Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

the "cease fire" was designated by the UN whereas the "resumption" of hostilities was not.

0 Replies

I'm afraid I agree with Scrat here... it wasn't exactly preemptive. Beyond that, though... There is still the question at hand, who to vote for.

0 Replies

For me, that's an easy one.
Kerry is in no way, shape or form a wimp! I trust him implicitly to protect this country.
And one can dislike war without being an appeaser. I don't like it one darn bit but when it's called for (like Afghanistan seemingly was) you do what you gotta do. Kerry knows this, just as he knew that Americans were being slaughtered in VietNam for no good reason. He spoke up about the US government screwing it's men in uniform, not against the men in uniform. there IS a difference and many combat vets I know, KNOW this.
I feel like Bush is raping the country and more concerned with protecting the rich. Yes, it sounds absurd, but look at his record, and his cutbacks, and his refusal to adequately fund his supposed mandates, trying to de-regulate everything again and up the limits on pollution and everything else that's bad for us; all for the sake of profits, when you get right down to it. I care too much about this country to let George "wish I was a dictator" Bush screw it up anymore than he already has. We are all familiar with his being called a liar. Part of the reason for this is not just what he says, but what he does. Making agencies change their wording on environmental threats and on scientific findings so they will suit his agenda is just one example. It's outrageous! His putting his God and religion into everything is almost equally outrageous.
You really have to pay attention to what's been happening, and don't rely on just one news source or one view point. Honesty is more important than partisanship, and honestly, Trifecta Bush has got to go. There's my opinion.
Oh, and Nixon WAS a better man than him. One can easily point to some Nixon programs still in existence today which benefit US citizens.

0 Replies

Speaking of Nixon and Kerry, I found some info you all might find interesting!

Three decades ago, a worried Nixon White House tried to destroy young John Kerry, a war hero who interfered with its plan to smear Democrats as un-American. Today's White House has the same problem.
"Day after day, according to the tapes and memos, Nixon aides worried that Kerry was a unique, charismatic leader who could undermine support for the war. Other veteran protesters were easier targets, with their long hair, their use of a Viet Cong flag, and in some cases, their calls for overthrowing the US government. Kerry, by contrast, was a neat, well-spoken, highly decorated veteran who seemed to be a clone of former President John F. Kennedy, right down to the military service on a patrol boat.
"The White House feared him like no other protester. Colson, in a secret memo, revealed he had a mission to target Kerry: 'Destroy the young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader.' "
And as I mentioned:
Nixon's initiatives, except for wage and price controls, were good, serious efforts. They were relatively clear-cut, well-designed, and the resources were appropriate to the task. The EPA and SSI (the Social Security benefit for people who can't work because of disabilities), to take two examples of Nixonian liberalism, are generally popular, sound programs that no one questions. The Bush initiatives, on the other hand, are a mess: complicated, intrusive, and ineffective.
Here's the difference between Nixon and Bush: When Nixon left, his successor could proclaim that "our long national nightmare is over." With Bush, we'll be feeling the consequences for generations.

What's the difference between Richard Nixon and George W. Bush? Their economic policies are almost identical. Nixon had the largest expansion of federal domestic spending in U.S. history---even greater than "Great Society" Lyndon Baines Johnson. During Bush's first three years in office, discretionary, non-defense spending will rise 18% after inflation. If Bush's new "prescription drugs" benefit is enacted, it'd be the largest new "entitlement" since Medicare. Then Bush, not Nixon, would become the biggest domestic spender in U.S. history. Bush has already eclipsed the record once held by Jimmy Carter---the most pages in one year for new regulations in the Federal Register.

Nixon had his small tax cut, too. He let LBJ's "surcharge" on income taxes expire, but that small savings was eaten up by bracket creep as inflation pushed taxpayers into higher tax brackets. Bush's gimmicky cuts are going to be overwhelmed by state and local tax increases.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

the "cease fire" was designated by the UN whereas the "resumption" of hostilities was not.

Perhaps you need to read the resolution detailing the terms of the cease-fire, and reacquaint yourself with what "cease-fire" means. (Take your time, I'll wait.) Very Happy

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

Kerry is in no way, shape or form a wimp! I trust him implicitly to protect this country.

Is this because you don't know his voting record on defense and intelligence programs and spending, because you don't care about that record, or because you don't understand what that record means?

0 Replies

Yesterday, I was adding some book reviews to the portal, and I came across this:

Link to Book

It is not out yet, but it sounds fascinating. Can't wait to read it!

0 Replies

Interesting looking book. I wonder if its true.

0 Replies

L.R.R.Hood- With all these books and reportage, it is important to read both sides of the issue, factor out the bullshit, and come to your own conclusions!

0 Replies

Bush didn't say we are going to war because Saddam broke a cease fire. He said we are going to war because Saddam Hussein possessed the world's most destructive WMD and because he broke the UN 1411 (whatever) resolution. What makes it unilateral in this one case was because Bush used the UN resolution as a reason so it would required a UN decision not one or a couple of UN members branching out on their own. What has been termed preemptive is the fact that the Bush administration said that we had to go to war with Iraq because of what Saddam Hussein might do because he had the capability and the weapons to do it anytime he wanted. They kept talking about how urgent it was for Americans and it was no such thing and they knew it. They were pretty smart about actually not coming out and using the word, "imminent". Most of the time they just answered in the affirmative if asked if Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat and the rest of the time used word substitutions (an art they have mastered) to get the message across to the scared Americans that another 9/11 is just waiting around the corner in the form of Iraq even though for 12 years nothing had happened and nothing ever happened to us in the US in the first place from Saddam Hussein.

Sometimes arguing about technical definitions of words is just an exercise of words rather than a real meaningful dialogue to understand the issue at hand. IMO

0 Replies

Yes, it's true, and it's old news. The Liberal media isn't doing it's job very well, hmm? The Bushes have had a close relationship with the Saudi royals for many years. There are citations everywhere.
One would think the bush/awol story was new, too, but that was news in the 2000 elections. Again, that Liberal media!
Please note the sarcasm.
Scrat, I live in Kerry's state, and of course I have followed his voting record. The charges that you make are an overblown and twisted effort by the opposing party to make Kerry look soft on defense when he's not; he's actually tried to save us money.
After a military program gets cancelled, we don't get a refund from the pentagon for the unused money, and we should. That was his intention. The military gets plenty of money but not enough oversight. He's just asking for sensible accounting. I guess that's too "small government" for you?
Again, note the sarcasm. And FYI, as an American citizen, I often write to and call MY elected representatives with my opinions and sometimes with thanks for a bill they pass. I have many letters from him and my other senator, as well as congressmen and state reps. I have cards from the governor from when my kids were born, and I even have a card from president Bush. So you see, I do pay attention. I have disagreed with kerry on a few occasions, but all in all, am quite satisfied with the job he's done, and again, I trust him and think he'll make a fine president of this nation.

0 Replies

Revel - Good to run across you again. UN 1441 called on Saddam to fall in line with UN 687 which set out the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. Breaking 1441 was breaking (or continuing to break) the cease-fire. So, to argue that Bush didn't state that Saddam broke the cease-fire, but did state that he broke 1441 is to show you don't really understand what 1441 was.

You know, you can actually read these UN resolutions for yourself. You might gain a better understanding of this issue, about which you clearly have strong feelings. I'm sure you'd like those strong feelings to be based on real knowledge, not someone else's empty rhetoric.

UN 1441

UN 687

0 Replies

Suzy -- That was very interesting to read about Nixon's reaction to Kerry. Thanks. I'm impressed that you've been so active in contacting your politicians, if only we all did.

Phoenix -- That book link looks interesting. Have you read the 1996 book, The Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of the House of Saudby Said K. Aburish?

LRRHood -- I don't know which part of the book that Phoenix mentioned that you were questioning but the really shocking flight of the Saudis that was mentioned in the blurb:

Quote:

House of Bush, House of Saud begins with a politically explosive question: How is it that two days after 9/11, when U.S. air traffic was tightly restricted, 140 Saudis, many immediate kin to Osama Bin Laden, were permitted to leave the country without being questioned by U.S. intelligence?

... is well-documented. Here, for example,, in the Boston Globe, those flights are discussed. What it means and what the ramifications of that kind of special treatment are, of course, up to the reader.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Piffka wrote:
LRRHood -- Saddam was undoubtedly a bad man but we lost sight of our goal which was to bring the perps of 9/11 to justice.

No, that was not our goal. That is a part of our goal. Our goal is to either bring an end to global terrorism or at least make the world a very inhospitable place for it. Toward that end, ridding Iraq of Saddam and helping create a stable, free society there is a step towards the long-term goal of stabilizing the Middle East and ending it's role as the primary incubator for world terror. You may disagree with the choice to go to war in Iraq, but arguing that doing so has nothing to do with the war against terror just shows a lack of understanding of the full scope of the war on terror.

She didn't say Iraq had "nothing to do with the war against terror"; she said "Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11".

The war against terror was about 9/11, after all. Not about the IRA or the Maoist terrorists in Peru or even the rivalling terrorists in Beirut. The whole notion that the US had to fight the war against terrorism now, was based exactly on "bringing the perps of 9/11 to justice". And Saddam was not a "perp of 9/11". They were almost all from Saudi-Arabia, and their leader was in Afghanistan. No link with Saddam's Iraq was proven.

So, if it was 9/11 you were acting on, how does attacking Iraq help? Because Saddam's Iraq was "the primary incubator for world terror"? You mean because he hosted a retired Palestinian terrorist from the seventies? Many regimes, even in the region, were more primary in "incubating terrorism" than Iraq - Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Lybia, Sudan. They all had an edge over Iraq in regional terrorism, when it comes to Palestine, Lebanon. And by using the term "world terrorism", you're on even shakier ground. Al-Qaeda is the major worldwide perpetrator of terrorism around at the moment. And its exactly the Iraq/Al-Qaeda link thats the most spurious, paling as it does in comparison with Al Qaeda's links to other countries.

Your rather roundabout argument seems to be that the Middle East is a hospitable place for terrorists, and thus every step that helps create a stable, free Middle East is a direct way of tackling the danger of a new 9/11. Why do I call that roundabout? Because it is akin to, say:

A murderer comes into your house and kills my mother. The police springs into action. But what does it do? It sweeps through the neighbourhood with great force to arrest the most notorious shoplifter in town, whom they had been having their eye on for a few years already. I would be outraged, telling 'em: why are you not chasing after my mother's murderer? But according to your logic, they would be well-justified in replying: the murder of your mother could happen because this neighbourhood is much too hospitable an environment for violent criminals. So if we spend our time now arresting a bunch of other criminals, you must understand that it is really just our way of acting on the murder of your mother.

Me, I'd mind them concentrating on shoplifters when someone just killed my mother. I wouldnt buy the argument that really, by chasing after perpetrators of wholly unrelated crimes, they were actually working on my case.

Scrat wrote:

Then I assume you have no complaint with the multilateral coalition that exercised their right under international law and existing UN resolutions

How can you claim the right to act "under existing UN resolutions" when the author of those resolutions, the UN itself, was about to say you were wrong to interpret them as granting such a right, when the US decided to, eh, better not ask its opinion in that case? Wouldn't the UN be the appropriate body to judge on whether its own resolution implies a right to go to war or not?

I mean - (king of the metaphors today) - I can't go uphold the law as I see it applying, when the judges tell me I'm wrong about that - they made it, after all.

0 Replies

Connaughton's quote from the above article, "Congress should refuse to consider whether to grant the administration with greater police powers until the Justice Department agrees to conduct a searching investigation of the circumstances surrounding government approval of the bin Laden family departure." The problem with this kind of inquiry from the congress is that they are afraid or too wrapped up in their own "careers" to address this kind of issue. This will be the norm while the congress is predominantly the party of the president.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Me, I'd mind them concentrating on shoplifters when someone just killed my mother. I wouldnt buy the argument that really, by chasing after perpetrators of wholly unrelated crimes, they were actually working on my case.

So in this example: Al Qaeda, killer of thousands, is the murderer and Saddam, killer of millions is a shoplifter? Rolling Eyes

But let's use that same example only this time with Saddam as the murderer, to explain your other complaint. Since the cops aren't doing anything in your opinion about the crime of killing your mother; what are you going to do? You know where he lives, everyone knows he's guilty, he's violated his probation repeatedly but the cops aren't doing anything but talking about it. You fear the murderer will strike again, so you get your friends together and go after him yourself. No?

Scrat wrote:

Then I assume you have no complaint with the multilateral coalition that exercised their right under international law and existing UN resolutions

nimh wrote:

How can you claim the right to act "under existing UN resolutions" when the author of those resolutions, the UN itself, was about to say you were wrong to interpret them as granting such a right, when the US decided to, eh, better not ask its opinion in that case? Wouldn't the UN be the appropriate body to judge on whether its own resolution implies a right to go to war or not?

I mean - (king of the metaphors today) - I can't go uphold the law as I see it applying, when the judges tell me I'm wrong about that - they made it, after all.

No judge could ever tell you that you can't protect your mother. If you feel she is in danger, you are going to protect her as best you can regardless of the consensus of opinions of the legality. True?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

nimh wrote:
Me, I'd mind them concentrating on shoplifters when someone just killed my mother. I wouldnt buy the argument that really, by chasing after perpetrators of wholly unrelated crimes, they were actually working on my case.
So in this example: Al Qaeda, killer of thousands, is the murderer and Saddam, killer of millions is a shoplifter?

Fair enough. Except, of course, the millions Saddam murdered were mostly in the distant past, while he'd been relatively "safely"contained from committing any further mass murder on Kurds and Shi'ites through no-fly zones and autonomous states by the time you decided to start a war against him over his purported immediate threat to world safety. And the thousands killed by Al-Qaeda happened to have been in the prime focus of your own New York, and their murder had been the very reason for the "war on terror" in the first place.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

But let's use that same example only this time with Saddam as the murderer, to explain your other complaint. Since the cops aren't doing anything in your opinion about the crime of killing your mother; what are you going to do? You know where he lives, everyone knows he's guilty, he's violated his probation repeatedly but the cops aren't doing anything but talking about it. You fear the murderer will strike again, so you get your friends together and go after him yourself. No?

Err, no.

'Soon as he approaches our house or even comes near my mother, yes, I'll attack. But as long as he doesn't bother us, let alone attack us, I'm not going to round up my own vigilante gang to go beat him up, no, I'd keep on pushing the legal ways. Wouldnt you?

0 Replies

AFTER he killed your mother was the way your example read. If the cops don't do anything; rest assured I WOULD.

0 Replies

I think Nimh's analogy is dead on, myself, and I can't see the connection you're trying to make, Bill. It's apples and oranges.
Going after Saddam at this point did not protect anybody from bin Laden.
Going after the neighborhood shoplifter is just a ruse to take focus off the fact that we can't find mom's killer, but look! we CAN catch some criminals! ... Somehow not very satisfying!
I'd really like to know just what was in those 24 pages about the Saudis! And why must we protect them to such an extent? Maybe because if we really piss them off, they'll pull all their money out of here, and the US will be screwed?
Think about it... It all goes much deeper than we know. We have allowed our nation's economy to be inflated due to our collaborations with terrorist nations, and we need way bigger changes than a war on selected terrorists will bring us.

0 Replies

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know