…I respected the hëll out of George W. Bush.
Really. No kidding. When he stated in an interview “I don’t think we can win” the war on terror, I was staggered. Because he was right, and because he was honest, and because he was making a reasoned evaluation of something that anyone with two licks of sense could have told him.
The “let’s declare war on something” mentality reduces complex issues to stark black and white terms that can’t begin to encompass the reality of the situation. And when Bush fessed up that the war on terror was, in essence, no more “winnable” than the war on drugs or the war on poverty, I thought, Wow. Okay. Maybe he’s really learning. Maybe he really is capable of growth in a way that his fixed “stay the course” mentality would make you think he’s not.
And the Democrats went to town comparing terrorism to the Soviet Union which, by the way, self-destructed, and the fall of Communism which, last I checked, is still around. And I thought, “That’s just stupid. This is another of those embarrassed-to-be-a-Democrat moments. How can they pounce on him when he’s so indisputably RIGHT?”
So what happened? Bush flip flopped. Suddenly the war on terrorism IS winnable, yes siree, don’t you believe anything else.
Oh well. Back to status quo.
PAD
• 
Sometimes, I think that nobody makes sense anymore. Really, can someone just say something and STICK TO IT?
They are all afraid to tell the uncomfortable truth. People tend to vote against truth. Talk about raising taxes? Death to a campaign. If the war on terror can’t be won, then the American people will never truly be safe, so lets keep that uncomfortable truth to ourselves. Most Americans prefer soundbites to indepth analysis anymore. (And if you don’t believe that, just look at the deterioration of news on the networks. There are many less people employed than years ago. Less fact checkers. Less time to work on a story. Not to mention pressure to be number one so they can charge more for commercial airtime.)To find out what is going on takes much more work than in the past. Who has time for that when you’re working to put food on the table?
Except, of course, that the context of his statement in the conversation (if that matters to anyone here) was that it’s not winnable *within 4 years*.
But there’s no liberal media bias. Heck, no, that couldn’t happen….
He didn’t flip or flop.
RUSH: By the way, let’s talk about the American Legion convention. I watched your speech there this morning, and the Democrats are harping on something you said yesterday, or that was aired yesterday on the Today Show with Matt Lauer about the — your comment about we can’t win it, meaning the war on terror. I think I know what you meant but John Edwards is out there saying (paraphrased), “A-ha! Bush is now flip-flopping, and we, John Kerry and I, we can win this, and Bush is…” What did you mean by this?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate you bringing that up. Listen, I should have made my point more clear about what I was saying, you know, what I meant. What I meant was that this is not a conventional war. It is a different kind of war. We’re fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool. They’re trying to shake our conscience. They’re trying to shake our will, and so in the short run the strategy has got to be to find them where they lurk. I tell people all the time, “We will find them on the offense. We will bring them to justice on foreign lands so we don’t have to face them here at home,” and that’s because you cannot negotiate with these people and in a conventional war there would be a peace treaty or there would be a moment where somebody would sit on the side and say we quit. That’s not the kind of war we’re in, and that’s what I was saying. The kind of war we’re in requires, you know, steadfast resolve, and I will continue to be resolved to bring them to justice, but as well as to spread liberty — and this is one of the interesting points of the debate, Rush, is that, you know, I believe societies can be transformed because of liberty, and I believe that Iraq and Afghanistan will be free nations, and I believe that those free nations right there in the heart of the Middle East will begin to transform that region into a more hopeful place, which in itself will be a detriment to the ability to these terrorists to recruit — and that’s what I was saying. I probably needed to be a little more articulate.
RUSH: Well, it’s like saying that they’re all over the world. You’re not fighting a country here, a series of countries. You’re fighting a movement that will hide out anywhere it can, and you’re always going to have a renegade terrorist. Even if, let’s say, we wipe out Al-Qaeda. There’s some other group or individual and they spring up and blow up a bomb somewhere. That’s always going to happen because it always has.
THE PRESIDENT: Right. Really what I was saying to Lauer was, is that this is not the kind of war where you sit down and sign a peace treaty. A totally different kind of war. But we will win it. Your listeners have got to know that I am, I know we’ll win it, but we’re going to have to be resolved and firm, and we can’t doubt what we stand for, and the long-term solution is to spread freedom. I love to tell the story, Rush, about a meeting with Prime Minister Koizumi. He’s my friend. He’s the prime minister of Japan. It wasn’t all that long ago that may dad your dad and others dads were fighting against the Japanese, but because after World War II we believed that Japan could self-govern and could be democratic in its own fashion, Japan is no longer an enemy; it’s a friend, and so I sit down with him to help resolve issues like the North Korean peninsula in other words. We’re working together to keep the peace. The same thing is going to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that’s when I say the transformational power of liberty. That’s what I’m talking about.
Not quite like voting for a war your now against, but you know…
Mr. Tichy, if you’re going to insist on all comments by public figures only being taken in context, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to cover your ears while I laugh reallllly loudly.
Since when has either side bothered with the CONTEXT of an opponent’s statements? Bush has played this game long enough and well enough that he should know better than to put together the phrase “we can’t win the war on terrorism” regardless of the context or what words precede or follow the phrase.
In CONTEXT, neither Kerry nor Bush has flip-flopped on the war. It’s just that now the sauce for the goose has become sauce for the gander.
Dave, you are absolutely right. Just a few weeks ago, Kerry gave a speech stating he would wage the war on terror, saying, “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side.”
No sooner did this sentence leave his lips than Cheney was making this remark, “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive.”
So, if you’re going to bìŧçh about context, then realize that both sides abuse it.
I figured some folks might actually want to read what he said.
“Lauer:
Sometimes, I think that nobody makes sense anymore. Really, can someone just say something and STICK TO IT?
No, because there are so many areas of gray.
PAD:
Actually, as much as I support him, I was surprised to hear him admit to the war not being winnable. But, amazingly, I agree with you AND BUSH. The war on terror isn’t winnable. Still, you left off the last part of his answer, “we can make things more difficult for the terrorists”.
Now, on the other side, I never really thought of the war as something “winnable”. I, and I suspect, many other Bush supporters, have always seen it to be more symbolic, like the “war on crime” which isn’t “winnable” either.
On a related note, has anyone noted that France has had 2 journalists kidnapped and their lives threatened unless France allows Muslims to wear the head scarves in the public schools again, which France had banned?
Just to throw in a pop-culture perspective, the whole thing reminds me of the ultimate message of the Angel series finale.
Just because a war can’t be won, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t fight it.
“Just to throw in a pop-culture perspective, the whole thing reminds me of the ultimate message of the Angel series finale.
Just because a war can’t be won, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t fight it.”
as long as I get to kill the dragon.
Travis
The difference between the war against the Nazis and the war on terrorism is that the Nazis were a group of people bound by a common philosophy and goal: world domination and the extermination of what they considered “undesirables.” We won because we stopped from achieving their goals.
“Terrorism” is not a group of people. Terrorism is a tactic used by certain people to achieve goals. You cannot wage war against a tactic. We can wage a war against religious extremists who promote terrorirsm. We can wage (and win) a war against the nations and organizations that support and promote terrorism. But, we can’t wage a war against terrorism.
Yeah… both Bush and Kerry have promised to win the War on Terror. They both know it’s a lie.
Vote for ABB/K this November.
From Rush from James Tichy
>>There’s some other group or individual and they spring up and blow up a bomb somewhere. That’s always going to happen because it always has.
Which means unwinnable, yes?
PAD
If you have been paying attention, Bush always said that we werent going to win this war in any conventional fashion. He said this before Congress on television. He also said that this something that would last beyond his administration. This is not news. Anyone here can look up what the president said in his own words since 2001.
Umemployment rate 5.5 percent
Crude Oil down to 42.15
Stock market up
Iraq free
Afghanistan free
Bush approval rating 52% according to Gallup
An open letter to PAD:
Thank you. Thank you for providing a forum for me both to express my views, and for an opportunity to hear other views. We probably could not be more different in our views on many things, but I don’t take for granted your allowing us to post in reply to your thoughts. So thanks for giving me a “liberal” education.
Regarding Bush, I agree with you partially. I don’t see it as a true “flip-flop,” but I think what he said yesterday is true at its heart. And I would have liked it better if he had stuck to it. That being said, his “spin” on it today I also agree with. It just depends on how you define your terms and what you mean by “victory” or “winning.”
While we don’t agree on Bush, the war on terror, etc., I do believe you post what you think and believe, and I find it interesting (and occasionally maddening). Thanks.
Jim in Iowa
I’m a Kerry voter but much too much was taken from Bush’s statement. There will not be a conventional win like he stated occurs in a traditional war but there will be a win, moreso if Kerry takes the election.
If it wasn’t for Iraq, this would be a landslide election for Bush.
The problem, Peter, is that you did not expect Shrub to flip flop. You should be used to it by now. Shrub is an expert at this.
ABB
If it wasn’t for Iraq, this would be a landslide election for Bush.
No it wouldn’t. If it wasn’t Iraq, it would be the 2000 election. Or the economy, Or the environment.
In fact, many of the Democrats that are currently FOR Bush would be against him.
I’m under no illusion that many Democrats and specifically liberals, hate this president on a very visceral level. But it’s more because they lost the 2000 election than because of ideology.
eclark said “I’m under no illusion that many Democrats and specifically liberals, hate this president on a very visceral level. But it’s more because they lost the 2000 election than because of ideology.”
Why do people want to believe this? I’ve hear it claimed of Terry McAuliffe, now the electorate in general. I wonder about the minds of people who think that grudge-holding is the most logical explanation for political antipathy. Does this come from not seeing any flaws in their candidate and therefor believing it must be a grudge thing? Does it reflect on the person saying it and their reaction to adversity? Or is everyone so wrapped up in this idea that the “other side” has to necessarily just flat-out be bad people?
In a Bush quote from above:
“On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that’s necessary. I
No, E. Clark, many of us that are against Shrub are against him because he is an idiot.
I’m sure you’ve all heard this info by now, but let’s not forget that Bush has failed in his promise to fight the war against poverty.
Check out the following link to an article that contains the numbers showing that–since Bush took office–the decline in poverty reversed to an increase, median household incomes have dropped, and the number of adults without insurance has gone up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26.html
Daniel
As one of your neighbours to the north, I must say that reading these exchanges gives me that same guilty feeling that I get watching a car crash with victims strewn everywhere and nothing but recriminations on all sides rather than a mutual effort to help each other. Not to mention a visceral shiver of fear. Don’t you think that the venom and the vitriol are frightening, particularly when one considers the military might your country wields and the level of personal weaponry your citizens own?
I ask myself “Whither America?” Can this internecine antipathy abate? After the election, what is going to be the mood of the population in the years to come? Triumphalism vs. resentment? Relief? Anger? A mutual coming together for the greater good?
At the risk of sounding superior, we just had an election with no fewer than five significant political parties in the contest. We ended up with a minority government (no one party with enough seats form a government), which is going to require our politicians to work together if anything is going to get done. This has worked extraordinarily well in the past and I hope will again. (And why are the words “liberal” and “conservative” now epithets? They’re are just points of view. No single philosophy has all the answers.
Your leaders are merely human and yet are not allowed to be so. Mistakes are not taken in stride but rather used as clubs to batter the other. And gods forbid that anyone change their mind about anything. That is a sign of weakness never to be countenanced.
One of our former prime ministers compared Canada’s geographical position to sleeping next to an elephant. No matter how companionable the beast, it’s every move affects us greatly.
I fear for you and I worry about you. To quote Galactus way back in FF 50: “You have a spark of greatness in you. Be ever mindful of that spark because it can raise you to the stars or bury you in the ruins of war.”
Take care of yourselves.
The Rev
This is probably going to get me excommunicated from the site, but I would really like to nominate a soundtrack for this board’s political debates.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000003F3N/qid=1093995780/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/002-3884272-2470436?v=glance&s=music&n=507846
“Terrorism” is not a group of people. Terrorism is a tactic used by certain people to achieve goals. You cannot wage war against a tactic. We can wage a war against religious extremists who promote terrorirsm. We can wage (and win) a war against the nations and organizations that support and promote terrorism. But, we can’t wage a war against terrorism.”
That’s true but I don’t think that very many people really think that the War on Terror is an actual war against every person who uses terrorism as a tactic. It’s more or less specific against a particularly virulent brand of radical Islam. If the FBI arrested a bunch of KKK goons tomorrow nobody would consider it a big part of any war on terror.
This whole discussion seems somewhat contrived. I can’t believe anyone really though that when LBJ declared a War on Poverty he meant that we could expect one day to wake up with no poor people left in the country. Winning a war doesn’t require the obliteration of every aspect of the adversary.
If the FBI arrested a bunch of KKK goons tomorrow nobody would consider it a big part of any war on terror.
This is my Problem with the war on terror.It should be more defined as the war against radical
islamic terrorists.If Terror is going to be stopped all aspects need to be considered and prosecuted as such.Mcveigh and Nichols were angry,american white guys.Despite the conspiracy theories about middle eastern influence bottom line they did it.People that blow up abortion clinics,militia groups ,white separatists,black separatists all terrorists.
The fact that people are like these types of groups are allowed to walk around while we go after the “real threat” of terrorism bothers me.
Yes ,i know what happened with the world trade center but we did not war against pìššëd øff,angry white guys after OKC.Im just saying if we are going to do this we take down everyone.
Sorry to go off thread,just making a point .
Just my opinion:)
The one thing that has struck me as odd about both from both sides of the campaign is the glaring lack of one name when referring to terrorism:
OSAMA BIN LADEN.
Not that I think capturing or killing Bin Laden will not stop the Islamic extremists/fundamentalists; in my not-so-humble opinion, it will raise his standing to a martyrdom next to Mohammend himself…
…but I do wonder what the hëll is going on, y’know? When neither side has mentioned him in months, instead concentrating on bûllšhìŧ like Kerry’s behavior 30 years ago in a war that Robert McNamara (spelling?) himself realized and wrote “was just plain WRONG.”
And I don’t believe this is a “war on terror” (man, I hate that sound bite!)…I believe this is a war of civilizations, or cultures, and, yes, in a large degree, religions. And no one, except maybe Rudy Guiliani, who sort of acknowledged that yesterday during his speech, has the guts to admit it.
Mindy
To Reverend Mr. Black,
Reading your post just emphasized the strength America has. We have people with strong and different ideas. We have a system that allows us to openly debate the issues amongst ourselves. There are people openly protesting in the streets, and it’s not only allowed, but often encouraged. All that is asked is that the protests are peaceful and nondestructive.
What’s the mood going to be after the election? I will step out on a limb and say that about half of the country will be happy with the outcome, and the other half won’t be. The unhappy half will just need to work harder to convince more people that “their” way is the best way, and still try to work together for the common good. It’s that simple.
That’s one of the wonderful things about the US system of government. The President has a lot of power, but there are checks and balances with the Congress and the Supreme Court. One person cannot have their way all of the time. Is mud thrown back and forth? Yep, sure is. Does some stick? Of course, that’s what mud does. But, most of it washes right off. I HONESTLY believe that the majority of the voters look at the issues and make decisions based on the issues. We might not all agree on the priority of the issues, but that’s just part of the magic.
America is about freedom, and the responsibilities and costs of freedom. We might not always agree on how we get there, but for the most part, we’re all trying to go in the same direction.
I think it’s fairly obvious why Osama bin Laden hasn’t been mentioned.
You’re George W. Bush. You don’t want to mention bin Laden because you swore you’d get him dead or alive, and it’s several years later and he’s still out there. In fact, part of the reason you went after Saddam was to give you a shot at catching a high profile bad guy, and you succeeded. So why in the world bring up the bad guy you did NOT catch.
You’re John Kerry. Osama bin Laden remains a gaping wound for Bush, but it’s one you dare not take. Why? Because if you go around saying, “Where’s bin Laden? Bush is a failure because he has yet to round up bin Laden,” and then bin Laden is apprehended anytime in the next few months…the election’s over. Seriously. You’re standing there with huge dripping gobs of egg on your face. How are you supposed to spin it? “Took Bush long enough; if only he’d been focusing on bin Laden instead of diverting forces to a needless war in Iraq, we might have got him sooner.” Which is true, but it sure isn’t going to play in Peoria. You’ll just look like a schmuck. Better not to say anything.
That’s why.
PAD
PAD– regarding Osama–you are 100% spot-on.
I don’t buy the paranoid idea that we have Osama and Bush is just waiting for the right moment to display him on camera…but given the recent captures of people close to him in Pakistan it would be a tremendous role of the dice for kerry.
That said, if the convention keeps hitting the high points that it has so far and Bush comes out with a big bump and Kerry has to do a big shake-up of his staff–all of which look very possible at this point–it may be time for a swing for the fences.
Nice job by Arnold. I don’t think that John McCain is gonna want to be changing the constitutional requirements for Presidential birthplace any time soon.
Bush flip-flopping? Are you serious? At least it’s something he’s certain about, like those weapons of mass destruction.
Welp, the whole comment he meant was that we could never defeat terrorism completely. It’s like the war on poverty by the Dimocrats for over 40 years. After trillions of dollars, they should have won it, right? Nope, ’cause no matter what you do in both cases, there will always be people with an axe to grind, wrong or right. So, we can’t win it, but we can make it so hard that it will have to work and work to hurt people, unlike the Clinton years where they had a dámņëd cakewalk. We can smother, surpress, punish terror, but defeat it? Might as well say we are going to cure all the diseases plagueing mankind too while you are at it…
Maybe we could if we had a decent amount of stem cells for research…
Karen, we do, they are adult stem cells.
PAD and Bill Mulligan:
The other reason you are not hearing much about OBL from Kerry is because if he wins then he now has the job of hunting him down.
Press: “Mr. Kerry you criticized former President Bush for not capturing Osama Bin Laden. It is now three and a half years into your presidency and he is still at large. Your Republican challenger has promised to focus on capturing Bin Laden if elected….”
You get the idea.
“It just depends on how you define your terms and what you mean by ‘victory’ or ‘winning.’ “
Is that anything like “…what your definition of ‘is’ is”?
Karen says:
“Maybe we could if we had a decent amount of stem cells for research…”
Would any of Bush’s critics on this issue (and I’m ione of them) really like to go back to the Clinton policy on stem cell research? Think carefully before answering…
Carl:
>Welp, the whole comment he meant was that we could never defeat terrorism completely. It’s like the war on poverty by the Dimocrats for over 40 years. After trillions of dollars, they should have won it, right? Nope, ’cause no matter what you do in both cases, there will always be people with an axe to grind, wrong or right. So, we can’t win it, but we can make it so hard that it will have to work and work to hurt people, unlike the Clinton years where they had a dámņëd cakewalk. We can smother, surpress, punish terror, but defeat it? Might as well say we are going to cure all the diseases plagueing mankind too while you are at it…
Only difference being that the War on Poverty has, to the besr of my knowledge, never been exploited to rationalize an invsion of a sovereign nation, going up against a large part of a world who disagrees with us, killing off thousands of innocents, etc. In fact, the worst thing that one could say about the war on poverty, is that it has been proven ineffective…… while that statement has proven to be one of the least dámņìņg statements that can be made about Bush’s war on terror.
If one takes the approach that, for the purposes of this exercise, the ‘war on terror’ refers strictly to stopping the Islamic extremists from wreaking havok in North America and elsewhere, the solution is simple. In the words of Senator Palpatine, “Wipe them out. All of them.”
Of course, this is a ‘solution’ which, even if it were morally defensible (which it isn’t, yet), would bring about worse problems down the line.
Back to the drawing board …
Press: “Mr. Kerry you criticized former President Bush for not capturing Osama Bin Laden. It is now three and a half years into your presidency and he is still at large. Your Republican challenger has promised to focus on capturing Bin Laden if elected….”
You get the idea.
Kerry: Well, you know, three and a half years into my presidency, and I still haven’t gotten this mess called Iraq cleaned up. So we still haven’t been able to move the 100k troops in Iraq to Afghanistan, where they should have been in the first place to hunt for OBL.
For The Reverend Mr. Black Re: Minority Governments.
Some minority governments in Canada have worked well, the actual majority do not. They generally disolve and lead to yet another election (which I definitely consider not working out). Of the list (from http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/leadersparties/parties/minority.html):
1921 — Worked out.
1925 — Lead to “King-Byng affair”, did not work out.
1926 — Worked out.
1957 — Another election was called in 1958. This I would consider not working out as all the election did was lead to another election.
1962 — Definitely didn’t work out and Diefenbaker was out in less than a year.
1963 — Another election called in 1965 to try to win the majority. Again, I wouldn’t consider this working out.
1965 — Worked out.
1972 — A second election was called within two years. Again, not working out.
1979 — Joe Clark’s very short run as PM. Again, not working out.
Just wanted to point that out.
Darrell
Btw, I love this quote from Bush’s wife at the RNC last night:
“You can count on him, especially in a crisis.”
Maybe she hasn’t seen the footage of Bush after the 2nd plane struck on 9/11?
Or maybe she understands that he kept a cool head, and is not going to criticize him for what was not a tragic decision just because Michael Moore says that we should.
Maybe she read what John Kerry did:
From Larry King Live
KING: Where were you on 9/11?
KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We’d just had a meeting — we’d just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle’s office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.
The second plane hit the WTC at 9:03 AM and the plane crashed into the Pentagon at 9:43 AM. Do the math.
Since we
L.H. Hicks,
I understnd that most people are for stem cell research. I’m one of them. I just wanted to point out that A- actually, the government funds more research now, even under Bush’s restrictions, than it did when Clinton was president and B- despite what most believe, there is NOTHING stopping private companies from harvesting new fetal stem cell lines.
They may not get federal funding for it but let’s face it, if they really thought that they could so all of the things that some stem cell proponants claim–everything from curing baldness to wiping out all diseases, as well as aging–I don’t think the lack of government seed money would stop them. There’s likely a tidy profit to be made in the whole “curing all diseases” project!
Darrell, it’s true that minority governments here in Canada don’t always work out. I think that they’re still the way to go, though. Any system that requires all the viewpoints to work together is okay in my books. I think the problem is that our system is becoming increasingly polarized, and is in danger of becoming a two-party system like our friends to the south, which I certainly don’t want. Hard to reach a compromise when each party feels they have to insist that everything the other parties do is wrong.
The way I see it, we’d ideally have a minority government situation under a system of proportional representation. This would lead to greater stability in the long-term policies of the government, instead of the massive (dare I say it) flip-flop from liberal to conservative that we end up with every decade or so currently.
If anyone, Canadian or American, is interested in the concept of Proportional Representation, there’s an excellent video by John Cleese (about the UK political system of course, but it’s a good watch nonetheless) that you can check out here, in RealVideo format.
L.H. Hicks wrote: “While adult stem cells do hold promise in research to cure diseases, they are more difficult to work with because they have to be
Jim,
You raise some good points. I’ve worked with cell tissue in bio research and while I would never say that there is NO way that fetal setm cells will produce great results, I suspect that more will come from adult cell lines.
The great potential of the fetal cell lines–their ability to become almost anything–is what makes them so attractive, but the reality is that it will be very hard to control them. Adult stem cells may have more limited potential but are easier to control.
And control is the key. I mean, we’ve already managed to defeat death at the cellular levl. We can make you immortal. Henrietta Lacks will live forever in the HeLa cell lines. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
Bill and Jim, no authoritative researchers claim that stem cell research will lead to cures for all diseases. That’s a myth. It’s the opponents on the right who attribute such claims to those who support the research. And the hard truth is that the only reason that federal funding is denied by the current administration is to placate those who oppase it for religious and moral reasons, and while I empathize with those who feel that way, I in no way support such feelings as universal justification for denying it. No babies will be killed to advance this research, and as I’m sure you’ve heard many times over, the research would only use embryonic cells that would have been destroyed anyway.
Yes, I’ve seen some studies supporting the superiority of adult stem cell research, but I’ve seen many more in support of embryonic cells, and I’ve made my informed opinions based on that. It wouldn’t make sense for researchers not to acquiesce to using adult stem cells only, and thus avoid controversy and ridicule, if embryonic cells didn’t hold more promise.
The Reverend Mr. Black wrote: “Don’t you think that the venom and the vitriol are frightening, particularly when one considers the military might your country wields and the level of personal weaponry your citizens own?”
Nah.
Despite our political differences, most Americans pull together when the chips are down. If there is a natural disaster or terrorist attack, for example, we don’t ask someone their political persuasion before we start helping them.
In my family, for example, there are liberals, conservatives and independents, and we all get along just fine.