navwin » Discussion » The Alley » 2nd Presidential Debate
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic 2nd Presidential Debate Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas

0 posted 2004-10-08 10:51 PM


Yes, I know this one was during the same time as a baseball game, but for those who watched the debate, will read about the debate, or even have opinions about the debate, feel free to expound.

I did watch this one, and all I can say is 'WOW'.  That goes to both candidates.

© Copyright 2004 Alastair Adamson - All Rights Reserved
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

1 posted 2004-10-08 11:11 PM


Ditto. I thought they both did very well tonight.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
2 posted 2004-10-08 11:34 PM


I watched less than 10 minutes, had a job call. After I get a chance to see the video, I'll come back. But from what I did see, I agree with your 'wow' comment. Later
Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
3 posted 2004-10-08 11:40 PM


The final question was a bit amusing to me.  Name 3 things you thought you did right which eneded up being wrong to Bush.  Very transparent question, but I would've been very amused if Bush had picked 3 things not having to do with Iraq and defused her question.  But, though he may come off like this to some, he's not stupid, and saw right through the question.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
4 posted 2004-10-09 12:04 PM


I'm not going to say wow to either candidate for this debate but instead -- give a wow to the questioners.  We have an engaged, informed, electorate -- which has me really wondering about undecideds.

Of course Gibson gets a wow too because he picked the questions -- but the reason I'm not going to give the candidates wows is becuase substantively speaking they just stayed on message -- parking the stump speech lines in the appropriate -- or sometimes not -- places.

I did hear better questions last night, and better answers when I went to Notre Dame to see former Congressman Tim Roehmer who was one of the 10 members of the 9/11 commision, most of them came from students (of course these ARE ND students) but they were very impressive.

Roehmer is living up to the non-partisan spirit of the commission in his answers and explainations as are all the commissioners -- and he drove home THE major point that I don't think anyone is talking about in the campaign -- that is Donald Rumsfeld's comment that we can kill the terrorists -- but they can make them faster than we can kill them.

Candidate Kerry, candidate Bush -- let's talk straight about that.

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
5 posted 2004-10-09 07:34 AM


I watched the debate....thought it was far better than the other two...and, but, they both expounded on their "plans" and "accomplishments" and passing blame and I get so tired of this crap...Of course Bush has made mistakes....Kerry has no idea (in my opinion), of what it takes to be a President in these "times"...and...I don't believe either have the "exact" answer of what to do next..... hopefully, if Bush is re-elected or if Kerry is elected...that they fight tooth and nail to erradicate terrorism....though logically speaking, we all know it will never completely go away..
Greeneyes
Deputy Moderator 50 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-09-09
Posts 9903
In Your Poetic Mind
6 posted 2004-10-09 11:03 AM


this one seemed to be "smoother" then the last one, they both seemed "more at ease" ....

~~*~~
Read between the lines
look deep into each word
and you will understand the
depth of my soul (GE)
~~**~~

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
7 posted 2004-10-09 02:08 PM




Bush definitely gets credit for a huge improvement in his performance compared to the first debate, where he clearly lost in.

In all, I think Kerry had more substance in the second debate, but Bush wasn't that far behind this time, so in the end, I'd say there was no clear winner to this debate.

I'm actually suprised barely anyone seemed to pick up on Kerry mentioning Bush's lumber company immediately after the debate. That was a very daring move, and as much as I already knew of Bush’s lumber company "LSTF, LLC", which the company motto is organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." but the way Bush followed up Kerry’s criticism with laughter, saying, "I own a timber company? That's news to me...you need some wood?" made him sound convincing and Kerry a big fat liar and because there are millions of lesser-informed voters out there who don’t pay attention to who owns what, it could have very well hurt Kerry without clarification.

By the way, Kerry was also correct that this company Bush co-owns qualifies as a small business.

Another dramatic moment to me was when Kerry had a four-second pause when providing examples of the necessity for stem-cell research. Kerry, not known for pausing, kind of had me at the edge of my seat for a split-second there. Then, when immediately asked of the issue of abortion and what he would say to those against it, the way he was starting his response had me worried he’d make the same mistake, but I was impressed with how he answered the question on a very sensitive issue!

Then there was that moment when Bush interrupted the moderator Gibson and then allowed him to respond to the concern of the alliance on the war on terror saying, "Alone? Tell that to Tony Blair!"

I think both Bush and Kerry missed a golden opportunity to take this debate when it came to the question of a Missouri guest who asked Bush if he would name three instances in which he felt he made a mistake in judgment and why, his response made it perfectly clear that he regretted nothing...apologized for nothing...would have done nothing differently except for "several appointments" of people whose names he would not divulge. Bush made the huge mistake in trying to make himself appear more human to the audience, in how he’s wronged or faulted during these first four years.

Kerry, however, also missed the opportunity in rebuttal. He could have said, "What you heard this President say...or rather NOT say...is that he has nothing to apologize for and that he believes that in his entire term in office he has done nothing he regrets. How many of us can say that? How many of us would agree with him?"

In result, both men lost the chance to put this debate away. Bush could have connected to the audience in admitting a fault, and Kerry could have hit a home run by sharply criticizing his stubborn demeanor to the question.

During the debate, both sides gave misleading info and exaggerations. I'll give one example from each side.

Bush said Kerry is the most liberal senator in the Senate. In 2003, yes, but it must also be noted he was absent more than usual from the floor in 2003. And Kerry's lifetime liberal rating is 85.7 out of 100, making him the 11th most liberal senator.

Kerry said the economy under the Bush Administration has lost 1.6 million jobs. That’s actually 1.6 million private sector jobs, but the number is actually a net loss of 821,000 when you add up the total employment. Nevertheless, Kerry seems clearly correct now that Bush will be the first president since Hoover in 1932 to have a net loss of job creation in a term.

On a final note, though I believe this debate was essentially no winner-take-all, the polls seem to show Kerry had a slight edge to winning overall.

However, I don’t expect the polls to change much here either, just as I predicted with the VP debate.



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

[This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (10-09-2004 02:47 PM).]

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
8 posted 2004-10-09 02:16 PM




Oh, by the way, let me say I believe the true winners of last night were those who asked the questions.

I absolutely agree with Local Rebel that the questions they gave were excellent. If anything, I think the audience connected to one another more than both candidates did with the audience, and that's what a good town hall meeting is about too, getting to know those like yourself who are represented in the audience.

Kudos to them!



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
9 posted 2004-10-09 02:54 PM


A very evenly matched debate except aesthetically. Bush once again seemed annoyed and surly in his rebutals, often rising before his turn or standing during Kerry's. At one point interrupting and speaking over moderator Charles Gibson.

I thought Kerry did well in explaining his 'flip flop/wishy washy' record, though, it's all for naught as it won't change his image with devout Republicans busy ignoring Bush 'flip flops'.  

As far as I'm concerned, there was only one stand-out moment from the entire debate. The handling of the abortion question, particular the second part and rebutal to Bush's "I'm still trying to decipher that", was an absolute grandslam for Kerry.

KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not.

I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.

Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

10 posted 2004-10-09 07:59 PM


"I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother."

I wish I were there at the debate to ask Kerry for clarification.

When a person is already at the point of delivery, what situation would cause her life to be in danger and a partial-birth abortion being the procedure that could save it? Is a normal delivery more harmful in someway than a partial delivery? The hardest part of the delivery is at the 'partial' phase as the head is crowning, after that it's comparatively a breeze, a release of the physical stress. The women who usually died during delivery in the past were those whose babies were in the breach position, but with today's technologies, that's no longer a problem. The same with those who hemorrhaged during delivery. Being in the hospital, the bleeding can be stopped, drugs administered and blood replaced intravenously immediately. And would the hemorrhaging be more severe in the anti-climactic phase of delivery? I really am at a loss to see how a partial-birth abortion can save someone's life. And doctor's already have the legal ability to terminate pregnancy if the mother's life is actually in danger. There is no need to have a clause placed in the legislation to address that issue.

As to the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother, what would that test entail? The risk of migrane, abdominal pain, hormonal imbalance that causes depression, nausea, vomiting, hair loss, loss of muscle tone, fatigue, or would all these common maladies associated with childbirth be excluded as cause in the test? And if so, what would constitute harm to the health of the mother, according to the strictest test, that would necessitate a partial-birth abortion?  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
11 posted 2004-10-09 08:07 PM


I was pleased that Bush finally pointed out a few things that people should consider - Kerry's record being one of them. The fact of the matter is that Kerry's entire congressional record is mediocre, at best. He has had one of the worst attendance records in COngress. He has also had one of the worst voting records in Congress. As Cheney pointed this out about Edwards so did Bush about Kerry. In his entire Senatorial career Kerry has introduced few, if any, bills of national importance. Yet here he is stating that, if he is president, he will actually begin showing up for work. He is saying that now he has the solutions to so many problems - he can fix health care, he can balance the budget, he can create jobs, he can make America respected in the world. All of these things he now knows how to do after two decades of basically doing nothing. Can any rational person be expected to believe that? Bill Clinton won the presidency basically on his promise to cure health care. A few months ago, being interviewed on tv upon the release of his book, he was asked what his biggest disappointment was. He responded that it was his inability to come up with a good health care plan. I'm wondering why Kerry didn't help him out. If he has all of this knowledge of how to fix the system why didn't he share it with Bill sometime during those eight years? The answer is obvious, of course. He didn't know then and he doesn't know now. He knows it's something the public wants to hear and so he says he can do it. Yesterday morning he made the comment that he didn't believe trial lawyers should be held accountable for rising health costs. Doctors all over the country went into cardiac arrest, I'm sure. The radio programs were flooded with calls from doctors expressing their incredulity at that remark. There were doctors who had to stop practicing due to the malpractice insurance from frivolous lawsuits, calls from hospitals who were running short-staffed, calls from the mayors of small towns who had lost their only doctors and many clinics for the same reason. Yet John Kerry said it's not the main cause. When confronted with a question of tort reform in the debate he answered, "Yes, of course, tort reform is vital....."and then changed the subject. Bush accurately pointed out that Kerry had voted against tort reform 9 times and that people could be sure there would be no tort reform with Kerry in the White House. Kerry has the solution for health care reform but refuses to recognize its main cause....I wonder why.

In other words I was pleased with Bush because he used Kerry's record to make his points, something I have been waiting for to happen. Kerry has a two decade record in Congress. Has anyone heard Kerry using his Congressional record as a good resume for the presidency? He hasn't - because it was not worthy enough to use. Kerry is now pretending to be a dynamo, a man suddenly with the answers. Bush was able to point out that, for his entire career, Kerry has not been that person and voters should be careful of his self-proclaimed newly-acquired brilliance and drive. Kerry stated he would not raise taxes, which I don't think anyone believes. Bush was right there to claim Kerry would. (Kerry should have learned from Georgie's dad). Kerry re-iterated his plan to work with an "alliance" in Iraq. Bush was right there to state that Kerry would have no alliance, that France and Germany have already stated they would not participate with Kerry in power or not, and Kerry has insulted all the rest.

Every time Kerry made claims which were suspect at best, Bush was there to say "No, you won't and here's why." When Kerry tried to convince people he was the right man for the job, Bush was there to say, "Look at his record for the past twenty years."

It's about time.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
12 posted 2004-10-09 08:40 PM



quote:
As to the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother, what would that test entail? The risk of migrane, abdominal pain, hormonal imbalance that causes depression, nausea, vomiting, hair loss, loss of muscle tone, fatigue, or would all these common maladies associated with childbirth be excluded as cause in the test? And if so, what would constitute harm to the health of the mother, according to the strictest test, that would necessitate a partial-birth abortion?


That's the point. At what point, is it necessary? At what point should it be illegal?

Should doctors be held accountable for murder if they perform the procedure?

You don't have to think abortion is a moral, proper, or even healthy procedure, but maybe we should let individuals decide and not the government.

    

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
13 posted 2004-10-09 08:42 PM


By the way, here's an interesting tidbit...

Howard sweeps to historic victory in Australian election
By Anna Gizowska in Sydney
(Filed: 10/10/2004)

Australia's Prime Minister John Howard surged to a resounding victory in the general election last night, winning an historic fourth term in office. His defeat of the opposition Labour leader, Mark Latham, ensures that the country's troops will remain in Iraq.

Mr Howard, whom President George W Bush once described as a "man of steel", has been a staunch ally in the war on terrorism. He insisted that his troops would stay until Iraq asked them to leave.

Last night, Mr Howard, 65, a veteran of 30 years in politics, said he was humbled by his margin of victory. In a speech he thanked the Australian people and said the country "stands on the threshold of a new era of great achievement". He said: "This is a proud nation, a confident nation, a cohesive nation, a united nation, a nation that can achieve anything it wants if it sets its mind to it."

On the eve of the election, Mr Howard took the time to underline his support for President Bush, who faces the voters in the US election on November 2. "I hope Bush wins," Mr Howard said. "I like him. I think he's done a good job."

For the past week Kerry sent his sister to Austrailia to help with efforts to have Howard defeated. I was wondering why he would want one of our allies in Iraq out of the picture, wanting a coalition and all. Now I understand....

Thank you, Mr. Howard....

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

14 posted 2004-10-09 10:21 PM


Clarification is needed, Brad, if folks say there is justification for partial-birth abortion in the saving of a woman's life and for the protection of her health, in the strictest sense. Let them offer evidence for what they are stating. They need to define what they are talking about. They need to validate their contention that there are legitimate conditions that justify the procedure, if they are using the argument that the legislation is faulty without those clauses. Otherwise they aren't making their case based upon their purported argument.

Maybe adding such clauses is just their way of ensuring enough vague loopholes in the legislation so that the legislation is, for all intents and purposes, null and void. So their argument really isn't that the legislation is faulty without those clauses, it's their argument that the legislation is faulty, period.

Geeze, Kerry is smarter than I am, and if I just now figured this out, surely he has. I guess he really isn't against partial-birth abortion afterall, as he stated. If he were he would have asked the simple questions I just have. He knows that doctors are already able to perform abortions to save the mother's life. And he apparantly believes that health issues, according to the strictest test, should justify such a procedure. So in what sense can he possibly be against it? As a very smart lawyer I think he knows exactly what inserting those clauses would do to the legislation...create enough loopholes to make it null and void. I can only conclude that he is against the legislation, period, just as Bush said he was, contrary to his denial.

I think the legislation is fine as it stands. Doctors already are legally able to peform abortions to save the life of the mother. And as I said before, I can't even fathom a life-saving scenario with this particular procedure. My sister-in-law is a nurse, and she can't either. If someone can think of one, please enlighten us. If doctors want to do it for reasons other than that, then, yeah, I personally think they should be held accountable.

I agree, Michael. It's about time Kerry's record is brought to light. It's that record that shows what he truly believes, where he truly stands on issues, not the promises he is making on the campaign trail.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
15 posted 2004-10-09 10:31 PM




Well, with all true respect, Balladeer, I'm here to "swagger" like Bush likewise did last night and say Bush is not the right man for this job another four years by saying, "Look at his record these past four years!"

Bush is going to become the first president since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to have a net loss in job creation during a term. Not ONE job has been created in net gain! Bush uses the recession, September 11th and the war in Iraq as excuses. Well, we've been through World War II. Vietnam. The Korean war. The Gulf War. The Cold War. And in every single one of these difficult times, somehow we're STILL capable of at least having a net gain in job creation, from the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the era of Bill Clinton. We're 821,000 jobs in the hole since Bush took office, and Bush won't have enough time to replace them all by the end of this term.

Bush's environmental record is arguably the WORST in American history. It certainly is agreed the worst by many in the Environmental Protection Agency. Over 200 environmental laws have been rolled back. New autism, ADD and cancer cases are on the rise. Three times the level of mercury is being released into the atmosphere from power plants. Premature deaths caused from pollution by coal-burning power plants have risen to 24,000. As much as 16% of women of child-bearing agenow, in fact, have blood mercury levels such that their fetuses may experience mercury levels in the womb at levels higher than what the EPA considers safe. The Bush Administration has even exempted the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, allowing commerical logging in previously "roadless" wilderness areas. Nine million acres that make up one of the largest forests in North America is endangered because of this, and 100-year sequoias are being cut down in the Sequoia National Monument. Being a great lover and believer of the environment, I can go on and on about his terrifying environmental record.

But, of course, the most serious woe of Bush's record these past four years is his war in Iraq.

We have spent over $120 billion in Iraq, fighting a senseless, immoral war that has only incited more terrorism, polarized this nation and seperated the peoples of Iraq.

The CIA, Rumsfeld, and Blair all have something in common here. They admit there are no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the thesis that the Bush Administration used in taking us to war. On top of that, there is no clear connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Now Bush is defending this war simply on the belief that Saddam was a bad guy. That's it!!!

This $87 billion alone our government has spent for Iraq could have went to so many other things. It’s approximately nine times what the government spends on Special Education. Ten times what the government spends on environmental protections. Seven times what the government spends on Title I for low income schools. Eight times the total given in Pell Grants for college tuition. And...frankly...87 times what the government spends on after school programs.

And what do we get out of this? Over a thousand of our young men and women have been killed. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians as well. Thousands more with life-afflicting injuries. Men coming home with uranium contamination and their wives giving birth to children missing fingers, toes and sometimes full hands or feet. Members of the municipal council of Basra have reportedly been holding talks with officials in the provinces of Missan and Dhiqar to set up their own autonomous states from Iraq.

And on top of that, the violence continues to rise each month. In September, we had a total of 2,368 attacks occur across Iraq in the past thirty days. 2,368!!! Rumsfeld has even admitted in a radio interview that the violence in Iraq has gotten worse and even expects it to get even more worse in approaching the elections in Iraq come January. Personally, it pains me deeply, as if 2,368 incidents weren’t already enough, to imagine even more occur this month. In November. In December.

The fact is, over half of Americans believe America is heading in the wrong direction. EVERY poll says that. What that tells me is that a majority of Americans already feel like giving Bush the one-way fare ticket back to Crawford, Texas, but have just been waiting for Kerry to make his case. And seeing how Kerry has earned a big bounce from winning that first debate, it is clear Kerry may have set it out.

I look back on Kerry’s record, and acknowledge he certainly isn’t the man with the perfect attendance record, in fact among those further from it. But I find voting against many weapons systems and such in twenty years rather modest compared to the troubling record of Bush these past four years, That’s a fifth of the time we’re comparing to Kerry here, and though a little less than half are truly with Kerry, over half are unhappy with what this administration has done.

If anything, I hope Kerry critiques Bush’s domestic record these past four years on the economy, environment, health care, etc. with more force than he did in St. Louis. That’s what I hope to see at Arizona State this Wednesday!



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
16 posted 2004-10-09 10:47 PM


Well, it's hard to know where to begin

quote:

He has had one of the worst attendance records in COngress



B>S Micheal

Kerry's Senate Record (data from last 5 years)
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103

2003
Voting participation 36%
Party Support           100%
Presidential Support 30%

2002
Voting participation 96%
Party Support           92%
Presidential Support 72%

2001
Voting participation 98%
Party Support           98%
Presidential Support 65%

2000
Voting participation  95%
Party Support            96%
Presidential Support  97%

1999
Voting participation 99%
Party Support           95%
Presidential Support 93%

I wonder what he might have been doing in 2003?  Any guesses?

Want the full record -- I'll just bet you haven't read it Michael http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Senator John Edwards

2003
Voting participation 61%
Party Support           97%
Presidential Support 41%

2002
Voting participation 100%
Party Support           84%
Presidential Support 76%

2001
Voting participation 100%
Party Support           91%
Presidential Support 67%

2000
Voting participation  100%
Party Support            94%
Presidential Support  92%

1999
Voting participation 99%
Party Support           92%
Presidential Support 87%
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=CNC68243

full record http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=CNC68243

Be back later..

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
17 posted 2004-10-09 11:08 PM


In contrast, in spite of Cheney's fantastic lie about never having met Edwards and being in the Senate every Tuesday, he's only presided over the Senate 2 times out of the 126 Tuesdays since his term of office.  Filling in for him as acting President of the Senate from the Congressional Record are the following;

2001
1/30 Enzi
2/6 Chafee
2/13 Chafee
2/27 Allen
3/6 Burns
3/13 Reid
3/20 DeWine
3/27 Chafee
4/3 Smith
4/24 Chafee
5/1 Chafee
5/8 Chafee
5/15 Frist
5/22 Chafee
5/29 Enzi
6/5 Byrd
6/19 Carper
6/26 Bayh
7/10 Nelson
7/17 Clinton
7/24 Byrd
7/31 Stabenaw
9/25 Wellstone
10/2 Clinton
10/9 Clinton
10/16 Edwards
10/23 Byrd
10/30 Bingaman
11/13 Murray
11/27 Jeffords
12/4 Stabenaw
12/11 Carnahan
12/18 Nelson
2002
1/29 Nelson
2/5 Kohl
2/12 Stabenow
2/26 Landrieu
3/5 Edwards
3/12 Landrieu
3/19 Miller
4/9 Cleland
4/16 Reed
4/23 Wellstone
4/30 Nelson
5/7 Miller
5/14 Cleland
5/21 Nelson
6/4 Durbin
6/11 Corzine
6/18 Dayton
6/25 Landrieu
7/9 Reed
7/16 Corzine
7/23 Reed
7/30 Clinton
9/3 Reed
9/10 Corzine
9/17 Reid
9/24 Stabenow
10/1 Miller
10/8 Miller
10/15 Reid
11/12 Cheney
11/19 Barkley (MN)
2003
Jan 7 Cheney
1/14 Stevens
1/22 Stevens
1/28 Stevens
2/4 Stevens
2/11 Stevens
2/25 Stevens
3/4 Stevens
3/11 Stevens
3/18 Stevens
3/25 Stevens
4/1 Stevens
4/8 Stevens
4/29 Stevens
5/6 Talent
5/13 Ensign
5/20 Alexander
6/3 Stevens
6/10 Stevens
6/18 Murkowski
6/24 Coleman
7/8 Stevens
7/15 Stevens
7/22 Chaffee
7/29 Stevens
9/2 Stevens
9/9 Stevens
9/16 Stevens
9/23 Stevens
9/30 Sununu
10/21 Stevens
10/28 Stevens
11/4 Stevens
11/11 Warner
11/18 Stevens
12/9 Stevens
2004
1/20 Stevens
1/27 Enzi
2/3 Stevens
2/10 Stevens
3/2 Stevens
3/9 Hagel
3/16 Sununu
3/23 Stevens
3/30 Ensign
4/6 Cornyn
4/20 Stevens
4/27 Chambliss
5/4 Stevens
5/11 Stevens
5/18 Stevens
6/1 Stevens
6/8 Hutchinson
6/15 Stevens
6/22 Allard
7/6 Burns
7/13 Stevens
7/20 Enzi
9/7 Stevens
9/14 Chafee
9/21 Enzi
9/28 Stevens
10/05 Stevens


Note the 2 times Cheney actually presided.

When Cheney does come to the Senate -- he only meets with Republicans.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
18 posted 2004-10-09 11:10 PM


Oh, yeah -- I forgot to note -- Edwards presided as many times as Cheney did...  :shrug:
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
19 posted 2004-10-09 11:14 PM


Thank you, reb...appreciate that info. I confess that I don't understand those figures. In the case of Edwards, for example, Cheney specified that Edwards had the worst attendance and voting record in the Senate, to his face, and Edwards did not refute it and actually appeared to acknowledge it. If it had not been true I can't imagine Edwards not jumping all over it. Yet, by the figures in your example, with the exception of 2003, Edwards is show almost perfect figures. Kerry has also been criticized heavily for his lack of voting record..sure seems to be something wrong somewhere, no? ANythoughts?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
20 posted 2004-10-09 11:19 PM


Gee...I wonder why Hoover had so many jobs lost under his tenure...could it have been the Great Depression? Naw...must've been something else.  And, despite what is commonly believed, Presidents do not create jobs, except when Clinton gave jobs to his relatives without them taking the Civil Service exam.  They were quickly let go once word got out.  Nor do they create law.  That is the job of Congress, made up of Representatives and Senators,  with two of the latter wanting to occupy the White House.

Bush had to deal with a recession which started in 1997, corporate scandals (I'm sure the investigations weren't started a few days before Enron went under), and the atrocious attack on the World Trade Center buildings, which cost over 3000 American lives and affected families in over 30 countries, not to mention losses of businesses and corporations.  Oh, and don't forget that most of the job losses have been in the private sector...yanno, corporations that folded due to massive corruption and creative accounting practices.  Let's not forget NAFTA either, which Clinton made a reality (cheaper labor in Mexico and no labor unions).  If Albert Gore hadn't ignored 'smaller' electoral states, he would've had the exact same things to deal with.  I'm not naive enough to wonder if the Democrats would hold him accountible.  Nor do I think the DNC would be trying very hard to deny Nader his Constitutional right to run for President by his using the very same tactics the Republicans and Democrats have used for decades.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
21 posted 2004-10-09 11:29 PM


"Bush uses the recession, September 11th and the war in Iraq as excuses"

Noah, I must confess that is one of the most incredible statements I have seen in any of these discussions.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
22 posted 2004-10-09 11:42 PM


And LR, if Kerry and Edwards are so proud of their Senatorial records, why on earth haven't they spoken more about it?  With all elections, we are the employers.  We look at each job candidate and examine their resume, including past work history.  Why is it that Bush has included his, but competitors to this job have not?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
23 posted 2004-10-10 01:17 AM


quote:

ANythoughts?



Yes,

Politicians mislead, prevaricate, exagerate, expurgate, watergate, fornicate, ...

which is why I get my information from sites like factcheck.ORG (which is not factcheck.COM, an honest mistake Mr. Vice-President) that, for some reason Mr. Cheney thought had cleared him on Haliburton -- but really doesn't.

Edwards probably didn't want to acknowledge that he had been gone from the Senate during the time he was campaigning for his party's nomination and now the Vice-Presidency.

And if you look at the official record Mike -- the data is the data;
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
24 posted 2004-10-10 01:43 AM


Sorry, that site isn't very intuitive -- you have to click on browse which will take you here http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/browse.html

Then pick the year you want to look at and it will give you the day by day pages -- at the begining of each session it will tell you who the President Pro Tem for that day is.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
25 posted 2004-10-10 02:04 AM


ALi, I absolutely do not know what you're talking about, Kerry's record is his record -- http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/issues/legislation.html

his official Senate office site -- lists clearly what he's worked on

as the Junior Senator from Mass, he hasn't gotten plum projects all the time -- but he's even highlighted key events such as deficit reduction in the 80's and balancing the budget in the 90's

what he hasn't talked much about from his Senate tenure is the time he's spent investigating government corruption (a skill he acquired as a prosecutor (um-- that would have been when George Bush's resume only said -- drunk)) one of his major accomplishments being blowing the lid off of Iran-Contra (which could be why Ollie hates him so much?  criminals usually don't like the cops that catch them do they?)

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

26 posted 2004-10-10 02:41 AM


Well, for what it is worth, for everytime Bush rebutted that Kerry was lying, it pissed me off more.

I'm STILL waiting for someone in our present administration to take responsibility--and I am a swing voter--but if nothing drastic happens between now and Debate 3?

shrug

I don't like Kerry much better than Bush, but I will give him a chance to tell me the truth.

Bush blew his.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
27 posted 2004-10-10 07:00 AM


Thanks, LR, but there is something wrong somewhere and I'd be interested finding out where. After the VP debate our great unbiased press dissected and pointed out every word that Cheney said that they considered suspect in any way. They did not touch the remarks about Edward's attendance and voting record. Had the statements been incorrect they would have gone into a feeding frenzy. Yet the figures you point out indicate the opposite of what Cheney said - and he did not limit his comments to 2003, rather Edward's entire congressional record. So Edwards doesn't refute them, the liberal press doesn't refute them and the figures on the web page you display say the opposite. Are we in Denmark?

....and I doubt that Bush's resume said drunk any more than Clinton's said smoking marijuana but not inhaling. Nice to see you slip a cheap shot in there, though

Serenity, funny how thoughts work. I admired Bush's actions for the same reason you despised them....and that's fine 'cause that's what makes the world go around. Kerry has been spilling whoppers during this entire race. If you notice one recurring theme in the debates committed by Kerry and Edwards it is that they have been calling Bush a liar at every opportunity. If you had a nickel for everytime they've said it you would be rich....and they haven't done it with any class at all. Statements like "Bush lied to the American people", "Bush deliberately mislead the American people", "George Bush is lying to you", and others have been their mantra in each debate. They have not just come out and said that they think Bush had the wrong policies and that they could do better - they have aggressively branded him with personal insults....and he has taken them. It was refreshing to me to see him finally get fed up enough to turn the tables. Bush pointed out that Kerry was lying for one simple reason - Kerry has been lying. Problem is the press will not touch him or bring him to account for anything he says. There wer other instances Bush could have said "Liar" again and he let them go, the comment about the general who was fired because of delivering a bad report to Bush. Kerry had tried to use that one before and it was pointed out to him in black and white that the general had put in his retirement papers in 2002, a year before his report, and that his leaving his post was nothing more than normal retirement but Kerry continues to say, Knowing full well it's a complete fabrication, that Bush fired him.

As far as who you will vote for, I always knew you were a swinger

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
28 posted 2004-10-10 02:12 PM


Well there is something rotten Michael -- and if you haven't picked up on it yet -- the Bush SOP is if they are vulnerable on an issue -- accuse your opponent!  In their Machiavelian mindset integrity is just a matter of fidelity to ideology -- in the eye of the beholder.  If one acts convincingly avuncular and intractable when making a pronouncement they know that some of the people will merely accept what is said as fact.

The Bush/Cheney ticket has tried spinning the Vice-President's remarks about never having met Edwards when there is clear video footage of the two together on at least two occasions and Tim Russert's eyewitness report of multiple meetings backstage at NBC's Meet the Press by saying 'Well, those weren't meetings -- those were casual encounters'.  Prevaricate, distort, quibble, fib -- but I'm not using the harsh word.  It all depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is.

One of the things that's been good about this campaign is the involvement of the electorate.  One of the things the electorate has still not learned to do is how to vet sources.  If you look at the source provided http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/browse.html it is the official site for the Government Printing Office that produces and maintains all government documents.  Note the site's .gov suffix -- only an official government use site can obtain a .gov address.  So what I'm providing you with is the raw, unadulterated, un-opinionated data of the actual Congressional RECORD.

If you look at more raw data -- the transcript of the vice-presidential debate:
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

you will see that Edwards didn't let the comment go, but, I agree he didn't rebutt specifically;

quote:

Cheney;
The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record.

And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Edwards;
That was a complete distortion of my record. I know that won't come as a shock.

The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.

He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors.

He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of
Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's.



So, here you see Cheney trying to change the subject from Haliburton -- where he knows he's vulnerable -- with a complete fabrication.  And then Edwards, instead of getting into a 'did not,  did too' argument in a format with limited time and no immediate way to offer proof instead opts to use his time to get in a dig at Cheny's Congressional record.

First -- let's take a look at that hometown paper -- it's not exactly Edward's hometown paper -- it's The Pilot from Southern Pines -- but it's only 20 miles away from Robbins -- so we'll give the Vice-President a close-enough.

That paper in an editorial posted this statement http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html

quote:

'Senator Gone'?

It's not every day that a non-daily paper in a small town gets mentioned in a nationally televised debate in prime time. But it happened to The Pilot Tuesday night.

"His hometown newspaper has taken to calling him 'Senator Gone,'" Vice President Richard Cheney said of his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Edwards.

Well, not exactly.

The Pilot hasn't "taken to calling him" anything. In fact, the vice president's obscure reference sent us scrambling to our library. And sure enough, we did publish an editorial 15 months ago, on June 25, 2003, headlined, "Edwards Should Do His Day Job." In it, we noted that Sen. Jesse Helms used to be called "Senator No." And we added: "Four and a half years into his first term, John Edwards is becoming known as Senator Gone."

The reference was to Edwards' frequent absences from the Senate floor as he traveled here and there (mostly there) pursuing his presidential ambitions.

But we also wrote: "Members of the senator's staff point out that
Edwards' attendance record this year has been better than the three other Democratic senators who are campaigning for president - Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt and Bob Graham. And the aides also say none of the votes Edwards missed was close, so his presence on the floor would not have changed the outcome."

Thanks for the plug, Mr. Vice President. We're proud to count you among our many readers.



And in this letter from it's former editor; http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/101004B-Hackney.html

quote:

Vice President Dick Cheney would have us believe that his Democratic counterpart, U.S. Sen. John Edwards, has been written off by his hometown newspaper, The Pilot, for a less-than-stellar Senate attendance record.

In contrast, a fair number of The Pilot’s readers in heavily Republican Moore County have accused The Pilot over the months of acting as a shill for Edwards.

Take it from me. Both are wrong.
....

During Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate in Cleveland, Republican Cheney said the newspaper had “taken to calling [Edwards] ‘Senator Gone.’” And it is true that The Pilot wrote that Edwards was “becoming known as Senator Gone” in a June 25 editorial criticizing him for missing too many votes in the Senate while out on the campaign trail.

For the record, I was opinion editor of The Pilot at the time that editorial appeared, but I didn’t write it. Editor Steve Bouser took me off the hook and wrote it himself, not wanting to put this Robbins product in the awkward position of trashing Edwards. I confess that I generally agreed with the editorial.

But Cheney’s implication was that the editorial page of The Pilot was keeping up a steady drumbeat of anti-Edwards rhetoric, and that is utterly false.
.............

So the record should be set straight regarding Vice President Cheney’s implication, just as it should in response to the assertions of Edwards local detractors. The Pilot has not by any stretch written Edwards off as an incompetent absentee, and it has covered the Edwards story as it should, fulfilling its responsibility to serve its readers in a thorough, competent and balanced manner.

I’m proud of my former newspaper for its journalistic integrity.

By the way: I’ve never met Dick Cheney, whom I’ve taken to calling “Vice President Fib.”



But, you ask a good question -- why hasn't your so-called liberal press made a big deal out of it?  Because the video footage is of Cheney lying about never having said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11.  Because the video footage is of Cheney meeting Edwards.  I've never claimed the press is impartial -- I've said it is commercial.  They want the sizzle -- and the footage -- data is boring.  But, if you read around you'll find that they do cover it in passing -- how big a story is it though? It's just one more campaign distortion by a politician.

I've given you the data -- prove me/it wrong if you can.  But, you can't.

And if the data about Bush being a lush is a cheap shot -- then -- why is Kerry's VVAW involvement admissible?  A resume is a resume.


Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
29 posted 2004-10-10 02:26 PM


The 'lush' is a cheap shot, as cheap a shot if aimed at any recovering alcoholic.  Yes, I think Bush was an alcoholic up through the mid 80's.  Then he quit cold turkey, went through withdrawals, and stayed sober.  At the very least, give him the credit which millions of Americans have also done: recovering from alcoholism.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
30 posted 2004-10-10 03:00 PM


Winston Churchill was a functional alcoholic all through his tenure.  The Republicans though -- made a huge deal out of Clinton's 'didn't inhale' statement (particularly recovering Oxycontin addict Rush Limbaugh) and tried to make as much political hay out of it as they could to say it disqualified him from being President (as well as his 'draft-dodging' by seeking deferments to go to college).

So, it's not a shot at the President -- it's a shot at the arguments -- which want to make it an off-limits subject since the President 'repented' and became an Evangelical.  That's great -- but it doesn't make it off limits.  A resume is a resume.

It isn't wrong to discuss that, or Kerry's VVAW involvement or anything else -- we just have to consider what significance the events of youth actually have.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
31 posted 2004-10-10 03:14 PM


Gee...I wonder why Hoover had so many jobs lost under his tenure...could it have been the Great Depression? Naw...must've been something else.  And, despite what is commonly believed, Presidents do not create jobs, except when Clinton gave jobs to his relatives without them taking the Civil Service exam.  They were quickly let go once word got out.  Nor do they create law.  That is the job of Congress, made up of Representatives and Senators,  with two of the latter wanting to occupy the White House.

Of course Hoover had a net job creation loss during his term because of the Great Depression.

Balladeer confessed that when I said Bush had used the recession handed to him, 9/11 and the war in Iraq as excuses to why during his Administration no jobs were created, that that was "one of the most incredible statements I have seen in any of these discussions."

I don't see why.

After all, World War II cost the U.S $341 billion. Yet, somehow, the economy under Franklin D. Roosevelt still was capable of having at least a net gain in job creation.

Vietnam cost the U.S approximately $200 billion. Yet, somehow the economies under Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon still were capable of having net gains in job creation.

I acknowledge that it isn't the president himself who creates jobs, but every decision can influence the fate or destiny of the economy. Bush claims "the economy is strong, and it's getting stronger!". Yes, it's true that 1.9 million jobs have been created since we lost 2.7 million when Bush took office earlier. Yet, the sign that all these jobs won't be recovered in time show the irresponsibility of this Administration.

Bush had to deal with a recession which started in 1997, corporate scandals (I'm sure the investigations weren't started a few days before Enron went under), and the atrocious attack on the World Trade Center buildings, which cost over 3000 American lives and affected families in over 30 countries, not to mention losses of businesses and corporations.  Oh, and don't forget that most of the job losses have been in the private sector...yanno, corporations that folded due to massive corruption and creative accounting practices.  Let's not forget NAFTA either, which Clinton made a reality (cheaper labor in Mexico and no labor unions).  If Albert Gore hadn't ignored 'smaller' electoral states, he would've had the exact same things to deal with.  I'm not naive enough to wonder if the Democrats would hold him accountible.  Nor do I think the DNC would be trying very hard to deny Nader his Constitutional right to run for President by his using the very same tactics the Republicans and Democrats have used for decades.

Again, these excuses can't cover up the lackluster performance of this Administration.

Now, let me get to the Nader controversy.

I absolutely agree that what some Democrats are doing to keep Nader off state ballots is wrong. I am not happy with that, and condemn those actions. Nader has every right to run because, after all, that is what rings true in democracy. The people decide, and thus they should have as many choices as possible.

Nader has done so much for America these past four decades, from working as a lawyer in Connecticut, to his time being a consumer advocate, to forming the Center for the Study of Responsive Law and the Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, to fighting against corporations and fighting for environmental protection, that is beyond admirable. He is courageous and he is to be honored in that respect.

Nader's positions on issues are also ones I overwhelmingly agree with. I applaud Ralph in defending Roe vs. Wade, how he's fighting for 47 million American workers by offering them a $8 minimum wage, getting rid of gay discrimination in full, that corporations should not be considered as individuals, treating hemp like poppy seeds instead of heroin, the reviving of energy policies, the ending of all logging in national forest areas, ending the war on Iraq, I am in great support of his policies!

I do also believe that Nader is coming off as naive and intransigent in his campaign. He must understand that this is a two-way race we're facing, and Nader himself knows he cannot win this election. Nader should also realize he could be an important role model in 2008 for many liberals and progressives, even many moderate Republicans. The Anybody But Bush bandwagon will dissolve by then and therefore he should be saving his energy for the next election, where I believe he can have a greater chance should this rigid system be fixed with an ITC ballot enforcement, expansion of Indymedia, etc.

Again, I disagree and denounce some tactics Democrats have used to keep Nader off the ballot in some states, as it shows unilateral, adversarial politics. All the same, when Nader continues to deny or fail to admit it, he, himself, has been involved in partisan politics in getting on some state ballots.

The way he has chosen to defend and promote his campaign is what is bothersome, using the likes of Republican lawyers to compete against Democratic lawyers instead of his own integrity to find a place on a ballot.

Nader's colleagues have worked with Peter Antonacci, George Meros, and, most notably, Kenneth Sukhia, a Republican judge who took a role in the 2000 recount then got appointed by Bush the following year for a federal judgeship in attempting to get on the Florida ballot is very troubling to me. All throughout Nader's long and rich history, partisan politics has never been his game, but seeing him work with the likes of those whose politics contradict his is very much out of character and, frankly, hypocritical.

54% of the signatures he got to get on the Arizona ballot were from Republicans alone. Nader received grants from the Oregon Family Council in Oregon, an anti-gay association, when Nader's politics contradict theirs.

Rumors are floating around that Nader has even accepted $75,000 from the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Now, personally, I doubt Nader would go this far, but believing he is being dishonest about accepting previous endorsements, it won't be all too suprising should this story evolve and prove true.

In the end, I can forgive Nader for how he's been operating his campaign for presidency. Nader, overall, remains a breath of fresh air to democracy, and he represents the true definition of democracy as "of the people, by the people and for the people". His politics are what most of us I believe are yearning for and I commend him for continuing to hold them true.

I just hope while we sympathize with him, Nader can do the same for a majority of more liberal Americans depending on Kerry to bring America in a new direction.

Yes, Alicat, I agree it is wrong what some of these Democrats have done in pushing Nader aside from the ballots. All the same, Nader and the Republicans are no stranger to these adversarial politics.

After all, in Afghanistan, all 15 other presidential candidates have withdrawn and alleged election fraud in the first presidential election against U.S.-backed interim President Hamid Karzai. I have read multiple times that before this election, these candidates were saying that the U.S. officials were pressuring them to drop out of the race against Hamid.

In Iraq, it'll be the same story. The White House has developed a secret plan where it would covertly use the CIA to help pro-U.S. candidates win in the upcoming Iraqi election. Some officials within the Bush administration have even defended this plan saying it is "needed to counter outside influence from other countries including Iran."

There's democracy for you. Democracy is "of the people, by the people and for the people" thus I believe the Afghanis and Iraqis should decide how more or less pro-U.S they want their leaders to be.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
32 posted 2004-10-10 04:01 PM


Granted Noah, and not to offer apologetics, our own history of democratic elections from the onset have been fraught with their fair share of controversies, scandals, and coverups.  Yet we continue and overcome.  I sincerely doubt the first few Presidential elections here came off perfectly, nor that it was easy, nor that there weren't allegations.  Ok, maybe the very first one went smooth.  There was almost unanimous demand that Washington lead the fledgling Republic.  Adams and Jefferson, however, well, they had some downright nefarious schemes to discredit the other, only reaching  reconciliation on their deathbeds, though that tale could very well be apocryphal.  Frankly, I'm surprised the Afghan elections came off as smoothly as they did, this being their first one in over 500 years.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
33 posted 2004-10-10 07:20 PM


I'm relieved at least there was no major Taliban attack on the day of the election there. I am glad all those innocent civilians could go on that particular day and have a break from the violence that continues to occur there.

Nevertheless, this wasn't a democratic election, and neither will January's election in Iraq.

And Iraq having any sort of election still won't change how senseless this war in Iraq was, and the worst case scenario is this country may not be one Iraq for long. The south provinces already want to seperate from Iraq and form their own autonomous states, and this could be the spiking horse for further division and possible civil war.

The Bush Administration is clearly trying to use Saddam Hussein being a bad guy and thus the world is better without him as a smoke-screen excuse behind this whole war. That's not the reason why the Administration took us in the first place, and they know it.

The obvious has been confirmed. The major U.S. report on Saddam Hussein's pre-war weapons capacity has concluded Iraq had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion and that most of the country's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed a decade earlier after the first Gulf War. Weapons inspector Charles Duelfer even reported that Iraq's capability in restarting its weapons of mass destruction program was eroding at the time of the U.S. invasion.

The Administration continues to find new ideas in defending this war that contradict their original claims, and as Cheney clearly lied in saying he had made no previous suggestion of a link between Saddam and 9/11 before, this war itself is composed of many great lies.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
34 posted 2004-10-10 07:27 PM


Noah, the White House has developed a "secret" plan and yet you know about it....I had no idea you have such connections

Of course the Afghan losers are going to scream voting improprieties when they lose. They learned to do that from the Democratic party.

As far as finding your comparisons incredible, the Democrats list economic figures as if 9/11 ever existed and they don't want their listeners to remember it, either. All of their figures begin with the day Bush took office up until now. The finalcial losses, in the billions, the tens of thousands (at least) of jobs lost, the large number of companies that went under, the havoc wreaked on the stock market - none of these count as far as the Democrats are concerned. It'sas if saying Ray Charles can't read as well as he did at age 9 (ignoring the fact that he went blind at 11). Thorw in all of the corporate scandals and failures that they caused, whose roots go back to before Bush took office, and you will then get a better picture of how far we have come. You can't compare 9/11 to World War II. COmpanies did not go out of business, people did not lose their jobs, there was no billions of dollars of loss inside the US during WWII. 9/11 was unique. If the Democrats wanted to be fair (an unlikely scenario) they would compare the figures from when the reconstruction of the economy after 9/11 until now to get figures about how the economy of the nation is going....but they are certainly not going to do that so instead they keep leapfrogging 9/11 to go back to when Bush took office and then moving on from there.

LR, as far as Haliburton is concerned, I refer you to this article adn the facts contained within..

"Why did Clinton give them the contracts to cleanup Bosnia and Kosovo? Why did Clinton give them the contracts in Saudi Arabia?

Could it be that they were the best to get the jobs done?

Cheney argued then that sanctions did not work and punished American companies. The former defense secretary complained in a 1998 speech that U.S. companies were "cut out of the action" in Iran because of the sanctions.

At an energy industry conference in 1996, Cheney said sanctions were the greatest threat to Halliburton and other American oil-related companies trying to expand overseas.


This is why Cheney opposed the sanctions and the current Oil for Food investigation is proving that he was right on the money as so many Countries were going behind the UN's back and even the UN was breaking them. All these sanctions were doing, were hurting us as we were the only Country uphodoling the sanctions along with the UK.

I am an Engineer for the 3rd largest Engineering firm in the World, I am actual a department head and Haliburton is a major competitor of ours, but I will admit, that Haliburton was the only choice for that job.

People do not understand, that Haliburton is made up of a lot of different companies they have purchased over the years. Lockheed Martin, Bechtel Industries, Brown & Root, etc. are all part of Haliburton. Those happent to be three of the biggest Defense Contractors which Haliburton purchased, so Haliburton is by far the biggest now. They're really the only firm big enough to take on such a project.

All these people who keep saying they received a no bid contract do not know all the facts. It's tue they received a no bid contract, but this was for the Oil pipeline cleanup only. This was the most important of course, so Oil would keep flowing to other Countries dependent on Iraqi Oil and to keep revenue flwoing into Iraq to help with the rebuilding process.

Remember after we went into Kuwait and forced Saddam out? The first thing he did was to start blowing up Kuwaits Oil Pipelines. This is why we gave Haliburton a no bid contract for expediency purposes as time was at the essence, because we wanted to make sure their pipelines stayed intact.


The charge that Halliburton somehow avoided competitive bidding because of unfair influence by Cheney, is flat-out wrong. Halliburton outbid four other companies to do laundry and cooking for the troops — services the private sector can provide cheaper than the Pentagon can. The only major contract Halliburton got without competitive bidding was the Restore Iraqi Oil program — to get oil flowing quickly to help finance reconstruction. Halliburton is the only company in the world with the expertise to handle the range of problems in Iraq, including oil-well fires and pipeline breakdowns. And they proved it: they restored production to pre-war levels three months ahead of schedule.

The company stands to make between a one and three percent profit in Iraq — compared to their normal 15 percent profit margin. And the smears on their reputation have been so disruptive that they’re considering selling off the unit that has performed so well for such little profit. Cheney, despite Democrats’ lies, doesn’t profit personally from any Halliburton work."


Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

35 posted 2004-10-11 02:28 PM


I guess it is a good thing the internet exists.  I always thought in the modern era the Vice President only presided over the Senate on ceremonial occasions or when a tie is expected and the Vice President's vote is needed to break the tie.

I assumed the president pro tempore (the longest serving Senator of the majority party) is the one who actually presides when the full body is in session and when the chambers are being used for speeches and such, they let one of the few Senators that might be there act as the acting president pro tempore.

Since the Senate most generally meets only on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays, I would have found it a pretty standard practice the Vice President would go up to the Senate and meet to discuss the hearings and votes in the upcoming week on a Tuesday when he might actually have some function of importance.

I also would not have been overly surprised before this thread to find out any Senator has a high percentage of voting on roll call votes.  I always thought the system was pretty well set up to insure that result.

A calendar in advance days if not weeks is provided all Senators letting them know when a roll call vote is being held which generally is late in the day on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.  If a Senator is not in the Chambers, you have the fifteen minute period to get there and there are little tricks like the quorum call to drag things out further.

Kind of like those students who never come to class and only show up for tests.  I kind of assumed if you don't show up for the tests, then you probably haven't been to class either.

In any event, I believed the real work of the Senate occurs in committee meetings and hearings.  Attendance at those is unrelated to attending the couple of roll call votes in the full Senate held each week.  

As an aside, in the full Senate, they don't take roll on non-roll call votes so you don't know who was there or not.

Interestingly enough, the Congressional Record can be altered by a Senator up to twenty days.  I even believe that in most committee hearings, the Senators even in roll call votes can cast proxy (by note, telephone)votes or enter votes later. A proviso, the Senator isn't supposed to vote by proxy unless he has some idea what the vote is about.

"You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings of the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee," Cheney said, "You've missed a lot of key votes on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. … You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate."

That is referencing Edwards.  When Kerry was on the intelligence committee for eight years, he missed over 75% of the intelligence committee hearings.(public)  (that is verifiable in government records) and not in the period of the last two years since Kerry/Edwards quit making any pretense of acting as full time Senators.  

A Republican Senator on the finance committee (probably biased) indicated he has never seen Senator Kerry at a finance committee meeting.

I doubt either Kerry or Edwards would even consider releasing their attendance records on the private meetings, (they have been requested and will be released if the Senators want them released) but what the hey, maybe they are publicity shy and only miss public meetings.

And you have to factor in, that Senators can make a short appearance to get their appearance noted and then leave.  Kerry/Edwards aren't even very good at that.


I only responded because it appeared Balladeer honestly wanted a response to why the media is not jumping to the defense of Kerry/Edwards on the attendance issue and why Kerry/Edwards leave it to the internet to defend them.

I would suspect that is because they understand how the system works and know it cannot be spun except by those who do not understand how the system works.

[This message has been edited by Tim (10-11-2004 05:35 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
36 posted 2004-10-11 06:51 PM


quote:

RULE I

APPOINTMENT OF A SENATOR TO THE CHAIR

1. In the absence of the Vice President, the Senate shall choose a President pro tempore, who shall hold the office and execute the duties thereof during the pleasure of the Senate and until another is elected or his term of office as a Senator expires.

2. In the absence of the Vice President, and pending the election of a President pro tempore, the Acting President pro tempore or the Secretary of the Senate, or in his absence the Assistant Secretary, shall perform the duties of the Chair.

3. The President pro tempore shall have the right to name in open Senate or, if absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the Chair, including the signing of duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions but such substitution shall not extend beyond an adjournment, except by unanimous consent; and the Senator so named shall have the right to name in open session, or, if absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the Chair, but not to extend beyond an adjournment, except by unanimous consent.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule01.htm




From the Proceedings and 108th Congress Second Session:

October 5, 2004
The Senate met at 9 a.m. and was
called to order by the President pro
tempore (Mr. STEVENS).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S10  381&position=all

September 21, 2004
Mr. ENZI thereupon assumed the
Chair as Acting President pro tempore.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S939  5&position=all

Yes, the Internet is a great tool for educating people how things really work -- and all the data is instantly available, as well as bellicose and bombastic thesis that might seem to allow one to redress facts any way one wishes.  

The misleading statement by the Vice-President was;

"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

Which to the casual observer may have a semblance of both a hard-at-work Presiding Cheney and a dawdling Edwards -- whereas -- as the data shows Tim -- neither is true.  Certainly Vice Presidents rarely actually preside -- which is why I found his statement all the more incredible.

Your assertions are no less an obfuscation of the endless and reticulant committees where WORK is rarely done.  Posturing, politicking, and wasting time is a more apt description.  One of the reasons Tom Ridge is quitting is because he spends upwards of 80% of his time going to Congress to testify or sit in on Committee meetings instead of guarding the nation -- it is one of the aims of the 9/11 commission to reform the Congress to eliminate such poppycock.

(you'll have to refresh the above links to get them to load after the new window opens -- for some reason they don't like being directed from here)

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
37 posted 2004-10-11 06:57 PM


Oh, and -- even better than the Internet Tim, CSPAN -- where we can see a lonely Senator performing his deliberations passionately to an empty floor.  

I'll be back to catch up with you Micheal a little bit later -- but, better, much better

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

38 posted 2004-10-11 07:08 PM


I suppose you can quote anything off the internet you wish and try and change the point made, but you have not addressed the fact Kerry and Edwards have a less than stellar record of performing their duties.

I see no refutation of that point, only an attempt to sidetrack the issue.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
39 posted 2004-10-11 08:16 PM


Thank you, Tim, for such a well-presented explanation of how the system works and why Kerry, Edwards or the media have not protested Cheney's words. I see no obfuscation at all. As in many cases, figures can be manipulated to present a variety of results.

LR, if Kerry and Edwards were out saving the nation in some way that put their time to better use than sitting in congressional sessions, why haven't they mentioned these worthy endeavors...and why doesn't anybody, even the press, know about them? Laziness and a lack of effort appears to be the more feasible to me...

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
40 posted 2004-10-11 08:19 PM


On the contrary Tim, I'm the only one who has offered evidence of anything.  Which is proof that they HAVE performed their duties.

And, offered proof of what the Senate Rules actually ARE regarding a President pro tempore.

You sir, have posted a lot of words.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
41 posted 2004-10-11 09:05 PM


I suppose you can quote anything off the internet you wish and try and change the point made, but you have not addressed the fact Bush and Cheney have a less than stellar record of performing their duties.

I see no refutation of that point, only an attempt to sidetrack the issue.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
42 posted 2004-10-11 09:11 PM


I almost forgot this irrelevant tidbit;

quote:

Interestingly enough, the Congressional Record can be altered by a Senator up to twenty days. I even believe that in most committee hearings, the Senators even in roll call votes can cast proxy (by note, telephone)votes or enter votes later. A proviso, the Senator isn't supposed to vote by proxy unless he has some idea what the vote is about.



Proxy voting is allowed ONLY for a committee vote under Senate Rule XXVI and has nothing to do with the voting records I've presented here and should neither be confused with such.


And shock of shocks -- the Senate uses SCHEDULES!!!     What cheats!  

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
43 posted 2004-10-11 10:57 PM


Sorry for dragging this out guys -- I have kids to raise -- interruptions...

As to the changing of the record;

quote:

Senate Rule 12

1. When the yeas and nays are ordered, the names of Senators shall be called alphabetically; and each Senator shall, without debate, declare his assent or dissent to the question, unless excused by the Senate; and no Senator shall be permitted to vote after the decision shall have been announced by the Presiding Officer, but may for sufficient reasons, with unanimous consent, change or withdraw his vote. No motion to suspend this rule shall be in order, nor shall the Presiding Officer entertain any request to suspend it by unanimous consent.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule12.htm




And on the absenteeism of Senators and Quorum Calls we have Rule 6:
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule06.htm

quote:

1. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. 2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave. 3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate. 4. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order



So, you see, Kerry's and Edward's absences during campaigning are excused....and the Quorum Call is only executable in the event there is not a Quorum present.  

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
44 posted 2004-10-11 11:27 PM


Hrm.  Well, if nothing else, Edwards is indeed very very ambitious.  First term U.S. Senator, using the last 2 years of his very first term to run for President, before Kerry won the nomination.  Kerry is less ambitious, having waited 20 years in the Senate for his shot.  Which still brings me to another hrm.  If Kerry and Edwards are still so reluctant to speak of their Senatorial experience, then why does the DNC claim that speaking about their Senatorial record is political distortion and character assassination?
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
45 posted 2004-10-11 11:49 PM


quote:
then why does the DNC claim that speaking about their Senatorial record is political distortion and character assassination?


The DNC has no problem with speaking about it, but lying about/distorting it.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
46 posted 2004-10-11 11:58 PM


That certainly clarifies why there's been any talk about their record except by Republicans.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
47 posted 2004-10-12 01:03 AM




All I can say is while those from the right are trying to wreck Kerry's campaigh by digging up the past on his record and his protesting after Vietnam, I use Bush's own words on his own record these past four years:

"You can run, but you can't hide!"



The Bush campaign has gone so low as to simply use the word "intent" from the Duelfer Report in defending this senseless war, where he surmised that Saddam may have intended to resume WMD production had the sanctions been lifted, despite making clear there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, had not made any weapons since 1991, had ended all biological research in 1996, and had no capability of making any new weapons.

The Bush Administration even keeps believing "the world is safer, but is not yet safe". What is that supposed to mean?

For one thing, a majority believe it is just the opposite. The war in Iraq has incited or encouraged terrorism in the world.

John Howard can make his happy dance for winning his re-election bid, but he must rest assured two-thirds of his fellow Australians believe the war is only encouraging terrorists in the world.

Only one-third approve of Blair and Berlusconi's handling of the war on terror. Nine in ten are now afraid of terrorist attacks each day in Italy now. Meanwhile, the approval ratings have went up for Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in their opposition to the war, while more in each country (France, Germany, Spain) than ever believe the war will increase terrorist risk.

What do you have to say in response to this collected opinion that clearly contrasts from that Bush is making? War terrorizes entire communities, thus terrorists are made, period.

You can tell how desperate the Bush campaign is to hiding from the truth that they are counting on Sinclair Network to release their anti-Kerry documentary that runs like a 90-minute extended Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ad.

Carlton Sherwood can do all he wants to complain about the brave, courageous acts of dissent Kerry made after returning home from Vietnam, for him and all the veterans who don't support Kerry have a right to freedom of speech, but as far as Bush's record is concerned:

"You can run, but you can't hide!"

I don't know where you got Ray Charles in these economic comparisons, my friend. All I know is, Bush promised himself his tax cuts would create 5.6 million new jobs. I believe he said that even when the recession was beginning. Instead, we're at minus-821,000 jobs. His promise is currently off by about 6.4 million.

It seems almost nobody is paying attention to this massive swing. We've went from a $236 billion budget surplus four years ago to this $444 billion deficit now. That's the most drastic turn-around ever. Basically, in practical terms, this swing has literally put an invisible monkey on all our backs.

I've heard as much as $1,289 in debt on average has been put on each person in 2003. In 2004, it's slated to currently be raised up to an average of $1,513.

This is almost like someone just comes up to you and gives you $500. It sounds great at first. But then it so happens a thousand more is put to debt on your credit card, and then you won't get that bill until after the election.

And it won't be until months from now until everyone realizes the full pain of this burden, of our mortgaged future ahead.

So, I say one more time to Bush and his record he tries to defend and hide from, the same repetitive words Bush used on Kerry and his Senate record:

"You can run, but you can't hide!"



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
48 posted 2004-10-12 07:55 AM


I'm a little leary about voting for either one of them....You have to be a little screwed up to want this job right now....and God help all of us even more if something happens to which ever becomes president because the two vice president candidates are damn sure incapable of running this country...particularly Edwards...I wouldn't want him running a one hour photo!! Obviously both candidates are making promises that they can't keep....always been that way, always will be...George C. Wallace is the only candidate that actually did everything he said he'd do as governor...and alot of those things weren't right!!...but he kept his promises....Wonder what past presidents would have done...how they would have handled things if in Bush's shoes?...Would be interesting....some would have left "well enough" alone..others would have made parking lots out of Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, and a few other hell holes.....Considering the circumstances....Bush would have been condemned no matter what he'd done or how he'd done it....How many of us have ordered fellow men into life threatening situations?...How many of you have been ordered into life threatening situations?...(My mouth has put ME into life threatening situations many times..LOL)....Don't listen to any of the rhetoric..the debates are a joke....you did this...you didn't do this...you promised this...you promised that...you'll raise taxes..you only tax the poor...what a crock of crap...think about what YOU'D do if 9/11 happened while you were President?..How would you have handled it?..How would Kerry have handled it?..I believe they both love their country...neither need the money...neither  will probably enjoy the job they're running for...and, if elected, either will be criticized continuously....what the voting public has to decide...is which has the most experience with war...Kerry because he was in one?..Bush?..because he was President during the terrorist attacks on this country and abroad?...I know who I trust right now..and that's not going to sway anyone..but we'd better decide who is the most capable at this time and pray we elect the most qualified..It's been said before as "rhetoric"...but these days and times it's probably true...."The future of this world really may depend on it this time"..

[This message has been edited by Toerag (10-12-2004 09:49 AM).]

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
49 posted 2004-10-12 03:36 PM




Oh Toerag, I absolutely agree.

I am really not happy or excited with either of these candidates, and I have said time and time again I don't hate anything more than politics. Politicians are always the most likely people to break promises in any case. I acknowledge Bush is certainly no stranger to that, and seriously think Kerry will break some promise one way or another as any man running would.

And it saddens me, frankly, to see much of this run for the presidency based on who's the better commander-in-chief candidate or who was the better guy thirty-five years ago.

These debates pretty much resonate all the same things the candidates say on the campaign trail. I can imagine Nader being allowed to be represented in these debates and let a mass audience be aware of his intense progressive politics that I think many already agree with, but are simply unaware of. Nader's politics agree with mine far more in comparison to Kerry's, but even Nader himself has conceded he will not win this November. And I believe what you say, Toerag, that "The future of this world really may depend on it this time".

I'm only participating because I am a fond believer in democracy and believe I must participate, led by my morals.

First, I'm voting for one man and not the other because I see the consistent result that over half of Americans believe America is heading in the wrong direction. Why keep punishing ourselves when over half admit they are unhappy? It clearly sends a message, "We need change!" So, let's experiment with the other guy and see if he does any better.

Secondly, though I disagree with Kerry on a number of issues including voting for the resolution for the president to use force in the beginning, and his positions on the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind and NAFTA and several other issues, and am not thrilled with him saying things like, "I'll hunt and kill the terrorists" and increasing the military by 40,000, overall his politics agree with me more than those of Bush, and those of the party.

It troubles me deeply, it really does, voting for someone who could be more pro-war than anti-war, as war is something I don't believe in at all. But I believe millions other more progressive voices out there believe just what I believe; that the time is near for the need of some changes made, but first Bush has to go with this ABB bandwagon going on. That's why Nader's numbers are lower than in 2000, because even Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn believe you won't compromise your principles just by one vote such as this even if some of the politics contradict from your own.

A majority of Americans are unhappy, and tens of millions want change, and they believe the best way to start is removing Bush first because they see him as a threat to democracy in definition. And that is why I feel I'm not compromising anything here, for should Kerry choose to invade Iran or something if elected, I am going to go out on the streets with the volume I have been using on Bush.

I think a Kerry victory will more likely benefit the progressives also. Because if Kerry does a good job, and refrains from starting a war or something, some progressives may have a twinkle of renewed faith in the Democratic Party. If he does a poor job, then I believe many more will see that both major corporal parties are corrupted and have failed the public and many will turn their way to Nader, Cobb and others.

I know that both these candidates make many promises they can't keep. But the promise of change can come to all who participate in this democratic process, and that gives me reason to participate at all.

I liked your commentary, Toerag!



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
50 posted 2004-10-12 04:28 PM


Though I don't agree with you....I do appreciate your input....Guess being an old soldier and a gambler that bets on what I think is working, or has a better chance of working, I have to stick with my candidate...but do understand both sides and the reasoning....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
51 posted 2004-10-12 05:42 PM


Well, Buzz, that's why I keep trying to steer folks to the facts... because then we could get past all the mudslinging and we'd see exactly where Kerry is exaggerating, prevaricating, and distorting, and where Bush is misquoting, hyperbolizing, and misunderestimating -- then -- we could get into what the actual issues are instead of Bush went on vacation 66% of the time he was in office or Kerry missed 70% of the Foreign Intelligence Meeting BS.  (Which, both are true -- they just don't advance the debate folks).

Then we could look at Kerry's record and discover that he's a DEMOCRAT.  And that Bush is a REPUBLICAN.  Although -- those two distinctions have become somewhat obscure.

The differences between these two candidates are clear though:

If you think:

The war in Iraq was a good idea in spite of the fact that there were no WMD's
That cutting taxes and running up deficits are good ideas
That the Medicare prescription drug coverage was a good plan
That the way to reduce the cost of healthcare is putting caps on punitive damages in medical malpractice suits
That No Child Left Behind is a successful education program
That the economy is in great shape
That we're doing a good enough job with Homeland Security
That Bush has the right plan for dealing with Nuclear Weapons proliferation

Then VOTE FOR BUSH

If you think:

The war on Islamist Fascism requires an irreproachable reputation with our allies and better cooperation and respect around the globe

That we can't keep cutting taxes until they reach zero and that people who have done well have a unique responsibility to the government that has provided the infrastructure and institutions that have made that possible

That we can do better with healthcare and taking the catastrophic illness cases out of the system so that individuals and employers aren't burdened with the cost, reforming the tort system so that lawyers have to certify their cases before a review board before filing a medical malpractice suit, enabling Medicare to actually negotiate the price of prescription drugs and bulk buy if necessary to bring down the cost for seniors, and enabling persons access to affordable insurance is the solution to our healthcare problems

That No Child Left Behind has some real opportunities for improvement both in fund distribution and in operation and objectives

That the economy has sputtered along and people are under-employed and too many manufacturing jobs have been off-shored (under Bush and Clinton)

That Homeland Security has some serious deficits

That Kerry has a better plan to bring loose nukes under control in Russia and a better chance at containing the threats in Iran and North Korea

Then VOTE FOR KERRY

Or -- here's a novel idea -- we could actually discuss the merits of these issues instead of discussing and repeating the talking points of the campaigns or 527 groups.  

But, I have to disagree on one point Buzz -- Cheney has been running the country if you listen closely enough to the language he used in the debate.  Which originally I wouldn't have had a problem with -- when Bush added him to the ticket my thought was 'whew, a grown-up', but, he's pushed us into some pretty risky endeavors in my opinion.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

52 posted 2004-10-12 09:47 PM


If you want someone whom you know will maintain a strong military stand against the terrorists, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who can't quite seem to communicate to the people what he believes a strong stand against terrorism actually looks like (some think he will pull the troops out, some think he will have them stay and finish the job) but thinks he can maintain that stand, whatever that stand actually means, and do a better job in Iraq plus bring our 'allies' on-board (despite the 'allies' statements to the contrary) as he calls Iraq 'the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who will maintain the multilateral pressure on N. Korea, since the bilateral dealings, advocated by Kerry, proved to be so disastrous under Clinton, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who has said he will give nuclear fuel to Iran to test their true intentions (and Iran thinks that's a swell idea!), vote for Kerry.

(Anyone here have any question as to Iran's intentions?)

If you want someone who cares more about the interests of the United States than being popular with a couple of 'allies' who stabbed us in the back for their own monetary self-interests, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who can't seem to discern who our true allies are if his life (and ours) depended on it, judging by his obsession with pleasing those who turned against us, and by his slurs against those who have helped us ("the coalition of the bribed"), vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who is for a strong defense, a strong military, and a strong intelligence system, and someone who will fund them, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who will, judging by his 20 year Senate record, cut funding for defense, military, and intelligence, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who sees the terrorists as the actual threat to our lives and liberty that they are, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who would like to return us to the days of dealing with them as mere criminals, to be dealt with in our criminal system, after they blow us up, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who can just come out and say that he is either for or against something that he actually is for or against, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who says he is against partial-birth abortion, but he voted against the ban because two clauses were missing, 'except for the saving of the life of the mother' (not necessary, doctor's already are allowed to perform abortions if the mother's life is in danger), and 'the health of the mother, according to the strictest test of health'(undefined by anyone and so vague as to render the ban null and void). Now, does anyone believe that a smart lawyer like Kerry doesn't know these things? The truth is, he's not against partial-birth abortion, despite the fact that he said he is against it and despite his posturing that he 'feels where those values that raised that question are coming from, and deeply respects them'. If that sort of double-talk is acceptable to you, then vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who refuses to allow U.S. citizens to be subjected to the authority of a 'world' criminal court, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who would sign away your citizenship protections to a global authority by signing on the dotted line, vote for Kerry.

If you, like Bush, believe in the absolute sovereignty of the Unites States of America, vote for Bush.

If you, like Kerry, a self-declared internationalist, have more of an 'internationalist' ideology, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who has roughly 90% of the support of the troops who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who has roughly 10% of the support of the troops who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, vote for Kerry.

If you don't want to see the return of the draft, vote for Bush.

If you want to see the draft possibly become necessary due to a probable mass exodus from the all-volunteer armed services system by the majority of troops who have no trust in, or respect for the Senator, vote for Kerry.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
53 posted 2004-10-12 10:15 PM


.
TexUS
Member
since 2003-03-20
Posts 228

54 posted 2004-10-12 11:17 PM


Yeah-what Denise said (so eloquently, I might add!)


Great post!  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
55 posted 2004-10-13 12:23 PM



Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
56 posted 2004-10-13 01:08 AM


Denise, some of your one way or the other positions you put I find to be quite unfair.

Take the draft, for instance.

I've seen some consistent Indymedia polls show that among young Americans ages 18-27 that about half believe a draft will be renewed under Bush, while only about an eighth believe it'll happen under Kerry, with about a tenth believing either man will renew it and the others believing there will be no draft or have no opinion.

That basically tells me though there looms the thought that Kerry is capable of renewing the draft, it is much more likely in young Americans minds under Bush.

The fact is, the draft rumors affect young Americans like myself most of all, and so its unfair for yourself to make a shot in the dark or night and day opinion that under Bush there will be no draft, under Kerry maybe.

*****

Secondly, on your who "sees the terrorists as the actual threat to our lives and liberty that they are" and "return us to the days of dealing with them as mere criminals" comparison, that is quite unfair to say also.

Kerry clearly said the other day that, sure, terrorism will always be a concern one way or another, but we shouldn't let the fear of terrorism invade our minds every second of every minute of every day. He said that in his experience of public service, you can never fully outlaw prostitution or gambling, but you can find ways to limit it and keep it from interferring with peoples lives.

The Bush campaign has distorted what he said to make it seem like he's directly comparing terrorism to prostitution and gambling, or that he doesn't care about the issue of terrorism at all. The truth is, and I defend what he said myself, that there is too much fear in our society and we should make terrorism a issue, but not something we have to be afraid of every day that the Bush campaign is doing otherwise.

*****

Thirdly, the whole "absolute sovereignty" and "internationalist" comparison is also unfair.

If it was really true that Kerry does not believe in the absolute sovereignty of the United States, then Bush would already be the clear winner of this election by a landslide. Then we wouldn't have over half of Americans believe America is heading in the wrong direction.

This isn't the case, and I believe we must confront the fact that the ideal view of our nation's role differs, but not simply by one drawn line.

*****

Finally, while I acknowledge that the U.S military have a majority support for Bush, there are pockets of Kerry supporters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have learned on Indymedia that Bush actually has 78% of the military vote right now. It's commanding, no question about that, but it's not exactly like the 90% figure you suggested. I've heard that dissent is on the rise in Iraq and I think Kerry can very wel, pull more than 10% of the military vote.

*****

My final point is that I do have my bias here and there, as nothing is going to encourage me to vote for Bush now because what he has done is against my morals. It's the same thing for millions of other voters on both sides of the fence this election season.

Even if Bush declares war on the Palestinians or Kerry announces raising taxes by 20%, I think few will let go of their position. It's this polarized.

I have made my case in why I'm voting Kerry and pointed out part of Bush's record, and that's that. But I don't want to start making night-and-day statements in the field of "If you...vote Bush" and "If you...vote Kerry" because I find that type of labeling unfair. After all, many so-called "security moms" are keeping an open mind. Many are leaning Bush, no question about that, but many security moms are also leaning Kerry right now, and consider the same questions or thoughts that you provided above.

I've personally found time and time again in the past, from the fear of aliens or monsters from classic sci-fi movies actually coming to life and invading the real world in the 1950s, to the fear of communism, to the fear that inspired the war on drugs, to Y2K, etc. that fear so easily dominates our lives and one simple blurb can shake up a whole community.

I find myself that terrorism is no exception to this ongoing list, and believe the best way to resolve it is to find alternative, pacifist solutions and try and understand the psyche of these terrorists. I believe war terrorizes whole communities, and only incites or influences terrorism. I think we need to get to the pulverone, the history of terrorism, what events may have influenced the proliferation of terrorist instinct.

In that respect, I was indeed saddened by what happened September 11th, and it was clearly an act of terrorism by al-Qaeda. Even so, I believe though terrorism should be a concern, I feel the greater conflict is the obsession with fear and violence and using war as a foreign policy option.

We should be focusing on building communities, living our lives so that terrorism is not always the talk of the town at water coolers and corner cafes, educating the public of the details without leaping to conclusions, give some space so those who have lived through the tragedies in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and Sudan can provide their input and we can begin to understand where these instincts of fear and violence come from and develop solutions to calm this terrorist conflict, through listening and understanding.

I think making these "either this or that" statements, or following stereotypes like the Bush campaign is using to make "liberal" sound like a dirty word, or the constant use of labels, that's exactly what is dividing communities. I am a liberal independent voting Democrat this November, and I am critical of many Republicans in this Administration, but I have some conservative Republican friends and believe there are many wonderful Republicans and conservatives who have done great things for America. My grandparents are conservatives. We disagree and debate strongly often on issues like stem cell research and gay marriage, but my grandparents are two of the people in the world I love most of all and respect their opinions. I don't believe in saying "conservative" or "Republican" is a dirty word just as I don't think "liberal" is a dirty word, a word that continues to be tackled on and on in opposition.

We have every right to have our political bias, but using it as a wedge or a pizza slicer is wrong in my mind.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
57 posted 2004-10-13 07:30 AM


quote:
If you want someone whom you know will maintain a strong military stand against the terrorists, vote for Bush.


If you want someone to fight the terrorists who can actually see the major threats at that time, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who ultimately doesn't care about what's right or wrong or whether somehthing works or doesn't (Anybody remember Star Wars?), vote for Bush.

quote:
If you want someone who can't quite seem to communicate to the people what he believes a strong stand against terrorism actually looks like (some think he will pull the troops out, some think he will have them stay and finish the job) but thinks he can maintain that stand, whatever that stand actually means, and do a better job in Iraq plus bring our 'allies' on-board (despite the 'allies' statements to the contrary) as he calls Iraq 'the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, vote for Kerry.


If you want someone who can't communicate the truth, vote for Bush.

If you want someone, who is very clear that he will stay in Iraq, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you want someone who will maintain the multilateral pressure on N. Korea, since the bilateral dealings, advocated by Kerry, proved to be so disastrous under Clinton, vote for Bush.


Except everybody else in that multi-lateral group wants bi-lateral talks. The major problems with N. Korea have stemmed from this adminstration's refusal to talk.

If you want someone who doesn't have a clue on the North Korean situation, vote for Bush.

quote:
If you want someone who has said he will give nuclear fuel to Iran to test their true intentions (and Iran thinks that's a swell idea!), vote for Kerry.

(Anyone here have any question as to Iran's intentions?)


Huh?

Gee, one would think this would be the first one on your list if you actually thought it was true.

quote:
want someone who cares more about the interests of the United States than being popular with a couple of 'allies' who stabbed us in the back for their own monetary self-interests, vote for Bush.


Do you even know what internationalism is? On of the advantages of it is that it actually works. Ask W's Dad.

quote:
If you want someone who can't seem to discern who our true allies are if his life (and ours) depended on it, judging by his obsession with pleasing those who turned against us, and by his slurs against those who have helped us ("the coalition of the bribed"), vote for Kerry.


Yeah, true allies like Spain? Poland? Hungary?

quote:
If you want someone who is for a strong defense, a strong military, and a strong intelligence system, and someone who will fund them, vote for Bush.


Now, who is he going to do that and cut the budget in half?

quote:
If you want someone who will, judging by his 20 year Senate record, cut funding for defense, military, and intelligence, vote for Kerry.


Or do you want somebody who spends billions of dollars on things that don't work?

If you want someone who sees the terrorists as the actual threat to our lives and liberty that they are, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you want someone who would like to return us to the days of dealing with them as mere criminals, to be dealt with in our criminal system, after they blow us up, vote for Kerry.


What exactly is a mere criminal?

quote:
If you want someone who can just come out and say that he is either for or against something that he actually is for or against, vote for Bush.


If you want someone who can actually lead instead of being led, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you want someone who says he is against partial-birth abortion, but he voted against the ban because two clauses were missing, 'except for the saving of the life of the mother' (not necessary, doctor's already are allowed to perform abortions if the mother's life is in danger), and 'the health of the mother, according to the strictest test of health'(undefined by anyone and so vague as to render the ban null and void). Now, does anyone believe that a smart lawyer like Kerry doesn't know these things? The truth is, he's not against partial-birth abortion, despite the fact that he said he is against it and despite his posturing that he 'feels where those values that raised that question are coming from, and deeply respects them'. If that sort of double-talk is acceptable to you, then vote for Kerry.


If you can understand the difference between being personally against something and yet believe that is still should be legal, vote for Kerry.

If you don't understand that, go back to govt. 101 and LISTEN this time.

quote:
If you want someone who refuses to allow U.S. citizens to be subjected to the authority of a 'world' criminal court, vote for Bush.


If you believe international law and stability are in America's best interests, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you want someone who would sign away your citizenship protections to a global authority by signing on the dotted line, vote for Kerry.


If you want someone who is already chipping away at your citizenship protections, vote for Bush.

If you, like Bush, believe in the absolute sovereignty of the Unites States of America, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you, like Kerry, a self-declared internationalist, have more of an 'internationalist' ideology, vote for Kerry.


If you believe that America should lead an international coalition, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who can screw up international coalitions when everything is in his favor, vote for Bush.

quote:
If you want someone who has roughly 90% of the support of the troops who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who has roughly 10% of the support of the troops who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, vote for Kerry.

If you don't want to see the return of the draft, vote for Bush.

If you want to see the draft possibly become necessary due to a probable mass exodus from the all-volunteer armed services system by the majority of troops who have no trust in, or respect for the Senator, vote for Kerry.


Wow, not much respect for American troops here, is there? Whatever happened to professionalism?



Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
58 posted 2004-10-13 07:42 AM


Well said Brad
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
59 posted 2004-10-13 09:16 AM


Recently Cheney and President Bush declared that Iraq repaired its oil fields during the 90s, allowing Saddam Hussein to siphon funds from the Oil-for-Food program to fund an intended weapons program. But how was this possible? How was a program supervised by the U.N, exploited by Saddam?

Enter Denise, she'll tell you about the ''allies' who stabbed us in the back for their own monetary self-interests. And in fact, UN records show that equipment needed to fix those oil fields was purchased through companies in France.

But who were these companies? Well, interestingly enough, it seems that during Cheney's tenure as C.O. deals between Halliburton subsidiaries and Iraq were common. In fact, two of them were blocked by the US government because of direct conflicts with Oil-for-Food program regulations.

But companies like Halliburton don't get where they are without a little ingenuity, records show that they managed to get the deals done selling spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad from 1997 to 2000 through, you guessed it, French affiliates.

So if hypocrisy in government officials is your thing:

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal. We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

~Dick Cheney - July 30, 2000 ABC-TV's This Week


Then vote for Bush and Co.

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
60 posted 2004-10-13 10:01 AM


If you want someone who will 'maybe' do what they say they'll do.....flip a coin

If you want someone that CAN really do what they profess they'll do....flip a coin

If you think that either one of these candidates can really do what they say they're going to do without knowing the circumstances the future holds....You should be a fortune teller in Burbank California.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
61 posted 2004-10-13 03:29 PM


Seriously, I think our views on the candidates are varied and I don't think we'll get anywhere on sensitive issues like terrorism this way.

My views, in fact, differ even from those of Brad on some issues. The whole "sees the terrorists as the actual threat to our lives and liberty that they are" and Kerry, for instance.

I hear some security moms say they're afraid Kerry will be more anti-war, send all our young men and women home and forget about fighting the war abroad, and that is why some are leaning more Bush.

However, there are many progressives who actually think otherwise. They think Kerry will continue to stay the course and fight the same war in Iraq and that is why they're finding their way to Cobb and Nader.

In my mind, I certainly hope the former theory is the case, but the point is I don't think we can just flat out say what will and will not happen should this and that occur under Bush and Kerry.

The whole "very clear that Kerry will stay in Iraq" too falls to the same mess here. In my mind, I certainly hope that's not the case, though I think it's likely we'll stay there for another four years or so. I do know Kerry has said should conditions settle in Iraq if elected, he'll begin taking our troops home slowly from Iraq, and his goal is to get them all out of Iraq by the end of his first term. It sounds like a mutual contract of trust to the people to me. I rather wish we could go home in the snap of a finger, but I feel confident hearing something like that in contrast to the "we'll stay there as long as we have to" rhetoric from the other party that there is an alternative and I am willing to go with that.

And let's face it also. Each side has their own idea of what the "truth" or lying is.

I believe that the current administration has lied so many times, and the current GOP lies more than any other party in my opinion, but I also accept and live with the fact that those on the other side of the political spectrum think otherwise; they believe the liberals are the ones who lie more often. I believe the Democrats lie too, Nader has lied. The fact is, we have a huge lacking of truth-telling in our culture, and I believe each party is corrupted with lies.

I do believe there is a distinction between being more open and frank to the American people, like not being behind closed doors all the time and being secretive in manner like I think the Bush Administration has been, but I feel that politicians are the least likely people you can ever trust in any case and are the most likely to lie to you.

In the end, I think as always we should discuss these viewpoints, but we shouldn't make bumper sticker slogans out out of all of these "if you or if you don't" theories. It could send out wrong information.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
62 posted 2004-10-13 08:47 PM


Speaking of bumper stickers, Noah, this truck was in front of me today and I snapped the photo. Interesting connection between the license plate and sticker, no?  


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
63 posted 2004-10-13 11:09 PM




Yes, Balladeer, I understand very much that in this polarized state we're now in, there are indeed many veterans who are in support with Bush and for this war. I don't deny that.

Here in Oregon, I have visited a couple local community centers and rescue missions, which provide refuge and health for a number of veterans. Many of them I've spent time and heard their stories and comforted them to assure them they're not alone are for Kerry and believe this war is wrong.

Suprisingly enough, when promoting the huge anti-war rally that was a huge success October 3rd two weeks beforehand, I even stopped by the American Legion, and though I had my doubts about them being interested in at least promoting it, they took the poster and put it right up on their front window immediately. Four days later I was walking down Alberta Street from the Portland Saturday Market and saw it was still up there. That's symbolic to me, and really means something, it means there are those who have been in harms way, who have experienced the horrors of war, who still endure these aches and memories ever so often, and want to see it to it this doesn't happen...never again.

In that respect, it takes all kinds to build communities. We are America, and I respect the opinions of these other veterans and won't punish them for their differing views, even if they run against my moral anti-war positioning. For we rely on the diversity of our opinions and if we find a common ground I'm sure we'll find solutions and begin to close in this polarizing gap between each other.

I respect you sharing your bumper sticker moment, and in return, I'll present one offering of my own:



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
64 posted 2004-10-13 11:28 PM


That's an excellent sticker, Noah, and no one wishes it were true more than I.

Thanks for sharing

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
65 posted 2004-10-14 01:00 AM


quote:
That's symbolic to me, and really means something, it means there are those who have been in harms way, who have experienced the horrors of war, who still endure these aches and memories ever so often, and want to see it to it this doesn't happen...never again.

That might well be true, Noah. I'd like to think, however, that even if they personally disagreed with your cause, any veteran who has fought for your freedom to disagree with the government would still applaud your efforts.

We shouldn't have to believe you're right in order to believe you have the right to be heard.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

66 posted 2004-10-15 12:04 PM


I don’t think I’m being unfair, Noah. I’m just contrasting what I have been able to decipher from the two candidates stands on the issues that I believe are important issues in this election.

quote:
I've seen some consistent Indymedia polls show that among young Americans ages 18-27 that about half believe a draft will be renewed under Bush, while only about an eighth believe it'll happen under Kerry, with about a tenth believing either man will renew it and the others believing there will be no draft or have no opinion.

That basically tells me though there looms the thought that Kerry is capable of renewing the draft, it is much more likely in young Americans minds under Bush.



A poll is just an indicator of what people are thinking, Noah. It doesn’t mean that because they are thinking one way or another that it must be true, or that it makes something so. With all the Democratic driven draft hype lately, it doesn’t surprise me that young Americans have been influenced into thinking Bush will most likely bring back the draft. I’d be surprised if they thought differently, actually. But again, what they have been conditioned into thinking doesn’t make it true.
quote:
Thirdly, the whole "absolute sovereignty" and "internationalist" comparison is also unfair.


If it was really true that Kerry does not believe in the absolute sovereignty of the United States, then Bush would already be the clear winner of this election by a landslide. Then we wouldn't have over half of Americans believe America is heading in the wrong direction.

This isn't the case, and I believe we must confront the fact that the ideal view of our nation's role differs, but not simply by one drawn line.


Unfortunately it’s true, Noah.  Sovereign means independent, self-governing, free from external control. The opposite of sovereign is externally controlled, ruled by another, subservient. The internationalist ideology is not compatible with sovereignty, and never will be, no matter how well they attempt to present it as the most enlightened and civilized way of government.  Sovereignty is relinquished in the internationalist ideology because they are opposing ideologies.

The sad thing is that probably the majority of those who believe that America is heading in the wrong direction don’t know that Kerry has an internationalist ideology. They haven’t done their research on Kerry. You’re right, I think if they did, Bush would win in a landslide. But in their quest to ‘vote against Bush’ they may very well end up voting for someone with whom they probably have as many, if not more, ideological differences with than they have with Bush.  It came as no surprise to me that Kerry advocated a ‘global test’ before we as a nation make decisions that we deem to be in our own best interests. Because to the internationalist, a nation’s own best interests are of a secondary importance, if deemed important at all, and must be subservient to what an external ruling authority deems is in the best interests of the ‘world at large’, as determined by that external ruling authority.  It also came as no surprise to me that Kerry advocates subjecting U.S. citizens to the authority of the world court. This is serious stuff that deserves your looking into further, Noah. If you value the sovereignty of your country and see it as a basic and necessary component in what it means to being free, which I think you do, don’t vote for someone who doesn’t share that ideology. You don’t have to vote for Kerry just because you don’t agree with Bush. Choose another candidate on the ballot that is more closely aligned with your ideologies.

quote:
What exactly is a mere criminal?


Well, Brad, in this context, I’d say it is someone who commits a crime against society but who isn’t a member of a worldwide terror organization that seeks political domination by blowing up or decapitating innocent men women and children around the globe.


quote:
Huh?

Gee, one would think this would be the first one on your list if you actually thought it was true.


I know it’s true, Brad. And Kerry admitted it in the second debate.


quote:
Yeah, true allies like Spain? Poland? Hungary?


Our true allies are all of the countries that helped us in whatever way they could.

quote:
If you want someone who can actually lead instead of being led, vote for Kerry.


Where is Kerry’s resume on leadership?
quote:
If you can understand the difference between being personally against something and yet believe that is still should be legal, vote for Kerry.


I can certainly understand it, Brad. As does Kerry, which he conveyed on the first question raised about the abortion issue in general. Kerry didn't just come out and say that though regarding partial-birth abortion.  He used excuses as the argument as to why he didn't sign the ban, excuses that don't hold up under scrutiny. To reduce the risk of losing the undecided voters who view the practice as barbaric, and in an attempt to falsely portray the President as misrepresenting Kerry’s stand on the issue, he gave poor excuses for his vote against the ban. If he were really against partial-birth abortion, he would have signed the ban because there really is no justifiable argument in defense of the practice and against the ban. If there is, he hasn’t shared it with us yet.  And I think the onus is on those who wish to perform the practice to justify why it shouldn’t be illegal, not the other way around.

quote:
If you believe international law and stability are in America's best interests, vote for Kerry.


Our own laws are perfectly sufficient to the best interests of  U.S. citizens.

quote:
If you believe that America should lead an international coalition, vote for Kerry.


The internationalists will decide who will be allowed to lead, and when, and where, and for what cause.


quote:
Wow, not much respect for American troops here, is there? Whatever happened to professionalism?



I have the utmost respect for them and their intelligence. And they are free to change their profession when their commitment to the military ends. That would not be unprofessional of them at all.


Raph, I’d have to hear Cheney’s side as well to get the whole picture on the Halliburton issue.  Do you know if anyone has asked him about this? And if so, what was his response?

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
67 posted 2004-10-15 12:47 PM


quote:
Raph, I’d have to hear Cheney’s side as well to get the whole picture on the Halliburton issue.  Do you know if anyone has asked him about this? And if so, what was his response?


Yes you're right, it's important that someone ask these questions. Being a non-partisan these are things you should be asking as you focus on the vote.

That Halliburton attempted to deal with Iraq and was subsequently blocked by the government should be enough to anger most people.

But then, I suppose it's entirely possible that Halliburton and Cheney were completely unaware of their off shore subsidiaries selling Iraq the very same equipment.

Which still doesn't change the fact that Halliburton, under Cheney, had the intent of dealing with Iraq. It's something that should matter to a voter.

Shrugs

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
68 posted 2004-10-15 01:21 AM


Denise,

The opposing ideology of internationalism is unilateralism. Sovereignty is already implied in both. The question isn't whether a nation loses sovereignty but how it is used.

The challenge to sovereignty is imperialism. Now, do you really think the UN is going to invade America anytime soon?

Blue helmets on every corner?

Oh wait, I see, the Comintern was never disbanded, Al Queda is really a front for the Soviets (the politburo is still running things in secret), and all of this is really a communist plot.

Uh, can we get back to the real world?

There are real threats around here, let's deal with them.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
69 posted 2004-10-15 06:25 AM


quote:
Our own laws are perfectly sufficient to the best interests of  U.S. citizens.

Why stop there, Denise? If you believe that much in sovereignty, then presumably you would also advocate state sovereignty. Ergo, the laws of Pennsylvania should be perfectly sufficient, unto themselves, to protect the best interests of Pennsylvanian citizens?

But, again, why stop there? If you have well conceived rules in your own house, shouldn't those be the only rules you ever have to follow? Each family, perhaps, should become its own sovereign entity, looking out for its own best interests. Who else, after all, really knows what is best for me and mine?

Of course, the reality of this world is that looking at "best interests" through too narrow a tunnel rarely results in anything beyond short-term gain. Today, it may well be in my best interests to steal from my neighbors or damn up a local river as it passes across my property. It might even be worth losing a few sons and brothers if, today, I am strong enough to protect my short-term best interests against any neighbors foolish enough to challenge me. But today is temporal, and so, too, is the balance of power. The Roman Empire protected its short-term best interests for hundreds of years, but ultimately it was at the expense of its long-term interests. It always is.

There are no best interests of Americans, Denise, any more than there can be best interests of Pennsylvanians or best interest of the Synders. You can fight for your family's best interest, or your state's best interests, or even your nation's best interests, and one is no more short-sighted than the other. Best interest is a web with an intricate weave, entwined not only through all of humanity, but also through all of time. Failure to recognize that is just a reflection of short-term greed.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

70 posted 2004-10-15 06:39 AM


I would vote for YOU, Ron.

sheesh.

I'm serious too.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

71 posted 2004-10-16 12:15 PM


I'll take that as a no then, Raph. I've honestly not had the time to investigate Halliburton, so I can't form a judgment on the subject, one way or the other.

Brad and Ron, yes, I do believe in state sovereignty and an extremely limited federal government. Maybe someday we will have that again, but I doubt it. Perhaps we should look to the states as an example as to how easy it is to lose sovereignty and how difficult, if not impossible, to regain it once it is lost.

No matter how you slice it, submitting U.S. citizens under the domain of international law, laws enacted by groups/countries outside of the U.S., is submitting them, and the country, to an external controlling force that will wield authority over them and that authority will be held and wielded by those whom the citizens did not elect, and it can't help but destroy our sovereignty. We would no longer be answerable only to the laws enacted by those whom we have elected to that purpose.

The very definition of sovereignty is freedom from outside controlling forces, autonomy, self-governing, etc. You can't have degrees of sovereignty. You either have it or you don't. You either fight to maintain it, or you relinquish it.

I think our Constitution clearly lays out our form of government with its checks and balances designed to limit corruption and tyranny. And as often as I've read it, I've never seen the clause that advocates submitting to the rule or authority of another country or outside entity. In fact, call me crazy if you wish, but the whole gist of the document seems to me to stand in opposition to what you are advocating.

We can certainly consider the best interests of other countries, and are sometimes even morally compelled, in my opinion, to do so by acting on their behalf. But never at the expense of our own liberty, never with the price tag of the loss of our sovereign rights. I don't consider that looking at our best interests through too narrow a lens. I think the founding fathers, most of whom had first hand experience with abuse of power by governing authorities, saw clearly the importance of creating a form of government for the protection of the people's rights from tyranny, from within and from without.  

There is a BIG difference in my mind between cooperation/working relationships with other countries/entities and submission to them.

And with all the real threats that we have to deal with today, and there are many, and they are very real, this is, in my opinion, the most important, because it threatens the very foundation of our form of government.  

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
72 posted 2004-10-16 04:30 AM


Yes i must have made it up Denise   Being a non-partisan who is equally scrutinizing both parties intent on truth, I'm sure you'll read through the articles included below. There are reasons Halliburton is under investigation Denise, hopefully those investigations become more extensive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35751-2001Jun22
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Halliburton_Company
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03202003.html
   http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/WASHINGTON%20POST_US%20Firms%20Aiding%20Iraqi%20Oil%20Industry.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3908753.stm

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
73 posted 2004-10-16 07:15 AM


quote:
I do believe in state sovereignty and an extremely limited federal government.

According to your own words, Denise, you can't believe in both. "You can't have degrees of sovereignty," you said. "You either have it or you don't." Ergo, if you want state sovereignty, you have to be willing to completely abolish and eliminate any overriding authority. There can't BE a Federal government in your world.

Ironically, in your world, Denise, you'd quickly find yourself no longer sitting at the top of the food chain. If Pennsylvania gets in the way of the best interests of the sovereign state of New York, they'll kick your butt big time. Really tick 'em off and you might just find yourself living in Philadelphia, NY. That's the natural consequence of a "might makes right" philosophy of rule -- sovereignty is a just a reflection of how strong you are today.

If you don't believe me, of course, you can always ask Saddam Hussein.

Presumably, Hussein believed in absolute sovereignty, too, and presumably you agreed with him that all those U.N. resolutions and mandates were unjustified intrusions on Iraqi's national sovereignty. I suspect Hussein felt if he gave in to those "outside controlling forces" you mentioned in your last post, he would be relinquishing his country's sovereignty. After all, "You either fight to maintain it, or you relinquish it," right? Hussein discovered, as would Pennsylvania, I suspect, that in the real world that's not actually an either/or, but rather a natural sequence. You fight to maintain it, and THEN you eventually relinquish it to someone stronger. Because history has proven, again and again, there is always someone stronger waiting around the corner.

You know, Denise, I intended to end this by declaring my surprise that you, of all people, would advocate the invasion of Iraq based only on Hussein's continued dismissal of U.N. demands. He was only doing, after all, what you would have the United States do. He was protecting his own best interests, behind a guise of absolute sovereignty. I feel like I should be surprised you have a problem with that?

But, I'm not. Any surprise I might have once felt at such inconsistencies has long since been buried beneath the greater incredulity that anyone could advocate the glowing paradox of absolute sovereignty. What you and Saddam Hussein really advocate, of course, is absolute sovereignty for yourselves, at the expense of everyone else. Even though it doesn't have an -est tacked onto to the end of it, absolute sovereignty is nonetheless a superlative like greatest or strongest or most powerful. There can be only one. Everyone else has to settle for slightly less.

Or, in the case of Iraq, a whole lot less.

Superlatives, by their very nature, don't last, Denise. There is no strongest or best, but only the strongest or best today. If we continue to construct a world in constant search for superlatives, we are going to eventually, inevitably, come up a little bit short. It happened to the Hebrews, the Greeks, the Romans, the Germans, and if you really think it won't ever happen to the Americans you just haven't been listening to the strident voice of history.

We can't afford to build a world of absolute sovereignty for our children's children, because short-term thinking is a poor foundation for long-term effects. The world we should be striving to build for posterity has to be one where absolute sovereignty cannot exist for anyone, a world where superlative exclusions like greatest and strongest and most powerful can be replaced with mutual inclusions like respect and tolerance and, yea, even love. Our children's children's world must be one that recognizes domination and submission aren't opposites, so much as they are the ebb and flow of the same horrible human flaw. You can't have one without the other, and the only opposite of both is cooperation.

We don't need to build bigger fences, Denise. We need to tear down the ones that have never, in 5,000 years of recorded history, ever worked beyond the short-term.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

74 posted 2004-10-16 11:38 AM


I've never suggested that you made anything up, Raph. I've just learned that in any situation there are usually two sides to an issue and that it can lead one to come to a wrong conclusion if you only hear one side of an issue. Thank you for the links. I'll check them out.  

Sovereign doesn't mean strongest or best, Ron. It means independent. Strongest or best, "might makes right" is a misunderstanding of the concept of sovereignty. We're talking about two differnt things.

Mutual regard and respect for the sovereign rights of others is required to make any alliance of various sovereign entities work. That the federal government has abused the limited powers enumerated to it by the states, to provide for the common defense, and to promote the general welfare, says more, I think, about the misuse of that entrustment, and how easily it can occur, than it does about the possibility of a successful voluntary alliance among sovereign entities, as envisioned by the founders. Any powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government by the states, according to the Constitution, reside, legitimately, with the states. But, it seems, politicians being what they are, we have what we have today.

What surprises me is that when it is seen how easily sovereignty can be manipulated and abused, as evidenced by the abuses that have occured here in our own history, that more people are not more apprehensive about enumerating powers to entities outside of our country. If history tells us anything, that entrustment will be abused.

As to your example of Pennsylvania and New York, I would think it follows suit that as in the case of individuals, one's rights legitimately end at the other fellow's nose, and vice-versa, and that any disagreements concerning conflicting interests should be worked out among the representatives, empowered by the people of those states, in an attempt to resolve any conflicting interests.

Saddam is a poor illustration, and cannot be spoken of in the same breath as legitimate leaders of independent sovereign nations. He was an illegitimate leader, as he neither represented nor defended anyone's rights or interests but his own personal tyrannical interests, and was not only a threat to the welfare of his own people but also to every other nation's welfare as well.

I would think that the differences between Saddam and myself should be pretty easy to see.  

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
75 posted 2004-10-16 02:32 PM


quote:
I've just learned that in any situation there are usually two sides to an issue and that it can lead one to come to a wrong conclusion if you only hear one side of an issue.


I agree, and I'm glad you think that way because it would be wrong to ignore the other side. For example one might listen to swiftboaters who never served with Kerry while ignoring say, those who did, including the man who's life Kerry saved.

As for the articles you'll see that Cheney was asked. He denied any knowledge but admitted making sales to Axis of Evil nations like Iran and Libya. Isn't this disturbing or damning enough to seriously question Cheney or the continued contracting to Halliburton?

At best he can say he was unaware of that particular sale to Iraq, but that doesn't change that Halliburton made the deal. So even if we leave Cheney out of it, it opens up questions as to why his administration would reward new contracts to a company without little respect for US law.

If being the president of or contracting to a corporation that constantly dealt with and empowered Iraq, Iran and Libya is something that doesn't bother you in administration officials then by all means...


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
76 posted 2004-10-16 07:15 PM


Am I being true to form or running from the issue to argue that sovereignty isn't as simple as people think?

http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i03/03b01101.htm


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
77 posted 2004-10-17 01:27 AM


quote:
Sovereign doesn't mean strongest or best, Ron. It means independent. Strongest or best, "might makes right" is a misunderstanding of the concept of sovereignty. We're talking about two differnt things.

No, Denise, we're not.

The kind of absolute sovereignty you propose cannot exist in the absence of absolute strength. Anything less is simply forbearance, not sovereignty. You pretty much said it yourself, after all: "You either fight to maintain it, or you relinquish it."

quote:
That the federal government has abused the limited powers enumerated to it by the states, to provide for the common defense, and to promote the general welfare, says more, I think, about the misuse of that entrustment, and how easily it can occur, than it does about the possibility of a successful voluntary alliance among sovereign entities, as envisioned by the founders.

Your own words, Denise, not only belie the existence of a Federal government as a contradiction of each state's absolute sovereignty, but also predict the very history you choose to condemn. "You can't have degrees of sovereignty," you said. "You either have it or you don't."

The individual states don't have the sovereignty you advocate, and even more importantly, no one in their right mind would ever want them to be so wholly independent of each other. Do you really think Pennsylvania would be better off if it completely controlled its own destiny? Do you really believe "mutual regard and respect for the sovereign rights of others" would have resulted in the same Pennsylvania you live in today? I think you have to ask yourself if Pennsylvania is better or worse for having been a part of a greater whole. You ready to secede from the Union?

The erosion of state rights was a natural and predictable consequence of a quest for the common good. We might well argue over what IS in the common good, and it's not at all surprising that Pennsylvania would have a different take than Texas (another state that would kick your butts royally, by the way), but that's a very different argument than whether the common good should be sought.

Your own arguments, Denise, put you in the position of either advocating the abolishment of the U.S. government in favor of state sovereignty or the establishment of a corresponding World government to the inevitable detriment of national sovereignty. You can't logically have it both ways.

If we look a little deeper, of course, we'll discover a greater truth.

You really don't like the fact that California, with its very different culture, can and often does shape the destiny of Pennsylvania through Federal influence. Understandable, to be sure. In spite of your discomfort, however, you accept that it's in your long-term best interest to cooperate with, and sometimes bend to the will of, other states under a strong Federal government. California is different, with different best interests, but you realize they're less different than they are the same. Yea for you.

What you don't seem to accept is that what is true of California is equally true of France, Germany, and even Iran. The differences are surely greater, but the commonalities still vastly outweigh those differences. People are people.

Sovereignty, when all is said and done, is just a word to describe a fear of differences.

quote:
As to your example of Pennsylvania and New York, I would think it follows suit that as in the case of individuals, one's rights legitimately end at the other fellow's nose, and vice-versa, and that any disagreements concerning conflicting interests should be worked out among the representatives, empowered by the people of those states, in an attempt to resolve any conflicting interests.

You mean like we did with Iraq?

quote:
He was an illegitimate leader, as he neither represented nor defended anyone's rights or interests but his own personal tyrannical interests, and was not only a threat to the welfare of his own people but also to every other nation's welfare as well.

Careful with your pronouns there, Denise. For a minute, I thought you were talking about Bush.  

Surely, you have to realize that your exact words can be used by many to describe the current U.S. administration? You don't have to agree with them, of course, but it won't matter because you just opened the door to a justifiable invasion of your own country. You just defined sovereignty as something based on opinion.

quote:
Am I being true to form or running from the issue to argue that sovereignty isn't as simple as people think?

Good article, Brad. Of course sovereignty isn't simple, though I might argue that it should be simple.

Like the tooth fairy or the boogeyman, sovereignty is a mechanism to explain real-world phenomena in the simplest possible way. That doesn't necessarily mean that baby teeth or fear of the dark are simple, of course.

And, of course, like the tooth fairy and the boogeyman, sovereignty is a myth that can exist only in the superlative and only in the transitive.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

78 posted 2004-10-17 02:41 AM


quote:
The kind of absolute sovereignty you propose cannot exist in the absence of absolute strength. Anything less is simply forbearance, not sovereignty. You pretty much said it yourself, after all: "You either fight to maintain it, or you relinquish it."


I see a distinction, Ron. The fact that sovereignty has to be protected or else relinquished does not change its definition. Liberty also has to be fought for sometimes. Does that redefine its meaning or value or qualify it for abolishment for the cause of the "greater good"? Is freedom also a myth?

quote:
Your own arguments, Denise, put you in the position of either advocating the abolishment of the U.S. government in favor of state sovereignty or the establishment of a corresponding World government to the inevitable detriment of national sovereignty. You can't logically have it both ways.


No, what I would advocate is a return to the limited role of the U.S. government, as was originally intended, not its abolishment.


quote:
Surely, you have to realize that your exact words can be used by many to describe the current U.S. administration? You don't have to agree with them, of course, but it won't matter because you just opened the door to a justifiable invasion of your own country. You just defined sovereignty as something based on opinion.



The day that it is discovered that Bush has fed people through meat grinders alive is the day that anyone could justifiably compare him to Saddam.

I think I said that you can't compare Saddam in the same breath with other legitimate leaders of other sovereign nations, as he was a tyrant, and his removal was justified for that reason. Now Iraq has a new leader. And it has its sovereignty.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
79 posted 2004-10-17 08:31 AM


quote:
Liberty also has to be fought for sometimes.

Apples and oranges, Denise. Liberty is never absolute, which is what you've been advocating in the case of sovereignty. Because, yea, absolute freedom, otherwise known as anarchy, cannot long exist.

quote:
No, what I would advocate is a return to the limited role of the U.S. government, as was originally intended, not its abolishment.

Then you don't really believe in state sovereignty? Cool, now we're getting somewhere.

The next step is for you to realize that a limited World government is just as necessary for mutual benefit as is a limited Federal government.

quote:
The day that it is discovered that Bush has fed people through meat grinders alive is the day that anyone could justifiably compare him to Saddam.

What if someone just pushed people into farm combines, Denise? Is that a fair comparison? At what point in the spectrum does killing people become horrific enough? At what point can we kill people humanely?

quote:
Now Iraq has a new leader. And it has its sovereignty.

Do you really think living in an occupied country is a good example of "has its sovereignty," Denise? That doesn't exactly seem to conform to your earlier definition. When the last uninvited soldier's foot has left Iraqi soil ... they still won't have real sovereignty. They'll just have forbearance.

As, ultimately, do we all.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

80 posted 2004-10-17 04:04 PM


Saying that a limited World government is mutually beneficial isn't proving that it would be. What criteria would be used to define beneficial? Who would determine that?

You've got to admit, we have anything but a limited federal government anymore. Are we to assume that the same abuses that happened against the enumeration of limited power here wouldn't also happen under a World system? Or are we to expect that it will be abused and that it should just be accepted as a natural progession for the good of all? And again, who defines that?

What sort of recourse would be available to citizens under a World system if they disagreed with a decree? Would we have some sort of vote to elect the folks who make these determinations? Would there be some sort of checks and balances system to curtail tyranny?

I personally see it as an ideology that is completely and directly opposed to the principles of our Constitution.

Do you see the Constitution, with its guarantees of the protection of our God-given rights as something that should be subservient to some sort of World Constitution that may or may not even recognize the existence of God, let alone offer protection of those rights? Would whatever rights we had be considered World Government-given or God-given? Don't rights that are considered God-given, and therefore immutable, offer a bit more protection from tyranny than government given rights that can be given or taken at the whim of the government?

I think that there are too many questions that have to be answered before anyone even considers signing our name on the dotted line making us subject to such a system.

On the one hand we have a John Kerry who has already stated that he will sign us up, no discussion about it, no vote by the citizens, despite all the unanswered questions and legitimate concerns, to be subject to the International Law of the World Court. On the other, we have a George Bush who adamantly refuses to diminish our rights and protections by signing such an agreement. I have to go with the guy who values and respects our Constitution.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

81 posted 2004-10-17 05:42 PM


Raph, from what I can gather from all the articles that I've read, Cheney did not have control over the activities of the two Halliburton subsidiaries who sold goods to Baghdad through their French affiliates due to the governing structure of the subsidiaries, and once he learned of their actions he began the process of divesting them. I think he acted honorably. I think the worst that can be said is that he didn't do enough homework on the complexities of the company before accepting the CEO position.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
82 posted 2004-10-17 06:19 PM


frightening. I'd say unbelievable but then I knew a spin was on the way. But honourable? Even if you justify/ignore the deals with Iraq, which you have, there are still deals skirting sanctions with Iran and Libya that Cheney admitted to. Shrugs

Take care

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

83 posted 2004-10-17 06:38 PM


How am I ignoring or justifying it, Raph, I read the articles and that is the conclusion that I arrived at. Cheney made it known that it was his policy that he wanted Halliburton to operate within the confines of all U.S. law. Is there something thatI missed?

the
spacebar
on
my
computer
just
stopped
working.

I
knew
it
was
on
its
way
out
but
this
is
just
too
funny!



Guess
I
have
to
go
buy
a
new
one.

See
you
in
a
couple
of
days!

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
84 posted 2004-10-17 10:05 PM


My main concern with the EU backed International Court system deals with their lack of actual laws or policies (which they're still wrangling over), and the proposed method of judiciary cycles.  At the onset, the majority were anti-Israel, and I fear that rampant anti-semitism would once again raise its ugly head.  Not to mention the countries out there who would seize upon political power and persecute those in the U.S. or U.S. military to protest U.S. foreign/domestic policy, if for nothing else than for the political spin in that prosecuting country.

True, there are some judges in this country that do that same thing: handle cases in the hopes of a political windfall and national spotlight.  And there are still some with racial motivations.  Picture either sitting on an International bench, and convince me it's all good.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
85 posted 2004-10-17 10:37 PM


You've taken articles highly critical of Cheney and Halliburton and somehow spun a positive. Even going as far as to use the word honourable where clearly actions were anything but.

First of all, executives at both Halliburton and their subsidiaries state there was no official policy against trading with Iraq.

Secondly, the subsidiaries in question also state that there were NEVER any objections from Cheney or any other Halliburton officials when dealing with Iraq. Nothing mentions or even points to Cheney divesting Halliburton interests 'once he learned of their actions'.

To say that Cheney was unaware of deals for two years is absurd, what kind of CEO and Chairman would be some completely out of the loop?

Furthermore you also ignore the admitted deals with Iran/Libya through Halliburton or questions as to why Halliburton is being coninually rewarded with new contracts after dealing with the 'axis of evil'. Where is their honour in that?

By all means, save your new keyboard and ignore this post unless you really feel the need. I've posted my last on this election and it's candidates from hell.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
86 posted 2004-10-18 12:22 PM


quote:
Saying that a limited World government is mutually beneficial isn't proving that it would be. What criteria would be used to define beneficial?

Gee, I don't know, Denise. How about we define one human being NOT killing another human being as being beneficial to ALL human beings? Seems to me that would be a good start, at least. Have you noticed how few people from New York you've killed recently? (Even though I would be the first to admit New Yorkers sometimes seem to go out of their way to tempt us.)

quote:
You've got to admit, we have anything but a limited federal government anymore. Are we to assume that the same abuses that happened against the enumeration of limited power here wouldn't also happen under a World system? Or are we to expect that it will be abused and that it should just be accepted as a natural progession for the good of all? And again, who defines that?

At least you've stopped arguing for a mythical sovereignty.  

You agree that the existence of a Federal government is more beneficial than fifty completely autonomous states? Cool. Now we're just arguing implementation.  

It might surprise you, Denise, to hear that I largely agree and would likely go even farther than you. I believe power should always be concentrated at the lowest possible level, starting first and foremost at the individual. Unfortunately, people always seem to be willing to give up just about anything in the name of personal safety.

We willingly sacrificed most state rights with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, necessary because the Constitution you keep mentioning specifically declared that any direct taxes must be apportioned amongst the states according to the census (Article I, Section 8-9). With the nation's purse strings firmly in hand, the dominance of the Federal over the State was inevitable. Today, the Federal government can't legislate national speed laws, but they can and do threaten to withhold highway funds from any state that doesn't comply with its recommendations.

The Federal government's power, today, is a direct result of people's fear. Every milestone in the history of Federal taxation, pretty much without exception, can be directly attributed to a time of war. We seem to be all too quick, as a people, to give up our political protections for a little more physical protection. Nor has that changed in recent years. What our grandparents started with the income tax, we have taken even farther with the Patriot Act.

It's all in the implementation, Denise. I believe the key is the same one I've advocated again and again. Short-term best interests need to be set aside in favor of long-term best interests. And it will always be in our best long-term interests to insure that the interests of everyone are addressed, not just the short-term best interests of some. Even when those "some" happen to be ourselves.

quote:
Do you see the Constitution, with its guarantees of the protection of our God-given rights as something that should be subservient to some sort of World Constitution that may or may not even recognize the existence of God, let alone offer protection of those rights? Would whatever rights we had be considered World Government-given or God-given? Don't rights that are considered God-given, and therefore immutable, offer a bit more protection from tyranny than government given rights that can be given or taken at the whim of the government?

Which God? It's clear to me, Denise, that you and I don't worship the same deity. Yet, in spite of that, we both exist under, and benefit from, the same set of human laws. You want a theocracy, instead? I hope you're willing to live under MY theocracy, because I sure won't ever agree to live under yours.

quote:
I have to go with the guy who values and respects our Constitution.

I would, too, Denise, if one was running. The Patriot Act pretty much narrowed that field, though.

quote:
I think the worst that can be said is that he (Cheney) didn't do enough homework on the complexities of the company before accepting the CEO position.

Well, let's all hope he does his homework a little better, then, should it come time for him to run our country.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

87 posted 2004-10-18 11:44 PM


quote:
"Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Halliburton's primary concern, added Ingersoll-Rand's former chairman, James E. Perrella, "was that if we did business with [the Iraqi regime], that it be allowed by the United States government. If it wasn't allowed, we wouldn't do it."

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," he said. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

Cheney modified his response in an interview on the same program three weeks later, after he was informed that a Halliburton spokesman had acknowledged that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq.

He said he was unaware that the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.

"We inherited two joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts into Iraq," Cheney explained, "but we divested ourselves of those interests."

If he "was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, 'No,' " Mary Matalin, Cheney's counselor, said.

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts," Matalin told the Post. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."


Raph, did you not read these statements found in the articles? I think the portions that I underlined clearly state Cheney's policy...to be in compliance with applicable U.S. law.

I really don't understand the obsession you seem to have with Halliburton. If there is a scandal here at all, I'd say that on the scandal scale it ranks far and away below the recently uncovered activities of France, Russia and China. Are you at all angry with them?

U.N. Security Council Members accepted bribes (in the millions) from Saddam to work in the U.N. to attempt to weaken and eventually remove sanctions and later to vote against the U.S. led invasion to enable him to remain in power and reconstitute his weapons programs (that Duelfer reports that he did destroy for the most part, but kept that fact a secret so as not to appear weak, hence his "games" with the inspectors, and probably one reason for the erroneous Intelligence reports) and to enable them to continue their illegal (against their own sanctions) business dealings with him.

Additionally they were involved in a kick-back scheme to enable him to enrich himself from the Oil for Food Program. And their merchandise to Saddam was not merely oil pipe parts, as was Halliburton's. It was missiles, tanks, pontoon bridges, arms, munitions, rocket launchers, mobile weapons labs, probably some of the stuff now being used against U.S. and coaliton troops.

Have you read the entire Duelfer report? Aren't you outraged at such blatant graft and corruption and the facilition of a tyrant's regime, working directly against the sanctions of the U.N.? At the treacherous double-dealing behind the back of the U.S., all the while presenting themselves as allies, selling Saddam weapons to use against the U.S.?  Where is your outrage over this, Raph? Where is your outrage over their violating the trust of their positions on the U.N. Security Council for their own personal enrichment that facilitated Saddam remaining in power longer and allowing him to kill and torture longer?

Ron, our Constitution does not set up a theocracy, you know that. So please, just tell me what happens to our God-given, immutable rights (no matter how we understand God) under a World System? Are these the short term interests that we should be willing to give up in the name of some long term "good of all" down the road type of interests, assuming of course that whatever "powers-that-be" will actually respect anyone's best interests?  


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
88 posted 2004-10-19 02:23 PM


everytime i try to leave..they pull me back in


quote:
"Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Halliburton's primary concern, added Ingersoll-Rand's former chairman, James E. Perrella, "was that if we did business with [the Iraqi regime], that it be allowed by the United States government. If it wasn't allowed, we wouldn't do it."


This still seriously conflicts with Cheney's remarks "I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal," he said. "We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that." . Even legal arrangements he says.

quote:
"We inherited two joint ventures with Ingersoll-Rand that were selling some parts into Iraq," Cheney explained, "but we divested ourselves of those interests."


There's still nothing here to support you're claim that Cheney divested them BECAUSE of said deals. Seeing as Cheney claims he was 'unaware' of the deals in his second interview, long AFTER his tenure at Halliburton, doesn't this conflict with your "once he learned of their actions he began the process of divesting them." If he didn't learn of their actions until now, how could he have made the decision to divest interests because of them?

After Halliburton/sub execs acknowledged the deal Cheney pleaded ignorance, what else was he going to do on the campaign trail? A politician pleading ignorance doesn't prove innocence Denise.

The fact remains that he said he had a standing policy against dealing with Iraq even legally but execs say there was no such policy.

Second the deals took place, it's absolutely naive to believe Cheney was unaware of Ingersoll's deals. The fact is they held on to Ingersoll for two years while the deals were made.

Again Iran and Libya are known enemies, why are you defending companies whose subsidiaries help build and finance axis of evil countries?

Am I angry with those nations? Yes, absolutely. It just proves how unethical governments and companies are on this planet. But while I'm disgusted and recognize the hypocrisy of All nations you're too busy pointing fingers at everyone but your own beloved administration.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Rather than looking inward and hoping for change from both ends you're combatting Anti-American sentiment with an Anti-Global sentiment. Let's just keep the wheels of hate,xenophobia and hypocrisy turning. A textbook example of the dangers of patriotism and nationalism when exploited by a ruthless administration.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

89 posted 2004-10-19 11:56 PM


I'm not defending the companies if they did somthing wrong, Raph. As I said, I've not investigated the Halliburton issue, I just read the links that you provided.

I guess I misinterpreted the reason for the divesting of those firms, because he couldn't have done it because he found out they were dealing with Iraq if he didn't know that they were at the time, and he wasn't quoted as saying that was the reason.

I think he probably found out about the dealings of the affiliates of the subsidiaries after signing on with Halliburton, and while the parent company had a policy of not dealing with Iraq, they didn't have a say over what the affiliates of the subsidiaries did due to the separate governing structures.

Was Cheney less than honest in the interview by mentioning only Halliburton's policy and not mentioning the policies and activities of the affiliates of the subsidiaries? It would seem so. I wouldn't rank it as the scandal of the century, though. We'll see how the investigation plays out.

And I still see a huge difference between selling oil pipe parts and selling arms and munitions for the empowerment of a dictator and for use against a supposed ally. Which would you say is more egregious?

You should have let your disgust for the shortcomings of other nations be known here as well, Raph, it would have presented more of a fair and balanced perspective. How would anyone have ever known. This is the first time I've ever heard that from you. Your criticism here has always been soley against the administration of the U.S., unless I've missed something.

I've never said my country was perfect and I've never said this administration was perfect, but if the "anti" clubs are swung my way, chances are I'm gonna swing back. And I think that has more to do with human nature than partriotism or nationalism.

And I don't think we need to destroy the concept of nationalism to aim for some sort of utopian world harmony, which we'll never have anyway, as long as human beings are involved. I think pride in one's country and patriotism can be a good thing. I think we just need to improve our manner in communicating with each other and learn to better respect and appreciate our similarities and differences. And I think the U.N. needs a complete overhaul to facilitate that.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
90 posted 2004-10-20 12:38 PM


quote:
This is the first time I've ever heard that from you. Your criticism here has always been soley against the administration of the U.S., unless I've missed something.


Because the context of our discussions has been the actions of the current administration. If i've mentioned actions of past US policy its to underscore the flaws of the Bush administration in making the same mistakes again. I've also made points in retaliation to attacks on other nations, stated incidences where the US has made the same mistakes.(Arming Saddam in the first place including equipment while they gassed the Kurds).

If it were in the context of another political disussion then i'd give equal time to the failings of other nations. My replies have been directed at the shortcomings of the current administration and those who have looked elsewhere without realizing their own governments involment and fueling of the problems at hand.

I'm not naive, I don't believe in a Utopian paradise but I do believe in accountability. This administration should be held accountable for it's actions regarding the war on Iraq and blatant misleading of Americans and the world.

And you maybe you should swing that club a little harder at the current administration and past american military policy. There's a history of manipulation, backdoor deals(arms too) and outright fabrications. The point of my replies is that there are patterns being repeated rather than being learned from.

quote:
I think pride in one's country and patriotism can be a good thing. I think we just need to improve our manner in communicating with each other and learn to better respect and appreciate our similarities and differences. And I think the U.N. needs a complete overhaul to facilitate that.


Undoubtedly, but there's also a dark side to patriotism and nationalism. We've seen cd burnings, rampant finger pointing and paranoia in the wake of Iraq. The further you distance the rest of the world from yourself the more dangerous nationalism becomes. Ask the Germans and Russians.

Now, that said if you think i'm biased, by all means we can have a conversation on what I think of the Liberal government in Canada and the damage they've done. I can't stress it enough, I'm not partisan, anti conservative and as my friends here know not anti-american. I'm anti BS. Bring in McCain, but 4 more years of this administration and Bush? There's just no way in hell anybody should suffer through that.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

91 posted 2004-10-22 12:58 PM


Well we have a few things in common, it seems, Raph (I like it when that happens ). I also don't believe in a Utopian paradise, I believe there is a dark side to patriotism and nationalism and I don't believe in distancing ourselves from other nations. And I'm also anti BS, like the Kerry campaign declaring that Bush will reinstate the draft, that he has a "January Surprise" for the privitization of Social Security, and other such deliberate lies that he has been speaking the past couple of days.

Where I differ from you is that I don't believe that the administration misled us regarding Iraq. We may not have found stockpiles (we did find small amounts and we did find materials) but whether that means that Saddam did destroy them all and just wanted to keep that a secret, or whether he still had some hidden and some transported to Syria for safekeeping, maybe we'll never know for sure, but that was not the only reason that we went to war, although it was the primary one.

I personally believe that Saddam should have been dealt with long before he was, and not just for region or American safety and stability but for the horrific acts that he perpetrated against his own people.

When does it become a moral imperative, if it is within one's power, to come to the rescue of people who are being tortured and killed by a dictator? How many lives were lost in the interceding 12 years as the U.N. ineffectively dealt with the problem of Saddam, and then just when sanctions were beginning to bankrupt Saddam, France, Russia and China came to his aid, enabling him to enrich himself through kickbacks, as they also enabled him to weaken the sanctions by accepting his bribes to work towards the end of sanctions and to pit them against the U.S. in the Security Council? Diplomacy and sanctions were not working and never would. Not with the cast of characters involved.

Twelve years was a long time to give Saddam a chance to redeem himself and come into compliance. How many more years should we have given him, ten, twenty, thirty? And how many more lives should we have allowed to be lost before someone took action? I think it is to our shame that we didn't act sooner to help those people. I think it is immoral to allow such conditions to continue if it is within our power to help. If diplomacy, world pressure, and sanctions work, that's the route to go, absolutely. If not, we have to act militarily, in my opinion.

How many lives would have been saved if we had pre-emtively dealt with Hilter back in 1933? How many lives were lost because the world powers, who could have done something much sooner, sat on their collective hands and did nothing as he gained strength and momentum and spread his reign of terror and murder across Europe?

When we talk about the lives lost because of going to war, why do we not also consider the lives lost when we sit back and do nothing when it has become clear that peaceful diplomacy and sanctions are not working in situations where people are being slaughtered by their leaders?

I hate war as much as the next person and I wish there were no tyrants and dictators that sometimes make it necessary. And God knows the list is long. Let's hope diplomacy, world pressure, and sanctions work better in the other hot spots around the world than they did with Saddam.

My heart breaks for all those who die in war and it also breaks for all those who die at the hands of ruthless leaders as the world sits by and does nothing.


Ron, our Constitution does not set up a theocracy, you know that. So please, just tell me what happens to our God-given, immutable rights (no matter how we understand God) under a World System? Are these the short term interests that we should be willing to give up in the name of some long term "good of all" down the road type of interests, assuming of course that whatever "powers-that-be" will actually respect anyone's best interests?  


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
92 posted 2004-10-22 09:20 AM


quote:
Ron, our Constitution does not set up a theocracy, you know that. So please, just tell me what happens to our God-given, immutable rights (no matter how we understand God) under a World System?

There are no God-given, immutable rights, Denise. Never have been. Unless, of course, you believe some men are more powerful than God?

God gave you free will and a path to salvation, neither of which can be granted by men, and neither of which can be rescinded by men. If God had granted you the right to bear arms and assemble peacefully, we wouldn't have needed men like Jefferson. We wouldn't need a Constitution.

quote:
When does it become a moral imperative, if it is within one's power, to come to the rescue of people who are being tortured and killed by a dictator?

At what point do you burst into a man's house and shoot him dead because of the way he's treating his wife and children? Is there ever a point where you're justified in spraying the room with an automatic, endangering the wife and kids you had hoped to save?

What you're essentially suggesting, Denise, is that once you've reported such a despicable man to the authorities, you become free to act outside the law if the authorities don't react to your liking. That may be the expedient answer, but it's rarely the right one. When you elevate yourself to free agent you automatically elevate everyone else to the same, including the man you're trying to stop. Anarchy ensues.

Whether the authority is your local precinct or the United Nations, the correct answer is to become a leader, not a vigilante. Fight for change, not destruction. Ghandi didn't accomplish miracles because he had bigger guns, but rather because he was overwhelmingly respected as a man of character. Whether you can or can't lead your local precinct to change enough to protect the wives and children of your community will depend both on being right AND on being respected within that community. How many will listen to you if you're dealing drugs on the side or prostituting your own kids? Respect isn't just something to make us feel good. It's the cornerstone of leadership.

When you argue the inefficacy of the UN, Denise, you're really arguing the inefficacy of American leadership.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
93 posted 2004-10-23 03:35 AM


quote:
When does it become a moral imperative, if it is within one's power, to come to the rescue of people who are being tortured and killed by a dictator?


Can we stop this Orwellian rewriting history? This wasn't why Iraq was attacked. Let's stop ignoring that the initial reasons, the reasons given to the american public, the reasons the senate approved the attack, have been discredited and exhausted. This was NOT a mercy mission and it's absolutely naive and distasteful to paint it as such.


quote:
How many lives were lost in the interceding 12 years as the U.N. ineffectively dealt with the problem of Saddam, and then just when sanctions were beginning to bankrupt Saddam, France, Russia and China came to his aid, enabling him to enrich himself through kickbacks, as they also enabled him to weaken the sanctions by accepting his bribes to work towards the end of sanctions and to pit them against the U.S. in the Security Council? Diplomacy and sanctions were not working and never would. Not with the cast of characters involved


Again the finger points elsewhere. Saddam needed money to bribe, and money for weapons, so where did it come from? While one cannot defend the countries you mentioned, it's important to note that THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CITED THAT A REVIVED OIL INDUSTRY ALLOWED SADDAM TO EXPLOIT THE OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM TO FUND HIS WEAPON'S PROGRAMS. So according to the adminstration itself, it wasn't simply the involvment of those nations that helped finance Hussein, but the revival of oil production facilities and repair of pipelines.

How was oil production revived? As I said earlier deals, legal or not, between Cheney run, US company Halliburton. Worked around sanctions with subsidiaries supplying parts vital to the rebuilding of facilities and pipelines which in turn allowed Saddam to exploit the oil for food program.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

94 posted 2004-10-23 04:02 AM


quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Declaration of Independence


The above is my philosophy of governance, Ron, and I would not willingly submit myself or my country to any so-called "authority" that doesn't equally value its principles. The true greater good of all can never be accomplished apart from these basic principles. How many countries represented by the U.N., in powerful positions, share these principles?

Helping those who can't help themselves can be done without breaking the law, of course. Safe-haven can be offered to women and children who are being abused, taking them out of the situation, if the local authorities don't remove the abuser from the home. Of course that's not possible when you take that to the level of countries and dictators. In this situation, if the self-appointed world authority, the U.N., refuses to act on behalf of the abused by removing the tyrant, I don't consider it breaking the law when someone acts outside the U.N. to accomplish their rescue.
quote:
When you argue the inefficacy of the UN, Denise, you're really arguing the inefficacy of American leadership.


No, I would place the blame for the inefficacy of the UN where it belongs, on its own internal corruption. Sadly, with the cast of characters involved, effective American leadership would have to mean America offering bigger bribes to various U.N. members than the tyrants do.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

95 posted 2004-10-23 04:09 AM


Raph, I said it was to our shame that we didn't act sooner in Iraq, instead of acting only when we thought Iraq represented a threat to us. I'm not rewriting history. We should have gone in, with or without U.N. approval long ago, simply as a mission of mercy, in my opinion.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
96 posted 2004-10-23 04:17 AM


Or shouldn't have place him in power and supported him in the first place or afterwards.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
97 posted 2004-10-23 04:19 AM


The major power players at the UN are the US, the UK, China, France, and Russia, the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Of those, three subscribe to the same philosophy of liberalism that is enbedded in our consitution and the Declaration.

I don't quite know what to say when it comes to 'self apointed'. It's almost as if you've forgotten that we started the UN, international stability is in our national self-interest and the UN is one vehicle to promote that.

But it has no real power.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

98 posted 2004-10-23 03:31 PM


He put himself in power, Raph, but yeah, perhaps in hindsight, knowing what we know now that he would turn out to be one of the most brutal dictators in history, we shouldn't have supported him, but then there was that Iran problem going on around that time too, if I remember correctly?

Who else, Brad, besides the U.S. and the other two? The Security Council is only one of many.

By "self-appointed" world authority I was referring to the type of power that they desire to have, absolute, not the kind that they actually do have.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
99 posted 2004-10-23 03:51 PM


quote:
we shouldn't have supported him, but then there was that Iran problem going on around that time too, if I remember correctly?


Ah, so therefore two wrongs do make a right? The ends justify the means as long as Iran was dealt with?

Let's see if I remember this correctly, the right thing to do was to deal with one of the largest terrorist threats to the US in the 80's. Support and supply their new dictator with military intelligence, weaponry, equipment and biological materials.

Then as he gasses the Kurds, drawing outrage and condemnation from the international community, keep mum on the topic and continue supplying said materials to the regime of an obvious maniac. Once Iran has been dealt with condemn and cripple his tyrannic regime but leave him in power.

Yeah I remember.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

100 posted 2004-10-24 09:19 PM


No Raph, that's not what I said.

We were helping him in the Iran/Iraq war at the time, that's why we supplied him with support and aid, not chemical weapons, to prevent his defeat, because Iran posed the biggest threat to us at the time.

You are blaming the U.S. for supplying chemical warfare capabilities to Iraq? What is your source for that information?

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in March 1984, the U.S. called for export embargoes on 5 chemicals that could be used in the production of mustard and nerve gas to Iraq and Iran and called on other nations who dealt with these countries to do the same. Britain added 3 more chemicals to the list in April, followed by various embargoes by other European countries after that.

According to the report, some sources cite the USSR as a supplier, which they have denied. Iran cited the USSR, Brazil, France and Britain, but did not disclose the basis for their accusations. Foreign military and diplomatic sources in Baghdad cited France, Czechoslovakia and both Germanies "to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort". And Egypt, according to unofficial published sources, was also cited as a "possible supplier of actual chemical weapons." The report also states that Iraq had the capability of manufacturing its own chemical weapons, according to various sources.
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html


We were trying to establish diplomatic relations with Baghdad, but it was made known to Saddam that the U.S. had serious concerns over human rights issues and the use of chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds. We did not condone it and were equally outraged that he did it.

He was left in power after his defeat in Kuwait at the behest of the U.N., if I recall correctly.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
101 posted 2004-10-25 12:56 PM


quote:
You are blaming the U.S. for supplying chemical warfare capabilities to Iraq? What is your source for that information?


Documents and invoices from the Centre of Disease Control(CDC) and US congressional records show that the CDC and a US company sent strains of virus' to Iraq from 1986-1988. These included Botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid(another type of nerve gas), Gas Gangrene, and Anthrax strains. Some sent directly to the Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission(which was involved in attempts to build wmd's) and some to the al-Muthanna complex (Once center for Iraq's chemical weapons program).

Considering their knowledge of Iraq's chemical warfare, don't you find this a serious lack of judgement on the admin's part? Yes, I've read the SIPRI report before, the did place an embargo on 5 chemicals that produced Mustard, Tabun and Sarin gas as of 1984. But why? Why would you then supply Iraq with bacterial germ strains with full knowledge that 'Iraq had the capability of manufacturing its own chemical weapons' and a penchant for using them after 1984?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm

quote:
We were trying to establish diplomatic relations with Baghdad, but it was made known to Saddam that the U.S. had serious concerns over human rights issues and the use of chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds. We did not condone it and were equally outraged that he did it.


Equally outraged? Internal documents and memos, show that Reagans administration knew of the attacks on Iran before the SIPRI(Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)report and yet dealt with, and removed Iraq from its list of Terror states in 1982. Only after a SIPRI report released in 1984 confirmed the attacks and their capabilities, did the US publicly denounce Iraq.

Yet despite this, trade continued between the US and Iraq for another 4 years. Aside from the germ strains mentioned earlier, trade included the sale of $200 million worth of UH-1H and MD-500 Defender helicopters used in further gas attacks against Iranians and the Kurds. It also included export permits for high tech equipment for advanced weaponry programs were allowed with full US knowledge and consent.

Most disturbing, a memo uncovered by the NSA, shows that US policy for the sale of equipment to Iraq's nuclear program was also reviewed and it was concluded that "results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

Publicly denounced, but continually assisted.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

102 posted 2004-10-30 05:07 PM


I would say that the company and the CDC were definitely naive to have believed that Iraq would make use of them for legitimate medical research and development programs.

As for our continuing trade at the time with Iraq and supplying them with defender helocopters and high tech items, and equipment to their nuclear program, etc., I'd have to have a fuller contextual picture of what was going on at the time. For instance, did we trade with them in exchange for promises not to commit atrocities again, or with the understanding that they wouldn't, and would only use these items for defense? I just don't know all the facts.

But if we hoped for the best from Saddam, I'd certainly say we were guilty of naivete. But I don't see it as an indictment that we were not outraged at the atrocities already committed.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
103 posted 2004-10-30 05:31 PM


quote:
I'd have to have a fuller contextual picture of what was going on at the time. For instance, did we trade with them in exchange for promises not to commit atrocities again, or with the understanding that they wouldn't, and would only use these items for defense? I just don't know all the facts.


So if the European nations you've recently condemned for dealing with Saddam give you a fuller contextual picture, for instance, did they trade with them in exchange for promises not to commit atrocities again, or with the understanding that they wouldn't, and would only use items for defense, would you let them off the hook?


quote:
But I don't see it as an indictment that we were not outraged at the atrocities already committed.


Of course you don't, that's the problem. You're all too willing to chalk it up to naivete rather than seeing it for the dark deal it was. Just how outraged can an administration, who kept their knowledge of the attacks under wraps until a public report, then continually supplied a terrorist nation with chemicals, intelligence and weaponry, be?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

104 posted 2004-10-30 06:21 PM


No, I wouldn't let them off the hook, Raph, because that's not what happened in this case. There is evidence of kick-backs to Saddam, undermining the effectiveness of the sanctions, and bribes for votes against the U.S. on the Security Council.

Present me with the evidence of the "dark deal" of our dealings with Iraq, that you claim it was, and I'll look at it.  

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
105 posted 2004-10-31 03:32 AM


I've already listed and given links to evidence that after a 1984 report revealed the Iraqi gas attacks, the US government continued to arm, support and offer biochemicals (even after further gas attacks on the Kurds) to Saddam's regime up until the Gulf War. That you hope to justify these dealings while condemning others is disturbing, to say the least.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

106 posted 2004-10-31 07:59 AM


Raph, you've provided links showing that the trades happened. You haven't provided anything concerning the 'whys' of the trades, the context in which those trades happened, or that 'dark dealings' or sinister motives were behind those trades.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
107 posted 2004-10-31 11:07 AM


There is none so blind ...
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
108 posted 2004-10-31 11:57 AM


amen.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

109 posted 2004-10-31 03:03 PM


Show me the documents detailing these dark deeds, the context in which they happened, and I will study them. If they exist, I'm sure you can produce them. Am I supposed to just take your word for it that since the trades happened that there were sinister motives involved, as oppossed to naivete on the part of the CDC and the company?

And your sarcasm is not warranted or appreciated. From either of you. I thought free and open discussion was welcome here.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
110 posted 2004-10-31 07:04 PM


Denise, there is no context within which giving a gun to a known murderer can be justified or excused. You are free to apply your double standards as you please. Others should be equally free to point out they ARE double standards.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

111 posted 2004-10-31 08:33 PM


Double standards, Ron? If I had been shown evidence of graft and kick-backs and double-dealing, as we now know happened with France, Russia and China in the U.N. on the Security Council, then the double standard argument would be applicable. All I've seen are articles that said one company and the CDC sent some germ samples to Iraq for the manufacture of vaccine and for medical research.  In hindsight, pretty dumb, granted, but where is the evidence of sinister motives by our government?

And speaking of giving a murderer a loaded gun, where is the outrage at Kerry saying that he will give Iran nuclear fuel to "test" its intentions? I'd say that's at least as stupid as sending germ samples to Iraq 20 years ago. If that happens, how will we be judged 20 years hence, if we're still here, that is. I guess we haven't learned very much from our past mistakes.

Yes, I am free to express my opinions. I'm also free to ask for evidence of serious allegations made. That doesn't make me guilty of double standards, and it doesn't warrant sarcastic replies because you assume I'm operating from a double-standard mindset, even if I were. What happened to the idea of respect and tolerance?

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
112 posted 2004-10-31 09:15 PM


quote:
If I had been shown evidence of graft and kick-backs and double-dealing, as we now know happened with France, Russia and China in the U.N. on the Security Council, then the double standard argument would be applicable. All I've seen are articles that said one company and the CDC sent some germ samples to Iraq for the manufacture of vaccine and for medical research.  In hindsight, pretty dumb, granted, but where is the evidence of sinister motives by our government?

Dumb? Look at the list of pathogens again, Denise. Look at the locations where they were sent.

Dumb, I think, would be not reaching the conclusion that our government expected and wanted Iraq to create chemical weapons to be potentially used against our common enemy, Iran. I don't much care for graft or kick-backs, Denise. But human greed, while always intolerable, is at least understandable. I will never understand inhuman cruelty.

quote:
And speaking of giving a murderer a loaded gun, where is the outrage at Kerry saying that he will give Iran nuclear fuel to "test" its intentions? I'd say that's at least as stupid as sending germ samples to Iraq 20 years ago. If that happens, how will we be judged 20 years hence, if we're still here, that is. I guess we haven't learned very much from our past mistakes.

I absolutely agree, Denise. To not agree would be to employ a different set of standards for precisely the same sins.

I think we should try to support what we believe is right, not try to twist what is right to support what we believe.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
113 posted 2004-10-31 10:10 PM


First, you'll pardon me for not apologizing for my sarcasm, considering I didn't exactly appreciate the rotf response to my questioning of Bush family ethics in another thread.


Second, that the 'darkness' of dealing with Saddam isn't immediately evident, suggests incredibly skewed or double standard thinking. I can't fathom a context where dealing with a tyrant during,after and through a new set of gassings would be justifiable.

And finally,:

quote:
All I've seen are articles that said one company and the CDC sent some germ samples to Iraq for the manufacture of vaccine and for medical research.  In hindsight, pretty dumb, granted, but where is the evidence of sinister motives by our government?


..cleary shows selective thinking/reading on your part. The articles and links provided clearly state that germ samples where sent by the CDC directly to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission(wmd program) and to the al-Muthanna complex (Iraqi centre for chemical weapons).

Free and open thought is indeed welcome, but it's hard to mask frustration with unbalanced/double standard rational.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

114 posted 2004-11-02 01:11 AM


That wasn't directed at you, Raph, but at the article. I'm very sorry if it came across as being directed at you. That wasn't my intent, believe me.

I have spent the entire evening researching this and still have lots more reading to do.
I'm not a double-standard kind of person, this is just the first I've heard of this information and I have to study it out. I was far from politically aware in the late 80's and I'm sure lots of stuff went right over my head. Most of my focus back then was on hiding and trying not to be killed or maimed by my ex.

If the U.S. did this for the purpose of Saddam using biologicals against Iran, that's deplorable. If they supplied them with the materials with the intent of Saddam creating vaccines because it was known that Iran was working on a biological weapsons plan to be used against Iraq, then that's a different story because the intent would be different. That at least would have the humane intent of trying to save lives.  

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » 2nd Presidential Debate

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary