Comments:

Flat Nested Threaded Embedded

Oldest First Newest First

Author	Thread:
Been There	Around the Kitchen Table Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 8:29 AM The debate last night was much more interesting than I expected. In the past they've often been, shall we say, on the dull side, but this time--perhaps because so much is at stake--I found myself paying close attention to both men. Overall, I thought both Kerry and Bush did well in laying out their respective cases on Iraq and homeland security.   A few random observations: Kerry appeared uncomfortable at the start, Bush appeared more uncomfortable as the debate went on. Bush had too few points to make for the time allotted, so he became somewhat repetitive, but he maintained the discipline to stay on message and thereby avoid the gaffes he's prone to make. Kerry didn't stay strictly on message and the republicans will use a couple of his slips in campaign ads against him. I hope the undecided voters watched the actual debate instead of letting the party and media spinners define it for them.
look2it	The 1st debate Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:52 AM Kerry cleaned Dubya's clock. All Bush could say was "It's a really, really tough job, and, gosh, I'm doing the best I can." And he could repeat his memorized campaign lines. How anybody could even think of voting for him after that performance is amazing.
rock	The 1st debate Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 12:14 PM I have to agree with Been There that they both did well. They didn't show much difference over Iraq now that we're there. I wish the President would have said more to explain where Kerry went off base on homeland security. I'll still vote for him but that might hurt him. I think the President's character will come through better in the next debates. I hope so anyway.
moots	The 1st debate Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 12:52 PM L2,   Nobody has ever accused Bush of eloquence, but he held his own.  Debates  tend to favor the challenger since he can criticize everything the prez has done and hasn't done for four years.  Even Reagan, the master of the political speech, sounded a lot weaker against Wally Mondale  than he did against Carter, but the results were the same.   Your guy's going to have to do a lot better than his mlk  " I   HAAAVE  AAA  PLAAAN!"  (really, what is it besides trying to do what Bush is already doing faster?)
Cousin Jack	The 1st debate Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 3:05 PM I would like to see some scientific polls taken exclusively of people who now have or have had immediate family members participate in the Iraq War since the Spring 2003 invasion as I think that it would get us all closer to the truth of how well and badly things are actually transpiring over there. Will they support a new Commander in Chief who has already stated that this war is a mistake and is wrong (Bush’s most salient point vs Kerry)? Will they continue to support a Commander in Chief whose adminstration so severely underestimated (at least publicly) the high cost this war would have for American military families (Kerry’s most valid criticism especially with respect to Bush’s post-invasion planning)? This looks to be a long dangerous test-of-will in the making between an old guard Sunni/Jihadist terrorist alliance (whose only talent seems to be for monkey-wrenching a return to civilized life for most Iraqis along with the mass indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians) and those who believe in the possibilities of building some kind of Iraqi proto-democracy. I believe that whomever is elected president come November will have to stand firm in winning this conflict or else the now 1000+ American fatalities and countless Iraqi civilian deaths will not only lose whatever meaning they may have nobly earned in the larger global war on terrorism, but also unforgivably strengthen the brutal hand of those international nihilists who seek control over the Persian Gulf nation states now harboring those huge reserves of oil which makes western modernity possible. CJ
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 6:26 PM Most of us know that many former top military officers (all former republicans now in a position to speak freely) have strongly endorsed Kerry over Bush. Other knowledgeable republicans, sick over the mess Bush has made, are putting their country above their politics to endorse Kerry. John Eisenhower, lifelong republican and son of former president Dwight Eisenhower, explained his reasons for doing so in this thoughtful article: Why I will vote for John Kerry for President. As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.   The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion. Mr. Eisenhower's article details why people who truly care about our nation cannot in good conscience vote again for Bush. We owe him our thanks for speaking out.
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:28 PM Some young people have opened their eyes to what Dubya's actions mean to them. They are shedding blood today for his foolishness in Iraq and they'll pay the bills for his stupid deficits. Here is what one 1st time voter wrote, http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=9276&format=html. If you think you are too young to care about voting--remember that Dubya is counting on you to think that.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:50 PM George Bush means a lot to his home town, Crawford, Texas, where people know him best. Over the years Crawford supported his political career without reservation. The editor of the Lone Star Iconoclast, the president's hometown newspaper, went so far as to appear on the BBC in support of George Bush when the president was seeking allies for his attack on Iraq.   Today the Iconoclast has had enough; it endorsed Kerry for president: Kerry Will Restore American Dignity. Here is a portion of that endorsement: Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would: Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits. Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay. Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent. Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure. Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids. Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay. These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office. The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.   Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs. It's not easy to say these things in Crawford, Texas. How fortunate we are that some folks in our country still have the courage to proclaim the truth, however unpleasant it may be!
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 02, 2004 1:31 PM In support of my earlier point, and for those who think our efforts to create a democratic ally in the Persian Gulf are a foolish mistaken waste of time, lives and money, this from the New York Times today: "The key is oil reserves. In a nutshell, OPEC has plenty, while the rest of the world, including the United States, is quickly pumping itself dry. Far from waning, then, OPEC's hold on the oil market, and thus on the world economy, looks set to grow sharply in the coming decades, with profound economic and geopolitical implications. As alternative sources of oil dwindle, so, too, will the United States' room to maneuver in dealing with OPEC, and especially with the five states around the Persian Gulf that are richest in reserves: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and Iran. The United States will find it steadily more difficult and complex to either engage or disengage in the Middle East, in pursuit of energy independence or political stability or the war on terrorism, because oil from the gulf will become steadily more indispensable to the American economy, barring a wholesale change in the way the nation uses energy. Those five gulf countries possess 61 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, according to the latest statistics compiled by BP. Add the other six members of OPEC, and the cartel controls three-quarters of the world's 1.15 trillion barrels of reserves. As the rest of the world has stepped up oil production to meet soaring demand this year, it has been exhausting reserves much faster than OPEC has. At present rates of production, the crude oil that has already been found outside OPEC will be consumed by about 2030 or so, when the five gulf countries will still have billions of barrels." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/weekinreview/03moua.html?hp Unless we radically restructure our national energy policy, OPEC economics and politics will be an unassailable fact in all our children's lives. Now, in this uncertain future, who would we rather have controlling the 2nd largest reserves of oil on this planet: the heirs of Saddam Hussein's pathological regime in league with international terrorists, unleashed from U.N. sanctions, with the know-how and capacity for re-establishing its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs?  Or a grateful Iraqi populace, freed from decades of tyranny, aligning itself internationally with democratic nation states as well as serving as a potential buffer state between an Iran whose theocratic, territorial and nuclear ambitions remain at this point unclear?
Been There	Polls of Military Families Posted: Saturday, October 02, 2004 9:10 PM Cousin Jack,   You posted: I would like to see some scientific polls taken exclusively of people who now have or have had immediate family members participate in the Iraq War since the Spring 2003 invasion as I think that it would get us all closer to the truth of how well and badly things are actually transpiring over there. The renowned independent Quinnipiac University Poll did a poll of military families in Pennsylvania in mid-August: Military Families Also Back Kerry, Oppose War. Military veterans or voters with a household member who is a veteran or currently in active duty or reserve service support Kerry 46 - 42 percent, with 6 percent for Nader.   These voters from military families say 54 - 41 percent that the war is wrong. If I see any additional polls on this topic, I'll post them, and trust you will too.   Been There
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 03, 2004 12:48 AM Oh ya then, the war is not about WMDs and not about saving the Iraq people, it's really about oil? Seems to me you Bushies were saying Oh no, it's not about oil a couple of years ago. Make up yours minds why don't you? And next time do it before you go to war.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 03, 2004 11:38 AM For your Sunday reading pleasure, I am going to post links to two articles that explore in some depth the Bush administration's insistence upon ignoring reality whenever reality conflicts with their deeply-held beliefs and agendas. Both of these articles are much too long for sound-bite people (sorry about that, Look2it), but I think serious readers will find them interesting.   The first article was published in today's New York Times: How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence. Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.   The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.   Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public. The second article, from the September Harper's, contends that the Bush administration did indeed have a reconstruction plan for Iraq and explores how and why the plan has failed: Baghdad Year Zero. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions. The people of Iraq would, of course, have to endure some short-term pain: assets, previously owned by the state, would have to be given up to create new opportunities for growth and investment. Jobs would have to be lost and, as foreign products flooded across the border, local businesses and family farms would, unfortunately, be unable to compete. But to the authors of this plan, these would be small prices to pay for the economic boom that would surely explode once the proper conditions were in place, a boom so powerful the country would practically rebuild itself. Perhaps a constant barrage of well-researched information will break through the barriers erected by the Bush spin machine to reach the American electorate before November 2. Let's all hope so!
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 03, 2004 1:42 PM Thanks for the link, Been There. If Quinnipiac had taken the same poll from military families in the spring of 2003 it would have made for a more enlightened understanding of their reasoning behind why they think the war is wrong. From the September 16 Quinnipiac Poll:   "Military veterans, not including family members, back Bush 54 - 34 percent."   They would seem to be sending a mixed message here. I'll try to find some time today and search for some national polling results taken from military families and Iraqi War veterans. If I find anything interesting I'll post it.   Look2It: If you are labeling me a "Bushie" you are simply misinformed. I voted for Gore. I did however support this particular foreign policy decision as did most of congress and the American people. Bush, Blair and Congress were all true believers in Iraqi WMD based on the intelligence provided. It is also clear, as Been There points out, that this intelligence was weighted by the Bush administration in order to sell the war. This was disingenuous and misleading on their part even if they did so to promote what they believed to be a greater good in the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime. There were perceptive foreign policy columnists, like Thomas Friedman, who though agreeing with the larger goal pointed out in the months leading up to the invasion that their emphasis on WMD as a selling point was a mistake that would likely come back to bite them if none were found. After returning from a summer long sabbatical, Friedman today in his NY Times column chronicles his disgust with the Bush administration for not providing the adequate means to deal with the post-invasion mess and especially for not pressing the war against Saddam's old guard in the Sunni Triangle. He puts the blame largely on Rumsfeld for not providing enough troops and declares, in a clear endorsement of John Kerry, that the Bush administration is incapable winning this conflict (a campaign point which Kerry has made again and again). The decision of Moqtada Al-Sadr to abandon his Shiite insurgency and field candidates for the upcoming elections is however a good sign that the corner may be finally turning. Your premise that I think the war was just about oil is just plain reductionist. It is about the nature and history of the regime that was sitting atop that oil as I thought I made clear. Perhaps you've watched Fahrenheit 911 one time too many.
rock	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 03, 2004 2:13 PM I urge Keweenaw Now readers looking for more than the constant Bush bashing in these posts to read The Faith of George W. Bush. Here is the truth about him:   "This book allows us to see how George W. Bush interjects his faith and belief in God into every detail of his life. From the President's devotional time alone each morning to his frequent incorporation of Scripture into his speeches, Bush relies upon his faith to direct his actions and goals.   "In 1986, Bush responded to the Biblical conversion story of the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus by asking Jesus to be his friend, and as a result he overcame a growing dependence upon alcohol and turned to the Bible to save his marriage and his family. During his presidential campaign, he brought leading pastors to his governor's mansion to lay hands on him and pray for his future, telling them that he had been called to seek higher office.   "From the tragedy of September 11th to the present-day conflict in Iraq, President Bush has learned to use his personal faith to help him live his life-both in office and in private. This book will inspire others to do the same."   Whether you know it or not this is a fight between good and evil. If you are on the right side of the fight you'll vote to re-elect the President.
Cousin Jack	Polls of Military Families Posted: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:08 PM Been There:  After googling around for awhile, the best overall article I found on military polling was at this MSNBC site: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5964655/   They mention the Quinnipiac Pennsylvania poll whose results you posted but overall, though weariness with the war's progress has softened support for Bush, he still maintains a majority support (perhaps because a higher percentage of those in the military are registered Republicans).   This, to me, was the most interesting passage from the article:   Military personnel have put the president “on probation” says Peter Feaver, director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies at Duke University, and an expert in civilian-military relations. “[Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry, doubts about Iraq and frustrations with [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld and these kinds of issues have softened military support for the President but I don’t think they have caused it to collapse,” says Feaver, noting that the public will get a much better idea of how the military thinks in October when a long awaited Annenberg Public Policy Center study is released.   Guess I'll just have to keep my eyes open on the release date for the Annenberg Study. It would seem likely that the network news will take note of it.   CJ
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 12:41 AM Why the digs at me? I don't need to read 20 pages to know that Bush is a lying idiot, and the people who don't know that by now aren't going to read 20 pages to find out. So what's the point?   I do read, you know. If you want to know what its like in Iraq these days, read this: http://www.poynter.org/forum/?id=misc.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 11:04 AM Thanks for the interesting links, Look2it and Cousin Jack. I also enoyed the Thomas Friedman piece in the Sunday NY Times that you mentioned, Cousin Jack. Friedman does not let his initial support for the attack on Iraq blind him to the realities of the aftermath.   How we got there is water under the dam and we have no choice now but to deal with the situation as it exists. We owe it to Iraq to help them back on their feet as best we (and they) can, and we need to defend ourselves against emerging threats in several areas of the globe. We don't have the troop numbers to occupy a country of 25 million people while conducting other operations around the globe, and all of our enemies know that.   Having no personal stake in justifying the policies that failed in Iraq, Kerry can make adjustments freely. If he's elected, I hope to see him lay out exactly where we stand in, say, monthly press conferences with maps and charts. He should lay out the problems (without, of course, giving away information that hurts our security) and say what he's doing about them. When something goes wrong, he should say so and why, and explain what he's doing to correct it.   The elephant in the room that no one is acknowledging is that this situation might cost us huge amounts of money on top of the record deficits now piling up. If we need to train, equip, deploy, and maintain 400-500 thousand additional soldiers to fulfill the obligations we've taken on, we taxpayers will have to foot the bill. If Kerry asks for higher taxes to do that, the republicans will scream bloody murder even though they got the country into this mess. That reality limits the options available to Kerry (or Bush, for that matter) to solve the problems facing us.   This may come down to a partitioning of Iraq into three loosely-tied self-governing regions, regardless of the objections that will be raised from many quarters. All options must be on the table.   As for today's news from Iraq, the deaths continue: Car Bombs in Iraq Kill 21, Wound More Than 100.
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 12:24 PM You reap what you sow, Look2It. And your hysterical mini-rants of Bush hatred--red meat thrown to a far-left choir--are not bringing any clarity to this discussion. There...I think I kept that under 20 pages.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 12:36 PM BT,   You surprise me.   "Having no personal stake in justifying the policies that failed in Iraq, Kerry can make adjustments freely. If he's elected, I hope to see him lay out exactly where we stand in, say, monthly press conferences with maps and charts. He should lay out the problems (without, of course, giving away information that hurts our security) and say what he's doing about them. When something goes wrong, he should say so and why, and explain what he's doing to correct it."   Do you really believe this?    moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 3:23 PM Moots,   I'm not sure why you're asking if I believe what I posted. I reread my post to see if it contained some obvious idiocy (always a possibility!), but I'm still oblivious to what that could be.   I think Bush and company have gotten themselves into a position where they feel they can't be honest about the situation on the ground because it arose from their mistakes. Kerry--not so encumbered--can simply lay out where we are and what we need to do about it. We have way too few soldiers in Iraq to occupy the country safely--that's one reason for the casualties we (and the Iraqis) are taking. The status quo must be changed one way or another.   This is a practical problem, not an ideological one, and it's got to be solved. If Kerry does win the election (even though he's dead meat, according to you, I prefer to consider Kerry's election a possibility still), he'll need to keep everyone well informed to keep the support of the country during the hard times and decisions ahead.   What am I missing?   Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 4:36 PM Think Nixon.  One a new prez is elected, everything becomes his.  The electorate has a short memory and opposition seizes on any chance to criticize and condemn.   After all, isn't Bush responsible for not preventing 9/11?  He had 8 months to get the job done.   If you really believe Iraq is the quagmire you have characterized it as, I find it startling to think that you wouldn't swallow Kerry with or without ketchup.  All the barcharts and press conferences in the world won't help when there are a myriad of alternate explanations available that cast doubt on his motives, judgment and competence.  How long would you believe him?   Explanations and amplifications notwithstanding, Kerry voted to authorize the invasion.  He has a very large stake in the policies there.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 4:40 PM Typo   "I find it startling to think that you wouldn't swallow Kerry with or without ketchup"  should read   "I find it startling to think that it wouldn't swallow Kerry with or without ketchup"
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 4:43 PM still ain't got it right - too much in a hurry -sorry - it's still a poor sentence but I gotta go   I think it startling that you would think that it wouldn't swallow Kerry with or without Ketchup
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 5:17 PM Moots,   Thanks for clearing up for me what you meant. I agree with most of what you said. Kerry is certainly responsible for voting to authorize the war (although he didn't have access to the same intelligence that Bush did). However, I don't think he can be held responsible for the decision to attack without sufficient planning and without the troops necessary to complete the mission safely.   It's precisely because he'll have such a short window of opportunity, if he's elected, that I believe he'll need to take steps immediately to provide honest assessments of the problems we face and the steps he's taking to solve them. Of course he'll get tons of criticism no matter what, but I think he can rally the country behind him if he takes charge right away.   That's all I'm saying. The job coming up is so tough that it might be impossible, but that approach would give him the best shot at succeeding, in my opinion.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 10:34 PM BT,   So we agree on things like short windows of opportunity, the need to sometimes take steps immediately, the crititism a prez gets no matter waht and the need to take charge.   How did you feel about the Afghanistan invasion?  Was is justified or should we have explored other avenues first?   The reason I ask is that it seems to me that many democrats have a deep seated sense of national guilt.  It goes something like this:  The USA exploits nearly the entire developing world, is controlled by a military-industrial complex (I have a buddy who still uses that term from the 60's) and that we are in cahoots with every repressive regime in the world.  Events like 9/11 are merely our chickens coming home to roost.  The MIC, when it isn't spreading squalor and misery abroad is sucking the lifeblood out of the world's resources and destroying sensitive ecosystems which will ultimately doom us.   In the interest of brevity, I won't deal whether this is real, false, partial or imagined guilt, but I would submit that it is a paralyzing force.  It  one's will to defend oneself, because ultimately every attack you receive is something you deserve.  The first reaction of a friend of mine on 9/11 was to ask, "What did we do to make them hate us like this?"   It strikes me this guilt becomes a type of  self-contempt, which seems to be the dominant force underlying and informing John Kerry's worldview.  To such a man, striking back is very difficult, because there always seems to be something that could be done - another avenue explored - before military action is justifiable.  In other circumstances this is called  the battered wife syndrome.   So if you don't mind, I would like to smoke you out on this.  How did you feel about Afghanistan?    moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 04, 2004 11:14 PM Moots,   Of course I agreed with the attack on the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan! They were harboring the people who attacked us on 9/11! Let me remind you of my post to you on September 27: But then something huge did happen: the attack on 9/11. Dubya made a good speech, rallied the nation, and said he was going to get bin Laden "dead or alive." He sent troops to Afghanistan to remove the Taliban who were sheltering our attackers. Our forces had Al-Qaeda on the run and were working hard to bring bin Laden to justice.   If Dubya had followed through as he started after 9/11, helping to build up Afghanistan and capturing (or killing) bin Laden and his henchmen, then today I would have good reason to vote for him despite his fiscal irresponsibility. But, incredibly, he dropped the ball on that vital mission too! How can I be clearer about this?   Been There
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 12:48 AM Writing shorter posts guys--good job. Moots, I don't think I know anyone who thought we shouldn't go into Afghanistan after they refused to hand over bin Laden. I don't see any self-loathing or reluctance to act in Kerry either. The man captained a river boat in Vietnam while Dubya was hiding behind his mama's skirts.
rock	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:15 AM You seem to think the President is younger than he really is, maybe because Kerry looks so old. Although Kerry is a couple years older, they were both in college at the same time.   The terrorists have freely chosen to follow Satan and are attacking God's fortress, America. God has chosen his faithful servant, George Bush, to lead us in a victorious crusade against Satan's minions. Those opposing the President are opposing the will of God, whether they know it or not. God has given us all free will to vote with, but if America turns away from God in November we will reap the consequences.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:07 AM BT,   Oh, I was just wondering if you concurred with following commentary written at the time   Lately, our friends the Taliban have been getting a little out of hand, what with their tolerance of the opium-dealing, embassy-bombing Al-Qaida terror network. The attack on New York by a group of Egyptian radicals carrying passports from United Arab Emirates and funded by a Saudi billionaire gave Bush and his oil company handlers a great excuse to take out the Taliban and put someone in place that they can trust to mind the pipeline for a few years until the whole situation blows up again. Have we really thought this thing through? First we helped radicalize the Mujaheddin in their fight against the Soviets. Then we propped up the Taliban in their fight against the Northern Alliance. Now we're providing air support for the Northern Alliance so they can advance on Kabul. Do we really think the ethnic-minority Tajiks can govern Afghanistan? Pakistan won't stand for that. Then what? We're running out of sides to take in this conflict. Maybe we should side with the people of Afghanistan for once, because they always seem to be the losers in the ongoing war for more oil. Maybe we should drive our cars a little less.   Do you agree with this fellow?   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:53 AM Moots,   I'm not familiar with the quote you posted. What's this "Egyptian radicals" business? And why are you asking me to respond to it? I can tell you straight out what I think, if you are interested.   If your intent with the quote is to suggest that we've made foreign policy mistakes in the past, of course we have. That's inevitable for any country, and mistakes are not limited to one party in power or another. As the world's only super-power these days, our actions get special scrutiny. No doubt we do need to realize the impact of what we do on the world at large and to behave responsibly.   If your intent is to suggest that we shouldn't defend ourselves because we make mistakes, I believe you're dead wrong. One of the most important reasons we have a federal government is "to provide for the common defense." People around the world need to know that we're a reasonable, trustworthy people. But they also need to know that attacking us is a fatal way to proceed, even if they disagree with what we've done.   George Bush failed to teach that lesson to the terrorists who attacked us when he had the opportunity to do so. That, of course, is one reason I'm so displeased with him. He told the world (and rightly so) that he was going to get bin Laden "dead or alive." The terrorists bet that if they held out long enough, America would let up on them and they'd be able to keep up their dirty work--and Bush let them win that bet! Unbelievable and disgusting!   Talking tough and then not following through, as Bush did, sends the terrorists exactly the wrong message. To be respected, you must never issue threats that you can't or won't make good on.   Perhaps it's because Bush never saw combat that he doesn't realize how dangerous it is to exhibit such weakness in the face of the enemy. Kerry did see combat and had the courage to go right after the enemy. We need someone with demonstrated courage in the White House during these times.   I graciously accept that you plan to vote for the candidate who says the right things about abortion and gay marriage, as is your right, regardless of your vote's affect on the security of our country. I think that your issues, particularly gay marriage, pale in comparison with the danger to our country of keeping Bush in office another four years.   Been There
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:55 AM Rock:   What makes you think that a vote for Kerry is a turn away from God? Is this an anti-Catholic premise? An anti-Liberal premise? Please clarify. And are you using Old Testament code to equate President Bush with the faithful servant of Isaiah 42 and 52-3?   CJ
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:22 AM BT,   So then, this did not reflect your thoughts at the time?   Lately, our friends the Taliban have been getting a little out of hand, what with their tolerance of the opium-dealing, embassy-bombing Al-Qaida terror network. The attack on New York by a group of Egyptian radicals carrying passports from United Arab Emirates and funded by a Saudi billionaire gave Bush and his oil company handlers a great excuse to take out the Taliban and put someone in place that they can trust to mind the pipeline for a few years until the whole situation blows up again. Have we really thought this thing through? First we helped radicalize the Mujaheddin in their fight against the Soviets. Then we propped up the Taliban in their fight against the Northern Alliance. Now we're providing air support for the Northern Alliance so they can advance on Kabul. Do we really think the ethnic-minority Tajiks can govern Afghanistan? Pakistan won't stand for that. Then what? We're running out of sides to take in this conflict. Maybe we should side with the people of Afghanistan for once, because they always seem to be the losers in the ongoing war for more oil. Maybe we should drive our cars a little less. I find that curious, because it reflects what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction among liberals - i.e. - everything is about oil, we have no business attacking anywhere unless we renounce oil, global pillage, blah, blah....   I also thought you may be familiar with this writer.   moots   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 12:38 PM Moots,   What's with you and this "Egyptian radicals" business? And why are you again asking me about this quote? It's certainly nothing I've ever written or said, so why should I parse it out to determine what parts I agree with and what parts I don't? I have all I can handle stating and defending my own ideas. And if you wrote it, why not just come out and say so?   I gave my response to this quote after your first posting of it. You can scroll down to reread it if you wish. (I know Look2it would have a snide comment or two if I repeated it here.)   Again, I graciously accept your stated plan to vote for the candidate who says the right things about abortion and gay marriage, as is your right, regardless of your vote's affect on the security of our country. Because of your firm intention to vote for Bush, you delude yourself (in my opinion) about the serious risks we face, simply because you don't like to accept the fact that your vote weakens our country. Regrettable, but very understandable.   Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:29 PM BT,   Settle down, settle down.  I was just fishing.   The quote, however, is revealing of an entrenched mindset among liberals, and I am happy if you do not share those sentiments.  Unfortunately, I see a lot of those traits in Kerry.  He seemed to have no qualms against leveling serious charges against his fellow vets after his brief stint in Vietnam - apparently for political purposes.   As far as Kerry following through on anything he has said, much less a threat, that has yet to be seen, and I don't see how his record in the Senate could possibly be construed as one of resolution.   If Kerry in fact personally committed atrocities in Viet Nam, which he once claimed to have committed, that might explain his seeming inability to settle his position on Iraq, even now.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 4:12 PM Moots,   So you wish to keep the spotlight off Bush and on Kerry! That's also understandable, given Bush's record. As we know, Bush's campaign slogan is "Kerry would be even worse."   Kerry   Kerry is definitely not perfect, and he made statements in anger forty years ago that he regrets today. However, your statement that Kerry ...seemed to have no qualms against leveling serious charges against his fellow vets after his brief stint in Vietnam... is a serious distortion of what really happened: Swift Boat Veterans Anti-Kerry Ad: "He Betrayed Us" With 1971 Anti-War Testimony.   In testimony before congress in 1971, Kerry related experiences other soldiers described to him in a meeting in Detroit prior to his testimony. His purpose was to describe the circumstances in Vietnam and to confront the congress with the consequences of the choices they made, not to denigrate our military forces. To make clear that he was not pointing fingers at others, in an interview later that year Kerry admitted to atrocities of his own. He now agrees that "atrocities" is too strong a word for what he did. In war terrible things happen, though, whatever name you choose to apply. For the most part, Kerry spoke the truth then (as has been well documented), and people who speak unpleasant truths can expect retribution--even forty years later.   Bush   On the other hand, George Bush refuses to speak unpleasant truths because those truths work against him politically. I believe that this trait of his demonstrates a lack of character.   I find it interesting that you and others feel more stongly about what Kerry said forty years ago than you do about what Bush has done to undermine our country the last three years. I answered your statements about Kerry. Are you going to respond to my statements about Bush? George Bush failed to teach that lesson to the terrorists who attacked us when he had the opportunity to do so. That, of course, is one reason I'm so displeased with him. He told the world (and rightly so) that he was going to get bin Laden "dead or alive." The terrorists bet that if they held out long enough, America would let up on them and they'd be able to keep up their dirty work--and Bush let them win that bet! Unbelievable and disgusting!   Talking tough and then not following through, as Bush did, sends the terrorists exactly the wrong message. To be respected, you must never issue threats that you can't or won't make good on.   Perhaps it's because Bush never saw combat that he doesn't realize how dangerous it is to exhibit such weakness in the face of the enemy. Kerry did see combat and had the courage to go right after the enemy. We need someone with demonstrated courage in the White House during these times. In my opinion, this issue, plus the fact that he's turned a budget surplus into record deficits, make George Bush undeserving of another four years in office. I suspect you're right, though, that Kerry has no chance against him in November.   November   Why will Kerry lose? For one thing, the Bush people are grandmaster politicians, much better than Kerry's. They are very effective at selling their man. Then, too, some voters just don't have the time or inclination to look into what's really happening: it's quite disconcerting even to consider the reality we face. Other voters see what's happening but have other axes to grind.   Been There   P.S. Do you really think that Egyptian radicals attacked us on 9/11? That's a new one on me, but would help explain why you're not so concerned about bringing bin Laden to justice.
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:32 AM Rock, I know how old they are, it was a metaphor. Moots, you sly dog, you tried to inject a ray of sharpness into the debate. BeenThere, note my comment to Moots. The debate was a slugging match, didn't like either of them. G'night.
Coppernickus	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:41 AM You got it, Look2It! Carville's over-eager puppy vs Halliburton's smug former CEO. Much ado about nothing. On the other hand there was something genuinely momentous this week from Spaceship One:   http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/   And from Brian Wilson:   http://www.brianwilson.com/   So !   In Rocketman kind, I humbly offer:   http://hometown.aol.com/jff720/manitou.mp3   And in Surfari Memories of Great Sand Bay:   http://hometown.aol.com/jbuckettt/greatsandbay.mp3   Rest in Peace Rodney Dangerfield! Coppernickus
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 9:06 AM BT,   I  just wrote a lengthy reply, but it got swallowed up when I  clicked submit.  Mebbe the webmaster could retrieve it.  I logged in first, wrote extensively, but when I hit submit, it went back to the login again.  What's up?   moots
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 9:24 AM I ain't gonna to redo my whole rant but I did want to say the L2 is pretty sharp and that "parse" is one of them fourteen dollar words only an English teacher would know.   webmaster, do you have a republican filter on this site?  Everytime I get on a roll and spill out a good rant the whole thing disappears.  this morning was the third time.  how do you expect people to jump into the fray if their deathless prose dies the death before their eyes?   moots
Lynn Torkelson	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:10 AM Moots,   I apologize for what happened and am mortified to say that we've lost your post.   I did find out happened. Between the time you logged in and the time you clicked the Submit button, the server software decided that you had abandoned the session and cancelled your login. When you submitted your post, it discarded it as a post from an unauthorized person. Clearly these boards should not work this way and I intend to solve the problem.   At this point, it seems that what happened to you could happen to anyone if the time between logging in and clicking Submit is over 20-30 minutes. I tried and tested a fast fix (to extend that time to 2 hours), but I failed, so it's going to take some time for me to fix it, possibly until the weekend. I'll post here as soon as I've completed and tested the fix.   In the meantime, here's what you can do to protect yourselves: Before you click Submit on a long post, highlight the text and paste it into a text file in NotePad (or the text editor of your choosing). If the server misbehaves when you click Submit, you can then initiate another reply and paste your saved text into it. As an alternative, you can compose a lengthy post in Notepad to begin with, then paste it in immediately when you reply.   I apologize again for what happened, Moots. Your posts add a lot of value to this discussion and I'm terribly embarrassed that we lost what you wrote.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:30 AM no sweat, L2 likes soundbites anyhow.  One issue that may affect many of us soon is the shortage of flu vaccines this winter.  Heard on THE PEOPLES radio this AM that the Brit firm we was supposed to get the vaccines from is shut down.  I recall hearing, probably from Rush Limbaugh , for those of you who want to discredit it, that some years back about 20 companies were making vaccines, but today only 5 or so.  The others got out of the biz because of liability lawsuits.  Whoever is elected needs to put a limit on malpractice lawsuits and I wasn't impressed with Edwards response to that question last night.   As far as the vaccines go, unless you're a physical wreck,  save them for the young children and old people.  Get your sleep, limit your sugar intake, and get out for a brisk walk, snowshoe or ski everyday (work up a sweat doing it).  You'll be more flu-proof than if they pumped you full of formaldahyde.   L2 might have more to say about this.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:09 PM Okay posters, I finally figured it out! Guess I'm not sharp enough to be arguing with Moots (but I'll do the best I can anyway). Thanks, Look2it!   Here's a link giving some of the factual errors on both sides of the debate last night: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10244-2004Oct5.html. And of course Cheney now remember's he's met Edwards several times before (just not in the senate). I wonder why no one from the Bush campaign coached Cheney on body language before the debate (or maybe he just ignored their advice). As is the way with politicians, they both stayed relentlessly on message, ignoring the actual questions asked if the questions seemed inconvenient.   In summary, not much help for Kerry, and Kerry needs all the help he can get at this stage. It looks more and more like Moots will turn out to be right about the outcome of the election.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:12 PM Moots,   I forgot to say this in my haste to click Submit: you can ignore the PS on my post before last.   Been There
rock	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:09 PM CJ, I'm not "anti" anyone. As this epoch closes, God has chosen his faithful servant George Bush to lead our country through the turmoil ahead (see Matthew 25:21) and I try to my best to follow His instructions.   BT, what is you finally figured out? Am I missing something?
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:21 PM Rock, you asked "Am I missing something?" Definitely! For starters, you are missing the word "do" from the second sentence of your post and the word "it" from your third sentence.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:40 PM L2 low blow, foul. no pie for you tonight.  BT, tellim to mind his manners or send him to his room.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:55 PM Yep, Look2it, you're a b-a-a-a-d boy. If I look back at an old post of mine, I often cringe at the mistakes I made. Of course when all your posts are 2 or 3 lines long, Look2it, you don't have as much work looking them over as I do (especially now that I know we're on a timer).   Rock, it turned out that Moots thought I might be Ray Sharp in disguise. If you look over Ray's old viewpoint articles, you'll find the quote Moots posted. Look2it's little hint finally clued me in.   Same person, different labels   When I realized what was going on, I couldn't help thinking about political labels and how we use them. For years and years I've advocated personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, a responsible foreign policy, and a responsible environmental policy. I'd like to leave my children and (eventually--don't rush it, kids!) grandchildren a little better world. Oh the details have shifted some and I've mellowed a bit with age, but the basic themes haven't changed.   Not so with the labels though! I have a still-vivid memory of being castigated in a public forum (in front of many family members, friends, and associates) as an anti-social reactionary by a professor who took great exception to some of my positions. (Perhaps it's appropriate to mention that I struck some folks as abrasive in those long-gone days.) Now, by expressing essentially those same positions, I've caused Moots to classify me as a flaming liberal and to suspect that I'm actually Ray Sharp. Kind of funny, in a way, and interesting to think about. (For me anyway: Look2it, you can go back to your TV...)   In the past when people demanded that I supply my own political label, I always said I considered myself to be a card-carrying member of the lunatic middle fringe. Middle-of-the-road always sounded too much like someone who didn't have strong convictions, someone who might easily switch one way or another, someone not like me. At any given time, some of my positions would be classified as conservative, some liberal, and some moderate. Yet I hold them all strongly and passionately, and they are all completely consistent with each other (say I). And I suspect many, many people are like me in that respect.   Same label, different people   Then I got to thinking about how absurd my self-assigned label is. Suppose a guy from Donken strongly maintains some positions classified as conservative, some liberal, and some moderate, but also suppose that his positions are exactly opposite from mine. Wouldn't he also be a card-carrying member of my lunatic middle fringe? Yes, we'd merit the same label, but my views would actually have more in common with any conservative and with any liberal than with the guy from Donken who shared my label...   What's my point? Just that I'd never have had this train of thought if it hadn't been for the posters on this board! That's what I like about these discussions--I see opinions and ideas from folks who share my love of the Keweenaw that I'd otherwise surely miss. I'll probably argue with you all tomorrow, but tonight I'd like to thank you!
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 12:15 AM Hey Birch Bark, that timer sounds like a great idea to me! Leave it in!   Could this be the reason for last Thursday's Bush-whacking? The Voice in Bush's Ear. Tune in Friday. G'night.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 9:34 AM BT,   Naw, you're not abrasive and once it hit me who you really are, everything clicked.  I appreciate the fact that you're actually trying to bring people together.  Half the fun of politics of course is rubbing it in your opponent's face if your guy wins, but since our political ideology's are often connected with things we hold near and dear, we wind up stomping on each other's sacred cows. What lies at the core of a representative democracy, a national consensus of our identity and a willingness to yield, is not something I take for granted.  It may ultimately prove to be a very fragile thing, particularly where the rightness of our position and cause seems to justify standing firm.  I know I sound like an old saw bringing up the civil war again, but both sides were convinced of the rightness of their cause.   I guess we all bear responsibility for the current climate of political rancor.  Unfortunately, exageration, ridicule and uncharitable characterization are the tools that seem to work most effectively in a political race.  Once again, we are the consumers.  We get what we demand, what we are willing to pay for, what gets our votes - and the market has determined that that is what we see on the tv.  And then we bemoan negative, divisive politics!   Hmmm...what's wrong with this picture.   Anyway getting back to biz, Billary's got nothing to worry about Edwards - he's going nowhere unless he shakes that Carolina drawl and starts showing up for the Senate.  Billary is nothing is she is not a meticulous craftsman and an astute organizer.  With Billsky, once he's up and running again,  oiling the gears and smoothing out the bumps for her, she's gonna be a force to be reckoned with.   Kerry really is dead meat, and I don't say that to insult any of you.  It just ain't in the cards.  He's damaged goods and no amount of new shrinkwrap and packaging will hide the fact that he's leaking oil.   Good that you sent L2 to his room.  We should all be able to splash around in this pool even if our feet don't reach all the way to the bottom.   Does the name Hercule Poirot mean anything to you?   moots
rock	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:06 AM BT thanks. For us completely homebound the Internet is truly a blessing. It can be hard to type correctly too, so please forgive my mistakes. It means a lot to me to be able to join in. Go Bush!
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 12:27 PM Rock, I'm pleased you're online here. You post well, to my way of thinking, even when I disagree. Got to say this, though: Go Kerry!   Moots, thanks detective. I agree with your observations on divisive politics 100%, and I realize that I'm just as responsible for the situation as anybody else.   Personally, I enjoy discussions with people who disagree with me, especially when they make their points intelligently and effectively (something I don't always do). I learned long ago that seeing things differently from me does not make someone a bad person (although there are a few genuinely bad people in every large organization, political and otherwise). When I've had the chance to get to know folks who disagree with me--even on very many issues--I've usually found a surprising (to me) number of things we agreed on. I've made some good friends that way. From your posts, it seems that your circle also includes folks who disagree with you. Wouldn't life be a bore if we all thought the same thing!   If Kerry loses--and that seems almost certain to me too--I fully expect you to crow about it! That's the American way. If Kerry pulls off a miraculous victory, I, on the other hand, will be nothing but gracious in victory! (Just kidding.)   Look2it, hmmm, do you believe that? Seems to me there's lots of other possible explanations. Couldn't it be that that box simply allows Karl to give George a shock if he starts to say something not on his rehearsed script? (Just kidding again.)   Been There
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 07, 2004 12:37 PM And here all this time I had the notion that Look2It was one of the fairer sex. Guess I'm no Hercule Poirot. Time for an antennae adjustment. Thanks to Rock for the scriptural reference. I can already sense my rampant paranoia receding. Though you still didn't clarify why you inferred that a vote for Kerry is a "turn away" from God. Thanks to Birch Bark for looking into that Time Limit thing. I lost my first head-banging logorrhea to the Log In page after pressing preview and have been  copying everything onto my clipboard before pushing any buttons ever since (hey maybe that's when my paranoia first took hold?)   Gotta Go, CJ
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 12:49 AM Or maybe you're just smarter than the rest, CJ. So Bremer never had enough troops in Iraq, what a surprise! Before the war Dubya and Rummie crucified the generals who told them they needed more troops. G'night.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:59 AM L2,   Whatta whiner you are.  I do have a serious question however  - what in Kerry's Senate record makes you feel than you is trustworthy?  I realize he's trying to run as a war hero, which seems to have blown up in his face, but that aside, why do you trust him?  Is it that you feel nobody could be as bad as Bush.  Even BT admitted something to the effect that Kerry's not exactly  first rate in one of her earlier posts.   For arguments sake, let us assume that Bush is the lying, venal rascal you say he is.  What distinguishes Kerry from that class?  To me,  there's something cold-blooded and reptilian about him.  (Does he have French blood?  I thought he was Irish.)   Now if you're a true-blue, card-carry democrat, there's planty of reason to vote for Kerry.  He's a classic liberal democrat and will advance the dems aims.  But if it's an issue of integrity, I find it puzzling that he would excite much enthusiasm.  You knew where Howard Dean stood and he went down standing his ground.  Kerry outmaneuvered him on his windboard.   moots
rock	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:03 AM CJ, I am not questioning the sincerity of Kerry and Nader and the others trying to bring down the President. That is not for me to judge. It is enough to know that they are all trying to upset God's plan for us if they know it or not. In November there will be no middle ground. How can there be? You have to vote one way or the other. BT, in 1986 our President became a new man in Christ literally, so his youthful transgressions were washed away. It is no longer right to hold those sins against him for the President is no longer the same man. Not true for Kerry though or he wouldn't be working against God's plan to say the least.
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:19 AM Moots, what in Dubya's record makes you feel he is trustworthy? You say it's whining to point out that Dubya ignored his generals to send our kids to die in Iraq without the numbers needed to do the job safely. But it's manly discourse, I suppose, to quibble about and distort Kerry's senatorial votes. What a hypocrite you are.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 11:03 AM L2,   All you have done thus far is criticize Bush.  You haven't said anything positive about anyone, including Kerry.  BT bad mouthed Bush, but she also had a few constructive things to say and even a few nice things about Kerry, although overall he seems to be "damned by faint praise."   You ain't getting your man into the White House by merely running down the prez.  Stand up for your guy and let's hear you sing his praises.  If you can't do that, you're telling us all that the guy is a dud and you know it.  And you were the one who said that the republicans run and hide when challenged.  Well, c'mon outta your hole and tell us about John Kerry.   Take a snort of your favorite beverage if it gives a bad taste in your mouth.   Bring it on!   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 11:27 AM Rock,   If George Bush were really God's representative, wouldn't we be able to detect it by the fruits of his actions in office? Remember that even Satan can quote scripture, as he did during the temptations. You've referenced the Book of Matthew, so I ask you to consider these verses from chapter 7: 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. I ask you to think about the fruits of the Bush presidency: Stealing from our children and grandchildren to put more money into the pockets of the rich. Killing thousands of people on a false pretext. Bearing false witness again and again to the people he was elected to serve. Are these the fruits of a man who is truly God's representative? Surely not. Please reconsider, Rock.   Been There
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 1:07 PM I respect your faith, Rock. I do however think that assessments of what God's Plan may or may not be are grudgingly gained by looking through a glass darkly at best. I'll just leave it at that for now. I'm going camping this weekend out in the wilds of God's Country where I plan to raise my antennae to see what I can pick up and I'll get back to you later on this topic because I believe it is both historically fascinating and poetically profound. Speaking of antennae, mine may still need an adjustment. Complement appreciated, Look2it, but I've also assumed that Been There was a guy(unless Moots is deliberately pulling our legs). Anyway, here's my present voting predicament. I like George Bush. I think he means well. His judgement has proven to be somewhat suspect though and I also have issues about the abuses of power. I say all this while largely agreeing with his proactive approach to combating terrorism. Quite honestly, we won't know for many years whether the current mess in Iraq will lead to a stable democracy or not but I'm sure we can all agree that this would be a good thing for everyone involved. That is why I am encouraged by the fact that John Kerry is arguably running to the right of George Bush on dealing with this problem as evidenced by his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention and by some of his comments in the first debate (as pointed out by none other than former Nixon speechwriter William Safire in his NY Times Op-Ed earlier this week). I remain somewhat uncommitted because I'm just getting to know John Kerry and I want to make sure the real politik of his foreign policy is going to put some prudent muscle behind the strong rhetoric he's used. There are other issues not already mentioned of course. We haven't had a elected president elected hailing from north of the Mason-Dixon Line since 1960. Though current voting demographics seem to weight the scales against it, it would be interesting to see what a true northerner would do in the White House these days. In addition, the 2nd term of every presidency in memory (including LBJ but perhaps excluding Eisenhower) has bogged down in abuses of power by the executive branch and scandal-mongering by the loyal opposition. I'm grown very wary of presidential 2nd terms as a result and since we've already seen some evidence of power abuse by the Bush administration I'm not encouraged by what could well happen if he serves a 2nd term with a lot of fuming democrats to tar and feather him. Lame duck in a pond of molasses.   But since I never formallly decide who to vote for until after my head clears from the annual Halloween Party hangover, I can remain true to tradition and ride out the coming storm into November before putting my foot firmly down. I have to say though, this year I'm leaning toward wearing a Herman Munster mask.    Hope I kept that under 20 pages.   Off to the woods then, CJ
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:36 PM No need to adjust your antennae that I can see, CJ. Enjoy yourself in the woods!
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 08, 2004 6:46 PM Kerry needs no defense from me or anyone else. He's a genuine hero who has served his country with courage and integrity for almost 40 years. Neither you nor anyone else has pointed out anything wrong that he's done in all that time. Bush is the one who needs the defense for his miserable performance in office, but you can't come up with one. That's no surprise considering Dubya's the worst president since Franklin Pierce. You guys support Bush because you fantasize about going on a fishing trip with him. Yeah, that's going to happen! Let's all watch your guy get his butt kicked again tonight.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 09, 2004 12:04 PM Last night's debate was certainly the best of the three held so far. Kerry told the American people what we need to hear, and he did so clearly and effectively, but Bush's improved performance buoyed his supporters also.   While we sit watching the candidates duke it out, our soldiers continue to pay the price for Bush's blunders in Iraq: One U.S. Soldier Killed, One Wounded. A U.S. soldier was killed today and another wounded by an improvised explosive device, Multinational Force Iraq officials reported.   Anti-Iraqi [sic] forces attacked a Task Force Danger patrol near Tuz about 11:43 a.m. The soldiers were evacuated to a coalition medical facility, where the wounded soldier is in stable condition. The names of the soldiers are being withheld pending notification of the next of kin. The Bush attacks on Kerry are mere campaign puffery. The reality is what is happening on the ground in Iraq.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 10, 2004 11:51 AM I hope everyone picked up on what Bush said point blank in the debate on Friday: he believes absolutely that a woman should die rather than have an abortion to save her life. And he wants to enforce his religious opinion on all women and their families by making it a federal crime to save her life. (Karl Rove told Dubya not to continue with his usual observation, "I'm glad I'm not a woman.")   I sure hope in the last debate someone asks Bush what he'll do if one of his daughters needs an abortion to save her life. But that's probably too much to hope for from our don't-rock-the-boat media.
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 10, 2004 12:20 PM Yes, BT, good short post! The hypocrisy of these guys never ceases to amaze me. Dubya and his cronies never hesitate to say what other people should die for. But when it comes to putting their own skins on the line, it's always "Please no, not me!" That starts with our so-called "commander-in-chief" and goes right down the line. We need to kick these hypocrites out and get a real man--Kerry--into the white house.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 11, 2004 8:59 AM L2,   What have you got against fishing?   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:42 AM L2,   You know I agree with you about Bush, but I've seen hypocrisy from both parties. Consider the many elected democrats who profess to be strong public school supporters but send their own kids to private schools. (Jimmy Carter was an exception as he did send Amy to public schools, even in Washington, D.C.)   Probably the reason that the hypocrisy of republicans is more apparent these days (much more so than when I was a Republican) is that so many of their current issues involve directing other people's lives. When push comes to shove, they don't care to abide by their own directives. Sending other people to their deaths while protecting their own skins is the most glaring example of republican hypocrisy, but there are many lesser examples too: The "family-values" republicans who piled on Clinton were all notorious and flagrant adulterers (and adulteresses) themselves, including Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and Bob Barr. Self-proclaimed "pro-life" republicans never think twice about arranging abortions for their own family members: remember pro-life Bob Barr driving his wife to have an abortion of convenience? Republicans oppose stem-cell research until one of their own family members is stricken with a disease that could be cured: Nancy Reagan now stands up against Bush on that issue. Drug-addict republicans like Rush Limbaugh demand jail for drug addicts except when they are exposed themselves: then, suddenly, treatment is the answer. Business-owning republicans decry government welfare for poor single mothers, but demand government welfare for the companies they've looted and run into the ground. Republicans such as Rush Limbaugh and the "religious right" whine constantly about the ACLU, but when they see their own rights being threatened, they go running to the ACLU. With three debates finished and all the hypocrisies evident, large numbers of Americans still intend to vote for George Bush: Bush Leads Kerry in Washington Post Poll. President George W. Bush led John Kerry by 5 percentage points among likely voters in a Washington Post daily tracking poll. Meanwhile in Iraq the bad news continues: Baghdad Rocket Attack Kills Two U.S. Soldiers. Two American soldiers were killed and five injured Monday in a rocket attack in Baghdad.   The military said the incident occurred in the southern part of the city but provided no other details.   The deaths bring to five the number of American troops killed since Friday. Bush's blunders continue to kill people in Iraq and continue to throw more folks into poverty back home, but he's leading in the polls for reelection. I can't figure it out, but Moots obviously can. Why is that, Moots?   Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:59 AM BT,   Run outta ritolin so I gotta write short.  A question of you:  Were we right to invade France in 1944?   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:03 AM Moots,   Yes, but we'd have been wrong to invade Mexico. Don't you agree?   Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 11, 2004 12:30 PM BT, Mexico didn't attack us, Japan did.  Instead of going after the Japs full bore, we "took our eye off the ball" and went after Hitler - who hadn't even attacked us and was unlikely to do so with the Atlantic Ocean between us.  By that time the London blitz had been shot out of the sky and Britain's navy was intact.  Hitler could have been contained on the continent, if containment was all that was wanted.  The French might have seen it differently, but sometimes you have to wonder if the French and Germans don't deserve each other.   As far as wasted lives and poor planning, you could probably ask the survivors of Omaha and Anzio beaches and a thousand other places where there were intelligence failures, tactical screwups, blunders, ineptitude, etc. resulted in "a mess".   While we were building up for the invasion,  we  were fighting the Japs with our left hand. The guys at Guadacanal certainly thought they could have used more firepower and support.   To top it off, did we really have a plan to "win the peace"?  FDR thought Papa Joe Stalin was trustworthy and let him have Eastern Europe, setting the stage for the cold war and an extremely dangerous nuclear foe.  Kerry was boern too late; he could have had a field day second guessing this one.   My point?  All wars are messy, full of oversights, blunders and erroneous assumptions, but FDR correctly perceived that Hitler's Germany was the most dangerous foe, and chose to fight there before we got back to finishing off  the japs.  My dad heard about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while on a troop ship from Europe heading through the Panama canal on his way for the invasion of Japan.  In hindsight, delaying that invasion saved a lot of American lives, and liberating France and Germany gave them their freedom back to rip on us in the UN.   The conflict we are currently engaged in is not limited to Bin Laden, and it is shortsighted to focus on him as our main objective.  Our main objective is identifying credible threats, wherever they arise and acting to counter them with whatever means we have at our disposal.  Keeping one's eye on the ball makes for a good sound bite, but in most games it often done peripherally - the whole field, the position and movements of all the other players must be seen and or sensed - what is commonly called court sense.  President Bush, whether you agree with him or not, is acting with a strategic vision, not a narrow focus, and I believe he will ultimately be proven correct.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:33 PM Moots,   Good and revealing post! You've certainly learned well from Bush and company's style of campaigning. I was amazed to read this statement from you: Instead of going after the Japs full bore, we "took our eye off the ball" and went after Hitler - who hadn't even attacked us and was unlikely to do so with the Atlantic Ocean between us. As you must have (conveniently) forgotten, Germany declared war on the United States on December 12, 1941, just after Japan (a country formally allied with Germany and Italy from 1937) attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Germany immediately began attacking and sinking our ships with a fleet of U-boats.   This statement of yours is also false: While we were building up for the invasion, we  were fighting the Japs with our left hand. If you will review our history a bit to get things straight in your mind, you'll remember that our shipping was vulnerable to German U-boats when planes were not guarding our convoys (the U-boat captains did not attack when our planes were overhead because their U-boats could easily be seen and destroyed from the air). Without long-range aircraft to guard our convoys, there was a 4 to 5 day period in every trans-Atlantic crossing where U-boats could and did attack us at will. In 1942 our country had 112 long-range aircraft that could have been deployed to guard our convoys in the Atlantic. Instead, Roosevelt deployed all of our long-range aircraft to the Pacific theater in support of our efforts against Japan.   Being caught unprepared   In fact, we did not have sufficient materiel to supply our troops adequately in a multi-front war when we were attacked in 1941 by Japan and Germany. And why was that? Because from 1920 to 1940, isolationists dominated the republican party and staunchly opposed rearming America. To their credit, the republicans changed their policies after the attack and joined in whole-heartedly with Roosevelt and the democrats in an all-out effort to win the war. Virtually everyone sacrificed to support the war effort--paying higher taxes, accepting rationing of food and war essentials, buying war bonds, making bandages, and pitching in wherever necessary. Since World War II, every political leader from both major parties has recognized the need to keep our country strong and safe (although there have been occasional disagreements about how best to do that). In 1942 we could not avoid fighting a two-front war because two very strong militaries attacked us. Because of mistaken republican politicians, we had no choice but to fight back with the insufficient resources on hand at the time. Being stupid   We were attacked again on September 9, 2001 by bin Laden and his Al Quaeda terrorists. Unlike the situation in World War II, bin Laden was not allied with Saddam Hussein (indeed they loathed each other). Unlike Hitler, Saddam Hussein did not declare war on us nor attack us, nor did he have the means to attack us.   After 9/11 Bush got off to a good start by cleaning house in Afghanistan and putting bin Laden on the run. He said he'd get bin Laden "dead or alive." Then, when we got close to bringing bin Laden to justice, Bush dropped the ball and let our attacker off the hook. Instead, he diverted our troops to an unprepared and premature attack on Iraq.   Bush sent a clear message to the terrorists that his tough talk was just talk: he'd let them off the hook if they held on long enough. What a dangerous message for a commander-in-chief to send to our enemies!   Being unprepared by choice   In World War II we were attacked in 1941 but did not invade France until 1944--after we had built up sufficient force, materiel, and planning to succeed. In 2003, Bush did the attacking and--even though he himself chose the time of the attack--attacked without sufficient force, materiel, and planning. As you stated correctly: All wars are messy, full of oversights, blunders and erroneous assumptions... That's why a real leader doesn't rush into wars without the necessary preparation. Many people die (and, in Iraq, are still dying) as a result.   Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 11, 2004 4:30 PM BT,   Touche!  moots blunders into a real historian with a ready made, well-thought out rebuttal.   A couple of salient points.  Germany began sinking our ships immediately  because we were already de facto at war with Germany and supplying the good guys, our friends the British with food and war materiel.  FDR was doing all he could to help out the British despite the isolationist pressures at home.    Very early in the war Churchill and FDR did agreed that defeating Germany would be their number one priority and the focus of the strongest efforts.  Japan was not viewed as that imminent a threat.  We did, in effect, fight them with our left hand.   As far as what happened with Bin Laden and our move into Iraq, your impressions are not shared by the commanding General of those operations, Tommy Franks, who strongly supports the president.   I wasn't aware about the air support problem you raised, so I thank you for the info.   You are a skillful debater, and quick to pounce on my inaccuracies.  My compliments on that.  Nevertheless I think you have become a prisoner of your own rhetoric and the Democratic talking points.   Can I still have pie tonight?   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 11, 2004 5:52 PM Moots, I don't begrudge you your pie, eat up! I have no problem with Tommy Franks even though his intial planning for the attack called for a much larger force than he wound up deploying after repeated browbeatings from Rumsfeld. Franks' primary goal was to overwhelm Saddam Hussein's forces and to secure the mythical WMDs Saddam threatened us with. He did have enough force to defeat Saddam easily. The parameters for the aftermath of the war were set for him by the administration and were based on faulty assumptions about the reception we'd get from the defeated Iraqis. On a personal note, I also had a close family member (no longer living, to my sorrow) who was scheduled for deployment to Japan when the atomic bomb ended the war. He had survived much heavy combat in Europe, but said that somehow he always knew he'd come through that. He also said that he felt strongly that he wouldn't have survived Japan, and he'd made preparations--including telling his wife--for his death. I know you plan to vote based on your other issues and your decision (in my opinion) colors the way you analyze the war and the deficit. It's not easy to accept that someone you agree with in some areas is totally off base in others. Nevertheless, I respect you and enjoy your posts tremendously.   Been There
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 11, 2004 11:34 PM How you philosophers love to spout all those words! BT, you forgot to mention that the republicans are anti-gay and anti-lesbian unless, like Dick Cheney, it affects their own families. Then they view things differently. G'night.
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:06 AM Consider this a minor exhalation of a coming big blow...   W used a former Bin Laden metaphor ("You can run but you can't hide") to label John Kerry in Friday's debate.   Giving a sitting Prez the benefit of the doubt has now been categorically removed from my list of civilized inhibitions.   CJ
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:27 AM Moots,   One of the statements in your last post was bouncing around in my head last night before I went to sleep (probably because all of the empty space in there gave it a lot of room): Nevertheless I think you have become a prisoner of your own rhetoric and the Democratic talking points. Clearly that's not something I'd like to be, yet you believe you've seen some evidence of that in my posts. I respect your observations and would want to break out of any such prison. Like you, I have a couple of bottom line issues that will determine my vote. On the other issues, it's possible that my opinions could be colored by the way I already plan to vote--although I'm definitely not aware of that being the case. If you would be more specific, I'd truly appreciate it.   In thinking over your statement, I remembered that I did use the line about Mexico specifically because it made an impression on me when Kerry used it in the debate and I thought it apt. So far as I can tell now, that's the only time I've consciously used what could be termed a democratic talking point (I did watch all the debates, but I haven't seen any TV commercials for either candidate). If I've used more, please point them out and I'll apologize in dust and ashes!   As you know, my bottom-line issues are Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and his attack on Iraq instead of going after bin Laden. I don't see how either of them could fall into the "prisoner" category (they both predate the presidential campaign), but I'm willing to listen.   Thanks again, Moots, for getting me thinking.   Been There
rock	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:56 PM Been There and everyone. I'm not ignoring you but haven't felt up to posting lately. I'm watching the debates and reading posts though and will do a better job when I'm feeling better. God bless you all.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:05 PM Rock,   Thank you and I hope you're feeling better soon.  You're the salt of the earth.  BT, I have something on my computer at home which I couldn't send last night which I'll try to post this evening.   moots
Been There	Stealing from Our Children and Grandchildren Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:26 PM Rock, I concur 100% with Moots, and hope you feel better soon!   Today the Senate passed another huge tax cut for corporations. Senate passes $137 billion cut in business tax. The bill had already passed the House, and President Bush is ecstatic that he'll be able to sign another law that steals huge sums from our children and grandchildren. Although fraudulent accounting allows the congress to claim that this new scam is revenue neutral, no one believes it: The tax breaks drew criticism from fiscal conservatives.   Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, called the measure the "worst example of the influence of the special interests I have ever seen." One of the provisions--forced into the bill by Bush and his republican cronies--rewards U.S. corporations for having taken jobs overseas in the past: The bill includes more than $20 billion in reductions over the next 10 years on foreign profits of multinational corporations. It would also provide a huge one-time windfall to technology companies such as Oracle and Hewlett-Packard and pharmaceutical giants such as Eli Lilly, allowing them to bring hundreds of billions of dollars in untaxed foreign profits back into the United States at about one-seventh of the normal tax rate. [Italics mine.] In the hypocrisy department, quite a few democrats voted for the bill too--after their own pet tax breaks were inserted.   Been There
moots	Stealing from Our Children and Grandchildren Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:09 PM BT,   Hmmm.... sometimes you gotta wonder. President Bush is ecstatic that he'll be able to sign another law that steals huge sums from our children and grandchildren. That's it - no more coffee for you today.   moots
Been There	Stealing from Our Children and Grandchildren Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:38 PM Moots, I suppose we can check the news clips when he signs the bill to see if he looks ecstatic, thrilled, pleased, happy, angry, or morose. If either of the last two, I'll graciously concede that I was wrong. (L2, I hope you find the length of this post acceptable.)
tm	Stealing from Our Children and Grandchildren Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:53 PM Speaking of children and grandchildren, here's a reaction (titled "Environmental Reality Check") to President Bush's claims last Friday that his administration has done something for the air, water, forests and other legacies we leave our children: http://www.alternet.org/story/20136/
look2it	Stealing from Our Children and Grandchildren Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:07 AM Yes Bush needs a good kick in the butt for trashing the environment along with everything else. G'night.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:23 AM BT,   (I know you’re two or three tirades ahead of me, but permit me to submit the following rant in response to your Monday harangues.  I wrote this on my computer at home, but for some reason I could not log into the discussion.  Perhaps the moots filter is working better.)   Thanks for the pie.  I would enjoy it even more if you would lower your voice and stop banging your fist on the table.   You are a veritable freight train of information and somewhat intimidating to those of us who haven’t the interest or inclination to delve into the news with a steam shovel.  I must say that I admire the way you marshal your data and arguments and march them out in seemingly indomitable waves, neatly indented, generaled with neat headlines and with bullets flying, while I scramble to get my ducks in a row.   But your phalanx has a fatal weakness.  Obscured by the neatly dressed lines is the fact that you cannot know all the reasoning and motives that were involved in the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq.  At the core of your arguments lie the premise that you know their motives and understand the situation they faced with greater clarity than they did.  In hindsight you trivialize the danger posed by Saddam as one of “mythical WMD’s” and assume he had no way to attack us.  On the other hand, I suspect you would apply a totally different set of standards to the Bush administrations actions or lack thereof,  prior to 9/11, - without seeing any contradiction of your position.   But setting all aside politics for a moment, you raised a question that I have often pondered:  why do we believe what we do?  I was particularly struck by this after the OJ Simpson trial.  To me his guilt was so obvious that I couldn’t imagine that anyone could believe otherwise - yet there were many who sincerely believed him innocent, and the division generally seemed to follow racial lines. I could only conclude that there are other issues that are so powerful that they overwhelm facts and logic.  Taking that closer to home, it would be prudent for me to make allowances that I may be subject to that same limitations.   I think you would agree with me on this - that we mutually regard each other as I regarded the OJ jury.  There is something unsettling about that, for it suggests the possibility our minds may not be able to apprehend truth through the application of reason and logic.  It is easy to dismiss those who disagree with us as being dull-witted and stubborn, but it is scary to think that we may be seeing ourselves in a mirror.   Yeah, I know, I’m getting out of my depth here, but perhaps this would be good to consider before we start throwing that delicious homemade apple pie at each other.   moots
moots	Stealing from Our Children and Grandchildren Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:30 AM L2,   Do you ever do anything but complain?  Thoreau wrote something to the effect that do not denigrate your life and call it hard names, for it is not as bad as you are.  If you don't watch yourself, you're going to start sounding like Al Gore.  Lighten up.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:57 AM Moots,   I know you're not dull-witted and stubborn (well, maybe a little stubborn) and yet you see some things quite differently from me (not on the O. J. Simpson case, though). That's why I'm so glad you're posting here. I appreciate being reminded that good and intelligent people can come to different conclusions than I about almost everything under the sun. It's too easy and comfortable (for me anyway) to go on day after day without anyone challenging my opinions.   It would help me to understand your reasoning, though, if you were more specific sometimes. For example, what am I to make of this statement of yours? Obscured by the neatly dressed lines is the fact that you cannot know all the reasoning and motives that were involved in the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq. The Bush administration gave us reasons before attacking Iraq and those reasons turned out to be false. Are you saying that you believe that they really had other reasons--secret reasons--for the war? Is that okay with you? Do you have any idea what those reasons would be? Would you feel the same if a democrat were in office?   As I posted last month, before the war I thought that the administration must possess secret hard intelligence about WMDs before they attacked Iraq, intelligence that they couldn't reveal without compromising our high-tech surveillance methods. I remember Rumsfeld talking about WMDs and announcing positively, "We know where they are." I have that false statement (and several others) recorded. To your way of thinking, what other secret reasons could possibly justify diverting our soldiers from the pursuit of bin Laden to an attack on Iraq?   It's true that I just don't comprehend your reasoning on this issue, but I'd really like to understand it. Also, if you see any specific internal contradictions in my positions, please point them out to me. Can't have those!   Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:30 AM BT,   Think about it, and don't confuse reasoning with reasons.  One is the objective and subjective consideration of all the ramifications, hoped-for results, feared consequences, blah, blah.   The other is the neatly stated rationale for action.  For instance, if part of the reasoning was "to instill a healthy fear of the United States throughout the Arab world" that could never be publicly stated as a reason.  Nevertheless, I suspect it was part of the unstated reasoning, and I fully agree with it.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:14 PM Moots, Thanks. You know we're still going to disagree on this, but I understand that you're a rational person and have your own reasons for holding the positions you do. Until now I had no idea what those reasons might be.   Like Cousin Jack, you ascribe good motives to the president and his administration even when things work out badly. I don't. I have my reasons. (Okay, it's mainly because Bush blew the whole budget surplus after six months in office--tossing it away like a drunken sailor; he lost my respect well before 9/11.) Most likely our different perspectives are inescapably shaped by the issues that concern us the most.   I suspect you're right to say that there were hidden motives behind attacking Iraq, probably of the type you mentioned. But what I asked was this: To your way of thinking, what other secret reasons could possibly justify diverting our soldiers from the pursuit of bin Laden to an attack on Iraq? To my way of thinking, the presence of WMDs threatening our country could justify an attack, but the other reasons could not--even if they turned out to be beneficial side effects. If you believe otherwise, then we have a big difference in principle that accounts for our opposing views.   To take this a step further, I'm also sure that most Americans agree with me and the Bush administration knows they do: that's precisely why they sold the war the way they did--even to the point of (let's be kind here) stretching the truth a bit. I think it is fair now to conclude that whenever someone from the adminstration said "I know...", he or she could more accurately have said "I find it convenient to believe..." And that is giving them the benefit of the doubt. If you consider that to be acceptable behavior for our government in going to war, then we have another difference in principle that accounts for our opposing views.   Moots, I still disagree with you, but I think I'm coming to understand you better. Thanks again.   Been There
look2it	Stealing from Our Children and Grandchildren Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:52 PM Moots, you are the pot calling the kettle black. My little sister would have said, "It takes one to know one." I hope Bush falls flat on his face again tonight.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:08 PM The debate tonight is on domestic issues, but it's going to be hard to stop thinking about the situation in Iraq: Bomb attacks kill six U.S. soldiers. A suicide attack and roadside bombings killed six American soldiers, the U.S. command said today, as U.S. and Iraqi troops staged raids in Ramadi and Baqouba, stepping up pressure on Sunni insurgents before this week's start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. If these soldiers sacrificed their lives "to instill a healthy fear of the United States throughout the Arab world" or any other such purpose, then I can't begin to express how sick and angry that makes me feel. And frankly, the Arabs don't look that frightened to me.
moots	Stealing from Our Children and Grandchildren Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 4:10 PM L2,   That's not true.  I told BT her pie was good.  Be a good girl and you can have another slice.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:17 AM This year's presidential debates are now history, but pretty interesting history. Voters got to see both candidates unfiltered by commercials, talk-show hosts, or the communications media. Partisans on both sides saw what they wanted to see, so the important thing for both candidates is how they came through to the few undecided voters left.   We can expect to see a barrage of attack ads from the republicans over the coming days, and I hope that the Kerry people are ready to respond. I would like to see a series of ads showing the already-available film clips of the president and his administration (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Condi Rice, Wolfowitz, etc.) contradicting themselves in public or saying something and later denying that they said it. People claim that they don't like negative ads, but republicans have proved over the years that negative ads are most effective.   I'd also like to see some special-interest group (not the Kerry campaign itself) air some ads pounding on Bush for using his political connections to avoid service in Vietnam. Maybe they could find some veterans who applied for the guard but didn't get in and had to go to Vietnam. Maybe they could even find the mother of some soldier who had to go and lost his life as a result.   The corporate media has already announced its intention to broadcast a film just before the election branding Kerry a traitor for leveling with congress about his experiences in Vietnam and for revealing what other soldiers told him they saw and did. With that in mind, I hope some network will broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 plus one of the objective documentaries about the administration's misuse of intelligence in the runup to the attack on Iraq.   Even if a series of hard-hitting ads and films doesn't succeed in unseating Bush (and I mostly agree with Moots on the likely outcome of the election), it would have the beneficial side effect of undercutting Bush's credibility as president.
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:39 AM Bush had a new stupid expression on his face all night. Didn't like Kerry bringing up Cheney's homo daughter, seemed too much like a Bush-type tactic.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:43 PM Whatta cheerful pair you are.  Isn't anybody ever happy around this table?  Forget the election and think about or do something that makes you happy.  I think we all have plenty to be thankful for.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:18 PM Moots, you've got a point. Sorry. I read over my pre-debate post--the one I wrote just after I saw that six more soldiers had been killed in Iraq--and I saw to my regret that it could be read as a dig at you. I didn't mean it that way. I had been thinking that you had put your finger on something very real (I do realize that you intended to give just one example of many possible hidden motives), and then I saw the news and posted too quickly without giving adequate thought to my wording.   This time I ask your leave to eat my pie tonight!   It's true, though, that this whole Iraq business seems to me like a bad dream unfolding in slow motion before my eyes--with me powerless to do anything about it. Part of the bad dream is that I see lots of good people seemingly oblivious to the horror occurring right in front of me.
Great Scott	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:32 PM I don't think either man would do much different in Iraq or against the terrorists. I was waiting for the debate last night, and it did help me make up my mind. It is too bad they do these debates right when the baseball playoffs are on.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:48 PM BT,   Cut a big slice, and while you're at it, cut the cord to your television.    moots
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:42 PM After 3 debates, Kerry the man remains somewhat of an enigma to me. Too much of a policy wonk (or is it reserved New Englander?) to connect as effectively at the more folksy human level that Bush does. It was nice to see them both relax near the end and just be regular people though (especially after throwing all those numbers out for 2 hours none of which we had any way of confirming--Oh for an instant computerized on screen fact checker with a pleasant ring if the debater's claim is true and an annoying beep if false). I see today's Electoral Vote Predictor (provided by moderator) has Kerry at 228 and Bush at 284. If neither gets 270 on election day it goes to Congress. Shake up the Ol' Crystal Ball: The House votes in Bush as President while the Senate chooses Edwards as his Veep. Watching 4 years of that star-crossed combo could be quite interesting. It might even encourage Colin Powell to stay on board to help steer the ship of state away from some of the Defense Department's 1st term excesses.   CJ
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 15, 2004 12:49 AM Ain't the leaves nice this fall, moots? Baseball's still going, who'd have guessed? Gee, what to do--watch a baseball game or a debate that might affect the future of the US? Tough, tough choice, but you worked out the answer Scott. G'night.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:54 AM L2,   Are you never not sarcastic?  Now you may think that's the pot calling the kettle black, and if I've given you that impression, please accept my apologies.  The line between dry humor and sarcasm is a fine one, and I easily stumble over it.   What I have been doing with this "pie eating" metaphor is to try to remind us all that in fact we are a family of sorts sitting "around the kitchen table".  Families just don't let their members drift into isolation.  I've tried baiting you, insulting you and challenging you - not to put you down (well, maybe a little), but to draw you out.  I think I understand BT and Rock pretty well, and Cousin Jack somewhat - because they've laid their cards on the table and said what they really felt and believed in, but you're a mystery to me.   Now you've got every right to play your cards close you your vest or my name ain't moots,  but I think we ought to able to talk politics around this table without ripping on each other, and you can hold me to that from here on.  I'll confine my rips to Senators Kerry and Edwards and democrats in general.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:36 AM Moots,   I gather from your earlier post that you consider television fairly important. Maybe that also helps account for some of our differing perspectives. Except for the Sunday commentaries and major sporting events I rarely watch television myself, so I no doubt miss a lot of the images that you and most folks see. I can't see changing my habits, though, because most of what's on seems to me like such a waste of time. I already know I'll go to my grave without reading all of the great books I'd like to read (and, in some cases, reread).   I see that the republicans are claiming that Kerry tried to gain a political advantage by mentioning Cheney's lesbian daughter. What I don't see is how the republicans think that could give him an advantage, and I haven't seen anyone explain that. What am I missing?   Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 15, 2004 11:56 AM BT,   Good for you.  I haven't owned a TV since 1976, so I'm totally out of the loop.  I am aware however of the enormous influence of television, and terrorists, kooks and attention seekers have found very useful to their purposes.  I think we'd all be better off if we took Edward Abbey's advice, "Kick in your television."   As far as Cheney's daughter goes, I think Kerry  and Edwards could have made their points without getting into the Cheney's family matters.  It seems to me that in the past no matter how badly candidates beat on each other, they have avoided their opponents families.  I hope that this is not the beginning of a new trend.   moots
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:44 PM Hmmm...it would seem that others besides myself have been shaking the Ol' Crystal Ball as well: Scary Scenarios Swirl Around '04 Election By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 15, 2004 Filed at 8:57 p.m. ET   With the electorate sharply divided, the chance of a deadlock in the Electoral College seems all the more real this time after the long-in-limbo outcome of 2000. The National Archives offers an ``Electoral College calculator'' on its Web site so armchair prognosticators can see just how easy it could be to have the candidates come out even. For example, if just New Hampshire and Nevada (or West Virginia) shifted from favoring Bush to the Democrats this time, there could be a 269-269 tie, leaving it to the House to pick the next president and the Senate to pick the new vice president come January. That would leave open the jarring possibility of a Bush-Edwards or Kerry-Cheney pairing, depending on the political leanings of the new House and Senate.   http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scary-Scenarios.html?oref=login The electoral forecast would appear to be overcast and windy with a distinct chance of flurries...   CJ
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 16, 2004 3:56 PM The Annenberg Study of recently active military members and their families was released yesterday and it looks like positive news for President Bush. Some excerpts with respect to the  Iraq War:   Service Men and Women Upbeat on Bush, War in Iraq, Economy and Intend to Vote, Annenberg Data Show   When it came to the war in Iraq, 64 percent of the military sample said that the situation had been worth going to war over, while 32 percent said it had not. Of those who served in Iraq, Afghanistan or nearby, a smaller share, only 55 percent, said the war had been worth it; 40 percent said it had not. In the general population, 45 percent said the war had been worth it and 51 percent said it had not.   The military sample was also asked what was the most important reason why the United States had gone to war in Iraq. They were offered six choices, and 29 percent said the most important reason was "removing Saddam Hussein." Twenty-three percent said "because Iraq was helping terrorists." Fifteen percent because "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." Thirteen percent said "to bring stability to the Middle East." Eleven percent said "to gain control of Iraqi oil." Six percent said "to bring democracy to Iraq."   For more on this study here's the url for the pdf document:   http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_military-data_10-15_report.pdf
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 17, 2004 8:19 PM CJ, Thanks for the interesting links. It's worth noting that those who've actually served in Iraq have a less favorable view of it than those who have not. But things certainly do look favorable for Bush these days.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:22 AM Cousin Jack,   I have come across other articles this weekend in which soldiers in Iraq give anecdotal accounts that tend to corroborate the figures you gave from the Annenberg study. In a nutshell, a majority of those on the scene still support the war, but a very substantial (and, I think, growing) minority do not. Probably the support is lower among those sent into harm's way without the proper equipment: Soldiers Saw Refusing Order as Their Last Stand. On the morning of Oct. 13, the military says, Sergeant Butler and most of his platoon, some 18 men and women from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, refused to deliver a shipment of fuel from the Tallil Air Base near Nasiriya, Iraq, to another base much farther north. ... The soldiers, many of whom have called home this weekend, said their trucks were unsafe and lacked a proper armed escort, problems that have plagued them since they went to Iraq nine months ago, their relatives said. It would be interesting to compare the 55% support figure for the Iraq war with comparable figures for World War II and the Vietnam war.   Dissent by Veterans   Fortunately for today's Iraq war veterans, the U.S. is much different from the country that Vietnam veterans returned to in the 1960s and 1970s. For one thing, living Vietnam veterans know first-hand what it's like to be misused by the government, so they offer much more support to dissenting veterans than they received themselves. For another, the Internet makes it possible for dissenters to communicate much more freely--among themselves and to the rest of us--what is really going on in Iraq. Here are some good Web sites for folks who want to get a different perspective on Iraq than that offered by the relentlessly pro-war media in this country: Iraq Veterans Against the War: Current News About Iraq Veterans Against The Iraq War: Support the Troops, Oppose the Policy Military Families Speak Out: Bring Them Home Now If Iraq had actually threatened us with weapons of mass destruction, our position there today would be much different: the difficulties now faced by the Iraqis would have been the result of necessary action by our country. Our nation's responsibility to rebuild their country and reestablish order there would then have been much less, in my opinion. In fact (as Colin Powell pointed out to Bush before he attacked Iraq), we broke Iraq and now we own it; we can't simply "Bring Them Home Now" and leave Iraq with the chaos we created.   Keeping the Status Quo   Although most people think that Kerry won all the debates with Bush, the likely voters plan to vote for Bush anyway: Polls put Bush ahead of Kerry despite the debates. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released yesterday showed Mr. Bush with 52 percent and Mr. Kerry with 44 percent among likely voters, a sharp reversal from earlier in the month, when the poll found the Democratic challenger leading the president by one percentage point, 49 percent to 48 percent.   The latest Newsweek poll shows Mr. Bush leading 50 percent to 44 percent for Mr. Kerry among likely voters. Mr. Kerry had a 47 percent to 45 percent lead in Newsweek's Sept. 30 to Oct. 1 poll of registered voters. Among all registered voters in the latest Newsweek poll, taken Thursday and Friday, Mr. Bush led 48 percent to 46 percent. I find this sad, but our country is headed for a very tough four years no matter who is president. Perhaps it's best that Bush face the consequences of the disaster he's created. And perhaps it's best that voters have their noses rubbed in the consequences of the choices they've made.   Been There
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:20 PM BT, you're getting way too wordy again. Most polls show Kerry and Dubya even at around 46% apiece, within the margin of error. No way Dubya's going to get over 48% on election day, unless he unleashes some desperate October surprise. In November I'll be the one laughing.
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:42 PM Hey Been There et al:   Today's Electoral Vote Predictor has Kerry at 257 and Bush at 247. That's a significant shift from last week's count when I think they had Bush at 288 if I'm recalling correctly. If Democrats can get enough disaffected young out to the polling place come November it could swing this thing in Kerry's favor. If both continue to remain under 270 however and it goes to Congress we could see some cross-party conscience votes cast. Especially in the Senate where there are any number of moderate Republicans who may be still troubled (if not modestly enraged) by Dick Cheney's demagoguing of the immanent nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein in the run up to the war. Bush-Edwards...Bush-Edwards...repeat that mantra often enough and it begins to have a righteously ironic ring to it. The Lord works in mysterious ways.   CJ
Great Scott	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:29 PM Another great Red Sox/Yankees game, I'm pumped! Jack, you sound like you're hoping for an electoral college tie, but I'd hate like the devil to see that happen. The electoral college should not have an even number of electors. Maybe we could add one for Puerto Rico.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:35 AM Moots,   I know that abortion is one of your main reasons for supporting Bush, so I thought you might be interested in this article by pro-life (and Professor of Christian Ethics) Glen Stassen: Why abortion rate is up in Bush years. Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4 percent decline during the 1990s.   ...   Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened. ...Michigan's [abortion rate] increased by 11.3 percent from 2000 to 2003... Under Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction. Switching gears, here's an in-depth NYT article (too long for you, Look2it) giving the inside story on how insufficient troops were sent to Iraq: The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War. "The overall plan was to go get Saddam Hussein," Colonel Apodaca recalled. "The assumption seemed to be that when people realized that he was gone, that would get the population on our side and facilitate the transition to reconstruction. We were not going to chase these guys when they ran to the smaller cities. We did not really have the force levels at that point to keep the insurgency down."   ...   General Garner said the administration's mistakes had made it easier for the insurgency to take hold.   "John Abizaid was the only one who really had his head in the postwar game," General Garner said, referring to the general who served as General Franks's deputy and eventually his successor. "The Bush administration did not. Condi Rice did not. Doug Feith didn't. You could go brief them, but you never saw any initiative come of them. You just kind of got a north and south nod. And so it ends with so many tragic things." And, finally, here is a link to an article about Bush vs. Science: Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue. In March 2001, a White House team used a single economic analysis by the Energy Department to build a case that Mr. Bush quickly used to back out of his campaign pledge to restrict power plant discharges of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.   The analysis, from December 2000, was based on a number of assumptions, including one that no technological innovation would occur. The result showed that prompt cuts in carbon dioxide from power plants would weaken the economy.   Other analyses, including some by other branches of the Department of Energy, drew different conclusions but were ignored.   ...   Despite three years of charges that it is remaking scientific and medical advisory panels to favor the goals of industry or social conservatives, the White House has continued to ask some panel nominees not only about their political views, but explicitly whether they support Mr. Bush. One recent candidate was Prof. Sharon L. Smith, an expert on Arctic marine ecology at the University of Miami.   On March 12, she received a call from the White House. She had been nominated to take a seat about to open up on the Arctic Research Commission, a panel of presidential appointees that helps shape research on issues in the far north, including the debate over oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.   The woman calling from the White House office of presidential personnel complimented her résumé, Dr. Smith recalled, then asked the first and - as it turned out - only question: "Do you support the president?"   "I was taking notes," Dr. Smith recalled. "I'm thinking I've lost my mind. I was in total shock. I'd never been asked that before."   She responded she was not a fan of Mr. Bush's economic and foreign policies. "That was the end of the interview," she said. "I was removed from consideration instantly." And so it goes today and, evidently, for at least another four years.   Been There
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 5:15 PM In case you hadn't noticed, moots has left the building. Why bother posting all this stuff? Facts don't interest these people.
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:08 AM Good riddance to the creep.
rock	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:53 AM BT, I don't believe President Bush can be held responsible for any abortions. He is totally opposed.
Great Scott	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:15 AM look2it, too bad you don't appreciate the beauty of our national sport (or anything else). Your man does, I see, according to this link--http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/politics/campaign/20kerry.html Kerry said: "We all want the same thing. We want our country to be respected in the world. We want good jobs, and we all want to beat the New York Yankees." Good one. If both the Red Sox and the Astros win tonight it will be Massachusetts vs. Texas in the World Series. A predictor for the next four years? Stay tuned.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:32 AM Gosh, Bobcat and Look2it. Why so negative? Do you really think that disagreeing with you makes someone a creep? I surely do not.   Moots has strong beliefs and states them bluntly, but he's clearly an intelligent person with an inner drive to do the right things, according to his concept of right (and correctly so). He's made clear what his bottom-line issues are and I respect that very much--even while I argue with him. In contrast, I have no idea what the bottom-line issues are for either of you. Why not post what matters to you instead of sniping away?   There are many folks who see things differently from us, and they are definitely not all bad people, stupid people, or creeps. They are fellow citizens and neighbors, people we went to school with and see at the grocery store, so don't you think it behooves us to exchange ideas with them and (gasp!) admit that their views too are worth consideration?   I'm not saying that you or I should (or ever will) yield on an issue of principle. However, it seems to me that, in politics, we (and this is as true for me as anyone else) tend to be absolutist on our bottom-line issues and relativist on other issues. This is a lot easier to see in others than it is to see in ourselves (for me anyway), but I think it's true. I don't claim to know how to bridge the divide, but I'm certain that calling other posters creeps won't do it.   Look2it, how do you know Moots has left entirely? Couldn't he be one of those people who doesn't post unless he has something particular to say? That's my assessment.   Rock, I do indeed hold Bush responsible for the increase in abortions as they are the inevitable (and foreseeable) result of his policies. In fact, one of the things that drives me up the wall about Bush is his failure to accept responsibility for his own actions and policies.   Scott, I agree that would be an interesting World Series. Who'd have guessed that the Red Sox would come back to win three in a row? Not me, that's for sure.   Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 12:27 PM Sorry girls, I was just taking a breath of fresh air.  Thanks for the kind words, BT.  Ah.... Bobcat, you've come to the right place, you will feel right at home here.  Perhaps you favor us with even more remarkable insights.   BT, a brief word on abortion.  I'm not sure that the increase in the number of abortions in Michigan isn't partly a demographic thing - I checked on the US census website yesterday and noticed that there is an increase in the 20-25 year old bracket, which I believe the abortion rate is highest.  The baby-bust,  itself partly due to the abortion rate and the general mindset that children are expensive, disposable inconveniences reached its trough somewhere in the early nineties, which would depress the number of abortions as well.   One might also note that the winters have been colder and the summers wetter since Bush took office.  Figures don't lie, but there are many interpretations.   As far as the connection between health insurance and employment and abortion, that seems to be a reasonable argument - until you consider that the old communist bloc, with its free health care and guaranteed employment, experienced some of the highest abortion rates in the world.   Ulitmately abortion is a choice informed by one's world view.  Human life is either a gift of God, or it is a chemical accident of evolution.  I would posit that unless God is real, all morality and ethics are human constructs and sentimental notions that have no basis.  Good and Evil are simply the current popular opinion.  In Kerry's case, I recall that he said that he thinks abortion is wrong, but would not impose his view.  Put in another time, someone might say that I believe slavery is wrong, but I wouldn't impose my view.  That does not help the unborn child, nor the slave.   The effect a president has on the abortion rate is limited, but significant.  First, he is able to help promote a culture that respects the sanctity of all human life.  Secondly he can impose limits on how federal money is spent or not spent, promoting abortions.  Thirdly, and most importantly, he appoints Supreme Court justices.  I would remind you that abortion on demand was not created by legislative action, but by the Supreme Court abrogating all legislation affecting abortions in 1973.   Finally, if there is a God, and if He is just, there is much innocent blood "crying from the ground".  John Kerry may be sincere in his motives, but he is terribly wrong on this issue.   moots
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 1:24 PM Moots,  you are a CREEP.  Been There, why do defend brainwashed idiots like him - so they can continue spouting their republican propaganda and give us four more years of jerks like dubya?   Bobcat
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:05 PM Today's Electoral Vote Predictor has Kerry at 291 and Bush at 247. Clearly an upward trend through the past week in Kerry's favor if this EVP has any scientific merit. What do you think, Birch Bark?   Moots says: Human life is either a gift of God, or it is a chemical accident of evolution.  I would posit that unless God is real, all morality and ethics are human constructs and sentimental notions that have no basis.  Good and Evil are simply the current popular opinion.   Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) says:   I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.   Why, of all the mammal species, is human behavior both the most and the least ethical. I would posit that it is due to our evolved rational capacity for reason, through language, to formulate (and violate) ethical principles based on how we, as mammals, feel about things. Is evolution merely a long meaningless chain of chemical accidents or doth the Lord mutate in mysterious ways?   I believe that Bush stated quite clearly when running in 2000 that he had no desire to outlaw abortion (thank you Laura Bush). But surely reasonable people can agree, if we truly value life, that it should be socially discouraged as a careless means of birth control.    Go Bosox!   CJ
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:43 PM CJ,   You're a  little vague on this one, so I'd like to pin you down .  You say But surely reasonable people can agree, if we truly value life, that it should be socially discouraged as a careless means of birth control.   Why?  Is a fetus a human being, a person?  If so, why not extend the full protection of law to this person - as we historically did until 1973?   If on the other hand, a fetus is not a human being, why should abortion be discouraged in any way, shape or form?   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 6:45 PM Bobcat, I just don't see that expressing views that disagree with mine makes someone a creep. Lots of people disagree with me on lots of things, but most of them are fine, intelligent people (with blind spots, of course). I'm sure you and I agree that the Bush presidency is a disaster for our country and that voting for him is totally irresponsible. Moots does not see it that way at all and considers my vote for Kerry as tantamount to endorsing slavery. If someone reads these boards and is convinced to vote republican by what Moots has posted, I think it would be because he or she found Moots more convincing (or more likable) than those of us opposing him. If you wish to counter his "republican propaganda," why not simply post what is wrong with what he says? I do plan to discuss Moots' issues with him, but his posts always seem to get me thinking about the nature and pitfalls of discourse. My issues seem so black and white to me: Bush plunged the government back into fiscal irresponsibility. Bush let Osama bin Laden get away, emboldening the terrorists who attacked us. Bush attacked Iraq under false pretenses. To my mind, Moots dances around these plain facts by giving nuanced, relativistic rebuttals which seem weak and pitiful to me. But, when you think about it, the person who adopts the absolutist position in this type of argument--as I do here--automatically has the more vivid side of things. To a certain extent, a nuanced, relativistic argument will always have a weaker look to it. Moots, on the other hand, takes the absolutist view of his key issues. I suspect that he views any nuanced, relativistic rebuttals to his issues in much the same way as I do his rebuttals to mine. The big question in my mind is this: How do we pull together as a country in these dangerous times without learning about and respecting each other's strongly held beliefs? I'm pleased that Moots is posting here.   Been There
Great Scott	World Series Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:31 AM Fantastic! The Red Sox are in!!! Tomorrow we'll know the matchup, but Boston has the home field due to being in the superior league.
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:19 AM Been There, How touchingly you defend a pig like Moots!  But you said you once were a republican and maybe the odor doesn’t bother you.  All you talk about are fiscal responsibility and Iraq, but it doesn’t seem to bother you that our patriarchal, multinational corporate thieves are destroying the biosphere in their piggish greed.  You would probably be perfectly happy if the thieves put a little more back into the treasury and we marched out of Iraq tomorrow.   Then you could get back to driving your SUV, eating your factory farm steak and watching your stock portfolio grow.  Never mind that the industrial juggernaut is destroying species and ecosystems in its rapacious lust to subjugate nature.  Never mind that they pay women less than men and humiliate them in both subtle and overt ways.  Never mind that they seek to cow the American labor force into docile servility with threats of outsourcing jobs oversees.  Never mind that many of us have no health insurance and that countless creative people are forced to do menial, mindless and humiliating work.  Never mind that those of us that try to live sensibly within this insane machine are belittled and treated like pariahs.  No, keep the machine well-oiled and running at full capacity. We live in a pigsty and all you can think about is keeping your own little pen warm and dry.  I think I’m going to throw up…aaagh! Bobcat
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:17 AM Bobcat,   Thank you for your thoughtful analysis.   Hmmm....moots, the  idiot brain-washed republican pig...that has a kind of nice ring to it.  I guess I  might as well.. oink...help myself...oink to this whole....oink...pie.  L2, where's the...oink...door outta this sty?   moots, the  idiot brain-washed republican pig
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:56 AM Moots (per yesterday’s question): The developing human fetus, however much a “person”, has no independent existence (apart from his or her mother) in the public sphere which is the State’s proper realm of political influence. Though I personally feel that abortion is an unethical choice for dealing with unplanned pregnancies, I also feel that the State has no business intruding between prospective parents and any personal decisions they make with physicians concerning the birth of their own child (which is, after all, a living continuation of their own unique genetic heritage and no one elses). There are sound reasons (rape, incest, endangerment to the mother etc) for keeping the abortion procedure safe and legal the case for which many women’s and parenthood groups have made over the years and I respect their historical perspective on this matter. CJ
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:22 AM Hi Bobcat, Now that was a good post (except for the pig part). In fact, I do care very much about the environment and fairness in the workplace and expect that Kerry would do a much better job with both. In days gone by this site had a different message board and I posted there about the environment, but I haven't done so recently (before you, no poster seemed very interested in the subject). I also believe that the growing gap between rich and poor in our country is a very serious problem, as is our dwindling middle class. Bush and his cronies are clearly doing this intentionally by waging a class war of the rich against everyone else--a class war that must be stopped. However, my personal style is to prioritize. If we could stop the calculated lying, the gratuitous killing, and the wanton stealing from our children and grandchildren by ousting Bush from office, we'd be in a position to address the other problems on your list (and mine). As to Moots, all we know for sure is that his vote for Bush is not based on any of these issues. In one of his posts, he stated that he would vote for a democrat (even a socialist) who firmly advocated outlawing abortion and outlawing gay marriage. Moots is prioritizing also and, even though I believe his priorities to be dead wrong, I understand his position to be a principled one. He's willing to give up just about everything--financial security for himself and his family, a healthy environment, and even the safety of our country--to support an objective that he believes to be more important. To my way of thinking, calling Moots a republican pig is nothing more than giving someone a negative label to avoid having to address the substance of what he or she has to say. That's exactly what people like Rush Limbaugh (the drug-addled talk-show host) do, and for the same reasons. If you look at the polls, many folks agree with every specific position Kerry takes--but also agree with the statement that Kerry is "too liberal." I'm trying to get beyond the label thing to understand what my neighbors are really thinking, even those who disagree with me. Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:36 AM CJ,   Your agruments are earily familiar.  The Supreme Court has been mistaken before, as in the case of Dred Scott (excepts italicized)     the State has no business intruding between prospective parents and any personal decisions they make with physicians concerning the birth of their own child 3. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property.    The developing human fetus, however much a “person”, has no independent existence (apart from his or her mother) in the public sphere which is the State’s proper realm of political influence. 4. The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. moots
Lynn Torkelson	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:37 PM CJ,   I see that today's map puts Kerry at 271, very close to the House of Reps scenario that you described earlier. The Pollmaster has changed his experimental "final map" based on least-squares calculations to use only the more recent polls. After the election, it will be interesting to see what approach was, in retrospect, most accurate.   BB
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 2:21 PM Moots, In one of your posts yesterday, you said: I would remind you that abortion on demand was not created by legislative action, but by the Supreme Court abrogating all legislation affecting abortions in 1973. Not true. Before the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, abortion on demand (as you call it) was available in 19 states, a situation that was certainly created by legislative action. Other states restricted abortion, but generally allowed them in cases of rape or incest or where the mother's health required. Some states also permitted abortions when severe defects existed. Throughout most of recorded history abortions were freely performed up to the point of "quickening", which was the traditional test for when life began. Starting around 1820, states gradually began to impose legal restrictions upon abortion (which peaked at around 1965). In 1869 the Roman Catholic church prohibited abortion under any circumstances--more than 800 years after the church began its independent existence in 1054. If I understand you (and I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong), you believe: Each conception begins a new human life. Aborting that new life constitutes murder. Therefore, permitting an abortion is equivalent to permitting murder. If one grants the first two statements, the third surely follows. However (and I know this through personal experience), very many people do not accept the first two statements as true. And I'm not talking about idiots here, or wild-eyed liberals, but good and thoughtful people. The contention that a new human life begins with conception is a fairly recent innovation (by historical standards). Lots of people still believe that life begins at quickening, or else when a fetus can live independently of its mother. Neither you, nor I, nor John Kerry can simply state that a new human life begins at conception and expect other folks to accept that without reservation. And even for people who do accept that each fetus is a new human life, it's not axiomatic that abortion constitutes murder. We do take lives under certain circumstances without calling it murder. Is it actually murder to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother? To spare the victim of rape or incest? Moots, I'd like to see how you convince people of the first two points above. You've said I'm a good debater, but those are very difficult points to establish to someone who believes differently. If you don't do so, you are saying, in effect, "What I believe is right--and you all should have to live with it because I say so! I owe you no explanation." You don't strike me as that type of person. Been There
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 3:27 PM BT,   So when it doubt, leave it up to the justices of the Supreme Court, right?  The questions you raise should be settled by state and national concensus, however imperfect that judgment may be, not by the whims of a Supreme Court speaking where the constitution does not.   In answer to your three questions my answers 1. Yes 2.  substitute "ending a human life" for the word "murder" 3.  I will leave that judgment to God, for there are two victims in every abortion, the child and the mother.  In matters of law, I would leave that to mature legislative debate.    You are correct, I probably would not be able to convince many people of this.  C.S. Lewis said the difficulty of faith is believing something to be true when it is not convenient for us that it is true.   Any pregnancy is difficult - those which are unexpected, unwanted or otherwise attended with complications are much more so.  It is enormously inconvenient to believe that the developing child within is fully alive, needing only nourishment and time to fully develop.  It is something I believe every mother intuitively knows, but that knowledge fights against its implications.  There are no easy answers, but I think there are true ones.   moots
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 3:42 PM Moots: Taking into consideration that Bobcat's post may have put you into a surly mood (understandably), I'll be brief. I told you how I felt about abortion. I'm not a legal scholar nor am I familiar with the argumentative particulars of the Dred Scott case. I do not consider--nor have have I ever known anyone who considers--unborn children as "property" and I find the slavery analogy far-fetched. Slaves are human beings whose freedom to interact in the public realm has been controlled by other human beings who, in effect, "own" them. Fetuses do not and cannot independently participate in the public realm. BTW, as I understand it (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), if Roe vs Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court it would mean that each state would then be free to determine whether abortion should be legal or illegal within the confines of their own borders. What that would eventually lead to is anybody's guess but I suspect (too cynically perhaps) that some state decisions would be made based as much on potential tax revenues from abortion clinics as on any and all ethical considerations for the rights of women and the unborn.   BB: Salon had an interesting article yesterday on electoral-vote.com and other polling websites at: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/20/polls/index_np.html   CJ
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 5:06 PM Moots, Fair enough: you don't believe that abortion is murder, but you do believe that a human life begins with conception. Also, you believe that each state, rather than the federal government, has the right to establish its own laws on abortion. You could make a case for that, but I doubt your solution would stop abortions much, except for women without the means to travel between states. I wonder, though, why you also believe that the federal government should take over responsibility for defining civil marriages. Is that not inconsistent with your states' rights position on abortion? As to slavery, abolitionists did not merely assert that it was wrong. They wrote much and went to great pains to convince large numbers of people--northerners and southerners alike--with their arguments and reasoning. In contrast, on the major point upon which your position is based, you say this: You are correct, I probably would not be able to convince many people of this.  C.S. Lewis said the difficulty of faith is believing something to be true when it is not convenient for us that it is true. But, convenience aside, how have you come to know that your position on when a human life begins is really true and that what others believe is false? Isn't that the crux of the matter, and isn't that what must be gotten across to everyone for a consensus to form? Been There
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 21, 2004 11:33 PM Bobcat, you've got the dope on corporations 100% right. BT, I'm only negative about that scumbag Bush but so are you, and Moots is just as negative about Clinton. Mostly I encourage posters to be concise and sometimes I point out what others might have missed, so what's your beef with me? G'night.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:36 AM BT, I wish I could give you an answer that would satisfy your intelligence, which is great, but the only sincere way I can answer you is with a single question.   Who is Jesus Christ?   The crux of all matters is the cross.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:23 AM Moots, I do understand. My own beliefs are very strong too, yet I cannot justify using the government to force them upon others who disagree, nor do I believe that Jesus Christ wants me (or any of us) to do that. Regarding abortion, do you consider not being born to be the worst of all possible fates? If you do, that may account--at least in part--for our differences on this issue. Been There
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 22, 2004 10:54 AM Cousin Jack, Thanks for the interesting Salon link. It does seem that polling works better when there is a larger margin between the candidates. This year it seems to me that the polls are all over the place, although most of them put Bush ahead after the debates--Kerry's last chance to overtake him--have finished. The WebMaster of the Electoral-Vote Web site Birch Bark directs us to had this to say today: A new study from the University of Maryland supports the thesis that Kerry and Bush supporters apparently live in different universes, complete with different facts and probably different laws of physics. Bush supporters believe it is a fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; Kerry supporters don't. Bush supporters believe Saddam was supporting al Qaeda; Kerry supporters don't. Bush supporters believe most people in other countries approve of the war in Iraq; Kerry supporters don't. Read it for yourself. I did read it and found it illuminating, but a bit scary too. I accept that folks can look at a set of facts and draw, in good faith, different conclusions from mine. But I find it depressing to see that many people simply imagine a set of facts to rationalize their votes. In my view, this study shows how diabolically effective a propaganda machine can be even with a press that is ostensibly free. Been There
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 22, 2004 11:36 AM Look2it, Thank you for your affirmation.  Do you think I would be wasting my vote if I voted for Nader?  I am tired of being patronized by the democrats.  Do you think it would be a futile statement?  Been There, please notice that I have addressed Look2it.  You need not respond. Bobcat
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 22, 2004 1:16 PM Bobcat, I'd vote for Nader myself except that if my vote helped Dubya to win I'd feel like jumping off the bridge. If Kerry turns out to be as bad as Bush, I'm moving to Canada.   BT, why the kid gloves with Moots? You know he wants to cram his religion down our throats at the point of a gun. That is the same way the Muslim terrorists operate. They fervently believe their stuff too. Why the double standard?
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 22, 2004 2:22 PM Look2it, What if Moots turned out to be someone you know, and liked?  Wouldn't that be hilarious! Bobcat
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 22, 2004 3:16 PM Look2It,   Don't you think that Moots grasps that I disagree with him? Are you saying that I need to hurl insults to make that clear? Do you ever have civil discussions with folks who disagree with you?   If you had sufficient attention span to read my posts, you'd already know why I don't slap some arbitrary dumb label on Moots to avoid discussing his issues.   Been There
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 22, 2004 4:40 PM Bobcat, hmmmm, kinda weird to think about that. If I do, he keeps his mouth shut about that stuff around me. Knew a guy like that once until I found out how warped he was.   BT, I talk with lots of people who disagree with me but I have my limits. Don't you?
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 22, 2004 6:40 PM I checked out the U of Maryland study, Been There, and am frankly not too surprised at the disparity of opinion. Many Americans are simply misinformed or are believing what they want to believe and in my opinion this is the world we get when most folks get their news from that fathomless infotainment propaganda melting pot otherwise known as the television set. But others are probably also intent on putting the best face upon what has proven to be a massive international intelligence failure and transforming the military action taken by the Bush administration (that "use of force" OK'd by Congress and those "serious consequences" OK'd by a U.N. Resolution lest we forget) by evolving it into something politically beneficial in the long run for both Iraq and the global community. I believe it is now our responsibility to shoulder this course of action and that in fact it is the only course which will raise world opinion of our country back to where it needs to be so that we can conduct a foreign policy befitting our ideals in the future. This will be a hard pill for some to swallow though I'm afraid.   Perhaps this little blast from the past (courtesy of AP) may help us better understand why Saddam Hussein (who alone, of all international leaders, expressed no sympathy for America in the days following 9/11) became such a bete noir in the eyes of the Bush administration (in particular Cheney, Rumsfeld and all those NeoCons working for the Pentagon):   September 18, 2001 Saddam Hussein Says America Is Misguided By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The United States is using the attacks on New York and Washington as a pretext to settle old scores with Muslim countries, Saddam Hussein said Tuesday. In what was billed as an open letter to Americans, Saddam said differences in foreign policy had led Washington to assume that “Islam, with Arabs in the lead of Muslims, are enemies of the U.S.”  The message, released by the official Iraqi News Agency, is Saddam's second such missive to the American people about the Sept. 11 attacks. The first told Americans their suffering should open their eyes to the pain they've inflicted on others, particularly Iraqis and Palestinians.The United States has identified Saudi exile Osama bin Laden as the prime suspect in the terror assaults. U.S. leaders now are trying to build international support for a possible armed response. “The U.S. has made the charge before verification, even before possessing the minimum evidence about such a charge,” Saddam said, saying the U.S. accusation was really leveled “against all Muslim peoples.”  Now, he charged, the United States is using “sheer terrorism and blackmail” against several countries to win their support, by threatening to add them to the United States' list of nations that sponsor terrorism. Iraq is one of the seven countries on that list. “The United States should look to itself when it comes to identifying states that harbor terrorists”, Saddam said. Could the United States tell its people how many organizations working against their own country are existing on the American soil ... and how many of those accused of killing and theft in other countries are now in the United States?'' he asked. He identified no groups, but accused Jews of working to orchestrate a clash between Christianity and Islam. Quite a prescient forecast on his own coming fate by the Iraqi tyrant don't you think?   Have a great weekend all, CJ
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2004 12:00 PM Cousin Jack, I agree with you that lots of the disinformation accepted by voters comes from television--too bad that an invention with such great potential has turned out so badly. I also agree that we have to deal with the situation in Iraq as it exists today. As Colin Powell observed, we broke it so we have an obligation to fix it. And I agree that Iraqis made a serious mistake when they allowed Saddam Hussein to take over their government. As to your statement that a massive international intelligence failure was responsible for our attack on Iraq, I can't agree. There was no hard intelligence that Iraq possessed WMDs, and the reality on the ground was consistent with that fact: Iraq had no WMDs. Bush attacked despite the lack of intelligence supporting his case, and now we're left to pick up the pieces. Some of the consequences of Bush's mistakes are in the news today. By diverting forces to Iraq, we've left Afghanistan in the lurch: Suicide Bomber Dies, Wounds Seven in Kabul Attack. We've brought terrorism to the Iraqi people, hardly something to win their hearts and minds to our cause: Ten Iraqi policemen killed in car bombing. And we've created a new training ground for terrorists who will operate against us for another generation: Officials Fear Iraq's Lure for Muslims in Europe. Intelligence officials fear that for a new generation of disaffected European Muslims, Iraq could become what Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya were for European Islamic militants in past decades: a galvanizing cause that sends idealistic young men abroad, trains them and puts them in touch with a more radical global network of terrorists. In the past, many young Europeans who fought in those wars came back to Europe to plot terrorist attacks at home. "We consider these people dangerous because those who go will come back once their mission is accomplished," the intelligence official said. "Then they can use the knowledge gained there in France, Europe or the United States. It's the same as those who went to Afghanistan or Chechnya." These are the foreseeable consequences of Bush's actions in office. They illustrate once again why true leaders go to war only as a last resort. Been There
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2004 3:12 PM Moots,   In reading over the last post I addressed to you, I see I asked (in the interest of brevity) a too-cryptic question: Regarding abortion, do you consider not being born to be the worst of all possible fates? I asked the question because I've talked with people who believe (very strongly) that, upon conception, each individual inherits original sin. These people believe that without redemption from original sin each individual is bound for eternal damnation. Therefore, every abortion--natural or induced--dooms another soul. For such people, using government power to prevent an abortion literally saves a soul from hell. They believe that those killed after birth have had the opportunity for redemption at least, whereas those aborted before birth have not. That's why they believe that stopping abortion is more important than stopping unjust wars and is more important than stopping unjustly applied capital punishment. The same reasoning leads them to value the life of an unborn child over that of its mother. When you think about it, people who believe this (well-intentioned as they are) feel we need to pass civil laws to prevent God from treating the unborn without mercy. But whenever I've questioned this harsh (and incorrect) view of God, the responses have been to the effect that "God's ways are mysterious" or "God's ways are not to be questioned" or (my favorite) "Where were you when God created the world?" The fact that many conceptions (perhaps 80%) end in natural abortion does not shake this belief, in my experience. Been There
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 23, 2004 7:16 PM Been There, “Hard evidence” or not,  the intelligence agencies of the U.S., Great Britain, Russia, Australian, the U.N. and others all made the circumstantial case that Saddam had WMD. I can recall former U.N. inspector David Kay frequently sitting in on cable news shows during the run-up to the war and he was quite hawkish on believing that Saddam still had WMD. I commend him for being the first to come out last January, after a thorough survey of Iraqi documents, to state “we were almost all wrong” on Saddam’s WMD programs. This was a massive international intelligence failure and that failure, more than any other factor, led us into war.   BTW, for a good overview on all the partisan spin which came out over the Iraqi WMD report to Congress by Kay’s successor, Charles Duelfer: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6196962/   My real complaint about some of the pre-war media buildup is over unqualified pronouncements as this one:  “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech Aug. 26, 2002. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.” That kind of absolute certitude is an irresponsible and propagandistic abuse of political power and I have to believe that it now sits quite bitterly in the minds of those congressional members who may have been partly swayed by such comments in their decision to OK the use of force against Iraq. In the end, I agree with you that the Bush administration cherry picked intelligence which favored their predisposition for taking out the Saddam Hussein regime. Not just concerning WMD, where one could reasonably argue they decided to err on the side of caution, but mostly concerning the possibility of a post-invasion insurgency. They chose to believe the rosy scenario forecasts over those predicting a much messier outcome. This was a clear failure of judgement on their part. But after 12 years of U.N. violations, the constant firing upon our planes in the no-fly zone and the ongoing interference with U.N. inspection teams, whether the decision to go to war when we did was properly one of “last resort” seems highly subjective to me and will undoubtedly be argued about by military historians in the years to come. In any case, I think that removing the Saddam Hussein regime is ultimately a good thing and I believe the Persian Gulf and the world will be much better off in the long run because of it. Whoever gets elected President come November will bear America’s leadership responsibility in this matter and it seems to me that John Kerry would  probably be in a better political position for rallying the international community around making it happen. CJ
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:15 AM Cousin Jack, Statements like the Cheney quote you gave, coupled with Rumsfled's statements that he actually knew where the weapons of mass destruction were stored, led many people to believe that the administration had hard intelligence rather than a circumstantial case for WMDs. Bush's positive statements reinforced those perceptions. I should make it clear that I don't oppose the concept of removing dictators like Saddam Hussein and engaging in subsequent nation-building activities. I just don't believe that that is the proper mission of the U.S. military (at least as now constituted). We need our military to protect us against real threats to our nation. This is not something we can entrust to anyone else. The training and equipping of our troops must be (and is) done with that objective in mind. On the other hand, nation-building should be the responsibility of the international community (with our substantial participation). A nation-building force needs different skills and much greater numbers than our military can provide. I recognize the many flaws in the U.N.--and perhaps we need to replace it with a better international organization--but the U.N. is currently the only international institution that can provide legitimacy for replacing a sitting government mistreating its own citizens, in my opinion. Been There
rock	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:36 AM Been There, You say original sin is harsh, but do you know about these scriptures?   Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:   Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:56 AM Rock, It's good to hear from you again! I hope you are feeling better these days. Yes, I do know those verses, Rock. My intended point (and I see that I could--as usual--have expressed myself better) was that harshness flows from the belief that original sin is imparted at conception. This is a completely man-made belief with no scriptural foundation, and (there is no other way to say it) is a false belief. Been There
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 24, 2004 1:10 PM The NYT has an important article today illustrating how the Bush administration operates: After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law. In fact, while the military lawyers were pulling together their response, they were unaware that senior administration officials were already at the White House putting finishing touches on the plan. At a meeting that Saturday in the Roosevelt Room, Mr. Cheney led a discussion among Attorney General Ashcroft, Mr. Haynes of the Defense Department, the White House lawyers and a few other aides. Senior officials of the State Department and the National Security Council staff were excluded from final discussions of the policy, even at a time when they were meeting daily about Afghanistan with the officials who were drafting the order. According to two people involved in the process, Mr. Cheney advocated withholding the draft from Ms. Rice and Secretary Powell. When the two cabinet members found out about the military order - upon its public release - Ms. Rice was particularly angry, several senior officials said. Spokesmen for both officials declined to comment.   Mr. Bush played only a modest role in the debate, senior administration officials said. In an initial discussion, he agreed that military commissions should be an option, the officials said. Later, Mr. Cheney discussed a draft of the order with Mr. Bush over lunch, one former official said. The president signed the three-page order on Nov. 13. No ceremony accompanied the signing, and the order was released to the public that day without so much as a press briefing. But its historic significance was unmistakable. The military could detain and prosecute any foreigner whom the president or his representative determined to have "engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit" terrorism. Too bad it's too long for you, Look2It. I recommend the whole article to everyone else.
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 25, 2004 8:13 AM Look2it, There is something about  Kerry that irritates me.  I often feel that he is trying to co-opt me, that if he says the right things and throws me a bone I will wag my tail and beg for more scraps.  It’s that same condescending tone that Been There used in her response to me.  Every thing so neat and orderly.  Be a good little Bobcat and Papa  will take care of you.  Is there really such a huge difference between smirky and toothsome?  What if I still voted for Nader?   If enough of us did, there would ultimately be a real third party, one that really represented you and me, not just the don’t rock the boat, we’re all fat, dumb and happy, pseudo-progressives like Been There who just want to snuggle up with Big Business and treat the rest of us like a mushroom farm?  What do you  think?  Would the sacrifice of sending Bonzo back to the White House be a cost we could bear?  You mentioned you could move to Canada, but  I don’t really have that option.  Please help me decide!  By the way, could anyone recommend a good oil furnace repairperson, someone who won’t rip me off? Bobcat
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:34 PM Bobcat, you're as smart as I am, maybe smarter, so I just can't help you with your vote. You know I'm voting for Kerry but he doesn't come off to me the way he does to you--I see him as serious and thoughtful and pretty honest for a politician. I know he's not going to stick it to the corporations like Nader would, but he's not going to appoint 3 or 4 people to the supreme court like Clarence Thomas (or Moots!) and Dubya will for sure. I can't do that to the young women growing up even if I skip out of here myself. (I guess I did tell you how I think you should vote, but I know you'll make up your own mind anyway.)   BT, Moots might not have left yet but he's out on the porch looking for the steps.
Great Scott	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:47 PM Bobcat, Don't bite my head off, but why are you so angry? Have you been mistreated somehow, or is this just your style of posting and in real life you're happy?
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 25, 2004 2:08 PM Bobcat,   Bill Hyrkas does good plumbing and heating work and is 100% honest. Naturally he's pretty busy, but if it's an emergency he'll help you out quickly. His number is 337-3586.   Been There
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, October 25, 2004 2:22 PM Great Scott, You have clearly been successful at developing your innate talent to be a jerk, so please don't burden me with your stupid questions.  Look2it, you are probably right about the election, but I wish Kerry didn't have that arrogant leer when he tries to smile. I don't think Moots will be back soon.after you told him off.  You were like Milady attacking D’Artagnon!  Not many people, at least not men, are strong enough to stand against that kind of hatred.  Of course  Been There keeps trying to lure him back into her pen so she can debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or some other religious nonsense.  It’s funny, isn’t it, how Been There scolds us for hating Moots, but she hates Bush even more.  Thank you for answering. Bobcat
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:25 AM Bobcat, it looks like BT got a big dose of "original sin" in childhood like I did. Wish I had a dollar for every time I heard it. If you missed out, you were lucky.  I was kinda wondering what Moots would say after BT crushed Moots' religious argument, but I'm not surprised if he turns tail. The religious stuff is just smoke to hide what's really going on, a macho thing. Men can't stand the idea that if they impregnate a woman the woman can choose not to go through with it. I'm sure you have noticed that abortion protestors are mostly men. G'night.
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:07 AM Look2it, How do you get the yellow face into your posts?  Been There uses them also. Bobcat
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:07 AM Bobcat, when I post there is a little box with a yellow face on it toward the upper right. I click on that and some different faces show up. Whatever face I click on shows up in my post. Do you get a box with a yellow face like this when you post?
Great Scott	Red Sales in the Sunset Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:49 AM Look2it & Bobcat, When you watch the baseball game tonight observe that lots of the fans are women. See how nice they all look dressed up in their pretty red outfits.
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:58 AM Look2it, No I didn't notice it before, but I am relieved to see it.  Forgive me, but I actually was wondering if you were Been There, but you're not, are you?  It's too bad we don't have one that spits. Bobcat
Lynn Torkelson	Emoticons Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:55 AM Note about emoticons (those little faces in posts):   Posters using browsers other than Internet Explorer might not see the "little yellow face" mentioned by look2it. You can create the same effect by entering character combinations that are translated into emoticons. Type in the following combinations with no spaces between the characters to get the faces listed:   : @     to :@ : )     to : - D   to :-D : P     to :P : - |   to :-| : (     to :( : }     to :} 8 )     to 8) ; )     to ;) ( a )   to (a) ( 6 )   to (6)   Birch Bark
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:00 PM Bobcat, definitely not!!! It's funny about these discussions tho that you can't really tell who anyone is.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:07 PM It looks like Moots was wrong about Clinton and Kerry. Clinton is out of the hospital working for Kerry and might even swing Arkansas Kerry's way. Clinton doesn't sound like someone hoping Kerry will lose--he sounds like a former president wanting to get the country back on track as soon as possible. Meanwhile other White House insiders are putting their careers in jeopardy to alert us to how Bush and Cheney cheat the country: Cheney Orders NASA Expert to Conceal the Truth. A top NASA climate expert who twice briefed Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming plans to criticize the administration's approach to the issue in a lecture at the University of Iowa tonight and say that a senior administration official told him last year not to discuss dangerous consequences of rising temperatures. ... In the interview yesterday, Dr. Hansen stood by his assertions and said the administration risked disaster by discouraging scientists from discussing unwelcome findings. Dr. Hansen, 63, acknowledged that he imperiled his credibility and perhaps his job by criticizing Mr. Bush's policies in the final days of a tight presidential campaign. He said he decided to speak out after months of deliberation because he was convinced the country needed to change course on climate policy. Maybe Clinton can help to turn this election around in the last few days. Knock on wood.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:57 AM The past couple of days the administration has been screaming bloody murder because the New York Times revealed one of their dirty little secrets: 380 tons (one and one-half times the weight of the statue of liberty) of powerful explosives--the very explosives now being used against our soldiers and the Iraqi police--were left unguarded in Iraq because of the administration's bungling. Yesterday Dick Cheney denied responsibility for the blunder, claiming that a search by U.S. soldiers had determined that the explosives were missing before our soldiers got there. Today, the commander of that unit refuted Cheney's claims, saying that the administration had not even relayed the urgent requests from the International Atomic Energy Agency to him: No Check of Bunker, Unit Commander Says. But the unit's commander said in an interview yesterday that his troops had not searched the site and had merely stopped there overnight. The commander, Col. Joseph Anderson, of the Second Brigade of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, said he did not learn until this week that the site, Al Qaqaa, was considered sensitive, or that international inspectors had visited it before the war began in 2003 to inspect explosives that they had tagged during a decade of monitoring. The commander made it clear that when they arrived on April 10, 2003, the bunkers had not yet been looted. "There was no sign of looting there," Colonel Anderson said. "Looting was going on in Baghdad, and we were rushing on to Baghdad. We were marshaling in." If Dubya had continued to pursue bin Laden and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, our country would be in a much stronger position today. By letting bin Laden off the hook and getting bogged down in Iraq instead, Dubya has left us in a much more precarious position: What the Terrorists Have in Mind. There has been a drastic shift in mood in the last two years. Radicals who were downcast and perplexed in 2002 about the rapid defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan now feel exuberant about the global situation and, above all, the events in Iraq. For example, an article in the most recent issue of Al Qaeda's Voice of Jihad - an online magazine that comes out every two weeks - makes the case that the United States has a greater strategic mess on its hands in Afghanistan and Iraq than the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan in the 1980's. As translated by the SITE Institute, a nonprofit group that monitors terrorists, the author describes how the United States has stumbled badly by getting itself mired in two guerrilla wars at once, and that United States forces are now "merely trying to 'prove their presence' - for all practical purposes, they have left the war." Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist now wreaking havoc in Iraq, sees things in a similar way. "There is no doubt that the Americans' losses are very heavy because they are deployed across a wide area and among the people and because it is easy to procure weapons," he wrote in a recent communiqué to his followers that was posted on several radical Web sites. "All of which makes them easy and mouthwatering targets for the believers." ... From the militants' perspective, America's record has been one of inconsistency and fecklessness. For example, we signaled that we were going to attack Falluja last summer, and then held off. We have allowed it and several other cities to become no-go zones for coalition forces. The apparent decision to postpone a major campaign to retake western Iraq until after the Nov. 2 election is another move that the militants will inevitably view as a sign of weakness. In the end, we are stuck in the classic quandary of counterinsurgency: we do not want to use the force necessary to wipe out the terrorists because we would kill numerous civilians and further alienate the Iraqi population. Dubya claims to be strong against terrorists, but the truth is that he screwed up managing the war on terror just as he screwed up every single business he ever managed.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:22 PM I got a kick out of the slogan used by the popular Web site Bush Relatives for Kerry: Because blood is thinner than oil!
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 5:04 PM Turned on my car radio to WMPL this afternoon and got an earful of republican propaganda before I switched stations. How come the public airwaves can be used for non-stop lies and propaganda? It's got to be because corporations run the whole show these days. No wonder some people still support Bush, that's all they hear.
Great Scott	Baseball Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:16 AM Wow! The Sox did it! Guess this is the year for Massachussetts to win! Next year we've got to get the Cubs over the hump.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:36 AM Look2It,   When I was a kid (probably before your time), the Fairness Doctrine enforced by the FCC prevented stations like WMPL from flooding the airwaves with unrefuted lies and unanswered propaganda. The Reagan administration decided to put a stop to the Fairness Doctrine and did so administratively. Democrats then passed a law to force the FCC to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, but Reagan vetoed it. When Bush senior took office, the democrats tried again but the Fairness Doctrine was vetoed again.   I hope you find this truncated account of what happened short enough to read.   Been There
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:54 AM The news from Dubya's "success story" in Iraq continues to deteriorate: Provincial Capital Near Falluja Is Rapidly Slipping Into Chaos. The American military and the interim Iraqi government are quickly losing control of this provincial capital, which is larger and strategically more important than its sister city of Falluja, say local officials, clerics, tribal sheiks and officers with the United States Marines. "The city is chaotic," said Sheik Ali al-Dulaimi, a leader of the region's largest tribe. "There's no presence of the Allawi government," he added, speaking of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Back home, Tom Friedman, an influential columnist who supported (and still believes in) Dubya's attack on Iraq had this to say today: A Hole in the Heart. The Bush-Cheney team bears a big responsibility for this hole because it nakedly exploited 9/11 to push a far-right Republican agenda, domestically and globally, for which it had no mandate. When U.S. policy makes such a profound lurch to the right, when we start exporting fear instead of hope, the whole center of gravity of the world is affected. Countries reposition themselves in relation to us. Had the administration been more competent in pursuing its policies in Iraq - which can still turn out decently - the hole in the heart of the world might not have gotten so large and jagged.   I have been struck by how many foreign dignitaries have begged me lately for news that Bush will lose. This Bush team has made itself so radioactive it glows in the dark. When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade. If the Bush team wins re-election, unless it undergoes a policy lobotomy and changes course and tone, the breach between America and the rest of the world will only get larger. But all Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney have told us during this campaign is that they have made no mistakes and see no reason to change. If we succeed in throwing Bush out, the world will see that America does not share Dubya's contempt for humanity in general and Europeans in particular.
Been There	Science News Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:24 AM Tired of politics? The world of science provides a welcome relief: Dwarf Human Ancestors Lived on Pacific Island. Scientists have discovered a tiny species of ancient human that lived 18,000 years ago on an isolated island east of the Java Sea -- a prehistoric hunter in a "lost world" of giant lizards and miniature elephants. These "little people" stood about three feet tall and had heads the size of grapefruit. They coexisted with modern humans for thousands of years yet appear to be more closely akin to a long-extinct human ancestor. If their island had been smaller, these ancient humans would have been even shorter than three feet tall.
bada bing	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2004 12:12 PM What whiners you guys are! You live in the greatest country on earth, in the most beautiful part of it. What made this country great? Business! That's why you are not sitting in an outhouse right now without electricity or TV or computers. Wise up!
Fumarole	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:16 PM Do not speak ill of the humble outhouse, for it has afforded more relief to more people than all the government programs since the New Deal.
Lurch on to Victory	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:35 PM Go Kerry/Edwards!  We shall prevail!   Lurch
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2004 6:05 PM Embedded reporters from the Twin Cities accompanied the 101st Airborne and reported today on what they saw at Al Qaqaa, the important weapons site that the Bush adminstration failed to order our soldiers to secure: Video may be linked to missing explosives in Iraq. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003. During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS news crew bunker after bunker of material labelled "explosives." Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get into the bunkers and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords. There were what appeared to be fuses for bombs. They also found bags of material men from the 101st couldn't identify, but box after box was clearly marked "explosive." In one bunker, there were boxes marked with the name "Al Qaqaa", the munitions plant where tons of explosives allegedly went missing. Once the doors to the bunkers were opened, they weren't secured. They were left open when the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew and the military went back to their base. As usual, Dubya and his adminstration are ducking responsiblity, "You can't hold us responsible for what we did. You all know we're just not responsible." It's time to replace these guys with people who will be responsible.
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, October 28, 2004 9:43 PM In the interest of fairness, I've been consulting with some of journalism's wise grey eminences. Why? Because they've been around the the political block a few times and it's worth hearing what they have to say. One of them is the New Republic's Martin Peretz:   How would John Kerry have dealt with Saddam? He has told us Saddam needed to be "confronted." But the word itself--which implies that the United States could have overthrown Saddam without using military force--tells us what we need to know. Had the United States and our allies not embarked on this war, the Iraqi mass murderer would still be in power. And, were international sanctions gone, as they soon would have been thanks to Russia and France, he would have been on his way back to having and deploying weapons of mass destruction. And the senator from Massachusetts would not have raised his voice.   Now, of course, the WMD rationale for war has dissolved like a mirage in the Mesopotamian desert. For Kerry and for Democrats, this has simply dissolved the case for the war. Finis. Which leaves us with the dilemma of how we deal with regimes that commit genocide. Saddam's genocides seem not to have provoked Kerry at all, nor, for that matter, did the genocide in Rwanda. (When U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright finally tried to focus the Clinton administration on the government-sponsored massacres there, Kerry was not exactly an ally.) It is true that, during the first presidential debate, Kerry limply suggested that perhaps, as a last resort, some American troops should be sent to Darfur, Sudan. But I haven't heard him mention it much since, which says something about his seriousness.   Kerry's main problem is that the United Nations, the designated proctor for his "global test," is an impediment to prompt and effective action against savage governments. The United Nations was set up largely to protect the territorial integrity of its member states. But, with a few exceptions, states no longer make war on their neighbors--they make war on segments of their own populations. (Of course, even in that rare case where one state did invade another, and the United Nations endorsed military action--Saddam's invasion of Kuwait--Kerry did not. In that vote, and in others, he carries on a tradition of Massachusetts isolationism...)   But wait...there's more:   Kerry himself is in denial. He is in denial about the United Nations. He is in denial about the Australian election that returned to office for an unprecedented fourth term its prime minister who has been, with his country, a pillar of the Iraq coalition. He is in denial about Japan, whose government, unlike Germany's and France's, does not carp at the United States. He is in denial about Afghanistan, where, for the first time in history, men and women, riding on donkeys and walking barefoot across great distances, have exercised the right to choose those who govern them. He is in denial about Iraq itself. The Jordanian daily Al Ra'i recently called Moqtada Al Sadr's apparent retreat from armed struggle "a farewell to arms" that is as politically significant as the establishment of the provisional authority. Has Kerry come close to recognizing this? Has he acknowledged that the Bush administration has negotiated with nato a plan to send, starting in November, up to 3,000 soldiers to train Iraqi troops? These soldiers will be under the command of General David Petraeus, who is mustering the military might and political will to retake much of the Sunni triangle. Many Iraqis now have second thoughts about opposing the coalition. Even the BBC has said as much. But Kerry hasn't.   The European elites are indifferent to--if not downright disdainful of--the American personnel who risk their lives, bravely and delicately, in places like Hatra, to return the bodies of Saddam's victims so they might be properly mourned and buried. These are the governments whose moral approval Kerry seems to believe America needs. Yes, we have made mistakes in Iraq. Yes, Americans were surprised when large numbers of Iraqis, who had just been freed from decades of ferocious Baathist rule, could not see their opportunity for real freedom and reverted instead to the barbarous habits so ingrained in Iraq's history. I, who am skeptical of those who see much kindness on the Arab political street, did not envision this relentless fealty to the indiscriminate pitilessness that now characterizes the Iraqi opposition. Bush didn't see it, and Kerry didn't either. But Bush is doing something about it. And the uncivilized behavior of some Iraqis is another good reason for us to stay in the country. Otherwise, the barbarians will have won the day, and the future.   For the rest: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=peretz110804   In my opinion, John Kerry still needs to address these kind of matters with clarity for those serious undecided who will actually decide the outcome of this presidential race. If he doesn't his noble presidential aspirations may well go up in smoke.   CJ
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 29, 2004 12:28 AM Sure, you betcha. You think Bush did such a great job in Iraq no one could have done better. Give me a break. Read today that 100,000 people in Iraq died in the war already, mostly women and children. G,night.
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:11 AM Look2it:   Your brief left wing propagandistic posts are as anathema to the Health of the American Republic as were those of the right wing nuts who thought that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster.   Perhaps, as you've already offered, you should move to Canada.   We won't miss you, CJ
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 29, 2004 8:23 AM Birch Bark......psthhhhhh.......it's me, moots.....out here on the porch.   shhhh....are they still going at it in there?....sounds like glass breaking.....is there any of that pie left.?....could I ask  you to bring me a piece and maybe a cup of coffee if the pot is still intact....is this your golden retriever?....nice dog....yeah it's a little damp out here, but the kitchen was getting kind of warm....yeah sorry I broke your window on my way out, but BT had me cornered and L2's mug just missed my head...
Bobcat	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:15 PM CJ,   You're dead on with the first part about L2   Your brief left wing propagandistic posts are as anathema to the Health of the American Republic as were those of the right wing nuts who thought that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster. But here you're just giving in to frustration Perhaps, as you've already offered, you should move to Canada.   We won't miss you, In a strange sort of way, I like L2.  She's almost as cantankerous as Bobcat, but she's got a kind streak too.  I got to know her a little as Bobcat, which is what I wanted to do, even if I had to be rude to the rest of you to do it.  She was nice to Bobcat.  When you create a fictional character, that person seems to take on a life of his/her own in your head.  At first I got a kick out of Bobcat, but the more I got to know her  (yeah, I'm a head case, all right) the more I could understand her and what made her the way she is.  It's weird, but it was almost like she told me her story.  Don't be quick to judge someone, even if they seem to lash out at everyone around them like Bobcat.  We are not all what we seem to be.   moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:37 PM Cousin Jack, As I'm sure you know, when Martin Peretz bought The New Republic in 1974 the magazine's philosophy swung sharply away from its formerly liberal postions. Martin Peretz has consistently backed Bush's attack on Iraq 110%. And indeed, he's been a strong advocate of U.S. military intervention as the solution to a host of world problems over the past 30 years. (That doesn't prove him wrong in this case, of course, but it shows his general orientation.) The text you selected to post argues that if Kerry were in Bush's position, he would have performed even worse--an argument that the Bush campaign makes over and over again. Had the United States and our allies not embarked on this war, the Iraqi mass murderer would still be in power. And, were international sanctions gone, as they soon would have been thanks to Russia and France, he would have been on his way back to having and deploying weapons of mass destruction. And the senator from Massachusetts would not have raised his voice. These statements range from the unknowable to the absurd. If Kerry had been in Bush's position, many things would have been different from the outset. We can be sure that Kerry would not have begun by alienating much of the world by abrogating treaties unilaterally. We can be sure that Kerry would have worked much harder and more seriously than Bush did in his first months in office. Perhaps his more diligent and focused work ethic would have provided the impetus to prevent the 9/11 attacks. No one can know how events would have played out with Kerry in the White House, and speculation is free--as Martin Peretz clearly realizes. Suppose Kerry had not been able to stop the 9/11 attacks despite his focus and effort, certainly a likely possibility. Kerry is a man who beached his swift boat to chase down and kill a vietcong trying to sink it. No way would he have let bin Laden off the hook after 9/11. No way would he have let sanctions be lifted on Iraq after 9/11, allowing Saddam to build WMDs to be deployed against us. Clinton--no soldier at all--kept pressure on Saddam that prevented him from rearming. To suggest the Kerry--a decorated soldier--would have allowed Saddam to rearm against us even after terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is absurd. Whether Saddam would have been in power today if Kerry had been in Bush's position is simply unknowable. Clearly Kerry would not have attacked Iraq on George Bush's timetable. If Kerry had eliminated bin Laden and the terrorists who attacked us, a very likely possibility, our position vis-a-vis the terrorists and our allies would have been much stronger when it came to dealing with Saddam. But what about this statement from your quote? Which leaves us with the dilemma of how we deal with regimes that commit genocide. I agree totally that this dilemma requires a resolution--this dilemma is one of the most serious issues of our time. If our country is to take on that responsibility, we will need to prepare for it. To do so will take lots of soldiers, lots of equipment, and lots of money. You know that I believe we should join in such an effort with the world community, but you can make a case that we must accept the responsibility ourselves if no one will join us. Unfortunately Bush did not attempt to make that case before attacking Iraq, relying instead upon flat statements--false statements, it turned out--that Saddam threatened us with WMDs. It appears to me that some commentators (such as Martin Peretz) are secretly pleased that Bush used the false reason of WMDs to attack Iraq, knowing that no one would oppose an attack on Iraq to eliminate a real threat. Making the case for nation-building in Iraq would have been tougher--even to a republican congress, so perhaps Bush would have been unable to proceed. When Kerry returned from Vietnam, he told hard truths about our involvement there--truths many people did not want spoken. And he told the truth even though he knew that many would vilify him for it, as some do to this day. In my opinion, we need a president today who is not afraid to tell America the truth--John Kerry.   One thing we can all be sure of: if Kerry had been in Bush's position and turned a surplus into a huge deficit, let bin Laden off the hook, attacked Iraq after claiming they threatened us with WMDs, and switched to a nation-building rationale after no WMDs were found,  the right-wing shouters on WMPL and the rest of the media would be down on Kerry like a ton of bricks. Been There
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:50 PM OK...so were dealing with multiple personalities here (LOL)...Bobcat is really Moots who called himself a "creep" for subversive purposes to claw away the ice queen's crystal veil. Fiendishly clever. Perhaps I was too hasty in lashing out at Look2it for misinterpreting my post as being either Pro-Bush or Anti-Kerry. Perhaps I shouldn't be posting at 2 am after a long hard day. Perhaps I'll watch the new Osama Bin Laden video and see if I can figure out just what in the hell he thinks he's up to with his little pre-election October Surprise.   Cheers, CJ
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:52 PM We now have hard evidence that the Bush administration's failure to tell our troops to secure the massive explosives cache at Al Qaqaa allowed those explosives to fall into the hands of terrorists: Video Shows G.I.'s at Weapon Cache. A videotape made by a television crew with American troops when they opened bunkers at a sprawling Iraqi munitions complex south of Baghdad shows a huge supply of explosives still there nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein, apparently including some sealed earlier by the International Atomic Energy Agency. ... Weapons experts familiar with the work of the international inspectors in Iraq say the videotape appears identical to photographs that the inspectors took of the explosives, which were put under seal before the war. One frame shows what the experts say is a seal, with narrow wires that would have to be broken if anyone entered through the main door of the bunker. The agency said that when it left Iraq in mid-March, only days before the war began, the only bunkers bearing its seals at the huge complex contained the explosive known as HMX, which the agency had monitored because it could be used in a nuclear weapons program. It is now clear that program had ground to a halt. ... "The photographs are consistent with what I know of Al Qaqaa," said David A. Kay, a former American official who led the recent hunt in Iraq for unconventional weapons and visited the vast site. "The damning thing is the seals. The Iraqis didn't use seals on anything. So I'm absolutely sure that's an I.A.E.A. seal." One weapons expert said the videotape and some of the agency's photographs of the HMX stockpiles "were such good matches it looked like they were taken by the same camera on the same day."   Independent experts said several other factors - the geography; the number of bunkers; the seals on some of the bunker doors; the boxes, crates and barrels similar to those seen by weapon inspectors - confirm that the videotape was taken at Al Qaqaa. Dubya and his cronies like to talk about keeping weapons from terrorists. We need to replace him with a president who will actually do so.
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 29, 2004 6:05 PM Been There (or is it really Moots?): The non-partisan point I was trying to make is that unless John Kerry defines himself and his foreign policy approach with more clarity over the weekend he may lose a lot of undecideds who simply can't figure him out. As I understand it, the New Republic has more or less endorsed John Kerry. As for John Kerry's anti-Vietnam protest, I was with him 100% (though even he admits he went over the top with some of his comments). Now please, relax...and let me get back to my Osama video (talk about your ugly grey eminences )   Cheers, CJ
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 30, 2004 1:59 AM So moots is a fraud. It figures. Typical republican. G'night.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 30, 2004 12:54 PM Although the potential for profit (perish the thought!) could not have been farther from the minds of Bush and Cheney when they attacked Iraq, some less-principled managers at Cheney's company clearly saw oppotunities there: Whistleblower Says Halliburton Contract Abuse Blatant. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting official on Friday called the government's grant of multi-billion dollar contracts to oil services giant Halliburton the worst case of contracting abuse she has ever seen. "It was misconduct, and part of that misconduct was blatant," said Bunny Greenhouse, in an interview on NBC's Nightly News program. Greenhouse has already demanded an investigation into the contracts that last year were granted to Halliburton, the energy services firm run by Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995-2000. According to her attorney, the FBI has since asked her for an interview on the matter. On the positive side, the Internet has allowed voters to check out for themselves the detailed positions of the candidates: Voters Checking Out Other Sides' Sites. Researchers from the Pew Internet and American Life Project and the University of Michigan's School of Information found Internet users were more knowledgeable than non-users about arguments that challenged their point of view. "They were extremely aware of the arguments for their guys, but they are no less aware of arguments challenging their guys," said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew group. "They are not building walls, not screening out the other stuff." In four days we'll have a good idea of our fate for the next four years.
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 30, 2004 2:40 PM I thought John Kerry made a very succint reply to the Martin Peretz TNR column on the network news last night, using in fact the very same noun to describe civilization's common foe:    "In response to this tape of Usama bin Ladin, let me just make it clear, crystal clear, as Americans we are united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Usama bin Ladin and the terrorists," Kerry said. "They are barbarians, I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes," he said on the tarmac at West Palm Beach airport.   I assume this includes those terrorists now operating in Iraq.   Even Al Jazeera carried it: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/366BD5F9-81D0-48C1-B9D7-2DBA14711C3A.htm   You can also find a transcript of Bin Laden's video there: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm   Has Osama been monitoring some of those goofier anti-Bush campaign ads? If not, whence this:   It never occurred to us that the Commander in Chief of the armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone at a time when they most needed him. But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers we were given three times the period required to execute the operations.   Now, on the lighter side if I may, since, in Mr. Kerry's words, "as Americans we are united in our determination", I'll conclude (with literary apologies to Edgar Allen Poe who probably never imagined a foe at his door quite like this one):   "Be that video our sign of parting, bird or fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting - "Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore! Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken! Leave my loneliness unbroken! -- quit that screen above my floor! Take thy beak from out my heart and shut thy trap you ghoulish bore!"                                            Quoth Osama, "No wait...there's more!" And Bin Laden, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting On the pallid screen of Sony just above my chamber floor; And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming, And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor; And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor                                         Shall be lifted -- This Means War!   Happy Halloween Eve, CJ
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Saturday, October 30, 2004 5:54 PM Cousin Jack, The bin Laden tape made me furious. I hope Kerry gets a chance to do what he said, but if Bush is elected I also truly hope he can finally get that putrid murderer. Almost 18 months after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech, the war in Iraq continues: Marines die as Falluja assault looms. Eight U.S. marines have been killed in the bloodiest attack on American forces in Iraq in almost seven months as troops prepared for a major assault to capture the rebel towns of Ramadi and Falluja. Back in the states at a campaign stop in Ohio today a reporter asked Bush if he was still unable to think of any mistakes he had made in office. "Only one," he snapped, "letting you get a press card." Been There
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 31, 2004 12:34 PM Tom Friedman had nice things to say about Dubya's father today: The Apparent Heir. So as we approach this critical election of 2004, my advice, dear readers, is this: Vote for the candidate who embodies the ethos of George H. W. Bush - the old guy. Vote for the man who you think would have the same gut feel for nurturing allies and restoring bipartisanship to foreign policy as him. Vote for the man you think understands the importance of facing up to our fiscal responsibilities for the sake of our children. And vote for the man who has the best instincts for balancing realism and idealism and the man who understands the necessity of using energetic U.S. diplomacy to make Israel more secure - by helping to bring it peace with its Arab neighbors, not just more tours from American Christian fundamentalists. Yes, next Tuesday, vote for the real political heir to George H. W. Bush. I'm sure you know who that is. Although Bush will carry most of the "evangelical" vote next Tuesday, he might not reach the targets set by Karl Rove: Conflicted Evangelicals Could Cost Bush Votes. Some, such as Wendy Skroch, a 51-year-old mother of three who prays regularly at the evangelical Elmbrook Church in this heavily Republican Milwaukee suburb, blame Bush for failing to fix a "broken" healthcare system and for "selling off the environment to the highest bidder." Others are like Joe Urcavich, pastor of the nondenominational evangelical Green Bay Community Church, where more than 2,000 people worship each Sunday. He is undecided, troubled by the bloodshed in the Middle East. "It's hard for me to say that Christians should be marching against abortion and carrying signs, and then turn around and giving a pep rally for the war in Iraq without even contemplating that hundreds and hundreds of people are being killed on a regular basis over there," Urcavich said. "I'm very antiabortion, but the reality is the right to life encompasses a much broader field than just abortion," he added. "If I'm a proponent of life, I have to think about the consequences of not providing prescription drugs to seniors or sending young men off to war." Unfortunately the appearance of the bin Laden tape this week seems to have killed any faint chance Kerry had of overtaking Bush and restoring the honor of our country. No doubt that's why bin Laden made the tape for airing at this time. People should consider why bin Laden would join the Bush propaganda team just before election day. Perhaps Michael Moore has some ideas on that.
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 31, 2004 1:30 PM Happy Halloween! Nothing is as scary today as Dubya being the president. Of course Usama wants him to stay. Why wouldn't he?
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:56 PM You're outspinning the malevolent spider overhanging this election, Been There. Osama Bin Laden, in his immense and arrogant vanity, actually believes the anti-Bush spin within his condescending sermon will turn American voters against Bush. You and I both know he's dead wrong. This country would never pull a Madrid. If so many people hadn't already made up their minds on who they're going to vote for this election it might have had an appreciable effect. But I don't believe the Bin Laden video is going to sway serious undecided voters one way or the other. Some network commentator mentioned this past week that he thought the real story of this election is the Upper Midwest and trying to figure out which direction these roughly 50/50 state races are eventually going to swing. We really like to think things through up here (I'm guessing it's those long winters, eh?) and we share a common culture of educational excellence. Our undecideds, in states still to close to call, are looking past all the partisan spin and ideological mumbo-jumbo to the deeper truths about everything each candidate has to offer. We are serious about our civic responsibilities and that's why we don't jump to hard and fast conclusions. We are examining the facts of the past 4 years and we are weighing it against our own hard-earned historical perspective whether we be so-called liberals, conservatives or the truly varied mixes which I believe most people in real life actually are. And when we have exhausted this deliberation process come Tuesday, we will step into the voting booth and try to make a sound pragmatic judgement about which candidate(s) will be best for the future health of the American Republic.    "History" tells us that undecideds statistically vote against incumbents but then "History" the past few years has also been swept up in some unexpected and still indecipherable turbulence. Then there are all those young disaffected voters who aren't registering a ripple on any of the state or national seismographs. If they decide to turn up and vote their conscience in great numbers on Tuesday the final totals may well surprise many a pollster's prediction.   Today's Electoral-Vote Predictor has Kerry at 286 and Bush at 243.   Damn the polls, the op-ed endorsements and every one of those godawful tv ads. We've got some serious thinking to do and all that partisan campaign spin is now but white noise interfering with the sound and final decision we each have to create in our own individual heads and hearts come next Tuesday.   See you there, CJ
bada bing	The Presidential Election Posted: Sunday, October 31, 2004 4:24 PM Kerry is the last man on earth I'd vote for. He betrayed us after Viet Nam and he will do it again if he gets the chance. For sure Osama Bin Laden wants Kerry to win. If Kerry wins we lose. If Bush wins the terrorists lose. Wake up!