For some bizarre reason, my conservative friends (and I use the term insincerely) on this board keep pestering me to comment about the whole CBS thing with Bush’s time protecting the skies over Oklahoma while Kerry was, y’know, apparently the one soldier in the entirety of Vietnam not being shot at. Politicians and supporters who swallow whole anything the Swifties say are suddenly demanding hearings because of the CBS reports. And people are throwing it in MY face like I’m the head of the Dan Rather fan club. Why they’re not throwing it in, say, Jerome’s face, since he’s a working reporter and–if it’s false–then it’s a commentary on the lack of quality of the Fourth Estate, leaves me mystified (and I again use the term insincerely.)
I didn’t comment on the story when it was released because, frankly, it didn’t interest me all that much. The debate barely interested me four years ago, and it certainly doesn’t now. Bottom line is that all the masterminds currently waging war in Iraq have never been under enemy fire themselves, period. So it’s of little relevance to me HOW they avoided it. They used all the powers at their family’s command to avoid enemy fire, period. And John Kerry didn’t do that, again period. So the basis of the argument is hazy to me at best.
Furthermore, truth to tell, I learned back in Journalism 101 that if a piece of information seems too good to be true, it usually is. So at best, I was leery of it. I still am. And if it turns out CBS was suckered, they should admit they made a mistake. If nothing else, it will put them several points ahead of the President, who lacks that capacity.
But trying to pretend that Bush’s dubious military service is somehow legitmized if the CBS story is indeed false is like saying that Piltdown Man being a hoax invalidates evolution.
PAD
• 
Den W wrote: “You know, if the WMDs were shipped to Syria and that’s a big if, I think that’s about the worst possible scenario that could’ve come from Bush’s war. What that means is that the WMDs are in the hands of another rogue nation known to support terrorism and does not have any of the sanctions imposed on them controlling their exports. “
If you want to blame anyone, try the UN and the Democrats who delayed us acting. In the months leading up to the war, Saddam had plenty of time to prepare and ship the weapons. If we had acted sooner, it is possible (though of course, not certain) that we could have prevented this.
Your argument makes the flawed assumption that if we had not invaded, Saddam would not have been able to pass on these weapons (assuming, for the moment, that this is what went to Syria). I would suggest it would have been even easier for Saddam to have passed them on if we had not invaded.
“Oh, and when Saddam did use nerve gas on the Kurds, what did the Reagan Administration do? That’s the last time Saddam was documented as using them.”
“Oh, that’s right. Nothing. Because we didn’t care about the Iraqi people then.”
I need to look it up, but I believe we did not know about the Kurd until *after* Saddam had actually used the gas. We could not stop it because it had already been done. Actions were taken, but, as is true now in the Sudan, the rest of the world is very slow to agree. The unwillingness of the UN to go along with the sanctions the US wants to impose on Sudan is deplorable.
I would agree we should have done more about the Kurds, but you must keep it in its historical context. It is wrong to say we did not care about the people of Iraq. The fact is that we could not change what had been done, and we did take some action to prevent it from happening again.
Jim in Iowa
> > PAD said about Florida: “Jeb’s running the state. It was never in play.”
I live in Florida, and I can assure you the bush family is not very respected here. Look out, theres alot of Kerry support down here, and it wouldn’t surprise me if theres another Election mix up down here again, because the same people who tampered with the 2000 results are still in Power here (including ol’ Jeb).
I hope if it does happen this time around, the American Public cries “Shenanegans!” and we just re-do the entire Election over again. Democracy is not something the supreme court should ever decide. its the peoples right to vote, not theirs.
Phinn,
Feel like you’re banging your head against a brick wall? They would rather believe the man who broke every campaign promise he ever made except tax cuts, than look at the facts. They make excuses instead of condemning. Even when citing evidence they choose not to believe. I wish there were 2 Americas. One for us and another for them. They could let the corporations run the country, get rid of all benefits, destroy the environment, gut public education, and declare war every other week. Everone could be issued an assault rifle!
Nivek wrote:
“I live in Florida, and I can assure you the bush family is not very respected here. Look out, theres alot of Kerry support down here, and it wouldn’t surprise me if theres another Election mix up down here again, because the same people who tampered with the 2000 results are still in Power here (including ol’ Jeb).
“I hope if it does happen this time around, the American Public cries “Shenanegans!” and we just re-do the entire Election over again. Democracy is not something the supreme court should ever decide. its the peoples right to vote, not theirs.”
No one tampered with the results in 2000. This myth has been fully exposed if you care to look at the facts.
Here is a link:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html
Here is the first few paragraphs from the CNN story:
Florida recount study: Bush still wins
Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
“The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.”
Want more? Read this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200403090858.asp
Bottom line: Bush won in 2000. Get over it.
Jim in Iowa
OK, here’s my list of why I think Bush deserves reelection.
1. Bush hasn’t assaulted the environment in the interest of anyone. The ANWR issue is absurdly overblown.
2. I don’t want a President making scientific decisions at all. And in fact, this one didn’t. If you’re referring to Federal funding, the limited funding that Bush proposed is more than the zero Clinton funded, and is probably more than a Democrat could have pushed past a conservative Congress anyway.
3. Bush’s education bill raised Federal funding for education by 40%.
4. The energy meetings were a stupid idea that gave the appearance of impropriety even if ther wasn’t any actual impropriety (of which there is no evidence), but don’t really affect my vote. The meetings were fine (who are you going to discuss energy policy with if not the people who provide the nation’s energy supply?), but the claim of secrecy via executive privilege was a battle that wasn’t worth fighting.
5. I think a bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy has a lot to recommend it. Don’t assume that our allies are right just because they disagree with us.
6. I have no desire to have the Federal government muck around with the healthcare system.
7. Privatization might be the only thing that can save Social Security in the long term.
8. The “tax cuts for the wealthy” also apply to small businesses. That’s a Good Thing.
9. I vastly prefer my Supreme Court Justices to be conservative. They get in less trouble if they don’t want to make radical changes. (This sense of “conservative” precludes “conservatives” like Scalia, who is frankly as likely to upset the apple cart as Ginsburg, but given the choice between radicals I’d prefer the Scalia model.)
10. Press conferences are useless. When Presidents conduct them, they are conducted for PR purposes.
11. I maintain that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. If we want marriage to be a state issue, we actually need an Amendment, although I agree the one that was proposed last time stunk.
12. Any tax credits that Kerry proposed for companies that don’t outsource would be finessed by companies who do. There’s an entire industry devoted to massaging the tax laws. Why create loopholes?
13. The deficit will get better if and only if the economy gets significantly better. Kerry can’t cut spending, and the Congress won’t let him raise taxes. So the deficit probably exists completely independently of whoever is in the White House. If anything, Kerry’s deficit will be worse because he wants to spend more.
And some bonus ones:
14. The Republican no-idea how to get out of Iraq is just as good as the Democratic no-idea how to get out of Iraq. I’m still not sure we should be there at all, but it’s not like either candidate was opposed to it… last year, anyway.
15. The Supreme Court issue is particularly important to me, so I count it double.
16. Bush isn’t perfect, but I agree with him most of the time, and the issues I agree with him on are usually the ones I consider most important. I agree with Kerry about 1/3 of the time. Bush is way more likely to represent my views than Kerry would be, and that’s really the bottom line.
I wish there were 2 Americas. One for us and another for them. They could let the corporations run the country, get rid of all benefits, destroy the environment, gut public education, and declare war every other week. Everone could be issued an assault rifle!
We’d need ’em too, because after your America goes broke from trying to subsidize everything for everybody, you’d try to get back into our prosperous America, and we’d have to shoot ya.
“I wish there were 2 Americas. One for us and another for them.”
Dibs on Hawaii!!!
You can have BOTH Dakotas.
I think that Rather is recanting his claim to be the Queen of the Space Unicorns.
Carl,
Thanks for being so condescending! I guess I’m just a silly woman who doesn’t know enough to talk about anything but the Dem talking points. Boy, would I feel even sillier if I hadn’t cited National Geographic as the latest source on global warming info in my last post before yours. Maybe you should stop listening to the Republican talking points and read outside sources, hon.
It’s a man’s world…..unless women vote.
I guess I’m just a silly woman who doesn’t know enough to talk about anything but the Dem talking points.
No, need to apologize. You can’t help you were born female.
Boy, would I feel even sillier if I hadn’t cited National Geographic as the latest source on global warming info in my last post before yours.
Got a date and issue for that info? I’d like to check it out.
“Since it is overwhelmingly clear that the memos are not real but are fakes, it does serve as further evidence that CBS (and perhaps more of the media) has a bias against the right/republicans/conservatives. That is the most logical reason why they would run with memos against objections from some of their own experts.”
Oh, bûllšhìŧ. Reporters get hosed all the time. Newspapers, TV have been hoaxed on monumental levels. It has jack-all to do with bias and everything to do with one simple fact: News gathering organizations, in their attempt to be the first to nail a juicy story, get sloppy. And then they wind up paying for it. Everyone from the liberal New York Times to the conservative New York Post screw the pooch every so often. It’s not bias. It’s just bad journalism, period.
PAD
I’d like to believe that but then you get this: From the Associated Press: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CBS_GUARD_KERRY?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=customwire.htm
NEW YORK (AP) — At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said Monday he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush’s National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released. The White House accused Kerry’s campaign of fanning the controversy over Bush’s military service.
Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.
Holy crap, CBS is advising the Kerry Campaign? And nobody sees anything wrong with this???
Heads should role.
Karen:
Just so you know, I was just joking with you about the woman thing. I’ve noticed that a lot of liberals on this board have a tendency to think my jokes are completely serious.
As for the National Geographic info, nevermind. But you might be interested in this response to the article from the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-09-04.html
From Umar:
“That is not the only thing, but its a glaring example. So if you think Kerry is going to win on truth, forget about it. If truth mattered, Al Sharpton, who won every democratic debate, would be the candidate right now.”
Yeaaaahhhh…he still hasn’t come clean on the Tawana Bradley thing, has he?
Also from Umar:
“Iraq has been bombed since the first BS so-called war against it”
OK. I can see the viewpoint of people today who don’t like the current war. SEE it, but disagree with it. But are you saying that the FIRST Gulf War was BS? Seriously? I mean, I guess that Kerry did vote against that one…
Phinn said:
“This is mostly because we, with many members of the current Administration in the lead, sold those weapons (and American companies sold him many of the components) so that he could use them against Iran. And we didn’t complain when he did.”
Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all. But as long as you’re agreeing that Sadaam had WMDs, I guess it’s cool.
Don said:
“PAD said about Florida: “Jeb’s running the state. It was never in play.”
It makes me very sad to think that anyone really believes that.”
Don’t worry about it…I’m sure it’ll be another statement that PAD later says is just a joke.
Karen said:
“Boy, would I feel even sillier if I hadn’t cited National Geographic as the latest source on global warming info in my last post before yours”
Considering that I haven’t seen anyone ignore information, posts, and direct challenges more than I have seen you do so, it’s tough to take THAT one seriously. I am STILL waiting for you to comment about your statement about what happens to “ANYONE who speaks out against this admiistration.” Maybe all that banging your head on the wall has seriously injured you…
Charles K.
I have cited sources. You and others don’t agree my sources are valid because they don’t fit your worldview. Bush has ostracized members of Congress who don’t agree with him. People have been fired for supporting the opposition(the woman Kerry just hired). This is in the book “Bush Must Go” by Bill Press who used to be a co-host on Crossfire. Much of my latest info comes from his book as it is the one I just finished. I have seen a lot of these charges elsewhere, but I’m sure you will find some reason that he’s not a reliable source. Some of what I post has been widely reported, but again, you just blame the liberal media. Top people in Bush’s administration have written books detailing his failures (O’Neil and Clark), but that isn’t enough, either. It’s awfully nice to know you’ve been scrutinizing my posts for so long. But, while I have cited sources, whether you agree with them or not, why am I expected to explain myself and my reasoning when no one in this administration is held to that standard?
EClark,
I’ve read the article and the bio of the author. The Cato Institute is a libertarian organization with it’s own axe to grind. While I appreciate the point of view put forth in that article, we have know for many years that human beings have an impact on the environment. I am willing to concede that the articles in National Geo may be a worst case scenario, but wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of caution and treat the problems associated with global warming now? We’re talking about things we know to be detrimental to us and the natural world. Would it be so bad to get control of pollution by investing in altenative energy and going back to the Clean Air act put in place by Nixon? Is it so unreasonable to ask companies clean up their messes?
EClark,
While I knew you were joking, I want you to reread my post. I never apologized. 🙂
If you want to blame anyone, try the UN and the Democrats who delayed us acting. In the months leading up to the war, Saddam had plenty of time to prepare and ship the weapons. If we had acted sooner, it is possible (though of course, not certain) that we could have prevented this.
Except that, like Iraq and WMD, we have no proof that any WMD were sent anywhere.
But hey, give Bush another 4 years, and we can just invade Syria to find out for sure, right?
No, it’s easier to blame the Democrats for the (many) failings of this administration.
9/11? Blame the Democrats.
Haven’t got bin Laden? Blame the Democrats.
We fûçkëd up in Iraq? Blame the Democrats.
Bush chokes on a pretzel? Blame the Democrats.
Oh, I forgot to mention:
Bush didn’t show up for Guard service? Conspiracy by the Democrats.
Your argument makes the flawed assumption that if we had not invaded, Saddam would not have been able to pass on these weapons (assuming, for the moment, that this is what went to Syria). I would suggest it would have been even easier for Saddam to have passed them on if we had not invaded.
And what reason would have hand to send them to Syria and give up control of them unless we hand invaded? Do you honestly think he was just going to make a gift of his entire arsenal to another country? Saddam is many things, but he is not stupid. You’re assuming that then entire Middle East acts as one monolithic block. I know that fits the Saddam=Al Qaida mindset, but it’s not trues. During the first gulf war, he sent a squadron of his best fighter jets to Iran for “safekeeping.” The Iranians laughed and kept them. I doubt he’d make that same mistake again. This of course, assumes that WMDs still existed last year.
I need to look it up, but I believe we did not know about the Kurd until *after* Saddam had actually used the gas. We could not stop it because it had already been done.
And Saint Ron did nothing after the either except sell Saddam more weapons.
Karen,
I spend most of my days banging my head against the wall. 😉
“do believe the administration told what they honestly believed to be the truth regarding stockpiles of WMD’s. I also happen to believe they made some mistakes.”
And what about all the reports, even from so-called flattering books endorsed by the Administration (such as Woodward’s “Plan of Attack”) in which the Administration is depicted as wanting to go after Iraq on day 1?
And I don’t dispute that Saddam had WMDs. We know he did because, as I said, we (including many members of the current cabal) sold them to him. Of course someone else said that has “nothing to do with anything”, which I find shocking. I also believe that the weapons were no longer viable; Saddam didn’t have the resources to keep them up, and many experts said that they would no longer be viable after a decade of disuse.
I also believe that 1,000+ (and counting) soldiers have died fighting a war that was waged based on mistakes, even if those mistakes were made honestly. I cannot possibly endorse a candidate who avoided war (whether you think he served honorably in the guard or not, he himself has stated in interviews that he joined the guard to avoid the draft) and yet is so gung ho to wage war himself.
As for China’s cities being the most polluted, that doesn’t equate to emitting the most global-warming causing pollutants. I can dump 10 million tons of sludge in the river behind my house but that doesn’t mean I’m the leading cause of global warming in my neighborhood. I still stand by my (slightly adjusted) statement that, per-capita, the US produces more global-warming causing pollutants than any other country; remember that we have about 1/5 the population of China. I also stand by my statements that the reductions we were asked to make were modest.
And if anyone thinks that Bush’s relentless war on the environment won’t take a toll, they’re kidding themselves. He wants to introduce laws that allow companies to destroy mountains, to drill in our national parks, and to allow more noisy, polluting vehicles into our wildlife sanctuaries.
I really do not understand why so many people want to give Bush a second (and a third, and a fourth, and a fifth, and…) chance when they aren’t willing to give Kerry (or anyone else for that matter) even a first chance. Bush has proven that his campaign promises don’t mean squat; he’ll say whatever he has to to get elected.
He calls Kerry a flip-flopper by distorting his votes, and examinging his lengthy senate career for examples of contradictions even if votes were placed years (if not decades) apart. Bush has flip-flopped at least as many times in his much, much, much shorter career. Introduce “No Child Left Behind”, then refuse to fund it. Cut taxes, then wage a war. Support the assault weapons ban, then sit by and do nothing while it expires. Vehemently oppose a 9/11 commission, then support it. Refuse to allow your people to testify, then ask them to do so. Threaten to veto the bill to provide 87 billion in support to our troops, then attack Kerry for voting against it. Send our troops into battle without proper preparation, battle armor, equipment, or an exit strategy, and cut veterans benefits then claim that Kerry is bad for the troops. Attack Kerry for voting to cut weapons programs that Ðìçk Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, urged Congress to cut! Suggest that, if Kerry is elected, another devastating attack will occur on American soil despite the fact that the last one occurred on Bush’s watch! Call Kerry wishy-washy while watching a 7-minute video from September 11th that shows exactly how “decisive” Mr. Bush reacts under pressure.
I could go on. Bush has proven, time and again, that he is not a worthy leader. While people continue to support him while he drags this country kicking and screaming into the gutter is beyond me.
And for the record, I am not a democrat (nor am I registered as such). I try to pick the best man for the job; I often vote for Republicans when they aren’t stark raving lunatics hëll bent on raiding the treasury and marching our young men and women off to their deaths.
Phinn
And now it is official: Dan Rather lied to the US public. Dan Rather misled us. He failed to tell the truth.
…
For those of you who don’t get “subtle” irony, I simply turning around the argument back on those of you who say Bush lied about the WMD’s
Yeeeeaahhhhh, and that comparison will reeeeeeally have a lot of teeth when it’s revealed that Rather’s statements cost the country 200B and 1000+ American lives.
Lost in all the partisan hoopla (and it may get uglier still, if links to the Kerry campaign keep dribbling out) is that we may be witnessing a major event in society; the power of the common man to control the news gathering and dissemination business.
Were this the last election we would never have found out about CBS’s shoddy reporting/bias, at least not until long after the election. One wonders how the addition of the checks and balances of bloggers would have affected our history in times past. I’ve no doubt it will have a major effect in the future.
Phinn wrote:
“As for China’s cities being the most polluted, that doesn’t equate to emitting the most global-warming causing pollutants. I can dump 10 million tons of sludge in the river behind my house but that doesn’t mean I’m the leading cause of global warming in my neighborhood. I still stand by my (slightly adjusted) statement that, per-capita, the US produces more global-warming causing pollutants than any other country; remember that we have about 1/5 the population of China. I also stand by my statements that the reductions we were asked to make were modest. And if anyone thinks that Bush’s relentless war on the environment won’t take a toll, they’re kidding themselves. He wants to introduce laws that allow companies to destroy mountains, to drill in our national parks, and to allow more noisy, polluting vehicles into our wildlife sanctuaries.”
You are rationalizing. You apparently believe that all things will be better for the U.S. and world environment if a Democrat is sitting in the White House.
I say it doesn’t matter.
We over-regulated to protect the environment so fast and aggressively, we took what was once the greatest industrial engine in the world 50 years ago and reduced it to a hollow shell. And since the demand for raw materials, machinery, chemicals and other industrial products has done nothing but increase around the world, countries like China have moved in to pick up all the demand — countries which, by the way, don’t have anywhere NEAR the same environmental conscience we do.
So, we have not stopped global pollution — we’ve merely moved it out of our back yard. In the process, we’ve also jettisoned millions of American jobs and wiped out huge chunks of our technical expertise base.
I guess the U.S. could always become an agrarian society again (organic, of course) — like a giant Amish theme park — and we could sell our rustic crafts and fruit preserves to visiting foreign tourists. Ah, well… it’d be a living.
R. Maheras,
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: It is possible to make a profit while keeping the environment healthy. Conscientious companies do it everyday. The outsourcing of jobs has much more to do with NAFTA than any environmental rules that were in place before King Bush got his hands on them.
And I do think things will be better once Bush is out of office. I feel sorry for Kerry. He’s going to have to work very hard to clean up W’s messes. But that’s nothing new. He’s been bailed out of every business venture he undertook. Bush is used to someone coming in after him to clean up.
Hey, the environment card! Nifty!
Just some things to consider: Environmental regulation wasn’t solely responsible for manfacturing shifting overseas. Partly to blame is the absence of regulation. Until the mid 70s, and more realistically, the 80s, there was no or very little technology forcing regulation, forcing factories and power suppliers to develop affordable, efficient, and clean ways of going about production. Now, after years and years of making do with older tech, those plants are closing down, and companies are chosing to build overseas where, yes, there are fewer regulations and they can continue to use out-dated tech for production. If we had implemented a technology forcing regulatory scheme decades ago, we’d have the capability to build production facilities that are efficient, clean, and affordable.
Second, you want a prime example of what happens when you allow development without regulation? Take a look at Haiti, and the horrible death toll there from flooding. Haiti has lost nearly all it’s original tree cover, resulting in the loss of wetlands that slow and lessen the impact of floods. Without this natural ground cover, what is considered a minor tropical storm/hurricane ends up unleashing a devastating flood that kills hundreds. Ditto for floods in China, except those kill thousands.
Karen has it exactly right. Any corporation even remotely connected to a natural resource is best advised to act in a way that conserves and preserves that resource. Petroleum companies are madly striving to come up with the next fuel source to sell, because the know the era of cheap and affordable crude is coming to an end. In my lifetime (say 30 years) I’ve seen the petrol outlook go from “we’ll never run out of current oil supplies in this generations’ lifetime, or the next after that” to “affordable crude could be extinct come 2015.” Smart companies are looking at ways to extend our current supply: re-use, more efficient use, synthetic substitutions, and alternative forms, such as solar power and fuel cells.
ingBobb:
>Second, you want a prime example of what happens when you allow development without regulation? Take a look at Haiti, and the horrible death toll there from flooding. Haiti has lost nearly all it’s original tree cover, resulting in the loss of wetlands that slow and lessen the impact of floods. Without this natural ground cover, what is considered a minor tropical storm/hurricane ends up unleashing a devastating flood that kills hundreds. Ditto for floods in China, except those kill thousands.
Oh that we could blame natural disasters and simple exploitation of natural resources for Haiti’s worst atrocities. Ask most people watching that poor scenerio play out and they’ll tell you that the Nike corporation, through their exploitation of both the people and the land as well as burning that crappy rubber in the middle of populated areas, has been responsible for as much misery, death and disease as Ivan has been. Buy U.S. indeed.
Karen wrote:
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: It is possible to make a profit while keeping the environment healthy. Conscientious companies do it everyday. The outsourcing of jobs has much more to do with NAFTA than any environmental rules that were in place before King Bush got his hands on them.”
I agree with your first sentence. However, as I said, I think we went way too far, too fast. I have never, ever advocated the
Jim In Iowa wrote:
[b]1.) We have absolute proof that Iraq had WMD’s at least in the past. They used them on the Kurds. [/b]
Of course we do. Regan and Bush put Saddam into power and gave him all his weapon. All we needed to do was look on the list of stuff they sent him. And that’s ONLY if we’re talking post endless UN inspections and post endless bombings. Fact is we absolutely bombed the hëll out of the place repeatedly, so if they ever had weapon before GWB, Barney and Fred had more credible ones by the time the GOP stole the election.
[b]It is true that we have not found “stockpiles” of WMD’s, but we did find the components for WMD’s. In fact, Saddam even admitted to having some WMD’s in the past. We did not find huge stockpiles, but it is a gross mischaraterization to say we found no weapons at all in the last 12 years.[/b]
According to republicans almost anything could be a “component” for WMB. I’m surprised Powell didn’t how up sand and go “Sand makes glass, glass can hold chemicals or plutonium. Obviously the among of sand in the area proved WMD’s are somewhere.” I’ve seen Lex Luthor frame Superman with less
crap.
[b]3.) According to experts, Iraq is roughly the size of California. A stockpile of WMD’s can be as small as a 2 car garage. It is very easy to hide a 2 car garage in the state of California, especially if you kill anyone who knew about it (or do you not believe the stories of Saddam killing the builders of some of his palaces because they could reveal his secrets?).[/b]
So if you repeatedly bomb California for almost ten years and sent inspector after inspector there, you mean to say that they would have WMD’s and still be a credible threat? So Iraq is made up of super people who take bombing after bombing and still be ready to fire those missles.
Dude, give me a break with this stuff.
And if the places were so secret, how come everyone knows about them? Strange kind of secret don’t you think?
Charles K posted
” From Umar:
“That is not the only thing, but its a glaring example. So if you think Kerry is going to win on truth, forget about it. If truth mattered, Al Sharpton, who won every democratic debate, would be the candidate right now.”
Yeaaaahhhh…he still hasn’t come clean on the Tawana Bradley thing, has he?
Nothing to come clean about. The white men who raped her and was protected by the white society (courts, police, politicians, white people in general – no surprises there) are the ones who need to come clean. That’s what cracks me up about this country. It refuses to come clean until generations laters then its like Brittany Spears “Oops, we did it again.” “
And at least the man was fighting for a real cause, not livng under old money, getting drunk and dodging armed forces obligations. I’d rather Al, as dubious as he may or may not be, rather then the GOP who is bent on making sure everyone suffers except them.
“Yeaaaahhhh…he still hasn’t come clean on the Tawana Bradley thing, has he?”
“Nothing to come clean about. The white men who raped her and was protected by the white society (courts, police, politicians, white people in general – no surprises there) are the ones who need to come clean.”
Ok, so we totally don’t need to take you seriously. If you are still trying to peddle that crap…try reading Unholy Alliances: Working the Tawana Brawley Story, unless you’re afraid the truth might make your head explode.
A serious question Umar–are you serious about the stuff you write or is this a deliberate attempt to act like what conservatives think liberals are like?
Umar, Tawana Bradley has “come clean” on the Tawana Bradley thing! She admitted that she spent the night partying with friends, and made up the “kidnapped and raped” thing so that her mother wouldn’t kill Tawana herself when she finally got home. She said she had some friends beat her up (and I know it’s a cliche, but really, with friends like that, who does need enemies?) and scrawled the obscenities on herself.
Oh, yes, I forget myself – White Society is conspiring to force her to say those things! Didn’t that come up at one of the White Society Planning Meetings a while back?
Yes, R.Maheras, Cleveland/Ohio has done a tremendous job of keeping Lake Erie fire free. It’s one of the prime examples of environmental stewardship providing a positive economic boost.
I see a couple of points in your line of discussion that do lead us down the path of no regulation. Strict environmental regs. are only one factor of the high cost of production in the US, and your point about service jobs, which almost by definition don’t include much overhead investment, points to an even bigger culprit: the high cost of US labor. I’m not going to knock any individual’s choice of profession, and certainly any money you can get for performing your duties that the market will bear is what you deserve, but our labor market is seriously out of whack if we want to compete on a national scale for jobs. I work as an attorney occasionally, and my hourly billing rate is lower in some cases than a high-school/college student who’s fortunate enough to secure a construction position, literally pushing a wheelbarrow around filled with dirt. I’ve worked as a laborer in the past, and I respect the effort and tole it takes on you, physically, but I see something wrong where a position that takes no less than 7 years post-high school eductaion makes less than a job you require about 30 seconds of training for. I don’t know which is more, but environmental regulation costs are not the only thing driving CSR jobs over to India and wherever. Playing into that also is the fact that workers there don’t demand getting paid $50 an hour for saying “May I help you.”
And yes, that’s an exaggerated amount.
So, we’re faced with the prospect of cutting input costs somewhere. Our labor costs are so much higher than lots of other places in the world, that if we are unwilling to take lower pay for our work, that means cuts in other areas, like good environmental stewardship, will have to bear a bigger share of the cost reduction. Which could eventually lead us down into that rat hole of no regulation.
Now, after years and years of making do with older tech, those plants are closing down, and companies are chosing to build overseas where, yes, there are fewer regulations and they can continue to use out-dated tech for production. If we had implemented a technology forcing regulatory scheme decades ago, we’d have the capability to build production facilities that are efficient, clean, and affordable.
Umm…. I don’t know if you really mean what you’re saying here. You’re saying that companies would rather shut down a perfectly fine factory here for no reason than the tech is old and move overseas to open build and open another factory using the same old tech.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to upgrade the tech in the current factory than move EVERYTHING overseas and run everything with old tech again. The tax codes have allowed for deductions and depreciations for just such upgrades for years. Plus, most of the changes required by law are given grace times to have the upgrades done so the companies could spread the costs out over time. It would make no sense to move a factory over seas just because the tech is old, and just so you could keep youusing old tech that will probably be obsolete in a few years anyway.
Unfortunately, the largest cost for most employers is in personnel. Once you buy equipment, it’s yours (plus you get to deductions for depreciation). Workers have to get paid every week. If employeers were to move overseas, they could buy the same older (and cheaper) equipment, and more than make up any costs by paying workers less.
R. Mhaeras wrote:
In the next decade or so, where will the U.S. grow future jobs? Well, about all that’s left is the service, medical and agricultural sectors. And as our accumulated wealth eventually bleeds away overseas (bye-bye service jobs), and all the Baby Boomers die off (bye-bye healthcare jobs), soon there won’t be many places left to work in the U.S. except the farm or tourism sectors
I don’t think that it will get to be that bad. First, the agricultural sector is in more danger than the service or medical sectors. It’s considered an undesirable job by most Americans, which is why immigrants are allowed to flout the border laws with no repercussions from Dems or GOP. But consider this, environmental laws and as more immigrants get the right to vote before they even become citizens, the agricultural industry will start to experience the same difficulties that drove manufacturing jobs overseas. Higher pay, job benefits, andinsurance will become issues in an industry where they’ve been exempt before.
Environmentalists and farmers are already doing battle over things like water rights, dams and animal waste disposal.
Unfortunately, the largest cost for most employers is in personnel. Once you buy equipment, it’s yours (plus you get to deductions for depreciation). Workers have to get paid every week. If employeers were to move overseas, they could buy the same older (and cheaper) equipment, and more than make up any costs by paying workers less.
Then it would make no sense for them to buy older equipment if they’re already saving money by paying people less and you admit it is the larger budget item.
Plus it gives them a competitive disadvantage to use older equipment and production methods compared to companies that use newer technologies. They’re also going to have to pay to build the new factories and train the new people, add to that the cost of shipping and finding new suppliers who can ship overseas to them. Many of these costs will overlap.
On the other hand, consider this: A company upgrades it’s technology, thus eliminating many of the jobs it once had due to automation. It doesn’t have to pay as much healthcare, doesn’t have as much union trouble or conflicts, it’s complying with environmental regulations, fewer job benefits. You do the math.
And as more jobs are sent over seas, and the wages and standard of living in America plummets as a result, who will buy all this over-priced crap? Have you priced a car lately? Even a small house in the suburbs away from urban filth and crime? Cars cost what houses used to and houses are spiralling out of control while jobs that pay enough to buy them are vanishing and being replaced with low-wage no-benfit “Want fries with that?” or Wal-Mart “Smiling Lunatic” greeters…
Watch America destroy itself, it needs no help from “Communists” or “Terrorists”, the business creeps are doing that job quite nicely. The bottom line this quarter is all that matters, forget the future! Bush doesn’t care what his deficit is going to do to this country’s future either…
Umar,
Go read the story I posted *twice* about what has been found in Iraq. Read the report that will come out soon from the inspector who took over for David Kay, as well as what David Kay actually said, not the two or three quotes the media focused on. We can debate whether invasion was the right response, but there is no serious debate that Saddam was still engaged in actions aimed at developing new weapons.
Jim in Iowa
Our labor costs are so much higher than lots of other places in the world, that if we are unwilling to take lower pay for our work, that means cuts in other areas, like good environmental stewardship, will have to bear a bigger share of the cost reduction. Which could eventually lead us down into that rat hole of no regulation.
One of the things America will have to face in the era of global free trade is that our standard of living will likely decrease. We cannot keep earning $25K per year for a manufacturing job if in India it only costs $10K. That’s the biggest potential disaster I see coming to global trade. It’s painful, probably necessary, and will come just when our Boomers are retiring and we need the income.
Can you say disaster boys and girls?
Back to the original point: CBS has admitted it made a mistake. More importantly, it is clear there was direct contact between CBS and the DNC. Where is the outrage?
Let’s look at the recent facts. In August, the democrats accused Bush and the RNC of coordinating with the Swifties, or even worse, that the Swifties were just the RNC in disguise. There was no proof of this. There were a couple of connections (such as the lawyer who served both groups), but absolutely nothing different than the connections between the DNC and groups like MoveOn.org and America Coming Together. It would be almost impossible to not have some overlap since these groups have the same goal.
Now to CBS and these memos. This time it is different. You have Burkett requiring that CBS connect him with the Democratic party before he turns over these memos — and they do! Burkett actually talked to someone (Lockhart I believe, and perhaps Max Cleland) in the DNC. And they want us to believe they never talked about these memos? If this was Fox News connecting a Swift Boat Vet with the Bush campaign, the outcry would not be buried in a story. It would be headlines. Instead of the polite speculation on whether Rather will resign over this, there would be an avalanche of demand that Brit Hume (or whatever Fox News reporter plays the role of Rather in this hypothetical example) be fired immediately.
You still don’t believe there is a double standard? Consider this. In August, the Swift Boat Vets made their attack. What did Bush do? He PRAISED Kerry for his service. Not once did Bush join in or give any credence to the allegations. While he did not specifically tell the Swift Boat Vets to end their ad (which technically would be against current election laws), he did call for an end to all 527 ads.
When this memo was released on CBS, what happened? You had the DNC at the same time once again pressing the issue about Bush and the National Guard. You have Kerry on record questioning Bush’s service in the Guard.
Forgive me if I see a strong media bias. Forgive me if I see Dan Rather at best the willing stooge for the Democrats. Forgive me if I see the Democrats as a bunch of hypocrites doing the very thing they accuse the Republicans of doing.
CBS is not “Created by Sauaron.” CBS is “Crushed beyond solution.”
Jim in Iowa
This is just my opinion, but I think Brit Hume could claim to have a film of Kerry eating babies and would still keep his job at Fox.
This is after all the network that has allowed Sean Hannity to repeatedly call Bill Clinton a rapist.
Den W. wrote: “This is after all the network that has allowed Sean Hannity to repeatedly call Bill Clinton a rapist.”
I never heard that before. When and where did Sean say this? On TV or on the radio? I don’t have cable, and don’t listen regularly to his radio show.
Jim in Iowa
Den W.,
For the record, I would be calling for Brit Hume to resign if he alleged what you suggested. Or Rush Limbaugh. Or Sean Hannity. I would need the context of what Sean said to talk about the specifics of that case.
Of course, Bush has been (wrongly) accused of being a baby killer, so guess that has actually already happened.
Jim in Iowa
Sean Hannity has repeatedly spread an allegation on both his TV show and his radio show that Bill Clinton allegedly raped a woman while governor of Arkansas.
I’m glad to hear you would call for Brit Hume’s resignation if he aired such an allegation, but, my point is, you are using an assumption that because Fox News shares your political ideology, that somehow means they operate on a higher ethical plane than the (admittedly) liberal CBS Evening News with Dan Rather. I don’t see anything to support that assumption. In fact, looking at the history Rupert Murdoch’s entire News Corporation (TV channels and tabloid newspapers) the word “ethical” hardly jumps out at me.
Then again, it doesn’t jump out at me for Rather either. Personally, I’ve been waiting years for the man who stabbed Cronkite in the back to have his final implosion. Slate.com has a great article today on his many vacations from reality.
As for Bush being called a baby-killer, that’s wrong and I condemn it. On the other hand, there’s a guy in my town with on sign on his front lawn that reads “John Kerry’s America” and a giant photo of an aborted fetus.
Big difference between Hannity, Limbaugh and Rather. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are commentators. They make no secrets about where on the political fence they are. Dan Rather, on the other hand, is supposed to be a journalist and an objective reporter. And, as the managing editor of CBS News, he really should know better than to rush a story to air before having all of the facts checked. If CBS had been investigating this story for 5+ years, a couple more days wouldn’t have made a difference.
I’d love to see Hannity get sued for slander and try to convince a judge, “But I’m a commentator! I have a right to scurrilous charges because I don’t hide my bias.” See how far he gets with that.
Ya know, I dunno when this ‘commentators’ defense started making the rounds but I don’t see how you can claim that someone who states that something is a fact – which is verifiably wrong – can simply claim they were only editorializing. How many times in a show does O’Reilly say “here’s a story…” and go on to relate something as if it’s true.
Maybe it always is. I dunno. But the point is that in the cases of O’R and Hannity they appear on channels with NEWS in the title and read items before they comment on them. I find it hard to stomach writing them a pass for relating things without verifiable citation which may or may not be true simply because they are “commentators.”
Clinton won’t sue and Hannity would love it if he did. For Clinton to sue Hannity he’d have to answer the charge of raping Juanita Brodderick, Even if you take the tack that Clinton doesn’t have to prove he didn’t rape Ms. Brodderick, the charge alone would raise doubts. After all, Clinton himself admits that he’s a sex addict, he admits to lying about Paula Jones, and Monica Lewisinsky, there are the stories about him and the state troopers, and Kathleen Willey.
“Sean Hannity has repeatedly spread an allegation on both his TV show and his radio show that Bill Clinton allegedly raped a woman while governor of Arkansas.”
“I’d love to see Hannity get sued for slander and try to convince a judge, “But I’m a commentator! I have a right to scurrilous charges because I don’t hide my bias.” See how far he gets with that.”
Sadly, that old first amendment will probably forever keep your dreams from becoming reality.
You see, Clinton HAS been accused of rapeing Juanita Broderick. You may believe the allegation. You may not believe the allegation. based on that belief you may be willing to call Clinton a rapist or Broderick a liar.
I supose it MIGHT be possible to sue Hannity if he doesn’t say “alleged rapist” (which I guess is why newscaseters often say that, even when they have just shown video of the guy doing the “alleged” act). Of course, Clinton would have to prove both that he did NOT in fact rape her and that Hannity new it and was lying to make a profit. I’m not sure that he would succeed at any of those efforts.
And if hannity lost, how long before they come after Josh Marshell, Eric Alterman, and other commentators whose views might be closer to your own?