Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Your next president ...

0 helpful
60 replies

by jardinier

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

As a non-American, of course I realise I am not supposed to criticise anything or anyone American.

But this is a serious discussion, and I amy hoping I will get some sincere and unbiased responses.

If people (US soldiers, Iraqis in general and various other people) don't stop getting shot or blown up in the very near future (most unlikely) I think George Bush may have a pretty slim chance of being elected for a second term.

That will leave some poor Democrat President to try and sort out the mess in Iraq which Bush started, but obviously can't finish.

Should this be the case, the Democrat President will no doubt cop a lot of flak for being unable to tidy up a mess which would never have taken place if Al Gore had won the last election. Incidentally, the opinion which I hear from many sources is that the election of Bush was rigged anyhow. I wouldn't know, but that's what many others, including Americans, feel.

60 replies

by maxwell edison

.
As you well know, one of my pet peeves is that of one's premise. "When did you stop beating your wife" is a question with a flawed premise if, in fact, the wife was not beaten.

You said, "As a non-American, of course I realize I am not supposed to criticize anything or anyone American."

I disagree. Of course you can criticize, just as others can reply to that criticism.

You said, "But this is a serious discussion, and I am hoping I will get some sincere and unbiased responses."

Well, you and I are both serious, and I'm sure you'll get plenty of serious opinions. However, neither you nor I are unbiased in our opinion, and I would be surprised if you disagreed. Your bias has been made very clear, as has mine. Moreover, I don't think you'll get very many, if any, unbiased opinions in the forum. We all have our biases.

You said, "If people (US soldiers, Iraqis in general and various other people) don't stop getting shot or blown up in the very near future (most unlikely) I think George Bush may have a pretty slim chance of being elected for a second term."

The first half of your question is speculation, so I'll pass on giving a comment on it. However, regardless of what happens in Iraq, President Bush stands an excellent chance of being re-elected. This election is an uphill battle for his Democrat opponents, not the other way around.

You said, "That will leave some poor Democrat President to try and sort out the mess in Iraq which Bush started, but obviously can't finish."

Well, the first half of that question was answered with my previous answer. I think President Bush will be re-elected. The second half, however, I'll answer this way. President Bush and his foreign policy team can certainly bring a reasonable degree of success in Iraq to completion. It may be a "hot-bed" for a while, but that was to be expected.

You may not care for President Bush, but he's not the only one working on the issue. The military of the USA and the Commonwealth nations are working on it, the Brits and Australians are working on it, the Saudis are working on it, as are the governments of many nations, not to mention the "experts" both inside and outside of government. Even the UN will be involved, and success relies on all of those people, not just President Bush. So to suggest failure is to suggest all those people will fail. Personally, I don't think they will fail.

The "war on terrorism", however, will be an issue to be dealt with by many administrations in the future, regardless of their party. Even President Bush has said as much.

You said, "Should this be the case....". Well, it probably won't be the case, so the conclusion of that thought is pure speculation. What also is speculation is what Al Gore "would have" done. However, one might get a clue as to what he "may have" done based on what he has said and supported in the past.

Consider this, Al Gore is on the record (in 1998) as saying, "All Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction." On September 23, 2002, Al Gore said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." He went on to say, "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Moreover, in 1998, when Al Gore was vice-president, he supported the Iraq Liberation Act, which was overwhelmingly supported in both houses of our Congress, and by President Clinton. President Bush also supported the act, which was passed on to him by the Clinton-Gore administration.

Link to details:

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

To the contrary, I think Al Gore would have done the same exact thing President Bush did. The only difference is that the left would have supported it, and the right, well, the right would still have supported it, because it was the right thing to do.

by jardinier

You have analysed the content and wording of the posting in some detail, but you have not criticied the person who made the posting (myself).

I think it would be wonderful if all TR members followed this rule of "Attack the content of the posting, not the person who made this posting."

As we both know, during the 12 months or so since I joined TechRepublic there has been an increasing number of side threads which turn into personal slanging matches and don't contribute any information about the actual discussion topic.

by jardinier

Well that was clever of me: I have misspelled (also misspelt) the key word in the posting, criticize.

by thechas

The title is a quote from Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.

It's as true now as it was then.

Whether President Bush is re-elected will be driven mostly by how the voters feel about the economy.
The main issue will be JOBS! If we are still losing jobs faster than they are being created Bush is very apt to loose.

The primary response to the war effort is one of patriotism.
However, if something happens and the timetable for the transfer of Iraq back to the Iraqi people slips past the election season, Bush may take some flack for that.

As to "stealing" the 2000 election, there were a number of "irregularities" in the Florida voting beyond the hanging chad and butterfly ballot issues. The most egregious that I am aware of was the removal from the voter list of a large number of people with names similar to convicted felons.

Chas

by maxwell edison

.
You said, "...there were a number of 'irregularities' in the Florida voting...".

With all due respect, and as a matter of absolute accuracy, I think you might have to admit that those are all "alleged irregularities". To say anything more would be saying that those "alleged irregularities" could be documented and proven without any question.

Unless, of course, you can provide such proof.....

Regards,

P.S. This whole Florida thing is something the Bush opponents should really get over already. How the real facts get clouded is absolutely amazing. The facts are: Al Gore started the legal challenge, not Bush; the courts ultimately ruled against Gore, not really in favor of Bush; out of at least a half-dozen different courts, all of them except the very liberal leaning Florida Supremes ruled against Gore; the U.S. Supremes voted 7-2 that the Florida Supremes overstepped their constitutional authority; and, as I said, the irregularities were and still are all alleged, as nothing was substantiated. Why can't people just put it behind them? Man, the sour grapes here is enough to make bad vinegar.

by thechas

Max, I did not vote for, or support Al Gore.

I don't wish to belabor the point, but if the irregularities that happened in Florida in 2000 had happened in a third world election that the US was monitoring, we would have called for a new election.

IMHO, the press was manipulated with the hanging chad and butterfly ballet issues to allow time to hide the 'real' injustices.

Chas

by dwdino

I am getting so tired of this excuse.

For something to be lost is for it be misplaced, taken, removed, or in some other way neglected or effected by another party.

Amereica is flushing itself! People have become so consumed with the possession of a peice of paper used for exchange that HUMAN BEINGS have little if any value.

"Oh no, our profit this year is only 35 cents per share, down from 32! Outsource xyz now!"

Companies are so determined to haul in the dough, that they will destroy those who have made the company what it is today.

Shortly the US will have outsourced everything, leaving us to be nothing but "actors to a baren stadium".

[/end rant]

by maxwell edison

.
Is it possible to put aside yours?

As much as my bias might compel me to say that Al Gore, if he had been elected instead of George Bush, would have been a wimp and done nothing about 9-11 and/or the Iraq situation, the realist in me suggests otherwise.

I remember in 1998 when the Iraq Liberation Act was passed, but it didn't really get much press coverage. The Monica Lewinski and Whitewater issues were dominating the news instead, so the passage of that act flew under the radar, so to speak. But it doesn't detract from its importance at all. Do a web search for it, and you'll be absolutely amazed at what it states, and what was said and by whom in its support by those of both parties.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was the beginning of the end for Saddam Hussein, pure and simple. The wheels were set in motion upon its passing, and regardless of who occupied the White House after President Clinton, that policy would have been passed on and acted upon, there's no question about it, at least not in my mind. It passed the U.S. Senate unanimously, and it passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 360-38. (With some obvious abstains, since there are 435 House seats.)

Things like this are much bigger than one man, and the behind the scenes planning is much greater than the average person realizes.

Read about it:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

---------- Statement by President Clinton ----------
"Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government."

- President Bill Clinton, October 31, 1998

----------

---------- Quotes from 1998 ----------

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

----------

Gee, why isn't the Iraq Liberation Act getting any press coverage? Can you say a left-leaning biased media?

How many people have never heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? How about almost everybody?

Gee, what's changed between 1998 and 2002? Perhaps a Republican in the White House?

What gives here? Can you say disingenuous and unprincipled Democrats playing politics?

The Act had strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, then controlled by Republicans. Republicans backed the bill by a 202-9 margin with 16 not voting. Democrats lined up behind the bill 157-29, with 20 not voting, and the House's sole Independent voted for H.R. 4655.

Who is the more "principled" party? Democrats who vote for this if a Democrat is President, but who are against this if a Republican is President, or Republicans who vote for this regardless of which party is in the White House? The answer is as obvious as the nose on your face.

by jardinier

for all the background information. Unfortunately the addres bar in my AOL browser is not long enough to delete the blanks, so I couldn't read the references.

I am the first to admit that I not always right, and I greatly appreciate the additional information. We have agreed to disagree, but I am also a stickler for accuracy, and appreciate being corrected when I am wrong.

by maxwell edison

.
Both you and I are merely speculating on what Al Gore may or may not have done. In reality, no one really knows for sure. I do think, however, that I supported my speculation with some verifiable supporting evidence and reasonable analysis, at least I'd like to think so.

Here are some tiny url links for your reading pleasure, if you feel so inclined.

http://tinyurl.com/36y59

http://tinyurl.com/22zzg

By the way, between this one and a couple of other threads, I need to be careful to keep my "passion" in check, and make sure I don't come across as too over bearing. Not only might it seem curt, which I don't want to do, but it might also land me into a situation with my own heart condition.

Later...

by john_wills

Iraq and the "war on terrorism" are not related issues; the invasion of Afghanistan can be justified in ways quite inapplicable to Iraq. Osama bin Laden thinks Saddam Hussein a traitor to Islam. The US conquest of Iraq was not intended to topple ObL's friends; indeed, as was to be expected, it has given ObL types a new field in which to kill the wicked Christian Yankees. There are some parallels though. 1. The biggest terrorist organization is the Israeli state, which is bent on genocide and does terror raids at least once a week, killing people, destroying houses, bulldozing orchards, etc.; this terror group is heavily funded by the US. A large component of Arab terrosim is at least in part a response to Zionist terrorism. 2. The US gave Saddam a lot of weapons for his attempt to conquer part of Iran, a democracy which had done nothing to deserve the Iraqi invasion. If Iran had won that war Iraq would long since have been a democracy, though possibly with the same kind of gridlock-prone constitution as Iran.

by maxwell edison

.
You said, "Iraq and the 'war on terrorism'" are not related issues."

On Oct 10, 2002, Senator Hillary Clinton said, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Who's right, you or Senator Clinton, and why?

by oz_media

Well Max that sure is a very comprehensive list of supporting statements. I am sure that the same amount of conviction applied to producing contrary statements would return similar and just as compelling results, if one was to believe in 'the other' party.

I had a few contradictions I had noticed as I erad ALL of the posts here, but I don't even want to start going down that path, as you have agreed, much of this is theoretical and hypothetical, not factual. Although if you reread the posts you will see some contradiction, not just from yourself but as a result of the absence of fact.

My only point I wanted to make, was that Bill Clinton sure was a good public speaker! his timing was that of a good comedian (not implying he was a joker), his smile and conviction was reassuring to say the least. His entire personal presentation ws one of a confident winner, depite all the later ireelevant issues that some saw fit as a reason to get rid of him.

I see none of these qualities in GWB, perhaps that's why I took an instant dislike to him after watching how he represents himself. He always speaks with an undertone of fear and doubt, no matter how he tries to present himself. His gestures and facial expressions are void of sincerity, as I feel he is also, and he is just a terrible public speaker.

This is just MY take as a someone who has taught public speaking and presentation skills in a classroom environment. I have always been focused on how peolpe present themselves. They say first impressions are so important, well this goes a thousand times for PUBLIC presentations. You must appear to be sincere, which GWB has never even come close to in my eyes.

With any luck I won't see him in office next term, this is just a pipe dream though as I'm sure he will be. Too bad he wasn't a real criminal who tried pot once and got some from his interns, coming to think of it, e may well have. Everyone is just so focused on Iraq now that perhaps his habits have gone unnoticed?

by prefbid ii

Especially for a technical forum.

I don't doubt that "technically" Bush is not a dramatic speaker. I guess I can't see much of a difference in virtually all politicians. There are a few that speak passionately (Sen. Kennedy)and a few who are quite accomplished with words (Pres. Reagan). But, I dare say, the majority of all politicians are BORING to listen to.

As a general rule, I choose not to listen to any of them. I like to read the speeches in the paper or on the web. That way I am not as susceptable to a charmed tongue. What I see is in the speeches are differences in sincerity. GWB may have a poor delivery, but you can understand what he stands for when you read his message. Sure I wish he were as good as England's PM (I like listening to his speeches). However, a glib tongue is hardly a reason to elect someone to the top of a nation.

As for Gore and Clinton, their sentences were full of double meanings and it worked. You could talk to any dozen people who "agreed" with the speech and find that there were at least two ways to take the speech and half the supporters took it one way and the other half grabbed the other way. It never seemed to matter what was done afterward -- it always seems to be based on what was said.

That being said, I think JF Kerry is likely to win the Nomination. Dean will be history within 2 or 3 primaries. Edwards will be trounced because he is a novice. Unfortunately, Kerry is a forked tongue speaker and can say three things every time he says one. He has a good chance to win the presidency, it just depends if he can keep up the lying. If he ever actually said what he would really do, I think he would be squashed by GWB.

In My Humble Opinion. (Boy- that was fun).

by maxwell edison

.
You listed as the following as "qualities" of Bill Clinton that GWB did not present:

1. Good public speaker.
2. His timing was that of a good comedian.
3. His smile and conviction.
4. His entire personal presentation was one of a confident winner.

Those aren't qualities. Those are traits and skills. Qualities are, in my opinion, those things by which a person lives his or her life. Qualities aren't presented; qualities are lived. Skills can be learned. Traits are distinguishing features, just the way things appear. Qualities are an inherent part of who you are. Qualities might be: Honesty, trustworthy, responsible, honorable, and those kinds of things. An extremely dishonest person, for example, could learn to be a great public speaker. A person who can't be trusted could certainly learn how to play to an audience.

You mentioned his smile and conviction. Are these supposed to be related? (This is where improper grammar can relay a different message than intended.) But I'll take them one at a time. Is a smile a quality or a trait? I think it's a trait. The nicest, most pleasant, and most honest person could have a face that looks like a frown all the time. And conversely, beware of the used car salesman with that great smile, right? So is a "smile" a quality"? I think not.

Conviction, now this is interesting. While I agree that it is indeed a quality to be a person of strong convictions, I think it depends on what those convictions are. Are they honorable convictions? If yes, that's good. If not, that's not so good. Were Bill Clinton's convictions honorable? That's another whole discussion, but personally, I think not.

You said that, "His entire personal presentation was one of a confident winner." Well, I agree. He was, and certainly still is, a confidant son of a ..........gun. But So what? So was Al Capone. And so is just about any other person running for political office, including GWB. Is that a quality? Only if that confidence is put to good use; and only if that confidence has its basis on the real qualities similar to those that I listed.

You summarized, "I see none of these qualities in GWB, perhaps that's why I took an instant dislike to him after watching how he represents himself." Well, I think it's obvious that you think beauty, so to speak, really is only what appears on the skin; you do indeed judge a book by its cover; and you make snap judgements on people based on shallow first impressions.

It may interest you to know that I wasn't crazy about GWB either when I was first exposed to him. I didn't like his speaking style; I didn't like the little smirk-looking facial expression. He wasn't as articulate as I would prefer, and so on. But you know what? I looked deeper than those superfluous things. I suppose you haven't had the inclination to do the same. Because if you had, you would see some real qualities that Bill Clinton didn't have, qualities like honesty, trustworthy, responsible, honorable, and those kinds of things.

You also said, "You must appear to be sincere, which GWB has never even come close to in my eyes." So let me get this right. Bill Clinton "appeared" to be sincere, but he really wasn't. And you think that's a good thing. While GWB, on the other hand, does not "appear" to be sincere, but he really is, and that's a bad thing. What's wrong with this picture? I'll tell you what's wrong. Too many people in America think and see things like you do. They see style, not substance. And that's the problem. Your kinds of "qualities", the "style" qualities, are better suited for movie stars. My kinds of "qualities", the substance qualities, are better suited for presidents.

I'm glad you don't vote for our representatives. There are too many like-minded people here already.

There ya' go.....

P.S. Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, didn't have much style either. But he sure had a lot of substance.

by maxwell edison

.
I know that you didn't support Al Gore, but I also know that you hold a certain disdain, for whatever reasons, for President Bush. Thus the incessant charges about the Florida thing. (But you're not alone.) I think that I can honestly prove that this issue is more about politics, and less about principle. However, to prove it, one has to be totally honest with himself.

Let me ask you this. (Or anyone else, for that matter.) If the tables were totally and completely reversed in every way, and Al Gore was the victor under absolutely identical, but opposite circumstances, while GWB was the loser, would you still be as adamant about your opinions? I didn't think so, thus my point is proven.

Geesh, give it a rest.

by cactus pete

Answer your own question:

Let me ask you this. (Or anyone else, for that matter.) If the tables were totally and completely reversed in every way, and GWB was the loser under absolutely identical, but opposite circumstances, while Gore was the victor, would you still be as adamant about your opinions? I didn't think so, thus my point is proven.

by maxwell edison

.
I suppose it is an impossible question to answer, and that's why playing the "what if" game is something I usually try to avoid.

But I'll play along anyway.

If the tables were turned, and if Al Gore did indeed win Florida, but only by the slimiest of margins, and if there were rumblings about voter problems that may have caused the slim margin to be tilted towards the Gore camp, I would guess that George W. Bush would have conceded gracefully, just as Richard Nixon did in the 1960 election to JFK under similar circumstances. (Actually, Nixon had more potentially legitimate questions about the 1960 election.) Therefore, the resulting fallout would have never happened in the first place, and there would be no nonsense talk about the "courts" appointing Gore president, because Bush would have had enough dignity to not challenge the election results in court.

Also, we would then have the Democrats in Congress supporting the President (President Gore) in his Iraq war efforts (yes, I do think so), the world of nations would have been more supporting of a President Gore (since the United Nations is more friendly to the Democrats than they are to the Republicans), and the Republicans in Congress would be supporting a Democrat President's war efforts instead of a Republican President's war efforts.

We would have Rudy Guilani as the front runner in the Republican party primaries, with Senator John McCain and a handful of various Republican governors not too far behind. And George W. Bush would be serving a third term as Texas Governor, declining suggestions that he try again to defeat Al Gore for the Presidency. We would have never heard of Howard Dean, as he would be fishing from the shores of Lake Champlain (maybe ice fishing about now), screaming at the fish for not biting instead of the voters for not voting, and Wesley Clark would be a nobody fired general because of his missteps in eastern Europe. I would be on the "Rudy" bandwagon, by the way, considering him the best of the field.

There ya' go. That's what I honestly think.

by john_wills

You wrote "one has to be totally honest with himself". What did you mean? "one has to be totally honest with oneself" or "(s)he has to be totally honest with him/her-self"? Or were you referring to two selfs in that clause?

by thechas

Yes Max, under your premise, of the exact same circumstances, I would be equally upset.

Maybe even more so, as I personally believe that Al Gore would be less of a leader than G. W. Bush has been.

Nor, do I believe that it is a large conspiracy and that George or Jeb Bush had any knowledge or involvement in the shenanigans.

Still, I am confident in my belief that Republican interests BOUGHT the 2000 election.

On a side issue, I heard an interesting quote from an attendee of the conservative convention today.
He claimed that George Bush is running the country like a Liberal Democrat!

Just how far to the right are some of the hard line conservatives that have so much sway with the Republican Party?

Chas

by maxwell edison

.
Thanks for the honest reply. I guess I understand what you're saying a little better.

I, too, think GWB is a better leader than Al Gore would have ever been, and I suppose we're both talking about the post 9-11 leadership qualities. I do think, however, as I mentioned in a different message, that Al Gore would have done the same thing in Iraq, especially considering the recent research I've done on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. That was the beginning of the whole thing, the process was set in motion, and it made the liberation of Iraq only a question of when and how, not if.

On the "left-leaning" GWB, I can't say that I necessarily disagree with that sentiment. There are many conservative thinkers who think GWB is supporting Democrat programs and plans, reinforcing the ideology, but just not as much as the Democrats themselves would do. There are many conservative thinkers, of which I am one, who think we should start rolling back these social programs, not adding to them. Where the Democrats might want to add a lot, GWB might settle for adding less, while many of us think they should be reduced.

As I've said on so many occasions, there's something inherently wrong with taking the property (money) of the person who earned it, for the express purpose of giving it to another person who didn't earn it. Whether the forced transfer of property (money) is justified by the prescription drug issue, the homeless issue (which is really a bunch of different issues all conveniently rolled into one), the "school lunch" issue, and on and on, it just doesn't matter. The whole premise of forced transfer of property is wrong - dead wrong, especially for a true "conservative".

Personally speaking, I think GWB is a great national leader in the face of international crisis and the terrorism threat to the world. I'd give him an A+.......no, make that an A-. He could have handled diplomacy issues a bit better. But on the whole, and considering the political circumstances and the "rest of the world", he's done alright. No, he's done better than alright. On economic issues such as tax cuts, stimulating the economy, and such, I'd give him an A as well. On other domestic issues, such as the Democrat party preferred social programs, I'll give him only a D+. Political reality would suggest that he couldn't be a real hard-liner on some issues, so I understand the compromise stance. But he has certainly done a less than acceptable job of "leading" the conservative movement. That's no reason to be against him or to vote against him in 2004, but I think it's a wake-up call to some conservatives that we better do a better job of educating people, especially the people we elect into office, on what America is all about. And if it doesn't happen in the next couple of decades (or sooner), can you spell "viable third party"?

by jkaras

Well I doubt I will vote again due to the amount of quality politicians available. I cant get enough of the Howard Dean scream, it cracks me up everytime. I dont think he was having a meltdown like the media is portraying, but just for once a politician wiht a little excitement rather than a boring subdued politician. I will comment that I feel George will win on a slight margin it will be close (especially with a little help again from his brother, sorry Max it's too easy and funny to pass up, insert rimshot). He will win because most voters dont want to have a new guy in the middle of a war. People vote on their taxes and rarely on issues, they cling to this reason or that but it always comes down to taxes. The job situation is a combination of recession where people are not spending because they are playing it safe rather than investing in America. It will get worse before it gets better, its all due to majority confidence that all is well. the media needs to spin it to the public to properly stimulate the economy, I will allow them this lie for the good of the country. Also confidence will come from the true justice given to the Enron execs. That's the key to US citizens confidence that the system works, lets face it we are all waiting, they got 1 chance or there will be trouble.

Bush's state of the union address was rather disturbing on some of the issues he taked about and some were really good in the last 20 minutes that I witnessed of the speech. Some outdated stuff, some fluff, and some finger pointing. I liked the finger pointing that we need to work together not who's getting the credit. Maybe some of the ideas are bad but come on people do your job!

by oz_media

I actually was not looking into the validity of statements as much as the validity of the speaker, of which I also feel GWB has little validity to his words. Maybe they are valid but they are not HIS passion as much as a carefully scripted speech.

This brings us also to the written reporting, which you say you prefer. I can understand why, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Anyhow, even the written words are CAREFULLY prepared by his speech writers, reviewed by his associate cabinet menbers where appropriate etc. He doesn't sit down with a beer and just throw his thoughts on paper, nobody has.

I don't think I listen or read speeches to determine validity as they are deceiving in any form. What I have learned is to read the small nusances, motions and inflections that help determine a persons conviction in what they are saying.

I found Clinton was quite good at expressing his views and sounding genuinely sincere in his message. When he denied his 'trying pot' (who cares) and his 'relations' with Lewinsky, he was obviously insincere, kept aaverting his eyes as he spoke, spoke in a completely different key thn normsl and was left hand fidgety. Obviously fabricating his responses no matter how well rehearsed. I see these same weaknesses in Bush as I have done since day one when regarding world affairs. Other convistions he has bene quite sincere about and the change in his delivery is obvious. I just thought someone with such high stature and training in these matters would have learned about these weaknesses and at least improved over time but no.

I didn't byu it then, I don't buy and now, and won't be in line to buy it tomorrow.

As for the OFF topic discussion, if you like them, you'll love it here. Thisforum has turned into a sandbox/soapbox for just about everything, including the odd IT topic :-)

I don't recognize your Alias so if you're new here, welcome and don't forget to take it all with a grain of salt, it gets somewhat heated here at times.

by prefbid ii

I'm hardly new. I think I have been on line here since 1997. I don't quite remember anymore. I used to go by Prefbid, but I forgot my password and gave up trying to get in on the old name, so that is why I go by Prefbid II now.

I don't tend to look at many discussions. I used to have more time. I've gotten promoted several times in the last few years and I'm not as available as I once was.

by oz_media

Sorry I just don't remember seeing you around here, my mistake.

As for promotions taking away free time I've always found the opposite, promotionshave given me all my free time. I now contract from my home so I have more but even when in management roles, delegation (not just passing the buck) worked well.

Find a whipping boy and have a beer. : -)

by maxwell edison

.
You said (about GWB), "Maybe they (his speeches) are valid but they are not HIS passion as much as a carefully scripted speech."

You have no idea as to GWB's "passions". And as far as his speaking style (and substance), if a person saw his speech (actually it was more of a eulogy) at the National Cathedral, one of the most fantastic and heart-felt presentations I've ever seen, one would never question his passion - or compassion.

You said that you don't, "listen to or read speeches to determine validity as they are deceiving in any form. What I have learned is to read the small nuisances, motions and inflections that help determine a persons conviction in what they are saying."

You really are naive'. You're shallow. You really have no idea. (Not a slam, but an observation.) And you're an expert at reading one's intentions behind the speech he or she gives???

I have only one question for you. Do you really believe the nonsense that you spew?

by oz_media

Well your reading comprehension is limited or tunnel vision I'm not too sure.

You enter a post with an IDEA of what is being implied by your assumption of the writers character. You then hold that bias throughougt the post, your perception of the words, the overall meaning and finally your response.
I was telling someone the other day that you would be a good Aries or perhaps a Taurus.

When I said " ...they are not HIS passion as much as a carefully scripted speech.""

This does NOT say he is not passionate nor does it say that I know what his passions are, you are wrong. Everyone with any sense knows that the presidential speeches are scripted by his speech writers, he will have input or even a rough draught made up but it is fine tuned for public and White House acceptance. Therefore HE is insincere in his reading of them and therefore not credible and YES they are scripted more than they are his passion, we aren't allowed to hear how he REALLY feels, just how he SHOULD feel, which is where he loses credbility.

Yes, you can judge character from several speeches followed by insane actions, you are a fool to believe otherwise.

If you can't look me in the eye and say you like Al Gore and then go campagning for GWB I have an EXCELLENT idea that YOU do not support Democrats.

You mean to tell me that when your kids said they didn't do it, that you didn't know they were lying by the look on thier face? This doesn't go away, it just gets harder to judge, unless your GWB then it all over your face like a 5 year old.

HE speaks without conviction, no matter how bland or animated you are, conviction is always apparent if it is true.

To imply "You really are naive'. You're shallow" is the most retarded thing I've ever been told. Without a word of a lie, I hear people telling me the exact opposite VERY often. I think it was just last week I managed an "I told you so" without saying it. The person just said "well you always see things in people before I do" This is what made me a good employer, character perception and seeing through the ego driven facade that EVERYONE puts on. Moreover, I am a very deep person, most of the time too deep for those around me and go out of my way to be lighthearted and easy going. These are my personal traits that anyone who knows me will tell you, I am hard to fool and a very good judge of a persons true intent.

No matter how eloquent you word your posts, I see exactly where you come from and where you are going with it. Your personal bias towards myselfshows as if in a spotight, don't bother patronizing me with such comments as :

"You really are naive'. You're shallow. You really have no idea. (Not a slam, but an observation.)"

It's either pure bullshit or it shows your own naivity in your observation.

You are exactly the type of character a political party aims for, undying suuport for some objectives but easily detracted by focus on another.

Don't bother, it doesn't interest me.

by jardinier

an extract from a news story:

The latest deaths brought to 512 the number of American service members who have died since the United States and its allies launched the Iraq war March 20. Most of the deaths occurred since President George W. Bush declared an end to active combat May 1.

by thechas

The statement that active combat has ended was taken as a sound bite and has been used out of context by the media.

What President Bush was talking about was that the "1" ship that he was on and addressing the crew of had completed their mission.

On May first, the navel bombardment of Iraq was no longer needed to support the ground troops.

In the past few months, the efforts to round up and contain the remaining pockets of resistance has been stepped up.
This is a necessary step in order to return the control of Iraq back to the Iraqi people.

If there was any error, it was the mis-perception that after Baghdad fell the rest of Iraq would give up all fighting.

I honestly don't know if it was the press or the Pentagon that lead to the misunderstanding. I suspect that the press mis-interpreted what they were told.

Chas

by oz_media

Your grasp of personality traits is weak at best, you have shown that toward myself as well as in your analogy of what I was implying.

In psychology, criminology and interrogation, personality 'traits' speak louder than words OR actions.

My statements was that Clinton had good QUALITIES of a successful candidate. His 'traits' are exactly what is needed to win the hearts and minds of people, in your own country as well as others. This man is a representative of everything American and must LOOK as such. Yes, material or learned grace and sincerity is important. NO amount of makeup and ettiquette would have made people not see Saddam for who he really was, this doesn;t detract from actions.

As for BC, you say "you would see some real qualities that Bill Clinton didn't have, qualities like honesty, trustworthy, responsible, honorable, and those kinds of things."

I never saw Clinton as dishonorable or untrustworthy, I still don't. If you are referring to his Lewinsky scandal, who gives a flying F_K at a rolling doughnut? It has NO bearing on his ability to run the country or his sincerity in helping America improve.

Personally I think that leading America into war under deceptive pretenses is appalling, seems to be accepted more than smoking pot or cheating on yor wife though.

We will never agree on our political stands, it will never happen. You have formed your opinions on what you belive ot be truthful statements and can provide contrary information to anything I post as your side counters everything on the other side.

I can also post a thousand link of points that show yours to be incorrect, that's what opposition is formed from. You can say my sources aren't reliable because...

In the same sense, MY sources say yours aren't reliable because...

It doesn't end, it will never end as it forms and feeds perpetual hatred beween left and right within your OWN country, well done America.

In Canada we don't discuss politics for this exact reason, nobody is right, nobody is wrong, they will just bicker and argue until one dies of old age. Whether we elect a conservative, Democratic or Liberal party makes no difference to anyone. Why does your country insist on placing such conflict between parties? Wouldn't it be easier for all parties and candidates if they felt they could support common goals instead of becoming extreme left or right? Then you may get someone who offers a middle ground. You said you don't agree 'fully' with either party really but you'd be able to get a few 'bit of both' candidates if such conflicting separation wasn't played.

Sorry for the side track but it is really stupid in many eyes.

by oz_media

Yes I know that GWB is not extreme right and others aren't extreme left and you feel that Bush is a little farther left yada yada.

To a Canadian, and yes I speak on behalf of anyone 'I've' ever met, GWb is a war monger. He is full of crap and nobody wants him playing his little games so close to out border. In our eyes he is about as extreme Right Wing/Republican/Capitiailist or what ever the US magnified political scope wants to call him.

To Canada he is an idiot, he would have never had the remotest shot at being elected here and nobody cares that you elected him there until he is jeopardizing Canada's safety in his attempts to Liberate (or whatever you wnant to call it) the Middle East. I haven't met a single person who feels he isn't in this for monetary gain, which he will receive as everyone is already whining about cost.

Nobody cares what his supporters think unless they are his supporters. In short, you are the enemy as is you President.

by oldefar

I have to disagree on your perception that casualties alone will be the swing factor regarding Iraq. Any group or nation that believes American casualties alone is a deciding factor has a serious misconception.

Democratic candidates who focus on opposition to the Iraq War and opposition to support of Iraq choosing a new government of their choosing will probably suffer overwhelming defeat in the presidential election. Candidates who propose a better approach to Iraq self government may win points. The best opportunity to defeat Bush in the next election will be on the economic front, but Bush has already begun putting a major share of the responsibility where it belongs, on Congress.

The current administration has some additional ammunition to use. Regarding Iraq and the world at large, there are plenty of sound bites to replay where Bush and his team made it clear that neither Iraq nor the war on terror would be short, simple, or without a high price in blood. In addition, little has been made of the new emphasis against corrupt corporations internationally this past year. However, the same approaches used to combat terror are now being applied to multinational companies. This could be a big plus in winning over votes from unions and blue collar workers.

The situation in Iraq today has some parallels elsewhere in the world as well. All is not well in parts of Africa, Indonesia, or the Balkans for example. Peace keeping and attempts to assist with nation building is always a thankless job, no matter who is doing it. It is almost always a mess.

by john_wills

obviously: What the Senator said about WMD is now so obviously false that even David Kay, the US substitute for Hans Blix, has resigned in the certainty he won't find anything. Today's SF Chronicle has people in the political elite trying to blame the US intelligence services rather than the US political elite for the misinformation.
As for the ties to Al Qa'ida, that is quite preposterous: one aim of Al Qa'ida is to get rid of secularist sinners such as Saddam Hussein. Indeed, yesterday's Chronicle reveals that some of the documents found with the fallen dictator were orders to the Ba'ath resistance to US rule forbidding co-operation with Islamist guerrillas.
The real question is why the Senator made the statement. Tagging on to the prevalent anti-Semitism, I suppose, but I don't know.

by maxwell edison

.
David Kay blames the CIA:

"It's an issue of the capabilities of one's intelligence service to collect valid, truthful information," Kay said. Asked whether President Bush owed the nation an explanation for the gap between his warnings and Kay's findings, Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040126/D80A7GDO0.html

David Kay says they're in Syria:

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons program was hidden in Syria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

(REMOVE those pesky spaces from the pasted links.)

Bottom line:

When a George Bush distracter, opponent, hater, or whatever they claim to be, says that President Bush "lied" about the WMDs in Iraq, they are being either disingenuous or dishonest (or both), or that person is extremely ignorant. If (emphasis on IF) there are no WMDs found, it only shows that President Bush was mistaken about the issue, not that he lied about the issue. Anyone who refuses to see the difference could also give themselves a "see with their very own eyes" colonoscopy.

Now I will admit that if a president is mistaken about such an important fact, as that on obviously is, it could be reason for concern. However, in this case, considering that his predecessor was also mistaken, Al Gore was mistaken, as were all members of the U.S. Congress, as were the CIA, FBI, and every other intelligence agency in the world, as were the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, and Russia; as were the weapons inspectors in the late 1990s into the 2000s; as were literally everyone in the world, then it's certainly an excusable mistake. The bottom line is that he did not lie, but was rather fooled along with every other person in the world.

Consider this, if history shows that Saddam did not have WMDs or a WMD program, but everyone in the world thought he did, then Saddam was successful in carrying out the biggest gotcha' in all of history. Man, he succeeded in fooling the world! But the joke was on him because it cost him his country, and will probably cost him his life.

But you know what? I don't think we've heard the last of this. The jury is still out, and they may still be found.

by cactus pete

...and that's exactly what they are...

are that Hussein used up the last of his bio/chem weapons on the revolt in the early 90s. This showed he was willing to use such weapons, and would keep enemies at bay. But this also made it impossible for the inspections crews that came later to find any hidden stores. It is then relatively easy to act like you're evading discovery and make the rest of the world, particularly your near neighbors, afraid of attacks.

I rather think that Saddam expected the buildup of armies around him to be a bluff [largely one, anyway]. I see evidence to that effect from his 11th hour frantic attempt to contact the US about averting the invasion.

If Saddam caved, and let everyone know it - he would have been deposed early on in the 90s. He propagated a myth of his strength, and it kept him both alive and in power.

If the previous has merit, then the UN [or many other nations] seems less cowardly in demanding proof of WMD before a preemtive invasion.

Of course, the flipside is the current administration and its position that proof should not come as the form of a mushroom cloud.

The armchair politician in me would want proof before invasion. Solid proof, not selected proof. That, I believe, is a fundamental tenet of American Ideology in so far as criminal justice is concerned - the state assumes innocence.

My take on Bush's stance is that he had a more civil slant - if there is a lot of evidence that together makes a pretty resounding case, there is guilt.

Interestingly, the Texas criminal justice system slants like that a bit, too. Bush, the Texan's Texan, is a result of his culture.

This, I don't believe Saddam noticed. Little Bush, as he called the Pres, wasn't as much a chip off the old block as was hoped.

by oz_media

The way I see it and i know you wont but here goes anyway;
The other countries had reason to believe that Saddam had WMD, they were not confirmed. The other countries decided to let the appointed paqrty (the UN) further investigate the allegations (which they were doing VERY successfully) as they had already found empty/unused warheads, no delivery system or cvhemicals but the war heads were there and were found by the UN NOT GWB or the USA. The other countries that used to be called Allied countries were against the invasion as they were uncovering the truth as predicted.

GWB disregarded the wishes of his former allies and decided that he had enough evidence of WMD to invade and topple Saddam and his regime.

He did so alone ad without needed support. He killed your brothers and sisters, childrens parents etc. (just Americans now, not the Iraqi's too) in an attempt to save your borthers ands sisters, children's parents etc., and they are still dying daily along with Iraqi Brothers and sisters children's parents etc.

There is no ed in sight to the conflict, it has not gotten easier over time.

Who is ultimately responsible for the USA and it's people?
The secratary treasurer?NO.
The Vice President? NO.
The Secretary of state? NO.
The military? NO.
The CIA? NO
The US COngress? NO.

The President elect and 'Leader of the free world'? YES.

It is the presiden't JOB to make sure information is reported and confirmed as accurate. If he is mislead, it is not because he has inaccurate sources, it is because he is unable to perform his job, end of story. He wants to accept gratitude for America's successes yet will pass the buck when found wrong?

If your company goes broke, is it the accountants fault? Technically YES, but ulimately it is he owners fault for not having better control of his administration staff.

GWB should quit passing the buck and admit he F-D up, perhaps he would actually be on equal ground with new candidates as he strove to win them over again.

He is simply hiding behind the administration, just like people blame the company instead of the boss. Liek a recent discussion outlined, people have lost identity by using large corporations to mask the real blame. Nobody looks at an individual when Nortel cuts wages, they look at the company instead.

You choose to look at everyone BUT the man responsible for whatever happens in the White House.

by oz_media

The way I see it and i know you wont but here goes anyway;
The other countries had reason to believe that Saddam had WMD, they were not confirmed. The other countries decided to let the appointed paqrty (the UN) further investigate the allegations (which they were doing VERY successfully) as they had already found empty/unused warheads, no delivery system or cvhemicals but the war heads were there and were found by the UN NOT GWB or the USA. The other countries that used to be called Allied countries were against the invasion as they were uncovering the truth as predicted.

GWB disregarded the wishes of his former allies and decided that he had enough evidence of WMD to invade and topple Saddam and his regime.

He did so alone ad without needed support. He killed your brothers and sisters, childrens parents etc. (just Americans now, not the Iraqi's too) in an attempt to save your borthers ands sisters, children's parents etc., and they are still dying daily along with Iraqi Brothers and sisters children's parents etc.

There is no ed in sight to the conflict, it has not gotten easier over time.

Who is ultimately responsible for the USA and it's people?
The secratary treasurer?NO.
The Vice President? NO.
The Secretary of state? NO.
The military? NO.
The CIA? NO
The US COngress? NO.

The President elect and 'Leader of the free world'? YES.

It is the presiden't JOB to make sure information is reported and confirmed as accurate. If he is mislead, it is not because he has inaccurate sources, it is because he is unable to perform his job, end of story. He wants to accept gratitude for America's successes yet will pass the buck when found wrong?

If your company goes broke, is it the accountants fault? Technically YES, but ulimately it is he owners fault for not having better control of his administration staff.

GWB should quit passing the buck and admit he F-D up, perhaps he would actually be on equal ground with new candidates as he strove to win them over again.

He is simply hiding behind the administration, just like people blame the company instead of the boss. Liek a recent discussion outlined, people have lost identity by using large corporations to mask the real blame. Nobody looks at an individual when Nortel cuts wages, they look at the company instead.

You choose to look at everyone BUT the man responsible for whatever happens in the White House.

by homestar

Most people I speak with are of the belief that this was just the straw that broke the camel's back(no pun intended). The war in Iraq is just the latest in a series of battles around the globe to defeat terorism. If a democrat is elected (unlikely because all the canidates are too liberal)he would have no choice but to witdraw from Iraq and this would be the same situation that occured in the 80's in Afganistan. We must see this through to the end. either the Anit-american terrorist must go or we must go, and I don't think it will be the latter. There are 2 rules in war; 1. People die. 2. Politicians and do-gooders cannot stop rule 1.
You can argue our fundimental reason for being there but 1 thing remains true. The terorists are on the run. We as Americans (our elected leader (democrat or republican)all stood in from of the capital and sang god bless America and weeks laster signed the authorization for Pres Bush to wage war on terrorism. We found it in Afganistan and Iraq. And all but a few pockets have been crushed or rendered untenable. If a nation decides to harbor terrroist or train terrorists from now on it will think twice. I think this serves the purpose and is justifed.
I served in the first gulf war and as a soilder I believed in what we were doing was necessary and right. I still believe that today. Some so called leader cannot be bargined with or tusted to lead responsibly. Under ordinary circumstances the US would leave them alone. These are not ordinary times. If we did't make good on the assertions of our leaders we would look like meely mouthed losers who can't or won't take action when confronted. This leads to being looked on as doormat.
The great thing about this country is that people can express their opinions and not be jailed or killed for it. And if enough people agree to change the situation or leader as the case may be, they can vote for a change. If Bush is elected to a second term that means that enough people agreed that the president was doing the right thing. And by the way some people have forgotten that a presidential election is by the electoral college not popular vote. In other words you must win the majority of votes from them not the uneducated people who vote for whomever their local businessman or clergy tells them to. This is not a perfect system but it has funtioned well for over 200 years. You don't like it vote to change it. So enough with the sour grapes abour Al Gore. It was 4 years ago get over it, they lost. Try agin this year.

by maxwell edison

.
You're mistaken, but I'm sure you won't admit it.

You said it was an "assumption too far"? An incorrect choice of words again.

No, it wasn't an "assumption". And it was confirmed. It was confirmed by multiple sources. Thus the links to the articles I posted, which I'm sure you conveniently failed to read.

But whatever it takes to satisfy your "bash Bush" agenda, I suppose.

And by the way, he's not the "president elect", but rather the "elected president". The two have very different meanings.

You're welcome.

by dc_guy

Throughout human history the more advanced civilizations have tried to shape the course of everyone else's development, "for their own good," as well as for their own selfish reasons such as spices, slaves and petroleum. This strategy has been an uninterrupted disaster. The Europe that Rome "civilized" may feel like a nice place now, but ask one of the wretched souls who had to live through the thousand years of ignorance and squalor known as the Dark Ages that the Holy Roman Empire devolved into. Even since the "Enlightenment," the wars among the European nations built upon the remains of Roman civilization were the bloodiest in history, ceased only within my lifetime, and still threaten to flare up again in Ireland and the Balkans. In every New World nation save Canada where significant indigenous populations survive, can we honestly say that they are better off than they would be if the Europeans had allowed the Aztec and Inca civilizations to mature? Or take the Mideast. (Please!) Britain's hubris-induced dream of making the whole world one giant Commonwealth resulted in arbitrarily drawn national boundaries throwing people together who have nothing in common but hatred. Their American and Soviet successors turned those nations into proxy battlegrounds with puppet governments. And now we complain that the despots we installed, the war machines they built at our urging and with our advisors, and the restive citizenries that we disenfranchised, are a threat to OURSELVES! Africa is in even worse shape than the Mideast, and for exactly the same reason. But we Americans pay very little attention to it because at this time we don't consider the people of Africa to be a threat to OURSELVES. ... Everything the "developed" nations have ever done to "help" the less developed nations has been a disaster for the people they tried to help and it has backfired on those who did the helping.

by john_wills

This Dutch proverb was in vogue in the late 1960s. It is applicable not only to the church and persons but to humanity and states. Even if Argentina were perfectly justified in its claim to the Falklands (it isn't), it would be wrong to occupy the islands while Argentina was a dictatorship. Iran is being threatened by the U.S. essentially because it has frequent constitutional gridlock and an irresponsible judiciary - but the U.S. also has those problems. However, a state which really is doing its best internally will naturally want to help people elsewhere. Justice, like charity, begins at home, but, like charity, it cannot stay there. But by starting with itself it will have better ideas about the modes of spreading justice.

by oldefar

I recently received this from another group I participate in and felt it worth sharing.
-----
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my mind. I lost my job this past year. When Clinton was president I was secure and prosperous, but in the last year, we had to close our operations. We simply could not compete with foreign labor. This foreign labor worked for low pay under very bad conditions. They worked very long shifts, and many even died on the job. This competition could hardly be called "fair." I was forced out of the place where I had worked for 34 years. Not a single government program was there to help me. How can Bush call himself "compassionate?"

Far worse, I lost two of my sons in Bush's evil war in Iraq. They gave their lives for their country, and for what? So that Bush's oil buddies can get rich.

My pain of losing my sons is indescribable. While it is trivial next to the loss of my sons, I regret to say that I also lost my home. I simply have nothing left.

How can Bush call himself a Christian when he neglects people like me? I am a senior citizen with various medical problems. I'm not in a position where I can begin a new career. I was reduced to the point where I had to live in a hole in a ground, all because of President Bush. And when the authorities found me there, did they have any compassion for my misfortune and ailments? No, I was arrested.

Mr. Bush, I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a compassionate man! I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a Christian! If I had any money left, I would donate it to the Democrat Party. If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 I would still have a job, a home, and most importantly, my dear sons!"

Regards,
Saddam Hussein

by dc_guy

It is an insult to the many bereaved parents of soldiers slain in this "Through the Looking Glass" war who have had the guts to speak out and write letters exactly like that. Saddam was a pain in the backside, but not our backside. He couldn't even conquer Iran or his own valiant Kurds. If we want to right every wrong in the world we could start much closer to home, incur much fewer senseless casualties, and avoid alarming half of the planet's population. Then reflect on the wisdom we gain in the effort before trying to resolve conflicts that were already ancient when we first began stealing our own land from its inhabitants and repopulating it with slaves. I wish the webmasters who have seen a hundred copies of this election-year propaganda would have the guts to erase it.

by oldefar

If you found the post offensive because you lost a loved one, you have my apology. If you simply chose to be offended, that is your privilege.

To consider it as an insult to parents who lost a son or daughter serving in the US military in Iraq and who opposed the war is foolish. By the same logic, your comments are insulting to every parent who lost a son or daughter serving in the US military in Iraq but supported the action. I am sure you didn't intend that any more than the writer of the letter intended to insult anyone.

As for propaganda, that implies state sponsorhip. I am fairly sure this was an individual action.

The rest of your comments need to be discussed in their historical context and against the long line of human societies. It has always been 2 steps forward and 1 step back, and we should all be working at getting at least a third step forward as we pass through.

by oz_media

Apparently we are allowed to express out support for GWB but not our dislike or distrust. Negative GWB opinions are no longer accepted here, as advised by TR staff.

We are allowed to discuss these things but only in a positive side. Therefore one can assume that Democrats are not allowed to participate here, and neither are letters (even in fun) from Saddam.

"...there is a ZERO TOLERANCE in personally attacking other members or defaming countries, even if you don't like GWB" - Tech Republic Support

We must accept the actions of others and ther governments regardless. Unless we are speaking of Iraq of course as it considered a mutual enemy.

Toe the line Oldefar

by oldefar

I suspect how something is said is more the issue than what is said, but you know that.

As for that letter...was it meant to slam Bush, to slam the Democrats, or to merely to get a chuckle at Saddam's expense????

by oz_media

If you want to have a giggle at Saddam,I recently got sent a doctored Saddam pic that shows him strung up by his.... It's very well done but probably inappropriate to link here.

by oldefar

A friend passed along a link that attempts to match an individual's beliefs with the candidates. The link is:http://tinyurl.com/2k7o3

At this point in the process, it only has President Bush and the Democratic Party hopefuls listed. It does offer links to each of the candidates so their statements can be viewed as they present them rather than filtered.

Anyone going through the short questionaire should keep in mind that it makes little effort to rank the depth of feeling or importance on any one issue. However, it may serve as a way to narrow the field so an individual can become much more familiar with those candidates who more closely align with their personal beliefs.

by john_wills

I have an algorithm for elections. I use it, so far as I can get the information on candidate's policies, where I vote. I do not vote in the U.S. but I do take some interest in U.S. politics. The algorithm mentioned by Oldefar has me choosing Kucinich. My own algorithm excludes him fairly rapidly.

by maxwell edison

.
I answered the questions as well, but Kucinich finished last on my list. Bush was first, Lieberman was second. Interestingly enough, I was recently asked a question by someone, a person who knew I was a registered Republican, about which Democrat candidate I would prefer if I had to choose one. My answer was Joe Lieberman.

However, the Q&A in that "voter guide" is very flawed. For example, in my first run through the questions, I left several answers as "no opinion", since the question was wide open to interpretation. For example, the question, "Relative to one another, how important are the following factors?" It then wanted a rating on social issues, crime/education, etc. The flaw can be seen by considering the question, "How important are social issues?" This might be very important to a person who wants social programs cut back AND very important to a person who wants them expanded, and how that question is interpreted will produce opposite results. The same "interpretation" flaw could be applied to many of the questions. Moreover, many questions don't have a "none of the above" option, or the options are quite limited. For example, "How do you feel about these social security reforms?" Raise retirement age, privatize social security, and cap payments to the wealthy were the only three options to either oppose or favor. First of all, define "the wealthy"; the answer is both relative and subjective. Moreover, consider that "the wealthy" paid into the system over a lifetime, and that they were promised these payments, but now they were deemed "too wealthy", whatever that means, for the government to honor that promise, an explanation might be in order. Besides, where is the option, "Phase out the social security system over a period of fifty (or more) years"? That would be my pick.

So I wouldn't put much stock in that questionnaire.

by oldefar

I wouldn't trust any questionaire to determine who I support. There are far too many shades of grey on any issue.

It is useful in cutting through a large field to a smaller number of candidates whose views seem closer.

by john_wills

I found the question about social issues the potentially most misleading. Are not all political issues social? We might distinguish between individual issues like contract enforcement and social ones like deposit insurance, but people who waffle about social issues seem to throw a lot of individual-oriented stuff in, e.g. abortion; on the other hand gayness is sometimes classed as a private/individual matter although there is evidence (I do not say it is good evidence - that is a political matter and I am here being metapolitical) that widespread gayness leads to problems even for people who do not participate in the activity. It was not a good question, at least not without a definition of "social".

by john_wills

I am voting this year (not in the U.S.). I am sending the candidates this questionnaire.
I. In 5 clauses or fewer, what is the purpose of government? I am not asking for a list of functions of government, nor for government's great task today; nor am I asking for the purpose of the universe, of life, of intelligence, or of civilization.
II. What are the following polities doing contrary to the purpose of government? I am not asking how they are failing in their purpose, nor what they are doing that you disagree with, nor what they are doing that is bound to fail in the purpose.
1a. The United Nations system

Questions III onwards are a few non-trick questions regarding my answers (which the candidate has not seen) to Q. II at the level of the polity I am voting in. I have little confidence in the state fulfilling its purpose, but I can at least try to prevent it contradicting its purpose: primum non nocere.

by dc_guy

You sound like yet another libertarian who doesn't know that not only is there a name for the philosophy but there's a whole movement out here. (Not to mention a political Party, but that's another story. The Sierra Club is much more effective than the Green Party; 'nuff said.) All of the problems with Government as an Institution or governments as individual organizations can be summarized in four words: they are too big. The goals that people want their government to achieve may be noble, but that doesn't mean that a government can actually achieve them. Power still corrupts. The greater the power, the greater the corruption. Eventually you reach a point where the government is no longer accountable to anyone except its most generous patrons, most of whom have also attained the level of absolute corruption.

by john_wills

I am not a Libertarian, or a Communist, or a Fascist: they have forgotten the purpose of government but have their solutions ready. The extent to which I am a Liberal (proper sense), a Socialist or a Corporatist is irrelevant for my algorithm because the world is so bad I need not worry about that. The question of how big government should be depends on the answers to my first 2 questions, and may well be different in different places (the purpose of government may well overlap with the purpose of the church, or the cricket club, and it might then not matter much whether the state, the church or the cricket club tackles a particular function). It is conceivable that the state is incapable of fulfilling its purpose, in which case anarchy may be best. At this stage of the algorithm that does not matter. DC_GUY is going too fast. I think he should try to construct his own questionnaire for the candidates seeking his vote - a questionnaire, mind, not an argument.

by dc_guy

It should be. And if "None of the above" gets the majority of the votes, the office should remain vacant. If it remains vacant after a second election it should be automatically abolished. Think of all the money and hassle it would save us. But I suppose that wouldn't work in this particular office because the rules of succession would automatically transport the highest-ranked member still serving in Congress into the White House. Wait, we already lived through something very much like that in 1974. Never mind.

This discussion is closed to new replies.