Would you vote for Hillary?

I clicked through on your survey, which requires that you include your e-mail address on the form. That seems unnecessary to the purpose of collecting survey stats. Makes me suspect their real motive is getting traffic through their site, and building a mailing list so they can spam you.

Clicking on one of their links to stories (Dick Morris's commentary, "Obama's Gift to Hillary") brought me to a subscription screen, not a story.

I don't favor sites like Newsmax; they seem to be after my wallet and my privacy.

I haven't registered to vote in close to twenty years, as I feel there's no need. I feel a vote for the lesser of two evils is not what I want to vote for. However, I will register to vote and vote AGAINST Hillary. Or Oprah. Or any other of the supposed politicians who want to cash in on their name. Ask Arnold, he would never have been elected had his name not been so widely known.

I don't put much faith in unscientific poles like the one the Newsmax site is taking.

Nor, do I believe we have any real insight as to whom the candidates will be.

Still, given the present situation in the US, I am most apt to cast my vote for whomever is the Democratic party candidate.

If the Republican party were to select a centrist to liberal candidate, that would greatly increase the prospect of my voting for a Republican.

In fact, my ideal candidate would be a left of center, fiscal conservative, Republican.

It is an interesting study in contrasts how the roles of the US political parties have changed over the years.

Chas

It's pretty hard to name an impartial source, mainly because any time I point at one I encounter loud objections from the right or left. On TR, everybody seems to assume they are conservative libertarians fighting for their homeland, and will brook no contrary voice from shrill proponents of radical moderation. I'm sure I could find plenty of lefty sites where dimestore Stalinists would beat at me from the opposite side, with virtually identical arguments spat out while chewing on the carpet.

It's also hard to find sites that deal impartially with the 2008 election, because for the most part, the only people who have created such sites have got a horse running in that race. Reading their propaganda has minimal informational value.

Your best bets are the mainstream press, especially the Washington Post. The New York Times has a lot of good articles, especially 8,000-worders, but I find the Post is more willing to make points people can argue about (the Times seems timid editorially), and the Post dedicates part of their website to topic-centered data and resources during every election season.

Wikipedia.org also has got lots of useful pages posted by their dedicated corps of amateur data lovers. This page has 2008 coverage, with plenty of links you should find interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008
Wikipedia also has lots of other pages posted by politicians' staffs, which are usually more subtle platforms for propaganda than their dedicated websites. Absolutely anybody can post anything to Wikipedia, so you get abundant coverage of drugs (usually posted by the drug companies), pages on porn stars (apparently posted by the people who market their films), and pages on each of America's 535 congressmen and senators (you can guess who writes those.) Wikipedia has some kind of jurying process that makes for excellent articles on tens of thousands of topics, but it isn't extensive enough to cover all the fringe stuff that pops in.

Good luck. As the campaign advances, you'll see lots more sites pop up, most of them purely partisan.

If memory serves me correctly your not an American citizen. Now if you are dead or a convicted criminal you would be the absolute perfect voter for the DNC. Just remember to vote multiple times at different polling stations. You'll fit right in.

The only good thing you can say about their two top runners is "first black", "first woman" or Hills new one "first mom". Only a complete moron would use any of these as a reason to vote for anyone, yet that is the center of the Democrats run.

It shows that the party that doesn't stand FOR anything has a hard time coming up with a valid reason for their own existence.

Jardinier, I think you should stick with more mainstream media sources like CNN, Washington Post, NY Times or Newsweek. Wikipedia has lots of links about Hillary.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary personally, and I'm a woman. I don't care if a woman or black wins the next presidency either. I want to see someone that is a real leader be elected. Someone that could fix the problems of this country. Someone who is honest.

I always thought that you had access to all the same information about American politics that I do. I guess not, based on your post.

I do follow the local politics. They are the ones that plow the roads, bring in businesses to the area I live, fix the roads, control the school board, ...

The state/Fed's may provide most of the money, but if your local politicians are not active acquiring this money and using it to improve the quality of life, you area of residence can not be as enjoyable as it could be.

By your local politicians performing the previously mentioned tasks actively, they are influencing how upper government is run.

Local politics are more important then you think. Local tax's can be more cumbersome then state/federal tax's. Ie: property tax's, school tax's, right to work tax, ....
Also, local politics is where you are going to see more corruption... So, being vigilant about local politics is very important with regard to getting the biggest bang for your local tax dollar. And also insuring that this money is neither being waisted or lining some-one's pockets. You may not be able to easily stop the fed/state politicians lining their pockets, But you have a very good chance of doing that at the local level.

How anyone can not be informed or attempt to stay informed about local politics is beyond me. This lack of involvement, due to most people is why their standard of living basically sucks then. It's their own fault.

And the original post about non voter should look around him, where he lives, how much he pays in local tax's, where the money is spent, where the money is waisted. His vote, as I said before because of the closeness of races can make a difference. He can have a major influence in getting people elected, both in the primaries and in the general election.

Dan

It's unfair for Jessie to call George W. Bush an alcoholic... perhaps a recovered alcoholic, but he apparently has not drunk for decades. I don't believe much of what he says, but I believe he's clean now. And, I believe when he says that he has experienced a personal discovery of Jesus. I distrust everything else about him.

I'm writing about the mystery of trust. Most Americans have a personal involvement with their President, which I think other countries experience with their king or queen, but not with prime ministers. It kind of resembles the personal relationship with Jesus, except that the savior can change faces every election cycle. I'm not much touched by this miracle of Presidential trust. I'm highly skeptical about anybody I vote for.

This can be replaced in some people by a deep hatred, like your personal relationship with Satan. Many Democrats felt a hatred in their gut for Nixon; many Republicans, for Clinton. They knew the man in the office of high trust as a great betrayer, and despised him.

For the life of me, I never could figure out what the charm of Reagan or GW Bush was. The fact is, though, many people love these characters, and when they voted, they voted as an act of love. I think that many, maybe the majority of Americans, judge a presidential candidate as fit based on whether they personally like him. I can admit to the charm of both Reagan and Bush, and I would probably enjoy having both of them over for a barbeque and jokes and lies told over drinks. I can't see the logic of trusting a backyard buddy with the presidency, but I think that's the first step on the road to trust for most Americans.

The newest presidential love phenomenon is Barak Obama. He's charming and seems authentic, and he has a great life story. I'd probably like him, but millions and millions of Americans are already in love's delerium over this guy, who was a state senator for two years and a U.S. senator for one. Something similar happened in 1960, with the charming, handsome, young senator Kennedy. I don't think he was ready for the job, and Obama, even less so. But this is about love, and less about reason.

Jessie was right when she said George W. Bush was put up, just because he wasn't the hated Bill Clinton. He won by a squeak, in Florida's weird election. Democrats fumed in hatred for four years, and put up John Kerry, because he seemed to be the anti-Bush. It didn't work the same.

Merely posting what someone else says, removes opinion from your own network. Carefully choosing 'who's' opinion is shown is where it gets into grey area.

I can print nothing but quotes from Hilary and other Dem comments. This will ultimately lead to right wing bashing, but indirectly of course. "Don't shoot the messenger"...unless the messenger doesn't deliver ALL the mail.

With NewsMax, it's not bad, a little selective but better than many, in my eyes.

It's a lot closer to the style of reporting we see in Canada; YES, some of it it merely focused on what the left does right and what the right has done wrong as a way of balancing views, but much of it is truly two sided viewing with the viewer left to weigh the the stories themselves.

This is what I fail to see in MANY US reports. They only seem to show the facts from one side (their favored choice), mixed with bizzarre(sorry Max, I like your term) 'factopinguess' from the other.

That's what I said.

You have got to be kidding! One of my complaints of the Republicans is that they pander to the left in hopes of getting votes and alienate their base. It is the Republicans who have left there conservative base and drifted down that slippery slope to leftist chaos.
As for your comments about GW let me ask you this - Have you ever made a mistake in your life? Have people forgiven you and you've been able to get on with your life? If GW is an alcoholic then the honorable Senator from Massachusetts is a fish whose gills convert alcohol into oxygen. This is one of the things I detest most about the left in this country ? if one of your own has a problem with drugs, alcohol or some twisted sexual fetish you hold that person up to the world and say ?Isn?t this person wonderful! He/she/it is a model of diversity and humanitarianism? and then you rail against the conservatives for being judgmental. If it happens that a conservative displays the same behavior you point your boney accusing fingers and attack the drunken pervert as a waste of human flesh and a shining example of what conservatism brings unto those that follow its teachings. In short you all are a bunch of two faced red diaper doper babies (thanks Dr. Savage) who are incapable of forming an original thought if your life depended on it.

just pointing out that the Left has never stated a clear message on what they actually stand for.

I notice that you were quick to call Bush an alcholic but didn't mention even one example of what they stand for. Just some lame excuse regarding why they haven't expressed it.

This is just typical liberal rhetoric. Resort to name calling and change the subject so no one realizes that you have no ideas or plans on how to run the country other than to say "Not the way Bush does it".

or at least that is how the last few elections were run. They did not put out clear statements of what they wanted to do, just that the republicans were bad and they are against their programs. They NEVER offered a counter plan on how they would fix or resolve the issues, and NEVER put out a clear list of being FOR anything other than abortion, and abortion is way down on my list as to what I vote for a president for. It is only thrown out to get people worked up by both sides.

I don't think Obama is driving other candidates out of the race. I think Hillary is. She has such a lock on the nomination, and most of the other candidates are so colorless or just plain wrong at this time, that they drop out because there's just no hope. That woman has built a foundation for her run, a brick at a time for the last seven years, and now she has the allies and the money lined up. Like GWB in 2000, she's got it arranged, and the nomination is a done deal, except for the primary elections... unless something weird like Obama-love fever sweeps the country and puts somebody out of nowhere on top.

I'm aware that a lot of people despise Hillary, and many Democrats are, too. She is so hated that many Dems worry her nomination is as good as giving away the general election. That puts a little extra spirit into the Obama love machine. I personally think the Republicans would have a much better chance of making him look inexperienced and ridiculous; Hil is tough, and has the background to beat that kind of attack down. She could still lose the nomination, though.

I figured what the heck, throw the dog a bone. Some people find it hard to follow Euro humour so westernsitcoms are the only choice. I did think characters were well developed in Friands and Sienfeld, but that was the cast more than the clever wit of the writers. Though comedic timing is getting better here now, it's still not that of Black Adder, Monty Pythins, Butterflies (priceless!), Good Neighbours, Fawlty Towers [i](aka, Fawlty Tower, Faw ty Tower, Faw ty To er, Warty Towels, Watery Fowls, Flay Otters, Fatty Owls, Flowery Twats, Farty Towels).[/i]

?I?m afraid it?s started to rain again.? John Cleese; final line, final episode.

One of the many and diverse free subscriptions available at arcamax.com is four websites in my email each day. They can be about anything from how to make good cookies to important reference websites.

Here is one that I have found a useful source of assorted news from around the world, from a variety of news services.

http://www.watch.org

Select a story and from that page there are links to stories in all parts of the world.

And the complete morons in this country that think that just because someone is a "first" that it will make them good. Neither of them will be good for the country, if they got elected, and I pray that the majority of Americans are not stupid enough to fall for it when it comes to the final stages.

Just like you don't discriminate based on gender and race, you don't VOTE based on that either. Sadly the black and woman vote will probably be blindly thrown at either one, without a coherent thought among the lot of them. Disgraceful what our country has been reduced to.

Thankfully Gore and Kerry are not taken seriously anymore.

Edwards has also really started to slip, and I would say the Obama factor is taking him out. But like the article says, there is no way Obama will hold up with no experience in anything.

You would have seen I nowhere suggest Israel has no right to exist. Israel is an American interest, and will always get important support from the U.S.

I see you are delicately sidestepping the team that has proven its incompetence in war, peace, and finance for the last six years.

I have been contemplating voting for Hillary for awhile, and actually started a couple posts on her.

The one thing that someone said in the post was that she withered in a debate in New York.

If she can't handle a debate, then she doesn't deserve the vote. I also haven't seen anything about how she will handle issues, which is still why I haven't made any decisions.

Again, if she can't handle a debate and gets flustered when it gets tough. I don't want her in the white house, both the Iranian's and the Koreans will eat her alive.

Dan

Does anyone with a coherent though in their head honestly think anyone in the Middle East will deal with or take seriously ANY woman in the White House?

We are talking about a culture that thinks any woman without her face covered "deserves" got get raped.

When women try to get an education, they get raped and killed.

Women are not equal in the Middle East.

There was a big deal a few years back with the women stationed in the bases in Iraq, and leaving the base without their face covered. Will Hilary don a burka when she goes to politely request everyone just gets along?

Clearly in an age where dealing with the middle east is going to be critical, we need someone that can and will DEAL with them. Not continue to give the corrupt governments money, all of the aid should end to all countries that are not seen as allies to the US. That includes paying the lions share of the UN's bills as well. If we are just another single vote, then pitch in what other single votes are pitching in. If more money buys more influence, go for it. If not, then cut it back to what any other country is paying.

Well, considering what everyone in the Middle East thinks of GWB, she can't possibly do worse whatever "their" culture does or does not believe.

It's also worth remembering that Indira Gandhi did a fair job of stamping on Pakistan in her time. Golda Meir was the first "Iron Lady". So if you want someone to do a proper job of kicking the snot out of Muslims then there's a couple of examples for you.

Just a thought.

would you honestly put Hilary in the same category as Meir or Gandhi?

I was just answering your point about Hilary's sex being an issue in negotiations with Islamic bosses. It was just an idea that if you/we got a strong female leader it might just teach the Muslims a small lesson about sexual equality. Unfortunately, there's no one around who seems a likely candidate for you; Hilary doesn't look promising and we're twenty years past Maggie.

:D

Happy New Year! What the F*! am I doing posting at this time of the morning? I've drunk so much Temparanillo that it's taking me ten minutes to spell check! In vino vetisar...

I'm not sure she has them either. Like I said, I was told she withered in a debate. Looking at the previous presidency, first sign of casualties he ran. I'm sure that the iron Hilary had a vote in that decision(didn't they always say she was an involved first lady). I don't think that says a whole lot about her staying power. Or what she will do under any type of preasure.

And yes, that is something that I do hold against the previous presidency. Shifting with the wind, no staying power when it was needed, pawn of the polls. No matter what the platform, have the damn balls to stand up to opposition when you think it's right. In other words, be a damn leader. Otherwise, I feel you are nothing but a freakin pawn.

No matter what you say Neil, President Bush is doing what HE thinks is right. A lot of people don't like it. But you damn well know where he is coming from. President Clinton, you didn't. And I don't think you will with Hillary.

Shoot, I guess that just answered my own thoughts on voting for Hillary. I was undecided until I just typed that, now I'm not.

I won't vote for her. She is another pawn of the poll's, and the only time she does anything is for her own benefit. And not the nation's she was voted in to serve.

With that said and done, I'll vote for anyone but her.

Dan

Hillary is very big into helping out the enviroment. She is smart and strong. You bet I would love to vote for her, ohh and one of my best freinds is one of her campaign spokesperson. anna23@natureday.com

First off, the only news source that says Hillary got her ears pinned back in the New York senatorial election debate is Dick Morris. Dick Morris hates the Clintons about as madly as Valerie Plame must hate George Bush. You can't trust his pieces on Hillary. He writes in anger, with prejudice, and he just outright lies.

Second, Somalia was a dumb fight to have gotten into, and it was a good idea to leave it. I don't know if Bill Clinton pulled back out because he lost taste for the rough stuff (once the Blackhawk helicopters were shot down), or if he got smart and pulled out. Somalia was a fight where we did not start from a strategic understanding of the conflict, and we went from believing we were going to fire a couple of shots and look tough and civilize the place, to getting mired in the chaos and having no chance of getting the kind of settlement we wanted.

If you want an example of a neat little war where we started with a good strategic understanding, try Reagan in Grenada. If you want another another example of bad strategy leading to bad outcomes, try Reagan in Lebanon. Or Viet Nam. Or Iraq 2003.

can be an admirable trait but not when you are so obviously WRONG. However much you might admire it in your President, I reckon that he and his administration need to pull their collective heads out of their collective arses and start admitting that they've completely screwed up Iraq and the rest of Middle East politics for the next fifty years. That is the only way that they can ever start to put it right.

Much more than pig-headedness, I value a bit of wisdom or, failing that, a bit of integrity after the fact.

I know very little about Hilary but, to date, I don't think she's made any mistakes on the scale of GWB's and I wouldn't think she'd be likely to.

Just the 2c worth of a non-voting outside observer...

Have a Happy New Year

:D

I find it interesting that you've jumped to the conclusion that Iraq (and the whole middle-east) will be screwed up for the next 50 years because of GWB. However, you've also maintained in previous discussions that the middle-east has been screwed up forever, and it's not likely to change regardless of what the outside world might do in an attempt to fix it. So which is it? Has it always been and always will be screwed up, or is GWB the one who screwed it up? And how can one screw-up something that's already screwed up? (I guess this is where you might say it's screwed up worse!)

Here's what I suspect:

If GWB had done nothing about the middle east, he would have screwed up in the eyes of his political enemies, with the criticism being led by his domestic enemies, and his world enemies reinforcing the notion.

--- OR ---

If GWB had done anything about the middle east differently than whatever he might have done, he would have screwed up in the eyes of his political enemies, with the criticism being led by his domestic enemies, and his world enemies reinforcing the notion.

It's apparent to me that whatever he may or may not have done, whatever he actually does or does not do, he is being attacked by said enemies. There's a difference between honest political discourse and disagreement, and attempting to destroy a person regardless of what he does. Only a total idiot would not see that what's happening is the latter. It's also a grave disservice because the common man has no idea what to believe, whom to believe, and is kept ignorant about what's really going on.

I've also often suggested the same 50 year time-frame to determine whether or not the efforts in Iraq will pay-off, but I haven't automatically assumed they will reap positive benefits, like you automatically assumed they will have negative repercussions. The way I see it, a seed is being planted and there are factions who both wish to see it trampled and those who wish to see it blossom. Quite frankly, it's up to the people of the middle-east to decide which it will be. I will almost guarantee this, however; if things do improve over that 50 year time-frame and the seeds blossom, GWB's political enemies will credit anything and everything other than what GWB put into motion. He'll get credit for nothing and blame for everything.

GWB may not have done all thing right, but I submit to you that his political enemies have done all things wrong. And that's the real tragedy.

I don?t think that I?ve jumped to any conclusions as I think that they are ? and have been ? there for all to see. Please note that I?m an equal opportunities sort of person so I include my own government in this mess ? albeit as a junior and mostly ignored partner.

Saddam Hussein in the early 80s and before was your ?friend? and the gassing of Kurds and Iranians was, at best, ignored while Saddam supplied the west with oil and acted as a buffer against Iran (who had REALLY pissed you off by ousting our puppet, The Shah). Saddam?s mistake was misreading the ?approval? and walking into Kuwait as, but for this, he?d still be ruler now and still your ?friend?.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for resentment both locally and in any Muslim country (and Leeds) and Iran is much more dangerous than Saddam ever was.

To answer both of your questions about doing nothing and doing it differently: Had GWB done nothing about Iraq or gone in with the backing and blessing of the UN, who externally would have become more of an ?enemy? to GWB and the United states? No one! Had you allowed the UN weapons inspectors to complete their work then I suspect that there would be many fewer dead in both Iraq and the US. GWB's own internal opponents are not my concern.

Where we do agree is that it is for the inhabitants of the region to pursue their own destiny. BUT! I?m going to get a little nasty here ? it?s not personal ? but I have to say that it is arrogant (I would say ?beyond belief? but that?s not the case) to suggest that you have ?planted a seed?. Of what? My guess, "Democracy".

Edit: My original post added "and Mom?s Apple Pie" but that's a bit unfair because I don't believe that there's that much insincerity about your actions in Iraqi but more a mistaken sense of being the only true exemplar of democracy. You aren't.

We?ll leave unconditional support for the actions of Israel and THEIR destabilising affects on the rest of the Middle East for another day.

Neil

Happy New Year, by the way. :D

....say, or even suggest, "in America's image"? Do you have to make things up (like so many other people around here) to support your position? I neither said that or even suggested it, nor has anyone else.

According to what people around here claim I said, I apparently want an American-Style democracy in Iraq, complete with their own Thomas Muhammad-Jefferson, I suppose, while I want total anarchy in my own country.

Why in the hell do I bother?

By the way, happy ******* new year.

In short, the answer is "No."

I was saying what [b]I[/b] think and not what I think that [b]you[/b] think and certainly not what you said.

We were, I believe, discussing GWB in his avatar of the personification of US foreign policy in the Middle East. As for this Foreign Policy, I believe that the United States of America and those of its citizens who give a damn passionately believe that they know what is best for the rest of the world. However, I do not beleive that they are always right and in the case of Iraq, I believe that they are dead wrong.

I'd like to be proven absolutely wrong in this but, as you say, I'm a pessimist about it.

Neil

Edit to stress that the "you" in my main post should be read as "the United States" and not "Maxwell Edison". If you got the impression that I was toasting you then - sorry!

To stress again; I was posting about the mistake that I believe that our governments have made in invading Iraq and in no way trying to put words in your mouth.

We're painting with a very broad brush here and we - you and me - have never past the big issues down to the bits where we might agree. We'd both be happy with a similar outcome, though.

I'm just throwing in a ******* here or there for emphasis. Genuine and honest dialogue, however, is harder to come by, or so it seems. More and more idiots are taking over, and they're people I just don't want to associate with, so I won't.

That anybody would find reason to doubt the mental integrity of the Bush administration after Iraq, whether they be liberal or conservative, surprises me not at all. What I'm still trying to figure out is how come nearly all the people I who post at TR have such faith in him. I can't find anything consistent, well-judged, or laudable in any phase of his presidency, but especially the strategic disaster of this war. How come they believe in him so much?

However, I'm not surprised that fundy Christians are proponents of conspiracy theories. If one likes Revelations, then all the stories of secret knowledge and behind-the-scenes plots must just seem like further delights.

Modernism is not yet fully rooted in civilization's moral imagination. Like the mammalian brain overlaying a prehistoric lizard brain that hasn't fully gone away, there's a lot of middle-ages and barbarian componentry still at work, untouched by renaissance or enlightenment.

They survived by taking refuge on the backs of cooperative whales.

A more aggressive stance needed to be taken on terrorism and these rouge countries. You may feel, and rightfully so that the approach taken under this administration is too aggressive. But, I do not want a president in office that will not actively pursue and attack known terrorists. Does that mean, invading countries. Only if the country sponsored the terrorist attack.

I want someone in office that is willing to make those tough decisions based on the intelligence/information that they have. I don't care if its a man, woman, black, Hispanic, Italian, what ever. I want someone that is willing to make that decision.

I don't think Hilary will. The only person that I can think of right now who will do that is Mr. McCain. But, as I understand things. He is starting to blur his alliance's where he didn't before. Again, becoming a pawn of the polls.

I do not want to go back to the days where the terrorist's were not worried about whether the United States would retaliate. I want them to know we will, and hard.

Dan

Don't forget to put your head on the chopping block if you don't wish to. Because, unlike your dodo administration. The extremist's will cut it off because you have spoken words of disagreement.

Again, start bowing now because appeasement is all that will get us.

dan

That wasn't necessarily what we, GWB's critics, were all asking for. What we wanted was an intelligent reaction to Islamic terrorism. We still want that!

Afghanistan was understandable even though that's gone a little pear-shaped as well but the invasion of Iraq was without any sensible motive. The trial and execution of Saddam Huseein was, despite the man's crimes, a complete farce and has achieved nothing good.

Given that you could, if you wanted, nuke Mecca to a glassy plain with the smallest of your arsenal, why don't you? Now THAT would be ballsy!

As angry as I get Neil, and I have in the heat of anger with all this terrorism crap thought that. I do not ever wish that.

Your comment about intelligent response is what I want also. I feel that all we did was appease the terrorist's up until President Bush. I would call that far left. Now under President Bush, we went to the total opposite extreme. The far right.

We need a firm handed strategy for dealing with terrorist situation, that has to be flexible. In other words, harsh response when warranted. Not no bombing of one building of a country. But, not the extreme that Iraq was. The only reason I am no longer in favor of that by the way is because the bulk of our troops are tied down, and will have an issue with responding to other issues as they arise. And they will, unfortionally.

I do agree with targeted assassinations. I do agree with covert attacks against strong holds. I do agree with highly aggressive intelligence gathering and sharing. Both amongst the United States Intelligence Community and western intelligence agencies. But, if you listen to some of the far left(and I mean very far), they wish to blame everything on the United States and pull us out of everywhere. That isn't the answer either.

Would you consider what I have just laid out intelligent response?

Neil, no matter what party was in office prior to President Bush there was never agresive inteligence gathering or response's to terrorist attacks. The terrorist's were no longer concerned how the United States would react, in other words other then wring our hands. Thus, the attack on the homeland. Now, they do know that the United States will respond harshly. Just to find that middle ground that does not lose the harshness of the response without worsening the conditions of the innocents that become involved.

Chuckle, I'm not a total brute Neil. Allllllll thoughhhhhhhhhhhhh. You ever think a nuke down either Iran's or Korea's leaders summer residence wouldn't get their attention? Make it a glass escape(as you mentioned) instead of a summer escape?

Dan

Would you think, "Ooh, I'm not going to suicide bomb anybody, because George Bush might hurt me! Oh, I'm just so scared!" Not likely.

You seem to think that stumbling out the front door and falling face forward into cow manure is some alternative to appeasement. Because that's where we've landed, and that's how many steps it took us to get there. You may also think that learning what kind of fight you are in, waiting for your time, and playing to win is appeasement.

Mr. Bush is fighting to lose, not to win. Dan, why do you support his goofball missteps? As Rush says, do you want the terrorists to win?

Had the US (and UK) not gone into Iraq then your only direct enemies would have been the "original" Al Qaeda and we probably wouldn't be targets. OK, so they succeeded spectacularly in their attack on 911 - I suspect, beyond their wildest dreams or nightmares - but the subsequent bombing and invasion of TWO Islamic countries was a bit of an extreme response. "Al Qaeda" is, as a result of that, considerably larger and more active and even less discriminating in their targets than the Osama Bin Laden mob as can be seen from the subsequent attacks in Spain and the UK. I don't even think that there's any central Al Qaeda any more, just a whole bunch of disaffected Muslims who son't really know what they want - which makes them even more dangerous.

Hamas, Hisbollah and other Iran-financed groups are anti-Israel and have, at least, an agenda and a goal but I've noticed that they get lumped in with Al Qaeda in posts here. I would hope that these groups could be addressed separately but I'm not too sure how joined up the US government thinking is about this.

Check out my response to Neil, I think you'll understand how I really think we should be responding.

I think it address's what you feel also. And I don't mean in a flaming type of manner.

Dan

Jules, thats all old hat crap now (re twin towers).

It's like that radical documentary that shows the missile "clearly" identifiable underneath the first plane that hit. Well the missile is clear but the plane isnt by the time it is blown up to show the undercarriage, in fact the plane is so pixelated you can gardly make it out, but teh big white missile underneath is quite clear. (bad editing at unmatched resolution) It also time lapses shots to show how the lower level explosions went off a fraction of a second BEFORE the plane hit, how many charges were laid and detonated too.

I've seen the same, 'compelling' documetary about previous bombings in the USA too. As you know from hanging out here; if some Americans will buy into anything, obviously others will too.

I am somewhat surprised to hear that it isn't mainly Muslim bashing though.

On another note:
There's a new Canadian series stating soon, Little Mosque on the Prairie. From the excerpts, it looks absolutely hilarious!
Many mags and US newspapers are up in arms about it, stating how tasteless and relgigiously sensitive it is. However it is produced by a group of Muslims (including women) who live in Canada, so it is anything but offensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/arts/television/07mosq.html?ex=1323147600&en=d22f5b36a36e920d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Jardinier,
check out http://vote-smart.org/index.htm for information on any candidate in the US, any level of election. The site is non-partisan and takes no money from any political/government-related outfit (see Wikipedia under Project Vote Smart).
Hope this helps.
Lynne

I have seen no alternate means of dealing with the issue. What do you sugest we do. Quit complaining, and offer something that can be done other then appeasement.

If you can't, then I feel we should continue killing them where we find them.

Like I said in a response to Niel. Assanation, first. Harsh retaliation, and not no damn building. Level what we are going after. Turn them against each other, plant lies where they kill each other. Hard inteligence gathering, don't bind your goverments hands to acquire it. Quit complaining that the goverment should have known when you tie it's hands.

And it was (your quote) dodo's that caused this problem by apeasing this bunch of animals. If we would have been more hard lined in the first place, we would not be in this position now. We should have been retailating with severe force all along. We should have been removing the heads from the very beginning. As it is now, we have to start from the ground up. And you can not dispute that. This problem has been festering long before President Bush came to office. Both under Republican and Democratic presidencies.

What do you offer? If you can't offer anything, then you have nothing to say. For or against. If you can't make your voice known in what you think should be done, other then not this. Then you have no place to speak.

Dan

I knew that you and I disagreed with regard to how things should have been handled, but I also knew that you feel that something needed to be done. And you have put forward idea's how it should have been dealt with. It irritates the sin out of me when I see people complain, but not offer anything in return. They spend more time complaining then offering other possible solutions.

I get hot, and it unfortionally shows in my post's. I wish to apologize.

Here is honest to god what I think about Iraq, and it has nothing to do with Hussain. I'm sure you won't agree, but here is another view point on it.
1). America is addicted to oil as an energy resource. We have no quick solutions for many reasons. Not being able to drill and harvest known oil fields in Alaska or off the Florida cost is an example. There is no quick solution for alternate fuels, the article that sandy posted was very enlightening on that issue. Excellent article.
2). America and the western world has serious problems, and has had serious problems with terrorist organizations for a number of years. They are being sponsored by Iran and to some extent Syria. Appeasement as I have previously said has done nothing to slow the threat of this. Hell, President Bush in his first year is as guilty as anyone else of ignoring it. He was too busy with the economy.
3). The countries that I have previously mentioned are in strategic locations to cut off the life line of America's energy needs. Iran was already seeking nukes. You don't think they won't threaten to use them to drive up the price of oil?

If when we invaded Iraq, we did it right. Ie: Enough troops to suppress from the beginning any uprising. Not removing all administrative personnel that was already in place within the government. Having a reconstruction plan(oil personnel, education personnel, medical personnel, transportation personnel) in place to bring the country up to speed quickly. We would have accomplished the following.
1). We would have secured one of the largest oil fields in the middle east.
2). We would have place a sizable amount of troops and supplies in strategic positions to respond to actions by the previously mentioned states that border Iraq.

The United States is an industrial nation. It is strategically in the interest of the United States to have some type of control over its energy needs. Otherwise, our previous conversation about the United States becoming isolated is a real possibility. And not because the United States wants to, but because that would be the only way we would survive. And I still think we would be attacked by the extremists, just because they wish to see this nation removed from the face of the earth.

Again, I understand that you most likely disagree with this and that's ok. By my preivously mentioned agressive actions that we could/should take, and should have from the beginning of this uprising. I don't think this conversation would even be taking place.

Again, the problem we face today is because a bunch of no nuts politicans would not take on this issue from the beginning. In other words, had the balls to deal with it when it started. Now we need leaders that do. People want to lay blame, then they should lay blame with the leaders that didn't deal with it in the first place and nobody else.

Dan

Warning: this post is 1200 words long.

I?ll grant you I don?t have any brilliant ideas for how to get out of Iraq without creating a disaster. However, one could also stay in Iraq and create a disaster. Our leaders have put us in a real hole, fighting a war that can?t be won, with stakes too high to just abandon the fight.

Like Viet Nam, this is an insurgency fight, waging a come-and-go fight against us and our agents. Unlike Viet Nam, it is also a tribal war and a religious war. It?s not really a civil war, because you don?t have people fighting for control of the state. Nobody in Iraq seems to believe in the country of Iraq. If you squashed all the Kurds and Sunnis so bad they couldn?t fight back ever again, and let the Shiites govern the bloody ruins, within six months they?d be fighting themselves.

In Viet Nam, Americans won every battle they fought, and in the end they had no way of winning the war. It?s not because they had a hand tied behind their back, or dumb crap excuses like that. We bombed the hell out of North Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, and South Viet Nam, and killed two million people, and our enemy still did not give up; our enemy had been engaged in continuous war against the Japanese, the French, and then us, for 30 years. Our objective was to create a government strong enough to stand by itself, which would take over the role of defending itself, so that we could leave and call the place free. That, and not the defeat of the communist army, was what we needed for victory, and we couldn?t achieve it. Sounds a lot like the dilemma in with Iraq, doesn?t it?

The Brits ran Iraq between World War I and World War II, and they had to re-invade the place five times. If we had thought strategically, we would have played Iraq differently. Instead, we ignored the lesson of British history in Iraq, and we ignored our own lessons from Viet Nam. The people of our government believed they could write new history, I guess. They were into bold thinking and paradigm shifting.

Our army decided that it would not do any more Viet Nams. It would only get into fights it could win with massive firepower, and not get bogged down in endless counter-insurgency wars. Guess what Iraq turned into, as soon as Saddam?s armies evaporated? Exactly the kind of war the army planned never to fight, trained itself not to fight, and forgot how to fight. When you do the massive force response tactic against guerillas operating behind the cover of civilians, you wind up doing a lot more offense to the people than to the guerillas, who are the ones you really want to kill. Make that mistake, especially among religious lunatics, and you create more guerillas. Massive muscle doesn?t lead to civil peace (that is, to victory) in this kind of war. You need artful, surgical killing, and you need to be seen supporting the people and their economy. Big force works against you, loses you the people, loses victory.

If Bush were to have done his war my way, he would have stopped at Afghanistan. He would also have done Afghanistan with enough Americans to have trapped the last of Al Qaeda at Tora Bora. Then, we could have rebuilt Afghanistan, which is a plenty big enough challenge by itself, and made a reputation for ourselves as peacemakers in a Muslim land. I would not have told a lot of lies and believed a lot of fantasies so we could go invade Iraq, where there was no Al Qaeda. Saddam was getting weaker every year, and we could have just let him sit.

If I were going to fight a war on terror, I?d first limit the scope. ?War on terror? includes everybody from Al Qaeda to the Palestinians to the Chechens to the Irish Republican Army. We don?t have a national interest in fighting them all. The first step to winning a war is to pick the war you?ll fight. I?d fight it with a lot more Special Forces troops than we currently maintain, and I?d develop a standing civil occupation division or two within the Army, and couple any military occupation with an economic mission. (It may sound like we do that in Iraq, but we just flub everything.) The war will be won by intelligence as much as anything else, so I?d work on the long job of building up spies and an institutional perspective on the place. The war will also be won by trust, so I?d have to be an army the occupied people could have faith in.

To be honest, I don?t know how to get out of the current mess, because it?s so big and serious. Now that we?ve torn Iraq to pieces, we?ve woken up regional conflicts. We have a third of our military tied down and unable to leave Iraq; we no longer have enough free troops to exert military influence as we once did. Iran has increased its diplomatic and regional influence, which is surely against our interests. Syria, Jordan, and Arabia all feel threatened, and are supporting big refugee populations, which typically include criminals, smugglers and insurgents. Turkey may invade Kurdistan if they separate from the Iraqi state. Most of Iraq is a breeding ground and training camp for Islamic nutcase west-hating guerillas. Afghanistan is breaking down, and is threatening the peace of the Pakistani border provinces. All of these trends look to me like they?ll get worse if we stay, and maybe much worse if we leave, too.

What I?d do:
1. No troop ?surge?, unless we have a strategic understanding of what it?s supposed to accomplish. Since we don?t understand it, no surge.
2. I?d put the military on a management program: learn how to do counter insurgency war. Adapt the force structure accordingly. Increase the army, permanently, by 50,000 men to account for the new occupation divisions. Build up the Special Forces, and give them the kind of creative relationship-building missions they do so well in countryside towns.
3. I?d unify the command in Iraq, with a civilian in charge. This is a nation-building, hearts-and-minds type of fight, and it needs a civilian leader.
4. Every man, woman, and military dog that goes to Iraq learns Arabic.
5. Build up the spies. Train the Iraqi cops and military.
6. Kill the enemy whenever we can, with as much delicacy as possible. Killing is essential, but the heavy hand looses the war.
7. Start pulling back, gradually. Be prepared for really ugly outcomes. Be prepared to take advantage of whatever good may develop over the years of occupation, such as an opportunity to pack up and get out.

This is sort of a modified stay-the-course strategy. It depends on the government and the military to wise up and stop fighting dumb. Given that these institutions got us into the current mess, it's a good question whether that is at all possible. However, we need access to all that damn oil that's out there; without it, we'd have to take over Arabia and Kuwait, and in general behave like Nazis, or suffer economic collapse.

I?m sure there are plenty of Bush enthusiasts who would object to all of this as playing the weak hand, who will bring up French or Russian diplomacy or some other dumb distraction, and who say that the whole thing can be fixed by finding the enemy who can be killed with our big cannon, and then shooting him with our big cannon. To which, I guess I?ll just have to smile, and listen.

Your idea is as good as any I've heard, if not better.

You put forward how you think we should deal with it now that we are there in a way you think will win.

Thank you.

Dan

I still get that bloody page not found when I post. Oi. Just reformat, start over.

Dan

20 Dolla Dance?
Run the LSA?
Bill Number 10 special?
Gurning Competition?
Nylon Betty?

I wouldn't vote for her. I'm well aware she was a big player behind the scene when he husband was in the office.
There's something about her that I haven't quite figured out as of yet.
So.. I would have to say no to Hillary for now.

No!!!!!! I couldn't believe it when she was voted into the senate either.
What does it take to make people relaize that corruption breeds corruption.
The Clintons fleeced America and still are.
We are still paying for their dealings.
Looks good on the surface...no do some digging.

I'd prefer her to Tom DeLay, but not to Tom Coburn or Barak Obama. She's no worse than the average politician, but little or no better.

that the Bush administration would be quite capable "ethically" of staging 9/11 to whip up public fervour to justify the invasion of Iraq in order to get first rights to the black gold.

Well it has been a stuff-up from start to finish (sorry start to middle). On the day Hussein was hanged, the toll of American service personnel reached 3,000.

They should cut their losses and get the hell out of Iraq, but of course Bush has to try and save face somehow.

Did you happen to come across the news item that three young children, in various countries, hanged themselves to death after watching the video of Hussein being hanged?

If it's in any way related to our Fox News, owned I believe by Rupert Murdoch, it can do nothing to alleviate ignorance, even of somebody who started out knowing nothing, about anything. You'd just end up 'knowing' a lot of lies, and not enough truth to tell which is which.