Republicans & Conservatives Archives

Equal entitlement replaced equal opportunity. The need to be strong became the need to be sensitive. The individual was no longer the master of his fate. Now conditions controlled the individual. Liberal leaders began to identify threats instead of opportunities. Experts began to tell us how to live our lives and we came to expect less from ourselves and of other Americans.

[…] Democrats need to remember what they once knew, that Americans want their government to provide options, not make choices for them.

It would be nice to have some examples so specifics can be addressed.

Experts began to tell us how to live our lives and we came to expect less from ourselves and of other Americans.

Efforts to assist people in poverty (I’m guessing what your aiming at) is not some effort to undermine people’s confidence. Assistence with healthcare isn’t a matter of emasculating those who can’t afford it. Neither of them qualify as telling people how to live. Bush’s ideas on tort reform are aimed at capping accountability, not promoting it (as one counter-example). It would be nice to know what examples of cultural tyranny the Dems have manufactured that might match things like a gay marriage ban, making abortion illegal, insistence on ignoring contraceptives and promoting abstinence, or an amendment for school prayer.

Ronald Reagan rescued America from the Carter malaise.

Well, it might be interesting to argue this given the apologia from the right for Bush’s economic malaise (e.g. it was Clinton’s mess). But I won’t.

The Dems need a great communicator? Yeah, that always helps. We live in a media world.

Jack this exerpt is from the farewell speech of Eisenhower.

Here is the link to read the entire speech. I think it is pertinent.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

“Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.”

For those so eager to go to war to destroy the terrorists, I think that it is nescessary to understand why they hate us so much that they would give up their lives in the face of a greater might.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” - Theodore Roosevelt

For those so eager to go to war to destroy the terrorists, I think that it is nescessary to understand why they hate us so much that they would give up their lives in the face of a greater might.

That’s a very, very good point Rocky. It still amazes me how many people - the President included, apparently - just refuse to accept that it’s what the US does in the Middle East, not who we are, that fuels these people’s hate. When bin Laden says he hates us for what we’re doing, it’s not some elaborate code for hating us because we’re a superpower, or because we let women drive cars.

Only once we all agree on that, can we really create an effective response. How hard are we willing to fight to prop up the Saudi regime? Would our position be stronger if we didn’t depend on Middle Eastern oil? Is backing Sharon’s Israel to the hilt against the Palestinians worth the anti-American al Qaeda recruits it’s generating? Can we realistically expect to create liberal democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan - and by extension the rest of the region? If not, then what’s the next step? What’s plan B?

That’s what we should be talking about. Until we know who our enemy is, and why they’re fighting, we’re just boxing shadows.

Jack, the whole premise for your post - that the Democratic Party stands for “equal entitlement” - is just too wrong to even address. If you really believe that, it’s just another example of our message being mis-defined.

There are good and bad with both parties . I see both sides of the fence so to speak . I do have to say I think John Kerry would have been one who would be crying saying please , please Mr Terrorist do not hurt me . I see him with out balls and not defending our country . I do not agree with Bush on all the issues either . I think Bush does a better job protecting our country than Kerry would have . That wife of his needs a muzzle . I know people can be opinionated and speak their minds , and is down right pathetic when you have someone do that during their spouses campaign . I know she told someone to shove it . They may have deserved it , but she should have not tried to deny it either . That is the point I am trying to make here because if there is something you do on tape then the best thing to do is admit it . You can be seen as a liar when people try to cover up what they have said or done .

Americans have always re-elected a sitting president during war time.

With a final score of 48 to51 I would hardly call the election anything to get all excited about. Americans have always been a very conservative lot. They have also been very cruel and hypocritical (just ask the Indians). But in the end analysis all the democrats have to do is wait. Oil will soon hit $70 a barrel and the body bags have just started accumulating from Iraq. After all FDR rode to fame on the debacle of a laissez-faire economy and the middle east had proven the down fall of many a politician.

One thing both side do have in common: Hubris. Just as Bill Clinton blew his legacy, Mr. Bush’s Christian fervor to punish the non believers will destroy his.

This country has survived slavery, civil war, the dust bowl(ecological disaster), the great depression, McCarthyism, the Japanese internment camps , the Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, race riots, Nixon, the first oil shortage (opec) and a crazy old fool of a president with Alzheimer’s. Nothing knocks the rose colored glassed of self righteousness off our face like economic collapse and a generation of youth traumatized by the reality of war.

As things stand now all the democrats need to do is sit back and enjoy the train wreck.

“As things stand now all the democrats need to do is sit back and enjoy the train wreck.”

You sure you dont want to rephrase this?

Well, maybe the word “enjoy” should be replace with “watch”.
Especially since I have family serving in Iraq and an unemployed brother.

American Pundit,
It’s what the US does in the Middle East, not
who we are, that fuels these people’s hate.

That’s not what they say. They say they hate me because I’m not Islamic and therefore an infidel. Oh and by the way, they hate you for the same reason. Stop making excuses for their sadistic actions.

Is backing Sharon’s Israel to the hilt against
the Palestinians worth the anti-American al
Qaeda recruits it’s generating?

Yes. I’ll choose the only free nation in the Middle East, imperfect as it might be, over the terrorists any day.
I know we’ve made some mistakes in the Middle East. But that does NOT give them the right to kill innocent Americans or Israelis.
We, and the Israelis, are on a moral high ground. If you don’t believe that, I suggest you take the word “American” out of your name.

To Riley:

I agree that lies are everywhere and through both parties. But Bush’s lies are far scarier.

I just don’t understand how you can care about whether or not the wife of a politician lied about how she told someone off, when the PRESDENT OF YOUR COUNTRY openly lies about his concerns over current issues.

During the last debate BROADCAST to millions, Bush denied ever having said “I don’t think about [Osama bin Laden] anymore, I’m not too concerned”. Anyone less than humored by Bush’s charismatic diversion of the issue can do a simple search and find the truth.
Listen here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4108747
There’s lying for you. (And how can this liar make you feel safe?)

When politics has degenerated this much isn’t it time to weigh all the lies and see which ones are more important?

I am sick and tired of this crap about Kerry and others who were opposed to the war in Vietnam being traitors. The most recent pile came from the so-called “documentary” Stolen Honor. The assertion is that by opposing the war, these people somehow prolonged it. This type of weak thinking is perpetrated by the “we could have won” crowd, which is comprised of people who are bitter about the fact that the US was defeated by the NVA. The fantasy goes that, if we had been allowed to fight without one hand tied behind our back, the NVA would have crumbled. This is purely wishful thinking.
Could we have won? Maybe. But that isn’t even the point - we had no business being there! In order to have won, we would have had to have committed atrocities of the sort to make My Lai look like an eight year old’s birthday party!
The Vietnamese began their insurgency against the French in the 1920’s. That fight took a hiatus only when the Japanese ran the French out of Southeast Asia. Then the Vietnamese began fighting the Japanese Army. At this point, we thought Ho Chi Minh was a national hero and we treated him like an ally. After the war, two things happened: the French were allowed to return to Vietnam and the US chose to support the Japanese, which to many of the nations they had occupied seemed like the ultimate betrayal.
After the French returned the insurgency began again, although this time the Vietnamese were better trained and equipped (by the US), and the French just didn’t have the heart for empire anymore. The US got involved based on the “Domino Theory” and a misguided understanding of Communism being monolithic, when in fact the Vietnamese have historically hated the Chinese more than any other group. We were propping up the puppet government of a failed imperialist power, a government that was comprised of a miniscule French-educated Christian minority that was out of step with the rest of the nation.
We sent those boys to fight and die in a war that was predicated on misguided notions and half-truths (sound familiar). Why did they become disillusioned? Because they quickly came to realize that unlike the occupations of Europe and Japan they did not have the support or sympathy of the people they were supposedly protecting.
John Kerry volunteered for duty based on a very persuasive argument made by McGeorge Bundy’s brother, both of whom were uncles of one of Kerry’s roomates at Yale. He and his buddies, one of whom was a grandson of Gen. “Blackjack” Pershing. This was a group of very gung-ho boys. They believed all the rhetoric coming from the Kennedy administration at that time, as did most volunteers. Kerry and his buddies became disillusioned along with many others, and that was why he chose to leave early: he didn’t feel he could continue in a fight he no longer believed in.
If you don’t believed our boys committed atrocities as the vets in “Stolen Honor” claimed, the watch the films or read the transcripts of the “Winter Soldier” investigations - it happened over and over and over. These men were deeply ashamed of their actions, which were sanctioned by the US government. Incidentally, Kerry did not orchestrate the hearings as some have claim - he was merely there, listening. It was during the Winter Soldier investigations that the Vets Against the War began to coalesce. Even then Kerry didn’t set out to be the leader. It just so happened that he was one of the few vets who could speak eloquently and control his anger, and looked clean-cut to boot. He was the most effective at getting their message across to average Americans.
After we pulled out the Vietnamese got into a war with the Chinese, who were trying to exert power in the region. Guess who won? These people fought for their right of self-determination for over 60 years. It is supremely arrogant to suggest that these people would have bowed down to American forces, if only they hadn’t gotten “comfort from the enemy”. Wake up boys, the Vietnamese didn’t need the support of US dissidents, nor do the Iraqi insurgents.

That’s not what they say. They say they hate me because I’m not Islamic and therefore an infidel.

Traveler, while bin Laden has offered to teach us to be good Muslims, that’s not why young boys and girls are strapping on the TNT. Bin Laden is whipping up support by telling Muslims that Islam is under attack by America, and it’s every Muslim’s duty to join the ‘defensive’ jihad. You and I may think that’s a crock, but we’re not his target audience.

In fact, bin Laden has consistently stated the following six “clear, focused, limited, and widely popular” goals:

• The end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state.
• The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from the Arabian Peninsula.
• The removal of U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands.
• The end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India.
• The end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera.
• And the conservation of the Muslim world’s energy resources and their sale at higher prices.

American Pundit,
Those are not THEIR (UBL is not the only terrorist and there are other groups besides al Qaeda) only reasons for wanting to kill us. If that was the case, they would be attacking only our millitary forces, and only in that area.
If you think that removing all our forces and influence from the area will keep them from attacking us again, then I’m sorry, but your head is in the sand.
The way I see it, there are three ways to deal with terror.
1. The Kerry plan. Focus most of our security at home, with limited use of millitary force.
2. The Clinton (Carter, Regan, Bush 41) plan. Ignore the problem (even attacks in America) for the most part and launch a few millitary strikes just for show.
3. The Bush plan. Enough homeland security to keep us reasonably safe combined with larger millitary strikes on the terrorists themselves. Also work to secure freely-elected governments in the mid east.
I think the Bush plan, while not perfect, works best because it is designed to eliminate or at least decrease the problem AT ITS SOURCE rather than pander to it. As you seem to be suggesting.
Also, if we relinquish all influence on the middle east, Israel won’t be there very long(you said so your self). And much Europe would be cheering the genocide on from the sidelines.

AP,
Oh, and your “eliminate all westeren influence” theory doesn’t explain attacks on nations not involved in the mid east. Or attacks on Israel for that matter.

AP

We really can’t give bin Laden the answer he wants to any of those demands, with the possible exception of the second one. Most of his demands are not even under our indirect control. If you put the price of oil up enough, for example, you make alternative technologies attractive, which brings down the price of oil. Even if we did all the things bin Laden asks, it wouldn’t end there. This guy is still mad about the loss of Spain in 1492.

We should go our best to undercut his message (as you and I discussed earlier) and do our best to make him and his followers martyrs sooner rather than later. It will take a long time, but the world has faced down and defeated radical Islam before.

Radical Islam can be a spoiler, but it lives as a parasite from western technologies and methods. That is a natural limiting factor to the growth of that particular cancer. We have to figure out how to ratchet it down further.

I find it very ironic that so many people seem to be of the mind that Bush is “tough on terror”. Yes, Afghanistan was an al-Qaeda training ground and therefore an appropriate target in the war on terrorism. Iraq, though? That’s about oil, not terrorism, and I can’t imagine for an instant that our heavy focus on Iraq and our heavy investment of resources there has done anything other than interfere with the war on terrorism.

Why is it that neither Kerry nor Bush is willing to talk about the fact that protecting the flow of oil from the middle east is in our vital interest? Why instead has Bush tricked the average American into believing that our invasion of Iraq had something to do with the war on terror?

And why is that both Bush and Kerry are so reluctant to start weaning Americans off of oil? For sure, the profits of the American auto industry and the big oil companies would suffer if Americans came to understand that we are sacrificing our sons’ and daughters’ lives so that we can drive SUVs and heat McMansions. But I can’t believe that that is the primary consideration here. Is it the case that we need to cement our power in the Middle East before China overtakes us as the worlds largest oil consumer? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this matter…

BTW, as a wealthy Massachusetts liberal, I’d like to extend a big thanks to all you Bush voters that have helped to make tax cuts for the rich a reality for all of us wealthy Massachusetts liberals. I find it truly ironic that the states with the highest per-capita incomes were solidly behind the candidate that promised to RAISE their taxes, while the lower income states were solidly behind the president that has the has made tremendous strides toward widening the gap between rich and poor.

Evil Massachusetts Liberal,
Just to let you know, the election is over, so you don’t need to spin the tax cuts any longer. Everybody knew when the cuts were enacted that they were across-the-board. Saying “cuts for the rich” through the whole election cycle was one of the dem’s bigger mistakes because everyone knew it was just political spin.
Also contrary to what you seem to be implying, most of the people in this country (and most of the people in your so-called lower income states) are neither rich or poor. These people are known as the “middle class.”
Kerry, the candidate who wasn’t supposed to see things in black-and-white, made the mistake of implying that anyone who made over $200,000 was rich and everyone else was poor. This was a calculated move designed to foster class-envy. However, it backfired because people who make respectable incomes don’t like to be referred to as poor.

Traveller and Jack. I’m not suggesting any course of action. I’m just passing along some intel. Accept it or not, the fact is, they hate us for what we do, not who we are.

As an example, in 2002, only 36% of Indonesians - the most populous Muslim nation in the world - had an unfavorable opinion of the US. After the Iraq invasion, that grew to 83%. That change had nothing to do with culture or religion. It was the direct result of the implementation of US policy. You can argue whether the policy is right or wrong, but let’s at least be honest about why they hate us.

Just to let you know, the election is over, so you don’t need to spin the tax cuts any longer. Everybody knew when the cuts were enacted that they were across-the-board.

Duh. Our problem is that they disproportionately favor the wealthy. The irony in this election, as in the last, is that the middle class would have gotten bigger tax cuts. If you’re voting for Bush because you like tax cuts, you screwed yourself. Twice.

AP,
It seems to me thay hate us for both reasons.
And they certainly hate Israel just for their existance.
Having an unfavorable opinion and hateing are two diferent things. For example, not everyone who voted against Bush hates him, as some would have us believe. ;)
A lot of Iranians celebrated when Bush was re-elected. They might not like him very much, but they know he is one of the few people who might help red them get rid of their opressive fundamentalist government.
As for the tax cuts, I don’t think many people made their choice based on the cantidates tax plans. I think most people had other things on their minds like the war. Considering how much money the government takes from us, I would guess most people would be happy to get any tax cut at all, no matter how disproportionate.

Wonderer,
Why does the US aid Israel? Because they are being attacked for no other reason than their existence. And because up until last month, they had the only freely elected government in the mid east. And because they are one of the few truly US-friendly nations in the region.
How did Israel become a state? There has been a nation of Israel there for thousands of years. True, it has been attacked and occupied for much of that time, but the land does belong to them. The Arab countries agreed to Israel’s right to the area after WWI. In 1948, the UN decided to enforce it. Like I said earlier, they have a constitutional, freely elected government.
We have every right to take preemptive action to prevent American deaths. Also, we have the right to be there when they ask us to be there, like in 1991. To the best of my knowledge, we currently have permission to be there from the governments of every country we have troops in.
Why do countries oppress Muslims? Maybe to prevent terror? Yes, and I agree they go WAY to far. But they DO have the right to defend themselves.
Why does America help countries that oppress Muslims? For the same reasons we help everyone else, including the Muslim countries.
Which repressive regimes are you referring to?
The Muslim world has every right to protect its energy resources.
From what I understand, they do sell their product for as much as they can. Isn’t that what OPEC does? They set the prices.
Why doesn’t anybody wonder these things from the Muslim point of view?
This one’s more complicated.
First, look at my post about the Iranians. They share our point of view. In my opinion, we do not need to contemplate the view of their government. What the PEOPLE want is more important.
It’s hard to look at the Muslim point of view when they repeatedly attack us. And I realize that not all Muslims are terrorists. But the ones who aren’t need to do something to stop this. Like I said before, if our military forces in the area are their only problem, they would be focusing on them and not civilians and other Muslims.
If the non-fundamentalist Muslims, which is most of them, want us to act on their views, they need to make those views clear. If they disagree with terror, they need to say so.

Wonderer,
I didn’t answer your last question.
Do I think the Muslims have real grievances?
They did.
But they gave up the right to have them on 9/11.
Instead of voicing their concerns, they decided that killing innocent people would be a better idea. In other words, they chose to start a war.
It’s now up to us to defend ourselves, including the use of preemptive action. And many of the Muslim PEOPLE (not their fundamentalist governments and the fundamentalist terrorists), while unhappy with the situation, agree with us.

Traveler,

Thank you for answering my first set of questions. Now I have some more.

Is Israel really guilt free? After they were “given back their land” didn’t they keep carving and carving and killing people in doing so? I don’t believe it’s as simple as “they are hated because they exist”.

If the Jewish people have claims to the land because their history there is longer, shouldn’t North Americans be returning our land to our predessors, the Native Americans? Isn’t it hypocritical for the US to be fighting for Israel’s historic right to their land? Isn’t America fueling the fire by selling weapons to Israel? What is Bush’s plan to support a peace process? Sell more weapons?

My soul does not agree with the right to preemptive striking.

Partly because you have to put trust in a government to do that striking, while they lie to you about who your enemy is. Was 9/11 a ticket to aim at anyone you please? Did Iraqis fly the planes that day? Who proved to you (and how) that 9/11 and Saddam Hussein were connected? (or is the religion factor enough?) Can you honestly believe George W Bush?

When you talk about Iranians celebrating Bush’s re-election, how many Iranians are you referring to? How do you know what they want? I don’t want to sound contentious, but please show me the links to the articles about which Muslim people support US foreign policy.

I do agree with you that Muslim countries should be doing more to stop terrorism. Wait. Are they doing nothing or do English language media not report anything good that Muslims do?

One more set of questions: Can governments prevent terror by oppressing people? By supporting their enemies? Is it up to the US to “bring democracy” everywhere? I just can’t believe that PEOPLE are wishing for America to spread freedom all over them… And if the US has a moral duty to liberate everybody, why isn’t it helping countries like Burma? Why didn’t it fight the Khmer Rouge, etc. etc?

*My questions about Muslims protecting their energy resources came from the list of bin Laden’s goals (see American Pundit, above) for hating the US. I understood those goals as being in the context that they were undefendable (philosophically). I’ll admit I’m ignorant about OPEC.

Wonderer,
Wow. I wasn’t planning on doing this much thinking today, but here goes…
Israel did expand its borders. But only for purposes of defense after it was attacked. They didn’t “keep carving and killing people.” The weapons we have given them have only been used for defensive purposes.
In the 90’s President Clinton brokered a deal to give the “Palestinians” the land they are currently on and make a separate state for them. This offer was turned down. Not by Israel, but by Palestinians. They had their chance, and yet the attacks on Israel continue.
If you don’t think they are hated because of their existence, than why were they attacked on the very day they became a nation? How do you explain quotes from UBL and others that Israel should be “driven into the sea,” and the like?
Should we give back our land to the Native Americans? I’ll save that argument for another thread.;)
I don’t believe that Bush lied about Iraq because Congress authorized it after seeing the same intelligence that Bush did. Were mistakes made? Yes.
But let’s take Iraq out of the War on Terror for a minute. We got rid of the Sadam regime. We liberated the people and they will now be holding their first elections in January. Don’t think it’s possible? Well, they said the same thing about Afghanistan. I believe that overall, in the long run, the war in Iraq has been and will be a good thing.
Here’s one link to an article about the people in Iran. I’m sure you can find others with a goggle-search.
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/nov070.html
The US does not have a morale duty to liberate everybody, nor do we have the power. But we should do our best to help the mid east. The largest threat to America right now is terror and it’s rooted in the mid east. I agree with Bush that bringing about freedom is one way to help stop it.
I’m sure I’ll be able to think of more to say later on, but right now I have to get back to work. I’ll check back later.

I have to comment on what the person wrote to me . The wife of the candates are in the spot light when they run for office whether you like it or not . People look at the wives because wives have influence on their husbands . I do not hate Kerry or his wife at all . All people have faults . I do have to say if other countries are backing us in the Iraq war and see the same intelligence we do then Bush is not a liar . Even Kerry himself saw the same inteeligence we did .
I also have to say this as well . I trust Bush to protec me and my family and friends over Kerry . I think Kerry had some good points as far as the economy and a couple of other aspects . Plus , there is another issue that sealed the deal for me with Bush . I also think that when there has been resolution after resolution on Iraq and no one had the balls to confront or deal with the problem Saddam posed to the world . Finally , someone had the balls to stand up to him . How many resolutions to you go through before you finally back things up with what you have said you would do . He had plenty of chances to come clean and he refused . So , there was no other choice . I think he should have waited a little longer before we went in , but we do not know everything that was involved either . The government does not tell the public everything because that is not good for security purposes .
I am a moderate republican and for me I do not see things as far as being to conservatice . I beleive in our freedom , liberty , and the aspect to stand up for what we think is the right thing to do . Everyone has the right to their own opinion . I also think before people start spouting off things they need to find out facts first so they do not make a donkey out of themselves . The truth about things and not calling a person a liar until all the facts are in .

“BTW, as a wealthy Massachusetts liberal, I’d like to extend a big thanks to all you Bush voters that have helped to make tax cuts for the rich a reality for all of us wealthy Massachusetts liberals.”
- Wealthy and liberal do not go together. Why don’t you and all the other so-called wealthy liberals, celebrities and the such put your money where you mouths are? Why don’t you keep 30-50 thousand for you and your family and give the rest to the govt so they can take care of everybody?
I can tell you why. Because money is more important than your beliefs and your beliefs are that of a hypocrite.
Instead of whining about the poor, sick and lazy and trying to pass more taxes to force those of us who can’t afford it, to give more money to these people, why don’t you practice what you preach.

To all the wealthy people who think they are liberals: Put up or shut up!

I have to comment on this one . Boy it must be nice to be holier than thou . I guess you think you are perfect . This is ridicou I wonder if this guy has anything better to do than be a sore looser . I wish they would stop crying and pitching a fit over spilt milk . We do have a belief system and morals . Why do you think the marriage ammendment in 11 states was passed by BIG margins ! I do have to say money is not more important . Maybe you should start helping the homeless if you are so rich !! Boy , you have a lot of judgement but , you need to clean your own closet before you think about someone else and their issues . You have a lot of nerve coming in here and judging us . Why do you think Bush won , because we got out and voted . That is a real work of art to come and judge us . Who made you judge and jury on everyone else ? If you are so rich , put your money where your mouth is and do soemthing instead of complaining about the people who voted for Bush . Some one has a lot of room to talk about being a Hypocrite . It says judge not lest you be judged . Take a look in the mirror and and look at yourself before you judge someone else .
Think about the people who have distroyed republican local offices , broken things , and ended up breaking someones arm down in Florida . You call that morals , a bit NO !! Then there is the instance where someone slashed tires on vans that republicans were using to take people to vote , is that having morals , a big NO !! Is forging docuents on ballots being someone with integrity with morals , NO !! I think it takes a lot of nerve coming in here and talking about us having no morals . I know there were ballots with fictious addresses on them and names . Do you think that is having moralsx , do not think so at all . Put your money where your mouth is and do something to help the poor instead bashing people because they voted for Bush .

TheTraveler,

Actually, to be fair to the Palestinians:

Are they allowed to vote and participate in government?

In addition, the excuse for taking over Native American land is we have supposed contracts that prove the “legal” sale of the land to settlers. Do the Isrealis have documents which prove the “legal” sale of the land to the settlers? (Actually, maybe they do. Anyone know?)

If the claim is that settlers that moved there have a historical legal precedent to the land, do they have legal documents which describe the families legal rights to the land, and where that land was? (I know you may say “the bible”, but you’ve got to have an individual family claim to an exact location, you can’t have a generalized claim for a generalized people. land rights don’t work that way according to industrialzied “democratic” nations).

In addition, the U.S. has a “squatter’s rights” policy that gives the land to someone who has been on it for ten years uncontested.

There are thousands of palestinians with legal documents putting forth claims on individual houses in Isreali areas that individual Palestinian families resided in before being driven from them by war. I believe they’ve been contesting the rights to that land since they were driven off of it.

If confiscated property is being returned to jewish settlers from WWII, then why is confiscated property not being returned to Palestinians?

It seems that you could do this on a case by case basis.

Anyway, I don’t want to contribute to anti-jewish sentiments, because there’s way too much of that in the world. However. That doesn’t mean we can’t concentrate on rectifying land rights on a case by case basis with individual Palestinian families.

Julia

Dear Hypocrite, aka Evil Massachusetts Liberal

If you feel that the nation would have been better off without the Bush tax cuts, you can put your money where your mouth is and make a voluntary contribution to the US Treasury at any time.

Details are available here:

http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/markets/national-debt.shtml#q10

I’ve made this suggestion to several rich liberals who complain about the Bush tax cuts. The rate at which they turn their rhetoric into reality is abysmal. Are you any better?

Traveler

You said:

I don’t believe that Bush lied about Iraq because Congress authorized it after seeing the same intelligence that Bush did. Were mistakes made? Yes.

and I believe it was in response to a comment about the connection to a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq due to a connection with 9/11 and the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

As I see it, congress authorised the attachs because any politician that stood up against the ‘war on terror’ would have been commiting political suicide. The climate at the time was to reassure the American People that and also remind the terrorists that America is still mighty, able to topple despots the world over.

It’s perhaps unfortunate that weapons of mass destruction were not found, I myself was immensely surprised. I don’t disagree with preemptive war, but it seems to me that “we just don’t like the guy, he isn’t very nice to his people” isn’t an adequate justification for crossing a border in force.

Take the Vietnamese intervention into Cambodia to sort out Pol Pot. That’s justified intervention. The Vietnamese were welcomed by the people. I don’t see that happening in Iraq.

Whatever your domestic political problems, I don’t believe you’d be happy being invaded by the a foreign power unless you trusted them to look after you better than your own government. I don’t see that trust existing in Iraq.

Which brings me back to why America went. “The world is a better place now” is debatable IMHO. To go to help the Iraqi people who seem to not want to have been helped? Damn them as ungrateful!

My thought runs parallel to the behaviour of animals. A cornered or wounded animal will put on the biggest show of ferocity to avoid the appearance of weakness, in that such a show would invite an attack.

But lets ask a question. Do you think that’s adequate justification for the death toll of Iraqi life, and do you think an Iraqi citizen is worth less than an American one? It’s this “us/them” philosophy, talking about the Muslem world as if they are all responsible to a certain extent. I wouldn’t hold you responsible for your brother’s actions, let alone another member of your religion or ethnic group.

The Muslim world has every right to protect its energy resources. From what I understand, they do sell their product for as much as they can. Isn’t that what OPEC does? They set the prices.

Traveller, OPEC actually keeps the price of oil artificially low, especially Saudi Arabia. After Carter got us 90% independent of Middle East oil, they’re trying to gain more US market share. They’re also trying to attract buyers from China and India by offering prices that are lower than non-OPEC suppliers like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Mexico.

Unfortunately for us, when the non-OPEC oil becomes scarce and expensive, the Middle East reserves will still be cheap. No matter how hard we try to become independent of Middle East oil, if we continue to rely on oil for transportation, we’re going to have to deal with them more and more.

Would the United States be in a better position to deal with Islamic insurgents if we didn’t rely so heavily on Middle Eastern oil, or oil in general? Why isn’t President Bush making that a priority?

When Clinton made a big push for Israeli/Palestinian peace in his last term, it wasn’t for glory or the history books. Muslims see that conflict as defining their relationship with the West. Do you think new al Qaeda recruit numbers would drop off if that problem was solved peacefully? Why isn’t President Bush making that a priority?

Do we really need to support Russia’s and China’s brutal repression of their Muslim minorities? How does that support help the United States?

Curiousity,
It’s obvious that most of your info about Iraq is coming from the media.
Most (not all, but most) Iraqis support us. I know this because I’ve actually talked to people who have been there.
You said, “I don’t believe you’d be happy being invaded by the a foreign power unless you trusted them to look after you better than your own government. I don’t see that trust existing in Iraq… To go to help the Iraqi people who seem to not want to have been helped? Damn them as ungrateful!”
You’ve got to be joking! You think they would rather have Saddam than an elected government??? We are not governing the Iraqis. There is a government in place, made up of Iraqis, and they will be holding elections in January.
You asked whose lives are worth less. By doing so you imply that we’re killing ordinary citizens arbitrarily. This is not the case and you know it. Many of the terrorists we are fighting are not Iraqis. That’s why we refer to them as “insurgents.”
Schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and most importantly, a freely elected government. If you don’t see all this as a good thing, than you need to do some long, hard thinking about yourself. To say that the Iraqis are not better off is to use the same misguided logic the terrorists use.

Pundit,
Thanks for the OPEC info. I’m not an expert either.
President Bush has said repeatedly that he would like to see a Palestinian state. I think the reason he hasn’t pushed for it is because the Palestinians (their leadership anyway, I won’t lump them all in) don’t seem to want one. Obviously, with the Arafat situation, there’s not much to be done until they have a clear leader in place.

Do we really need to support Russia’s and China’s brutal repression of their Muslim minorities? How does that support help the United States?

I understand that Muslims are being repressed, but we are not “supporting” it to the best of my knowledge. Could you be more specific?

Reality Check,
LOL! Good Point!
Liberals are only liberal with other people’s money!

Au contraire, the Traveler,

I’m a liberal and I’m liberal with my own money. No, I wouldn’t pay more in taxes under the Bush administration than he asks me to, because I want my dollars to go to social programs, and that’s not the type of thing Bush is interested in. I’ve been using my extra tax dollars to fund nature.org. However, I would rather that money go to fund the EPA. However, since the EPA has been gutted under Bush, why should I fund it now, since Bush won’t let it do anything? I recoginze that I’m a big hypocrite for wanting to vote for someone who would raise my taxes to fund liberal social programs. That includes me and 14 of my crazy rich liberal friends. We’re big mean hypocrites who want to have a guy tax us to fund liberal social programs. Wait, how does that make us evil and mean-spirited again?

The other issue is that the most liberal states not only fund their liberal programs, but they export dollars to other (typically red states). I’m sure you’d agree that Massachussetts is liberal. It exports more dollars than the entire state budget of Montana, or Nevada, or Mississippi. At the same time, it has better schools, better welfare programs, better hospitals, etc.

Red states, like my home state of Mississippi, have compounding problems like
1) incompetent and corrupt politicians who wage unsound economic policy year after year.
2) Subsidizing businesses that turn around and don’t pay their workers a livable wage, resulting in a heavy reliance on socialized health care and subsidized schools.
3) low investment in education which results in a poor workforce.

About Iraq. My issue with Iraq, from the beginning, was that you don’t start something unless you have the will of the American people behind you. The American people have to know the difficulty of the situation they are getting into, and what the costs could be. And they have to know the purpose of being there. Otherwise, you might find yourself halfway in, with the people wanting to get out.

The New York Times said at the beginning that this was going to cost 160 billion dollars, and the Bush people were foaming at the mouth over that figure.. They said that kind of monetary outlay was hysterical and ridiculous. Well, here we are.

You remember the recession we were in when Bush decided to go to war. If the facts were laid out, would we have supported this type of action?

Bush took a big gamble that the American people would step up when they realized that this was going to be extremely expensive, and that the result wouldn’t be disarming a dangerous country, it would be “spreading democracy”. Despite these platitudes that “everyone believed” Saddam had weapons, the truth is, that a large portion of the intelligence community DID NOT believe that. The other fact is, that the evidence was shaky at best, Colin Powell AND George Bush are on the record as stating “this is all you’ve got?”. In addition, Cheney and Wolfowitz have had designs on Iraq for the last 20 years that never had anything to do with terrorism. Bush had no foreign policy experience. His foreign policy is the policy of his staff who wanted to go to war with Iraq before 9/11. Is it more likely that they went to war with Iraq for their self-professed vision of a “domino theory of democracy in the middle east?” or did they suddenly invade Iraq because of new reasons that had nothing to do with the reasons they’d been putting forth the last 20 years. (Read “Rise of the Vulcans”. No, it’s not partisan, I promise.)

If the American people were told: “Hey, the people in Sudan are brutally repressed. We can go in there and make that place a democracy, but it will cost $180 billion dollars, and the results are still uncertain. And 1000 soldiers will die, and our economy will be shaky because waging war destabilizes the markets. But, Sudan has long standing ties with Al Qaeda, although there’s no recent proof that ties the two together. However, we do have proof of connections to 25 Al Qaeda operatives and Sudan. And, there has been indications that they have tried to build WMD under the Sudan government.” (By the way, that’s true. In fact, there is a much stronger terrorist WMD tie to Sudan than to Iraq).

Anyway. Do you want to go in? 180 billion, 1000 lives to “free” Sudan, and maybe destroy a base for Al Qaeda (but probably not since the evidence for that happening anytime recently is weak)?

I’m for staying in Iraq because we owe it to the Iraqi people to do the best we can by them. However, the lies coming out of the government about the reconstruction going on there makes me extremely angry. I’ve followed the electricity repair projects since day one, and every week there was a new lie that came out. I hate being lied to. I hate it.

The irony is, I think we might be doing a good job on the electricity situation, but I can’t tell because the administration keeps lying.

For instance, they said they had no idea that the grid was in such disrepair. But the U.N. reports from 1997-2000 outline in exact detail how bad the grid was. It also outlines that it was bad because the U.S. vetoed projects to repair it.

The U.S. said they would have the grid back up to pre-war levels in 6 months. They got it there for one day in October, then it fell back below pre-war levels for the next year. Then they kept talking about how it was up to pre-war levels while they KNEW IT WASN’T, and they knew they were playing word games to pretend like it was.

So while I’m fuming that that government is covering up the fact that they are incompetent and can’t repair the grid, I look up the U.N. reports which clearly states that if the grid goes down, it will take at least 2 years to add a single MW to the grid.

So then I’m not mad at the grid repair anymore, because sure enough, two years passes, and they start adding MW to the grid, just like the U.N. report said would happen.

On the other hand, WHY DIDN’T THEY JUST SAY THAT WAS HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE. Why do I know more than the President? Does the President think it’s a good idea to cover up the truth of how long it will take to complete projects? Why would he do that? Or does he not know? Can it be true that I am more educated about the difficulty of reparing the electricity grid than the President? The scary thing? Maybe I do. And that’s from a google search. Maybe we should teach our president how to use google.

Then 6 months before the election, they start cleansing all the government sites that contain this information. Why did I not vote for George Bush?

Because I watched his administration delete every peice of factual information on reconstruction page by page. And I decided that there HAD to be something going on if they were going to such efforts to delete things.

I do not trust people that hide things. And I don’t vote for a president who knows less than I do about the difficulties of repairing Iraq.

And if the truth is that the President feels that he must mislead to be able to effectively lead, I don’t vote for people who think they have to be dishonest to be effective. Either he is a man of integrity and honesty and straightforwardness, or he isn’t.

Bush ran on the platform of being straightforward, but his record has been anything but.

I want to support the person that does the right thing. But how can I support someone who doesn’t tell the truth? I’m required to guess if he is doing the right thing. I don’t want to guess. I want to know.

Julia

Julia
I value your opinions and so far, you are the only liberal with the guts to try and answer some of the questions dealing with the liberal agenda.
With all due respect, I would like to ask your response to the following question:

Why don’t wealthy liberals, celebrities and the such, practice what they preach? Why don’t they keep 30-50 thousand for themselves and their family, live a modest life and give the rest to the govt so they can take care of everybody?

Thank you for your time.

Julia,
I note with interest that you give money to nature/environmental orgs as opposed to ones that actually help people. There’s nothing wrong with that (I’ve given to NC in the past as well), but it is the social programs that the government is sinking all this money into. And no, Bush isn’t cutting them. The government is spending more on social programs than ever.

As for Iraq, you seem to confusing mistakes with lying.
There’s no way to predict how a war is going to go before it happens. You can only estimate. They could only guess how long it would take. They could only guess how much it would cost or how many causalities there would be. You think Bush lied because he wasn’t able to come up with the perfect plan?
Oops, I just pissed off my right-wing friends who think Bush is perfect.
As for the power grid problems, I won’t pretend to know much about it. Could it simply have something to do with the fact that our government is a convoluted bureaucracy? You can’t apply “BUSH LIED!” to every single problem.
Oh, and by the way, if we weren’t there, it would not be repaired at all.
If Congress thought the intelligence was bad at the time, they should not have authorized the use of force.
I agree that the intel was not accurate but the President and congress went with what they had.
If Bush was lying, it was the job of Congress to find out. They see intel too, you know. That’s why I don’t think Bush was lying. It’s called checks and balances.

“Then 6 months before the election, they start cleansing all the government sites that contain this information. Why did I not vote for George Bush? Because I watched his administration delete every piece of factual information on reconstruction page by page. And I decided that there HAD to be something going on if they were going to such efforts to delete things.”

Which sites? What information?

I realize Bush isn’t perfect. And I realize he hasn’t been entirely truthful. But name one president who was.

“But how can I support someone who doesn’t tell the truth?”

I assume that means you didn’t vote for Kerry either. If you’re only going to vote on truthful politicians, you’ll never vote again!

I do not know how you can call Bush a liar when the senate and the house saw the same information that Bush did . There are other countries that saw the same intelligence . When you have the same intelligence as other countries not just your own then it is not lying . Lying is when you deliberately give and state false informaiton . That was not the case here on this one . When we have people gathering intelligence that is their job . Why do you think there are spies in other countries . Also , when the President is given the information through our inteeligence then that is what he has to go on . If you think you can do a better job why don’t you do it yourself and put yourself in harms way . Do not judge lest you be judged . I am sure you have not seen the intelligence that the government has seen and not just from ours , but from other countries as well . If you have not seen the report then you have no room to talk . President Bush may have been mistaken on some things in regard to the report but that does not make him a liar . One question have you ever done something that you were mistaken about ? Does that make you a liar , I think not . Kerry has said that Sadam was a threat to our security and saw the report . Get over it ! Move on get a life and stop blashing people and saying they are liars . No one is perfect and never will be .

Traveler,

I want to apologize for the “killing and carving” comment I made earlier. I was carried away by stress when I only wanted to make the point that the Palestinians must have a point of view that we never see, because American government, culture and media have by and large neglected it. I never meant to use incendiary language that disgusts me, or imply that the hate and violence was justified. And I never meant to stray so far from my original worries.

I don’t trust that George W Bush is doing his best work to bring peace in the Middle East or anywhere. My question about HOW 9/11 and the Iraq war are connected was never answered. If the US wanted to make the case for liberating people, they should have abstained from the “strike first, find WMD later” argument and stuck to the freedom argument- they could have let the inspectors do their jobs- then gotten to work on liberating countries that don’t have oil, to make a stronger case for “spreading freedom for freedom’s sake”.

But there I go getting upset again. Time to sign off.

kctim,

I don’t think that’s the liberal agenda, that’s why. Most liberals I know think paying taxes is fine, and support social programs, and are willing to pay an extra 8% in taxes if it means universal healthcare. Most celebrities are big charitable contributors. Some fund entire charities almost solely from their own income. The biggest celebreties employ hundreds of people, and they provide health insurance and the rest. So. I don’t think they are hypocrites for promoting a 39% tax on the wealthy and not a 78% tax. And I don’t think I am one either.

Traveler,
to be honest, I haven’t spent the time I should to vet charitable organizations and see which ones I think are effective. And also, your comment just made me realize that I could put my money where my mouth is, and find my local Head Start and give them some money. I feel kind of dumb that I hadn’t thought of it before. I’ll do it.

As for Iraq. I do understand that everyone makes mistakes. But that’s not what’s going on.

Here are the sites that were cleansed:
http://www.defendamerica.mil
http://www.usaid.gov
http://www.whitehouse.gov
http://www.cpa-iraq.org (which went over to state and another site, where they don’t post the data)

And those are just the sites I personally keep an eye on. There’s still data on there, but it’s really propagandized now. The data that was cleansed was updated tables on electrical grid repair, sewer project repairs, rate of daily attacks, amount of munitions destroyed, status of new hires, estimated time of project completion, stuff like that.

As for the comment about only voting for truthful politicians, good point. You’re right, I would have no one to vote for. But when I read Kerry’s non-campaign speeches, and then fact check them, they generally turn out okay.

When I read Bush’s non-campaign speeches, and then fact check them, they generally turn out to be hugely misleading.

Pick a Bush speech and fact check it. I think you’ll be surprised.

Like this one:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1195205

Don’t you get the impression that there was a substantive connection to Al Qaeda? If I told you after this speech that Iraq had extremely vague connections to 3 Al Qaeda members wouldn’t you be surprised? Then compare that to the hundreds of Al Qaeda members who have stronger connections to Saudi Arabia?

Really, shouldn’t he be held to some higher truth standard when making the case for war?

Don’t you agree that you shouldn’t have to “sell” a war, that you should go to war based on the unvarnished truth?

The Senate and the House did not lobby the American people to go to war. Bush did. The buck stops with him, because he’s the leader. I have stated before that I was disappointed that Kerry didn’t do his homework and read the CIA report. But I hold Bush to a higher standard (because Bush is the big boss). Bush should do his homework and make sure he’s going to war for the right reasons.

He didn’t read the CIA report, he listened to his advisors. If he read the report, past the cover page, he would see that it was full of caveats and that the source documentation was poor. (And that’s according to everybody who is familiar with the actual report.)

Have any of you actually done some investigation into the data that Cheney pointed to as proving the case for war? That data is inaccarute and flawed. A simple fact check on it reveals the truth. Go ahead and test me on a point, if you’d like.

Riley, I did my research. It wasn’t a matter of being mistaken, it was a matter of bending the facts to sell a war. You give me the facts that were used to go to war, and I’ll give you factual data that was available at the time, by sources within the government, that shows that it was either false or extremely misleading.

And traveler, about the money thing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18486-2003Feb28?language=printer

Julia

ps: I kind of wish I hadn’t brought this up. Just because Bush misled us into war, and is a consistent misleader on his major policy speeches, doesn’t mean he is wrong. And maybe it is unpatriotic to point it out. It isn’t going to change the fact that we’re in Iraq, right? So I might as well fall in line behind these guys.

I know this sounds sarcastic, but it’s not. Every time someone tells me to cut him a break, and trust that whatever he is up to is in the best interests of the country, this is what I have to tell myself to swallow. You see why it’s hard? But I think I can do it. Seriously. It’s old news. As Riley says, I’ll try and move on, and only concentrate on what’s happening right now.

Wonderer,
That’s completely understandable. Talking politics tends to upset people for some reason. Can’t imagine why…

If you go back and listen to President Bush’s speeches before the war, He did make, or tried to make, the case for liberation as well as the case that Iraq was a danger. Like I said earlier, I don’t believe he lied. When we didn’t find the WMD that everyone thought was there, he spun things the best he could, just as anyone would have done.
To the best of my knowledge no one, including Bush, ever implied that Iraq was connected to 9/11. But the implication was made, and proven, that Saddam dealt with other terrorists.

Julie,
It’s been a long day, so I’ll respond to your PS and talk about the rest in the morning if I have time.
I’ll come right out and say it: you might be right. Unfortunately, hindsight isn’t always 20/20. If we knew what really happened, we wouldn’t be sitting here arguing about it. So I respect your opinions and I understand why you feel that way.
I’ll stand by my opinions for the time being, however. I know Bush isn’t always honest, but spin is part of politics, unfortunately.
See you tomorrow.