OK. That's a fair question. It is possible that the administration wants to show all its cards on one fell swoop, so that information is not leaked out day by day. Yes, this could involve politics of course. Choosing to release the information would of course have a major positive political impact for Bush. Beyond politics, it's possible that releasing such information could have effects on other operations in the WOT and national security in general. Some of these issues we, as civilians, may not even be aware of. Now don't get me wrong: I don't consider it at all "likely" that all of a sudden, "weapons will be found". I just said that I consider it a possibility.
As far as people lying: I'm sorry, but we haven't seen evidence of that. We've seen seen statements that have so far proved inaccurate. That's not the same thing. A lie is a delibrate false statement. We already know there have been serious intelligence failures. Is it not possible that the intelligence that Bush, Rumsfeld, and other top level officers in the executive branch was seriously flawed? Decision makers require information on which they base their decisions. What if the information was simply wrong? Who's at fault then?
Finally, I have to ask: Do you honestly believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Bush (perhaps more importantly...Karl Rove) are so politically ignorant and inexperienced that they would knowingly make false statements about WMD? I mean...really. They HAD to know the fallout from not finding WMD would be huge. There is no way they would have said "we're sure" if they WEREN'T sure. My point is that it doesn't make sense that they would have lied. It's not even a smart lie. Whatever you think of these people, one thing you can't say is that they're stupid.
There would've been no fall out had the war went as planned. Remember Rove, Chenney, Pearle, and Rummy all thought we'd march to Baghdad on a path of roses, be met in with songs and dance, and simply sign over a democratic government within a couple of weeks. The war has turned out to as bad as all the naysayers predicted. There are not enough troops in the arena, we have a full scale guerrilla war on our hands, we're driving more ME youth to extremist organizations, we've left real dictators in power to attack Saddam, and we've angered the world. We're chumps on the world stage. Thanks GWB.
And this assertion about having found WMD is a crazy way of defending yourself I might add. Do you HONESTLY believe the powers that be would hold back a political hot potatoe? You are insane if you truely believe they would. A real WMD find would shut the naysayers up immediatly and boost Bushes polls from now until Nov... I can't believe you'd argue otherwise. Hell, every suspected find has been released to the press almost immediatly. The man looking for the goods (remember the hawk David Kay) said you have a better chance of winning the lottery than finding WMD. Just give it up man there are NO WMD. Accept it. You sound like DMZ arguing against evolution...
I cannot believe how you have gotten away with your ridiculous false claims. Unemployment is NOT worse than anytime since WWII. It's not even close. It's NEVER even been close. in 1991, it was over 7%. Now, it's 5.6%. 5% is considered full employment. Unemployment isn't even a PROBLEM, much less a "serious" problem.
Secondly, the recession was OVER when the war started. The economy was starting to rebound by March of 2003. And really,, jimmac: Where is the backing for the statement that war spending doesn't help the economy? You can't demonstrate this, because nearly all evidence points to the contrary.
"As I heard it portrayed", you say? Wow. That's a classic jimmacism. As I heard it portrayed. Once again, you can't show Bush was even involved in this decision remotely. Is it a stupid classification? Of course. No one is arguing that.
Will they find WMD? My guess is no. It's apparent that they either weren't there, or were moved. I do think there is a possibility that a stockpile could be found, or an eve more remote possibility that we have already found them and are not releasing the info, for whatever reason. It's not prudent to discount all these possibilities. Not finding WMD does not mean Bush lied or is incompetent. Only a blindly partisan fool would come to those conclusions.
Bush a slime? OK...go ahead, I'm listening for "the other" reasons.
I'll just make one comment about your conservatively slighted assumptions. Commenting on the whole is something I'm getting very tired of doing ( who am I going to believe my own eyes and CNN or you? ).
About the WOMD....it's not just that they will never find them. It's that when Bush was trying to drum up suppoprt for this war they weren't there to begin with.
That's the broad side of the barn you're missing by several miles. That and all it's implications.
Of course if you were a staunch Bush supporter you wouldn't want to entertain these thoughts anyway.
By the way jobs are still tight here in Oregon and many people are still struggling to find work despite what you have to say.
There would've been no fall out had the war went as planned. Remember Rove, Chenney, Pearle, and Rummy all thought we'd march to Baghdad on a path of roses, be met in with songs and dance, and simply sign over a democratic government within a couple of weeks. The war has turned out to as bad as all the naysayers predicted. There are not enough troops in the arena, we have a full scale guerrilla war on our hands, we're driving more ME youth to extremist organizations, we've left real dictators in power to attack Saddam, and we've angered the world. We're chumps on the world stage. Thanks GWB.
And this assertion about having found WMD is a crazy way of defending yourself I might add. Do you HONESTLY believe the powers that be would hold back a political hot potatoe? You are insane if you truely believe they would. A real WMD find would shut the naysayers up immediatly and boost Bushes polls from now until Nov... I can't believe you'd argue otherwise. Hell, every suspected find has been released to the press almost immediatly. The man looking for the goods (remember the hawk David Kay) said you have a better chance of winning the lottery than finding WMD. Just give it up man there are NO WMD. Accept it. You sound like DMZ arguing against evolution...
I don't think you can say the war is going as badly as the naysayers predicted. This is not a full scale guerrilla war. We are dealing with mostly Bathe party remenants, not a popular uprising. As for witholding information, I'm not saying it's likely. Honestly though, YOU'D be crazy to assume we're in the know about everything. I'm not saying there are WMD there. I'm saying there is small possbility this information is being withheld for either security or even political purposes. I'm also saying the weapons MAY have been moved. I'm not "defending" anything, because frankly, WMD was only one of of 100 other good reasons to go into Iraq.
I'll just make one comment about your conservatively slighted assumptions. Commenting on the whole is something I'm getting very tired of doing ( who am I going to believe my own eyes and CNN or you? ).
About the WOMD....it's not just that they will never find them. It's that when Bush was trying to drum up suppoprt for this war they weren't there to begin with.
That's the broad side of the barn you're missing by several miles. That and all it's implications.
Of course if you were a staunch Bush supporter you wouldn't want to entertain these thoughts anyway.
By the way jobs are still tight here in Oregon and many people are still struggling to find work despite what you have to say.
jimmac, you simply do NOT KNOW that there were never any weapons in Iraq. We know he used to have them. We know he used them. We know he didn't account for their destruction. We know he didn't account for thousands of tons of chemicals. And, we knew he wasn't fully cooperating and that he was hiding things. And from this, you conclude they weren't there? Why, because you couldn't see them? What about the chemical shells that were found before the war? What were they?
As far as whom you believe, it's obvious you'll paint the economy and other issues in the most negative way to support your hatred of Bush. It wouldn't matter if unemployment dropped to 3.9% and stock market hit 20,000....you'd be saying "it'll never last!!!". Oh, and btw: CNN is not exactly what I'd call "neutral" from a political standpoint.
As for being a Bush supporter, you bet I am. He's doing the right thing concerning terrorism and national security, and his tax cuts have revitalized an economy that was in trouble the day he took office. He's followed through on most of his campiagn initiatives, including education reform and medicare. I don't agree with him on everything, and I'm not happy about how much we're spending right now. But I support him, and confidently so, especially compared to his flip flopping, war crimes committing, SUV driving (but pro-environment!) multi-hundred-millionaire opponent.
jimmac, you simply do NOT KNOW that there were never any weapons in Iraq. We know he used to have them. We know he used them. We know he didn't account for their destruction. We know he didn't account for thousands of tons of chemicals. And, we knew he wasn't fully cooperating and that he was hiding things. And from this, you conclude they weren't there? Why, because you couldn't see them? What about the chemical shells that were found before the war? What were they?
As far as whom you believe, it's obvious you'll paint the economy and other issues in the most negative way to support your hatred of Bush. It wouldn't matter if unemployment dropped to 3.9% and stock market hit 20,000....you'd be saying "it'll never last!!!". Oh, and btw: CNN is not exactly what I'd call "neutral" from a political standpoint.
As for being a Bush supporter, you bet I am. He's doing the right thing concerning terrorism and national security, and his tax cuts have revitalized an economy that was in trouble the day he took office. He's followed through on most of his campiagn initiatives, including education reform and medicare. I don't agree with him on everything, and I'm not happy about how much we're spending right now. But I support him, and confidently so, especially compared to his flip flopping, war crimes committing, SUV driving (but pro-environment!) multi-hundred-millionaire opponent.
Oh but I simply do know there were no WOMD in Iraq! I've never stuck my hand in a lawn mower either but I " know " what would happen. You don't always need to see direct proof to draw a conclusion. Ask any scientist.
Current numbers of unemployment by state :
State Unemployment Rate
North Dakota 3.0%
South Dakota 3.3%
Virginia 3.4%
Wyoming 3.4%
Georgia 3.6%
Nebraska 3.6%
Vermont 3.6%
Delaware 3.8%
Hawaii 3.8%
Maryland 4.0%
New Hampshire 4.0%
Iowa 4.1%
Mississippi 4.2%
Montana 4.2%
Nevada 4.4%
Idaho 4.6%
Minnesota 4.7%
Oklahoma 4.7%
Florida 4.8%
Kansas 4.8%
Arizona 4.9%
Colorado 4.9%
Connecticut 4.9%
Maine 4.9%
Missouri 5.0%
Tennessee 5.0%
Utah 5.0%
Massachusetts 5.1%
Wisconsin 5.1%
Indiana 5.2%
New Jersey 5.2%
North Carolina 5.2%
Pennsylvania 5.3%
Arkansas 5.4%
West Virginia 5.4%
Kentucky 5.5%
Louisiana 5.5%
U.S. Average (as of April) 5.6%
Rhode Island 5.6%
New Mexico 5.7%
Ohio 5.7%
Alabama 5.9%
Illinois 6.0%
Washington 6.1%
Texas 6.2%
California 6.5%
New York 6.5%
South Carolina 6.7%
District of Columbia 6.9%
Michigan 6.9%
Alaska 7.1%
Oregon 7.2%
I can understand your isolated viewpoint as things aren't too bad in Coatesville.
Not too many 3%'s in that list.
I live in Oregon and have a good job that I've had for 16 years now. I feel fortunate. Not everybody is like me however.
And yes you seemed to have found a real home with Bush.
Good thing is that many are starting to wake up to the truth.
At the Harkin steak fry last year, former President Clinton said something I thought was remarkable. Describing the 2000 election, he pointed out that the "race was tighter than a tick" and that no matter who had won, the election was not a mandate for change. But in the end, this is an ideologically-driven administration, and so the will of the people had very little to do with their decisions, it seems.
We know that Bush's fiscal "policy" (if there is one) is angering the libertarian wing of the Republican party. We know that the traditional conservatives are growing increasingly disillusioned with the neoconservatives having risen to such tremendous power. We know that the "pesky God and Jesus fellows" (Eddie Izzard joke there) loves their preciousssss because he's a born-again. We know that the libertarians don't like the Santorumists--nor does the Supreme Court, so far as I can tell.
Now...I keep wondering whether or not the Republican party will get torn apart over all of this. Since '94 they've been incredibly unified and organized and have pounded the Democrats at all turns. It would seem that some of that is beginning to unravel (I'm thinking here of George Will jumping ship the other day and of the Bush stumble out of the gate with the 9/11 ads--it's pretty clear that he can't campaign on it like they'd thought).
So here it is: Is Kerry conservative enough to win the disaffected republican votes? What if someone like McCain were tapped as Veep (which I'd actually like to see)?
At the Harkin steak fry last year, former President Clinton said something I thought was remarkable. Describing the 2000 election, he pointed out that the "race was tighter than a tick" and that no matter who had won, the election was not a mandate for change. But in the end, this is an ideologically-driven administration, and so the will of the people had very little to do with their decisions, it seems.
We know that Bush's fiscal "policy" (if there is one) is angering the libertarian wing of the Republican party. We know that the traditional conservatives are growing increasingly disillusioned with the neoconservatives having risen to such tremendous power. We know that the "pesky God and Jesus fellows" (Eddie Izzard joke there) loves their preciousssss because he's a born-again. We know that the libertarians don't like the Santorumists--nor does the Supreme Court, so far as I can tell.
Now...I keep wondering whether or not the Republican party will get torn apart over all of this. Since '94 they've been incredibly unified and organized and have pounded the Democrats at all turns. It would seem that some of that is beginning to unravel (I'm thinking here of George Will jumping ship the other day and of the Bush stumble out of the gate with the 9/11 ads--it's pretty clear that he can't campaign on it like they'd thought).
So here it is: Is Kerry conservative enough to win the disaffected republican votes? What if someone like McCain were tapped as Veep (which I'd actually like to see)?
Cheers
Scott
Good points.
I think it all depends on how effective, really, the Kerry smear campaign turns out to be.
In a country that features quite a few people that truly believe that Clinton was some kind of socialist anti-christ, it's sobering to think what the Bush campaign can do with an actual liberal voting record.
Now, more in line with your post, it does seem possible to me that if Bush can continue to make a policy free hash out of everything he touches, it could disrupt the mechanism of "liberals are soft on defense/crime/morals".
I think that Americans are at heart pragmatists, and the object lesson of the putative "conservative/religious" standard bearer being so feckless in the face of actual events may serve as a head clearing experience for the electorate.
But if and only if Kerry can formulate and convey some hard headed solutions, or at least strategies, for fixing what's been broken. Otherwise, even broad dissatisfaction with what passes for "conservative leadership" these days could fail to result in any serious realignment of the social conservative/religious right/disaffected blue-collar whites bloc that has been winning elections for the Republicans.
For what it's worth, here's what I wrote about the Harkin steak fry (note the date; it was before any of the big Dem caucuses):
"In a world where you can't kill or jail all your enemies, you have to make more friends and fewer terrorists."
September 13, 2003
During dinner, Shelley and I were flipping channels and stopped on C-SPAN to watch Bill Clinton speak at the annual Tom Harkin (D-IA) Steak Fry. It's far too easy to forget what it's like to hear an articulate president deliver a speech, and this one of Clinton's was par (for him. That is, it wasn't spectacular for him. Had any other politician delivered this speech, it would've been considered a home run). I didn't see any teleprompters, nor did I see him turning pages, so there were indications that other than a few core bits much of it was off the cuff. He was funny and charming and articulate and all of those things that made so many of us fall in love with him in 1991 and 1992, before we realized he was actually a Republican.
The interesting thing about this speech is that Clinton essentially laid out the democratic playbook for the candidates. This is not to say that they don't know what this completely obvious playbook is--lost jobs, lost international respect, towering deficit, expanding debt, tax cuts for the rich, driving the country too far to the right without a mandate.
(Indeed, the first serious section of his speech emphasized how the 2000 election was "tight as a tick," and even included the admission that had Gore "won," that still would've been the case. But the refrain in this section was this: the 2000 election was not a mandate for radical change.)
It was in his discussion of this "radical change" that he gave what I thought was a fairly key tactic to the Democrats currently in the field. He remarked that before he moved to Washington he didn't have much money, which I don't doubt is true. He then went on to explain that now he's in the tax bracket that received the tax cut. The leitmotiv became this: this administration wants to remove cops from the street so that I can have my tax cut; this administration wants to refuse student loans so that I can have my tax cut; this administration wants to kill Head Start so that I can have my tax cut.
I'd like to see some of the candidates pick up this line and run with it for a little while. As Harkin remarked in his introduction of Clinton, if you listen to Rush Limbaugh you'd think Clinton was still in the White House. As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons I've stopped listening to right-wing talk radio: they don't have any iconic democrat figures to point their rhetoric of oppression at, and so they still, still talk about Clinton. It's amazing.
But it'd be interesting to see this line in the field or in a campaign ad down the line.
Imagine it: "George Bush wants to give people like Bill Clinton a tax break, and he's making people like you pay for it."
i guess the question is, is Kerry willing to take on the "class warrior" mantel, when it has been so effective in beating liberals about the head and shoulders?
So far, he seems like a pretty cautious candidate, and I wonder if he would take the risk.
OTOH, the more I think about it, the I agree with you that this may be the time to take pretty strong positions that clearly differentiate the choice facing voters, and not worry so much about getting branded "anti-American" or "anti-affluence" or "anti-business" etc. etc.
There must be a way to craft that message so that it talks directly to anybody that's had it with this Rove driven "gestural" administration that just keeps tossing stuff around without any policy apparatus to back it up.
Congratulations you sound like the Iraqi Information Minister! Man whatever happened to that guy? I miss him. He could have a serious career over here, maybe hosting a talk show or reality TV.
"We have them surrounded in their tanks"
"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"
I don't think you can say the war is going as badly as the naysayers predicted. This is not a full scale guerrilla war. We are dealing with mostly Bathe party remenants, not a popular uprising. As for witholding information, I'm not saying it's likely. Honestly though, YOU'D be crazy to assume we're in the know about everything. I'm not saying there are WMD there. I'm saying there is small possbility this information is being withheld for either security or even political purposes. I'm also saying the weapons MAY have been moved. I'm not "defending" anything, because frankly, WMD was only one of of 100 other good reasons to go into Iraq.
Hmmmm lets see, what is a Guerilla war? Well, the FARC would know as would the viet cong oh and least we forget the Algerians along with hundreds of other Guerilla conflicts. Obvously you don't know what a Guerilla war is so take a look here where you'll see the defnition of Guerilla and the like:
A Guerilla war is one where a small force fights a larger better equiped force via sabotage, herassment, and non-traditional means. Guerilla wars typically rely on civilian populations for shelter and are used as shields....
Sounds a lot like what we have going on now then doesn't it. A small force (not AQ as the administration first led the US citizenry to believe) of Iraqis led by well trained former Republican Guards are attacking US forces with IED's on a daily basis. These irregular forces are training other malitias to fight as we've see in Falluga, Basra, and Najef (spelling?). Call me crazy but to my untrained (sarcasm) eye we have ourselves a Guerilla war.
Finally, you're a true master of the Kool-Aid if you believe the evidence of a WMD find would not have been released already. The entire war was built on that claim, and the undoing of the administration will (and has been) that very same claim. Face it, there are no WMD's. We were sure as shit they had them and we knew EXACTLY were they were prior to the invasion. So were are they now? They never had them. The administration cherry pick intel and used it to build the case for this unjust war.
Well, I have another thought so the above really isn't finally. If Kerry is so unfit to be commander-in-cheif why then is this thread so filled with endictments agains our current CIC and they way they have run the country. How is it that any and all arguments presented by the bush camp can so easily be turned against the current nuckle-heads? Simple answer--they, those that are in charge now, are unfit to lead this country. Bush is the one who is unfit to be CIC.
Hmmmm lets see, what is a Guerilla war? Well, the FARC would know as would the viet cong oh and least we forget the Algerians along with hundreds of other Guerilla conflicts. Obvously you don't know what a Guerilla war is so take a look here where you'll see the defnition of Guerilla and the like:
A Guerilla war is one where a small force fights a larger better equiped force via sabotage, herassment, and non-traditional means. Guerilla wars typically rely on civilian populations for shelter and are used as shields....
Sounds a lot like what we have going on now then doesn't it. A small force (not AQ as the administration first led the US citizenry to believe) of Iraqis led by well trained former Republican Guards are attacking US forces with IED's on a daily basis. These irregular forces are training other malitias to fight as we've see in Falluga, Basra, and Najef (spelling?). Call me crazy but to my untrained (sarcasm) eye we have ourselves a Guerilla war.
Finally, you're a true master of the Kool-Aid if you believe the evidence of a WMD find would not have been released already. The entire war was built on that claim, and the undoing of the administration will (and has been) that very same claim. Face it, there are no WMD's. We were sure as shit they had them and we knew EXACTLY were they were prior to the invasion. So were are they now? They never had them. The administration cherry pick intel and used it to build the case for this unjust war.
Well, I have another thought so the above really isn't finally. If Kerry is so unfit to be commander-in-cheif why then is this thread so filled with endictments agains our current CIC and they way they have run the country. How is it that any and all arguments presented by the bush camp can so easily be turned against the current nuckle-heads? Simple answer--they, those that are in charge now, are unfit to lead this country. Bush is the one who is unfit to be CIC.
This is not a full scale guerilla war. That's all I'm saying. Obviously what's happening right now is not good news. I think right now I'd call it a major security problem. But I don't like semantics, so I'll end it there. Things need to improve, I agree.
As for WMD's, well we all have questions, now don't we? I'm just pointing out possibilities. There are two likely scenarios from my perspective: First, I think it's very likely that the weapons may be in Syria. Secondly, I think that there may not have been weapons. I'd list the possibilites on that order. The third, and least likely possbility is that there may exist hidden weapons that have not been found yet. Fourth, and only very remotely possible, is that weapons have been found, but the information has not been released. My stating this possibility has nothing to with Bush or any administration. It's just that I believe, with good reason, that the US Government sure as hell doesn't tell "us" everything. There could be any number of reasons the information hasn't been released. Again though, I consider it only very remotely possible in this situation. Finally, no....I don't believe Bush or his administration lied about WMD. I'll repeat what I've said...if I see evidence that Bush he loses my vote. I can't say it any more plainly than that.
"Why is this thread filled with endictment [sic] against our CIC".....Hmmm, I wonder. Perhaps because AO is dominated by a liberal, anti-Bush viewpoint? Let me ask you, if Bush is so unpopular, why does he have over 6,000,000 supporters registered? Why have almost 1,000,000 people contributed to his campaign?
Though it's interesting: By posting what you did, you've proven my point about enthusiasm for Kerry. No one, and I mean no one I've spoken to listened to talks about their full support for Kerry. What they do talk about is their hatred of Bush, and how anyone would be better. That is not going to win Kerry the election.
You can keep posting all you want, but you cannot change the fact that the US Economy is strongly rebounding in nearly all sectors. I know that for political purposes you'd like that not to be true, but it is.
At the Harkin steak fry last year, former President Clinton said something I thought was remarkable. Describing the 2000 election, he pointed out that the "race was tighter than a tick" and that no matter who had won, the election was not a mandate for change. But in the end, this is an ideologically-driven administration, and so the will of the people had very little to do with their decisions, it seems.
We know that Bush's fiscal "policy" (if there is one) is angering the libertarian wing of the Republican party. We know that the traditional conservatives are growing increasingly disillusioned with the neoconservatives having risen to such tremendous power. We know that the "pesky God and Jesus fellows" (Eddie Izzard joke there) loves their preciousssss because he's a born-again. We know that the libertarians don't like the Santorumists--nor does the Supreme Court, so far as I can tell.
Now...I keep wondering whether or not the Republican party will get torn apart over all of this. Since '94 they've been incredibly unified and organized and have pounded the Democrats at all turns. It would seem that some of that is beginning to unravel (I'm thinking here of George Will jumping ship the other day and of the Bush stumble out of the gate with the 9/11 ads--it's pretty clear that he can't campaign on it like they'd thought).
So here it is: Is Kerry conservative enough to win the disaffected republican votes? What if someone like McCain were tapped as Veep (which I'd actually like to see)?
Cheers
Scott
1. We don't live in a direct Democracy. The winners of elections make decisions. From what you're saying, the President should only lay out a strong agenda if he wins a certain percentage of the vote. Ridiculous.
2. The Republican Party, though upset about spending, is not jumping ship with regards to Bush. Sorry to inform you of that.
3. Kerry conservative enough to win Republican votes? Wow. I think you need to look at some polling data. Republican enthusiasm for Bush is almost unanimous, and greater than Democratic enthusiasm for Kerry. As far as Kerry being conservative, well that's pretty much the funniest thing ever posted on AO.
Congratulations you sound like the Iraqi Information Minister! Man whatever happened to that guy? I miss him. He could have a serious career over here, maybe hosting a talk show or reality TV.
"We have them surrounded in their tanks"
"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"
The naysayers predicted many many thousands of US deaths. The naysayers we wouldn't take Baghdad. The naysayers said we wouldn't get Saddam. What we have hear is a serious security situation. Have there been mistakes made? Of course. But overall, Iraq is in far better shape thatn it was a year ago. Children are going to school and learning about something other than Saddam. Schools are being built. Water quality, electric service and the local economy have all improved dramtically. They protested in Baghdad the other day. Let me say that again...THEY PROTESTED. Sure, it was against the US and our "occupation". But they were allowed to protest! Oh, the irony.
1. We don't live in a direct Democracy. The winners of elections make decisions. From what you're saying, the President should only lay out a strong agenda if he wins a certain percentage of the vote. Ridiculous.
Government of the people, for the people, by the people? Ring a bell?
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
OK. That's a fair question. It is possible that the administration wants to show all its cards on one fell swoop, so that information is not leaked out day by day. Yes, this could involve politics of course. Choosing to release the information would of course have a major positive political impact for Bush. Beyond politics, it's possible that releasing such information could have effects on other operations in the WOT and national security in general. Some of these issues we, as civilians, may not even be aware of. Now don't get me wrong: I don't consider it at all "likely" that all of a sudden, "weapons will be found". I just said that I consider it a possibility.
As far as people lying: I'm sorry, but we haven't seen evidence of that. We've seen seen statements that have so far proved inaccurate. That's not the same thing. A lie is a delibrate false statement. We already know there have been serious intelligence failures. Is it not possible that the intelligence that Bush, Rumsfeld, and other top level officers in the executive branch was seriously flawed? Decision makers require information on which they base their decisions. What if the information was simply wrong? Who's at fault then?
Finally, I have to ask: Do you honestly believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, and Bush (perhaps more importantly...Karl Rove) are so politically ignorant and inexperienced that they would knowingly make false statements about WMD? I mean...really. They HAD to know the fallout from not finding WMD would be huge. There is no way they would have said "we're sure" if they WEREN'T sure. My point is that it doesn't make sense that they would have lied. It's not even a smart lie. Whatever you think of these people, one thing you can't say is that they're stupid.
There would've been no fall out had the war went as planned. Remember Rove, Chenney, Pearle, and Rummy all thought we'd march to Baghdad on a path of roses, be met in with songs and dance, and simply sign over a democratic government within a couple of weeks. The war has turned out to as bad as all the naysayers predicted. There are not enough troops in the arena, we have a full scale guerrilla war on our hands, we're driving more ME youth to extremist organizations, we've left real dictators in power to attack Saddam, and we've angered the world. We're chumps on the world stage. Thanks GWB.
And this assertion about having found WMD is a crazy way of defending yourself I might add. Do you HONESTLY believe the powers that be would hold back a political hot potatoe? You are insane if you truely believe they would. A real WMD find would shut the naysayers up immediatly and boost Bushes polls from now until Nov... I can't believe you'd argue otherwise. Hell, every suspected find has been released to the press almost immediatly. The man looking for the goods (remember the hawk David Kay) said you have a better chance of winning the lottery than finding WMD. Just give it up man there are NO WMD. Accept it. You sound like DMZ arguing against evolution...
Originally posted by SDW2001
I cannot believe how you have gotten away with your ridiculous false claims. Unemployment is NOT worse than anytime since WWII. It's not even close. It's NEVER even been close. in 1991, it was over 7%. Now, it's 5.6%. 5% is considered full employment. Unemployment isn't even a PROBLEM, much less a "serious" problem.
Secondly, the recession was OVER when the war started. The economy was starting to rebound by March of 2003. And really,, jimmac: Where is the backing for the statement that war spending doesn't help the economy? You can't demonstrate this, because nearly all evidence points to the contrary.
"As I heard it portrayed", you say? Wow. That's a classic jimmacism. As I heard it portrayed. Once again, you can't show Bush was even involved in this decision remotely. Is it a stupid classification? Of course. No one is arguing that.
Will they find WMD? My guess is no. It's apparent that they either weren't there, or were moved. I do think there is a possibility that a stockpile could be found, or an eve more remote possibility that we have already found them and are not releasing the info, for whatever reason. It's not prudent to discount all these possibilities. Not finding WMD does not mean Bush lied or is incompetent. Only a blindly partisan fool would come to those conclusions.
Bush a slime? OK...go ahead, I'm listening for "the other" reasons.
I'll just make one comment about your conservatively slighted assumptions. Commenting on the whole is something I'm getting very tired of doing ( who am I going to believe my own eyes and CNN or you? ).
About the WOMD....it's not just that they will never find them. It's that when Bush was trying to drum up suppoprt for this war they weren't there to begin with.
That's the broad side of the barn you're missing by several miles. That and all it's implications.
Of course if you were a staunch Bush supporter you wouldn't want to entertain these thoughts anyway.
By the way jobs are still tight here in Oregon and many people are still struggling to find work despite what you have to say.
Originally posted by faust9
There would've been no fall out had the war went as planned. Remember Rove, Chenney, Pearle, and Rummy all thought we'd march to Baghdad on a path of roses, be met in with songs and dance, and simply sign over a democratic government within a couple of weeks. The war has turned out to as bad as all the naysayers predicted. There are not enough troops in the arena, we have a full scale guerrilla war on our hands, we're driving more ME youth to extremist organizations, we've left real dictators in power to attack Saddam, and we've angered the world. We're chumps on the world stage. Thanks GWB.
And this assertion about having found WMD is a crazy way of defending yourself I might add. Do you HONESTLY believe the powers that be would hold back a political hot potatoe? You are insane if you truely believe they would. A real WMD find would shut the naysayers up immediatly and boost Bushes polls from now until Nov... I can't believe you'd argue otherwise. Hell, every suspected find has been released to the press almost immediatly. The man looking for the goods (remember the hawk David Kay) said you have a better chance of winning the lottery than finding WMD. Just give it up man there are NO WMD. Accept it. You sound like DMZ arguing against evolution...
I don't think you can say the war is going as badly as the naysayers predicted. This is not a full scale guerrilla war. We are dealing with mostly Bathe party remenants, not a popular uprising. As for witholding information, I'm not saying it's likely. Honestly though, YOU'D be crazy to assume we're in the know about everything. I'm not saying there are WMD there. I'm saying there is small possbility this information is being withheld for either security or even political purposes. I'm also saying the weapons MAY have been moved. I'm not "defending" anything, because frankly, WMD was only one of of 100 other good reasons to go into Iraq.
Originally posted by jimmac
I'll just make one comment about your conservatively slighted assumptions. Commenting on the whole is something I'm getting very tired of doing ( who am I going to believe my own eyes and CNN or you? ).
About the WOMD....it's not just that they will never find them. It's that when Bush was trying to drum up suppoprt for this war they weren't there to begin with.
That's the broad side of the barn you're missing by several miles. That and all it's implications.
Of course if you were a staunch Bush supporter you wouldn't want to entertain these thoughts anyway.
By the way jobs are still tight here in Oregon and many people are still struggling to find work despite what you have to say.
jimmac, you simply do NOT KNOW that there were never any weapons in Iraq. We know he used to have them. We know he used them. We know he didn't account for their destruction. We know he didn't account for thousands of tons of chemicals. And, we knew he wasn't fully cooperating and that he was hiding things. And from this, you conclude they weren't there? Why, because you couldn't see them? What about the chemical shells that were found before the war? What were they?
As far as whom you believe, it's obvious you'll paint the economy and other issues in the most negative way to support your hatred of Bush. It wouldn't matter if unemployment dropped to 3.9% and stock market hit 20,000....you'd be saying "it'll never last!!!". Oh, and btw: CNN is not exactly what I'd call "neutral" from a political standpoint.
As for being a Bush supporter, you bet I am. He's doing the right thing concerning terrorism and national security, and his tax cuts have revitalized an economy that was in trouble the day he took office. He's followed through on most of his campiagn initiatives, including education reform and medicare. I don't agree with him on everything, and I'm not happy about how much we're spending right now. But I support him, and confidently so, especially compared to his flip flopping, war crimes committing, SUV driving (but pro-environment!) multi-hundred-millionaire opponent.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac, you simply do NOT KNOW that there were never any weapons in Iraq. We know he used to have them. We know he used them. We know he didn't account for their destruction. We know he didn't account for thousands of tons of chemicals. And, we knew he wasn't fully cooperating and that he was hiding things. And from this, you conclude they weren't there? Why, because you couldn't see them? What about the chemical shells that were found before the war? What were they?
As far as whom you believe, it's obvious you'll paint the economy and other issues in the most negative way to support your hatred of Bush. It wouldn't matter if unemployment dropped to 3.9% and stock market hit 20,000....you'd be saying "it'll never last!!!". Oh, and btw: CNN is not exactly what I'd call "neutral" from a political standpoint.
As for being a Bush supporter, you bet I am. He's doing the right thing concerning terrorism and national security, and his tax cuts have revitalized an economy that was in trouble the day he took office. He's followed through on most of his campiagn initiatives, including education reform and medicare. I don't agree with him on everything, and I'm not happy about how much we're spending right now. But I support him, and confidently so, especially compared to his flip flopping, war crimes committing, SUV driving (but pro-environment!) multi-hundred-millionaire opponent.
Oh but I simply do know there were no WOMD in Iraq! I've never stuck my hand in a lawn mower either but I " know " what would happen. You don't always need to see direct proof to draw a conclusion. Ask any scientist.
Current numbers of unemployment by state :
State Unemployment Rate
North Dakota 3.0%
South Dakota 3.3%
Virginia 3.4%
Wyoming 3.4%
Georgia 3.6%
Nebraska 3.6%
Vermont 3.6%
Delaware 3.8%
Hawaii 3.8%
Maryland 4.0%
New Hampshire 4.0%
Iowa 4.1%
Mississippi 4.2%
Montana 4.2%
Nevada 4.4%
Idaho 4.6%
Minnesota 4.7%
Oklahoma 4.7%
Florida 4.8%
Kansas 4.8%
Arizona 4.9%
Colorado 4.9%
Connecticut 4.9%
Maine 4.9%
Missouri 5.0%
Tennessee 5.0%
Utah 5.0%
Massachusetts 5.1%
Wisconsin 5.1%
Indiana 5.2%
New Jersey 5.2%
North Carolina 5.2%
Pennsylvania 5.3%
Arkansas 5.4%
West Virginia 5.4%
Kentucky 5.5%
Louisiana 5.5%
U.S. Average (as of April) 5.6%
Rhode Island 5.6%
New Mexico 5.7%
Ohio 5.7%
Alabama 5.9%
Illinois 6.0%
Washington 6.1%
Texas 6.2%
California 6.5%
New York 6.5%
South Carolina 6.7%
District of Columbia 6.9%
Michigan 6.9%
Alaska 7.1%
Oregon 7.2%
I can understand your isolated viewpoint as things aren't too bad in Coatesville.
Not too many 3%'s in that list.
I live in Oregon and have a good job that I've had for 16 years now. I feel fortunate. Not everybody is like me however.
And yes you seemed to have found a real home with Bush.
Good thing is that many are starting to wake up to the truth.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by Rick1138
I second that. Bush is the worst president that I have seen in my 39 years - worse than Carter, worse than Nixon.
Another vote here. Same age, same conclusion.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Another vote here. Same age, same conclusion.
At the Harkin steak fry last year, former President Clinton said something I thought was remarkable. Describing the 2000 election, he pointed out that the "race was tighter than a tick" and that no matter who had won, the election was not a mandate for change. But in the end, this is an ideologically-driven administration, and so the will of the people had very little to do with their decisions, it seems.
We know that Bush's fiscal "policy" (if there is one) is angering the libertarian wing of the Republican party. We know that the traditional conservatives are growing increasingly disillusioned with the neoconservatives having risen to such tremendous power. We know that the "pesky God and Jesus fellows" (Eddie Izzard joke there) loves their preciousssss because he's a born-again. We know that the libertarians don't like the Santorumists--nor does the Supreme Court, so far as I can tell.
Now...I keep wondering whether or not the Republican party will get torn apart over all of this. Since '94 they've been incredibly unified and organized and have pounded the Democrats at all turns. It would seem that some of that is beginning to unravel (I'm thinking here of George Will jumping ship the other day and of the Bush stumble out of the gate with the 9/11 ads--it's pretty clear that he can't campaign on it like they'd thought).
So here it is: Is Kerry conservative enough to win the disaffected republican votes? What if someone like McCain were tapped as Veep (which I'd actually like to see)?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
At the Harkin steak fry last year, former President Clinton said something I thought was remarkable. Describing the 2000 election, he pointed out that the "race was tighter than a tick" and that no matter who had won, the election was not a mandate for change. But in the end, this is an ideologically-driven administration, and so the will of the people had very little to do with their decisions, it seems.
We know that Bush's fiscal "policy" (if there is one) is angering the libertarian wing of the Republican party. We know that the traditional conservatives are growing increasingly disillusioned with the neoconservatives having risen to such tremendous power. We know that the "pesky God and Jesus fellows" (Eddie Izzard joke there) loves their preciousssss because he's a born-again. We know that the libertarians don't like the Santorumists--nor does the Supreme Court, so far as I can tell.
Now...I keep wondering whether or not the Republican party will get torn apart over all of this. Since '94 they've been incredibly unified and organized and have pounded the Democrats at all turns. It would seem that some of that is beginning to unravel (I'm thinking here of George Will jumping ship the other day and of the Bush stumble out of the gate with the 9/11 ads--it's pretty clear that he can't campaign on it like they'd thought).
So here it is: Is Kerry conservative enough to win the disaffected republican votes? What if someone like McCain were tapped as Veep (which I'd actually like to see)?
Cheers
Scott
Good points.
I think it all depends on how effective, really, the Kerry smear campaign turns out to be.
In a country that features quite a few people that truly believe that Clinton was some kind of socialist anti-christ, it's sobering to think what the Bush campaign can do with an actual liberal voting record.
Now, more in line with your post, it does seem possible to me that if Bush can continue to make a policy free hash out of everything he touches, it could disrupt the mechanism of "liberals are soft on defense/crime/morals".
I think that Americans are at heart pragmatists, and the object lesson of the putative "conservative/religious" standard bearer being so feckless in the face of actual events may serve as a head clearing experience for the electorate.
But if and only if Kerry can formulate and convey some hard headed solutions, or at least strategies, for fixing what's been broken. Otherwise, even broad dissatisfaction with what passes for "conservative leadership" these days could fail to result in any serious realignment of the social conservative/religious right/disaffected blue-collar whites bloc that has been winning elections for the Republicans.
"In a world where you can't kill or jail all your enemies, you have to make more friends and fewer terrorists."
September 13, 2003
During dinner, Shelley and I were flipping channels and stopped on C-SPAN to watch Bill Clinton speak at the annual Tom Harkin (D-IA) Steak Fry. It's far too easy to forget what it's like to hear an articulate president deliver a speech, and this one of Clinton's was par (for him. That is, it wasn't spectacular for him. Had any other politician delivered this speech, it would've been considered a home run). I didn't see any teleprompters, nor did I see him turning pages, so there were indications that other than a few core bits much of it was off the cuff. He was funny and charming and articulate and all of those things that made so many of us fall in love with him in 1991 and 1992, before we realized he was actually a Republican.
The interesting thing about this speech is that Clinton essentially laid out the democratic playbook for the candidates. This is not to say that they don't know what this completely obvious playbook is--lost jobs, lost international respect, towering deficit, expanding debt, tax cuts for the rich, driving the country too far to the right without a mandate.
(Indeed, the first serious section of his speech emphasized how the 2000 election was "tight as a tick," and even included the admission that had Gore "won," that still would've been the case. But the refrain in this section was this: the 2000 election was not a mandate for radical change.)
It was in his discussion of this "radical change" that he gave what I thought was a fairly key tactic to the Democrats currently in the field. He remarked that before he moved to Washington he didn't have much money, which I don't doubt is true. He then went on to explain that now he's in the tax bracket that received the tax cut. The leitmotiv became this: this administration wants to remove cops from the street so that I can have my tax cut; this administration wants to refuse student loans so that I can have my tax cut; this administration wants to kill Head Start so that I can have my tax cut.
I'd like to see some of the candidates pick up this line and run with it for a little while. As Harkin remarked in his introduction of Clinton, if you listen to Rush Limbaugh you'd think Clinton was still in the White House. As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons I've stopped listening to right-wing talk radio: they don't have any iconic democrat figures to point their rhetoric of oppression at, and so they still, still talk about Clinton. It's amazing.
But it'd be interesting to see this line in the field or in a campaign ad down the line.
Imagine it: "George Bush wants to give people like Bill Clinton a tax break, and he's making people like you pay for it."
Permalink is here.
Cheers
Scott
i guess the question is, is Kerry willing to take on the "class warrior" mantel, when it has been so effective in beating liberals about the head and shoulders?
So far, he seems like a pretty cautious candidate, and I wonder if he would take the risk.
OTOH, the more I think about it, the I agree with you that this may be the time to take pretty strong positions that clearly differentiate the choice facing voters, and not worry so much about getting branded "anti-American" or "anti-affluence" or "anti-business" etc. etc.
There must be a way to craft that message so that it talks directly to anybody that's had it with this Rove driven "gestural" administration that just keeps tossing stuff around without any policy apparatus to back it up.
I mean, nobody likes stuff that doesn't work.
I don't think you can say the war is going as badly as the naysayers predicted. This is not a full scale guerrilla war.
http://welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
Congratulations you sound like the Iraqi Information Minister! Man whatever happened to that guy? I miss him. He could have a serious career over here, maybe hosting a talk show or reality TV.
"We have them surrounded in their tanks"
"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think you can say the war is going as badly as the naysayers predicted. This is not a full scale guerrilla war. We are dealing with mostly Bathe party remenants, not a popular uprising. As for witholding information, I'm not saying it's likely. Honestly though, YOU'D be crazy to assume we're in the know about everything. I'm not saying there are WMD there. I'm saying there is small possbility this information is being withheld for either security or even political purposes. I'm also saying the weapons MAY have been moved. I'm not "defending" anything, because frankly, WMD was only one of of 100 other good reasons to go into Iraq.
Hmmmm lets see, what is a Guerilla war? Well, the FARC would know as would the viet cong oh and least we forget the Algerians along with hundreds of other Guerilla conflicts. Obvously you don't know what a Guerilla war is so take a look here where you'll see the defnition of Guerilla and the like:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guerilla
A Guerilla war is one where a small force fights a larger better equiped force via sabotage, herassment, and non-traditional means. Guerilla wars typically rely on civilian populations for shelter and are used as shields....
Sounds a lot like what we have going on now then doesn't it. A small force (not AQ as the administration first led the US citizenry to believe) of Iraqis led by well trained former Republican Guards are attacking US forces with IED's on a daily basis. These irregular forces are training other malitias to fight as we've see in Falluga, Basra, and Najef (spelling?). Call me crazy but to my untrained (sarcasm) eye we have ourselves a Guerilla war.
Finally, you're a true master of the Kool-Aid if you believe the evidence of a WMD find would not have been released already. The entire war was built on that claim, and the undoing of the administration will (and has been) that very same claim. Face it, there are no WMD's. We were sure as shit they had them and we knew EXACTLY were they were prior to the invasion. So were are they now? They never had them. The administration cherry pick intel and used it to build the case for this unjust war.
Well, I have another thought so the above really isn't finally. If Kerry is so unfit to be commander-in-cheif why then is this thread so filled with endictments agains our current CIC and they way they have run the country. How is it that any and all arguments presented by the bush camp can so easily be turned against the current nuckle-heads? Simple answer--they, those that are in charge now, are unfit to lead this country. Bush is the one who is unfit to be CIC.
Originally posted by faust9
The administration cherry pick intel and used it to build the case for this unjust war.
You didn't finish the sentence. It should read like this:
"The administration cherry picked intel and used it to build the case for this unjust war all in order to test a neoconservative hypothesis."
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Another vote here. Same age, same conclusion.
And you can't show WHY. Your position is illogical.
Originally posted by faust9
Hmmmm lets see, what is a Guerilla war? Well, the FARC would know as would the viet cong oh and least we forget the Algerians along with hundreds of other Guerilla conflicts. Obvously you don't know what a Guerilla war is so take a look here where you'll see the defnition of Guerilla and the like:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guerilla
A Guerilla war is one where a small force fights a larger better equiped force via sabotage, herassment, and non-traditional means. Guerilla wars typically rely on civilian populations for shelter and are used as shields....
Sounds a lot like what we have going on now then doesn't it. A small force (not AQ as the administration first led the US citizenry to believe) of Iraqis led by well trained former Republican Guards are attacking US forces with IED's on a daily basis. These irregular forces are training other malitias to fight as we've see in Falluga, Basra, and Najef (spelling?). Call me crazy but to my untrained (sarcasm) eye we have ourselves a Guerilla war.
Finally, you're a true master of the Kool-Aid if you believe the evidence of a WMD find would not have been released already. The entire war was built on that claim, and the undoing of the administration will (and has been) that very same claim. Face it, there are no WMD's. We were sure as shit they had them and we knew EXACTLY were they were prior to the invasion. So were are they now? They never had them. The administration cherry pick intel and used it to build the case for this unjust war.
Well, I have another thought so the above really isn't finally. If Kerry is so unfit to be commander-in-cheif why then is this thread so filled with endictments agains our current CIC and they way they have run the country. How is it that any and all arguments presented by the bush camp can so easily be turned against the current nuckle-heads? Simple answer--they, those that are in charge now, are unfit to lead this country. Bush is the one who is unfit to be CIC.
This is not a full scale guerilla war. That's all I'm saying. Obviously what's happening right now is not good news. I think right now I'd call it a major security problem. But I don't like semantics, so I'll end it there. Things need to improve, I agree.
As for WMD's, well we all have questions, now don't we? I'm just pointing out possibilities. There are two likely scenarios from my perspective: First, I think it's very likely that the weapons may be in Syria. Secondly, I think that there may not have been weapons. I'd list the possibilites on that order. The third, and least likely possbility is that there may exist hidden weapons that have not been found yet. Fourth, and only very remotely possible, is that weapons have been found, but the information has not been released. My stating this possibility has nothing to with Bush or any administration. It's just that I believe, with good reason, that the US Government sure as hell doesn't tell "us" everything. There could be any number of reasons the information hasn't been released. Again though, I consider it only very remotely possible in this situation. Finally, no....I don't believe Bush or his administration lied about WMD. I'll repeat what I've said...if I see evidence that Bush he loses my vote. I can't say it any more plainly than that.
"Why is this thread filled with endictment [sic] against our CIC".....Hmmm, I wonder. Perhaps because AO is dominated by a liberal, anti-Bush viewpoint? Let me ask you, if Bush is so unpopular, why does he have over 6,000,000 supporters registered? Why have almost 1,000,000 people contributed to his campaign?
Though it's interesting: By posting what you did, you've proven my point about enthusiasm for Kerry. No one, and I mean no one I've spoken to listened to talks about their full support for Kerry. What they do talk about is their hatred of Bush, and how anyone would be better. That is not going to win Kerry the election.
You can keep posting all you want, but you cannot change the fact that the US Economy is strongly rebounding in nearly all sectors. I know that for political purposes you'd like that not to be true, but it is.
Originally posted by midwinter
At the Harkin steak fry last year, former President Clinton said something I thought was remarkable. Describing the 2000 election, he pointed out that the "race was tighter than a tick" and that no matter who had won, the election was not a mandate for change. But in the end, this is an ideologically-driven administration, and so the will of the people had very little to do with their decisions, it seems.
We know that Bush's fiscal "policy" (if there is one) is angering the libertarian wing of the Republican party. We know that the traditional conservatives are growing increasingly disillusioned with the neoconservatives having risen to such tremendous power. We know that the "pesky God and Jesus fellows" (Eddie Izzard joke there) loves their preciousssss because he's a born-again. We know that the libertarians don't like the Santorumists--nor does the Supreme Court, so far as I can tell.
Now...I keep wondering whether or not the Republican party will get torn apart over all of this. Since '94 they've been incredibly unified and organized and have pounded the Democrats at all turns. It would seem that some of that is beginning to unravel (I'm thinking here of George Will jumping ship the other day and of the Bush stumble out of the gate with the 9/11 ads--it's pretty clear that he can't campaign on it like they'd thought).
So here it is: Is Kerry conservative enough to win the disaffected republican votes? What if someone like McCain were tapped as Veep (which I'd actually like to see)?
Cheers
Scott
1. We don't live in a direct Democracy. The winners of elections make decisions. From what you're saying, the President should only lay out a strong agenda if he wins a certain percentage of the vote. Ridiculous.
2. The Republican Party, though upset about spending, is not jumping ship with regards to Bush. Sorry to inform you of that.
3. Kerry conservative enough to win Republican votes? Wow. I think you need to look at some polling data. Republican enthusiasm for Bush is almost unanimous, and greater than Democratic enthusiasm for Kerry. As far as Kerry being conservative, well that's pretty much the funniest thing ever posted on AO.
Originally posted by Aquatic
http://welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
Congratulations you sound like the Iraqi Information Minister! Man whatever happened to that guy? I miss him. He could have a serious career over here, maybe hosting a talk show or reality TV.
"We have them surrounded in their tanks"
"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"
The naysayers predicted many many thousands of US deaths. The naysayers we wouldn't take Baghdad. The naysayers said we wouldn't get Saddam. What we have hear is a serious security situation. Have there been mistakes made? Of course. But overall, Iraq is in far better shape thatn it was a year ago. Children are going to school and learning about something other than Saddam. Schools are being built. Water quality, electric service and the local economy have all improved dramtically. They protested in Baghdad the other day. Let me say that again...THEY PROTESTED. Sure, it was against the US and our "occupation". But they were allowed to protest! Oh, the irony.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. We don't live in a direct Democracy. The winners of elections make decisions. From what you're saying, the President should only lay out a strong agenda if he wins a certain percentage of the vote. Ridiculous.
Government of the people, for the people, by the people? Ring a bell?