Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen:
In general, I have a different picture of what war is and what war isn’t. A quick look through history shows that all of the above happens in wartime. So in the end this is a typical war.

On OBL, if he were captured, I don’t think it would change all that much. In fact if all of Al Queda were captured/killed or whatever, I don’t see a big change, because another terrorist group would start where Al-Qaeda ended.

This war is against religious extremist worldwide. Quite frankly as I approach my 50th birthday next year, I don’t expect to outlive it.

Certain systems seem to produce terrorist. Those systems have to be changed. Iraq is a first generation change. When Bush leaves office I would expect there to be a reasonable democracy and maybe 20000 US troops out in the desert some place as back up.

In terms of the UN (and NATO). The UN was designed to prevent another European War. It is still organized to keep the Soviet Union and the US from destroying the World. I think it’s irrelavant because it is designed for a purpose that’s time has come and gone.

It needs to be recharted to the new realities. The European Union is a power of the future. Wouldn’t it make sense to kick England and France off of the Security Counsel and have the European Union have a vote? What about India? I can’t support the UN until it is reorganized to face this new era that we find ourselves.

I suppose after reading your thoughts that most of it is true, but my come back is so what? You have basically described pretty near every war the US has fought in. Bad intelligence, poor decisions etc. have been a part of every war.

I do believe that opponents to war have a great roll to play. Accountability is very important in a country like ours.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 6, 2004 03:44 PM

you think the republicans voted???….???it was the machines! 1000 bush votes turning up in a precinct where they are 80% democrat registered and only 365 votes cast there? the three republican owned voting machine manufacturers with one vowing bush to be re-elected…..give me a break.
I see electronic machines rigged everyday I fill my car with an 18 gallon capacity tank, now takes 18 to 19.5 gallons.
how can you win? I drive across country every year…most red areas are where the faith based groups were given the rights to many radio frquencies (thanks Powell) and how about the only other stations being just Democrat bashing ones.

Posted by: eaamon at November 6, 2004 03:51 PM

It’s worse than you think…
This story will be bubbling beneath the surface for some time:
http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
It’s covered on CNN news this morning too. I’ve checked the statistics; while the ustogether site is partisan, their statistics are accurate, and the graphs plotted correctly. Of course, the interpretation might be another matter. In a nutshell, Floridians used two types of voting machines, E-Touch and Op-Scan. Voters using E-Touch machines, whether in rural or urban counties, showed statistically consistent trends. However, voters in rural areas voted in unusually high numbers for Bush, and Democrats in unusually low numbers, but only in those rural districts using the Op-Scan voting machines.
Coincidence? That is possible. We all know there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics. The largest Freedom of Information filing in the countries’ history has been filed, so we’ll see.
What is even more amazing is that this isn’t something Bush or Rove or even Jeb Bush would necessarily be behind. One savvy tech could do it with some preparation.
Perhaps it’s coincidence. But with Bush, whether it’s terrorism or voting in Florida, one has to wonder.

Posted by: Don at November 6, 2004 04:38 PM

Our intelligence of Iraq was in question to me in the ‘70 when Sadam’s army was listed as the 4th largest in the world…later that decade they couldn’t beat the 10th of Iran.
Why was Sadam so bad didn’t we nuke ( nukular for W) our own army in the 50’s as a test. Sam Donaldson was amongst the victims then and verified it on live tv too when it was finally publicised. He was sworn to secrecy. I think he said he has cancer too.
We went into Afghanistan for 50 al-qaeda and come out capturing 8000 taliban who gave-up,3000+ mysteriously vanishing in the desert. why are we still there?
Where did Bin Laden come from in the first place???? Most are not old enough to go back to WWII where we beat Rommell (Desert Fox) to Saudi Arabia for the oil (HmMMmMMMmm) to defeat the Germans then. Bin Laden’s family was removed from rule and rights to inherit the rule of the country by US and an “American PUPPET” left to rule. Yet people still wonder why he is so P.O.’d at the US. The rest of al-qaeda were removed from inheritances and power there. During the 60’s there were several coups attempted but they were all thwarted by US intelligence and hired US private security guards.
Again why Afghanistan???? perhaps it was the Lewinsky incident and the religious right pounding on him daily to get two girls out of jail there.. they were given 4 years jail time for violating laws pertaining to preaching. They served 2 1/2 years before Clinton got them out. I figured this out when Driving across the country in the area near Tenn., Virginia and North Carolina. I scanned the radio and found a radio call-in show (religious.) the called was asking if it was safe again to send in their crusaders into Afghanistan….this was one day after we went into Iraq. That is why Afghanistan.
Iraq was a smoke screen as to what we were doing in Afghanistan. I did wonder why as there were 110 cells in the US at that time, 75 cells (each cell has 4 or more) in Canada and over 80 training in the Phillipines. Most of that info was published in Canada as they were monitoring them all.

Posted by: eaamon at November 6, 2004 04:59 PM

Craig-
Your line of logic is as follows: All wars involve mistakes, bad intelligence, and other problems, therefore any war that contains such things should not be viewed as a failure.

That strikes me as somewhat unsound.

If the main reason for going to war remains valid perhaps having a justification or two rendered invalid would not be such a problem. But the main reason for attacking? The liberation of the Iraqi’s and the rehabilitation of the nation were secondary motives to this war, the primary being the defense of his nation against the threat of terrorist wielding Rogue-nation-provide weapons of mass destruction.

That primary threat never existed. I guess you call the liminal threat, the threat that took us over the threshold from “We’ll do this later.” to “We have to take care of it right now.” It was what drew in otherwise skeptical folks to become supporters of the war.

The motives for the war become more important because we’re starting the war. We can’t claim that we or somebody else was attacked, and we were just avenging that. No, we must have a new and compelling reason for going to war. Therefore, the motives become even more important.

Both the question of relevancy and the question of legitimacy feed into the need to have those weapons and those links to terrorists show up. But that’s not all.

We also happened to get into a little dispute with the UN over whether the weapons existed, and the urgency of the war. So, you can add the need to be vindicated in that dispute, because our president circumvented that organization, who was contradicting our assertions, in order to start the war. So three concerns rested on whether the weapons and terrorist links showed up: relevance, legitimacy, and vindication of our actions.

Whether he intended to, or he didn’t, whether WMDS and Terrorists links were important or not, his actions, and his statements rested a great deal of importance on what we would find when we invaded. Whatever Bush wished to do next with Iraq became irrelevant.

So where are we now? We’ve got the british there for now. We’ve got ourselves entangled in a guerilla war, we have very little chance of getting international help (like it or not, most of it will come through the U.N. if it comes), we are bankrupting ourselves more and more, and our army is not available to react to any other world event, should the need arise.

We’re not in very good shape. Bush is relying, I feel, on the best case scenario, and by extension, so are you.

Capturing Osama would have sent a strong message to those who attack our country. Nothing mixed about the person who brought down our building brought down himself. Destroying al-Qaeda would have also been destroying a very capable, very well managed and very manipulative organization once and for all.

I think that al-Qaeda is partly an accident of history, with certain characteristics that come of the Afghanistan conflict. If we had destroyed it, we might have broken the back of any such islamic movement meant to carry on that tradition. Of course, now things are worse because we only did the job halfway. Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

The problem is, Craig, you and Bush want to remake a world in our image that wants to develop in it’s own. instead of affecting that change for the betterment of our interests, you’re beating your head against the wall on the matter, and alienating these new powers as they form, which will almost certainly plant the seeds of anti-American bias in both regions.

And in this day and age, that discontent and disrespect will not stay in its native land, it will come our way. You think that you’re strengthening our nation. In reality, you’re hogtying it, denying us future options and opportunities.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2004 06:44 PM

Craig-
Bush’s people never thought ahead, really. They never thought to themselves that having the soldiers to seal boarders, make our presence substantial and preserve law and order might be crucial to turning our almost inevitable victory into a lasting peace. They only thought in military terms, as if victory would take care of everything. In every war before hand, where we won and held onto the territory involved, soldiers in theatre never were killed in combat. This is mainly because before this war, we never had the lousy idea that we could do the minimum and get away with it.

Because of that, the opportunity to peacefully rehabilitate and withdraw from Iraq was gone within days of our victory. Now we are having to juggle running battles with insurgents, battles we don’t have the initiative on, with the tasks of reconstituting a nations economy, government and law enforcement functions.

It’s true that in war, bad decisions are made, but I’ve never seen an administration make so many, deny so many were bad, or be so intent on carrying out the same fatally flawed strategies after the fact. And despite such problems in the operations, nobody has been forced to resign, nobody’s been fired, and absolutely nothing has changed.

If you valued accountability so much, why’d you vote for Bush?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2004 07:06 PM

Stephen:

We have a fundamental disagreement. I see Iraq as part of the war on terror. You see it as separate. I see Iraq as a battle not a war. I see it as defending america. I don’t see it as remaking the world in another image. I see it as making sure our citizens are protected.

I also see it as connected to 9/11, but not in the way you think. When Bannister ran the minute mile, he set the bar which was soon after broken again and again. I think 9/11 did just that for terrorists. Terrorists now how a higher mark to hit to rattle the world. With that new standard, Sadaam had to go.

In terms of mistakes along the way, I would beg to think differently than how you discribe. I would say that mistake in war is inevitable and should not mean the cause is not just. I support the war and am not disappointed in how it has turned out. I expect more mistakes along the way.

So in the end, since the decision was made by both political parties, both having with the same information here we are.

So what are you going to do?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 6, 2004 07:12 PM

Comment deleted - policy not followed. — WatchBlog Manager

Posted by: Pete Krausa at November 6, 2004 09:07 PM

We have a fundamental disagreement. I see Iraq as part of the war on terror. You see it as separate.

We agree that it’s part of the war, now, actually. What we disagree on, was if it was part of the war then. We’ve had more than a year to find the extensive kinds of documents that would prove the conspiracy, more than a year to find the Armaments, and we haven’t found it. If the standard for considering whether this was a part of the war on terrorism is whether we were facing a terrorist threat from there, then that standard has been failed miserably.

I see Iraq as a battle not a war. I see it as defending america. I don’t see it as remaking the world in another image. I see it as making sure our citizens are protected.

The best way to protect America now is to take care of the urgent threat of al-Qaeda, not the distant, potential threat of the region in general. As for whether this is a war or a battle, we’ve got a hundred and forty thousand troops on the ground. It’s a war. You may see the outcome of Iraq as inconsequential, but I see it as very important, we win this, or things get much worse.

I also see it as connected to 9/11, but not in the way you think. When Bannister ran the minute mile, he set the bar which was soon after broken again and again. I think 9/11 did just that for terrorists. Terrorists now how a higher mark to hit to rattle the world. With that new standard, Sadaam had to go.

What does Saddam have to do with that? And why did we have to abandon the extermination of the true threat that is al-Qaeda to take care of the potential threat some people saw in Saddam?

Mistakes in war are not necessary inevitable. Some you can’t avoid, others you can. Some are a simple matter of planning right. Others you can’t plan for. The amounts of troops we would need could be planned for because we had already occupied other areas in NATO exercises, namely Kosovo and Bosnia. The Bush administration was also informed that an armed insurgency in this region well known for its volatility was a big possibility. They could have prepared for that.

There are any number of things that we could have and should prepared for. But according to you, everything is chance. Everything is uncertain. You want to believe that, because nobody can be blamed for the unexpected, and nobody expects the Spanish inquisition. But that’s not the case, and you haven’t provided the evidence for why Bush ignored the recommendations of those officers who told them we’d need more troops, more armor, and better strategy concerning the occupation.

Stop telling me nobody could have prevented these problems. I’ve seen the evidence with my own eyes that people were telling the Bush administration the necessary strategies.

Frankly, you should disappointed. In all the other occupations we’ve done after WWII and since, we haven’t lost soldiers to hostile fire, period. Here, the occupation’s been worse than the war was. In fact, the argument could be made that we’re fighting the real war now, that this is major combat. Fact is, we’ve lost cities and territory in a country that was supposed to be tightly under our control. We’ve had almost a year to bring this situation around, and it’s not being done. We’ve taken back one or two cities and we’re still fighting and losing soldiers.

Things are not going according to plan. It’s time to get a different plan and improve the situation. We cannot afford another year, much less another four years of this, and things will not get better the longer we’re at this.

It’s time for a reality check. I’m going to make this point and make it bluntly: you and I may have different opinions about this war, but in the end, there is only one war, and it is only going one way. Now neither of us knows things perfectly, but I get the idea that you’re getting most of your thinking on the war from people who are speaking about it in very intellectual terms, not practical.

I really would rather not debate you on how the standards change, because for me, the standards are pretty simple, and they always have been. If a nation is a threat to us, we confront them. If they are just about to attack, we attack them first, or we prepare for their assault then counterattack. In the meantime, we go out there and find out what we need to know about how things are going. We find ways to ingratiate ourselves to the rest of the world, build alliances, do what it takes to make sure that there are as few impediments to our understanding of the world and our ability to act in it as possible.

Unfortunately, Bush is doing things the hard way. Unfortunately doing things the hard way as president means people are getting killed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2004 09:17 PM

Comment deleted for soliciting. WatchBlog Manager

Posted by: AmigaPhil at November 7, 2004 12:40 AM

Even though Kerry lost this election, there is a major significance in the victories he did win.

The states/regions that were directly affected by 9/11 — New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, DC, and Northern Virginia — were states Kerry won mostly by a comfortable margin.

So did these states, who lived through 9/11 first-hand, vote for someone who—as Bush claimed—make America weaker? Who doesn’t understand how to fight a war on terror? Who doesn’t understand the complexities of the larger, strategic, more intelligent way to combat terrorism’s root causes? I don’t think so. To me it showed that these people who were attacked knew that going into Iraq was a complete distraction from global counterterrorism and they didn’t want troops to die in their name fighting a war we didn’t have to fight.

Posted by: Anisha at November 7, 2004 02:58 AM

Ok this Blog has raised my spirit after this dark past week. I have not been filled with any hope over the past several days. We were once the party that stood for caring for the poor and the weakest, now we seem afraid to stand up for those values. Is this why we did not win?

I think there must be a battle for the heart and soul of our party.

I hear that many say we should move to the right and “moderate” the party message. Haven’t we been doing that for the past 3 elections? It wasn’t successful enough in 2000 to prevent Bush from stealing the election, moving further right and accepting Bush’s program lost us the Senate and weakened us in the House, and this year our failure to move hard left while still being tagged as “Liberals” gave our opponents the largest majorities in Congress while holding the Presidency since before FDR. And this was against a president who turned a $5 Trillion dollar surplus into a $10 Trillion dollar debt, went to war without adequate facts and angered the entire world, Lost over 1.6 million jobs, while at the same time accomplishing almost nothing for the working class people of this country except a small “tax break” that went overwhelmingly to those who didnt need it.

I am afraid if we continue to move the right as some suggest, our opponents will gain there last remaining obstacle to passing whatever they want, a 60 vote filibuster proof majority. (Though it looks like they may just change the rules in the next congress and remove our ability to slow down their legislation)

We have to be the party of FDR once again, the party that truly looks out for those in need. FDR won the presidency 4 times in a row and maintain massive majorities in Congress for 30 years. We need to campaign on the ideas of true Universal Health care coverage (not the half-ass plan of JFK), freedom of choice for all women, including those who cannot afford family planning services, making those who are exploiting us pay their fair share of taxes (i.e. multi-national corporations, yeah the ones that keep outsourcing our jobs), funding education to the level that produces results, and finally not going to war unless we are actually attacked.

I wonder is this too much to ask for, or will we just get a Republican-lite Democrat who is too afraid to say “Yes, I am a liberal dammit!!”

Posted by: liberalsAREnotTHEenemy at November 7, 2004 06:28 AM

The party of excuses, anger, and hate. Maybe you should put that in a 527 ad in 2008

All of this is just too funny. Keep on making fun of Bush, but the reality is that he will retire undefeated and that has got to just eat away at some of you intellectuals. I love it.

Posted by: Praetorian at November 7, 2004 07:44 AM

Be the party of FDR again oh Lord I hope not…….we now have generations of people that are so conviced that the government is the end solutions to all of the personnal problems based on there right to make individual choices that they make ie……not taking advantage of educationing themselves on trully how to survive in this world. The first lesson to learn is that the government is not resposible for your life, health, jobs, home, kids, and money..u the individual who decide to make choices in their life should hold themselves accountable for there actions…….If you go to public school and never study then its your fault and if u get out of school and still do not make any kind of an effect to excercise your brain by learning new things to keep u a viable worker then u deserve what u get……..if u decide to have a child and u dont have any money and adoption is not a good solution for u then you get whatever job u can and take care of your children…..If you have a job and u dont learn to save and buget and invest your money then u deserve to be in your state of madness…….and you do not have to make a lot of money to save money……..and if we would stand up to this government about how much money is taken from anyone that makes income it’s crazy……..if u work then u should get your entire paycheck………then guess what u have more money for u and ur family and u could take care of them better………the goverment is also not resposible for your retirement…..how people even attempt to make plans for retirement when the back of their minds that social securty will be there from them (the government will take care of me) wont they be surprised when it it dries up. It is just amazing how people put so much trust in the government on surviving and not trust themselves to stand up on their own two feet and learn how to suvrive and think for themselves. jkm

Posted by: getagrip at November 7, 2004 08:13 AM

Praetorian. Hmm. The guard of the Roman Emperor. Is that a hint to your politics?

Seriously though, it doesn’t bother me intellectually, because I know Bush will likely be as divisive to his party as Johnson were to theirs, and that will benefit us in the end.

Viscerally, though, it’s a hateful thing, because I know Bush will get more Americans killed. We have the anger and perhaps the hate, but what we don’t have are the excuses.

You’ve excused an incompetent justification of a war, it’s incompetent planning and management, a diversion from the total defeat of our true enemy. You excuse an almost five hundred billion dollar yearly deficit, and almost ever other screwup made by Bush. Bush’s presidency is essentially one of his followers perpetually apologizing for why he’s not doing things better. The Republicans have constantly had to play the ambiguities, uncertainties and whatever other loopholes available. It’s always fog of war, march of history, nobody could anticipate this. And in order to keep this up, Bush has stifled investigations into 9/11, heavily censored and criticized press coverage, and classified tons of material that had no national security value. I don’t envy you guys when the Bush administration files get declassified.

This is a juggling act that Bush’s going to play hell keeping up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2004 08:18 AM

we now have generations of people that are so conviced that the government is the end solutions to all of the personnal problems

Really… I don’t know anyone who thinks that. Oh, except for some Republicans who think the government is best suited to dictate our private lives.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 7, 2004 10:18 AM

Posted by Stephen d. “This is why Democrats like me have been fighting so hard, because we do not see how this nation can be set back on the right course with the Republicans in power.”

Let me start by saying im neither a Democrat or Republican, im not religious but do have a faith. Now by this statement you made. You forget the meaning of the word conservative & liberal. How is a liberal to get this country on track when all liberals in the senate do is raise taxes. It’s like that black presidential candidate Alan Keyes was debating Barak Obama and mentioned that liberals only raise taxes to throw money at the problem not the solution. They were talking about abortion and some of the statistics of it’s effects on the colored populace being the African American primarily. Basically this is how it goes from a non-biased perspective.

We all know about the civil rights movement and how groups like the ACLU and NAACP have broaden the term “civil rights” to include gay’s and relgion. Now some people (mostly liberals) who tend to be minorities believe their still is/should be a civil rights movement while others (conservatives) believe that civil rights should end! Now from a liberals perspective, Civil rights is needed to help further black’s, asian’s, and latino’s. That way they can have a “chance” in the American system which is a good and just cause. If more minorities have jobs and realestate we/they are less likely to participate in crime. Now from a conservatives view. Civil Rights has allready done it’s corse. Under the Bush administration more minorities then ever in U.S. history have entered the middle class which for many years were only held by whites. They also believe that in order for Civil Rights to continue under a Democratic gov’t the taxes will have to skyrocket. Sure wellfare is a good thing and allows the poor to have some basic medical coverage but none the less in order to continue C/R taxes must be raised because only a Democrat would support such a thing. Now for my personal non-biased view. What Dr.King, Malcolm X, & Cesar Chavez fought for was good and all and it let colored people get their foot in the door “Civil Rights”.But look at what it’s done to black and latino community. Wellfare is a crutch that these two groups have become dependent on by being Liberal. They allowed it to corupt their thinking that- as long as my check comes at the end of the month I’ll be ok…, no reason in getting an education or trying to improve my way of life. You understand by crutch I mean when you get a broken bone and the doctor tells you to use “this” along with rehab and you only use this by time your “healed” you body is no longer at %100 it’s at %60 because the muscle has paralysis. It’s the same way for wellfare. Democrats want to give more money to poor blacks so poor blacks can get weaker and weaker. Im not saying it’s racism but that whats happening in every black community. I have cousins who vote left only to recieve the check and abort their unwanted seed and their not my age (19) their in their mid 30’s to late 40’s and it’s just not my family its alot of colored people. Sure they are those very few who may invest that check into some good until they need it no longer but most who do invest in narcotics (my cousin). So by Alan keys and republicans saying that democrats throw money at the cituation and not the problem this is what they mean. Liberals aren’t saying hey lets set a deadline so these black people can stop begging us for money, or that wellfare is the gov’t way to help you out of the financial whole you’ve been in so here’s a helping hand so you can get out. I’d have to say very few blacks and latinos understand this and those are the ones who are educated and conservative. Not to be bashing liberals but it’s like you handing money to your child to give to a homeless person. Then your child ask you for more and more. Chances are your gonna politely tell your child (in front of the bum) thats enough now because you know if you continue that your gonna be broke and you’ll have problems on your hand. Now you see the child was the liberal, not thinking of tomorrow or next week if you give that bum your parents paycheck cause when your young you think money grows on trees. Now the parent knows better he/she is wise with age and knows that something can go wrong at any moment and that you will need money. The parent is conservative and im sure you all are conservative to, socially. Now when you look at it from a bigger point of view it’s the same with well fare and Civil Rights. Blacks and Latinos don’t need it anymore, sure the business world isn’t allways gona be fair but now the ball is in our hands and it’s up to us to use it. Im sure Dr. King would be appalled if he saw whats his work was being used for in today’s world. Now on the grounds of abortion being gnostic (not agnostic) I believe it is wrong and although the/my understanding of the bible say’s that you can’t make a law against sin/immorality. With that said jesus in particular said “give unto cesar what is do cesar” meaning if your a christian and your gov’t makes a law you are to obey it as if god had mad it himself. Now with abortion being solely a liberal issue. It’s you liberals who are killing off yourselves. Noticed that since abortion has been liberalized (i believe 1971) only liberal minded people have freely been getting abortions not the conservatives. So in a way your letting the enemy win by having fewer future voters that change the way your lives may be when your 80. Imagine the potential of all these young unborn children who are murdered by their parents who may one day have been the next Jerry Rice, Frank Sinatra or could have done some other great achievement. No one can say for sure that an unborn baby will be this or that and to see so many children destroyed is a damn shame. I believe on one of Stephens other blogs someone talked about over population in India and China. Well look were all of the greatest minds for the next 60+ years are coming from… China & India So while the the republican party is groing, the liberals are killing themselves off and are being replaced by unaborted individuals who vote republican like Arnold Schwarzeneger. Once again im not saying liberals are stupid but don’t think things threw. My prime example is Kerry not debating how he would change the country and war in Iraq in detail instead of refuting everything that Bush say’s. I remember in debate class my teacher allways told me to look at both sides that way you can find a way to beat you opponent. Kerry did everything Bush wanted him to do which was get up there and throw around big words that the average liberal can’t comptemplate. Those debates weren’t really geared twoard the public and the popular vote (thats why I didn’t vote) they for e the electoral college and educated people who can tell who’s the next president. I mean every since clinton first ran I’ve been perdicting who will win presidentcy and havent been wrong once. Even seeing the old kennedy vs. nixion debate I could tell which one was trully educated (i will admit nixon later turned out to be the smartest of the two) but if you can watch it over again (the debates do so) and Kerry keeps beating around the Bush with a general answer like WE WILL WIN IRAQ to get the crowd while Bush say’s we’ll do everything we can to no matter what it takes. So you see it’s the choise of words they used as to which one was speaking to the popular vote and which to the electoral. It’s like who would you rather have running the country Larry Flint or Polly shore. As funa and as radical Polly is he has no experience he’s not a business man and business is what drives the country. Also someone mentioned that Bush was a CEO, well what do you expect CEO’s allways pump up the product. It’s called counter intelligence. We tell Russia we have more nukes then we really do and they go bankrupt which ends the cold war. & finally I wish to point the the finger not at Bush or at Kerry or liberals in general for this matter. There are no WMD’s in Iraq or just about anyother Arab country. How I know…, my godfather was the deputy director of a senate sub-commitee with the National Securty Counsole. He told us back in 91 that there would be another gurlf war and in march 2003 he called back to confirm that. He has clearance to documents that not even the president can get to see. His job is to look at all aspects of a black budget program then stand before congress and coarse them into giving xammount of money to the DARPA,DNI, and the rest of the military/intell community. He said it all boiled down to oil which im sure you heard. But what their not telling you both Dem’s & Reb’s is that the war on terror is a front for YOU. I’ll explain in my next post good bye for now

Posted by: zacc at November 7, 2004 10:32 AM

Please, tell me someone from the Republican side is going to challenge zacc’s claim that it’s a conservative thing to want civil rights to end? And that civil rights is just a minority issue? I don’t think I have the energy to do it myself, and it would mean more coming from a conservative anyway.

Posted by: Jarin at November 7, 2004 12:04 PM

I think the Vote or Die campaign would be much more effective if they came up with a more intelligent slogan and ditched “P.Diddy.’

Posted by: Ed at November 7, 2004 01:29 PM

Civil Rights isn’t a temporary issue, any more than walking and breathing are temporary issues for human beings. While Affirmative action and certain programs concerning the issue may be transitory, the need for the enforcement of equality in this nation is profound and permanent. It’s a homeland security issue, too. We do not need a permanent underclass, the discontent of which inspires fanaticism.

As for abortion, I’m certain both India and China use the procedure. And I’m very certain that liberals are not naturally selecting themselves for extinction. Also, I have rarely covered reproductive rights on my blog except to suggest that the issue is not the be-all and end-all of moral issues. I think such focus is part of what’s aiding and abetting the culture of dishonesty and dysfunction.

But aside from that I hope, zacc, that you keep to the subject.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2004 01:44 PM

It’s truly amazing that all the comments I’ve seen so far think they are unbiased and truthful. I voted for Bush. I’m a biracial, Christian woman who happens to love this country and I want to see it protected from terrorists.I guess you could call me a conservative Republican. As to civil rights, I’m a conservative and I don’t want it to end. I also don’t like the idea of anyone or anyplace, job or school, having to accept me beacause of the color of my skin. I work damn hard for the few things I’ve got and I don’t want anyone saying I got that because I’m a colored woman.In regards to liberals.. I don’t need a champion for anything. That’s good that there are people who want to change the laws to protect the poor and the weak, I just think I don’t need to pay for them. By the way, the main reason I voted for Bush was because he’s a Christian man and not afraid to let anyone know that.All this is irrelavant at the end of the day when we are facing our judgemant from God. I don’t hate anyone because of their views. I respect their opinion and hope they can respect mine. God bless.

Posted by: kimf at November 7, 2004 02:31 PM

Jarin:

I have voted for every Republican candidate for president since Gerald bumping his poor head Ford. Hopefully that qualifies me as a Republican. I will be happy to your concerns about Zack’s post. As you say he says that conservatives want civil rights to end, and that they are minority issues.

Civil rights are not Republican, Democrat or minority issues. Civil rights go to the deepest fiber of what being an American is all about. Should Civil rights end, America would end. At least the America that we know and love.

In civil discourse we will of course disagree over this issue, just as we disagree over every other fundamental of democracy, such as freedom of speech, or press or religion or whatever. That does not diminish their importance, or the fact that most of us who disagree with each other in forums such as this, would together give our lives defending the concept of civil rights.

Liberals were absolutely right in the sixties to lead the way on extending voting rights to blacks. Conservatives are now pushing for certain rights for the unborn. (the right to life).

So while probably disagree with my liberal friends over definitions are priorities, and applications, I believe just as strongly in civil rights as anyone here.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 7, 2004 08:22 PM

Civil rights

I have not changed the main thrust of my position on civil rights since I first had a position on civil rights. I believe we should judge people by the contents of the characters, not the color of their skins. I have come to understand that we also have to pay similar attention to gender. I think most conservatives agree with this formulation.

I personally would extend this to sexual preference, and I support gay marriage, but I recognize that most conservatives, many liberals and about 70% of the American population disagree with me. I believe this will change. At least I hope it will.

Posted by: jack at November 7, 2004 11:11 PM

Stephen,

The thought just occurred to me after reading many other reassertions that our problems have not gone away with a Bush victory, as you’ve effectively stated. We may have just suffered a heartbreaking defeat, but Kerry supporters are acting as if it was their message and vision was validated on Tuesday!

There has not been the expected gloating Bush apologists at my blogs door, NYTimes’ David Brooks is embarrassed and offering up flawed arguments to deflect the ‘moral values’/fear/intolerance winning October Surprise trifecta.

Andrew Sullivan and Alan Simpson are spinning the Democrat’s arrogant, self-inflicted problem as being elitists Jesus-haters, who cannot connect with his Bush Majority flock. Here it is 6 days and a Bush claim to a ‘mandate’ later, so why is Karl Rove spinning the election results?

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 8, 2004 02:19 AM

Sorry for the mix up people I stayed up late last night and wrote that post at 5-6 a.m. What I ment was Affirmative Action! That the majority of Conservatives believe that it should end. Like Kimf said. She worked hard for what she has and dosen’t want people weather black or white to look at her accomplishments as only being achieved by AA and not hard work (kinda like a quota system). Sure without Civil Rights the country would be in shambles. Now as for the abortion thing, Alan Keys mentioned how since the abortion law has become more liberalized. No where has it hit home more then in the Hispanic/A American community where they naturally tend to vote left, have less money, and are under educated due to poverty. Mr. Keys showed a graph and some statistics about how the A American population has virtually come to a stand still over the last 30 years due to abortion. The evidence showed that the hispanic populos of America is the same as A Americans and growing. Not because of immigration but due to birth/mortality rates. Hispanics are now the majority of minorities in America now and are surpassing blacks. Im not saying thats bad and that they should all leave ect. But that if the black community is to survive and prosper in America they’re going to have to start being more conservative. Which means getting off the county and stopping the drug use just to name a few. By un-biased I mean that these are the things that neither political party speaks of but Mr.Keys on the right and some black militant from Harlem on the left. Once more im not saying it’s racism just ignorance on the liberals side and by that I mean those who are in office. Such as Barak Obamas solution to abortion is to build more clinics in the greater Chicago area. Now we know that building more clinics is going to be tax payers money wich in a sense is raising taxes. While Keys wants to close down a few clinics and use their budget’s on educating school children on the dangers and responsibility of child birth and pre-maritial relations. So in by saying this I don’t mean that you liberals as a whole are evil dumbfound people but that you should look at the bigger picture and see that “liberals” (in office) can’t run or stabilize the country. I believe that Stephen and other should have nothing to fear from Bush because he’s only there for 4 more years which isn’t enough to effect the overall outcome of the country that much. I mean the liberal media makes it seems as though America is on the fringe of Apocalypse with a republican in control and has anything really changed here. Do you see Christian churches being burned or gay’s dragged in the street and beat to death. Has there been military blockades separating the civil from the uncivil (Escape from LA/NY). The answer is no, Stephen talks of deception for the war in Iraq. Just about every war is decisive. We had no real proof of Hitlers wrong doing until after the holocaust. Bill Clinton never specified exactly why we fought in Kosovo against “Christian Allies” in exchange for Muslim Serbs who have no home to go to. I believe he should have left the whole Kosovo war to NATO & the UAE. When I used to go to the recruitors office for physical training. One SGT. was sent to Kosovo when he was 17 with only 2 weeks of advanced training (which is supposed to be 7 months) so the job he signed up for in the Marine Corp. he went to battle with only a fraction of what he was supposed to have. On his first day there he got stranded for 3 weeks, humiliated by the Croate forces and was left nearly naked in 20-40 degree weather for 3 weeks until U.N troops found him. All because of Clinton, So just as many of the complaining troops there is in Iraq and Farenheit 911 there were the same ammount in Clintons admin. Now that im done with left wing bashing i’ll start with the right to stay unbiased. I think to many republicans that are christian vote Bush just because he’s “christian” like my father. For those of you who are familiar with the anti-christ he is to rise up from religion and have the secular church under his palm. That sounds alot like Bush to me, there are many Christians who vote this way, I remember a church the pastor basically said vote Republican on everything you see. Im a firm believer that just because someone identify’s themselves with a certain party means that their automatically right for the job. I also accuse Bush and the right of not doing what neither Alan Keys or that militant left Harlem guy are doing. Which is throughly telling/educating people about how polotics works. Who knows they may believe that it could have a rubber band effect and bite the gov’t in the ass. But none the less I know Bush has lied on just about everything concerning terrorism but in many way’s thats his job. The gov’t is to protect the citizens from the truth in order to stop themselves from hurting one another. My example, when Saddam told Iraq that the U.S. is coming and to bare arms. The citizens rioted and luted stuff. Theres an untold amount of the crimes that led up to the war in Iraq. Had the U.S. did when germans tried to attack the Statue of Liberty back in WW1 or told & confirmed the 1998 metior the size of texas. Everyone would go insane like it did in the great depresson. Sure you may think well those were different situations but history ALLWAYS repeats itself when we forget the actions of the past. Stephen said the U.S. is based of off Greco Roman republic which is entirely true. But just as Rome hastely fell (in comparison to Greece, Egytp, Sumur) due to political comspiracy so shall America. If you remember your history lesson, Rome was attacked by German nomadic tribes from the north and the Huns from the east. The united states has “huns” in the middle east and adverse nations all around. When your at the top the only place to go is down. And America will soon see that Republicans and Democrats in office. Nothing is ever really achieved. Cause on the left you have socialist who wish to give give and give alike. And on the right you have scruge, people who like the feeling of importance and aristocracy. You see this democracy where everyone has absolute equality is heavily flawed. I believe that weather your black or white rep or dem should have nothing to do with it. I believe the only people who should be in power are those who are educated. As proof to this I point my finger back at Rome, they only lasted a few hundred years as compared to other great civilizations that were ultimatley totalitarian. As many people hated Hitler he had a good thing going for Germany in it’s reforms and political structure.The only flaw’s he made was incarcerating/killing to many jews (which America has done to it’s citizens) which took up alot of man power and allowed D-day to happen, his expansion over europe was far to fast, had to many troops in Africa which just as Rome had left it’s capitol defensless. This is what Bush has done/is doing. Like Hitler, he’s spreading around the arab world to fast trying to free up our economy and dependance on oil. He’s putting troops in foriegn country’s to keep a startegic deterrant so that the U.S will not have to go to war for the next 20 years as opposed to 10 (basically securing oil where ever he can find it, but this depletes the strength of the military just as Rome and Hitler did) Now with this said, these are Bush’s goals that are moddest and just. Just like the liberals and their welfare. Now here’s the problem that neither dems or repubs look at. Being on the right with all this war causes enemy’s. While being on the left causes enemy’s abroad. In other words while the Greco Roman America and Rome both had left and right. The right sent troops out to the 4 corners of the earth and made enemy’s which is costly while the left made enemy’s right there in Rome/America which led to civil war. The enemy from afar didn’t have to do much of anything because the “house” was devided and fell due to it’s own weight. This is what terrorist/advers nation want. Do you think it is coincidence that China, Russia, Germany, and France don’t want to help in Iraq. They don’t want to deplete there own forces/finances in the event that America falls. It’s just as when the west roman empire didn’t recieve help from the east roman empire. Then when the west was devastated by civil war the east came and picked up the remnents and now we have Christianity and Catholocism. I know that if we keep heading into these “close” elections and dems/repubs keep getting more violent and violent. We will have another civil war and will be consumed by foriegn interest. From what my godfather told me about FEMA, the Federal reserve and the rest of the Tri-lateral comission. The U.S. gov’t has it’s own plan to protect it self and those conservative few who are the %2 rich of the country. It’s in the constitution and has something to do with martial law. Now the only way you can prevent this is if more people become conservative and allow Big business or more people become liberal and allow big Gov’t by not only voting but holding your elected official to their and your word. If you voted for Bush and want him to stop abortion then lobby for it. Join or create a group to do so. Look at what affect it has had on the gun industry. No new assualt weapons ban. So you see my ultimate message here was that a: Blacks as well as liberals as a whole (not you Stephen) need to be more educated. b: don’t trust Bush or any other presidential candidate (when you amass that kind of power chances are that you snaked your way to the top, nice people never make it to the top just look at Nader and Bobo the clown)because politics is the grandest and most spectacular dance in the world. c: because of this dance the only way we as citizens can get them to listen is by lobbying for our rights (this is why liberals aren’t benefitting from Bush they need to lobby both sides of the fence just as I invest in both Sony and Microsoft to get what I want) and d: it takes oil for us to have %90 of the stuff in your house. The Gov’t needs to tell you liberals that thats how the War machine works. We go to war to build better, faster, and cheaper so YOU the citizens of America can have your big ass SUV’s and all the things that make america great. The people need to be givin a choice whether to go to war and get more oil that way Ford can make a new model mustang next year or should they keep the same vehicle, pc’s, and technology for the next 10 years. You see this progression in technology cost the lives and discomfort of millions around the world just so Americans can have cellphones, TV’s, multiple cars per household. And you liberals more than anyother group fail to realize this is not paradice (Like the Matrix). Bush has to fight war for oil, Kerry would have to fight war for oil, Alan Keys and Nader would have to fight war for oil because we can’t stop unless we are to fail as a nation. So I say the only thing Bush did wrong as far as war on terroism is that he told the U.S. he was going after terrorists and wmd’s while the true greater threat was declining oil production. They’ve been talking about this for months on conservative news and we conservatives know why Bush is doing what he is doing, he’s even perdictable to some of us while you democrats have no clue and fear him. Remember it was you democrats who feared the ending of slavery and formed the Confederate south, this was their only way known of living thinking it would be the end of a new America if they got rid of slave labor and fought the conservative north. It’s the same thing thats happening now, you libs fear change and uncertanty. It was the liberals who made abortion illegal by making it into law. Sure it wasn’t excepted back in many places but it still existed then backfired in your faces when you brought attention to the subject by having conservative christians and catholics rise up against it which is why abortion is such a touchy situation today in the senate. Im sure Bush dose nopt condone abortion as well as some other things but you liberals are the one’s who bring attention to your selves and cause problems for your own agendas.

Posted by: Zacc at November 8, 2004 03:48 AM

I believe we should judge people by the contents of the characters, not the color of their skins.

Jack, that’s a very noble attitude. I hope someday it will be universally shared.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 8, 2004 08:05 AM

Zacc, some constructive criticism: I’d love to respond to your posts, but they’re too hard to look at. They just look like big, long black splotches to me.

If you don’t want to be more concise, at least do some formatting. Break it up into a bunch of paragraphs so it’s easier to read. Thanks!

Posted by: American Pundit at November 8, 2004 08:10 AM

“Zacc, some constructive criticism: I’d love to respond to your posts, but they’re too hard to look at. They just look like big, long black splotches to me.

If you don’t want to be more concise, at least do some formatting. Break it up into a bunch of paragraphs so it’s easier to read. Thanks!”

Yeah I know but I usually only write in paragraph form when ever it’s a final or essay.

In a nut shell I was saying that even if your left or right. Voting will not solve the problems we all face. It takes lots of lobbying to help sway the country’s direction. So since Democrats have been given a lemon (pres. Bush) they need to make lemonade by making sure he dosen’t let things get out of hand. Just as republicans also need to do. So heres a few key posts in my article!

1. We are all socially conservative (unless your a hippy/naturalists)

2. If liberals were to become neo/moderate republicans they would have a better chance at getting what they need done because of acceptence from both sides (like the Terminator)

3. The war on terror is a front securing mid-east oil nothing more nothing less.

4. It cost the U.S. oil to produce %90 of everything you see in your bed room (so don’t complain about no WMD’s) If you want the same PC’s, cars, and TV’s for the next 10 years then tell your Gov’t to stop/slowdown the War Machine.

5. Neither left or right educates how the Business cycle, Trickle down economics, and the War Machine work. If they did Stephen would most likely not fear what Bush has instore for our country.

6. Hitlers rise to power was because of left & right tugging on the “rope” to hard. When they bankrupted the country (left & right) Martial Law was instated and Hitler became it’s governance.

7. We are doing the same thing only the Federal Gov’t has a tri-lateral commission that will be Hitler. They are FEMA, the NSC, and some other group which is all in the constitution.

8. We are reapeating the Roman history down to the teeth and will suffer the same fate unless this country goes through mass reforms. Compare and contrast “The war on terror” and Atilla the Hun. It’s the same thing happening over again. He was able to defeate Rome from the inside by political Civil War.

there hows that!

Posted by: Zacc at November 8, 2004 09:27 AM

Zacc —

Thanks, that is a lot better! — But I disagree with you. I’ve heard a lot of people saying the Democratic party needs to be more like the Republican party in order to secure more votes, but then what are we left with? The Republicratic party? We need both sides in order for there to be a middle.

Also, you seem to be implying that if the Democrats don’t do this and comply with the Republican party’s wishes, a fascist state will form in this country and it will be the Democrats’ fault. There were a lot of reasons for the rise of Hitler but I really don’t think vigorous political debate was one of them. (I’m not going to go into how dark your implication sounds.)

Posted by: Alejo at November 8, 2004 12:32 PM

Alejo
I believe what many are saying is that the Democratic Party needs to become more like the Democratic party.
I still hold firm to my thought that there are 4 political parties now. Libs, Dems, Reps and Neo-cons.
The majority of Americans are either Dems or Reps and libs and neo-cons are the minority with extreme views. Unfortuantly, they are now the ones in control. Religion is bigger than liberalism and won this time.

So, instead of thinking that we are asking the Dems to be like the Reps, look at it like we are asking the Dems to be like Dems and not the extreme liberals that rule now.
A democrat would have beaten Bush.

Posted by: kctim at November 8, 2004 02:30 PM

Zacc
Are you an Alex Jones fan?
infowars.com

Posted by: kctim at November 8, 2004 02:34 PM

Excellent article, Stephen.
I agree that all the reasons were, and are still there to rank Dubya as the worst president the country has ever had.

Right now we Liberals must wrap our minds around the fact that what actually moved people in this election was Fear. Indeed, psychological fear was the theme of their convention - fear of terrorism, and fear of social change in the form of gay marriage, gay civil rights, and of women continuing to have the power over their destiny with the right to choose abortion.

When people are fearful they want easy answers and the kind of absolute certainty that comes from the Bible - and Dubya gave them plenty of both.

We Liberals don’t understand that kind of thinking - it seems childish and stupid to us. All we could see was the neo-con’s short-sightedness, their rashness, and their extremism. We were and are outraged that this administration could allow our country to become such a divisive and destructive force, both at home and abroad. And we thought it only natural that the majority would want to dump the idiots controlling things in Washington.
But we were wrong.

I’ve been thinking long and hard about this and I’ve come to the conclusion that we don’t even recognize how opposite the progressive mindset actually is from the conservative. While we’re always looking forward and are not the kind of people who like to let fear control us, the conservatives are always looking backward and by their very nature, are fearful of change.
While we’re setting goals for the benefit of everyone in our society and planning to jump another hurdle of discrimination, they’re always focused on going back to the “good old days” and looking for a new segment of our society to attach the blame upon for the fact that those days have not returned.

Unfortunately, 9/11 filled the majority of our citizens with so much fear and uncertainty that they elected the party that promised them that the “good old days” would and could return.

But we Progressives know better - just like we always have - and we will not do our party any favors by becoming less progressive or by making promises about good old days that we know never really existed. We must continue to stand for the future rather than the past, and work like crazy to pull the country forward.

It was never easy to meet our goals, granted, but we’ve done great things in the past, and we’ll do great things in the future as long as we remember who and what we are and what the words Democrat, Liberal, and Progressive truly stand for.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 8, 2004 03:07 PM

kctim-

The two parties once were divided on socio-economic issue and not political ideaology. Republicans were pro-business, pro-wall street and the Democrats were pro-labor, pro-farmer. Both parties had their liberal, moderate, and conservative factions.

Remember Alex Keaton of the 80’s? He was a Republican not because he was anti-abortion but because he loved money. That was the characture then; now Michael J. Fox would be a bible toting, gun waiving neo-con if he were a Republican.

Actually, if you look at if from the original socio-economic perspective, many people are displaced in both parties. The wealthiest of the wealthiest are in the Democratic Party and Middle America has moved to the GOP.

If the Democratic Party dropped the progressive agenda and went back to a more socio-economic outlook, it would once again become the dominate party. There are just many more of us middle class folk than there are rich people. That would not be a move towards the GOP, but as you suggest more of returning to the party it once was.

Such a move would also have a moderating effect on the platform in general. It would cause more of an internal upheaval, but that would better focus the party on the issues and less on the evil Republicans. Then maybe we could get some things done.

Posted by: George at November 8, 2004 03:36 PM

I guess a few questions need to be answered, in order to better lay out my motivations.

Why do the mistakes matter?

The mistakes matter because their import is historic, their scope of harm greater than simply a mess in Iraq proper. The chaos could undermine friendly regimes, destroy other relationships, sour an already problematic relationship with the Middle East.

Why no optimism?

Give me cause not to worry. I’d love to see it, especially given the fact that I’m going to have to live with this president for the next four years. Trouble is, much of this material that would support optimism is local in scope and lacking in any metrics that would help those of us skeptical or worried about progress in Iraq guage that success. The belief in better days to come must be supported by progressive improvement in the big picture.

Additionally, one must deal with the distrust that originated from Vietnam and it’s lies and mistruths, that is common among the older and younger generations. This is a country with a cultural memory of a failed war, of a president who lied to the American people, committed crimes, and had to resign in disgrace.

Trust must be earned, in other words. Today’s politicians, Bush included, have taken the unfortunate step of not giving people a clear notion of what’s going on in the war. In that absence of information only skeptical accounts flourish with the kind of authentic detail which convinces those not weighed down by political bias. Hence the shift in opinion against the war. Bush has only himself to blame for not putting forward a better story (or worse yet, not having a better story to put forward).

Why is the missing ammunition important?

Imagine watching your relatives take off in a plane, then seeing a smoke trail follow the plane up—

You should get the picture, right there. Stinger missiles, missing. As it is, Our soldiers have been killed with ammunition that otherwise might have been kept out of insurgent hands.

It is astonishing to me that the defense worked out by some Republican pundits is that there’s much more material out there, so why pick on this paltry amount? Well, that’s sort of like saying it’s unfair to prosecute somebody on a weapons violation when you can charge them for murder. Steps could have been taken and should have been taken. We should have been facing thrown stones instead of detonated IEDs.

Overall, I think Republicans are giving too much slack to Bush for sentimental reasons, not rational. Sentiment will not save lives.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 8, 2004 03:46 PM

Thanks George. Your reply makes sense to me.

Stephen
“I think Republicans are giving too much slack to Bush for sentimental reasons, not rational.”
- Are you saying they are giving too much slack just because he is a Republican and not a Democrat?
If so, I couldn’t agree with you more on that.

Posted by: kctim at November 8, 2004 04:44 PM

Question posed -
“Why is it that people like me (and I in particular) are so mad at Bush, so fearful of what his next term holds, and so dedicated to bringing him down? Why is it, that even after a clear defeat on everything, we’re still standing on our own two feet opposing him, rather than getting use to being the minority party?” – Stephen Daugherty
Answer given -
“We Progressives know better - just like we always have” – Adrienne
Thank You Adrienne, I could not have made the case any better!

Posted by: OregonBubba at November 8, 2004 06:50 PM

we are asking the Dems to be like Dems and not the extreme liberals that rule now.

kctim, which liberal rulers are you talking about? And why do you believe they are liberal?

The wealthiest of the wealthiest are in the Democratic Party

Really… Do you have any data to back that up? Because I don’t believe it.

Stephen you last post is excellent. The Fallujah offensive has started. Now that Bush doesn’t have to worry about falling poll numbers, I hope he’ll let the Marines finish the job this time. As Gen. Conway said after the last attack that Bush aborted because the political winds changed,

“When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that,” he said. “Once you commit, you got to stay committed.”

I hope Bush realizes that now.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 9, 2004 02:26 AM

Alejo:
I was not simply implying that democrats will be the fall of the American gov’t persae. I was just saying that since they are the minority they need to wisen up. The term Neo-Conservs means a Rebulicrat! Theres nothing wrong with joining “the winning side” so that you can have what you want done. This is why I said both sides need not only to vote but to lobby and make sure that their rights aren’t being infringed on.

If what Adrienne said was true about progressives/democrats looking towards the future and Conservatives looking in the past. Then how come they lost. If they wanted change so much, why haven’t they allowed themselves to be assimilated into the right were they would better their chances of having gay rights among other things. I believe that every political group in both the left and right have there niche in American society.

When each group begins to band together in unity like the right has (I base this of off the popular vote). The left will soon die out unless they adapt to the “CHANGE” that’s taking place. I know your probally thinking what role does biology play in politics but we are as predictable as any other beast.

I admit that republicans may seem slow when it comes to change and that’s because they look at the overall effect that may arise. If we liberalize abortion, accept socialism, and allow gay rights. The possibility could be herendous (note: could be).

Im sure you all know that the U.S. economy is 14-20 years behind Japans. Im also sure that you all know that an economy is heavily swayed by the laws that the country sets for itself. Now…, If your familiar with Japanese history the Tokugawa Shogunate was basically Right with real conservative values and codes. With these codes Japan had peace and prosperity for almost 400 years until the 1840’s when the liberal Meiji Gov’t took power and tried to reform Japan by liberalizing Japan. They got rid of all guns, weapons, and sword (just as the American left want’s), They became socialists and raised taxes to give to many of Japans poor and by the turn of the century they were left bankrupt and weak which is what led to Japan’s participation in World War. Now lets fast forward to 2004.

Now that japan has been enitrely Liberal for what 160 years. They have one of the lowest birth rates in the world and they aren’t even a poverse nation. Young teens as young as 13 are having multiple abortions before their 20. The japanese populace is now at 128 million, the same as it was in the 16th century when the conservative benefits began to grow only its declining and not increasing. It’s expected that by 2025 Japans populus will be at 38-40 million. Now did young Emporer Meiji forsee all of this. No, he thought that by liberalising Japan and allowing more freedoms that their country must prosper. Now that Japan has these problems the gov’t is now going through reforms reminiscent of the Tokugawa Shgounate. In some prefactures it may soon be illegal for Japanese under the age of 18 to have sex with other minors even the same age. You may also be forced to have the child against your will thus banning abortion and most contraception. Why is this happening, because liberals didn’t “progress” in the right direction. Sure you may have good ideas that work but your not in office and just by voting you can’t make your ideas heard.

Instead of Meiji forcing the Shogun (who was like Rumsfeld is to Bush) to liberalize some laws. He allowed his cabinet to persued him into waging Civil war against the Shogun. So you see I mean that if democrats won’t trully look forward and become neo-conserves. Then the the country will fall apart and leave itself open to attack like Japan is to North Korea. The country as a whole most follow one direction which isn’t left or right and thats whats getting the econnomy back on track fear, lies, and democrats following the conservative way.

And yes hitlers rise to power was because of “vigorous political debate” simply because the left and right had too agendas were money was spent. Miss management of finances and assests causes civilized nation’s to wage war no matter the cituation. If you understood the business cycle as well as War then you’d see that. This is what I heard from an Anthropologist who lectures at UCSB who is himself a democrat.

“Democratic party needs to be more like the Republican party in order to secure more votes, but then what are we left with? The Republicratic party? We need both sides in order for there to be a middle.”

I somewhat agree, sure you need balance. I know from martial arts experience. But…, If each of us weigh 50lbs on a scale suted for only 50, what is bound to happen?
We will break the scale because we far exceed it’s limits. This is solely what allows nations to become facist dictator ships. Both major parties bankrupt the country by their own ambitions and not coming to a common grounds. When the people are fed up with the lying and failures of a democracy they often choose their second nature. Which is to elect one man with absolute power that has no affiliation with either group. Like Adrienne said, it’s fear that drives us. It’s the fear of not knowing if Bush will do this or that which has liberals scared. As the same way it was for conservatives and those that swore allegnce to Hitler, Pohl Pot, and every other dictator.

I don’t know you guy’s/girls stats but I know some 1st aid, how to spear fish, hunt, sterilize, adobe/mud brick. Now lets say that who ever bombed America and we here as well as Bush and Kerry were the only people around. I guarantee you that if I brought feed and provided shelter for you that you all would choose me over Bush and Kerry (and vice versa) because you or I are the strong who provide for the weak and your/my word becomes law. It’s just human nature to pick the alpha male/female out of all of us just as it is to pick the alpha male/female if both Gov’t parties fail which is what will happen if we lean all the way right (democrat voting everything conservative) or all the way left (republicans voting everything liberal) or continue with the way things are “over inflation”.

Posted by: Zacc at November 9, 2004 04:48 AM

Hello,

I am going to try to answer a question that seems to keep appearing everywhere I look. That is the connection between the war in Iraq and terrorism. There never was a connection. The war in Iraq was being planned long before 9–11. There is plenty of documentation available to support my saying that.

The war in Iraq is a war that is being fought for the reason of the “Grand Globalist Vision”, not as a result of terrorism.

Now, before everyone decides to write me off as “just another conspiracy nutcase”, let me further explain just what conclusions I have arrived at and where these conclusions have come from.

First off, I am anything but a conspiracy nutcase. I am a 51 year old realist, and I have been observing these things since childhood. The conclusions I have reached are a result of watching events and conditions that have been developing over many years, but especially beginning in the Vietnam Era and leading up to the current times we are living in. To my surprise, I now realize that we, as a society, have not been able to come to grips with the Civil War, let alone the Vietnam War. The results from the 2004 election map may have finally settled the Civil War, but we may need another hundred years or so to even begin to figure out the Vietnam War, let alone get on to debating what we are doing in Iraq. Even after the people who participated in a war die off, their offspring carry it with them for many generations. In the things I am about to describe, many may be obvious, others may appear obscure. But please bear with me and follow this to the end. Then, tell me how much sense it makes to you.

As a child growing up in the 1950’s, I was not aware of politics until the Kennedy era, at which point, being from a rather staunch Republican family, I became aware of the political nature of the world by hearing discussions by my parents on that election. I may elaborate on that later. Suffice to say, at the start of the Nixon era, I began to notice that rather different things were occurring on the world scene. And I don’t mean just Vietnam. We were taken from the gold standard as a monetary policy and an overture to bring China out of isolation, into the forefront of the world began. Has anyone out there asked why? Bear in mind that we are a small fraction of the total population of the world. China and India together account for over 2 billion people. Throw in the Islamic nations and you’re over 3 billion. Not so in 1968, but you could see it coming.

I have noticed that most people tend to think that a lot of the current ‘goings on’ are disjointed, and seem to be dismayed at what is happening to and in our country. Let me assure you, most if not all, are well connected. Things such as the trade treaties like Nafta and Gatt, the WTO and the like, our Open Border policies even after 9-11, the outsourcing of good paying American jobs, the last 2 elections, the new buzzwords such as Neo Con’s. They are all connected. By the way, a “Neo Con is nothing new really. They used to like to be called the “New World Order”. That was during the Bush 41st administration. A lot of people got scared by that name. Now they go by the name of “Neo Con”, or the “Globalists’s”.

What I am saying is that there is a big picture to most all of this.

Now, to address the part where I am liable to be called a conspiracy theorist, please allow me the following questions;

1. Has anyone else noticed the name “The Council On Foreign Relations” that has appeared on the mainstream media since 9-11? By mainstream, I mean CNN, Fox, MSNBC and probably ABC, CBS and NBC also. The Council On Foreign Relations, which I will subsequently refer to as the CFR, is a non-governmental think tank agency that has been in existence since 1921, and it has been extremely instrumental in shaping our foreign policy, especially since the end of World War 2. Why does it seem that most any American that you mention this agency to, has never heard of it? Its membership is what can be called illustrious. Every Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense since World War 2, with the exception of Henry Stimson in the last Roosevelt Administration, has been a member of this agency. It includes the leaders of transnational corporations. And virtually all people who matter in the world of business, finance and the media. It’s membership includes the current Vice President, and virtually all of GW’s cabinet. Henry Kissinger is a current member, he has been since before his position of Secretary of State under Richard Nixon. Does anyone out there wonder why, whenever something goes on in the world involving our foreign policy, why does Henry Kissinger show up on a news show to explain it to us? He’s getting rather tired and old looking. This is a man who presided over the rather poor ending to our involvement in Vietnam, a man who was part of a criminally indicted administration under Richard Nixon. Why is he considered an expert on these matters? He certainly didn’t hold a cabinet level position as long as some other’s I can think of. Henry has been the so called ‘leg man’ for the CFR for years, going around the world, getting things done for us. He has been involved in establishing US foreign policy long after his rather disappointing performance during the Nixon era. It seems that if you are a member of this agency, your power doesn’t even have to hold a position at the cabinet level or otherwise. The stated objective of the CFR is to export the American vision into the rest of the world. And furthermore, these people regard the American Revolution as an ongoing experiment, one that has yet to come to full fruition. Did I miss something along the way? I was told a different story growing up as a child. A story about how ours was the greatest system of self governance ever devised by mankind. A system that the rest of the world envied. One that people would risk their lives to partake in. It was an established thing, not an unfinished experiment. Something that we would use to help others in the world to become better. I don’t believe that meant forcing them to partake at the end of a gun barrel.

Until 9-11 occurred, this agency was never mentioned to the public by name. Not ever. They didn’t hide either though. You could look into them if you knew to. They even publish a magazine called “Foreign Affairs”. And anyone who wants to may subscribe. Since 9-11, it seems that they have come out of the closet, so to speak, and have claimed their legitimate place as the pre-eminent experts on terrorism and how we must conduct the war on such. Since 9-11, I have seen all kinds of high level politicians, including John Kerry, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, speak at meetings of the CFR, as shown on CNN and other news shows like FOX etc. . The teal blue wallpaper, covered with the name, “The Council On Foreign Relations”, in white, always decorates the background when they are being videotaped as they are speaking

2. When Ron Silva, the actor, came out to speak against the so-called left wing actors that were challenging the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war, did anyone else notice that they mentioned Ron Silva as a member of the CFR? He was introduced on CNN as ‘Ron Silva, Member of The Council On Foreign Relations’, both verbally and on the subtitle on the screen below the video. They brought him out to speak as opposition to the majority of the actors who were against going to war with Iraq. He started to appear on the news before the war began. They no longer mention that he is a CFR member when he is seen. He made quite a few appearances on the Scarborough on MSNBC, leading up to the election.

I will advise those of you that are curious, to do some research into the CFR, “SEE WHAT THEIR GOALS AND AMBITIONS ARE, and draw further conclusions on your own.”

I do however want to make the following assumption. These persons from this agency have been guiding and directing our foreign policy for years.

“THIS WAR, THE ELECTION OF 2000 AND EVERYTHING WE HAVE GONE THRU SINCE, IS A PRODUCT OF THEIR STATED GOALS AND AMBITIONS FOR AMERICA’S PLACE IN THE WORLD, AND THE SHAPING OF WORLD POLICY.” When the “Neo Con’s” came into the White House with George Bush, one of them made the statement, “The pendulum has swung our way.” “It will never swing back again.” I can’t attribute it to a particular person, but it is a rather unnerving statement to say the least.

In the weeks leading up to the war, I said several times that this war had the CFR’s fingerprints all over it. I didn’t have a clue as to what they were after, but anything on a global scale, involving America, has something to do with something they want done. I made that statement to my girlfriend about a week and half before the war started. Everyone I knew was worried before the war started, myself included. The next day, at about 12;45 PM, a person from the CFR appeared on CNN. I can’t remember his name. It doesn’t matter, as it was a name I hadn’t seen before. Most CFR members aren’t widely known. They don’t run for elective office. They prefer to serve in appointed cabinet level positions. The man was being interviewed by one of CNN’s commentators, (I can’t remember who that was either). There may be a transcript though.

Anyway, the topic was “Why are we rushing into this war?”
Why not wait until the inspectors finish their job?

The response from the CFR member, as closely as I can recall, was;

“This war is not about oil, and it is not about George Bush getting even for the assassination attempt on his father. He said “What this war is about is globalism”. “Sure, they have lots of oil in some of the countries in that region”. “And they are willing to sell us that oil”. “But, they are not willing to trade with us, nor will they enter into any treaties involving trade”. “They don’t want to buy anything from us”. “They don’t want anything we have to offer”.

The next statement he made was almost prophetic, in that a little more than a year later, it became the explanation by the President for the reason we went to war. That is after the President could not use WMD’s anymore as the reason.

What he gave as the reason for war was as follows;

“This war must be fought sooner or later”. “And better sooner than later”. We must go into that region of the world, and establish a stable democracy, as a model for the other Islamic nations to pattern themselves after”. “They must come on board to join the Global Community, they are the only part of the world that has not gone along with globalism.”

These were the words GW used to explain why we went there when the WMD thing fell apart, however, he left out the globalism part.

After seeing this news commentary, I felt I had the answer to what this war was about. GW’s cabinet consists of CFR members, virtually from A to Z. The illustrious Condoleeza Rice is one of them. Donald Rumsfeld also. Cheney too. Anyone wondering why he isn’t too concerned about the Bush legacy. Or about being president someday? Or, are the likes of the Halliburton’s of this world the people that our government is now working for and serving their interests’ only? Anyone who truly thinks that Hitler was the last person who wanted to take over the world is fooling themselves. None of the names mentioned do I believe aspire to world domination as such, But they certainly wish to have a part and share in the benefits of controlling the politics and economies of the world. And, in doing so, they are going to take a tremendous toll on the middle class of America. It is both because of us and from us that they have arrived at their level of power, which they now wield over and upon us. They get what they set out to acquire. Always have . Or at least they have so far. The secrecy and divisiveness of this administration is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We are not yet fully aware of all that they have accomplished in the 4 years that they have already had. And, they are so close to completing the Grand Global Vision, that I feel that they will let nothing get in their way. It is so close now they can taste it.

To understand people of this nature, you must first be able to try to understand who they are and where they have come from. Most, but not all, are Americans, but not Americans like most of us. They are the culturally, morally and intellectually elite of America. Or at least, that is how they perceive themselves. To live as one of them I shall give the following analogy;

If your name is David Rockefeller, for example, when you get up in the morning, your thoughts are not those of “What can I run to WalMart and get today to make myself happy, maybe something I need or want?” David Rockefeller doesn’t see the inside of most stores to begin with. It’s all bought and delivered by someone else. Remember Bush 41 being totally surprised by a bar code scanner? Being a Rockefeller, if you awaken and seem bored with living in your New York penthouse, you can always get on your personal private jet and fly off to your mansion in India, or your estate in South America. When you arrive there, you are welcomed with open arms, as you bring with you business and jobs for the locals and maybe for that country as a whole. Even though you are an American, you can easily consider yourself as a member of the global village, the one that you have helped to create and shape. And you must busy yourself with things such as how to make it a better place for you and all your friends. Certainly, you don’t need to worry about day to day survival like most of us have to. And of course, being morally, culturally and intellectually superior, what you are doing is going to be good for all of mankind, because of course, you are in a positio9n to know what is best for us. These are the kinds of things you are obligated to worry about, that is if your name is Rockefeller, or like so many other people that fall, or have fallen, into this category. You’re obligated because it is your way of giving something back to the world, to pay your dues so to speak. No matter what the little people think, they don’t know any better, and they certainly have no right to play in this game. You’re going to make this world a better place for them too. Kind of like supply side, trickle down economics, so to speak. These elitists have convinced themselves that the war in Iraq is necessary to complete their global vision.

As the man from the CFR stated in the interview I mentioned, “The Islamic nations as a whole reject globalism”. “We must get them on board”.

Now, please stop and consider that they have gotten all of the other regions of the world involved in this vision of Globalism.
All including China, the entire Asian region, Europe, the former Soviet Empire, North and South America. This was all part of what was called the Trilateral Commission under the Carter administration. Every part of the world that matters. Except the Muslim world, which has over 1 billion members. I don’t want to sound like Michael Moore here, I haven’t seen his movie about 9-11, But, the Islamic nations do not want to be part of this. I don’t necessarily agree with their lifestyle or customs, but we would be well advised to discuss what they want from life and how they feel they should live it. Our political elitists feel that they already know what they want and need, and are determined to give them such. And that is the only connection I can possibly establish between the war in Iraq and 9-11. They want us to leave them alone. The Amish inside our own country want the same thing. And a few others also. I don’t think that we would have had a 9-11, if our leadership wouldn’t have tried to get into their world and change their way of life. From the globalist perspective, Iraq was the only real place that we could possibly take over, and I really mean possibly, because the reality of it seems a bit distant at the moment. They thought it would work out quite well, that we would be welcomed as liberators. Iran or Syria would have been much more difficult. And even though we went, quite justifiably and rather successfully, into Afghanistan, that country doesn’t have much wealth to be of use to the globalists.

We, as Americans, have been lied to and misled on countless occasions. We are told almost daily about how we are the economic powerhouse of the world. If we go down, everyone else goes too. I used to believe that, but not anymore. Watch the news. China has surpassed us in producing automobiles. They produce all of our high tech items. Try to find any high tech item, computer components or otherwise that is not made in China.
I know, as not only do I repair these things, but I own quite a few. In case no one noticed, it has been stated on the mainstream media this past week, that China will be the economic and technological powerhouse of the world from hereon. We basically created their new economy. That is, the elitist globalist group, of what I call former Americans, now known as members of the global community.

It is their dream, not the dream of regular Americans. That is, regular Americans, who were brought up to believe that ours was the greatest system the world have ever conceived. We were led to believe that that wouldn’t change, unless by amendments to our Constitution. But the globalists have decided that this is something too good just to be reserved for Americans only. It is our duty to export it to the world, it will make the world a better place. Indeed it may, but I think we would be well advised to ask first if that is their wish.

I am going to end this by asking the following:

1. How many of you have given any thoughts to the amounts of money that will be made when the Islamic world gets their dose of free market capitalism? As I mentioned, they have over a billion members, and I can only dream of the money that will be made when they too welcome the WalMart’s, Kmart’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken’s and all the other transnational corporations into their world. As China and India already done . And who are the people who will reap the benefit of these monies? I can’t wait until they introduce them to credit cards. Were Americans asked if they wanted to help to build the world’s economies, to be exploited by the already wealthy, by the exportation of our jobs, technology and entire industries? You cannot exploit the earnings of the other approximately 6 billion inhabitants of the earth, unless they have jobs with which to make money they can spend. And our jobs were the only ones that were available to give to them. That’s why we have so few today.

2. Does anyone really believe we are still the economic engine of the world? We are beyond our limits in all ways that I can think of. We don’t make much that matters here anymore. Why is that? Approximately $7 trillion of federal debt, an incredible trade deficit, most to China, and the average American at the end of their borrowing ability. I just saw on the tube that we are borrowing $2 billion a day, mostly from China, to just pay the interest on our national deficit. There are about 300 million Americans today, and we have been exploited economically about as far as we are able to go. Is it so hard to see that there are much greener pastures to exploit in the rest of the world? Is it so hard to see that the wealthiest of us are seeing the equivalent of the “Wild West” in other parts of the world? The giving away of America appears to have been done to make that possibility a reality.

3. Why do we have such a hard time believing the truth when we are told it? It seems we prefer the lies that we are fed daily. The entire election was based on lies. John Kerry was a good man. So is John McCain. Both of them had their reputations trashed by the Karl Rove machine, albeit in two different elections. There was no gay marriage issue in the Midwestern states. But Rove and company certainly made it an issue. They don’t need to kill anyone, just discredit and destroy the opponent’s reputation. I have seen this occur over and over again. Although, I have to say that I would not put killing past them if someone really gets in their way. After seeing what was done in this election, it’s almost amazing that the voting margin was as slim as it was. It’s not a real mandate, but it will be used as if it were overwhelming.

4. One of the most glaring lies that I have seen over several Presidencies is that of China being able to strike the US with nuclear missiles in several more years. Both Clinton and Bush have used that one. For anyone who is curious, we went to China in 1983 to have our orbital satellites put into space after the Challenger accident. NASA was unable to accommodate our needs and China put them into orbit on their Long March missiles. And they had thermonuclear weapons years before that. Why the big lie? China had the capability to launch nuclear weapons on the US years ago. If they could put payloads accurately into orbit, they could much more easily launch a sub-orbital nuclear weapon across a space of half the globe. And why do we choose to call it China nowadays, and not Red China? It is still a communist regime.

5. Why are we determined to allow the divisiveness that is going on today? My only answer to that one is that we have been duped into it, we prefer it, as the majority really seem to be enjoying the results of this election. As was said, United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Karl Rove and company understand the precept well and have been able to implement in ways that most of us couldn’t have imagined. Wherewith the targeted cell phone calls, with different divisive messages to different groups, all of them playing upon fears of the other. When you pit the people against each other, especially in a country as diverse as ours, then no one is looking at what you are doing. And when they figure it out, well, as they say, the game is over.

6. All of the world’s great empires have been dissolved from within. Am I off base by wondering if that is what is happening to us? Are we being divided for someone else’s purpose? I have heard other Americans say that we did these things to ourselves. One of my customers told me one day that Americans demanded cheap televisions that they could go to WalMart and buy. That they didn’t want to pay the money to have them made here by an American. My response to that was “Wait a minute, I’m a little too old to swallow that one”. “I’ve been in this business since 1971, and I remember when a man I worked for sold TV’s and appliances.” All of them were American made”. “And, no one complained at all, at paying $450 to $800 to buy a good floor model television”. “In fact, the product he was selling was so well made that they usually lasted for quite a few years.’ “Most things were back then”. “The way he sold was similar to buying a car.” “He set the price at the MSRP, and then he would haggle with the customer.” “They walked away happy, feeling as if they got a good deal, which they did, he made a reasonable profit and all was well.” “Unless of course it quit working.” “And, as soon as it was repaired, they were fine with it all.” So tell me, how did we do this to ourselves? How are we the people responsible? I’m beginning to think that I may have slept too late a couple of days and really missed something.

7. Should the families of the countless number of soldiers we will lose in this war know the truth about what there loved ones have given their lives for? For the rights of our most privileged to earn even more wealth? We have been told the war in Iraq is about protecting us from further harm. I would like to know whose interests are being protected by this war?

8. I’d really like to know if a Gore administration might have taken the warnings that were obvious to some before 9-11 more seriously than the Bush camp did? But of course, that can never be answered. I’m not trying to say that the globalist’s wouldn’t have been in a Gore administration. Jimmy Carter’s was full of them. But there is an air of arrogance and secrecy in this administration that is only approximated by the Nixon administration. It’s ironic that almost all the players in GW’s cabinet, at least those as old as he is, can be traced right back to the Nixon administration. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, they all trained there. And , of course, George the elder, who became Ambassador to China in those days.

I choose not to live in fear. But I must admit that is becoming more difficult as time goes on. Especially with our current administration. It seems to me that we have been taken over, albeit without anyone firing a shot. As far as the broad middle class in America, I feel that our days are numbered, if not already over.

In closing I shall quote the infamous words said by Napoleon in the late 1800’s, “Let China sleep, for when she awakens, the world will be sorry”.

By the way, for anyone who has bothered to take the time to read this all the way thru, I am a white male American of the Heinz 57 variety, half German in ancestry, and the rest Welsh, Dutch, English, and some more that I am not totally aware of.

Thank you for letting me speak. I’m not sure how much longer this may be possible to do so in America. If any of this makes sense to you, please copy it and spread it around. If the truth doesn’t get out, we will all be doomed to submit to the Neo Con’s and their New World Order Agenda

Posted by: ken at November 9, 2004 05:18 AM

American Pundit: “When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences of that are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that,” he said. “Once you commit, you got to stay committed.”

Hey Democrats did this during the 1st gulf war which stopped Bush senior from securing Iraq back then. Clinton also did it by leaving Sudan, and using gorilla tactics against Saddam throught his 2 terms in office.

But overall I agree from talking to other Marines and Air force pilots. The military is left feeling betrayed by both their gov’t and the citizens (Rambo: 1st Blood). The Sgt. I met that went through hell in Kosovo. He dropped me off at a friends house and the ride there was frightening. Alotta anger and confusion from those Focre Recon types. I think we should send our infantry boy’s coming home prostitutes cause when they hit the club scene in a place as liberal as Santa Barbara CA, girls are all like I don’t want to be sleping with them and they “wake up in Vietnam” which is understandable. But most soldires don’t hit that limit until they continually recieve that stress base to base town to town just like Rambo:)

Posted by: zacc at November 9, 2004 05:27 AM

Wow ken you sound like an Alex Jones type. I agree with you for the most part. However this foreign councel is only a small part that interprets the actions of others in the “Secretive Gov’t” now as for KFC and walmart. Saudi Arabia allready has that but from what I understand/was told. The Chinese aren’t American meaning that Bush/Kerry’s S&B organization (which was solely created for US China relations) hasn’t had the exact affect they had planned.

Saudi Arabia got most of this produce from China through the U.S. So in other words the U.S.’s cut of the pie is far less then expected because we are the middle men. In order to overcome this shortfall we are trying to occupy the muslim worlds only asset which is oil as to force them to cooperate as supposed to fighting war after war to try and gain the upper hand. Were kinda like a big bully who beats people up because they don’t want to play with us.

Posted by: Zacc at November 9, 2004 06:08 AM

AP
There are Boxer, Feinstein, Edwards, Kennedy, Schumer, Dodd and yes, even kerry.
These are just a few who hold extreme liberal views. Some more so than others, depending on the issues.
Tax reform that favors all, anti gun rights, environment before people, only one position on abortion with no compromises, anti-private property rights, favor larger babysitter govt and social security program as is, no personal choices.
These are some of the most basic issues and rights in which liberals need to understand if they ever wish to garner more support from the moderates.

Posted by: kctim at November 9, 2004 09:33 AM

Hi Zacc,

U just want to add a bit more. Saudi Arabia does have these things for sure. But are they a democracy? Rather than working for us, they seem to be in our way. We aren’t trying to convert them to democracy either.

To the point of this being a conspiracy, I don’t really regard it as such. It is more of a long, but natural progression of the way our so-called democracy works. In that, we have arrived at circumstances like this before. The last time was during the Golden Age of the late 1800’s - early 1900’s. The wealth of the country was concentrated in the same fashion as it is now. Both then, and now, we were living in a situation that can be regarded as an oligarchy, a government of the few, for the few, and by the few. At that time, there were good people in government, who took the reins and reset the playing field, so that the majority of Americans could share in, and participate to a degree, in the course of our destiny. Today, I don’t see any hope of that happening. There isn’t anyone capable of leading such a charge. The few that I have described, while not having told us the whole truth, feel that they know and are doing what is for our best. That gives them great moral satisfaction. They realize that we are not capable of making such judgements for ourselves.

I am not able to view them as conspirators. I view them more as opportunists. That is the American way of doing things. They didn’t take anything that was guarded or considered sacred by anyone. They filled a void that no one else was concerned with.

There have been various warnings given to us by past leaders, warning of these conditions occurring in America. Dwight Eisenhower was quite vocal about the concentrated powers of the military industrial complex, and was quite afraid of where it would lead us.

Were we the people of this country ever really endowed with the powers they told us are ours? Or were we simply led to believe that. The old saying of “He who has the gold rules”, seems to apply to our democracy also. Collectively, at earlier times, I think we made have had some effect. But nowadays, these issues have become so large in scope that I’m afraid that our supposed power to elect has been altered. Hereagain, for the good of all. The moral justification for what is being done is enough to make them determined that they are doing the right thing. Take a look at GW. Can anyone tell him he’s wrong, on any level?

In any event, the ride, which they are taking us on, is not one of our choosing. It’s not open to any real debate. Lest you think that I may be trying to foster or foment a revolution, rest assured, I have given up on that idea a long time ago. It’ll never happen in this country. We are too controlled for something like that to be possible. We have willingly gone along with all of this for as long as I can remember. I feel that we will just submit further, like the Japanese have had to do. Their economy has yet to fully recover, and the majority of them have learned to settle for less than they were used to. But get ready for whatever may come our way. Because the moralistic version of the world they are creating appears to be for the benefit of mankind, nothing will get in the way. They can justify it at ev