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
• 
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 hëll out of me, Republicans like him scare the hëll 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 hëll 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 pìššëd me off, and I am sure pìššëd 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. Hëll, 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
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 hëll out of me, Republicans like him scare the hëll 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 Hëll 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 šhìŧ 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 Hëll 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 šhìŧ 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 dámņ 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 dámņáblë 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, Ðìçk 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!!!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/agent13/96745.html
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 Hëll 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 dámņ 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 Hëll 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:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/july0303.html#071603214am
“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 ášš) 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 fëlláŧìø 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 bášŧárd. 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.