mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 10:25 am
Lazio? Oops. He was a hastily brought in candidate after upstate New York told Giuliani he wasn't a sure win up there (and Giuliani hates to lose.); that a lot of voters were pro-Hillary. And upstate New York has been heavily republican for years. And they went big for Hillary.

Lazio was weak, and pulled some unpardonable rudeness tactics with Hillary. His biggest thing was the tv things of him and family walking on the beach. And the repubs poured money into that, too.

Bottom line on Lazio. Last local election, he ran in his own district. And lost.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 10:53 am
McGentrix wrote:
I would also ask you to refute the article...are there lies? Or is it that you just don't like what is said and therefore it must be bad?


Apparently, McG is so mad at me that she won't read what i write. She also, apparently, didn't feel it necessary to read what Ma posted. The article Ma posted refutes Ruddy point by point, and does so without ad hominem attack. I reviewed both Ruddy's specious contentions, pointing out several examples of ad hominem argumentation, including one which could reasonably have been characterized as libel--and then pointed out that the article posted by Ma refutes Ruddy without the scurrilous tactics of personal smear.

So, McG, you want another refutation of the article? Or is it just that you don't like what was written and it must therefore be bad?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 11:01 am
Perhaps we should stop responding to McG's endless circular arguments and avoidance of reputable sources and links? Am serious about this. Goes nowhere.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 11:09 am
But we sure can have fun with Hillary's literary success, and the blinding rage it spawns in the breasts of some of our less kind fellow citizens . . .

(I know, i know, i'm a baaaaaad man . . . heeheeheeheehee . . . )
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 11:21 am
Anyone voting for Lazio in that election had to REALLY hate Hillary. The man was somewhere between a puppy and a clown. An LI airhead--and I know of the species. I grew up there...
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
Based on hearing about ten minutes of today's Fresh Air interview with Hillary, I'd change my mind and vote for her, for sure. I'm going to listen to the whole thing when it's available later and hope you will too! Fresh Air -- npr.org.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 09:55 am
A Nation of Liberators

Quote:
GLOBAL VIEW

A Nation of Liberators
No WMDs yet, and America shrugs. That's because we value human rights.

BY GEORGE MELLOAN
Sunday, June 15, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so far has been used against George W. Bush and Tony Blair by their political enemies in Europe. But very little has been made of it in the U.S., which bore the main cost of the war. Now, why would that be?

One explanation is that Americans were more focused than Europeans on what many regarded as the least important of the war's goals, the liberation of the Iraqi people. Weapons of mass destruction, though terrible in concept, were something the U.S. became inured to during the Cold War. The chance of becoming a victim of terrorism, given the extensive law enforcement apparatus, seems less than that of being struck by lightning.

But the thought of masses of innocent people having been murdered by their own government is a horror that resonates from sea to shining sea. It awakens the ethos that has been a part of the national psyche since Virginia's Patrick Henry in 1775 declaimed, in defiance of the British, "Give me liberty or give me death." Human liberty was invoked by Woodrow Wilson on April 2,1917, when he asked Congress to declare war on Germany "to make the world safe for democracy." Ronald Reagan demanded that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall, and there were emotional cheers from Americans when East Germans themselves dismantled that odious barrier to human freedom in 1989.





This current is so strong in America that the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon brought a great burst of patriotism. From my office window, I can look down on the construction site where the twin towers once stood and see a giant stars and stripes painted on the top of one of the utility buildings. Flags still flutter atop cars or from the windows of homes all over America.
Freedom House, one of innumerable private U.S. organizations that promote democracy and liberty, annually publishes a map depicting advances of freedom around the world. The National Endowment for Democracy, its two branches backed by the two major U.S. political parties, assists peoples striving for democratic rule. The State Department compiles annually an exhaustive report on the state of human rights in countries of the world.

So it should not be surprising, except perhaps to a few political sophisticates in Europe, that Americans would regard a government's mistreatment of its own people along with its threats to other nations as a casus belli. The destruction of tyrannies gratifies the American sense of justice, one of the bulwarks of American democracy. It nurtures the concept of a "just war."

But despite this powerful legacy, foreign-policy specialists in the U.S. sometimes seem embarrassed by the idea of the U.S. as a fighter of wars of liberation. They often prefer the more hardheaded, and more European, view that countries fight to defend their interests, meaning the protection of trade routes, or sources of oil or spheres of influence that have commercial rewards. Many wars have been fought for exactly those reasons, but usually there is no matter of justice at stake--only contests for power.

Europe, much to its credit, has largely outgrown the territorial conflicts and colonial wars that kept its armies occupied for centuries. That's why with the end of the Cold War and the continued consolidation of states within the European Union, Europe's armies have been in decline. With borders coming down and trade flowing freely, there is little support for territorial aggression.

But it should not be forgotten that U.S. soldiers were the key to liberating Europe from Nazi rule and it was U.S. statesmen who promoted the main postwar institutions of European unity, NATO and the forerunners to the EU. Japan as well was fortunate enough to be defeated by a power that regarded freedom and democracy as the key to peaceful progress.





Critics of the war in Iraq are now taking delight in detailing the "chaos" in that liberated state. But short memories forget that France was rather chaotic as well after the Germans were driven out, as partisans went to work on the French men and women who collaborated with the Germans. Indeed, there is still a tendency in France toward settling issues in the streets.
What is so often seen as chaos in Iraq is merely the turmoil of people who are finally free to express themselves openly. The political factions contending for influence and power are not unlike the factions that so troubled George Washington. Indeed, U.S. factional fighting remains as vigorous and strident today as it was then, but more firmly bound by the broad acceptance of law and precedent and ultimately controlled by the jealous regard free people have for their rights to choose their own leaders.

What's happening in Iraq is called politics. Given the number of AK-47s scattered around the country and the deep animosities engendered during a savage dictatorship, it is at times a dangerous form of politics. L. Paul Bremer, the American administrator charged with pulling together a representative interim government that will arrange for free elections, has his hands full. Trying to build the institutions so necessary to democratic rule, most particularly a reliable and accessible system of justice, will proceed under severe handicaps, not least the difficulty of finding Iraqis who are respectful of individual rights and want to uphold them.

American efforts to promote liberty around the world have not always succeeded. The failure in Vietnam was traumatic, of course, and raised doubts in the minds of many Americans about the legitimacy of wars of liberation. Some State Department professionals came away from that experience with a sense that America had overreached in trying to impose its values on a distant nation. But that rather misses the point. Wars of liberation are meant to allow people the freedom to find and exercise their own values. Among Asians, the Japanese, South Koreans and Taiwanese have taken the road of democratic capitalism when it was opened to them.

Global politics are never simple. But all signs indicate that Americans have no regrets about Iraq, for reasons firmly imbedded in the nation's history.

Mr. Melloan is deputy editor, international of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 10:13 am
"One explanation is that Americans were more focused than Europeans on what many regarded as the least important of the war's goals, the liberation of the Iraqi people."

I see. So all the pre-war talk about WMDs as the rationale for attacking Iraq wasn't really important? Powell's speech at the UN was a smoke screen for the real reason we took on Saddam?

If I were an apologist for what we achieved in Iraq, I might be a little more guarded in counting this as a Big Win just yet...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 10:39 am
Soooo, based on the quoted material McG provided (a digression from the original topic), we should expect the U.S. to be liberating people all over the world. Who's on next?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 10:45 am
I figured this would be something else to chew on as the other part had died out...

So, who is next? Iran? Africa? Canada?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 10:47 am
Africa is a continent, darlin'--i venture to say (trepidacious of contradiction) that even the Shrub isn't stupid enough to take on irresponsible military adventurism of that scale.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 10:50 am
Canada. Interesting choice. I wasn't aware that Canadians were in need of liberation. Unless it's liberation from democracy.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 10:57 am
How about Upstate NY? I used to live there and loved the place, but intellectual discourse there seems to have gone downhill... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 11:27 am
Where in Upstate NY, D'art?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 11:49 am
Binghamton, one of the fabulous Triple Cities, and the gateway to the Southern Tier! I went to school there, stayed on for seven years to get my M.A., then lit out for the territory...
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 11:54 am
No kiddin'! Rochester, slightly to the north. Snow and music.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 11:59 am
The best thing to do is to enjoy the far-right's loathing of the Clintons. I understand it.

The far-right was so smug back in the early 90's. They thought that no one would ever be elected president over their veto of the selection. In fact, as I remember it, the stories were all about the fact that the Democrats might not ever again be able to win a national election.

Then along came Bill Clinton and blew that bullshit completely apart.

I love it.

Even then, though, the right thought Clinton would be defeated in a landslide in his re-election bid. Remember that guy names....what was it now???...ah yes, Rush Limbaugh and his continuous "days Americ is in captivity" nonsense?

Then Bill Clinton won again.

More laughs.

And now, with Clinton out of office, the poor boobs on the right want so desperately to spew their venom on him -- they even go after his wife.

MY GUESS: Hillary will be president some day. Her husband was a hell of a lot better president than the last three Republican presidents -- and I am sure she will be an even better president than he was.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 12:03 pm
Rochester? Cool, Tartarin. Did you go to school there? I ran in a track meet there once...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 12:06 pm
I liked Bill. I voted for Bill in 92, but not 96. Bill was a very smart and charismatic leader. As president, he had my full support.

Hillary is a useless peice of scrapple. A used up has been who should have kept her nose out of politics and out of my state. I don't like her. She is using too much air and has no opinion of her own. She is a by product of name association and leftist eliticism.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2003 12:19 pm
I read an interesting cover story about your Gov. Pataki in yesterday's NY Times Magazine, McGentrix. It's worth a look, if you get the chance. It seems to suggest that he may be positioning himself for a run at the White House one of these days. As a pro-choice, pro-gun-law Republican, his chances may be between slim and none, of course...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:20:29