»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
A Life in slow decay?
| The Alley |
|
A Life in slow decay? |
|
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665
|
Dear PIP people... While looking at the world news stories, the death of innocent people, the starvation of fellow humans, and in particular the wars that are raged around the world, a few thoughts occured to me...are we as a society in slow decay?....have we learned no lessons as a race? Has the two world wars inflicted on this planet meant nothing? The Governments of this earth that are democratically ellected need to be there because we put them there, so when these same governments go and wage war in OUR name, surely we are as culpable as the members of the Government, we put the weapons in their hands. Maybe when we go to vote, we should do so only with the previso that no war should be waged in our name, and that any government that contavenes this previso should be immediately forcefully removed from office. When you voted for whoever you voted for, did you do so with the knowledge that the people you trusted would not wage war? If it had been on the voting paper, ''that we may have to go to war in order to sell arms and make lots of money, oh and maybe kill a few members of your familly in the process'' would you have voted at all? To me we should be way past killing each other by now, it should be a thing of the past, but it never will be while there are huge amounts of money to be made from selling arms, we are stumbling back in time, not striding forward. We the people put these warmongerers in their position, we should be standing up and saying NO more wars in our name. Once they are in office they dont care about the people, they only care about money and power, if they have to kill people as they go along they will. Is it not a complete shame that we as a race are extremely inteligent, but we fail ourselves when we kill one another, life is so sacred, so precious, so unique, when we have a world council where the people cast the votes for or against war, that is the only time we will be walking as homo sapiens...and not neanderthal man as we are now....peace and love to all..have a great weekend everybody.. Goldenrose. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 P.D - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
this expresses an all too common, idylli, naieve point of view (paradise syndrome). not only is this one-sided, it's narrowly focused and provides no potential for rectification. what about those who fight for beliefs? should we not fight back if someone attacks us? (turn the other cheek... what if Los Angeles is our other cheek?) and assuming the motivations of someone is inherently dangerous and always wrong. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Uh, yeah. What he said. Seriously, you ahve to liv in the real world. I mean, I'm fairly liberal, and I know I'm an idealist... but chill out and get your nose out of Micheal Moore's books. There's more than one opinion out there. I don't like Bush, I think he's an idiot, and foolhardy, and arrogant... and worse than anything else, I think he's all those things AND the unfortunate figurehead and puppet who gets the glory or the flak, depending on public opinion. If you don't like it, vote. But don't vote for Kerry- he said he'll use force if necessary (key words), and apparently, you don't want that. Oh, but also don't vote for Nader, 'cuz that's a vote for Bush. So, I guess if you don't like it, don't vote. That'll show 'em. |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Goldenrose I have looked hard at your questions and statements in this post..I find it difficult to understand why you have not received more feedback on your thoughts....Perhaps others who have read this, have also blown you off as some kind of dreamer "Candide" as those that did read it, apparently did.. I assure you that you are not alone with your feelings, I have asked the same questions you ask in your first paragraph... "are we a society in slow moral decay?" Perhaps so..The "society" associated with the human species has risen quickly, far beyond normal evolutionary speed and has been unable to cognize a comfortable future because of it...This being apparent it has made up all sorts of folly's to prove itself righteous.. but not but responsible for its own behavior "the devil made me do it" "have we learned no lessons as a race?" Not only have we not learned lessons as a race, we have not learned lessons as a species...that is obvious...but what really has happened (in my opinion) is that we have simply forgotten how to act like human beings...It seems to me that modern life has inflicted an amnesia on much of mankind, things around us have changed far too quickly and this has had an adverse effect, we have too many choices now and it is confusing us... A small example...look down the cereal isle in and supermarket in America..Do you feel comfortable or a little irritated? "Has the two world wars inflicted on this planet meant nothing?" Yes we do elect our government officials, and yes when they wage war we are responsible for its outcome and destruction...Some groups in our society...lets call them "fringe groups" have demonstrated their feelings, (mostly based on faith or religion) about war (mainly Amish/Mennonite/Quaker groups) by legally refusing, through loopholes and other ways, to pay "war taxes" Which by the way, are far more, percentage wise, than any budget analysis will tell you....... I have gone off course, sorry To "forcefully remove them from office" is out of the question, perhaps if we had a parliament, this would be possible? "When you voted for whoever you voted for, did you do so with the knowledge that the people you trusted would not wage war?" No, I did not have that advanced knowledge, and do not think this is possible....But what I did expect was someone with a least a tinge of descent diplomatic ability, and not a hidden , faith based agenda .....In the last election my vote did not matter anyway as the supreme court ended up selecting the president... "To me we should be way past killing each other by now," Yes, it seems like this should be so.. But apparently we are not..But if we stumble back in time far enough, I believe we can find the solution to our problems...As Dylan said in his song "The answers my friend, are blowing in the wind" They are still seem to be beyond normal human comprehension on a whole, but some people have touched on the fringes of enlightenment...Jesus and Ghandi for two and many more that are not as famous.. They also were called naive and idyllic, narrowly focused...told they were consumed by a paradise syndrome with no potential for rectification...Jesus did turn the other cheek and was killed...but Ghandi did not, he was actively pacific...unfortunately he was also killed....both assassinated for their beliefs....perhaps the truth is a threat to those who believe that violence is the only way to settle disagreements? Moderate liberals will tell you that they are idealists, but that seems to be a conflict of definitions....I try to stay away from categories of political thought, groups bother me, I guess I lean towards anarchy in that way. I see no relation to what you say and "Michael Moores book", what I do see is some comparative thoughts expressed in Thomas Mores book (Utopia) This , in my mind, is a better comparison... I don't think bush is and idiot, that is obvious, but he has demonsrated his foolhardiness and arrogance many times in the last few years, perhaps it is just his inability to articulate our language that has caused me to think so, perhaps loving the spoken word and trying to be a poet has made me look very close at the way phrases are arranged? Kerry is far from our saving grace, He is a moderate liberal, which means he can be swayed away from liberal causes..He did say he would "use force if necessary" But perhaps he would use this force in a more humanitatarin way....such as to stop the ethnic cleansing in the Sudan? But if he is elected he will have to get us out of the rathole of Iraq, a formidable task, maybe immposible, we may be there 50 years or longer, like we have been in Korea.. "peace and love to all.. I notice that you say "all" in your end lines..that wish for all mankind is the only hope we have to straighten out the mess of reoccurring war.. I have turned this into a novel....sorry "peace and love to all -------ice ><> |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
Christopher... I have to say i take exception to your words. I do not believe my words to be naieve at all, i think you may be better served by not expressing your views at all, if you cannot do it by verbally abusing my thoughts. No you dont have to ''turn the cheek'' you simply have to offer the hand of friendship rather than the gun of war. Peace to you and yours Goldenrose. |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
Hush.. I think that more than one person has listened to MM and maybe more should do so too, he appears more braver to face down the demons that are determined to drag America to the abyss of hell... Peace and love to you.. Goldenrose. |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
Ice... Your arguments are very good and intellligently done. You have obviously seen and recognised the area i was aiming for people to see, seems that others missed that. As for the ''dreamer'' part, if i genuinely want the world to be a more peaceful place, and a safer place to live , then i will be happy to be called a dreamer. One other point i wanted to share is , how much better would America have looked if it had said ''ok no more, let's have peace, let's stop the tit for tat killing, and enter into global peace''. But that would have been far too courageous, far better to take the ''eye for an eye'' angle, it's better for the economy when selling arms that may kill your own citizens, and so the vicious circle continues.... who of any future president will have the courage to go down the road of peace?....i can think of one from the past...Mr Lincoln..he would have had the courage..but then the presidents hand book was made for Lincoln.....he was a REAL president...not the empty suit that occupies the white house today and brings shame on the courageous work of past great presidents... Peace and love to you...and all of your loved ones... Goldenrose. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I apologize for intruding on the thread, but found the "fringe group" comment relating to the peace churches a tad bit humorous. I suspect most Mennonites would prefer being called a religious denomination rather than a fringe group. In any event, Mennonites do not avoid paying "war taxes" by utilizing legal loopholes. They either pay their taxes or face the consequences for their civil disobedience. Some might include a protest letter when they pay their taxes and a very small minority might withhold a small symbolic amount the IRS does not bother with collecting due to the cost, and a large number, but certainly not all would support peace tax legislation. Again, sorry to intrude, just an observation from out here on the fringe. |
||
Marge Tindal 
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
Goldenrose wrote- quote:By what measure of man do you present this claim? Your opinion, nothing more ... nothing less~ Yours, not mine ...~ I SO RESPECT my President and voted for leadership ... not disappointed in the decisions made toward ridding the world of monster madmen wreaking chaos at every core of sub-level intent~ Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expound on just a tiny bit of my pride in my President~ I won't be back in with any type of rebuttal comment, because I firmly believe in what I believe in (as much as you do), and it's just not an arguable point~ |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Truly sorry if I offended your sensibilities (not really, just being polite  ) - but if you weren't expecting any sort of rebuttal, disagreement, et al, then why did you post your thoughts in the Alley, a place well known for disagreement?But, thank you for the reply. To repeat: quote:So let's tell the Muslims that they will be better served by not expressing their views. They are, after all, different from ours and in many ways, abusive of ours. Vice versa in many cases. But as you say, better not to express them. Better to remain silent? So, say a country sees itself superior to others, thinks that they are the "one true race" and should wipe out the rest because they're not "pure." Should we perhaps then remain silent, not abuse their thoughts. That might have been better 'round WWII. I'm not likening you to the Nazis, of course, just shooting for an extreme, albeit historically realistic example. Silence, just like "turning the other cheek," can invite trouble just as much as searching for it can. Even more, when the rest of our neighbors aren't as "advanced" as you suggest we be. This doesn't mean I don't agree that we should have evolved more by now, but we haven't. And we won't... not until everyone truly is equal... so, possibly never. Not sure equality is all it's cracked up to be. Too many people read equal as "same" anyway to suit me. Criticize a man, criticize a country, it's all the same. Barring abhorrences (of which there are plenty, granted), people are people - even George W. Bush. I imagine that had it been Kerry, Clinton, Abe Lincoln, the story would be the same - there would be people who deify [him] for his actions [or inaction] and others would condemn. Can't please everyone and can't be more than a person. Superman, on the other hand, might be more your style. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Small point Chris; Turning the other cheek is widely interpreted as a pacifistic course of action but was more likely an act of defiance roughly equivalent to flipping someone off. In a caste system a person of higher rank, say, a Roman Legion, would slap a person of lower rank with the back of their right hand, more as an act of putting someone in their place than an act of violence. By turning the other cheek a person considered to be of low stature was actually confronting the abuser -- daring them to strike them with their open hand -- as an equal. Jesus was a radical. But, I understand the context in which you employed the example. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Interesting tidbit, Reb. Seriously... I love tales of defiance... do you know how it turned into the commonly accepted representation of non-violence? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Cultural context. If you pluck the written word out of the culture that generates it and try to understand in another place and time without having any reference to the original customs and practices of the writers then it is difficult to interpret accurately. The authors would not, instinctively, think that they would need to explain every single detail because they would assume some information as common knowledge. What would George Washington think if he read the words 'bling-bling' or 'foshizzle'? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I thought "fo shizzle" was two words. This makes my head hurt. Wasn't Lincoln a war president? Oh, wait... that was the war where our country decided to have at it with itself! Don't get me wrong... I think this war in Iraq is a farce... I was disheartened the other day to hear that our death toll had breeched the 1,000 mark, and injuries 7,000. And we're the ones doing the invading... I don't even want to think of the toll on the Iraqis. I think this was entirely avoidable, I think that pre-emptively striking a country is unsettling (at best), and that it really seems like a load of crap that we get to go around saying "Hey, we're the strongest country on earth, so we get to decide who has weapons, and who doesn't. Oh, and we can also change our minds after once giving you those weapons and bomb you afterward for not proving that they're all gone." But it's also unrealistic and short sighted to say "War is bad. Let's never have war again." War is bad, and we shouldn't have to have it, and I think the concept of killing another human being is inherently wrong, no matter how you slice it. But I think there are sometimes that the wrong of doing so is better justified than inaction... for example, WWII. Sometimes, it's just unavoidable... but it should only be a last resort. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
fo rizzle?  |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, I've been thinking (always a dangerous proposition) about the views expressed in this thread on both sides and in the middle. A few points. Muslim countries, based on a militant religion, respect strength. This isn't just the Middle East, but most of Africa, and large tracts of the former Soviet Union. To them, turning the other cheek is a sign of weakness, and for those that, again, only respect strength, this is a problem. And before anyone gets bent, Mohammed, the Prophet, was raised in a rather peaceful trade city of Jews, early Christians, and local tribesmen who sought revenge for the killing of his mother and father, and turned it into a religion to increase his military strength in eastern Africa. Well, actually his son did to keep the power consolidated. Mohammed died in battle, but I'm meandering again. Mankind, specifically and generally, are warriors by nature, wearing thinly the veneer of 'civility'. No offense, GR, but you aren't the first to espouse these ideals. It has been done through countless millenia, and every time, those pacifistic agrarian peoples would be slaughtered wholesale by those seeking land/slaves/food/resources/revenge. And even in modern 'civilised' times, pacifism has had disasterous results. England, France, and the rest of the non-triad world 'turned the other cheek' when Hitler reclaimed the Sudetenland, then invaded Austria, Poland, and then France. Turning the other cheek and pacifism only works when the other side(s} also follow suit, and that is inherently against human nature. We try to convict and execute serial killers, but in other cultures, serial killers become Heads of State. Is society in a state of decay? Define society. In the broad scope, there has been decay ever since Man developed the first stone tool. As for any allusions about the military action in Iraq, I, for one, do believe there was terrorist collusion on behalf of the Iraqi government. We have satellite photos of a 747 mockup on a peninsula south of Baghdad, where the Iraqi army was forbidden to interact with the trainess of that facility. We have a governmental head and family who is only nominally Muslim. Those were prime targets for Al-Queda [sp], who strive to bring back the Golden Age of Islam, circa 1300 AD, while, of course, firmly entrenching themselves in the seats of power. Human nature, and all that. Even the Bolsheviks, following the October Revolution, made for themselves new Czars. As far as Bush is concerned, I respect him. He says what's on his mind, even if it comes out as a maloprop, and does what he says. And that resonates with this Texan living in the deserts of Arizona. Barring Kenneth Lay, most Texans are like that. Anyhow, that's enough for now, as I've rambled enough.  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Unless there is a code that I don't understand, Bush never says what he means. At a bar the other night I said Bush was the worst president since Hoover, my friends corrected me. He is the worst president ever. They are right. Please show me why in the world anybody with a brain would vote for this guy? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
But I think most of us know what he means even if it doesn't always come out right and I think that his values, ideals, and goals, for the most part, resonate with the majority of Americans. I share Ali's respect for him and his leadership. We're never going to have a 'perfect' candidate to vote for. Fault can be found with everyone. This year I will be a single issue voter: who do I think can best protect us from terrorism here at home. I have more confidence in Bush. Kerry confuses me. I still don't know what he really thinks or believes about anything. And I wonder if he even knows where he stands on the issues, particularly the terrorism issue. That scares me. |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
Can somebody please tell me why everyone thinks this president can portect the american people better than everyone else, when he patently FAILED when he was required to protect the nation on 911, and was sat like a little boy lost in a shpping mall, when the country was being attacked. This happend on HIS WATCH, and he failed then as he would fail in the future, do you need to give him another chance to see if he might mess that up as well? Before he is shown the door?....As someone not from america i find all of this quite incredible and scary, that he is thought to be doing a good job on terrorism. Before 911 planes straying off course and having to have jets scrambled to move them back on course, happened 64 times, and yet on the fatefull day itself eveything failed, the jets were just an hour or so too slow, the norad warning was slow, thus giving them plenty of time. Warnings were issued and not followed up, briefings not read about the threat and yet here we are saying this president would keep the nation safe, if the briefings had been taken seriously and read then preventaive measures would have reduced lives, that patently never happened because he could not be bothered to read them, again i say, how would this president keep the nation safe?... Just my thoughts here....have a good and peaceful day... Goldenrose. The supreme happiness in life is the conviction that we are loved. Victor Hugo. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Where are you getting your information from Denise? What is confusing about 100%, immediate implementation of the 9/11 Commission findings? Available everywhere. (Oh yeah -- Bush was against it before he was for it) |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
While we're pointing fingers, I wonder if anyone considered the contributions of British imperialism to Jihadist Islam's attitudes toward the West? They hate us for a reason, and that reason cannot be adequately summed up in the word "Israel." Jim |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My information, L.R. is his twenty year voting record in the Senate. Doesn't match up with most of what he is saying today. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ah yes, the dreaded spit-ball politics... Let's see, he was against the F-16 Aircraft, wanted to cut the B2, Proposed cutting the AH-64 Apache, the M1-Abrams Tank, B-52 Bombers, Huge troop cuts, 70 base closings, civilian and reserve cuts... oh wait... That would be Dick Cheney's record. My bad. Jim, I don't think you can discount that -- but it doesn't really speak to what we do now. The best way to think about this war was put well by the 9/11 commission -- pirates -- we got rid of pirates. How? Every country in the world banded together to get rid of them. Read the 9/11 Commission report. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/ http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
But I still don't know what Kerry means when he says "swift and certain response", especially given that he doesn't, presently at least, seem to approve of Bush's definition of "swift and certain" and under what circumstances would he consider the use of force to be required, as he also doesn't seem to agree with Bush on what those circumstances should be. What does he mean, what are his core values and principals, what does he stand for? I think he needs to make himself more clear on the issues, especially the terrorism issue before election day. His actions following the Viet Nam war also raise concerns. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: He's made himself abundantly clear. His opponents attempt to blur his position by throwing up their hands and saying they are confused. Maybe the best place to regain Kerry's position is from the 9/11 Commission Report (already referenced above) which he has endorsed and moved for immediate implementation: quote: His core values also involve not compromising U.S. security by trumping up charges about WMD's in countries where they don't exist. They involve not risking national security or destroying a persons life by breaking the law, breaching security, and revealing the name of a covert CIA operative which was done in retribution by the White House against the wife of Joseph Wilson --because he had " publicly disclosed that he had investigated and debunked intelligence linking Iraqi nuclear ambitions to the African nation of Niger. Wilson's investigation concluded in March 2002, nearly a year before Bush made the assertion that Iraq sought uranium in Africa during his 2003 State of the Union. Days after Wilson went public, columnist Robert Novak revealed that his wife was a CIA operative. The Washington Post reported that "a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife," CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 9/28/03]" To which Bush responded "I have no idea if we'll find out who the leaker is." If he can't even find out who a leaker is in his own administration -- how is he going to find terrorists halfway around the globe? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: By this you're probably referring to his congressional testimony excerpted for the Swift Boat Vet's ad. That testimony featured reports that were made to him by other veterans -- he was quoting them. What he did after the war was entirely within the scope of his core values -- that America is a force for good. He was protesting the war crimes that he himself was asked to commit -- namely -- “I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed, in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones.” And, Kerry claimed, “I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All this is contrary to the laws of warfare.” A 'free fire zone' is an area where anything that moves is killed -- there is no distinction made between combatants and non-combatants -- it is against the Geneva Conventions. A war crime. He was also protesting against the lie the Nixon administration was promulgating re; the Vietnamization of the war -- that he was heading towards a strategy whereby the South Vietnamese would be strong enough to mount their own defense. We all know how well that worked out. quote: John Oneill was a creation of Chuck Colson -- a surrogate for Nixon to destroy Kerry. Even though after his Christian conversion Colson apologized to Kerry for everything he'd done -- Oneill is still on the warpath -- and still a Republican insider. quote: Standing up for doing what you think is right -- fighting for what you believe in -- core values. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think Kerry's opponents have to blur his position...he does that well enough on his own. You can't be both for and against something and not confuse people. He strikes me as a political opportunist trying to be all things to all people. As I said before, he will have to be specific and define what he means by "swift and certain response" and what he believes constitutes a circumstance that would require the use of force. And he will have to explain how he will "grow the economy" and create an abundance of new jobs when he intends to raise the taxes of small business owners and corporations...the very people who have the power to create new jobs if they can afford to, and won't create new jobs if they are overburdened by taxes. And he will have to explain how he will provide the same health care to all Americans as the members of Congress enjoy without raising all of our taxes significantly. And you're telling me what Kerry's core values are by casting aspersions and innuendo at Bush, but you're not telling me anything about Kerry. And I think he did his fair share of compromising security and American soldiers' lives by his conduct after he left Viet Nam. quote: |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So you see Denise...it's disingenuous to say you don't understand John Kerry on the issues. You do. He's a Democrat -- you're a Republican. That's what you're objection to him is -- not that you're 'confused'. And I'm not casting aspersions at Bush. His administration destroyed that woman's life and compromised the CIA. It's a fact. Either Bush is incompetent to find the culprit -- or he doesn't want to because he agrees with the policy. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And you would be wrong, L.R. I'm not being disingenuous. I don't understand Kerry's positions on any issue and it doesn't matter to me to which Party he is affiliated. He has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth, depending on the audience. You have to discount half of what he says to be able to say that you understand what side of an issue he is on. For most of my adult life I have been registered as an Independent. I'm currently a registered Democrat. I've never been registered as a Republican. But it isn't Party affiliation that matters. I registered as a Democrat to broaden my ability to vote in primary elections. I don't vote a Party, I vote my conscience. Wasn't an investigation launced to investigate the Valerie Plame matter? Didn't Bush pledge and give his full cooperation to the investigation? It isn't Bush's responsibility to find the 'leaker', it's the responsibility of the investigators, and therefore doesn't speak to Bush's level of competence. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Okay Denise -- (and before we get into this much further I just want to point out that James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and have two kids -- so lets just dispose of the notion right off the bat that there is any kind of personal malice going on here ) let's just say that you are confused, perhaps that's because you're source material is ex-convict Oliver North. Nevertheless -- you started off on a single issue -- the question was asked and answered -- then you started yeah-butting onto other issues -- so it isn't merely confusion over one issue.In this day and age there is absolutely no excuse for anybody with Internet access to not understand a candidate's position on anything -- It is understandable if someone is limited to 30 second sound bites on the evening news or -- if they get most of their news from MTV or Comedy Central. I've posted links before to sites to get the straight scoop -- and the poop scoop from the candidate's own websites -- but lets just run it right down issue by issue and tell me which ones you side with the Democrats on: Abortion Budget Death Penalty Economy Education Energy Environment Foreign Policy Gay and Lesbian Issues Guns Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Iraq Social Security Trade And sure an investigation was launched, John Ashcroft recused himself and appointed an underling (who works for him -- yanno the days of Independent Counsel went out the window with Ken Starr) and of course -- they all work for George -- who is responsible -- (we've investigated ourselves and found us to be completely innocent of all wrongdoing.) Where does the Buck Stop Denise? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What issues I agree or disagree on with the Democrats has nothing to do with the discussion, L.R. I want straight answers from a candidate who is running for office and who wants my vote. Kerry isn't giving straight answers. He's giving fine-sounding, impassioned, but empty rhetoric, which for the most part is contradictory to what he has said a few days or a week before to a different audience. That confuses me and prevents me from having any confidence in him. And "swift and certain response" tells me nothing if he doesn't define what that means to him. "Using force when it is required" tells me nothing if he doesn't define the circumstances under which he believes it would be required. So no, my questions have not been answered. And I never said I was confused by him over only one issue, although the terrorism issue is paramount to me in this election. In this day and age of the internet there is no excuse for not knowing a candidate's positons...unless the candidate is obfuscating his positions deliberately, trying to be all things to all people, or as a result of his "nuanced thinking", as his campaign folks have called it. The result is the same. And changing the topic to Bush does not answer my questions about Kerry. And the fact that Oliver North spent time in jail doesn't absolve Kerry of his conduct. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: What does this mean? Why register as a Democrat? What issues you agree with is what identifies you as being a practitioner of a particular ideology. Ideology is what is driving your strawman argument about Kerry. It's koolaid drinking Republican rhetoric. Tell me what instances of flip-flopping you're talking about? Is it something like ordering troops to take Falujha and then three days later telling them not to? You see -- the contrast between candidates is what an election is about -- you talk about Kerry -- you have to talk about Bush. Your basic choice between these two candidates is which one is going to be able to forge the kind of long term international relationships that are required to prosecute the war on Islamist extremism? It doesn't take any talent to pull a trigger -- we've done that -- we're in Iraq -- the NEI reports say our prospects are grim or grimmer. This administration is even being called incompetent by it's own Senate leaders (Dick Lugar R. Indiana Chairman Foreign Relations Committee this morning on This Week). The went into Iraq underpowered because Rumsfeld wanted to do it on the cheap -- they had no plan for dealing with internal security -- no plan for rebuilding -- but -- they pulled the trigger. Bush says freedom is on the march around the world -- meanwhile the Sunni Triangle is completly lost to the insurgents -- while Putin is pulling the closest thing to a Hitler power grab since WWII. You feel safer? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh, one other thing.. The 'clarification' you're looking for re: when Kerry would use force was pulled once before on a candidate -- Dan Quale -- to which he gave the only sentient reply -- tell me what the circumstances are and I'll tell you if we have to use force. Tell him what mess Kerry would inherit on January 20, 2005 -- he'll clarify it for you. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Not saying he is, mind ya, but Kerry, for some reason, reminds me of Mussolini Fascism. This was also known as Gypsies of Politics, or rather simply 'wherever the wind blows, there I go'. Also, after musing over many news programs and internet articles, and after a lengthy discussion with my SO, I came to the conclusion that Kerry is the default candidate, since there has to be at least 2 candidates for a viable election. Most of what I'm getting is that voters are for or against Bush, not for Bush or for Kerry. And in that sense, Kerry is merely default. Though I've mentioned before that I support Bush, and am a registered Republican, I have never in my life voted the Party Line, and don't intend to begin any time soon. And I do try to keep an open mind about things. Howsoever, all I've been told about Kerry (not what I've learned on my own) is that he was in Vietnam, came back and protested Vietnam, and then 20 years later is running for President. The DNC has, for whatever reason, effectively erased Kerry's 20 years in the U.S. Senate. Even Kerry's acceptance speech didn't touch on that subject. Just Vietnam, protest Vietnam, running for President. And in a time when most candidates for whatever position run on their record and what they hope to achieve if elected, Kerry's tactic does leave this one a bit befuddled. But who knows, maybe that's just how he does things and how he kept getting elected as a Massachusetts U.S. Senator, not on his record, but just by who he is and who he portrays. Kerry and Edwards are both very persuasive speakers. I do know when Edwards was making a very good living from being a trial lawyer, the mere mention of his name was enough to get parties to settle out of court. However, Bush, irregardless of how you feel about him, is also a very persuasive speaker. I, for one, look forward to the Debates with interest. Alicat |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
As an aside, it is interesting how this thread became a debate about Bush and Kerry, though understandable. The initial post by Goldenrose was vague enough to bring any interpretation one wanted to bring to the table. It seemed more a gripe about those whom we elect, irregardless of nationality, who, in our own minds, abuse the trust we gave them. Not pointedly at Blair, Bush, or Europe steeped in Democratic Socialism...wasn't there a war about that not too long ago? Anyhow, it was a rant, a gripe, and purposefully left ambigious, though the unmentioned and alluded to details were all too soon clarified. So when, exactly, did it evolve into a anti-Kerry or anti-Bush? In an attempt to answer the intial thread questions, war is simply our way of thinning the population, though that may seem very callous and oversimplistic to some. Simply examine history: roughly every 30 years, or every generation, there is a war somewhere. |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
I would just like to know how all of this talk got into MY thread...i am talking about a life in slow decay...how has ANY of this got anything to do with my thread?...if you want to talk about this start another thread... Goldenrose. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
In response to the original topic: Society is not in slow decay. It is fighting tooth and nail against basic human nature to make this planet we live on a better place. Before I go too far into this, Goldenrose, I wonder if you'd clarify what your basis for comparison is? Is there some period in human history that you feel was better, in an overall sense, than the times we live in? |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Hmmm.. GR - I'm going to remind you of a little incident we experienced a year ago in this forum. Do you remember that? I'd suggest, very politely, that you refrain from ordering people about what they can and can't say, yes? Just let the thread take it's natural course and let people express themselves how they wish - just as you have. If you need to ask why I say this - look back a year or so ago and think about what happened. Kind Regards K |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Actually Ali, Goldenrose himself made this anti-Bush from the get-go back in post #6. quote: It simply means, L.R., that as a registered Independent, I had no voice in primary elections…getting my say in who I would like to see in the general election, since Independents and Republicans don’t usually have primaries. So now that I can vote in the Democratic primaries I have more of a say in the political world. But maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, maybe only liberals should have that privilege. quote: Yes, it does. Does that mean, though, that since I am of a conservative ideology I have to restrict myself to a particular party affiliation when registering to vote? quote: Really? And what flavor of koolaid drives your ideology and strawman arguments? quote: Well, I don’t have time for a book, but just a few for-instances: first he’s a hawk, then he’s a dove; first he supports the President’s war effort, then it was all a mistake, but if he had to do it all over again he would have voted exactly the same way on the issue…oops…I think he changed his mind on that again. I could be wrong, though, it’s so hard to keep up; first if people think the world isn’t better without Saddam, then they just don’t know what they are talking about, then just yesterday, the world would be in a much better situation today if we had allowed Saddam to remain in power; first all American’s should have the same health care as members of Congress (at an estimated cost of 1.3 trillion dollars…but he’s only going to rescind the tax cuts on the wealthy and not raise taxes on the middle class, even though there has never been a tax increase on anybody or anything that he ever voted against…and he's going to create tons of fabulous paying jobs to boot!), then Bush is going to bankrupt America because of his plan to give prescription drug cards to Senior Citizens. Then he says Bush is going to destroy Social Security, by allowing people to invest privately towards their retirement if they want to, even though Kerry voted to use Social Security funds for other government purposes. Is any of this supposed to spell out any kind of a cogent platform on which to run for President? I'm not seeing it. quote: I don’t agree. Those who actually care about fighting Islamist terrorism are already doing so, in my opinion. quote: I believe freedom is on the march. Fighting for freedom is always hard. But we will prevail if we don’t quit. quote: I could be wrong, but I suspect his answer might depend upon the day of the week, or maybe even on how the French, Germans, and Kofi Anan decide the situation should be handled. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Republicans don't usually have primaries? When did that start? They didn't have primaries this time around, sure, but perhaps you're lack of say in the political world is the result of a conservative ideology? Just a thought. quote: Curious, who did you vote for in the democratic primaries? quote: What strawman arguments? I pop over to National Review or to the Washington Times or that news site you like to post from time to time and read the same thing you write. I read Ann Coulter and, though you're not as thoroughly insane as she is (I know, I know, it's satire), but the gist is the same. I saw the Republican convention. Entertaining but in the end, it centered around a number of untruths and some vague abstractions like leadership. quote: He supported the authority to go to war, he disagreed with the actions this administration took. Is that difficult to understand? He supported the troops in the field, he disagreed with the method of payment (ie your grandchildren will pay). Is that difficult to understand? Is the American health care system working well today? If it ain't broke, don't fix it? But what do you think we should do if it is broken? quote: Tell that to the parents. quote: Yes, we will. quote: Now I understand. It's who decides that matters. Whether it's wrong or right doesn't matter, as long as the decision is being made sans outside interference. What is actually being decided is irrelevant. I see, Chirac and Schroder and Anan are all little Saddams in disguise. Vote for Kerry, it's a vote for sanity. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't get it Denise. Why do you feel the need to vote in a Primary for someone you wouldn't vote for in the General Election? Republicans have as many Primaries as Democrats do -- oh -- but there's that incumbency problem -- that's the price of having a party that dominates both houses and the executive branch. Why do you want to play in someone else's sandbox? I am not, on the other hand, an ideologue. I am a centrist. I'm not drinking anybody's koolaid-- which is why I keep directing people to sites like factcheck.org --I'm not buying Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh, or Ollie-I-am-a-traitor-becuase-I-provided-weapons-to-the-enemy-North, but your whole litany of distortions of Kerry's issues (which happens to be the exact demagoguery language coming from the RNC and the Bush camp) just re-affirms my earlier point. For the single issue voter -- National Security -- there are two choices -- you have two men who are both interested in protecting this country -- One, shoots first and asks questions later and has made a royal mess in Iraq. The other understands the task is broader than simply a use of force. We have slapped a big fist at a ball of mercury -- we went into Iraq with no plan. Even Bush 41 outlined entirely what would happen if we took out Saddam. Once again -- READ the 9/11 Commission Report -- a Bi-Partisan completely unanimous effort -- (you see -- that's not an ideological point of view). Something Bush was against having -- and then for having -- see -- anybody can play that game. If, all of a sudden, you were to change my mind -- and I agreed with you -- would that be a flip-flop? quote: FACTS: Russia -- Democracy is in dissolution China -- No democratic reforms Iraq -- National Intelligence Estimate says it's going to stay the same or degenerate into Civil War. Terrorist Enrollment is up 400% over this time last year and more terrorists are pouring into the country. Korea -- Nuked up Iran -- Nuking up What's really interesting is the Neo-Cons seem to still be in love with Russia and China -- because of their free-market stance -- but hate the real Democracies of Western Europe because they utilize a socialized paradigm. quote: You ARE wrong. Ali -- In the originating post GR said THIS: quote: So this seems to have been the topic from the get-go as far as I'm concerned. RE; the question of Bush -- in any election with an incumbent the first question is whether or not the guy in office deserves a second term -- then the next question is whether or not the other guy is a better alternative. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad and L.R., I live in a Democratic city. In every election cycle there are Democratic primaries. Republican primaries here are extremely rare. I have voted for Democrats in primary and in general elections. I didn't vote in the last one. I don't know who I will be voting for until I know who is running and where they stand on the issues currently at hand that are of concern to me. I don't vote a Party. I evaluate what the candidate's are saying and then make my choice depending on the issues. I've voted for Democrats, I've voted for Republicans, I've voted for Independents. Having a conservative bent doesn't equate with being a Republican even if the reverse might not be true nowadays. You can dismiss my observations on Kerry as strawman arguments and chalk it up to my being an ideologue if you wish. But his actions are there for anyone to see. He keeps saying different things to different audiences. And I doubt it's because he has been persuaded to change his mind. Nobody should be persuaded that easily and often. Nobody with strong convictions is. Who will pay for Kerry's health care plan, the tooth fairy? You can't convincingly accuse Bush of bankrupting America because of the war and prescription drug cards for seniors and then turn around and propose a 1.3 trillion dollar health plan and say you aren't going to raise taxes. Someone has to pay for it. Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force if necessary if Saddam didn't come into compliance. He says he only did that to give the President the clout, the authority, to actually do so, so that Saddam wouldn't perceive it as any empty threat, a bluff. Has anyone asked Kerry what should have been done if/when Saddam called our bluff? I'd love to hear that explanation. When Saddam still didn't come into compliance, Kerry now says Bush was wrong for using that authority to invade Iraq, the very thing that his vote authorized. Did he think that Bush really was just bluffing? Did he wish that Bush was just bluffing? Did he believe that Bush should have played the same bluffing game played by the U.N. for twelve years but was hoping that Saddam would be fooled by it and actually cooperate, because the members of Congress backed Bush? If he really thought it was wrong for Bush to use force under those circumstances, and he were a man of character and principle, he would not have given his consent. A man of character and prinicple would have voted "no". So he either agreed with Bush at the time and is lying about it now or he never agreed with Bush and is nothing more than a political opportunist. No Chirac, et al, are not all little Saddams. They've just demonstrated that they have no interest in fighting terrorism. They've demonstrated that they have an appeasement mindset when it comes to terrorists. Appeasement of the terrorists is never the right thing to do, and I don't want someone as President who may allow himself to be persuaded into that mindset. The COUNTRIES willing to fight terrorism are already doing so. The terrorists want Kerry to win. The recent increase in violence in Iraq is a calculated move and by no means a coincidence. They have attempted to sway elections before. Sometimes they succeed. So a vote for Kerry is actually doing their bidding. That's sanity? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Denise, No one is questioning your integrity. But if the issue is indeed about character, please describe the character of a man who goes to war and cuts taxes at the same time? Who is going to pay for all of this? Kerry's position, if you've been following what he's actually said and not the sound bites, hasn't changed. He voted to authorize the use of force if necessary and believes that Bush's call was not necessary. I think he's right. This has nothing to do with bluffing, it has to do with making the right call. If you disagree with Bush, it does not mean you are against fighting terrorists, it means you disagree with the way Bush is fighting terror. If you're fighting a fire in Southern California, does it make sense to start another one in Nevada? I have no idea who terrorists want in the election. I suspect most don't care, but then again I don't really care what they think. You shouldn't either. |
||
|
wranx Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689Moved from a shack to a barn |
This thread, all told is wonderful... I would only wish that everyone that votes in this (or any) election takes the time to educate themselves as well as you all have. (whatever side you're on) And to tie this back to GR's question... The next president will not be elected by the people enjoying this discussion or by other "thinking" people. But rather, by people that actually give a damn about which "model", "starlet", "hooker" that "The Bachelor" decides is worthy of him. So, yes! I believe this particular society is in decline. *smiley thingy* |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That's two different subjects, Brad. Kerry is saying that he will increase spending even more than it is now by adding his 1.3 trillion dollar health care plan but that he will rescind the tax cuts only on the wealthy. If that is the case and he doesn't rescind the tax cuts on everyone, then he too will be passing along a huge debt to our grandchildren, the same thing that Bush is being blamed for doing. Somebody has to pay for it. Now I can assume that since he doesn't agree with Bush's way of giving tax cuts and increasing spending at the same time, then he will either raise taxes (which he says he won't do), and raise them significantly, or he will pass the debt along to future generations (but how could he do that if he thinks Bush is wrong for doing that?)...so then again, I don't know what he would really do because I am getting confusing signals from the man. And to me, that speaks to his integrity because he isn't being straightforward. I would think that he either has to raise taxes or follow the same path that Bush is on. Do you know of any other option, other than not really planning on providing the health care plan that he says he will? Kerry didn't know what circumstance would make the invasion necessary? Wasn't the whole point of the vote to give Bush the authority to go to war if Saddam did not fully cooperate with the latest ultimatum? Why shouldn't we be concerned about who the terrorists believe would be more advantageous to their goals? To me, at least, that seems like it should be at the top of the list. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
What do you mean by blame? They are two different subjects, one is something that happened and is happening and one is Denise's supposition. "Time is out of joint" |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
A supposition that wouldn't be necessary, Brad, if straight answers were being given in the first place. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You are a dynamite lady, Denise. I admire you  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, even the more conservative nay sayers admit that that one trillion dollar figure is over ten years starting in 2006. But the price ranges from 650 billion to your figure (which I haven't seen anywhere else). Over the course of ten years. Kerry says he wishes to place more emphasis on preventative care (read sin taxes again) and repeal the tax cuts for those in the highest two percent income bracket. It seems fairly clear to me, but then again I don't think it's going to pass. Not with some radical shifts in Congress anyway. But I'd be happy with attempting to stem presciption drug prices and increasing rather than decreasing the number of people with health insurance. But wait, this complaint of yours goes right to the heart of the whole thing. Do you agree that fiscal responsibility is important or do you agree with Cheney when he says, "Deficits don't matter"? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And you didn't answer the question. Why blame? Are you saying that cutting taxes and going to war were not Bush's call? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks, Michael, that's sweet of you! Say, shouldn't you be evacuating by now? Get a move on and stay safe. Brad, blame, as in a synonym for criticize...nothing more, nothing less, as in "Bush is being criticized by some for his policies". The heart of my criticism is not about the health care issue, deficits, tax reductions, or tax increases. My criticism is about a lack of transparancy, a lack clarity, by Kerry. Kerry is trying to have it both ways, in my view...denouncing Bush's policies and yet at the same time not honestly saying how he would do things any differently. He either has to raise taxes or he has to pass along a huge deficit to future generations, or he has to not implement the health care plan he envisions. He's denying that he will raise taxes, (I didn't read between the lines [and should people have to?] as you did...preventive care = increasing the already rediculously high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes...I still doubt that would raise enough to close the gap), so either he will have to do the same thing for which Bush is being criticized (passing along a huge deficit), or he will not be able to implement his health care plan. So I don't see how he can be considered as a viable alternative to Bush, for those who are seeking an alternative on these issues. As I said before, how terrorism is going to be dealt with is the primary issue for me this election. From what I've heard from Kerry, I don't trust him on the issue. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
In deference to the thread's author I'm going to avoid out of scope aspects of the campaigns that deal with issues not related directly to the Iraq war or the war with Al Quada and other Islamist Terrorists. A few Facts and Analysis: The Bush administration all but ignored Richard Clark's plans to deal with striking at Al Quada before 9/11 and was focused on Saddam Hussein and SDI from the time of incept. Analysis: Incompetence on terror. The administration stutter-stepped on warnings issued to the Taliban by the Clinton administration because they didn't pay attention to the briefings during the transition period. Analysis: Incompetence on terror. For 9 months after 9/11 the Bush administration fought against the creation of the Homeland Security Department. It is still under-funded and resides in a postage stamp-sized building. Tom Ridge is quitting. Analysis: Incompetence on terror. The Bush administration opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Analysis: Incompetence on terror. If you were the CEO of a major corporation and something went as badly wrong as 9/11 -- wouldn't the first thing you'd do be to send a crack team to find out how it happened and fix the problem so it doesn't happen again? The Bush administration orchestrated the effective removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Analysis: Competence on Terror -- with a caveat -- it was a conventional war between State-Based governments that the USA is hegemonic in competency anyway. The Bush administration cooked the books on Iraq intel to show they had WMD's where there were none and issued the rationalization of imminent threat to justify immediate action. The Bush administration cooked the books on Iraq intel to link Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden (who are natural enemies since Saddam is a secularist Sunni) while missing the real 9/11 trail through Iran and suppressing the evidence of the trail through Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration declared mission accomplished in Iraq when it wasn't. The Bush administration failed to provide even enough security to prevent massive looting. The Bush administration failed for a year to install Iraqi-based governance, provide jobs for the Iraqi people, instead giving jobs to US and other coalition contractors (who's employees are losing their heads over it.) The Bush administration succeeded in capturing Saddam Hussein. Analysis: Catastrophic successful incompetence on terror. John Kerry sponsored a bill before 9/11 that would intercept money laundering of terrorists which was copied nearly verbatim and plugged into the Patriot act. Assistant Treasury Secretary Juan Zarate said of it: "The USA PATRIOT Act and the power of Section 311 represent some of the key resources in Treasury’s arsenal to protect the U.S. financial system and combat terrorist financing and financial crimes." Analysis: Competence on terror. John Kerry's proposal is: secure nuclear weapons and materials worldwide increase the active forces by 40,000 troops re-deploy the National Guard to meet Homeland Security needs double the Special Forces capability add a Special Ops Helicopter Squadron to the Air-Force 500 more PSYOP group active duty members a Military Family Bill of Rights Modernize the military to fight the digital war rebuild our alliances around the globe 100% immediate implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations Secure the borders and shores Harden vulnerable targets Keep 100,000 cops on the job that Bush let go Protect our civil liberties while doing it all -- since giving them up for security is after all -- losing what we're fighting for to begin with. Analysis: Competence on terror You can say that he keeps changing position -- but he doesn't -- this speech from February is clearly identical to what he's putting up on the stump now http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html If there is a perception that Kerry is equivocating -- might that be the 'liberal' media focusing on sound bites that make it seem that way? How many times did they play the Dean scream? The 'I was for it before I was against it' clip? The 'shove it' clip. The liberal media that's owned by General Electric, Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdock... ??? Kerry's problem is one that's always faced by a Senator -- he's a Senator. The Senate is the body of compromise and sagacious speech. It is a mode he will have to disengage from as a candidate and a Commander In Chief. (Stay safe Deer...  ) |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm short of time at the moment, but these particular lines stood out: quote: quote: The facts are that the entire world thought Iraq had WMDs. It was nothing that the Bush administration had to cook the books about, and Bush did not present a rationalization of imminent threat. He said we could not afford to wait until the threat was imminent. And this: quote: If true, which I doubt highly, perhaps they were distracted by having to rewire all the phone lines and computer lines that were sabatoged by the outgoing administration? If the rest of your 'facts' are as blatantly biased as these, they won't hold up under scrutiny. And as to that that 9/11 Report that you previously mentioned: Kerry "accepted" its findings and called on Bush to immediately implement all of them before even reading it (unless he can read faster than Evelyn Wood), while Bush on the other hand preferred to read it and study it first before calling for its implementation. Ah, yes the media. And who owns Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, I wonder? Viacom certainly doesn't share their view on who the next President should be. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I just don't understand what bias has to do with most of this: quote: This is what Richard Clark says. quote: Remember the Taliban, even as they destroyed and were destroying valuable Buddhist landmarks, the Bush administration gave them aid for destroying poppy fields as well. quote: This can be checked. quote: This can be checked. quote: Why did we go to war in Afghanistan? We wanted Bin Laden or have you forgotten the ultimatum? Did this happen? quote: Fine. Everybody thought they had WMD's. The Bush administration followed everybody else -- and was wrong. Or, the Bush administration took the lead on this issue -- and was wrong. Imminent versus potential (again?)? Getting rid of Hussein was a good idea. Why then? The argument for potential threat gives you know explanation for the timing. quote: True or false? quote: True or false? quote: True or false? quote: True or false? quote: True. But in the war on Terror, why is Hussein more important than bin Laden? If Terrorists are what you are worried about, Kerry has proven both substantive and determined. Bush has proven that he is both incompetent and corrupt. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Being wrong on WMDs (if that is the case...I still believe that some of what they did have was shipped to Syria just prior to and during the beginning phases of the war...and some were found along with evidence of chemical weapsons manufacturing capabilities) is entirely different than "cooking the books" or deliberately deceiving people about it. As for Richard Clarke's testimony, it's a case of "he said, she said". Some believe Richard Clarke's version, some believe Condoleeza Rice's version. Saddam is not more important than bin Laden. We just haven't gotten him yet. We will. The war on terror, from the beginning, was clearly described as a war that would be on many fronts, that we were fighting an enemy with no national boundaries. It takes time to stabilize and install a new government (and the pre-determined time table was met) and to rebuild the necessary infrastructures, and jobs were being provided to the Iraqi people as soon as it became feasible. I think the outside contractors were brought in because of the desire to get things back up and running as quickly as possible. It probably would have taken more time to ascertain the skill level for what was needed for particular jobs from the scattered and war-torn locals (and not being sure of who or who wasn't sympathetic to Saddam and the possiblity of sabbotage)than by bringing in proven outside contractors until things stabilized. As for the timing, maybe deposing Saddam and stabilizing Iraq is a pre-requisite for positioning ourselves to deal with Iran. And as far as I know, Saudi Arabia is still cooperating with us in the war on terror. If they stop, then I guess we'll have to deal with them at that time. Bush hasn't proven imcompetent to me. There has never been a war fought where all of the decisions made were always the right decisions in hindsight. Tactical readjustments are part and parcel of war, I would think. You never know what you are going to run into from one moment to the next. Monday-morning-quarterbacking is easy. I think one of our biggest handicaps in this war is that we value innocent life, the main reason for the pull-back from Fallujah. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If too many civilians are killed, we're blood thirsty heartless killers; if we pull back and use caution, the enemy fortifies its position and we're incompetent. And Kerry still hasn't proven anything to me, other than that he is a great Monday-morning-quarterback, and he hasn't gained my trust. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
All excerpts from the 9/11 Commission Final Report By 2001 the government still needed a decision at the highest level as to whether al Qaeda was or was not “a first order threat,” Richard Clarke wrote in his first memo to Condoleezza Rice on January 25, 2001. In his blistering protest about foot-dragging in the Pentagon and at the CIA, sent to Rice just a week before 9/11, he repeated that the “real question” for the principals was “are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat? . . . Is al Qida a big deal?” One school of thought, Clarke wrote in this September 4 note, implicitly argued that the terrorist network was a nuisance that killed a score of Ameri- cans every 18–24 months.If that view was credited, then current policies might be proportionate. Another school saw al Qaeda as the “point of the spear of radical Islam.” But no one forced the argument into the open by calling for a national estimate or a broader discussion of the threat. The issue was never joined as a collective debate by the U.S. government, including the Congress, before 9/11. We return to the issue of proportion—and imagination. Even Clarke’s note challenging Rice to imagine the day after an attack posits a strike that kills “hundreds” of Americans. He did not write “thousands.” Ch 11 pp 343, 344 Clarke had been concerned about the danger posed by aircraft since at least the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. There he had tried to create an air defense plan using assets from the Treasury Department, after the Defense Department declined to contribute resources.The Secret Service continued to work on the problem of airborne threats to the Washington region. In 1998, Clarke chaired an exercise designed to highlight the inadequacy of the solution. This paper exercise involved a scenario in which a group of terrorists commandeered a Learjet on the ground in Atlanta, loaded it with explosives, and flew it toward a target in Washington, D.C. Clarke asked officials from the Pentagon, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Secret Service what they could do about the situation. Officials from the Pentagon said they could scramble aircraft from Langley Air Force Base, but they would need to go to the President for rules of engagement, and there was no mechanism to do so.There was no clear res-olution of the problem at the exercise. In late 1999, a great deal of discussion took place in the media about the crash off the coast of Massachusetts of EgyptAir Flight 990, a Boeing 767.The most plausible explanation that emerged was that one of the pilots had gone berserk, seized the controls, and flown the aircraft into the sea. After the 1999–2000 millennium alerts, when the nation had relaxed, Clarke held a meeting of his Counterterrorism Security Group devoted largely to the pos-sibility of a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda. In his testimony, Clarke commented that he thought that warning about the possibility of a suicide hijacking would have been just one more speculative theory among many, hard to spot since the volume of warnings of “al Qaeda threats and other terrorist threats, was in the tens of thousands—probably hun-dreds of thousands.” 18 Yet the possibility was imaginable, and imagined. In early August 1999, the FAA’s Civil Aviation Security intelligence office summarized the Bin Ladin hijacking threat. After a solid recitation of all the information available on this topic, the paper identified a few principal scenarios, one of which was a “suicide hijacking operation.” Ch 11 pg 345 In chapte rs 3 and 4 we described how the U.S.government adjusted its existing agencies and capacities to address the emerging threat from Usama Bin Ladin and his associates.After the August 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,President Bill Clinton and his chief aides explored ways of getting Bin Ladin expelled from Afghanistan or possibly cap= turing or even killing him.Although disruption efforts around the world had achieved some successes,the core of Bin Ladin ’s organization remained intact. President Clinton was deeply concerned about Bin Ladin.He and his national security advisor,Samuel “Sandy ”Berger,ensured they had a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on Bin Ladin ’s reported location.1 In public,President Clinton spoke repeatedly about the threat of terrorism,referring to terrorist training camps but saying little about Bin Ladin and nothing about al Qaeda.He explained to us that this was delib= erate —intended to avoid enhancing Bin Ladin ’s stature by giving him unnec= essary publicity.His speeches focused especially on the danger of nonstate actors and of chemical and biological weapons.2 As the millennium approached,the most publicized worries were not about terrorism but about computer breakdowns —theY2K scare.Some gov= ernment officials were concerned that terrorists would take advantage of such breakdowns.3 Ch 6 pg 174 On December 4,as news came in about the discoveries in Jordan,National Security Council (NSC)Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke wrote Berger,“If George ’s [Tenet ’s ] story about a planned series of UBL attacks at the Millennium is true,we will need to make some decisions NOW.”He told us he held several conversations with President Clinton during the crisis. He suggested threatening reprisals against the Taliban in Afghanistan in the event of any attacks on U.S.interests,anywhere,by Bin Ladin.He further proposed to Berger that a strike be made during the last week of 1999 against al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan —a proposal not adopted.11 Warned by the CIA that the disrupted Jordanian plot was probably part of a larger series of attacks intended for the millennium,some possibly involving chemical weapons,the Principals Committee met on the night of Decem= ber 8 and decided to task Clarke ’s Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG)to develop plans to deter and disrupt al Qaeda plots.12 Michael Sheehan,the State Department member of the CSG,communi= cated warnings to the Taliban that they would be held responsible for future al Qaeda attacks.“Mike was not diplomatic,”Clarke reported to Berger. Ch 6 pg 176 Clarke ’s staff warned,“Foreign terrorist sleeper cells are present in the US and attacks in the US are likely .”34 Clarke asked Berger to try to make sure that the domes- tic agencies remained alert.“Is there a threat to civilian aircraft?”he wrote.Clarke also asked the principals in late December to discuss a foreign security service report about a Bin Ladin plan to put bombs on transatlantic flights.35 Ch 6 pg 179 After the millennium alert,elements of the U.S.government reviewed their performance.The CIA ’s leadership was told that while a number of plots had been disrupted,the millennium might be only the “kick-off ”for a period of extended attacks.55 Clarke wrote Berger on January 11,2000,that the CIA,the FBI,Justice,and the NSC staff had come to two main conclusions.First,U.S. disruption efforts thus far had “not put too much of a dent ”in Bin Ladin ’s net- work.If the United States wanted to “roll back ”the threat,disruption would have to proceed at “a markedly different tempo.”Second,“sleeper cells ”and “a variety of terrorist groups ”had turned up at home.56 As one of Clarke ’s staff noted,only a “chance discovery ”by U.S.Customs had prevented a possible attack.57 Berger gave his approval for the NSC staff to commence an “after- action review,”anticipating new budget requests.He also asked DCI Tenet to review the CIA ’s counterterrorism strategy and come up with a plan for “where we go from here.”58 The NSC staff advised Berger that the United States had only been “nib= bling at the edges ”of Bin Ladin ’s network and that more terror attacks were a question not of “if ”but rather of “when ”and “where.”59 The Principals Com= mittee met on March 10,2000,to review possible new moves.The principals ended up agreeing that the government should take three major steps.First, more money should go to the CIA to accelerate its efforts to “seriously attrit ” al Qaeda.Second,there should be a crackdown on foreign terrorist organiza= tions in the United States.Third,immigration law enforcement should be strengthened,and the INS should tighten controls on the Canadian border (including stepping up U.S.-Canada cooperation).The principals endorsed the proposed programs;some,like expanding the number of Joint Terrorism Task Forces,moved forward,and others,like creating a centralized translation unit for domestic intelligence intercepts in Arabic and other languages,did not.60 Ch 6 pg 182 In early March 2000,when President Clinton received an update on U.S.covert action efforts against Bin Ladin,he wrote in the memo ’s margin that the United States could surely do better.Military officers in the Joint Staff told us that they shared this sense of frustration.Clarke used the President ’s comment to push the CSG to brainstorm new ideas,including aid to the Northern Alliance. In 2000,plans continued to be developed for potential military operations in Afghanistan.Navy vessels that could launch missiles into Afghanistan were still on call in the north Arabian Sea.106 In the summer,the military refined its list of strikes and Special Operations possibilities to a set of 13 options within the Operation Infinite Resolve plan.107 Yet planning efforts continued to be limited by the same operational and policy concerns encountered in 1998 and 1999.Although the intelligence community sometimes knew where Bin Ladin was,it had been unable to provide intelligence considered sufficiently reliable to launch a strike.Above all,the United States did not have American eyes on the target.As one military officer put it,we had our hand on the door,but we couldn ’t open the door and walk in.108 Ch 6 pp 187, 188 The CIA noted that theYemenis claimed that Khallad helped direct the operation [attack on USS Cole] from Afghanistan or Pakistan,possibly as Bin Ladin ’s intermediary,but that it had not seen the Yemeni evidence.However,the CIA knew from both human sources and signals intelligence that Khallad was tied to al Qaeda.The prepared briefing concluded that while some reporting about al Qaeda ’s role might have merit,those reports offered few specifics.Intelligence gave some ambiguous indicators of al Qaeda direction of the attack.145 This,President Clinton and Berger told us,was not the conclusion they needed in order to go to war or deliver an ultimatum to the Taliban threaten= ing war.The election and change of power was not the issue,President Clin= ton added.There was enough time.If the agencies had given him a definitive answer,he said,he would have sought a UN Security Council ultimatum and given the Taliban one,two,or three days before taking further action against both al Qaeda and the Taliban.But he did not think it would be responsible for a president to launch an invasion of another country just based on a “pre= liminary judgment.”146 Other advisers have echoed this concern.Some of Secretary Albright ’s advisers warned her at the time to be sure the evidence conclusively linked Bin Ladin to the Cole before considering any response,especially a military one, because such action might inflame the Islamic world and increase support for the Taliban.Defense Secretary Cohen told us it would not have been prudent to risk killing civilians based only on an assumption that al Qaeda was respon= sible.General Shelton added that there was an outstanding question as to who was responsible and what the targets were.147 Ch 6 pg 195 As the Clinton administration drew to a close,Clarke and his staff devel= oped a policy paper of their own,the first such comprehensive effort since the Delenda plan of 1998.The resulting paper,entitled “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida:Status and Prospects,” reviewed the threat and the record to date,incorporated the CIA ’s new ideas from the Blue Sky memo,and posed several near-term policy options. Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to “roll back ”al Qaeda over a period of three to five years.Over time,the policy should try to weaken and elimi= nate the network ’s infrastructure in order to reduce it to a “rump group ”like other formerly feared but now largely defunct terrorist organizations of the 1980s.“Continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent some attacks,”Clarke ’s office wrote,“but will not seriously attrit their ability to plan and conduct attacks.”The paper backed covert aid to the Northern Alliance,covert aid to Uzbekistan,and renewed Predator flights in March 2001.A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-and- control targets and infrastructure andTaliban military and command assets.The paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.155 Ch 6 pg 197 In December,Bush met with Clinton for a two-hour,one-on-one discus= sion of national security and foreign policy challenges.Clinton recalled saying to Bush,“I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda.”Clinton told us that he also said,“One of the great regrets of my presidency is that I didn ’t get him [Bin Ladin ] for you,,because I tried to.”159 Bush told the Commission that he felt sure President Clinton had mentioned terrorism,but did not remember much being said about al Qaeda.Bush recalled that Clinton had emphasized other issues such as North Korea and the Israeli- Palestinian peace process.160 In early January,Clarke briefed Rice on terrorism.He gave similar presen= tations —describing al Qaeda as both an adaptable global network of jihadist organizations and a lethal core terrorist organization —toVice President –elect Cheney,Hadley,and Secretary of State –designate Powell.One line in the brief= ing slides said that al Qaeda had sleeper cells in more than 40 countries,includ= ing the United States.161 Berger told us that he made a point of dropping in on Clarke ’s briefing of Rice to emphasize the importance of the issue.Later the same day,Berger met with Rice.He says that he told her the Bush admin= istration would spend more time on terrorism in general and al Qaeda in par= ticular than on anything else.Rice ’s recollection was that Berger told her she would be surprised at how much more time she was going to spend on ter= rorism than she expected,but that the bulk of their conversation dealt with the faltering Middle East peace process and North Korea.Clarke said that the new team,having been out of government for eight years,had a steep learning curve to understand al Qaeda and the new transnational terrorist threat.162 Ch 6 pg 199 Directive 62 of the Clinton administration had said specifically that Clarke ’s Counterterrorism Security Group should report through the Deputies Committee or,at Berger ’s discretion,directly to the principals.Berger had in practice allowed Clarke ’s group to function as a parallel deputies committee, reporting directly to those members of the Principals Committee who sat on the special Small Group.There,Clarke himself sat as a de facto principal. Rice decided to change the special structure that had been built to coordi= nate counterterrorism policy.It was important to sound policymaking,she felt, that Clarke ’s interagency committee —like all others —report to the principals through the deputies.167 Rice made an initial decision to hold over both Clarke and his entire coun= terterrorism staff,a decision that she called rare for a new administration.She decided also that Clarke should retain the title of national counterterrorism coordinator,although he would no longer be a de facto member of the Prin= cipals Committee on his issues.The decision to keep Clarke,Rice said,was “not uncontroversial,”since he was known as someone who “broke china,”but she and Hadley wanted an experienced crisis manager.No one else from Berger ’s staff had Clarke ’s detailed knowledge of the levers of government.168 Within the first few days after Bush ’s inauguration,Clarke approached Rice in an effort to get her —and the new President —to give terrorism very high pri= ority and to act on the agenda that he had pushed during the last few months of the previous administration.After Rice requested that all senior staff iden= tify desirable major policy reviews or initiatives,Clarke submitted an elaborate memorandum on January 25,2001.He attached to it his 1998 Delenda Plan and the December 2000 strategy paper.“We urgently need ...a Principals level review on the al Qida network,”Clarke wrote.172 He wanted the Principals Committee to decide whether al Qaeda was “a first order threat ”or a more modest worry being overblown by “chicken lit= tle ”alarmists.Alluding to the transition briefing that he had prepared for Rice, Clarke wrote that al Qaeda “is not some narrow,little terrorist issue that needs to be included in broader regional policy.”Two key decisions that had been deferred,he noted,concerned covert aid to keep the Northern Alliance alive when fighting began again in Afghanistan in the spring,and covert aid to the Uzbeks.Clarke also suggested that decisions should be made soon on messages to the Taliban and Pakistan over the al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan,on pos= sible new money for CIA operations,and on “when and how ...to respond to the attack on the USS Cole.”173 The national security advisor did not respond directly to Clarke ’s memo= randum.No Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda was held until Sep= tember 4,2001 (although the Principals Committee met frequently on other subjects,such as the Middle East peace process,Russia,and the Persian Gulf ).174 But Rice and Hadley began to address the issues Clarke had listed. What to do or say about the Cole had been an obvious question since inaugu= ration day.When the attack occurred,25 days before the election,candidate Bush had said to CNN,“I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to fig= ure out who did the act and take the necessary action.There must be a conse= quence.”175 Since the Clinton administration had not responded militarily, what was the Bush administration to do? On January 25,Tenet briefed the President on the Cole investigation.The writ- ten briefing repeated for top officials of the new administration what the CIA had told the ClintonWhite House in November.This included the “preliminary judgment ”that al Qaeda was responsible,with the caveat that no evidence had yet been found that Bin Ladin himself ordered the attack.Tenet told us he had no recollection of a conversation with the President about this briefing.176 In his January 25 memo,Clarke had advised Rice that the government should respond to the Cole attack,but “should take advantage of the policy that ‘we will respond at a time,place and manner of our own choosing ’and not be forced into knee-jerk responses.”177 BeforeVice President Cheney visited the CIA in mid-February,Clarke sent him a memo —outside the usual White House document-management system —suggesting that he ask CIA officials “what additional information is needed before CIA can definitively conclude that al-Qida was responsible ”for the Cole .178 In March 2001,the CIA ’s brief= ing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA ’s “preliminary judgment ”that a “strong circumstantial case ”could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack “conclusive information on external command and control ”of the attack.179 Clarke and his aides continued to provide Rice and Hadley with evidence reinforcing the case against al Qaeda and urging action.180 The President explained to us that he had been concerned lest an ineffec= tual air strike just serve to give Bin Ladin a propaganda advantage.He said he had not been told about Clinton administration warnings to the Taliban.The President told us that he had concluded that the United States must use ground forces for a job like this.181 Rice told us that there was never a formal,recorded decision not to retali= ate specifically for the Cole attack.Exchanges with the President,between the President and Tenet,and between herself and Powell and Rumsfeld had pro= duced a consensus that “tit-for-tat ”responses were likely to be counterproduc= tive.This had been the case,she thought,with the cruise missile strikes of August 1998.The new team at the Pentagon did not push for action.On the contrary,Rumsfeld thought that too much time had passed and his deputy,Paul Wolfowitz,thought that the Cole attack was “stale.”Hadley said that in the end, the administration ’s real response to the Cole would be a new,more aggressive strategy against al Qaeda.182 Ch 6 pp 200 - 202 Clarke would later express irritation about the deputies ’insistence that a strategy for coping with al Qaeda be framed within the context of a regional policy.He doubted that the benefits would compensate for the time lost.The administration had in fact proceeded with Principals Committee meetings on topics including Iraq and Sudan without prior contextual review,and Clarke favored moving ahead similarly with a narrow counterterrorism agenda.189 But the President ’s senior advisers saw the al Qaeda problem as part of a puzzle that could not be assembled without filling in the pieces for Afghanistan and Pak= istan.Rice deferred a Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda until the deputies had developed a new policy for their consideration. The Bush administration in its first months faced many problems other than terrorism.They included the collapse of the Middle East peace process and,in April,a crisis over a U.S.“spy plane ”brought down in Chinese territory.The new administration also focused heavily on Russia,a new nuclear strategy that allowed missile defenses,Europe,Mexico,and the Persian Gulf. Ch 6 pg 203 Clarke and Black were asked to develop a range of options for attacking Bin Ladin ’s organization,from the least to most ambitious.199 [which Clarke had given to Rice already] Rice and Hadley asked Clarke and his staff to draw up the new presiden= tial directive.On June 7,Hadley circulated the first draft,describing it as “an admittedly ambitious ”program for confronting al Qaeda.200 The draft NSPD ’s goal was to “eliminate the al Qida network of terrorist groups as a threat to the United States and to friendly governments.”It called for a multi- year effort involving diplomacy,covert action,economic measures,law enforcement,public diplomacy,and if necessary military efforts.The State Department was to work with other governments to end all al Qaeda sanctu= aries,and also to work with the Treasury Department to disrupt terrorist financing.The CIA was to develop an expanded covert action program includ= ing significant additional funding and aid to anti-Taliban groups.The draft also tasked OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds to support this program were found in U.S.budgets from fiscal years 2002 to 2006.201 Rice viewed this draft directive as the embodiment of a comprehensive new strategy employing all instruments of national power to eliminate the al Qaeda threat.Clarke,however,regarded the new draft as essentially similar to the pro= posal he had developed in December 2000 and put forward to the new admin= istration in January 2001.202 In May or June,Clarke asked to be moved from his counterterrorism portfolio to a new set of responsibilities for cybersecu= rity.He told us that he was frustrated with his role and with an administration that he considered not “serious about al Qaeda.”203 If Clarke was frustrated,he never expressed it to her,Rice told us.204 The new administration had already begun exploring possible diplomatic options,retracing many of the paths traveled by its predecessors.U.S. envoys again pressed the Taliban to turn Bin Ladin “over to a country where he could face justice ”and repeated,yet again,the warning that the Taliban would be held responsible for any al Qaeda attacks on U.S.interests.205 The Taliban ’s representatives repeated their old arguments.Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told us that while U.S.diplomats were becoming more active on Afghanistan through the spring and summer of 2001,“it would be wrong for anyone to characterize this as a dramatic shift from the previous administration.”206 In deputies meetings at the end of June,Tenet was tasked to assess the prospects for Taliban cooperation with the United States on al Qaeda.The NSC staff was tasked to flesh out options for dealing with the Taliban.Revisiting these issues tried the patience of some of the officials who felt they had already been down these roads and who found the NSC ’s procedures slow.“We weren ’t going fast enough,”Armitage told us.Clarke kept arguing that moves against the Taliban and al Qaeda should not have to wait months for a larger review of U.S.pol- icy in South Asia.“For the government,”Hadley said to us,“we moved it along as fast as we could move it along.”207 As all hope in moving the Taliban faded,debate revived about giving covert assistance to the regime ’s opponents.Clarke and the CIA ’s Cofer Black renewed the push to aid the Northern Alliance.Clarke suggested starting with modest aid,just enough to keep the Northern Alliance in the fight and tie down al Qaeda terrorists,without aiming to overthrow the Taliban. ---- Arguments in the summer brought to the surface the more fundamental issue of whether the U.S.covert action program should seek to overthrow the regime,intervening decisively in the civil war in order to change Afghanistan ’s government.By the end of a deputies meeting on September 10,officials for= mally agreed on a three-phase strategy.First an envoy would give the Taliban a last chance.If this failed,continuing diplomatic pressure would be combined with the planned covert action program encouraging anti-Taliban Afghans of all major ethnic groups to stalemate the Taliban in the civil war and attack al Qaeda bases,while the United States developed an international coalition to undermine the regime.In phase three,if the Taliban ’s policy still did not change, the deputies agreed that the United States would try covert action to topple the Taliban ’s leadership from within.212 Ch 6 pp 204, 206 |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
From the notoriously conservative Washington Times September 3, 2003: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030903-120317-9393r.htm quote: Quotes that would be funny if they weren't tragic; “What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.” – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03 “The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.” Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03 The war “could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 2/7/03 “We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly... (in) weeks rather than months.” – Vice President Cheney 3/16/03 “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, 5/1/03 “I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again…and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed.” – Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03 [see above Washington Times article] “The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, [Congressional Testimony, 3/27/03] “Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” – White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer, 2/18/03 “Costs of any such intervention would be very small.” - Top White House Economist Glen Hubbard [CNBC, 10/4/02] Iraq will be “ an affordable endeavor ” that “ will not require sustained aid ” and will “be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion .” – Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively] “His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.” – Don Rumsfeld, 1/20/03 “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” –President Bush, 1/28/03 “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” –President Bush, 9/26/02 “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” –Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02 “[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” --Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.” – Colin Powell, 2/5/03 “Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03 --- “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” -President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03 “We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort…Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03 --- “We know where the [WMD] are.” - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03 “Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents - equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery.” –President Bush, 2/8/03 “Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program…Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.” - President Bush, 10/7/02 “[Saddam] is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”- VP Cheney, 3/24/02 “We believe Saddam has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” - VP Cheney, 3/16/03 “We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/10/02 “Iraqis were actively trying to pursue a nuclear weapons program.” - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 7/11/03 “We have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03 --- “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” – President Bush State of Union Adress 1/28/03 George Tenet has stated that he tried to have that statement removed... “I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box.” He then said on , “[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” -- Colin Powell 2/24/01 “There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.” – President Bush, 9/17/03 “You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.” – President Bush, 9/25/02 “Iraq [is] the central front in the war on terror.” – President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03 “There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” – Vice President Cheney http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/ Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 “I think it's not surprising that people make that connection” between Saddam and 9/11- with no evidence to back up his claim. “We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein ... had either direction or control of 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 9/16/03 There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04 "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04] “Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying Al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.” [National Journal, 8/9/03] "We're in deep trouble in Iraq. We need more regionalization. We need more help from our allies...to say, 'Well, we just must stay the course and any of you who are questioning are just hand-wringers,' is not very responsible." - Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 9/19/04 "We made serious mistakes...allowing those sanctuaries [for insurgents] has contributed significantly to the difficulties that we're facing, which are very, very significant." - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 9/19/04 "[The administration has done a] poor job of implementing and adjusting at times [in Iraq]...we do not need to paint a rosy scenario for the American people." - Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), 9/19/04 "We've got to get the reconstruction money out there... $18 billion is appropriated a year ago and only $1 billion has been spent...this is incompetence in the administration." - Sen. Richard Lugar, 9/19/04 "[Iraq is] on the path to lasting democracy and liberty" - President George W. Bush, Aug. 5 "I think Iraq's got a real crack at becoming a successful free system. And of course, they have a great deal going for them... they're making solid progress." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Aug. 6 "It's going well [in Iraq]." - Donald Rumsfeld, Aug. 23 "We're moving in the right direction [in Iraq]." - Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 24 "I'm very encouraged about [the situation in Iraq]." - Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 14 |
||
|
Craw Member
since 2003-09-11
Posts 73Scotland |
The basic fault in the Bush/Blair decision to launch a war on Iraq is the confusion between Saddam and terrorism. Saddam was a vicious dictator but he was a secular ruler who kept islamic fundamentalism under control. We have been perfectly content to co-operate with dodgy dictators before and, in fact, we continue to do so in our diplomacy all over the world. By deposing Saddam we have created a vacuum in which Islamic Terrorism can thrive. In other words in the name of curbing terrorism we have given it a huge boost. The fatuous logic behind the decision to wage war is breathtaking and I am absolutely gobsmacked that Bush and Blair are still in power, never mind still churning ouit their feeble justifications for de-stabilising the middle east yet further. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The world is full of Monday-morning quarterbacks, isn't it? And there is nothing in Kerry's "plan" on Iraq that George Bush is not already doing, with the exception of getting help from Kerry's favorite "allies". It doesn't look like Kerry will actually get that help either, at least from France who said yesterday that they are not changing their policy on involvement in Iraq. But maybe he'll have better luck with Germany, and he and Germany can solve all the problems themselves, since he doesn't think much of the help of the countries (42 countries I think it is) who have been with us all along...you know, the ones he calls the "coalition of the bribed". And before he insinuated on national television that Prime Minister Allawi was being dishonest about conditions in Iraq, maybe Kerry should actually have gone there to ascertain the actual conditions. Otherwise how can he credibly dispute that 15 out of the 18 provinces are secure and stable enough to hold elections "tomorrow". Is it realistic to frame one's assessment on the viability of the whole of the country on the news accounts of the 2 or 3 hot spots? Or maybe Kerry can just visit the Afghan/Pakistan hillside (in no official capacity of course, just as a concerned citizen against war, or maybe just a chance meeting with the enemy on a second honeymoon adventure) a couple of times, meet with bin Laden and his assorted cohorts, come home and hold a news conference (again, just as a concerned citizen against war) outlining the enemy's 7 point plan for our surrender and convince us that it would be much better for people to live under the tyranny of oppressors than to live in freedom. War is such a nasty business, after all. (sounds similar to the world would be much better with Saddam still in power than the 'chaos' that we are now witnessing, doesn't it?) But I don't think he'd be able to pull that one off a second time. The more that I learn of his past the more I distrust him. His role with regard to Viet Nam is outrageous. I don't see how anyone can trust the security of our nation to a man with his history of collaborating with and being a mouthpiece for the enemy. I now don't only see him as not being suitable presidential material, I actually think the guy should have been thrown in jail for treason. The real JFK, the one who uttered these words, is probably turning over in his grave: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: As amended by the Patriot Act … |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Denise, Stop trying to be Ann. It is neither entertaining nor informative. Oh wait, she's neither entertaining nor informative. Treason's a big word. But reading worldnetdaily and the rest, the best definition I can come up with is: You disagree with me. I'm pretty sure I know what you're alluding too. I'm also pretty sure that the reason your alluding and not documenting is that you know you're being rhetorical, not substantive. Hey, just like your buddy in the White House.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm not trying to be anybody, Brad, just speaking my convictions as everyone else here seems to be doing. And I didn't know the goal here was to be entertaining. My bad. I'll try to work on that. But here is some substantive information in the meantime: quote: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Timeline quote: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Keys quote: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040531140357545 quote: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=Genelin quote: And yeah, I'd call it treason. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Tacit admission (finally) that the Bush administration has fumbled. It's not exactly out of the playbook though -- the words are supposed to be 'the language of defeat and retreat' ad nauseum. If this was Friday night high school football this kind of sophistry might be legitimate but there are real people dying in real time. George Bush works for me. It is performance review time. Everyone who has a vote not only has the right but the obligation to evaluate the facts as best they are available. Comparing which candidate can come up with the best zinger in a debate or make the best out-of-context attack ad aren't sufficient for this voter. quote: This is partially true -- but there are a couple of points to consider -- many of the things the Bush administration is doing now it is doing because the Kerry campaign has pushed them into it. The other point is that it was Bush's 'miscalculations' that spilled the milk all over the floor to begin with. There are only so many ways to clean it up -- the question is -- can we trust the guy that spilled it to clean it up? (and not make another big mess along the way?) quote: What you, and about half of the country, just don't get is that America has gone from being leader of the free world in the eyes of our Western European Allies to being seen as a THREAT to world peace. If you even care to understand why they feel that way try reading the history of Europe -- and start with the early Twentieth Century. Bush has very little credibility -- a changing of the guard is about the only card we have to play in that hand. If you want to talk about treason -- try starting with your information source Col. North -- who would, by his own testimony had he not been granted immunity in exchange for it -- been convicted of treason. And, no, he never spent any time in prison -- his sentence for tax fraud, obstructing Congress and for lying to Congress was suspended. I just don't understand why conservatives like this guy -- he was a rank opportunist who was ready to roll on Reagan. He in fact did -- which I still don't think was convincingly factual. You have to assume that either Reagan was negotiating with terrorists -- in which case if North was the Boy Scout he makes himself out to be he would have taken the bullet -- or he was just out to further his own interests. On the other hand, discussing the release of POW's is not treason. Ask John McCain. What I don't understand is why liberals have to make Bush out to be a devil and conservatives have to make Kerry out to be a devil. If you don't like Kerry's ideas -- don't vote for him. If you don't like Bush's PERFORMANCE -- don't re-hire him. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
There's no reason that we can't work on improving relations with Europe. Nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean that we will always be in agreement. And it doesn't mean that we have to acquiesce to their wishes if there is disagreement. And it doesn't automatically mean that we are wrong if France, Germany and Russia do not agree with us. And doing something to gain their favor does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. Yes, real people are dying in real time. And because of their sacrifice, thousands are not dying any more under the regime of Saddam Hussein. And despite Kerry's attempts to equate Iraq with Viet Nam in describing it as a 'quagmire' for political gain, just as he did in the Viet Nam era, it's not. Schools and hospitals have reopened, clean drinking water, medicine and electricity are available, the locals are being trained for police and military positions so that they can protect their own country, and free elections are just around the corner. With the exception of the terrorist insurgents, the average Iraqi citizen thinks George Bush did something right. Very, very right. And if Kerry thinks Prime Minister Allawi is 'painting a rosy picture', maybe he should visit and see for himself. Bush has lots of credibility with the majority of Americans. In fact that is one of his strongest suits, according to the latest polls. Oliver North isn't running for President. If he were then his actions would warrant consideration in a comparison of candidates. Kerry did much more than attempt the release of POWs. And he ain't no John McCain. And a small stab at entertainment:  I know, I know, it needs work.  [This message has been edited by Denise (09-29-2004 12:01 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Now those links are entertaining. The conclusion, of course, is that, not just Kerry, but anyone who protested the Vietnam war is a traitor (and a communist). For anyone who's actually read the Daily World, the amount of concern for such a rag (even among my leftist friends, it's considered a joke), is little short of paranoid. You've traded your allusions for other's allusions. Don't suppose you can supply evidence that Kerry supplied State secrets to the Vietnamese government? Podhertz has simply got his history wrong. Mark Twain protested the occupation of the Philipines and he wasn't tried for treason. You know, it's interesting to discuss the Vietnam war precisely because so many seem to pin the problems there, not on flawed politicians, but on those that protested those flawed politicians. Why? Why indeed do so many Americans support the Bush administration? It's a question many of us ask ourselves over here. We really can't fathom why except perhaps that Bush is seen as one of your own and you protect your own right or wrong. I don't know, I keep looking at Bush's record, I keep seeing the Right wing press avoid the record (It's really a shame too, the Nation Review used to be quite interesting and innovative.) There is really no reason that we shouldn't have a world wide integrated strategy to fight Al Quaeda and other Muslim extremist groups. That we don't is a failure of leadership, not a sign of strength. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Great way to avoid honestly discussing an issue, Brad...malign any and all sources that don't validate your view of the world. No, no one said all protestors were traitors. There's protest and then there's crossing the line. Kerry crossed the line when he and members of the group that he was involved in met with the enemy in a time of war and became their mouthpiece in an attempt to undermine troop morale and the will of the people to win the war. They falsely portrayed the troops as savages, worse than criminals, to achieve their goals. They funded operatives like Jane Fonda to encourage troops to lay down their arms and desert their companies. They lied to the troops about our views here at home and they lied to us here at home about the conduct of the troops. They chipped away and chipped away relentlessly with their propaganda until they ripped the country in half and had the politicians running scared. And they won. They did more than protest. They orchestrated our defeat. Congress defunded the military efforts, our troops were withdrawn, and shortly afterwards Saigon fell. Do you remember watching our last minute efforts to evacuate as many of the South Vietnamese as we could on T.V.? Floods of people trying to scramble to safety, out of the country before the onslaught that they knew was coming. We could only take a fraction. Do you remember the horror that we felt as we lifted off watching those on the ground that we had to leave behind, knowing their probable fate? I didn't know until recently that Kerry was one of the main movers and shakers in all of this. He didn't merely protest flawed politicians. He did the bidding of the enemy at the expense of truth, at the expense of the POWs, at the expense of those who served their country honorably, and at the expense of those left behind to die at the hands of the Viet Cong. Selling State secrets to the enemy is not the only form of treason. His actions certainly, at the very least, gave aid and comfort to the enemy, so much so that his picture hangs in that war museum in Hanoi. And the man has the gall to run for President. Maybe most Americans see in Bush, despite his flaws, something entirely lacking in Kerry...a basic integrity and honor. And yes, maybe most of us do see Bush as one of our own, and don't see that as a bad thing. I doubt many see Kerry that way. They probably see him more as the "internationalist" that he described himself as those many years ago, and maybe really don't trust that he would put America's best interests at the top of his list, or maybe they wonder if he would even be able to discern what is or is not in America's best interest. Not everything can be blamed on a failure of leadership. There's nothing stopping those not already participating in the fight against terrorism from rolling up their sleeves and jumping in to help out (it's not like they haven't been asked)...other than their hatred of Bush, perhaps. Maybe they should just get over themselves. And if they can't, then maybe they should set about to produce a strategy amongst themselves, more to their liking, to fight terrorism in their own way, the way they think it should best be handled. Maybe those leaders should start showing some leadership. At least they would be doing something constructive instead of criticizing those who are already doing something about the problem. The enemy that we are facing requires as much opposition as possible. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
[sigh] Well, at least you've come out and said it. America didn't lose Vietnam, it was bamboozled by those hippy types. Do you know how many times this argument has been used to comfort bruised egos? How could Vietnam have been won? But, you see, here's the problem with your 'aid and comfort the enemy' line: It can be used against anybody you disagree with. You're against the war, you're helping the enemy. In a certain sense, this is true, but if that's the definition of treason, then the half of that split nation you mentioned were all traitors. Conclusion: dissent is not allowed. This is the same problem with potential threat. You see, as long as you stay, general enough, you can use it to argue that any country, someday, will be a potential threat. This is, again, true enough, but it's not an explanation or a justification for going to war because it can always be used. These are some of the problems. I'm sorry if I've maligned your sources, but I really don't see a substantive discussion there. That is, I don't see any real justification for calling Kerry a traitor or for going to war with Iraq. As far as France and Germany fighting terrorism: they are. Nevertheless, there is no coordinated effort against Al Queda right now because Bush has no credibility as a world leader. Right now, he seems to have simply lost touch with reality. Can Kerry get it back? Honestly, I don't know, but I think he deserves a shot. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad, I've underlined below where Kerry, in my opinion, committed treason: There's protest and then there's crossing the line. Kerry crossed the line when he and members of the group that he was involved in met with the enemy in a time of war and became their mouthpiece in an attempt to undermine troop morale and the will of the people to win the war. They falsely portrayed the troops as savages, worse than criminals, to achieve their goals. They funded operatives like Jane Fonda to encourage troops to lay down their arms and desert their companies. They lied to the troops about our views here at home and they lied to us here at home about the conduct of the troops. They chipped away and chipped away relentlessly with their propaganda until they ripped the country in half and had the politicians running scared. And they won. They did more than protest. They orchestrated our defeat. Congress defunded the military efforts, our troops were withdrawn, and shortly afterwards Saigon fell. Dissent is a protected right. Merely being accused of treason for using your right of dissent is something that would be a hard charge to make stick, at least in this country, because it is a clearly defined right in the Constitution. And the fact that some could attempt to use "aid and comfort to the enemy" to define mere protest as treason does not change the fact that that is not what happened in this case. Kerry and his group did more than protest. They met with the enemy in a time of war, in no official State capacity (such as diplomats or ambassadors), came back to America and not only advocated the enemy's 'plan', as if that weren't bad enough, but deliberately fomented unrest and dissent by lying, lying to us about troop conduct, and lying to the troops about our view of the war and of them. And those 'hippy types' were as much pawns in this scheme as we all were. Kerry and his group created, by their lies and relentless propaganda, the very reality that they wished to create, the end of the war. But at what price? There are no guarantees that Vietnam could have been won, but you sure can't win when you give up and surrender. The shame is that we'll never know now. The shame is that people who could have had a chance to live lives out from under the oppresive domination and abusiveness of communism, aren't. If Kerry has demonstrated his inability to discern where the line is when it comes to something so basic as loyalty to one's country, especially in a time of war, how can he be trusted to use proper judgment in leading that country in these complicated and perilous times? How can we be sure that he wouldn't advocate the 'talking points' of the terrorists, and attempt to persuade people to make concessions to them for the sake of 'peace'. I'd like to have peace as much as the next person, and I'm not saying that Bush has done everything right, but when it comes to a leader, I think it's most important to have one that you know won't cave in to the enemy and sell you down the river for a false peace that comes at too high a price. We can debate Iraq until the cows come home. Was it right, was it wrong, was it a diversion from the war on terror, or an integral part of the wider war on terror, not only freeing people from a brutal dictator, a terrorist himself, but also ensuring a viable staging area for positioning our forces to deal with Iran and Syria. Honest and decent people hold opposing views. But we're there now and we have to finish what we started and ensure the stabilization of the area. I trust Bush to see it through. I'm not so sure that Kerry would. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
