets absurd to me is when one or the other tries to make it seem like it’s only the other side engaging in debatable business practices or looking the other way.
They’re all crooks and liars, only a fool would go into any political situation believing otherwise.
I dunno, I think that Clinton lowered the bar on presidential ethics so far that any president, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or otherwise, will have a very easy time of getting whatever the hëll they want. Every knows that politicians from all parties are crooks, Clinton just made it okay to be so…
^ (Begin Sarcasm) Oh yeah – Clinton took ethics waaay below Nixon’s deeds.
(End Sarcasm)
It’s the endless argument, Peter, as I’m sure you know. Both Republicans and Democrats are hypocritical on these things, justifying it when it’s one of their own and condemning the other side when they do the same thing.
Yeah, but here’s the difference: The GOP managed to keep investigations going about absolutely every dámņëd thing for eight years. The Democrats, meantime, fuss about trivialities, like whether Bush should have taken a helicopter instead of a plane to the air craft carrier.
PAD
2 Mass Graves in Iraq May Hold 15,000 Bodies
Associated Press
Wednesday, May 14, 2003; Page A19
LONDON, May 13 — More mass graves have been found at two new sites in Iraq, containing at least 4,000 bodies and perhaps as many as 15,000, human rights groups and a British news report said today.
If forensic experts confirm the findings, the mass graves at Hilla and the village of Muhammad Sakran would be the largest uncovered since Saddam Hussein’s government collapsed in the U.S.-led war.
Residents using tractors and, later, their hands, excavated bodies this week from graves in the central Iraqi town of Hilla, 60 miles south of Baghdad.
In a news release today, New York-based Human Rights Watch said the United States had known about the Hilla site since early May, when the mayor of the city asked for help in guarding the graves and U.S. forces refused.
“The U.S. government has not acted on important information about mass graves in Iraq,” said Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch in Baghdad.
“The result is desperate families trying to dig up the site themselves — disturbing the evidence for forensic experts who could professionally establish the identities of the victims.”
The British Broadcasting Corp., which showed television footage of the grisly scene, said that at least 3,000 bodies were exhumed. It quoted unidentified human rights groups as saying that the graves could contain 10,000 to 15,000 bodies. Human Rights Watch did not confirm estimates of the number of people buried there.
The BBC said it did not know how or when the victims in the Hilla graves were killed, but said they could have been Shiite Muslims massacred by Iraqi forces after a Shiite uprising against Hussein after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Another grave containing more than 1,000 bodies was recently found in Muhammad Sakran village, about 25 miles north of Baghdad, Human Rights Watch said.
Did the Iran-Contra investigations finally come to a close? Because last time I counted, that one had passed the 8 year mark a long time ago.
But to play along… 🙂 Perhaps if Gore were President today, the GOP would try to launch an investigation–but I would like to think that the Democrats would all hole up in a hotel in Toronto to deny a quorum until the vote on the resolution had passed.
After the GOP took Congress in the 94 election they set out to use the investigative and oversight powers to hamstring the Clinton White House. Now the funny thing is that while they were doing it, they proclaimed it was about good government not partisan politics. Now in GOP speak good government must equal Republican administration because thus far they’ve shown no interest in anything at Camp David, oops I mean the Bush White House.
Did the Iran-Contra investigations finally come to a close? Because last time I counted, that one had passed the 8 year mark a long time ago.
Yes and now one of the chief criminals in that fiasco serves as a correspondent for Fox News. It’s amazing that people like North and Liddy can subvert the Constitution and then wind up with media jobs.
Angel premieres in only about 4 months or so!
Let’s say that Gore HAD been given the okay to attack Iraq. If that attack resulted in lucrative clean-up contracts for businesses that either had been major contributors to Gore’s campaign, or that Joe Lieberman had previously been involved with…
If the contributing company was either the best at what they do, or the only ones tht could do the job, then I imagine the Repbulicans would say very little.
And now back in the real world, the Decocrats are trying to make an issue about every move President Bush makes. Only, it’s not sticking. Either this makes Bush smarter than the Democrats, or there’s nothing to find.
-Jeff
And now back in the real world, the Decocrats are trying to make an issue about every move President Bush makes
Or they get called traitors for daring to question the President in a time of National crisis…..of course it’s been a time of crisis since the monkey and his puppet masters took office.
What I don’t get is why all you ever hear is the right whining about the “liberal bias” in the media, yet stuff like this goes unpursued while they spent 8 years literally crawling up Clinton’s ášš.
Liberal bias MY ášš.
I want a little equal time in the muckraking department.
If the contributing company was either the best at what they do, or the only ones tht could do the job, then I imagine the Repbulicans would say very little.
BWAAAHAHAHAHAA…
Oh. Oh…you’re serious. You really think that. You really think the GOP wouldn’t seize upon anything that even had the slightest hint of impropriety to go after a Democratic White House.
Sorry. I just…kind of figured you were joking. My mistake.
PAD
You know for a change I have to agree with PAD – which believe me is not very often – I tend to run more conservative than less in my opinions. That being said I think it is absolutly reprehensible that Haliburton (sp?) was awarded a contract in Iraq without the normal bidding process.
But lets be realistic here, the Democrats are not exactly innocent in this regard either and have also done their share of witch-hunts. Right now the Democrats on the Senate Judiary Committee are in the middle of a filibuster to prevent Bush’s imminantly qualified nominees for Federal court from going up for a vote in front of the Senate where there are a minimum number of votes to confirm the nominees but not enought to block the Democratic blockade.
Another good example was in 1989 when the Democrats claimed John Tower had too many ties to defense contractors and would not approve him for Defense Secretary. This was a man who was probably the most qualified for the position but was rejected due to personal problems between Tower and then Committee Chair Sam Nunn.
Lets not kid our selves and say that each side has not played dirty at one point or another. Instead of pointing fingers at the Democrats or pointing fingers at the Republicans, I think what we should all be offended these activities occur every day every day behind closed doors and in front of the public’s eyes and that these activities cost us valuable tax resources and time that should be spent legislating far more important issues.
Nick says: But lets be realistic here, the Democrats are not exactly innocent in this regard either and have also done their share of witch-hunts. Right now the Democrats on the Senate Judiary Committee are in the middle of a filibuster to prevent Bush’s imminantly qualified nominees for Federal court from going up for a vote in front of the Senate where there are a minimum number of votes to confirm the nominees but not enought to block the Democratic blockade.
I wouldn’t exactly call that a witch hunt, Nick. At most they’re using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law (if they were fillibustering to prevent a nomination just because Bush presented the nominee). At the least, they’re using Senate rules to try to prevent nominees that they as a political party feel wouldn’t be the best ones for the job. Which is — intentionally or not — why the rules exist. If enough lawmakers feel that what is currently going on in Capitol Hill is … extralegal, I’m sure ammendments will be made to keep it from happening again.
What’s considerably less defensible (but far more amusing) is the hiding-across-the-border that the Texas Democrats (and, heck, before this story broke, I barely knew they existed) are doing to prevent a quorum for the Republican-favoring redistricting. As much as I applaud them for taking a stand against what they see as a wrong, if everything is done legally and above-board, I think they should just hang their heads and admit that they’ve lost and lost big. Y’pays your money, y’takes your chances, as a wise man once said.
What’s considerably less defensible (but far more amusing) is the hiding-across-the-border that the Texas Democrats (and, heck, before this story broke, I barely knew they existed) are doing to prevent a quorum for the Republican-favoring redistricting. As much as I applaud them for taking a stand against what they see as a wrong, if everything is done legally and above-board, I think they should just hang their heads and admit that they’ve lost and lost big. Y’pays your money, y’takes your chances, as a wise man once said.
I for one, find this very defensible. This is politics as, dare I say it, our founding fathers might have done it.
I mean people were getting in fist fights, duels, etc over what happened on the senate floor. This is the Texans (and I live in Oklahoma, so that’s very close to a curse word) actually using their brains.
Following thought process:
There’s no way that we can beat this in a fair vote. The state had just been redistricted 2 years ago by the census. If we lose this vote, we will any of our power.
Instead of subverting the system by having an unfair vote, let’s just not vote.
Now let’s look at the opposite side thought process.
We’re getting more power!!!! Great!!! Oh, šhìŧ… we can’t have a quorom… send out the police. The police can’t find em? Call Department of Homeland Security!! That’ll do it.
Well, they’re in Oklahoma. Can’t touch it now. Ðámņ. Less power.
Mind you, I’d still find it funny even if it were repubs… It’s a way around the problem without any blood, debating and illegal activities. Someone finally used their noggins.
Travis
Alan,
There was an article in yesterday’s New York Times that states that two groups, a private conservative group, and a non-partisan group, Judicial Watch are both suing the Senate to have the filibuster declared unconstitutional.
“The idea is to put an end to the subversion of the Constitution by both political parties when it comes to nominating and confirming judges,” said Larry Klayman, the group’s [not sure which group]chairman he went on to say “It’s unconstitutional because the framers of the Constitution did not intend 60 votes for confirmation, and that’s what we have here.” Although the suit praises Owen and Estrada as “well-qualified judicial nominees,” Klayman said his group has no position on the two qualifications of possible judges.
What is going on in Texas (which really is very funny and sad at the same time) and what is going on in the Senate are actually very similar in that Democrats who would lose on either issue if it came to a full vote are using one form of technicality or another to prevent a vote from happening. This really is a travesty in our republican system (not the party – our form of government – remember we are not a democracy, we are a republic). We elect people to various levels of government to represent us and to vote for us – to evade a vote because they know they are going to lose – what then is the purpose of even having a government. In the Wall Street Journal yesterday, it was written:
“Republicans counter that they are merely trying to make the Texas Congressional delegation — which now has 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans — reflect the actual voting preferences of Texans. Surely, they say, the majority the Texas Democrats enjoy in their Congressional delegation is an anomaly in a state where Republicans have captured both houses of the legislature and every single one of the 29 elected statewide offices.” and “The same Democrats now wailing about Republican high-handedness used their majority in 2001 to stymie all efforts for an honest redistricting. A decade earlier they imposed their own gerrymander.” Ain’t politics grand!
Again, may I recommend all of you interested in this topic buy the book, “What Liberal Media?” by Eric Alterman. He shows a great deal of evidence for the existence of Hillary’s “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” Not in those words, of course, but still…
If you look at the punditocracy on television, the talk radio shows and the large number of conservative “think tanks” scattered about the country, you’ll notice they create an effective echo chamber, all parrotting the same line. There IS a Republican Attack Machine, coordinated and organized, ready to evicerate any Democrat or Democratic idea that runs counter to the neo-con line.
Yes, let’s talk about the liberal US media, none of whom are showing the slightest inclination about bringing to light some interesting information regarding the great Jessica Lynch Rescue:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,956255,00.html
http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1051643375850
Those links are from Mark Evanier’s “News From Me” page at http://www.newsfromme.com/ by the way. Just in case either link doesn’t work. His do.
“Wag the Dog”, anyone?
JSM
You know the Democrats and their supporters are nervous about the 2004 elections when they keep bringing up these “What if” scenarios. I mean, it’s all cool when it’s “What If Stiltman Had Found The Hammer Of Thor And Had Really Amounted To Something Instead of Being, Well, A Guy On Stilts” but this is all just silly.
Peter Throws out an alternate reality and practically passes a cherry pit through his urethra in laughter when someone suggests it might not work out exactly as he imagines it to be. But what else can he do? prove it otherwise?
At least with the Stiltman premise we get some entertainment value. But hey, keep imagining the what ifs. At this rate you have another 6 years of material.
none of whom are showing the slightest inclination about bringing to light some interesting information regarding the “great” Jessica Lynch Rescue Quotes mine.
Well, heavens, we wouldn’t want to make anyone look bad, would we? After all, we have to give them something to point to whenever anyone mentions “Blackhawk Down.”
You know the Democrats and their supporters are nervous about the 2004 elections when they keep bringing up these “What if” scenarios. I mean, it’s all cool when it’s “What If Stiltman Had Found The Hammer Of Thor And Had Really Amounted To Something Instead of Being, Well, A Guy On Stilts” but this is all just silly.
Oh, I’m not nervous at all. I’m confident it’s going to be a debacle. Bush’s handlers are too smart, too cautious, too savvy to let him do anything to screw it up, and the Democratic party is too disorganized and tentative. If they manage to develop any issues, the likelihood is that the GOP will defuse or co-opt it.
Americans are, quite simply shell-shocked. The revelations about the bid-free, multi-billion dollar contracts given to Bush and Cheney’s pals should trigger a major, MAJOR investigation into the concept that the Iraqi war was a business-propelled manipulation, one of the most gargantuan frauds ever perpetrated upon the American people.
The result? Nothing. Dead silence.
The Democrats could be going to the American people and saying, “Look, you may not want to hear this, but you were hosed. Yes, Saddam was a bad men, but there’s lots of bad men. Yes, people were dying. But a million people have been killed in the Congo over the last couple years in civil wars, and we’re not going in to help them. This was a war costing the taxpayers $70 billion, with profits going into the pockets of Bush cronies, and you should be outraged.” But they look at the 70% approval rating and how the very act of criticizing the presidency has gone from normal behavior to being a sure sign of anti-patriotism, and instead they carp about helicopters vs. jets. If Americans aren’t caring about billion dollar cronyism, they’re not going to care about Bush using taxpayer funds for a photo-op.
Oh, and the What If scenario? Not silly. Just true.
PAD
“Republicans counter that they are merely trying to make the Texas Congressional delegation — which now has 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans — reflect the actual voting preferences of Texans. Surely, they say, the majority the Texas Democrats enjoy in their Congressional delegation is an anomaly in a state where Republicans have captured both houses of the legislature and every single one of the 29 elected statewide offices.” and “The same Democrats now wailing about Republican high-handedness used their majority in 2001 to stymie all efforts for an honest redistricting. A decade earlier they imposed their own gerrymander.” Ain’t politics grand!
There’s a point being overlooked fact in the whole Texas redistricting issue. As a rule we redistrict after every census, not after every election it’s basically become an American political tradition. What the Republicans may do in Texas is start a series of tit-for-tat redistricting battles in every state after every election.
Let me ask a few questions
1. Are you suggesting that we do go into the congo like we did in iraq?
2.Can you please expand on the statement that if the democrats were to develop any issues the Gop would diffuse or co-opt them?
Not an attack but a couple of questions
two more question
If we were to have taken over Iraq in 1991 would you have supported it or not?
Has the congo ever funded terrorist organizations that have attempted to attack american soil? I honestly don’t know.
Nope. You’re not the only one…
“Oh, and the What If scenario? Not silly. Just true.”
Not true. Just speculation.
And it’s not like those on the right haven’t done the same–many have imagined scenarios where Al Gore is predident on 9/11 and reacts by surrendering to the French (which really confuses them). I dunno. with so much going on in the little thing we call reality it seems a needless exercise. Again–what possible arguments can be made, other than “That wouldn’t happen!” followed by an emphatic “Oh yes it would!”
Then it’s just a matter of time before its all with the “neener neener neener”s and the “so’s you old man”s and then there’s tears and crying and lawyers.
Americans are, quite simply shell-shocked.
Or perhaps, here’s a wacky idea, they don’t care about this red herring of an issue any more than they voted Clinton out of office over Whitewater?
The revelations about the bid-free, multi-billion dollar contracts given to Bush and Cheney’s pals should trigger a major, MAJOR investigation into the concept that the Iraqi war was a business-propelled manipulation, one of the most gargantuan frauds ever perpetrated upon the American people.
Yeah, like the Vietnam War wasn’t exactly the same thing (“a busines-propelled manipulation”) except two small little points: 1) a lot more people died and 2) it was started and perpetuated by a Democratic president.
The Democrats could be going to the American people and saying, “Look, you may not want to hear this, but you were hosed. Yes, Saddam was a bad men, but there’s lots of bad men. Yes, people were dying. But a million people have been killed in the Congo over the last couple years in civil wars, and we’re not going in to help them.
Yeah they could and probably be laughed at more than they already are. Good thing your not their national chairman.
Do you realize that the Congo is absolutely no threat to anybody at all? Does it not register to you that the purpose of the Iraqi War was not just to oust Saddam but to also protect OURSELVES from the terrorists he trains/funds and the weapons he could possibly use against us? What is Congo going to do, hit us with sticks?
This was a war costing the taxpayers $70 billion, with profits going into the pockets of Bush cronies, and you should be outraged.”
Okay, let’s play your little What If game. What If Gore were President? What If he ordered the invasion of Iraq. Whom would he send over there? Republican businessmen? To quote PAD: BWHAHAHAHA. He’d find the only two Democratic Texan Oilmen and send them over there. Its how politics works.
But they look at the 70% approval rating and how the very act of criticizing the presidency has gone from normal behavior to being a sure sign of anti-patriotism, and instead they carp about helicopters vs. jets.
Look, all they have to do is take the Reagan approach and ask “are you better off today than 4 years ago?” That would be 1,000x more effective than your advice to expose the SHOCKING, SHOCKING I SAY, fact that Bush actually rewarded some of his supporters with lucrative contracts/jobs.
Oh, and the What If scenario? Not silly. Just true
No it is silly. Because seemingly unlike you, most of us on the board remember a president named Bill Clinton. He got away with murder (actually that’s Ted Kennedy), okay, not murder but a whole boatload of illegal, shady, underhanded things. And the american people (including myself) LOVED HIM. So your argument that Gore would be this harassed, beseiged guy rings totally hollow.
Here’s another whacky idea, GET OVER IT. Gore lost the election. He is not the president now and will not be president tommorrow or in 2004.
I’m sure he made his peace with it and I’m at a loss as to why you can’t. We have many important problems in this country and hand-wringing over an election that was decided almost 4 years ago does nobody any good.
Best, Chris
Oh, and the What If scenario? Not silly. Just true.
Silly man, you can’t prove a counterfactual.
Yeah, like the Vietnam War wasn’t exactly the same thing (“a busines-propelled manipulation”) except two small little points: 1) a lot more people died and 2) it was started and perpetuated by a Democratic president.
I didn’t know Eisenhower was a Democrat.
Do you realize that the Congo is absolutely no threat to anybody at all? Does it not register to you that the purpose of the Iraqi War was not just to oust Saddam but to also protect OURSELVES from the terrorists he trains/funds and the weapons he could possibly use against us?
Really.
And the weapons of mass destruction which we were going after are where, exactly? And the attacks on the United States which were funded and supported by Saddam were what, exactly? And the irrefutable links between Saddam and Osama (“We’ll find him dead or alive”) bin Laden are what, exactly? And the anti-American attitudes which lead to terrorist attacks will be assuaged by the war and our continued occupation of Iraq how, exactly?
What is Congo going to do, hit us with sticks?
Kind of missing the point. One of the varied and ever-changing reasons presented for going in was to help the poor Iraqis who were suffering. Hello. Far more people suffering in the Congo. Why not help them instead?
Okay, let’s play your little What If game. What If Gore were President? What If he ordered the invasion of Iraq. Whom would he send over there? Republican businessmen? To quote PAD: BWHAHAHAHA. He’d find the only two Democratic Texan Oilmen and send them over there. Its how politics works.
Politics works on cronyism and no-bid multi-billion dollar deals. And you’re cool with that. Which is what I said most Americans are, rather than outraged or demanding investigations (as was so quick to happen with Clinton.) So you’re basically agreeing with what I said…except you’re attempting to make fun of it. Ooookay.
But they look at the 70% approval rating and how the very act of criticizing the presidency has gone from normal behavior to being a sure sign of anti-patriotism, and instead they carp about helicopters vs. jets.
Look, all they have to do is take the Reagan approach and ask “are you better off today than 4 years ago?” That would be 1,000x more effective than your advice to expose the SHOCKING, SHOCKING I SAY, fact that Bush actually rewarded some of his supporters with lucrative contracts/jobs.
Rather than, y’know, try and save taxpayers money by actually allowing various companies to put in lower bids.
Oh, and the What If scenario? Not silly. Just true
No it is silly. Because seemingly unlike you, most of us on the board remember a president named Bill Clinton. He got away with murder (actually that’s Ted Kennedy), okay, not murder but a whole boatload of illegal, shady, underhanded things.
If by “got away with” you mean subjected to endless investigations which yielded zip, then yeah. Because, y’know, heaven forbid the investigations were groundless or harassment.
And the american people (including myself) LOVED HIM. So your argument that Gore would be this harassed, beseiged guy rings totally hollow.
Well…no. No, it’s not. The American people didn’t harass Clinton for eight years; Congress did that. As, I believe, they would have done with Gore.
Here’s another whacky idea, GET OVER IT. Gore lost the election. He is not the president now and will not be president tommorrow or in 2004.
Here’s an even whackier idea: Stick to what I wrote. A speculation based in the double-standard and lack of action being taken against business practices that are–at the very least–dubious…and speculating that the Clinton hit-parade would continue if Gore had been elected…has zero to do with discussion of the 2000 election. I’m perfectly at peace with it. Gore ran a lousy campaign. There were times where I was wincing watching him in action. I wasn’t surprised at all when he lost. I was surprised the *way* he lost, but who wasn’t?
This has nothing to do with that.
PAD
I doubt Jeb was surprised 😉
I said…
If the contributing company was either the best at what they do, or the only ones tht could do the job, then I imagine the Repbulicans would say very little.
And PAD replied…
BWAAAHAHAHAHAA…
Oh. Oh…you’re serious. You really think that. You really think the GOP wouldn’t seize upon anything that even had the slightest hint of impropriety to go after a Democratic White House.
Sorry. I just…kind of figured you were joking. My mistake.
No, not joking. But name 2 or 3 other companies that are able to set up and help run the Iraqi oil fields, other than Halliburton which seems to be the point of your arguement. Then we can discuss the matter of the bidding process being ignored.
No, not joking. But name 2 or 3 other companies that are able to set up and help run the Iraqi oil fields, other than Halliburton which seems to be the point of your arguement. Then we can discuss the matter of the bidding process being ignored.
Nooo, that’s not the point. The point is that none were given the opportunity. The further point is that if it were Gore saying “No one else other than Lieberman’s former company and a major contributor to my campaign could do this job,” investigations would likely be forthcoming nevertheless.
PAD
As one example, Haliburton was given a contract for fire oil well fires. Safety Boss, a Canadian company who was by far the most efficient firefighters in Kuwait in 1991, was not asked to help. They did provide some advice to the US state department though.
As one example, Haliburton was given a contract for fire oil well fires. Safety Boss, a Canadian company who was by far the most efficient firefighters in Kuwait in 1991, was not asked to help. They did provide some advice to the US state department though
As a second example, there’s GSM, an outfit in Amarillo, TX, who contacted the Department of Defense in 2002 in anticipation of the Iraq bombings to find out about putting in a bid for contrtolling oil fires. The DOD said they weren’t giving that any consideration at that time, when the fact was they’d contacted Halliburton a month earlier and awarded them a two year contract…a contract which GSM reps described as overpriced.
PAD
I didn’t know Eisenhower was a Democrat.
I’m going with the “official” start of Vietnam being the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution. Correct me if I’m wrong (and I’m sure you will) but that was LBJ, a Democrat.
And the weapons of mass destruction which we were going after are where, exactly?
So, for the sake of argument, let’s say Bush lied and their nuclear program was in its infancy. They’ve only just begun to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Are you trying to say that the only proper time to attack Iraq was AFTER they built a nuclear bomb?
‘Cause seems to me, that would be a little too late.
What is Congo going to do, hit us with sticks?
Kind of missing the point. One of the varied and ever-changing reasons presented for going in was to help the poor Iraqis who were suffering. Hello. Far more people suffering in the Congo. Why not help them instead?
I like how you write in Buffy-like clipped sentences.
Anyhoo, you missed the point. Obviously, we can’t liberate every country on Earth with an oppressive government. You have to look at other factors. Iraq was being ruled by a guy who posed a great threat to the Middle East and to the world at large.
Thus what I said: Iraq had suffering people AND was a threat to US security…Congo is, sorry to blunt, simply unimportant.
Politics works on cronyism and no-bid multi-billion dollar deals. And you’re cool with that. Which is what I said most Americans are, rather than outraged or demanding investigations (as was so quick to happen with Clinton.) So you’re basically agreeing with what I said…except you’re attempting to make fun of it. Ooookay.
First, I’m sorry if you felt I was making fun of you. I respect your opinions even if I don’t understand a great many of them.
And what you cut out was I was responding to your statement that we should be “outraged” by the cronyism.
Outraged? As if this is something new or different being done?
In the pantheon of political dirty deeds, I’m sorry to say but cronyism is very low on my list of outrages. I didn’t care about Whitewater and I don’t care about Haliburton or whatever Texans Bush is sending to plunder Iraq.
My question for you, seeing as you seem to be chastising us for not sharing your “outrage” over the cronyism (and this is a simple, yes or no), were you outraged by Clinton’s actions vis-a-vis TRAVELGATE?
Rather than, y’know, try and save taxpayers money by actually allowing various companies to put in lower bids.
Yes, I’d like to see it. But I’d like to see BOTH parties practice this.
Or are you arguing that only Republicans hand out fat contracts to friends and noble Democrats NEVER EVER partake in this practice?
If by “got away with” you mean subjected to endless investigations which yielded zip, then yeah. Because, y’know, heaven forbid the investigations were groundless or harassment.
Clinton lied under oath. That’s a fact. Questions of whether perjury is an impeachable offense or whether we should ask a president about his sex life aside, the investigations did yield something.
As did the ones concerning WhiteWater (or are you saying those people went to jail in contempt because it was an honest and simple business deal?).
If your trying to infer Bill Clinton was an honest and forthright man who just got harrassed and smeared by lies from a Republican Congress than you’re unbelievably naive. Even the Democrats ran and hid from him when his term was over.
Oh, and how much money did we spend on the Iran-Contra hearings? Did that ever yield anything significant?
Here’s an even whackier idea: Stick to what I wrote. A speculation based in the double-standard and lack of action being taken against business practices that are–at the very least–dubious…
Again, as I point out, business practices that Democrats also engage in. Perhaps they realize, as you seem to not, that pot calling the kettle black arguments aren’t going to get them anywhere.
and speculating that the Clinton hit-parade would continue if Gore had been elected…has zero to do with discussion of the 2000 election.
What I said was perfectly on point. Your playing a game of “What If Gore was President” and I’m saying he didn’t win so why bother?
But okay, maybe I did go off on a tangent. I’m just a bit concerned that instead of worrying about the state of our country here and now, people still fixate on this imaginary Shangra-La that would of existed “Had Al Gore Won.”
And “Clinton Hit Parade?” Are you serious? People didn’t go after Clinton, politicians did. And the people rejected them. They tried to get us upset over Whitewater, we laughed. They tried to get us upset about Monica, we laughed.
And now you advocate we return to that, except this time the Democrats should be the ones drudging up every meaningless nonissue they can think of to discredit Bush.
I actually think the Democrats are being smart by not trying to create 100 different scandals in a feeble attempt to unseat Bush.
And while we’re talking whacky ideas, here’s the WACKIEST of all…how about they try finding one of the real, very serious issues facing this country (terrible education, terrible healthcare, terrible economy) and taking a stand on that?
Best–Chris
Just for the record, if Gore were president, he wouldn’t NEED the permission of congress to attack Iraq. No point, just kind of makes the scenario moot. (Actually, I don’t know if that is the right word usage. Sorry to all the anal retentive English majors out there.
I understand your point about Haliburton, Peter. But as an American, I am glad the administration didn’t consider a Canadian company for the fires. BUY AMERICAN.
PAD,
I am curious (black). If and when we fid WMD or other evidence of the Iraqi WMD program, are you going to acknowledge that fact and admit that (for instance) the American people were not, in fact, “hosed”? And that the invasion was justified on that ground as well as those of the massive humantarian case for the war? ‘Cause it seems to me like you’ve backed yourself into quite the tight little rhetorical corner.
Oh, and are you contending, with a straight face, that Iraq was complying with the weapons inspections program before the war? ‘Cause, y’know, if they didn’t have WMD they sure weren’t acting like it…
Can’t speak for PAD here, LL, but if WMDs are “found” I will demand incontrivertable evidence that they were not planted there by the Bush Administration or its sympathisers before I accept them as a legitimate find. Further, the American people have been hosed time and time again by this administration and it is difficult to imagine that such lying behavior had suddenly changed in time to promote the takeover of Iraq.
And are you implying, with a straight face, that the Bush Administration gave a rat’s ášš about inspections for WMDs?
Chuck –
ANY President needs the authorization of congress. It’s in the Constitution that CONGRESS has the power to declare war, not the president. Congress abdicated that right by authorizing GWB to basically do whatever he wanted, which was unbelievably irresponsible. It is conceivable that Congress would have granted President Gore the same authority, but who here thinks Gore would have asked for it?
imaginary Shangra-La that would of existed “Had Al Gore Won.”
First of all, as a true liberal, Gore as president would not be a Shangri-La. And I don’t think anyone has said that… I think what PAD and others have said is that it would be a different ballgame.
If the Democrats had not cowered to be Presidential yes-men at this time, then I think it would be a different ballgame.
I actually think the Democrats are being smart by not trying to create 100 different scandals in a feeble attempt to unseat Bush.
Smart that they don’t try to point out scandals that exist? Probably true. But the scandals do exist. The double-standards of the Administration is shameful. And the skeletons in their closets would out number those in Arlignton cemetary.
Is it different from any other Administration?
Well, yes and no.
This is the richest cabinet ever. This is the biggest “big-business” cabinet ever.
But all administrations are corrupt… at least those in the last 20 years.
how about they try finding one of the real, very serious issues facing this country (terrible education, terrible healthcare, terrible economy) and taking a stand on that?
They’ve tried… and they’ve been defeated. This Administration’s stand on planned parenthood… The Environmental/Conservation stance…
it just keeps getting shot down… but oooh… Americans are behind this Administration, because who doesn’t want to be a winner?
The Democrats need to concede to a new party… then again, there’s not too much a difference between the Dems and the Repubs…
My opinion.
Travis
there’s not too much a difference between the Dems and the Repubs…
I agree. In fact, when you look at Marvel and DC more closely, you can see that editorially speaking, there’s not much difference between them either.
**Obviously, we can’t liberate every country on Earth with an oppressive government. You have to look at other factors. Iraq was being ruled by a guy who posed a great threat to the Middle East and to the world at large.
Thus what I said: Iraq had suffering people AND was a threat to US security…Congo is, sorry to blunt, simply unimportant.**
While many Americans out there would doubtlessly share your view that Iraq is as great a threat as Mr. Bush may claim, I argue that quite simply the Iraqi threat has been exaggerated by both our administration and the American media at large. In making the assumption that Iraq even HAD or was trying to develop nuclear arms, there is scant reason to believe that Iraq would use its newfound capability to either effectively threaten regional security or sell it to terrorist groups for a variety of reasons:
1) If the last decade has shown us anything, it was that Saddam Hussein is a consummate survivor whose greatest interest (before Gulf War II anyway) was the preservation of his regime. Hence I argue that a US policy of deterrance would have been as effective on Iraq as it was during the Cold War, consequently neutralizing any nuclear advantage Iraq may have over its neighbors.
*(A common attack against this argument is that although any rational human beings would see the possible deterrants in wielding nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein is a highly irrational man as evinced by his using of chemical weapons against his own people (i.e. the Kurds). However, people who take this route interestingly fail to note how the US backed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1970’s and even supported its use of chemical weapons there with the CIA providing Iraq with satellite images of Iran’s troop positions. Thus, this whole argument over Saddam Hussein being a rational actor seems heavily predicated on his concurrence with US interests – i.e. If we like what he’s doing, we turn a blind eye to his chemical weapons use; but if we don’t then blah blah blah he’s irrational and should be put down like a rabid dog.)
2) Iraq is a secular state, and as such, stands against everything terrorist organizations like al Queda believe in. If there is anything that al Queda despises more than the US, it is the existence of moderate secular governments that obstruct its vision of a unified Islamic state. The idea then of Iraq having intentional links with an organization bent on its destruction is not only doubtful but absurd as well.
Now, the fact that Saddam Hussein is a very bad man who oppresses his people will always be a legitimate reason for war, yet the reality that the US only talks about human rights abuses when it is in OUR best interests (Iraq) and largely ignores it when it is not (China, Congo, etc.) should temper our war enthusiasm.
Though I would never say that Gulf War II was “wrong” in any moralistic sense, I would assert that the justifications for this conflict have been misleading, and that we as a democratic public should deserve better.
Scavenger wrote:
Or they get called traitors for daring to question the President in a time of National crisis
Such a typical misguided response… this line is like listening to a broken record over and over and over…
Such a typical misguided response… this line is like listening to a broken record over and over and over…
Yeah, know what you mean. It’s about as old as listening to the oft repeated “well, clinton made a mockery of the white house…” and “Tax and spend Democrats.”
(On a side note… isn’t it good that Democrats tax so they have extra money to spend, other than spend money that isn’t there, and then make sure the money isn’t there by cutting* taxes? Just wondering.)
Besides that aside, I think the main complaint about criticizing dubya is that I had to always preface it with “Now, I support our troops, but…”
For %)(^&^)*&)(*) sake… of course I support our troops. How could I not? They’re doing their freaking job I pay them to do. I got so sick and tired of saying that, that when people questioned me about that, they were dealt an equal helping of sarcasm and irony.
We’re Soooooo scared of another Vietnam that most people can’t understand that we can be against a war but support our troops?
Idiotic.
And trust me, I made this point to my older brother, who is entrenched in the Air Force… and to other members of the military. So I’m not afraid to tell it to people in that area.
Travis
Travis wrote:
Yeah, know what you mean. It’s about as old as listening to the oft repeated “well, clinton made a mockery of the white house…” and “Tax and spend Democrats.”
Yup, there’s a bunch of broken records being played on both sides of the fence. I was simply pointing out one particular one.
This is the richest cabinet ever. This is the biggest “big-business” cabinet ever.
Oh yes, and heaven forbid that we have people in office that have actually had real jobs running businesses, instead of people that, for the last 20 years or so, have made their job begging people for money to run for re-election.
“BUY AMERICAN”
What are you, a union rep?
Come on, we all know American made stuff is crap.
I’m an American and I KNOW better than to buy American made goods if I can get it from Japan, or Germany, or Canada for that matter.
It’s true that American’s are fat, lazy slobs. And you can tell it from the “quality” of the goods we make.