September 16, 2004
Both Parties Are Winning
The Republicans and Democrats are both doing the same thing. They are trying to strengthen their base while at the same time going after the undecided.
Americans are arguing over which party is better.
Is either party better?
We are destroying ourselves from within.
We hear that our country has never been so divided. How did this happen?
The media reminds us constantly that people are voting strictly for their party. Is this actually true?
One party should not have more power over the other. Our country is supposed to be ruled by the majority. Just because 1 or 2 issues a party stands for go with the majority doesn't mean they represent the majority of us on other things.
Is there anyone who actually believes in everything one party or the other stands for? How many people actually know what the parties stand for besides the main issues that are dragged up every 4 years?
If one party takes a stand on something the other party seems to automatically take the other side.
Look ahead. Depending on who wins the White House and what happens the next 4 years there may be a major shift from one party to the other.
Posted by Dawn at September 16, 2004 10:03 AMWe hear that our country has never been so divided. How did this happen?
I have to blame Bush. I’m sure he’s responsible for the hurricanes too, somehow. ;)
If one party takes a stand on something the other party seems to automatically take the other side.
This is now a single party government, Dawn. Democrats can’t pass gas, much less legislation through Congress. Republicans systematically dismiss Democrat concerns, vote down Democrat additions to bills, and physically lock Democrats out of the room when legislation is being drafted. At least with a Democratic president we had a veto.
The left has been disenfranchised, and we’re mad as hell.
AP: You said “The left has been disenfranchised, and we’re mad as hell.”
Maybe the left should get rid of their liberal agenda and go back to the ideas that made the Democrat party popular. Give us back our Democratic party and we will vote for Democrats again.
Posted by: tim at September 16, 2004 10:33 AMI have to blame Bush. I’m sure he’s responsible for the hurricanes too, somehow. ;)Gee AP, Somehow I knew you would be thinking just that about those hurricanes. But I just settled on thinking that it’s a warning to Florida to get it right this time and no more disenfranchising the military vote!
This is now a single party government, Dawn. Democrats can’t pass gas, much less legislation through Congress.
Gee, maybe when they filibustered all those judicial appointments, they should have thought of this. What do you suppose they could have been thinking?
Oh, and ditto’s to Tim’s post!
AP:
To be disenfranchised, you would have to have been deprived “of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity especially in relation to the right to vote”.
There has been no disenfranchisement at all. Its the wrong terminology and conveys an attitude of victimization. By claiming there has been, you seem to be saying you are a victim somehow. That your party of choice is not in power in no way limits your ability to vote. Losing elections does not count as disenfranchisement—it simply means the losing party did not get enough votes.
Do you consider Republicans to have been similarly disenfranchised when Democrats held similar control during the early Clinton admin and the Carter admin?
I didnt consider it disenfranchisement—-rather it was that the Republicans did not do enough to get enough votes.
Claiming victimization when its not really there only minimizes theimpact that true victims deserve.
they filibustered all those judicial appointments
Please, these complaints started when the Democrats had blocked 3 of a hundred nominees, and even now, something like 190 of 200 nominees have been passed without problem. The Republicans blocked a much higher percentage of Clinton’s nominees.
This is such a fake issue.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 16, 2004 12:54 PMAP, they’ve already started blaming Bush for the hurricanes. Some ‘scientists’ are saying that the hurricanes are a result of global warming, and we all know that Bush is against the Kyroto treaty.
It’s all his fault!
Posted by: Rhinehold at September 16, 2004 01:24 PMAs a non American, I’m glad I don’t have a vote. I recall from a previous election, the problem again is the evil of two lessers! From a European perspective, it’s scary the way Americans seem to be reponding in an overwhelmingly emotional way to international events. It seems thay are being manipulated by tugging on the symbols of patriotism to lead them like the childen of Hamelin. As a famous Irishman once said; “Patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel”
I would, as a friend of the US, urge Americans to think back to the Vietnam era. In the early stages, most Americans supported to war, because most Americans are patriotic people. How many people today believe that that war was one America should have been fighting? How many people would at least admit that they were mislead on Vietnam? Who was the American President who warned against the Military Industrial Complex? I think it was Eisenhower, himself a distinguished soldier. There are forces at work in the US Government, the so called neo cons, whose agenda is not in the interests of the people of the US. As a friend of America and Americans, I urge Americans to look past the easy patriotism, and to ask the hard searching questions of themselves, and their leaders. To look at the effects of their policies now and for the future, and ask themselves if this is really in the interest of America.
Slan agus Beannacht,
Paul,
Dublin,
Ireland
America wasn’t founded as “majority rules”.
Its a representative republic. That damn electorial college,it prevents a few big citys from controling a nation.
I might think that ” mass transit” in a city should be a tractor pulling a few hay wagons..jump on..we’ll take ya down town. Makes perfect sence to me, a dual use mode of transportation, haul “suits” around in the morning, pick crops in the afternoon.Seems like the enviro-nuts would like that, but they dont, nor do people in big citys.
Sounds silly dont it ?..But understand, some of the things that people in the citys want to force on everyone else is just as silly to people in the heartland.
Thats what I love about this country, everyone gets to voice their point of view, and if differing groups discuss issues, we can agree on whats best for everyone Without ever excluding any certain group.
Dawn,
That is why we call it the great debate. Both Dems. and Reps. want to be everything to everybody. Thus the reason they only choose 1 or 2 issues.
As far as taking up both sides of an issue, it would be pretty hard to have a debate if everyone agreed.
JBD,
To be disenfranchised, you would have to have been deprived
This I have to take issue on. Both the Dems and Reps. have for years deprived people of an honest debate of the issues. Both are responible for low balling the other, setting up rules that allow them to have their way, and lying to the American public.
Disenfranchised is almost every American, but what is one to do with parties like the Green and Liberterians. Real leaders need to be found to deal with real issues right here right now.
The economy, environment, and energy is not back seat issues that will work themselves out in the market. Without all of us pushing together America will not make it to the next gas station.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 16, 2004 02:35 PMAs a friend of America and Americans, I urge Americans to look past the easy patriotism, and to ask the hard searching questions of themselves, and their leaders. To look at the effects of their policies now and for the future, and ask themselves if this is really in the interest of America.Posted by Paul in Euroland -(not liberty!!!) at September 16, 2004 02:25 PM
Thanks for your comments, Paul. My ancestors left Ireland about 250 years ago and it’s nice to know that the home folks are still concerned about us.
I think it’s safe to say that most Americans haven’t forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. Senator Kerry based his campaign on it and it’s dominated the debate ever since.
You seem to feel (correct me if I’m wrong) that the Iraq war is a mistake and Americans should neither support it nor the president who launched it. That’s a valid opinion, but not the only opinion. A quick review of the posts at this site reinforces that point.
My sense is that much of the world feels we’re all badly misinformed and if we were only more enlightened, we would think differently. Many of my left-leaning friends agree with that sentiment as well.
However, even with some misgivings, I believe that President Bush made the right decision based on the evidence that he and most of the world had at that time.
The next step is the eventual withdrawal of forces, hopefully leaving Iraq in far better shape than we found it. It will take some time, but there are vast differences between this conflict and Vietnam. It’s a mistake to draw too close a parallel.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 16, 2004 03:22 PMI thought they finally blamed global warming on cows and their enormous amount of gas ??
As for the hurricanes … it is Bush’s fault. I saw him hire all those illegals, put them on a ship, and have them start swimming whirlpools off the African coastline.
He did it just so he could look so wonderful passing out water and ice.
Posted by: Dawn at September 16, 2004 03:23 PMNOTOTH, there are differences between Viet Nam and Iraq, but, they are insignificant. The one commonality that every American should face is that we did not win in Viet Nam because it was a civil war, and Iraq has become a civil war with our help, and our presence is only going to prolong the civil war as we did in Viet Nam.
On this issue, Presidential candidates don’t much differ, they both view Iraq as winnable somehow. Our intelligence and DoD know better and they have been saying so.
Posted by: David R Remer at September 16, 2004 04:28 PMHenry:
If you want to claim that all Americans are disenfranchised by the dirty rotten lying bags of scum that we call politicians, I’m with ya. But AP was trying to assert that the left is disenfranchised, which is a garbage statement.
WE all are disenfranchised to the degree that politicians make the rules that they need to operate under, and when they break those rules, they are free to create new ones to excuse the guilty. As an example, they no longer vote on payraises—payraises are automatic unless someone votes against them. This is just a simple way of running under the radar.
Dawn,
Yes, sorry as it may be, Bush is responsible for everytning that happens to every American actions just like your boss is responsible for you and your other workers. There is an old story about the eyes, ears, and other body parts bidding to be the boss of the bodt. Well, to make a long story short. The butthole spoke up , they all laughed, and he shut the system down. After 2-3 days the rest gave in and now the butt rules the body. Moral to the story. You don’t have to be an asshole to be in charge, but the butt is where it stops. Screw up as leader and every person feels it sooner or later.
JBD,
I’m for exposing Skull and Bones as the new No Nothing political party of the last 40 years are you?
What I would like to see is the replacement of all incumbents in Congress. Sad, but true, this country will not have a two new political parties until one party (pefer third) can change the questions of the great debate.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 16, 2004 07:14 PMYou seem to feel (correct me if I’m wrong) that the Iraq war is a mistake and Americans should neither support it nor the president who launched it. That’s a valid opinion, but not the only opinion. A quick review of the posts at this site reinforces that point.
My sense is that much of the world feels we’re all badly misinformed and if we were only more enlightened, we would think differently. Many of my left-leaning friends agree with that sentiment as well.
However, even with some misgivings, I believe that President Bush made the right decision based on the evidence that he and most of the world had at that time.
The next step is the eventual withdrawal of forces, hopefully leaving Iraq in far better shape than we found it. It will take some time, but there are vast differences between this conflict and Vietnam. It’s a mistake to draw too close a parallel.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 16, 2004 03:22 PM
HI there, thanks for your comments. You ask me if I think the Iraq war was a mistake. I believe there has never been any evidence of a link between 9/11 and the Iraqi regime, despite the fact that until recently Dick Cheney was still insisting that Saddam was linked to Al Queda and 9/11. I don’t believe that Saddam was ever a serious threat to the US.
But that’s all really irrelevant now anyway. The real question now is where to from here. Every day the evidence is growing that US objectives in Iraq cannot be achieved. Increasingly, Iraqis are giving up on the US creating the conditions for normal life. As for the “sovereign interim government”, they are no more in control themselves. The prospects for democracy do not look good. The appalling prospect is that the US cannot do what it says it wants to do, and also that it cannot cut and run. Of course the logic of this situation is that, if I am right, then the US will eventually have to cut and run, leaving a far worse situation in that volatile region than before the invasion. Bush senior was advised in 1991 that continuing on to Baghdad risked ousting the only thing that was holding Iraq together; Saddam. The fact is of course, that the Bush admin, or more particularly the Neo Con puppeteers, wanted to invade Iraq and used 9/11 as a convenient excuse to do so. Their desire to do so long predated 9/11. Forgive me for saying so, but anytime I see Bush on TV, I imagine him as a ventriloquists puppet, with the puppeteers’ hand up his proverbial, operating his mouth and limbs. I ask myself when I see the asinine grin in response to serious questions, is there intelligent life on GW? I hope Americans will not be too insulted at my impression of their President, but thats the truth as I see it.
Warm regards,
Paul
Dublin
Ireland
Paul
Dublin
Ireland
Welcome to Watchblog.
I hope you don’t believe that America is ready to walk away from Iraq any time soon. Viet Nam was a mistake in oversight. This time, people on both sides agree what needs to be done we just need a leader who is willing to do it.
Hi Paul,
Glad you are here. I am another who has family that originated in Ireland. Mine came over on the MayFlower I guess.
Probably couldn’t have things their own way so they thought they’d try it somewhere else.
Thanks for the posts and keep on posting!
Dawn
Posted by: Dawn at September 16, 2004 09:15 PMHenry,
I don’t believe for a moment that America is ready to walk away anytime soon from Iraq. As to general agreement as to what need to be done, maybe there is, but I’m not aware of it. In any case, Americans can agree all they want as to what is to be done, unless Iraqis agree with the Americans, it matters little. At the moment there is little evidence that Iraqis agree about much between themselves, apart from their growing alienation from Coalition troops and governments. The US cannot impose democracy on Iraqis. There is a grave danger that Iraq will splinter along its tribal and religious fault lines, and descend into civil war. I would be interested in hearing what you say needs to be done by a leader willing to do it.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 16, 2004 09:24 PMPaul - welcome. good to have someone from across the ocean.
Iraq will cost us a lot, but I don’t think it was a mistake when I consider the alternatives available at the time. If people don’t like the world with a strong U.S., just imagine the world without one. Most of the people in the world are not as peaceful or civilized as the Irish and Europe didn’t do too well for itself before the U.S. superpower came along.
As for Iraq as Vietnam, sucess has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan. We tend to remember the failures and forget the problems that went away. Germany and Japan are classic cases of the good and successful use of American power. These societies that were agressive and warlike for a thousand years, didn’t become peaceful sellers of automobiles and consumer electronics overnight because of their internal politics. Just compare N. and S. Korea to see how different things look when the U.S. is excluded. In the 1980s President Reagan faced down the peace movements and the Soviet Union and achieved arms reductions that even the most optimistic peacenik would have thought impossible. A few years later, Communism collapsed, not coincidentally. What about Gulf War I (that Kerry opposed) or Kosovo, or even the Kurdish areas of Iraq and the no fly zone. Do problems remain? Of course. We don’t encounter perfection until we shuffle off this mortal coil, but it is better. Success just seems to happen by itself. In five years, I believe that Iraq will be among those things we think “just happened” by itself.
Posted by: Jack at September 16, 2004 09:47 PMPaul of Euroland,
The world would freak if I was in charge, but that being said this is what I would do in Iraq and what Bush and his coalition should of done.
1) Enforce Marshall Law thoughout Iraq i.e. only bad guys got weapons.
2) Allow local residents to form possies under police control.
3) Use unrelenting force on all resistence to the plan of free peaceful elections and allowing a stable government form. By the Iraq people for the Iraq people every one else stay away. Using words to fight both end of the differences cuts out the middle man named war.
Read about the tells of wars between the indian tribes of America before the White man came. Deep scares and wounds will heel if given the right treatment and environment to grow.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 16, 2004 10:10 PMMy view of the situation in politics today?
I think most people are losing sight of the practical side of governance, Republicans more than Democrats, because of the way that their majority power allows them to have things their way. When nobody can gainsay you and your power is secure, solving the challenges of fulfilling your agenda can be more appealing than dealing with the messier problems of real life.
And in the Republican party, agendas have been elevated to a high necessity. It was true before 9/11, it’s doubly true now. Unfortunately, that means the ignoring of a great number of facts. It’s telling that the Republicans were willing to approve three tax cuts while fighting two wars. One would think that the time to deficit spend is while you’re trying to wage a war that might end up curtailed by the need to get spending under control.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2004 10:57 PMWelcome Paul,
I agree that Iraq is looking more and more intractable. I think there was an opportunity missed here. The field generals objected to attacking fallujah, they objected to withdrawal. Shenseki argued about boots on the ground to handle the security after the invasion, and was ignored. The security seems to be a function of political timing.
Sadly, many people are now projecting civil war in Iraq. The insurgency is deeply rooted now. I heard a field commander define mission accomplished as when we can put Iraqis in charge of security, that may be the best we can hope for. Firing Bush and Rummy would give us a fresh administration unburdened by the mistakes of this one. However, I have my doubts as to anyone’s abilities to pull this one out.
Posted by: Greg at September 17, 2004 02:23 AMPaul - welcome. good to have someone from across the ocean.
Iraq will cost us a lot, but I don’t think it was a mistake when I consider the alternatives available at the time. If people don’t like the world with a strong U.S., just imagine the world without one. Most of the people in the world are not as peaceful or civilized as the Irish and Europe didn’t do too well for itself before the U.S. superpower came along.
Hi Jack,
if you think I’m an unbending critic of US force and diplomacy, you’ve misunderstood me. I freely acknowledge the huge and generous contribution the US made to the defeat of Facism in Europe, not least in the many young lives sacrificed at the altar of freedom. And also the huge support the US offered Europe after the war to help it back onto its feet.
There is however, no comparison between Germany before or after the war and Iraq. For one thing, Germany was an homogenous place socially. No tribes, no religious groupings with tensions between them, and perhaps most important of all, Germany was a leading world country with all that that implies, in education, technology and civilisation. This is not the place to get into discussion as to how a civilised country like Germany could have been seduced by Hitler and the Nazis, but at least in Germany, the Germans knew they had lost, and no doubt were grateful they had come under the control of the western allies, rather than the Soviets. The US offered no threat to their basic cultural or religious traditions. That is hardly the case in Iraq.
As to the alternatives available at the time, well, GW did himself say, that this was going to be a long war. That is would be often carried out in the shadows. The fact is, when you’re dealing with non state actors like terrorists, taking dirt is hardly the point. Afghanistan is clearly an exception to this, although the US and other western countries seem to have lost their committment to the growth of stable institutions in afghanistan. To fight a war against terrorists has to be multi faceted, and sending an invasion army into a country under the pretence that it is associated with Al Queda in order to change a regime that Rummy for one was more than happy to deal with in the past, begs a lot of questions. What about Bin Laden? Bush committed to tracking him down, and now he backtracks, saying that this fight is bigger than him.
The problem is that every arab in the region knows that the Iraqi invasion was more to do with achieving American strategic interests in the Mid East, and in particular to shore up Israels position. They are totally cynical about the US. Further, as fighting terrorism is firstly about gaining the optimum amount of intelligence on your enemy, you need to ensue the optimum amount of worldside support. Alienating your friends and allies does not tend to encourage the greatest spirit of co-operation.
Finally, only time will tell if this adventure was justified. Meantime, a lot of Iraqis are dying and a lot of young Americans are dying and being maimed. I strongly suspect that in time Americans will come to resent this war without end and demand that their children be brought home. It’s interesting that neither Bush nor Cheney put themselves on the line in Vietnam while their unconnected and poorer contemporaries bled there. That is not a waving of the flag for Kerry, who I think was a poor choice for the Dems, but at least he got his feet wet in Vietnam, and did so as a volunteer.
Read about the tells of wars between the indian tribes of America before the White man came. Deep scares and wounds will heel if given the right treatment and environment to grow.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 16, 2004 10:10 PM
Hi Henry,
I hardly think the situation the Native Americans find themselves in today is one which many Iraqi would aspire to. As to your solution to the current situation, and your remarks about Martial Law. The US cannot control the situation at the moment with something like 130,000 troops on the ground, not to mention British, Italian and others. Where are you going to find the numbers to even aspire to introduce martial law? And even if you could scrape the numbers together, how can you imagine that you will anytime soon remove the weapons from so many people, when weapons are one thing that are ubiquitious! As to possies under the control of the police - What police?????
Posted by: Paul in euroland at September 17, 2004 08:57 AM
Yes. I do believe that we are in Iraq for ‘bigger’ reasons than getting rid of Saddam.
It’s too bad that Saddam and the Taliban felt their peoples couldn’t be ruled by any other means than the ones they used.
Maybe if the U.S. hadn’t gone into those places eventually they would have found peace on their own.
Maybe groups like Al Queda should have been going after those governments to help the people instead of blaming their problems on the westerners.
Yes. We buy oil from that region but I don’t think the U.S. said,”If you take this check for the oil you have to rule your people with force, keep them poor, and never teach them how to read.”
I still don’t think that it was said that Saddam was tied to 9/11. He was paying the families of suicide bombers. He was sitting on his thrown with the confidence that no one was going to take him down. I wonder where he got that idea?
Now Kofi Annan is saying that the war with Iraq was ‘illegal’. I wonder why he said that? I have wondered for a long time if that man even knows what is going on? Did he ever go to Iraq to talk to Saddam himself? Did he know what was going on in the Oil for Food program?
The U.S. is not guilty of causing all the problems in the world.
France has psycho terrorists telling them that they can’t pass a law banning headscarfs and Canada is passing laws giving Muslim leaders their own power.
Western countries should not be passing special laws for Muslims. If they want it like it is where they came from they should go right back.
Posted by: Dawn at September 17, 2004 09:30 AMPaul, thanks for your reasoned response.
If we knew then what we know now, the Iraq conflict would be handled differently. Politicians can’t say that because of the “sound bite” nature of politics, but their actions indicate that they recognize it too. You alluded to one of the problems in your last posting when mention getting the optimum intelligence.
We were (are) very good at the cipher intelligence so commonly described in spy novels. We can break complicated codes and see the details of a person’s clothing from miles above in space. What we can’t do is read their intentions. The truth is that all western nations suffer from the inability to infiltrate and gather human intelligence in non-western countries. America is one of the worst affected because we have so long been fascinated by the technologies that no longer serve us well and we have no significant colonial tradition. Although it has been a long time, the Brits and the French still retain some of the networks and methods they developed to work with Muslim populations when they controlled them. The big exception to this “have not” rule is Israel, which has access to people (both Jews and Arabs) who speak the appropriate language and have the needed culture and experience. However, depending on Israel for intelligence about its Arab neighbors carries its own risks.
Returning to Iraq, our intelligence was flawed, but consider what we knew and/or believed. What we knew then was that Saddam Hussein had the stated intention of doing harm to the U.S., that he sheltered terrorists of various kinds (although no direct link to 9/11), that he at one time possessed and used WMD (we believed he had them still) and that he had the intention and capability to develop WMD if left alone. We also knew that Saddam Hussein was adept at confusing his enemies and that prone to act in unpredictable (at least to us) ways.
Furthermore, it was undisputed that Hussein was responsible for literally millions of deaths in his region and that he had attacked four of his neighbors, that he was in violation of seventeen UN resolutions. The Oil for Food program was a farce and Saddam Hussein was starving his own people and using UN sanctions as an excuse. Arab media was running stories every day about Iraqi woman and children dying because of U.S. (the didn’t say UN) sanctions. Many countries were flagrantly violating the sanctions and it was abundantly clear that Hussein would be “out of his box” within a year or at most two and free to do as he pleased.
Now let’s talk about the oil question. This war WAS about oil, but not in the sense most people think. Without oil, the world economy falters and we are not talking only about the fat cats. I don’t recall the exact figures, but I have seen a study linking the price of oil directly to rates of disease and death in poor countries. Oil money also supports a dictator in a style you just can’t get otherwise. (Is Robert Mugabe as bad as Saddam? Probably, but without the revenues from oil he can’t actualize his evil intentions.) Iraq produces about 20 billion of oil each year. Anyone who can do math can see that it is a very bad deal for the U.S. to spend 200 billion to secure 20 billion. But there is the security need. Iraq sits astride the world’s largest sea of oil. He would have the potential to cripple the world economy.
So you are George Bush. What do you do? Remember, you just lived through the trauma of 9/11, which nobody saw coming (although now some people claim they successfully predicted the past). If you do nothing, Saddam comes out of the box and he will be kicking around for a long time - and his two sons make him look like a choirboy. Saddam Hussein has not managed to go ten years without provoking a dangerous conflict. Why does anyone believe he had reformed? The UN has proven almost useless over the course of twelve years. Some members refuse to even consider any new resolution that would lead to the use of force. Saddam has never responded to anything but force and he know that if he waits long enough, he will be free. Iraq is weak and disorganized, but Saddam has shown his ability to recover given time. That means that you (Bush) will never be in a better position to deal with Saddam than right now. To be or not to be? Do you let him go or do you stop him and take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them
Regarding Political Disinfranchisment:
WE THE PEOPLE have all been disinfranchised politically by both parties, their incessant catering to special interest lobbies is sickening and in the process that which is truly good for the American People has been side lined and even lost.
The true interests of WE THE PEOPLE, have been sidelined in favor of dozens of foreign special interests, as well as left wing and corporate special interests. In essence we have been betrayed by those who are more interested in the trappings of power than that of the interests of the American People. There are very few politicians that have any integrity whatsoever, and are willing to represent their constituency with honor, most are too arrogant to consider WE THE PEOPLE. Most are too selfcentered and corrupt to care. It seems that those who proport to represent us are more beholding to special interest groups than they are to the people that they are suppose to represent.
Time to get back to basics, and find out what WE THE PEOPLE want and what we feel is in our best interests. I know for a fact that the agenda of the left is not in our best interests, and I suspect that the GOP, is lacking as well.
Allow me to say this however, WE THE PEOPLE get the government that we deserve, it is up to us to make the difference and be proactive in the protections of our own interests and hold our polititians that we voted into office accountable for the lousy job that they have done in the representation of our interests and our nation. WE THE PEOPLE need to speak up and be heard instead of allowing mealy mouthed selfinterested polititians and the left wing elite media do our speaking for us. WE THE PEOPLE need to wake up before it is too late.
Jacques / Canoga Park CA
Posted by: Jacques at September 17, 2004 11:13 AMYou go Jacques !
My point exactly !
We do need to wake up. When people vote for a 100 year old candidate so they can set a record of having the oldest politician they shouldn’t even get to be represented.
Same goes for wasting votes on politicians because they are of a particular party.
Posted by: Dawn at September 17, 2004 11:22 AMI still don’t think that it was said that Saddam was tied to 9/11.Posted by: Dawn at September 17, 2004 09:30 AM
Hi again Dawn,
Cheney repeatedly tried until very recently to link Saddam and 9/11. At the risk of stunning and even offending Americans, 9/11 needs to be put in context. In was an horrendous attack by inhuman unfeeling and fanatical robots. But whereas almost 3,000 people is a dreadful toll, how many people are killed on the roads every year, or die of AIDS? I am not trying to minimise the horror of 9/11, but it is being used to terrify the American people despite the fact that the risk of such attacks to the average citizen in tiny. It was Roosevelt who once said “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself” Fear is the weapon being deployed by the power masters in washington to keep the people from asking the real questions. The US has such resources of people, finacial, technology that in reality, if it faces the threat intelligently, the terrorists can inflict little more than pin pricks before they are finally destroyed.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 17, 2004 12:58 PMThat means that you (Bush) will never be in a better position to deal with Saddam than right now. To be or not to be? Do you let him go or do you stop him and take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them
Posted by: jack at September 17, 2004 09:46 AM
Hi Jack,
I hear all that you’re saying. I am not aware that Saddam had the stated intention of doing harm to the US, and believe that even he was not so divorced from reality as to challenge the US, especially given his experience with the US in 91. It is widely acknowledged as you say, that the US has failed over many years to maintain its investment in humint, as opposed to electronic intell gathering. And depending on Israel for intell in the region would be disastrous. Israel is an interested player in the region and might well have reasons to mislead its sponsor and protector. How many people remember the israeli bombing of the US naval vessel in I think 1967? Was it the USS Liberty?
The claim that Saddam was a threat to the US simply doesn’t stand up. He was well contained in his box, and indeed it is now known that his regime was getting gradually weaker. His support for terrorism was principally to give money to the families of suicide bombers in the occupied territories. Clearly this was of propaganda value to Saddam in the Arab world, but did it encourage people to commit suicide? I don’t think so. These guys are motivated by more than money, and so they would be attempting to commit their crimes without Saddams money.
We all broadly know of the horrors of Saddams regime. We know of his attempts to acquire WMD’s, incidentally assisted by Western powers, including the US during the Iran Iraq war. Saddam was indeed a regional savage, but he was never a military threat to the US. He may have been an economic and political one in 91 had he been allowed to hold Kuwait and perhaps invade Saudi. That didn’t happen. With respect to WMD’s, we know for certain that another inhuman dictatorship has nuclear weapons, an unstable and apparently irrational dictatorship. A regime potentially far more dangerous than Saddams’. North Korea. Another of Bush’s axis of evil. And yet nothing was done about that.
WMD’s were never the issue here. And the only really relevant issue now with regard to Iraq is, where to from here.
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 17, 2004 04:36 PMThat means that you (Bush) will never be in a better position to deal with Saddam than right now. To be or not to be? Do you let him go or do you stop him and take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them
Posted by: jack at September 17, 2004 09:46 AM
Hi Jack,
I hear all that you’re saying. I am not aware that Saddam had the stated intention of doing harm to the US, and believe that even he was not so divorced from reality as to challenge the US, especially given his experience with the US in 91. It is widely acknowledged as you say, that the US has failed over many years to maintain its investment in humint, as opposed to electronic intell gathering. And depending on Israel for intell in the region would be disastrous. Israel is an interested player in the region and might well have reasons to mislead its sponsor and protector. How many people remember the israeli bombing of the US naval vessel in I think 1967? Was it the USS Liberty?
The claim that Saddam was a threat to the US simply doesn’t stand up. He was well contained in his box, and indeed it is now known that his regime was getting gradually weaker. His support for terrorism was principally to give money to the families of suicide bombers in the occupied territories. Clearly this was of propaganda value to Saddam in the Arab world, but did it encourage people to commit suicide? I don’t think so. These guys are motivated by more than money, and so they would be attempting to commit their crimes without Saddams money.
We all broadly know of the horrors of Saddams regime. We know of his attempts to acquire WMD’s, incidentally assisted by Western powers, including the US during the Iran Iraq war. Saddam was indeed a regional savage, but he was never a military threat to the US. He may have been an economic and political one in 91 had he been allowed to hold Kuwait and perhaps invade Saudi. That didn’t happen. With respect to WMD’s, we know for certain that another inhuman dictatorship has nuclear weapons, an unstable and apparently irrational dictatorship. A regime potentially far more dangerous than Saddams’. North Korea. Another of Bush’s axis of evil. And yet nothing was done about that.
WMD’s were never the issue. And the only really relevant issue now with regard to Iraq is, where to from here. Bush doesn’t have any solutions. The interim Iraqi Govt doesn’t have any solutions. The fact is, there is no road map to mission accomplished in Iraq, and no end in sight. An appalling prospect. America can’t do any good by staying, and it cannot cut and run.
Paul
Sadly, you pin point the dilemma, “An appalling prospect. America can’t do any good by staying, and it cannot cut and run.” I guess the best way to get out of a rough patch is to go through it. All success in world policy depends on serendipity (afterwards called foresight.) Just because a problem isn’t solvable now, doesn’t mean it isn’t solvable later. We have no option for failure, although I expect we will have to redefine success as a reasonably calm federated state where human rights are usually respected – kind of like Russia these days.
I also do still believe Saddam was a threat because of his location and characteristics. He didn’t have to do much to be a threat living as he did in such an unstable neighborhood. Give the guy credit! He was a survivor. The world counted him out on several occasions and he came back. He was also coming out of the box. Sanctions were failing. The U.S. deterrence was (keeping troops in Saudi and ships all over the place) was costly. The Arab street was increasingly vocal. I think if we had not invaded, today we would face a very similar “downside” without the upside of having been rid of Saddam.
Well peeps, its been nice rapping with you. This is a debate that could go on and on. I send my best regards to my American friends with one or two exceptions..( you listening GW and Dickie?) and I hope that whoever is elected in Nov, will lead America and the free world with wisdom and humanity.
Oiche Mhaith
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 17, 2004 07:27 PMHi Jack,
Hijack!!! Paul, we don’t even joke about that over here. :)
Maybe the left should get rid of their liberal agenda and go back to the ideas that made the Democrat party popular.
Sorry it took so long to get back here, tim. Maybe you could tell me what what you think are “the ideas that made the Democrat party popular.”
Do you consider Republicans to have been similarly disenfranchised when Democrats held similar control during the early Clinton admin and the Carter admin?
joe, the difference is, Democrats sought out Republican co-sponsors for their bills. Democrats never physically locked Republicans out of the room when drafting legislation. Democrats never called for votes on unpopular bills at 3am.
Democrats hammered out compromises with Republicans. Ever since the Gingrich days, that doesn’t happen in Congress anymore.
“The American people expected genuine debate. Yet Republicans limited floor discussion on one of the most dramatic changes to Medicare in its history to a mere two hours. Two hours. And this behavior was not limited and confined to the vote on Medicare. For some reason, and I think it should be obvious what it is, the Republicans insist on having votes that are of great import to the American people, where they are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, taken in the middle of the night.“On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed a leave no millionaire behind tax cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:38 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House GOP passed a Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a Head Start bill by one single vote, and that Head Start bill was to undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue that Democrats and Republicans were on both sides of the issue, as were the American people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.
“It degrades our democracy when Democrats have no role in the legislation. This legislation affects millions of Americans — but we had no role in conference negotiations, no chance to offer amendments, no alternatives, and limited debate or discussion.
Posted by: American Pundit at September 18, 2004 09:41 AM
I thought the ideas that made the Dems popular were neatly expressed by FD Roosevelt ” We have nothing to fear, but fear itself” Ironically, I thought that Conservatives stood for small Goverment, and here we have a so called conservative Goverment going on an increasingly large spending spree and accumulating massive twin deficits. I thought in my stupidity and ignorance that prudence and putting by for a rainy day was the essence of conservatism. And certainly not raising huge borrowing for ones children to be burdened with. It seems like Americans are in an hypnotic trance, on autopilot to the future, energised by sound bites and disconnected from the reality of their lives by the policies of their leaders. It’s as if no one is listening, no one can concede that they may be wrong. The essence of a healthy democracy is a healthy scepticism of ones politicians. It is also the capacity of the electorate to question their own and the predominant beliefs of the broader society. America seems to have been cleaved in half, with one half conservative and proud and religious and dimwitted and whatever you’re having yourself and the other half lefty liberal - spit spit wash out your mouth with soap - caring human rights blah blah blah ad infinitum ad nauseum. Wake up America. Drop the lazy cliches. You are all Americans, and as such you share much more in common that what divides you. Stop sticking labels on each other. That was a tactic of the Nazis, label the Jews and soon people will stop seeing them as human, from there it’s a short step to doing what we like with them. This has always been the tactic of the demagogue. Democracy has responsibilities it demands of its citizens too. The need to be widely informed, the need to challenge our leaders. The need question everything. EVERYTHING! A classic tactic for one who seeks to rule, is to divide and conquer. The best leaders in history sought to bring the people together, and the best US Presidents did the same thing. You are coming up to Nov, in the hands of a very sophisticated and influential machine. QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 18, 2004 10:49 AMCame across this review of a book on amazon, and I thought it was worth reproducing, with apologies to the author for not clearing with him first -
This fine book of very timely political art hits it right on the head. In the best tradition of activists and revolutionaries everywhere, you sometimes must point out the obvious to those who are blind to it. The truth is not owned by the right or the left, the doves or the hawks. The truth is the truth.
The sons of rich men don’t fight wars and die.
All politicians lie. That is their job. Sometimes they lie in your benefit and then you are ok with it.
A people divided is a people under control.
We are all created equal but that changes as soon as you’re born. All are not treated equal.
Our great country was formed by revolutionaries fighting some of the same things we are dealing with today. The differnce is they were informed, hungry for knowledge and change, and willing to make a sacrifice. Most of us today are none of these things.
The first reviewer of this book was missing the point. This book is not a criticism of our citizens in the armed forces. We all owe them more than we can repay. This book questions your blind patriotism where you do what your told and follow no matter what. Where any protest or criticism of our government is to be dealt with. (Sounds like what we are supposedly fighting against) It questions your one sided view of the world where America is always right and we always know what is best for everyone else. It questions whether we really are a democracy anymore or just an empty shell that’s been hollowed out.
Real patriots in a real democracy hold their government and it agents accountable and make sure they are responsible to all of us and not just a chosen few.
Paul, I am afraid I must disagree with you.
“Real patriots in a real democracy” - must do what the government tells them to do. They want the govt. to take care of them. Actually, “Real patriots in a real democracy” is not a true statement unless “all” of the people agree to be controlled by the govt.
Real patriots in a real “Constitutional Republic” - care about their country, hold their government accountable for its actions and are truly free. They are self sufficent and work to make the country a better place.
Posted by: kctim at September 21, 2004 06:05 PMkctim, Germans in the 30’s and 40’s loved their country. They were in a real democracy, insofar as Hitler was elected and took office constitutionally. The Germans did do what their Govt told them to do and did agree to be controlled by their Govt and they did care about their country. Look where all of that led. I’ll say no more!
Posted by: Paul in Euroland at September 21, 2004 07:51 PM
