This is really unbelievable. According to polling, the American public still believes Republicans are better at defending American and conducting foreign policy than Democrats. But the contrast in foreign policy records of the Republicans vs. the Democrats in the last 15 years is striking.

Since taking office, the Bush Administration has singled out three countries - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - as part of the "Axis of Evil." Let's look at all three of these:

Iraq: evil dictator is dead, but thousands of Americans have now been killed or wounded there as a result of the catastrophic blunder in invading Iraq in 2003. Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. No end in sight.

Iran: didn't have nuclear weapons when Bush took office; now is racing to get them.

North Korea: had no nukes before Bush took office and was cooperating with weapons inspectors; after US cut off oil supplies in 2002, North Koreans kicked out the inspectors and re-started their program. Now they have a dozen nukes.

Are we really SAFER now since Bush took office? Sounds like not to me. I'd say we are a whole less safe now than when Bush took over.

Honestly, I never thought the foreign policy people in the Clinton Administration made the best decisions. Not everyone seemed competent or did a great job. But compared to the Bush people, the Clinton people look like geniuses now. Just compare their records. The Clinton years look like golden years of peace and wise decisions compared to the incompetence of the Bush years, no matter what happens between now and January 20, 2009.

Andrew

I believe that all of those things were inevitable - and you'll be able to add more countries to that list eventually as well. I can't really blame Bush for even expediting what was going to happen ( although " hastening the rapture " pops into my mind a lot lately ).

Bush has THE toughest job in the world. Possibly in all of history. I just wish he did it better. That's why I keep crossing my fingers, legs and eyes in the hope that we get enough time to try someone else's ideas before it all goes bye-bye.

We'll see.

And I've said this before, so now it's just said for the record and not to try and convince anyone else: I think we ALL thought the relative peace and prosperity we had been enjoying for a couple decades would continue for a while longer. I think that Bush thought he was going to get into office, adopt a bunch of friends for important posts and just relish the power and influence over a coupe terms. I do NOT believe that he thought that the world would be the kind of place it is now and continued to run.

Totally unsubstantiated and no factual evidence to support that idea. I guess I just picture him, very often, going " Shit. This is not what I signed up for. Can I go home now? This sucks."

CJ- Okay so you're saying that if not Iraq, Iran or N. Korea had become nuclear they would have eventually or some other countries might have?

Was this something you were seeing or feeling before the Bush presidency?

Hmmm. I don't recall thinking it before. But I was woefully uninformed for a long time there. Admittedly, it's a guess that they would have. I just don't feel surprised by it now. I guess it's difficult for me to remember how I felt about those countries. I think much of my lack of surprise stems from being pretty freaked out by The Cold War as a kid and DEEPLY fearing a nuclear bomb strike before I got old enough to really understand what it all meant.

Which makes me wonder what kind of feelings our kids are currently feeling while this hyper-promoted culture of fear is so prevalent today. I mean, as an adult, I can at least read or understand and articulate my questions. But to be 8 years old today? And be hearing all the " Duct tape " type stuff? Man. I wonder what kind of effect it will have on our kids. And I'm not talking about the reality of it - I'm talking about the FEAR of it. You couple that kind of talk with an equal amount of " Not only is the threat possibly real, but our leader is not good " and you've got a recipe for bringing up a generation of people who may not deal with things as we have been lucky enough to deal with things.

Sorry - got off on some internal shit of my own there.

Chris, I don't remember when it occured to me that Iraq, Iran or N. Korea will try and get nukes or whatever. It's just that I'm not surprised. I've been expecting something like this for a long time. And in a questionable way, I will have to evaluate from where it ALL stems. Not just my fears - but my hopes too. And how I am going to apply that insight to my own young son.

The end.

Amen.

So let it be written - so let it be done.

And not to make this about me or an ego based thing - but I wish more people would ask me questions like that, Chris. Just a simple direct question. It helps me. So thanks.

Thanks for your thoughts CJ. You're giving me things to think or re-think.

My 11 year old son was telling me today while driving in the van to his piano lessons about what his "purpose in life" might be. Holy crap!! 11 years old and this kid comes up with that without any prompting from me!! So I asked him what he thought it might be. His comeback was: "well I like to build things so maybe an architect. I like to play gameboy so I might design computer game programs....then again I might want to be sell ice cream from a truck." Whew..so glad for that last one, thought this kid might have missed childhood completely.

At 11 I was nowhere near this kind of thinking. Made me proud and like that old Butterfly Kisses song says "I musta have done somethin' right" or in this case doing sumpin' right.

I sure admire you Dads... :o)

Okay, enough warm fuzzies, we are talking "Axis of Evil" here!

If you take any 18 people, give them gloves, bats, bases and a ball in a park, they know just what to do. They play a game of baseball. It aint no big thing, just some friends having a game.

Now, if you take those same 18 people, give each set of nine a "nickname" and tell a whole helluva lot of people about it, you have a baseball game in a ballpark. It starts to gain momentum, soon other teams start up, and kids want to learn how. Players begin to try a little harder and work at being better as a team.

Pretty soon, those 18 people start to believe they are better and show they are better. Not simply because of the uniform, the name and the screaming throngs, but through effort. They begin to believe that they matter as a team and become very good with discipline and practice. Before long, it is 36 people. Soon, not only teams, but whole leagues spring up everywhere.

Are folks really any better players with a name? Or are they simply given much better advice on the game now with so many voices? Is it the new found legitimacy that makes them work a whole lot harder? Is it because they are now recognized as a team?

The difference? Well, now there are stars where there once were people.

This stardom is a dangerous distortion of perceived power when it comes to weak despots and fringe groups. It tips the balance because the specific truths are no longer important. This also creates a heightened fear that one can manipulate quite easily at home. Again, it tips the balance because the specific truths are no longer important.

The clumsy logic that brought together an, "Axis of Evil," also provided each one of the leaders of those countries more leverage against their own people. No surprise, they all abused it. It also made them seem more powerful and created a new sense of morale for their armies and unity for their governments. Stateside, it helped fill a void in the jingoists' bellies, where the U.S.S.R. used to sit. Now, we have two despots getting nukes in our midst, while our boys and girls are getting killed in an all-out civil war.

Perhaps, it is far too late to stop the phenomenon of emboldening an enemy with nicknames, but we could stop labeling every Tom, Dick and Harry who comes out to the park with a glove. They are just people until you call them a team. Unless, well, you need that team to play you, so that you can win. Perhaps, you want everyone to be larger than life, so you seem like a champion, whether you win or not. Or is the game, merely, a game?

To many, it is frightening to think that our leaders have gained wisdom from the original Axis. They influenced the media, hyped busts and fatal explosions, spun the stories and carefully framed public opinion. All political crimes were attributed to loosely organized radical organizations that were blown far out of proportion. Fear of terrorism helped cinch Nazi authority and began with the steady casting aside of civil rights in Germany in the 1920s.

In those times, when violence was committed, it was hastily attributed to the Communists -- whether the evidence existed or not. This hysteria hit a fever pitch with the arson of the Reichstag, a fire set by Hitler's own people. Within weeks, free will in Germany was dead and Hitler was in charge. Study it, find the many parallel threads and shudder.

Of course, we are supposed to believe that a pathetically stupid group in Washington took a few boys, called them a team and wondered where the home runs came from, why the crowds came out to watch and how come tickets are selling so well. Somehow, this facade of stupid is just not cutting the mustard anymore. These things are not a surprise when a lousy baseball owner enlists an enclave of latent fascists, nihilist zealots and lawless businessmen to create policy.

This article from almost five years ago gave our leaders some unheeded, or intentionally ignored, advice:

"The United States and its allies in the war on terrorism must defuse the widespread image of Al Qaeda as a ubiquitous, super-organized terror network and call it as it is: a loose collection of groups and individuals that doesn't even refer to itself as "Al Qaeda."

Most of the affiliated groups have distinct goals within their own countries or regions, and pose little direct threat to the United States. Washington must also be careful not to imply that any attack anywhere is by definition, or likely, the work of Al Qaeda.

The US must be careful about its use of the term "Al Qaeda." Meaning "the base" in Arabic, it originally referred to an Afghan operational base for the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation in the '80s.

In the current context of Osama bin Laden's terror network, this name was imposed externally by Western officials and media sources. Mr. bin Laden has, in fact, never mentioned "Al Qaeda" publicly."
-- Christian Science Monitor, May 23, 2002
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s02-coop.html

The more these people in charge, these so-called elected officials, obfuscate, distort and label, the less trust they foster with people everywhere. Perhaps, it is not the trust they seek, but a set of enemies, tidy and neat. It is easier to say, "we've always been at war with Eastasia," than to actually provide us with the truth and keep us out of danger. After all, as a species, we are much easier to control when we are scared, or caught up in a ballgame.

Good night, and good luck.

Andrew, I looked at your opening post in disbelief and just let it lay for awhile, while I did something worthwhile like clean 14" of snow off the driveway. Then I looked at it again, wondering how you came up with such a smoothly worded bundle of propaganda BS.

Then I realized what it was. The current Democrats talking points. Way to go.

One thing I should mention to you. Bush isn't running in 2008. That appears to be new to you, but why are you running against him? Is that because the Democrats have no plan for this very complicated world stage we're on?

Good morning Deane!

Damn, they get those GOP counter points out quick!

Is there anything Andrew wrote that is untrue? What about the missing parts? Maybe some of his post lacks relevance?

What I'm asking for is essentially support for your propaganda claim. Where is it?

"What's your plan?" Implies that nobody could have done any better, and we KNOW THATS A CROCK. That's really obvious though, because a lot of people think the Resident is stupid, so you gotta go lightly on that one. Understandable.

So, why not just get to the meat of it instead? You are among good friends here, why hold back?

As Missing says, Deane, why not address my points themselves? CAN you?

My basic point is that Democrats are obviously better at conducting foreign policy than Republicans, at least the Bush people vs. the Clinton people. Yet the Republicans have managed to cultivate the opposite impression. There's an election coming up in 2008; this should be a key point.

Andrew

Totally agreed.

I do not feel safer at all! This, more than all the other BS we are currently experiencing, is my primary concern with any sort of GOP leadership going forward.

I fear the ramifications of our actions will soon hit upon us, the American people, if we continue to elect bozos. Right now, we have shown the world we are as generally unhappy as they are. We get credit for that.

If 08 goes by without significant changes in both domestic and foreign policy, our grace period will then have expired and that won't be good.

I believe that all of the folks in our Capitol must be held accountable and the Democrats need to shoulder some blame. I am not giving any grace period to this 110th Congress. If we are not shown tangible progress toward a safer world, America is not waiting for the end of 2008 and both parties should take heed. The next conservative in that building will probably be a Libertarian.

It is not time to debate picky details, nor to be polarized and partisan. It is time come up with broad solutions. Most ideas should already have been thought out thoroughly, because these problems are not new anymore. They are so old, in fact, we have affectionate nicknames for them.

Should the Democratic Party look like they know what they are doing? Of course, they helped us win in '45. That was a long time ago, and sorry Demos, I agreed with CJ & KSKD, recent history is not that favorable. In issues of any policy, sorry Deane, the Republicans have worn out their welcome. Sure, Clinton was an often a misled man too. However, the GOP spent those days under the big top, running a circus elephant Congress that blew endless confetti. Yes, that group of legislators were extremists, criminals and morons while Bill's dog was wagging furiously. The world was only fractionally safer by such a large margin because he was merely competent. Competence should not ever be confused with expertise.

In the end, Democrats do have competence on their side. They need to give us solutions now and exercise bipartisanship. Letting these current criminals dangle on a tree near the county line is romantic, cowboy claptrap. These are real problems for the entire planet and should not be marginalized as a partisan based pride issue, nor looked upon as a plate of crow served cold.

Please, everyone get up on the soapbox, this is America. :o)

There is a more subtle set of implications here that bear mention:

Asking "well, what is your plan then?" implies:

-the existing path is as solid as can be expected all things considered

-the GOP is correct in it's support of the Resident

-opposing views lack merit.

The reality is that Bush, for better or worse, embodies all that is wrong with the GOP in general. The more or less constant reminders that we are not running against Bush really try to keep the GOP clean where these matters are concerned.

This is not the case, as congress clearly is supposed to check the Resident in matters of war and policy. By not doing so, we've seen a lot of ugly stuff happen that I'm not going to list again.

So, running against Bush really is an affirmation of how poorly the GOP has governed in general. To anyone not pleased with the results, this is obvious.

In a very real sense, the failure of the GOP to actually perform in our interests implies it's leadership in general is the primary issue; thus, we end up with a Democratic president as being the only viable choice, if we are to see any significant change.

And there is the rub! Nobody wants a one party system! We know how these things go, but really what choices do we have that are actually realistic?

This also puts the Democrats into a tough position in that it's fairly easy to trot out the "not supporting the troops" BS to counter any action that might actually bring about constructive change!

Again, I wish stupid were painful.

Andrew has it exactly right. Reaffirming the core reality of the Democrats being generally better at these things would then open the door for change to happen now and force the next batch of elected leaders to embrace that or risk serious issues with the people.

Bottom line on all of this is that we are currently suffering huge because party and single "nothing matters but" issues are forcing a stalemate where larger matters of policy are concerned.

In this, the GOP is guilty huge on all fronts! Not only are they working hard to save face and marginalize their blunders, but they are doing so by leveraging the stupid for all they are worth!

This is less than honest and frankly, quite harmful to all of us, no matter what our party preferences are. We need solid leadership that will actually act in our best interests and that's not gonna happen until we, as a people, reach a more general acceptance about why we are here, who did it, why they did it, and how that all matters going forward.

Of course, this is exactly why I'm not inclined to do anything to strengthen the GOP, no matter how good the candidates may be. Stopping the bleeding only cures the symptom, leaving the disease to continue it's harm elsewhere.

If, we actually saw some level of acceptance on this matter, it would actually do the GOP a lot of good, as it would also do for us. No matter what happens now, Bush has essentially only one solid legacy; namely, most stubborn President ever. That's pretty ugly, but that's how it's gonna be for all but the die hard, profoundly ignorant, loyal who will visit the library and wish for the good old days.

Screw them! Given that reality, the GOP needs to seriously ask how it wants to be received this coming election cycle and the Dems, having pressed this point HARD, would force the issue.

Hope it happens, but I'm not holding my breath. Fear of being swiftboated appears to be potent enough to neuter the Democrats for the time being...

(That too, lies at the feet of the GOP.)

So what should the Democrats in the Congress do now, Littlesongs? They've got at most 57 votes in the Senate to stop a fillibuster (and that's with seven Republicans voting with them and Tim Johnson back - he's not back yet). Even if they could persuade three more Republicans to vote on an Iraq resolution that is binding, Bush will veto it if he wants to. Then what? Getting 67 Senators to override anything like that seems next to impossible at the moment.

(That would have been the beauty of a non-binding resolution: Bush couldn't have vetoed it; it may have actually had more teeth than a real resolution that Bush simply vetoed.)

Should Democrats pull a Gingrich and shut the government down over the next budget until Bush agrees to sign their Iraq legislation (assuming they can even pass it)? We can see how that tactic backfired on the Republican Congress that tried it in 1995...

Or what exactly should the Democrats do now?

Andrew

The soapbox idea might have some merit.

One thing the Democrats can do is control the agenda, and they can also hold hearings now at their discression.

Maybe just engage in a ton of that activity, incorporating authoritative views from all segments of the population. Publish those everywhere they can, and tie the current dilemma to those currently blocking anything constructive from happening.

Make it the biggest issue right now and leverage the general state of fear, cultivated by the GOP to our mutual advantage.

Perhaps the votes might come if those currently trying to play it safe suddenly find themselves looking really bad. This does involve some risk, but isn't that what we put them there for in the first place?

Andrew, Good question! Yes, it is a tough one. I believe that they should not stall or whine, they should simply keep working. Whether legislation is vetoed or not, it can only help them in the long run.

Past filibusters and potential vetoes are killing and will continue to kill the GOP. It was cute and funny when the jolly, rosy-cheeked Newt was putting out a contract on America. It looked tame and comical, like a lame Fox version of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Now, it only looks like Nero having a fiddle lesson in a cloud of choking smoke.

Democrats should be busy, busy and busier. They should be crafting heaps of positive legislation and let us all examine it, every day. They need to make investigations and get indictments against this administration, every day. They need to send envoys and legislators to our allies for ideas and damage control. To make an ironic analogy, this Congress is like George Harrison. They ought to give us a bonafide classic like, "All Things Must Pass" after waiting so long to have their ideas heard.

If the shrub and the GOP say "no, no, no," then America will get their party message loud and clear. They will look at Republican candidates and say, once again, in unison, "no, no, no." However, what the people want is not going to be enough, because the GOP is no longer controlled by the people of the Republican party. There are many good Republicans, but they are merely props now, and that is shameful. If and when, members of the GOP realize that they are being used, one by one, the Democrats will gain strength through bipartisanship.

Democrats need to fight like hell, keep pressing and play underdog, even when they get legislation through, and even when the polls put them in front. America has skewed media, untrustworthy voting machines and has banned international oversight. They need to wear their flak jackets, double check their locks and look under their cars. Unfortunately, it is worth mentioning Robert Kennedy, and more recently, Paul Wellstone, in this particular context.

A small group is so desperate to stay in power, that they have hijacked a political party and are destroying our democracy piece by piece. Remember, violence now has a nickname and a group willing to take credit for anything that is done. The evidence is mounting that our ability to ensure one person, one vote has disappeared. The GOP has gone from being the conservative party, to the wealthy party, to the extremist party over the course of a handful of elections.

If the Democrats are to win, it has to be 60-40, at least, and even more in traditional districts. They need to look completely united behind whatever candidate they choose. In my view, only a landslide in '08 will ensure them the office. Twice as many people will have to vote, because only half of those votes might count in the election. This is, raw as it seems, the potential reality they face in the coming years.

>>>"My basic point is that Democrats are obviously better at conducting foreign policy than Republicans, at least the Bush people vs. the Clinton people."


That's a statement of opinion, not fact, and not a very good one. Since we're dealing with opinion and not fact, I'll give you mine. Neither Clinton or Bush have done a good job.

Clinton let the thing build up through inaction and no response to attacks on Americans, especially Somalia, which emboldened the Bin Laden bunch, and Bush has screwed around on Iraq and let it get out of hand to a point it's probably can't be rescued.

There is no point in addressing your post point by point, I have long ago learned the liberals on this forum have their minds made up, do not own listening caps, and have no intention of straying from the liberal line handed them.

Who says there is a liberal line handed to anyone?

That's a big ass dodge Deane. King size man. You know better than that. If you are gonna label a reasoned post as being nothing more than parrot talk, don't you expect some push back on that?

(I would)

I think Andrew's burden for supporting his opinion is significantly less than yours currently is for both parties having done a bad job. That leaves you in an unsupported position where trying to marginalize both parties is concerned. And this is exactly why I asked what I did!

And we all know, doing that really means keeping the perception of viability and practicality of the GOP as high as is possible, which is not really in our mutual best interests, if you think hard and are really honest about it.

You sound like a cranky Republican, feeling down about taking it hard in the sack this last cycle, wondering when the horror is gonna be over!

Who knows? The whole, everybody sucks, line may just work well enough with the majority of sheeple to get you and the GOP through. At least be honest about it.

deane, if both clinton and bush haven't done a good job as you say, you have to at least give credit to clinton for being able to engage in dialog with most countries head of states. I don't recall any national leader thumbing his nose at clinton other than the Serb mass murderer. Clinton also didn't ruffle feathers. Had Bush done the same, he'd likely have less problems today.

Deane, you should be embarrassed to have posted such a cop-out (liberals "do not own listening caps?" Oh, that's rich!) What have you been working at a preschool lately?

Usually people who respond with cop-outs like yours above either know they are wrong or simply can't refute the argument. Perhaps you should try to obtain a "thinking cap?"

Andrew

Littlesongs, past fillibusters and delay tactics in the congress have actually helped the GOP. That was their strategy in 1993-94: obstruct, fillibuster, delay. It worked. That congress was able to get little accomplished.

The Democrats do have an opportunity to gain seats in the Senate in 2008, because I think 2/3 of the Senate seats up for grabs that year are Republican. But by the time the next Congress takes over Bush will be gone anyway, so maybe it will be moot.

If this Congress spends all of its energy failing to do anything on Iraq, the Democrats may lose control of it and even the presidency again. They need to show where they stand on Iraq, point out why (not a large enough majority) they can't change things in Iraq, and GET OTHER THINGS DONE. Finger the Republican Senators who are blocking action in Iraq, directly, especially the most vulnerable ones who are up for re-election in 2008 (out of 42 Republicans voting with Bush, some are safe seats in conservative states). Personalize it. Put the heat on those Senators. But, I don't think there's much more they can do.

Andrew

Andrew, I don't consider it a cop-out. I truly believe liberals are so convinced they are right in their thinking that they have no interest in, nor any ability to listen.

No, I don't work at a preschool, but I did just come from the University of Nebraska Medical Center where I was trying to be as insulting as possible about one of the internal medicine doctors and I suggested that his "listening cap" blew off some time ago and he's apparently not been able to find it.

Andrew, I don't consider it a cop-out. I truly believe liberals are so convinced they are right in their thinking that they have no interest in, nor any ability to listen.

OK, and I guess I truly believe conservatives are so convinced they are right in their thinking that they have no interest in, nor any ability to listen either. Since you as a conservative have no ability to listen, there's no point in having any more discussions with you I suppose. Best of luck!

Andrew

Andrew, you nailed it, the amount of real work they need to do is staggering, but it is the key to the election. I also want to mention that KSKD has made some fantastic points too.

I was observing that in the past, the GOP made good use of the tactic, and just for fun, brought our government to a standstill several times. The Republicans did not care about anyone but themselves, and that attitude is still obvious, even now, when they must bear the weight of the worst leader in the history of North America. Ironically, for a group that embraces the elephant, they do not give Americans any credit for having a memory.

Sophisticates, and by that I mean the people who don't breathe through their mouths, were discouraged and outraged by that monkeyshine in the 1990s. As I said, the party went from conservative to wingnut quite quickly, and that left the traditional GOP out in the cold. No sane rank and file member of the GOP wanted our entire government shut down. The gangland days of Gingrich have created a good helping of backlash yet to come, but it pales in comparison with the real damage inflicted by the current murderers' row.

A filibuster serves no more value now, in fact less, than it did then and it ought to be a last resort. If shrub won't sign a bill, let the people know and move on. If Congress is being manipulated by a few stubborn members of either party, let the people know and move on. Give the shrub every chance to hurt himself, but do not give the perception that you have set him up. This Congress has to keep moving forward, fearlessly, tirelessly and endlessly, and let the chips fall where they may.

Deane, I am only this frustrated, in fact angry, because our two party system is in dire jeopardy. Our freedoms are in peril and that means both yours and mine. I want to think that my outrage is universal and inclusive, because that is how I feel. I do not want any party, or the members of any party, to have the last word, ever again. We need to save our freedom, preserve our voices and that is not a partisan issue whatsoever. In fact, it is simply American.

Al Gore invented terrorists' biggest recruiting tool:

"60 MINUTES: TOP U.S. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SAYS INTERNET IS TERRORISTS' BIGGEST RECRUITING TOOL... "

Ok, let's work through this one. If you don't think it's a cop-out, then helping people here to understand why that is, should be a no-brainer right? If doing this is a problem, perhaps you might consider your belief to be less than solid and more thearaputic than realistic.


Deane, how are you defining "liberal(s)"?

I'm asking that one, because the views Andrew expressed on this thread are held by plenty of people, who do not self-identify as being liberal.

Can you restate this without the arbitrary label, so that we may focus on the more important elements of your statement above?



About this being convinced and right in thinking.

You need to clarify that somewhat, or failure to do this alone justfies the cop-out label.

What about the thinking is:

-shared among the group you identify as being "liberal(s)"

-wrong?



Having no interest in listening to what exactly?

Right thinking? And can you compare and or contrast that to wrong thinking?

Other thinking? This one does not compute without some solid support for some shared thinking as mentioned above.

Your thinking? I'll buy this one easily, but you really need to articulate just what it is you are thinking before we get any real meaning, other than "taking it in the sack sucks".


This is a fair burden, so I'm going to leave the "[lack] ability to listen" bit off the table for now. We really can't get there until we've got some clarity on the matters above first. Besides, my post here more or less disqualifies that one, given I lie within the body of people you characterize as liberal(s), and that characterization being rational.

We've been here before. Right now, the sheer number of unqualified elements present in your statement more or less renders it meaningless. As such, standing by it, or using it as a justification for not following through on supporting it really more than qualifies your general behavior on this thread as a "cop-out" or dodge.

Gonna let it stand on record here that you did indeed and in fact, just dodge the question?

62:

I call complete and utter bullshit. We know Gore did not claim to have invented the Internet. That's a tired meme that really gets you nowhere.

As for the greatest recruiting tool, prior to the Internet, terrorists would just use whatever the most effective communications medium was, so that helps us how?

Are we to distrust the Internet in general, because terrorists might use it?

Maybe we should restrict the use of the Internet to only those known not to be terrorists.

How about we just all get scared of it all and wave hands, chant voodoo and hope God and our Resident President will help us to make the right choices!

Sheesh, it's thick today.

Andrew: This is classic denial and avoidence. Of course Deane is quite happy to exchange those kinds of statements with you. You probably know exactly why better than I do, but I'll sum up some of the takeaways for the folks reading at home:

-marginalizing both parties means putting the GOP on par with what would otherwise be seen as the stronger and more viable party

-he feels better having a solid excuse to not back up his statements

-having this kind of deadlocked discussion leaves the winner only with having to manupulate a greater number of potential voters to their side in order to advance the agenda.

Essentially it's a win lose or draw scenario. Having the draw means, most importantly, not having lost and not having to face any real acceptance of that before his peers. Future statements, that lie in contradiction with an admitted loss, would be easily refuted, thus leaving Deane with the option of reinforcing this acceptance or acting on it in a rational and honest way.

This has significant ramifications in that any such acceptance is easily leveraged by interested others for the purpose of constructive advocacy.

God forbid some of our conversation here might actually matter.

What's the second most used resource to recruit terrorists?

2) Money
3) Anger
4) Greeting cards
5) Cereal boxes

Sorry, "invented" is indeed not the correct quote.
The exact quote you can find by looking for Al Gore Controversies on wikipedia.

Exactly!

In the context you wrote above, that small "mistake" you appear to be "sorry" for, is just laughable!

In other words, complete and utter bull shit about sizes it up properly.

What's worse is you then decide to own up to some part of that, but then continue to Bash and Dash™ as if nothing happened!

What Al Gore did was use his position to help in the creation of the Internet. Building it, in other words. He and many interested others made sure we had an environment where the development and deployment of the Internet was possible and encouraged.

There is exactly zero wrong with doing this, and zero wrong with him saying so.

Linking that to terrorists is just as stupid as it is incorrect. Continuing on, citing contraversies as as if there are too many for you to keep them all straight as an excuse either paints you as one:

-who has an axe to grind and does not mind grinding it

-who isn't quite smart enough to be commenting on the matter

-who engages in willfull ignorance.

Sheesh, that's not good.

>>>"Can you restate this without the arbitrary label, so that we may focus on the more important elements of your statement above? "

OK, how about "those too lacking in knowledge to understand the complexities of todays world".

Deane_johnson wrote:

OK, how about "those too lacking in knowledge to understand the complexities of todays world".

You mean like Bush? He had to be told there was more than one type of muslim.

""those too lacking in knowledge to understand the complexities of todays world"."

It's odd, I was just wondering about how Bush is just a person, too.
It's unfortunate that exact statement fits him to a T.

Ok Deane, given that characterization, care to detail how Andrew or myself would be so characterized?

We then might be able to get started on the other elements.

Like greeting cards and cereal boxes isn't laughable comment too?

I am indeed sorry that sarcastic/laughable comments are only acceptable if they come from the left side. Actually there was double meaning.
Its that good inventions can be misused.

Andrew2 conviniently (?) forgot to mention Pakistan developed bomb (approx 1998) before W was ELECTED (also India). Was that a peace driven wise genius triumph of Clinton?

"Like greeting cards and cereal boxes isn't [a] laughable comment too?"

It was meant to lighten things up a little.

I am a bit dispirited that I get to be a leftist, those little scissors with the green handles really hurt my right hand.

Hey 62, sorry it came off as serious!

It's friday --enjoy!

62kgw writes:
Andrew2 conviniently (?) forgot to mention Pakistan developed bomb (approx 1998) before W was ELECTED (also India). Was that a peace driven wise genius triumph of Clinton?

As I said in my first post, "I never thought the foreign policy people in the Clinton Administration made the best decisions. Not everyone seemed competent or did a great job." Pakistan getting a nuclear device was certainly not one of the highlights of the Clinton years.

However, Clinton's actions did not accelerate Pakistan's quest for a bomb - on the contrary, the US has had pretty good relations with Pakistan. And Clinton didn't call Pakistan part of some "Axis of Evil." The Clinton Administration's negligence in regards to Pakistan (and India) is that we didn't disrupt the networks of nuclear secret dealing that allowed these two countries to develop nukes in the first place. Bush on the other hand arguably provoked both North Korea and Iran and encouraged them to accelerate their weapons programs. In the case of North Korea in particular, one of the big drivers of the North Korea policy seems to have been a rather childish idea of, "Don't do what Clinton did - Clinton sucks." Anything Jimmy Carter was involved in (the deal to suspend Uraniam enrichment) must be especially bad. Never mind that we are coming back to it in 2007, now that Bush needs some good news, as one senior administration official put it.

Andrew

>>>You mean like Bush? He had to be told there was more than one type of muslim."

Yes.

>>>It's odd, I was just wondering about how Bush is just a person, too.
It's unfortunate that exact statement fits him to a T."

Agreed

>>>Ok Deane, given that characterization, care to detail how Andrew or myself would be so characterized?

I think you're both plenty smart, you just took the wrong fork in the road in your political thinking at some point in your life.

I think different would be more accurate. You are gonna have to bring support for wrong to the table, before I give that any credence.

You see, there are some words written on old paper that have value above and beyond our day to day issues. From what I can see, we differ on the value those hold where matters of policy are concerned.

I've no rational reason to assign the label "bad" to this difference, other than the implications often brought forward by the approach you advocate, do not appear to be well aligned with the intent behind those words.

This, BTW, also puts your value statements into contradiction! On one hand, you have stated often you want the judiciary reading and enforcing the law --no activist judges. On the other, said deviations and quite liberal readings of the law appear to be permissible, given your personal needs are addressed!

Which is it?

This dilemma does have implications where "wrong" and "right" are concerned, don't you think? Speaking about these matters, while your statements are in conflict seems to be rather futile, unless you provide some clarification that would resolve things better.

>>>"You are gonna have to bring support for wrong to the table, before I give that any credence."

Let's try it another way. When has liberalism or socialism ever been on the right side of history?

Hmmm...

We've been here before, but not quite in this context.

Ok, I'm gonna seperate liberalism and socialism to start. The two share elements, but are not the same overall. Secondly, I'm gonna also state that the vast majority of people are some mix of ideologies. This should be reflected in our society and law as well.

Our founders were quite liberal. The seperation of church and state, government by consent of the people, all rights not expressely surrendered to the government are reserved by the people, free speech, etc... are all very permissive ideas.

As far as I can see, we have done well as a nation and a significant part of that success comes from clearly liberal ideas. Frankly, that's enough for me right there. I'm gonna invoke progressive here too. Our nation is a largely progressive one --at least until recently.

Conservative control, if that is being defined by the GOP being both conservative and in control, has not done us any real good Deane. That's the major rub.

A secondary one is the stark disconnect between what we are seeing happening and what conservative ideals are supposed to represent. I was a registered republican until this mess, remember. I don't have any core opposition to conservative or liberal ideas. I prefer to see them used as tools to better us and that's not happening.

We've experienced more than enough conservative control, as defined above, to see it's not really doing us that much good.

Let me put it this way back at you. I'm an American first, then comes liberal, conservative, other... That's the core difference right there.

From all your posts, you are a conservative first, then American. This value judgement, more than anything, is where the difference lies.

IMHO, this difference is less than honest where the social contract is concerned. If you go and look at the law of the land, we all have specific things in common and obligations that go with that.

I, of course, want to see things running my way as much as anyone does. However, I'm not gonna go tear that down to advance my ideology. A majority of the members of your "conservative" GOP are working double time to do exactly that.

Given the success we've seen, I think being on the right side of history involves acting in a way that reinforces the core American ideals of freedom, democracy, equality and tolerance.

Those are what got us here.

Unless you want to declare this nation as being on the wrong side of history. Ready to do that? I'm not, and I'm pretty sure you are not either.

Yeah, I'm getting there. Being American is on the right side of history. Applying those principles in a liberal way, or conservative way is not the issue.

Deviating from being American is the issue, and doing that is wrong.

Thank you for one of your thoughtful and objective responses.

>>>"Conservative control, if that is being defined by the GOP being both conservative and in control, has not done us any real good Deane."

That's an understatement. The Republicans have done a horrible job with their control of the government. What has been done borders on downright stupidity. And it continues.

The problem the Democrats have in this issue is that instead of saying "see, we can indeed do it better" and then doing it, are now going down the same path. That blends with the nonsense of "hate Bush", which is totally non-productive.

Nancy Polosi pledged to clean up the approach and do it right. I guess you've followed the names of who she has appointed to key positions. I needn't repeat them here.

In other words, it ain't going to get any better. The Republicans did badly, now the Democrats are starting off the same way, perhaps worse. We are going to be the losers. We don't have any leadership in Washington these days. There is no Presidential candidate showing any strength that will accomplish anything, either party.

This is all far scarier than I care to think about. And it will stay that way because the mentality of the voter is routed in hate Bush or hate Hillary.

I've thought about this all day, in the context of "what do we do now?"

One decision I've made is to not strengthen the GOP, until it sees a complete refresh. The current movers and shakers should not be encouraged to continue public service, largely because they are simply not serving the public!

That's gonna strengthen the Democrats and maybe other parties.

Another one is to favor people powered candidates. I find it extremely interesting that both party establishments are unhappy with this development. I'll bet it sees some heat before the next cycle too.

So, let's say we end up with a Dem President, duly elected this time, and a Congress similar to the one we have now.

I'm confident we will see some of the real damage rolled back. Habius corpus, patriot act, wiretapping, an assload of signing statements, and bizzare interpetations of our law. Those are not too tough to undo, leaving the good parts to go forward. Maybe plug a few holes so we don't have to worry about those particular problems again for a while. The big dollars don't need this stuff in place to continue doing what they do, so it will be put back to appease us, coddle us, maybe just shut us all up for a while.

We are less overhead that way!

But, we are still gonna see a lot of BS legislation none of us will be happy with. So, do what? Go back and hammer the Democrats in 8 years, like we did with the GOP?

We've been through that cycle enough times to know better, I would think. (And I'm likely wrong, but I really shouldn't be!)

In the end, I think any solid solution is gonna fall back on we the people. This is what our founders intended, and it's probably the most brilliant and powerful idea we have left to us.

No matter what our elected representatives try to pull, we have this codified into our lowest levels of law. It's there no matter what.

The system is currently broken in a way that makes this very difficult. It's been broken, little tiny bits at a time too, one bone headed corporate decision after another. Both parties have been doing this, and it's because they serve the ones who paid for them to be there, not we the people.

IMHO, we are reaching a point where it's really starting to all add up. Of course, the question is what level of pain must we endure to force a correction?

Sadly, we just might not be there yet. I look around and seriously ask, "Just what the fuck does it take to wake the sheeple up?" I've no idea. Maybe not being able to eat every day is the level we must reach. Hope not, but one has to wonder...

Some of us want specific things to happen so badly that any amount of pain is worth the chance of it happening. That's a problem in that those people are not really being Americans first. They are violating the social contract. The ugly part is that a whole bunch of them don't even realize what they are doing!

Others like it broken the way it is. Generally speaking, they are a problem too, but they are really happy and powerful. Happy enough to not worry about the rest of us, and powerful enough to convince a significant percentage of us to vote against out own best interests a majority of the time.

Want a case for evolution? I propose that bullshit like that can only evolve over time, leveraging the ongoing contributions of a long series of selfish people. I'm kidding about the evolution part, but the rest is not really far from the mark as to what has happened, IMHO.

And we've got others, who land on extremes somewhere unable to contribute in a meaningful way. They are leveraged by the other groups and are rendered essentially useless where solid solutions are concerned.

That leaves the rest of us, and it might not be enough. Perhaps that's the scary part for you. If so, I completely agree.

Coupla things come to mind...

If we were to fix the election process so that our elected representatives didn't owe so much to economically powerful interests, we might have a shot at solid representation that would largely correct things. There are lots of dollars on the line though. To get that done, we the people are gonna have to decide if we are gonna actually be Americans or not and get it done.

I think it would pass the Constiution test and it would correct a very large and growing imbalance between ordinary citizens and corporations as citizens. Corps are really super citizens, lording it over the rest of us.

Maybe that's enough right there.

I sure don't know the right advocacy path. I've heard a few solid pitches that focus on specific issues. But I think the holy grail is the idea of us all being Americans first, then ideologues second. That's how it's written, no matter what anybody says.