»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
I Feel a Draft...
| The Alley |
|
I Feel a Draft... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
WASHINGTON - Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way. Rep. Charles Rangel , D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq. In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress. Well, Noah, you warned about the possibility of a draft......but if the Republican got in power, if I recall. You were half-right.  |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Yes and I remember a few friends way back when telling me if I voted for Goldwater we would end up in a war in Vietnam. Well, I voted for Goldwater and look what happened.  |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Heh, just read that as well, and I forget...is this the 4th or 5th time good old Charlie Rangel, D NY, has proposed reinstatement of the Draft as a 'deterrent' to war and all-volunteer military enlistment? I could be wrong, and it won't be the first time, but I think that every year including and after 9/11/2001 he's introduced legislation to reinstate the Draft. I do recall the hue and outcry the first time, targetted at Republicans until it was learned that a NY Democrat was behind it. Then the bruhaha rather quickly subisided, since Democrats can do no wrong. *chuckle* I do wonder if he'll continue this antic if a Democrat is elected President and the Dems control the House after all 435 seats are up for grabs, as well as a few Senate seats. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't understand the logic here. As a ruse, if it is a ruse, it strikes me as a very dangerous one. Though technically I'm not against the idea of a draft, I wonder if following the German model might not be a better idea. Or maybe Starship Troopers? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It's not a dangerous ruse Brad if you're the minorty party and there's absolutley no chance of your bill getting off the ground. I think I even remember Mike or somebody complaining about Rangel voting against his own bill. May have been a different one -- as this is a fairly common tactic used by minority parties. I don't have a problem with mandating a draft OR national service (the military doesn't want everybody) not as a means to obtaining 'citizenship' (the Constitution has defined it adequately) but as a citizen entitled to receive benefits like gauranteed student loans or Pell Grants. We've got lots of infrastructure that needs infrastructing...  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LR, haven't the Democrats become the soon-to-be majority party? Actually, I have no problem with the draft at all and I considered it a mistake when it was stopped. The problem I have had is with the Democrats using the draft as a scare tactic against Republicans when it has been their idea all along. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Young men are still compelled to register. Aren't they? But, the point Rangel was trying to make before (when Democrats were the minority) was that the Republicans only want to send poor kids who can't afford college and sign up for the benefits to war. Basically the same argument Powell has made about the draft itself though -- that usually just the poor and minorities wind up carrying the load. I have no idea what Rangel is up to presently -- why not link the story and research so that I can read it. Persuade me. I might be on your side. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, they still register but I was referring to when they actually were required to serve. I played ball against a lot of major leaguers in for their six months of active duty Ok, here;s the link but having Brad agree with me and you being on my side all at the same time may be more than this poor brain can adjust to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_go_co/military_draft_7 |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
quote: Charlie Rangel first proposed legislation, the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001, was made in October, 2001, roughly a month after the atrocities inflicted upon this country when he reckoned correctly there would be fierce retribution against the culprits. Even before the first salvos were fired against Afghanistan's Taliban government, Charlie Rangel, himself a Korean veteran and draftee (undoubtably poor and uneducated at the time of mandatory enlistment) was introducing a bill to bring back the Draft for the purpose of possible derailment of military action and to increase negative public sentiment towards President Bush and the Republican controlled House and Senate. That quoted argument rings weak, since why bring up a bill if you don't intend for it to be voted upon? I do recall Rangel's shock and outrage when Republicans forced a vote, and not even Rangel's ally Conyer voiced 'Aye'. As a 'ruse', it's a very poor one if even one, unless you don't consider an attack on Amercican soil an Act of War. I do realize that it wasn't called such when the World Trade Center was first attacked, when two United States embassies were hit in Africa simultaneously, or when the USS Cole was damaged from a suicide boater. In case anyone has forgotten, the ground inside an embassy is sovereign to that country: inside the walls of a Mexican embassy is Mexico, inside the walls of a German embassy is Germany. The same holds true for American embassies. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Charlie Rangel, himself a Korean veteran and draftee (undoubtably poor and uneducated at the time of mandatory enlistment) One of the world's great lines  |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I wonder if Rangel's legislation will even get 1% total support from the House (it only got 2 votes last time he pushed it, from himself and John Conyers) Actually, in the original thread I started, I acknowledged neither both parties collectively, as well as the Pentagon, want a draft, but started the thread out of questioning, "Well, especialy if we have to deal with North Korea or Iran on a military level, will be there be any alternative, and we'll have no choice but to enact one if we are to have the manpower to handle simultaneous conflicts?" That's what the basis of my original thread was; believing that neither party actually wants a draft, but asking everyone what the alternative would be, if any alternative exists. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
December 20, 2004 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. November 10, 2004 Will there be a draft for certain, and if there will be, could this be political suicide for Bush and his administration, considering the already split-even opinion of the war in Iraq, 56% believing America is heading in the wrong direction, what this could mean for the economy, etc. I feel despite what Bush and Rumsfeld has said, with the increasing tension in Iraq, particularly with the assault on Falluja, I'm close to saying it WILL happen and I already know what I'm prepared to do in result! Sincerely, Noah Eaton Soon enough I feel this administration will have to make a critically defining choice. Either choose to abort the mission in Iraq and rest and re-build our reserve bank, or re-institute the draft, which I feel the latter is not only going to bring out the worst among many American families, but further disspirit the administration's own agenda. Your words, Noah. There are other examples. The reason why I mentioned you in this thread was based on those comments looking like you would consider the draft a Bush, or Republican, action. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If I drop a hammer on your foot, I doubt you'll blame gravity for your pain. If someone's son comes home in a body bag, I doubt they'll blame the bullets for killing him. And if a military draft proves to be necessary in the near future, I doubt anyone will lay all the blame at the feet of our legislature, either. There won't be a draft any time soon. But if one passed, make no mistake, it would be a direct result of President Bush's earlier decisions. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:I'll vote for this, as Brad suggested, Starship Troopers style. You want to be a citizen, serve. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
If they pass a draft, I would disagree with the perimeters. People in their 30s and 40s have already set on a course of establishing careers and families. Drafting people in those age groups would be a catastrophe for them and their families. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
it would be a direct result of President Bush's earlier decisions. But, of course, Ron. Sort of like "the Devil made me do it." I have two predictions concerning the Democratic congress. (1) They will not do the things they promised in order to get votes (2) They will blame their inablilities to do those things on Bush. Anybody wanna wager? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Yes, I did say all you quoted above, but if you read carefully, I am referring to poll results in an Indymedia post I don't specifically link in the first of three posts that suggest young Americans believing a renewal of the draft was more likely under Bush than Kerry, and that post was designed in a rebuttal to your point that only Kerry would return the draft and Bush wouldn't, thus laying out examples of public opinion that would challenge that claim, while also not insinuating I share the views the youth polled did. Regarding the latter quote of me you provided, it's just common sense; how can the president fight this war on terror in other nations or the neoconservatives continue their "long war" policy if all our forces are stuck in Iraq and our military is being stretched thin, thus leading to the question I repeated throughout that thread that got few responses: * "If a draft really isn't on the table, then what are the military options of the U.S, assuming the Bush Administration wants to advance their war on terror?" * Speaking of which, I also acknowledged in the very first part of that thread that the two congressmen who supported the legislation were Democrats: * "House Resolution 163, a bill proposed by two Democratic house members Charles B. Rangel and John Conyers Jr, was crushed 402-2, which would force all men and women ages 18-26 to serve a two-year rotation in a military or civilian capacity beginning March 31, 2005. However, with recruitment low and forces arguably "overextended", plus the possible prospect of a war beginning in Iran or North Korea in the near future, being part of the Bush Administration's "Axis of Evil", a draft is highly likely." * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Army surpassing year's retention goal by 15% Posted 4/9/2006 10:57 PM By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal. The Army was 15% ahead of its re-enlistment goal of 34,668 for the first six months of fiscal year 2006, which ended March 31. More than 39,900 soldiers had re-enlisted, according to figures scheduled to be released today by the Army. Strong retention has helped the Army offset recruiting that has failed to meet its targets as the war in Iraq has made it harder to attract new soldiers. The Army fell 8% short of its goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, although it is exceeding its goal this year. Army recruiting figures for the first half of the year are to be released today. The Army has met or exceeded its goals for retention for the past five years, records show. It was 8% over its goal for 2005, and 7% ahead of its targets for 2004. The number of re-enlistments has exceeded the Army's goal by a larger margin each year since 2001. Soldiers like the Army, "and the war is not causing people to leave," says Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman. Through March, 2,325 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq; 1,593 were Army soldiers. The Pentagon announced in March that each of the armed forces was on track to meet its retention goal for the year." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-09-army-re-enlistments_x.htm I suppose we have Bush to blame for that, also. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't get that last post, Mike. Would you reenlist because of a Commander and Chief? quote: And would that be? Raising the minimum wage? Withdrawal from Iraq? Cleaning up after GOP corruption? quote: Well, a veto is a veto is a veto. I suppose it never pays a prophet to be too specific, huh? Arthur C. Clarke, right? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, there could be more to this proposal Senator Rangel (D NY) is bringing to the table. See, he's the incoming chair of the much vaunted and very powerful House Ways and Means Committee. That's the committee which handles all cash flow for budgets, pet projects, pork barrel, and other expeditures, and if someone wants special funding, they gotta wheel and deal with the chair. And that'll be Charlie. Sure, Bush has a veto pen with a LOT of ink, but the yearly national budget is the yearly national budget, and if Charlie Rangel manages to secure votes for special consideration of personal projects for the next couple of years, a veto on the US yearly budget just won't happen. How do you think the Democratically controlled House and Senate were able to not only circumvent President Bush's 'No New Taxes' pledge, but also to exploit the same broken promise during the 1992 election? They tacked on a tax to the yearly budget. Yeah, it got stalled, but that state of affairs can only last so long, for without that budget getting signed, the entire government grinds to a halt for lack of funds. At least in theory. And that's one leverage tactic the current majority will use to their advantage, and if Senator Rangel really wants to apply the screws, he can do so. He will hold the purse strings. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, Brad...just saw your post and I'm out the door for the night. I'll respond tomorrow.. Don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.... |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:And that would be different from the Republicans how??? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. A ploy . . . The idea being few will favor fighting for anything or anyone they wouldn’t die for which pretty much leaves, for most, anything or anyone beyond their own front door. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, Chris, say what you want about Bush but he has never pandered to public opinion or let placating voters influence his decisions. He's put his popularity and political career on the line many times during his term in office, from Iraq to stem cells to minimum wage. That alone makes it WAY different from the "tell 'em whatever they want to hear" Democrats in power. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I don't get that last post, Mike. Would you reenlist because of a Commander and Chief? No, Brad, you missed the point. If there are those who are going to blame Bush for the necessity of having a large army, as if saying without Bush there would have been no further terrorists attacks to worry about, North Korea would not be pursuing nuclear weapons, Iran would not be calling for the destruction of Israel and the demand to have nukes, then one must also blame (or recognize) Bush as the reason military levels are surpassing their own goals during the same period of time with re-enlistments. The minimum wage? The Democrats will certainly pass that, as it is a popular thing with citizens and is basically a moot point, since 29 states have already passed it on their own. Iraq? Oh, yes. The Democrats have been saying for years now that it was a mistake and we are doing everything wrong. Well, let's see what they do now that they run things. Let's find out what their decisions are. As I said in my statement, I see them doing nothing different and blaming it on Bush for having screwed everything up beyond repair. What are some of their promises? Well.......... - Democrats promise to deliver high speed internet access to all Americans in five years. - They promise scholarships aimed at producing 100,000 new scientists, mathematicians and engineers in the next four years. (According to House Speaker Elect, Nancy Pelosi, the U.S. will graduate 70,000 engineers this year, while India and China will graduate more than 1 million. - Democrats promise to reinstate PayGo, or Pay As You Go legislation. This means, before a new spending program can pass, Congress will have to deliver its funding through equal spending cuts elsewhere, or tax increases, or combination of both, to pay for the new program. While not promising to end deficit spending, the PayGo rules for Congress will presumably slow the rate of growth in the national debt. - Democrats promise to reduce our dependency on foreign oil imports. - They promise oversight hearings and tighter controls over wasteful spending. - Howard Dean has promised to sever ties to lobbyists. - Democrats promise to increase to two years the time a Congress person must wait from leaving office to becoming a hired gun for lobbyists. - They promise a change in course in Iraq. The Democrats appear, according to a new poll, to be making a lot of the right promises to appeal to the moderate, centrist, and independent voters who elected them, save one. Democrat's illegal immigration solutions don't appear to be currying favor. http://www.voidnow.org/2006/11/13/democrats_promises_expectation.php Exit polls from the election showed 3/4 of voters said corruption and scandals were very, or extremely, important to them. so what has happened? Pelosi puts Alcee Hastings as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. You should be able to hear florida laughing all the way to Michigan. We know Hastings. He's our boy. Hastings was impeached and removed from office by a Democratic congress for corruption and perjury in 1989. He became only the sixth Judge in the history of United States to be removed from office by the United States Senate. THAT is Pelosi's choice and how she answers citizens concerns on corruption. Seen any of our mainstream news agencies dwell on that? Nope....what a surprise Well, if Alcee wants to continue his career of taking bribes, he will be in a good spot. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Balladeer, I agree with you in part, primarily on the corruption issue and that Pelosi is already apparently contradicting her post-election promise to "drain the swamp" and promote the "most honest and ethical Congress in history", first by endorsing a representative with a history of corruption contamination, and now by pushing a candidate who was actually impeached previously for bribery and perjury (the Congress voted 413 to 4 to impeach him, about as much a landslide as Congress rallying against Rangel's draft bill, and later the Senate voted 69 to 26 to remove him entirely from office) I personally believe neither Alcee Hastings nor Jane Harman should assume the chairman role for the House intelligence committee, and that representative Rush Holt Jr. would be a much better and more ethical choice who is on the committee as well. He has been an intelligence analyst at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and also has experience dealing with nuclear issues, thus makes him well-experienced for the position, and in addition, he has a clean public record on ethics and also has been vocal toward the Bush Administration in changing the course in Iraq for some time. I think it's quite unfortunate and hypocritical Pelosi is playing to these sort of racial politics as a primary excuse for selecting a disgraced candidate to assume this role, rather than hold to a notion she addressed as recently as a week and a half ago (which I already thought was saying and promising too much, as realistically corruption will always exist in Congress in one shape or another, but it doesn't excuse our elected officials in providing accountability and oversight to such measures.) I already am gravely skeptical that Pelosi will be any more competent as a House Speaker than Dennis Hastert or Newt Gingrich, who they themselves are major jokes of speakers as they are, when the former even had the gall to say that spending federal money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina "doesn't make sense to me." I hope she can prove me wrong here, and I will give her a month or so to try and prove herself, but I must say I have intense doubts. * Regarding your earlier point about Bush never pandering to public opinion, this is where I strongly disagree with you. I find many of his decisions have been calculated and politically-motivated, including as recently as accepting the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld AFTER the mid-term elections two weeks ago, despite saying as soon as four days before the election that Rumsfeld would stay on the job until the end of his presidency. It would certainly seem Bush was for Rumsfeld before he was against him! LOL! Remember Harriet Miers? Bush was staunchly defending this Supreme Court nominee even as much criticism began coming out, and then finally he bowed to political pressure from the far-right to rescind her nomination. If the president truly wasn't bowing to public pressure, surely he would have ignored vast criticism, allowed the hearings to happen and allow a floor vote to happen where she probably would have lost anyway, right? Remember the Dubai deal, when he was strongly backing the deal despite unanimous opposition, and rather than standing up for what he believed in under belief that rejecting the deal would make us appear bigoted and intolerant in the eyes of the world, bowed to public pressure and de-railed the deal. Remember his statements during the 2000 campaign saying he opposed nation-building which contradict his position now on the war on Iraq, or in May 2002 originally opposing the forming of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks before later that September reversing his position, or originally opposing the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security before U-turning toward the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949? Remember also, during the 2000 campaign, when he said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage, and believed states should have the right to decide for themselves, but later and ever since has been spearheading the support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman? Hmmmmm, I guess it's just me and there truly is no bowing to public pressure there, LOL! But on a more serious note, I believe it helps to have a balance between standing up for what you believe in, and understanding what the public wants you to accomplish. Relying heavily bent on the former only encourages autonomy and stubbornness, which can leave an individual wrapped up too much in ones self and truly not understanding what the public wants, while relying too much on the latter only encourages opportunism and the questioning of ones character. I believe indeed one should have conviction, integrity and vision.....but also be flexible, tolerant and accept criticism. And I believe Bush is too heavily stubborn generally, while those like Hillary Clinton and John McCain are too heavily opportunistic generally. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, I stand corrected. There HAVE been cases where Bush has conceded. as you brought up. I was thinking more along the lines of Iraq and stem cell research. Remember the Dubai deal, when he was strongly backing the deal despite unanimous opposition, and rather than standing up for what he believed in under belief that rejecting the deal would make us appear bigoted and intolerant in the eyes of the world, bowed to public pressure and de-railed the deal. That one is a little unfair, though. The"unanimous opposition" was a few Democratic senators trying to make political fodder out of the opportunity. The only reason public disapproval came to be was that those Democrats created it. Yes,Bush screwed up. He should have exposed the democratic rabble for what it was and insteead he caved in, thereby making the US look weak and bigoted inthe eyes of many. If he had NOT bowed to the pressure and stuck to his guns,I doubt you would have applauded him for doing so, though. I agree with you concerns over Pelosi....only one week in office and she's got quite a record already. One can only imagine what's next..... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As I said about the Democratic promises.. WASHINGTON — Advocates for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights say they are thrilled by the Democratic takeover of Congress. Even so, they admit their issues aren't likely to be addressed early — or at all — during the legislative session that begins in January. "I'm aware of political reality when you're coming up to a presidential election," says Caroline Fredrickson, Washington legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "I'm afraid (Democrats will) be a little too cautious." hmmm....so let's get this straight. The Democrats get into office with promises they are not going to get around to because they need to concentrate on the presidential election in two years. Doen't it seem their only concern is elections and they just go from one to another? Among the liberal causes likely on hold: •Abortion rights. Although she picked up 22 allies in the House and three in the Senate, Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America says federal efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies by promoting sex education and making contraceptives more available must wait. "We have some bigger issues to be dealt with early on," she says. •Gun control: Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says he has seen a list of the top 100 Democratic priorities; reinstating the now-expired ban on military-style assault weapons is "in the 90s." At least, he says, conservatives can't weaken gun control laws. •Gay rights. David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, expects Democrats to push legislation to bar workplace discrimination against gays and amend the federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation. Still, he says, those changes won't come until "much later" in the session. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-21-democrats-advocates_x.htm?csp=34 |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I can understand where you were coming from in your previous response, and just wanted to confirm it by pointing out a superlative like "never" would be too far of a stretch, though in general I do credit Bush for being steadfast on many positions, even when I don't agree with many of them. And yes, I do appreciate that Bush finally understood that it wasn't worth holding to the Dubai deal, even while I can completely understand his fears and concerns emotionally during that time. As I mentioned before, I don't feel or trust Pelosi as an elected official, and not for the same reason some pundits have expressed in that she's from the city of San Francisco, which happens to be much more liberal as a community than a vast majority of other American cities, but because she seems to lack vision and a general idea of how to positively shape this nation, and has publicly resorted more often to unilateralism and name-calling that's no better than that administration officials have resorted to as well, and I just don't think she'll be a persuasive role model in terms of bi-partisanship. It truly is a remarkable achievement in the sense that we have a woman for the first time in our nation's history assuming the role of House Speaker, but that isn't the point or issue whatsoever here, and that I believe what Americans truly want most of all right now is someone who can simply repair the broken bridges between polarized Americans, and has an effective record at performance and collaboration. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm in complete agreement, Noah |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
