posted
I'm really discouraged with Palin and Mccain.
Palin continues asserting that she said no thanks to the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' when, in fact, she was a strong supporter of the project until Congress had decided to kill it. She was responsible for bringing $200 mil to Alaska for that project. (If NPR reports are to be believed...)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think both parties are concerned with evil in the world. It just seems to me that Democrats target unspecified evils at home while Republicans target unspecified evils abroad. It depends on where your priorities are. I think Obama would be the best choice because he's willing to talk with our enemies, but I don't think he's going to back away from challenges we face abroad either.
Also, Gov. Palin reminds me of Peggy Hill.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by String: Come on guys, are we really arguing that republicans or democrats cause high gas prices?
Oh you can't blame a single side for that one. I'd say everyone in power since the 70's is to blame. I give everyone before that a bit of a break because they couldn't imagine just how bad things were, but that argument certainly disappears in the wake of the oil crisis that followed. But instead of combating the problem, successive generations have only deepened it. That one goes way across party lines. I was less trying to foist blame off on Republicans than I was pointing out the extreme hypocrisy in blaming people who have been in power for 2 years for not fixing a problem that they ignored for 14.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Her bio, and her record, show that she has a strongly ingrained sense of moral right and wrong, and does not hesitate to take down those who need to be taken down, no matter who they are.
Really? Because the Alaskan Republican party machinery is the same thing as terrorists holed up in a cave in Waziristan?
I'd prefer someone in office who would carefully consider evidence and build coalitions before going to war, rather than people who think they are on a religious crusade to crush a specific set of ideals out of existence. Generally that hasn't worked out so well in history. And for that matter, I'd rather not have a loose canon foaming itching to attack someone. McCain can say he abhors war all he want, but his rhetoric sounds alarmingly like 2000-2007 Bush. 2008 Bush has actually sounded a lot more like Obama, which is odd for a whole different set of reasons.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Palin continues asserting that she said no thanks to the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' when, in fact, she was a strong supporter of the project until Congress had decided to kill it. She was responsible for bringing $200 mil to Alaska for that project. (If NPR reports are to be believed...)
Her series of positions on the issue have been widely documented, but I think the best summation is on Factcheck.org Her current position on earmarks as a wasteful evil is a wholly new creation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would post about how she put the state plane on ebay, but you'd just post about how she's a liar because it didn't sell, which is what she implied, even though she did sell it eventually so she was sincere, but by then we'd have forgotten about the whole discussion about unneccessary spending and we'd just be arguing over whether Palin was a liar or not, and I'm not interested in having that discussion so I'll just stay quiet.
Oh my gosh, that's it! I knew she reminded me of someone and I've been trying to figure out who for a week!
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Her current position on earmarks as a wasteful evil is a wholly new creation.
I don't mind politicians coming around to a different way of thinking.
I mind when they say "I've always believed X! I've always done X!" and they really haven't done or (apparently) believed either.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: I would post about how she put the state plane on ebay, but you'd just post about how she's a liar because it didn't sell, which is what she implied, even though she did sell it eventually so she was sincere, but by then we'd have forgotten about the whole discussion about unneccessary spending and we'd just be arguing over whether Palin was a liar or not, and I'm not interested in having that discussion so I'll just stay quiet.
Sort of.
Passive-aggressive much?
She tried to sell the plane, and eventually did, so I give her credit for that. Let's compare that to how much her state spends on her airfare while she was in office and she if she was right to do so. It looks good, and the taxpayers got the sale funds, so it is probably a good thing, IMO.
However, I am still waiting for her to come clean on the bridge to nowhere statement, as it is pretty much complete bullshit.
I won't be holding my breath for it though. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It looks good, and the taxpayers got the sale funds, so it is probably a good thing, IMO.
The plane was sold at a loss of something like $300,000, but that's neither here nor there. It's not her fault the guy before her bought it. There's a lawsuit pending I believe from the field where the plane was housed for fees that allegedly weren't paid for maintenance, but I don't blame her for that either.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I was using McCain's own words to describe his voting record. It isn't my fault if he doesn't even know what his won voting record is, or isn't above lying about it to further his political aims.
I know the President doesn't vote, but this was about how often he backs plans endorsed by Bush. Once again, in his own words.
I haven't heard that out of McCain's mouth. Not saying it wasn't said, but the only time I heard it was during an Obama speach
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I was using McCain's own words to describe his voting record. It isn't my fault if he doesn't even know what his won voting record is, or isn't above lying about it to further his political aims.
I know the President doesn't vote, but this was about how often he backs plans endorsed by Bush. Once again, in his own words.
I haven't heard that out of McCain's mouth. Not saying it wasn't said, but the only time I heard it was during an Obama speach
I saw a video...and just a small clip, either, but fully in context...wheere he was bragging about it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off, wow, this is a very liberal board.
Second of all, Kwea, you claim that you haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet almost every claim you made in your original post is congruent with the bull from that film.
Also, someone claimed that we had an immediate recession after Bush took office. We had a slowdown, then after 9/11 we had a serious economic recession. You can't blame that on the war deficit. We weren't at war.
There is a lot of revisionist history here. There are also a lot of folks just running with every liberal tag-line they've heard over the last four years of smears.
I'm not saying this war was a democrats idea. I'm saying that almost all the liberals were on board when it was the popular idea. The conservatives stuck to it when it got tough. The liberals jump ship. They do that because, morally, they're flimsy. Most are pro-infanticide (including their presidential pick) and they go where the popularity goes. You can't say that about our current president. He sticks to his convictions.
Also, wars cost money. Sorry, they just do. Until we find a way to fight one for free, we can't complain too much about the cost of this one. If you factor in inflation and other changes since the 40's, WWII would have cost about three trillion dollars I believe. Fighting Al Qaeda on several fronts, giving 50 million people the opportunity to vote, and winning, costs money. On the whole this war is inexpensive in lives and money.
Now I don't care how many posts everyone has. I don't care whether you're a veteran. I didn't say anything about your personal life other than those things associated with the liberal views you put forth. Bush has a low popularity right now. But he made decisions based on the exact same intelligence that everyone else got to see. Congress made the same decision. He made the decision. Most of the American people supported it. At the time it was the agreed upon course of action. It wasn't Bush's decision alone and he did not deceive anyone to get the course of action approved.
I am proud that when this is over and all the soldiers come home, we'll have made a democracy in Iraq. It wasn't our initial intention. I'm not an idiot. Our initial intention was the remove a threat. In the process though we liberated the Iraqi people. Their voter turn out, even amidst violence, is incredible. We'll have been the ones who stood up and did what was right and necessary to protect our homeland.
Also, Bush didn't destroy 200 years of foreign policy. Good grief, what about Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Somalia, and various other conflicts large or small. We have a history of intervening militarily when our interest are threatened. Sometimes, such as Somalia, we fought for very short times and attached to UN troops. Al Qaeda, by the way, accounts for some of our casualties, according to bin Laden in an interview later one. Our foreign policies have always been diplomacy first (which was followed with Saddam and he did not meet the burden of proof), then sanctions (which Saddam repeatedly shrugged off), then, if no other recourse is available, military action.
And I am not convinced that it has "destroyed" our credibility. Frankly, I don't much care how the Europeans and the like see us. I'd rather our enemies see us win this war, stand strong when we make a decision, and fear stepping over the line when it comes to the US. When this war is won, if everyone will just let our forces do their job, our enemies will see that when we start something, we finish it. What kind of message do you think it sends when popularity guides our foreign policy?
It has gotten so bad and, unfortunately, the democratic party has shifted so far left, that whatever foreign policy goes into effect needs to be resolved with a good turn around in 4 years or less otherwise the other party will threaten to pull the rug out from underneath it.
Our enemies are counting on us being flimsy. We can't afford to do that.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some interesting false information here. I am amazing myself with how inevitable I believe the progress for the Republican party is going to be! Hypothetical situation, yes or no? It is interesting when you compare today to the completely fictional progress of events I am presenting here as history. I postulate that a ridiculous chain of events is not only plausible but guaranteed! Isn't it eye opening? God supports republicans. Thug lyfe.
quote:Originally posted by K. E. Spires: I'm not saying this war was a democrats idea. I'm saying that almost all the liberals were on board when it was the popular idea.
You're reversing cause and effect. Popularity is by definition having people support it. When all liberals (and many conservatives) stopped supporting the war, *then* it became unpopular - by definition.
quote:The conservatives stuck to it when it got tough. The liberals jump ship. They do that because, morally, they're flimsy.
The liberals supported the war when they thought it was helping people. When they realized otherwise, they stopped supporting it. That's because they're morally lucid -- while conservatives support the continuation of the war mainly for purposes of pride.
quote:He sticks to his convictions.
Which is another way of saying that he doesn't let facts get in the way of his preconceived opinions.
quote:Bush has a low popularity right now. But he made decisions based on the exact same intelligence that everyone else got to see.
No, it's quite clear that he made the decision beforehand, and then kept pushing the "intelligence" that supported his already taken decision.
quote:I am proud that when this is over and all the soldiers come home, we'll have made a democracy in Iraq.
Or perhaps you'll have just replaced a secular independent dictatorship, with an Islamist dictatorship subservient to Iran.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Some liberals opposed the war from the beginning because we were pretty sure that it would be the disaster it has been. It was also clear that the administration was cherry picking the intelligence. And that we would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one. And that it would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
Plus we were reasonably certain that we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Some liberals opposed the war from the beginning because we were pretty sure that it would be the disaster it has been. It was also clear that the administration was cherry picking the intelligence. And that we would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one. And that it would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
Plus we were reasonably certain that we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.
posted
Yup. We lefties up here in Canada elected not to tag along on the Iraq misadventure -- and that was with a centrist government in office, by Canadian standards.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep questioning my statements, yet you claim to not be saying anything about my views or character.
Whatever.
I notice you don't care about anything that might give another person reason to disagree with you. How convenient. I didn't mention post counts...because I only barely care about that as well.
What I do care about are facts. It is a fact that I was speaking about a lot of this before Moore's hack job 9-11 came out. It is a fact that I have said many, many times that I disagree with his techniques and that I don't trust his honesty. I don't doubt his enthusiasm, or his fervor....but he needs a fact checker just as bad as Rush does.
It is also a fact that I have never sat down and watched 9-11 either.
I am just tired of Republicans....not all of them, but a lot of highly placed ones...claiming to own patriotism, and claiming to have the final say about what is and isn't American. Last time I checked they didn't have that right.
It matters that McCain was a veteran, but no one else's service history matters, unless they agree with you? Thank you for being so transparent that your agenda is evident within your first 3 posts.
Get over yourself. You have been here less than 2 weeks, but you already know who is lying about well know personal beliefs; you already can see the liberal slant, and feel you can adequately counter it; and you feel completely free to insult and belittle the views of people who have been a part of this community for years.
It is possible that people can look at the same facts and come to two completely different views without either one of them lying, or acting in poor faith. If you were interested in an actual discussion you would already know that, though.
It isn't about post counts, or about how long someone has been a member. To me at least, it IS about feeling like a part of a community where people are free to discuss ideas without being called a supporter of infanticide...which does NOT have the same definition of the word abortion, regardless of what you may think. (let me guess, the dictionary is run by a liberal cabal who drink babies blood out of fetus skulls ). Just because you wish to redefine a word doesn't mean we have to accept your skewed definition of it.
Particularly when your agenda for redefining it is telegraphed so obviously.
On a lighter note....
....I think we have found Bean Counter's soul mate.
quote:....I think we have found Bean Counter's soul mate.
That is not a light accusation.
Bean Counter — and to a lesser extent, reshpec — were so bad, they were funny. They could galvanize. Ain't seeing it again yet.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, this board has a wide range of opinions including ultra-conservative libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and nut jobs.
It's one of the reasons I like to come here to talk politics. Not too often I get a chance to actually have a meaningful discussion with people who might disagree with me. I realize not everyone can handle that...
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Not too often I get a chance to actually have a meaningful discussion with people who might disagree with me. I realize not everyone can handle that...
Yep. Getting to have meaningful discussions with thoughtful, well intentioned people who held positions 180 degrees from my own was what really drew me into Hatrack, and I feel like I grew quite a bit as a person as a result of it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Some liberals opposed the war from the beginning because we were pretty sure that it would be the disaster it has been. It was also clear that the administration was cherry picking the intelligence. And that we would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one. And that it would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
Plus we were reasonably certain that we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.
I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons:
1) The administration was cherry picking the intelligence.
2)We would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one.
3)It would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
To my recollection, most of the people who did not support the war from the very beginning used the illegality/immorality of the action ("we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.") to justify their stance.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was kind of involved with anti-war activism at the time and all of the things I listed (and more) were reasons for many of the people I knew. They certainly were my reasons. What evidence of this would you like?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To my recollection, most of the people who did not support the war from the very beginning used the illegality/immorality of the action ("we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.") to justify their stance
That's why I opposed it from the beginning. Pre-emptive war against an independent state was wrong then and it's wrong now, no matter how much trash-talking the dictator does.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons
The reasons I gave back when people asked me why I opposed invading Iraq:
1) The administration was cherry-picking intelligence; 2) we'd risk destabilizing the region in favor of Shiite extremists; 3) the cost would far exceed the estimates provided, and would run into the hundreds of billions; 4) we were really invading to install permanent military bases in the area in preparation for a larger war, but were lying about our reasons because the administration didn't think they could sell the public on its real motivations; 5) pre-emptive war isn't something we should be doing.
I stand by all of those.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by K. E. Spires: First off, wow, this is a very liberal board.
Well, the "board" as a whole, in membership, is probably about equal. However, when you are talking about vocal majority....
The rest of us learned some time back (and through last election) it is best to just remain silent, because there isn't a valid, respectful "exchange of ideas" here between two sides who can respect each other enough to just "agree to disagree" about some things.
Feel free to jump in, however, and see how it goes for you.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't really post my conversations with people on the internet or what was said at meeting or rallies. Or write them down.
I am sorry that you seem to believe that I am not telling you the truth, but I will look for links of things that other people may have posted.
The likelihood of strengthening of the Islamicist regime in Iran was pretty self-evident, though. Iraq had been our ally in keeping Iran contained. Saddam Hussein imposed a secular rule in Iraq. Our invasion makes other countries in the region more anti-western which makes it more difficult for the budding moderate student movement in Iran to gain traction. How would any of those things not help the extremists in Iran to consolidate power?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The likelihood of strengthening of the Islamicist regime in Iran was pretty self-evident, though.
It's possible it was, and I don't remember the argument being made. Thus, my request for evidence that there was this concern being broadcast generally.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons:
Well, I can't speak for "people who opposed the war" in general, but I can speak for myself. Unfortunately, I think the threads before August 2003 are gone, so I can't provide evidence from before the war started. However, I can provide links from shortly thereafter...
1) The administration was cherry picking the intelligence. Shortly before the Iraq War began, I started a thread about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and suggested that it should apply to Iraq - since the stakes are so high when contemplating invading a whole country. I said that we shouldn't go to war unless the administration could provide smoking-gun evidence to support what it claimed it knew. Unfortunately, that thread has been deleted.
3)It would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture. This is one I don't think I ever, personally, thought. At least not about Iran specifically. But I definitely had said countless times that an Iraq War would (generally speaking) cause an increase in support for radical Islam around the world.
quote:To my recollection, most of the people who did not support the war from the very beginning used the illegality/immorality of the action ("we didn't have the right to kill lots of people that hadn't actually done anything to us.") to justify their stance.
That's because that was the strawman oversimplification of the anti-war argument that kept being floated around. Proponents of the war often weren't listening to the more complicated argument, and replying only to the simplified version.
There is a reason why we obey laws and morals. Things like "invading other countries without just cause" aren't illegal and immoral just for the heck of it. That reason is because we've found that, even though the people doing the invading often think it is for the best, it nevertheless usually causes harm in the big picture. Numbers 1-3 above are examples of this.
When folks said that we shouldn't invade because it wasn't justified, it was more complicated than simply expressing a concern for doing the right thing. It was because acting wrongly tends to cause unforeseen bad results.
posted
Yes, of course, Gov. Palin is better qualified to be president right now, than Sen. Obama, who has spent most of his short legislative career voting "present." Palin has actually accomplished substantive things that brought about major changes and reform.
As for admitting Sen. McCain might die in office, it is simply a logical respect for actuarial statististics. But remember, McCain's mother is 96 and still going strong (she was at the Republican Convention). It appears that McCain could have good genes for longevity.
It also seems like a fifty-fifty proposition at this point whether McCain would run for a second term when he is 76. The presidency ages people, turns their hair prematurely white. Of course, McCain's hair is already white.
I really, really wish that McCain had won the Republican primary in 2000. Then the victory over Gore would have been by a landslide (according to most polls), so there would have been no concern over "hanging chads" and the courts stealing the election. I think McCain would have handled the aftermath to 9/11 better, using the military more effectively. I really do not know for sure if McCain would have chosen to invade Iraq. I always had the feeling that Bush Jr. felt obliged to bail out his father for failing to send US tanks on to Baghdad after successfully liberating Kuwait.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Actually, this board has a wide range of opinions including ultra-conservative libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and nut jobs.
It's one of the reasons I like to come here to talk politics. Not too often I get a chance to actually have a meaningful discussion with people who might disagree with me. I realize not everyone can handle that...
Amen.
Ron....brace yourself....
I wish McCain had won as well, and I don't think we would be in the same situation as we are now if he had.
It is too bad Bush didn't read his father's book....and he admitted he had never read it a few years ago, btw....because it lists many reasons why we didn't go all in during his father's administration.
The two biggest reasons why he didn't?
Cost and destabilization of the area, which would lead to greater power and influence of anti-American groups and religious extremists.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really interesting to read news articles from 2001-2002 about the possibility of an Iraqi War. I came across an estimate in 2002 of 80-100 billion dollars for the war. That seemed awfully low. A March '08 estimate? Three trillion which includes costs for lives lost.
quote:Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages. ... By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion. But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.
But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.
No matter if you believe 1.5 trillion or 3 trillion... this is a staggering and horrifying amount.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, of course, Gov. Palin is better qualified to be president right now, than Sen. Obama, who has spent most of his short legislative career voting "present."
I'm curious how short you think Obama's legislative career has been. If city and state-level government doesn't count, I'm pretty sure that leaves Palin with no experience.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd like to see some evidence that people who opposed the war in Iraq did so for the following reasons:
1) The administration was cherry picking the intelligence.
2)We would be replacing a secular dictatorship with an Islamist one.
3)It would really screw up the progress that Iran was making toward a more moderate culture.
Ron Paul has addressed that quite thoroughly. My notes on this particular interview on why he doesn't support the war:
quote: 1: No new information in last two months, 2 years, or even 12 years—military is weak. We are only talking about presumptions and vague accusations. 2: Nothing imminent from Saddam—he didn’t shoot down airplane in 12 years and army is 1/3 the size it was in first invasion. 3: He has not committed an act of aggression. 4: Israel and moderate Arabs have more of a stake to deal with Saddam then us and we should not hold them back. 5: Philosophical basis to oppose the war is the Christian Just War” theory: Has to be defensive and declared by proper authorities. Responsibility is on house and senate to make declaration of war—they should not have given that authority to Bush. 6: When war is initiated through the back door (not having proper declaration from congress), it tends to last longer and have unintended consequences. 7: Iraq’s were not trying to kill us. Supported funding to go after Osama, but we got diverted. 8: Taking over a Muslim Country will have more blowback. 9: War is not popular politically because people die and it hurts the economy. 10: The media (talk radio as well as supposed liberal media like CNN) and the administration presented the vague intelligence in a way to support war.
Altho this piece (the first one that came to my mind) did not spell out your concerns so clearly, I can attest that:
1) Paul made the case that there was no new intelligence to support the invasion. The presumptions were presented to the public in such a way to promote war--both by the administration and all types of media.
2)That unintended consequences would include the possibility of the people voting a Islamic Dictator instead of a secular one.
3) By us being the ones to overthrow a Muslim country there would be more blow back against us--including moderate Muslims in Iran unifying against us. If we were true non interventionists (and not Isolationists) then Israel and moderate Arabs could deal with the situation much more effectively.
Like I said, I don't have the exact quotes on those three points, but this summary of this interview should show that direction. I can look for more precise quotes if you like.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Ron....brace yourself....
I wish McCain had won as well, and I don't think we would be in the same situation as we are now if he had.
Me, too. I voted for him in the primary.I only became a rabid democrat when Pres. Bush was nominated.
Sen. McCain is not the same person he was. At least he doesn't act like the same person. He has caved to the right wing of the party. He even hired the same people who trashed him in South Carolina, people whose tactics he rightly deplored. And given the situation in Iraq and Sen. McCain's apparent eagerness for more war, he is a dangerous choice in 2008.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have voted for McCain 8 years ago or even 4 years ago. Wish the same guy were running today.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
Published on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 by CommonDreams.org The Evidence Bush is Withholding Weakens, Not Strengthens the Case for War
Had I more time, I could link to dozens more. These were just the first few I came across in the first couple of months I started checking.
Not to mention that the Office of Special Plans was created in the fall of 2002. What did people think it was for?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Iraq has a Shiite majority, they were suppressed by Saddam Hussein. If we remove that suppression, we will have to deal with a pro-Islamicist majority in Iraq. Similar to the one in Iran. How could this not be a problem?
I will go sift through links, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It looks good, and the taxpayers got the sale funds, so it is probably a good thing, IMO.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
). Just because you wish to redefine a word doesn't mean we have to accept your skewed definition of it. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
:
