Four years of genocidal violence. An estimated 400,000 dead, 2.5 million innocent civilians displaced, and 4 million men, women, and children completely reliant on international aid for survival.

Darfur has been in the news this week, with the Sudanese government saying that they will accept a U.N. peacekeeping force there. This is certainly a welcome development, but the Sudanese government has made many agreements in the past, only to renege on their word and continue supporting the genocidal actions of the Janjaweed militia forces.

The international community needs to help end the suffering. We need to continue to encourage President Bush to be the leader of this international community.

I say we go in there and help out.
If not us, then who?
And here's a novel idea:
How about our aid agencies like Medical Teams Northwest, the Red Cross, Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army help bring those dying little kids over here for adoption once they've been stabilized. There are plenty of childless couples who would love to give them a home. Why let Angelina Jolie and Madonna do it and not other families?

But Chris, you give way more credence to the UN than that corrupt body deserves.
And don't count on the French to do much, either.

Herb

President Clinton as recently as this week said his biggest regret was not doing anything in Rwanda.

President Bush on the other hand, isn't going to have any regrets about doing nothing for Darfur when he leaves office. If he DOES try to do something, he's not going to be able to work with other nations -- most who rightly don't want to have anything to do with him. And if they do, Bush's track record will show that it will end up in another grand mess.

Unfortunately for the people of Darfur, help from the US is 2 years away. Hopefully for the people in Darfur, I'm wrong.

Darfu is not in an area of vital us interests, so our involvment should be minimal.

Area of vital US interest defined as important natural resources or shipping/trade lanes.

See, I rest my case.

We've also seriously over extended our military as well. I fear our ability to go in and help is sharply limited by our ongoing activities in Iraq.

The mess Iraq is today also makes our help look somewhat questionable as well.

I'm all for it. Something needs to be done, but we are in a tough position for that kind of activity right now. I fear you are right Skep. Hoping that isn't the case though.

Sounds like it may take some the agencies Herb mentioned, plus I believe many of us in the religious community banding together in a global way.

April 29 is being set aside in many churches as "For God's Sake, Save Darfur."

With all the focus on Iraq these past 5 years Darfur has not been on the international radar like it should have been.

Herb I know the UN is not your favorite organization but maybe they can be a conduit for theses agencies to get needed help to the people of Darfur.

If the UN can indeed help, and they don't siphon off the money with their outrageous corruption, then fine. But to actually pull that off, you'd need teams of honest, unbribable accountants to do it, 24/7. And keep Kofi Annan's kid away from the till-His record is not good.

I say keep politics out as much as possible. These are innocent people and they need help desperately.

Groups like the ones I mentioned have a track record for doing the right thing.

Herb

1st, define the mission, is it to keep them from killing each other, if so better be prepared to stay a real long time.

Is it to teach them the concept of democratic govt, and respect other cultures, if so good luck.

Is it to kill one side, that is doable.

Uh--so compassion is out of the question then Nwokie?

Compassion, and exactly what does that mean?
We can send all the food, medicine etc. But someone has to keep the bad guys from the good guys.
And for how long are you going to do it?

Colin Powell learned first hand how the world's largest continent is treated by the these folks. As always, it is the land of lip service, photo opportunity and exploitation. Put a diamond on your trophy wife and flap that flag real hard.

Africa is only important to this administration for natural resources, and as a setting for fictional tales of uranium intrigue. It is also home to an old favorite conservative storybook, Little Black Sambo.

Like most countries that were colonized, it is another place where white folks would love to get the geography after the natives are starved out or die of disease. The only thing many administrations have seemed to imply is, "hurry up and meet your maker."

This is an international crisis, and arguably, a helluvalot more important than the current bloodbath in the Gulf. However, I do not see the United States helping Blacks abroad as anything short of a lie. How can our country pretend to give two shits about Africans when they imprison so many at home?

Darfur will just go on that Santa's list of places we could have helped, did not help, and in the moment, felt little or no remorse about it. Ah yes, lessee, there's those skinny kids with the flies, the stacks of bodies, and the dictator we snuggled. Huh, we must be on "The Dark Continent" -- Doctor Livingston, I presume?

"Compassion, and exactly what does that mean? "

com·pas·sion /kuh m-pash-uh n/ –noun

1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

—Synonyms 1. commiseration, mercy, tenderness, heart, clemency. See sympathy.

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus:

Synonyms: benevolence, charity, clemency, commiseration, compunction, condolence, consideration, empathy, grace, heart, humaneness, humanity, kindness, lenity, mercy, soft-heartedness, softness, sorrow, sympathy, tenderheartedness, tenderness, yearning.

And what are you going to do? How many soldiers are you willing to have die? How long are you going to stay there?

I'm a pragmatic, I still think of myself as a soldier, and I know soldiers go where told, do what their told, and sometimes die, thats part of the deal.

Send me to darfur, and I will go and do as told, and that will probably involve killing someone.
Question is who do I kill, and for how long.

"I'm a pragmatic, I still think of myself as a soldier."

I'm a Christian and to do nothing goes against my belief system. Herb has some decent ideas however they are more for the aftermath and not taking care of what needs to be done in Darfur. I know he doesn't want much UN intervention, but it may require the UN along with many others to get the peace train rolling. Here are some ideas currently being discussed.

Peacemaking:

The United States, the European Union, and the African Union should assemble a team of diplomats based in the region to work full-time on unifying the rebel groups. At the same time, the United Nations and the African Union must develop a framework and roadmap for renewed negotiations between the government and the rebels, and must put the proper personnel in place immediately to resume the peace process.

Protection:

The United Nations must work in close coordination with the African Union to line up the forces necessary to reach the 20,300-troop level agreed upon in November by the African Union, the United Nations, the Arab League, and international donor countries, and then must place renewed pressure on Khartoum to accept this "hybrid force". The international community must also accelerate its contingency planning for military action if the situation worsens, including plans for a no-fly zone and intervention in the event of large-scale massacres of civilians.

Punishment:

The U.S. government must lead the international community in altering the calculations of Sudan's ruling NCP by working to impose multilateral punitive measures—such as targeted sanctions and economic pressures—against senior NCP officials and the companies they control. Such efforts must also target rebel leaders obstructing peace and perpetrating atrocities. Additional assistance also must be given to the ICC to help accelerate its preparation of indictments.

For more information: http://www.enoughproject.org/reports/darfur_2007-04.php#recommendations

African Union forces, right, the same guys that have killed and raped all over Africa.

Forgive my cynicism, but Africa is a place that the west almost always does more harm than good.

I do, however, praise the efforts of those who have volunteered to help in humanitarian ways.

As stewards of so much wealth and food, there is no reason we should not share our bounty with the starving.

I take back my "I rest my case" comment because nwokie was posting his opinion, however I am going to use some tactics favored by nwokie to see if it works:

What is going on in Darfur is rather ghastly and horrific -- the snuffing out of innocent and cherished human lives of people that cannot defend themselves -- killed in ways that are far worse than the partial birth proceedure.

What is the difference between a brain being removed from a fetus and one being removed from an actual human being on the other side of the world?

Does God only care about Americans and their shipping lanes?

To share the bounty, as in making sure they have food, you need a military force that is going to ensure a fair distribution.

That means US or European forces.

As a former soldier, I assume you would rather be tossing bags off the back of a deuce and a half to grateful people, rather than say, being shot at?

The problem with our current foreign policy is that our reputation and standing no longer allows us to be the nice guys with the Hershey bars and gum.

We torture now. We make people disappear. We have no moral compass, or tradition of compassion for the world to embrace and support. All of that wonderful stuff has been thrown away.

So, if we are to be part of a coalition, we will have to be a silent minority. A shame really, since we once had the potential to help everyone in need, whether they had resources or not.

I dont know of any soldiers that signed up to be social workers.

We do not torture, and no one has been convicted of it.

"We have no moral compass, or tradition of compassion for the world to embrace and support."

Americans by far, give more total aid to the suffering than other countries. The United States gave $16 billion for humanitarian causes while Japan, the second biggest giver, delivered $9 billion last year.

Don't bash America when it's not warranted. There are plenty of other areas to point out where we do fall short.

Herb

I hope you're right Herb. I have read some numbers recently (of course can I find my source when I need it) of our humanitarian support abroad and we're not as giving as we once were. But we do still give and that IS important. I will try and locate my source of information.

Nwokie-It would be interesting to talk to a current group of soldiers to find out if they would prefer going into battle against an enemy they can't really define, or help starvation victims.

What did I say, I said I want you to define who I'm suppossed to fight.

Maybe taking the word "fight" and replace it with "help" might be a good place for you to start.

Nope, I didnt sign on to be a social worker, tell me to guard a relief column, I'm fine with that, guard medical workers, thats ok.

Tell me to train local security forces works for me.

I have been retired over 10 years, but I have had the opportunity to visit Brag and Benning a few times, both officially and unofficially, and one of the biggest complaints I hear, is when soldiers are being used as garbagemen or welfare workers.

One of the standing inside jokes among the infantry, is that our job description involves breaking things and hurting people. but that is basically what we do.

Nwokie and Chris are both right.

This is a job for us to do, but it's for the Church to do it, not necessarily the military.

The authority for this claim I make?

Pure, unstained religion, according to God our Father, is to take care of orphans and widows when they suffer and to remain uncorrupted by this world. James 1:27

Herb-

But won't it take some kind of military support for those supplies to get to those most in need? Otherwise who knows where the supplies may end of up.

Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.
- Proverbs 31:8-9

We can make the power of those who exploit us irrelevant... Choose to know the truth about global struggles, and live in a way that supports a just alternative.
- Vandana Shiva
from the 2002 World Social Forum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

The main problem, is the power strugle between various warlords. You have to either eliminate the militas or render them powerless.

You can negotiate with them for years while people die, or send in a light infantry brigade
with orders to end the killings.

Then the various welfare agencies can deliver food, medecine and rebuild their infrastructure.

It sounds great, Chris. But we can only ask so much of our military. As Nwokie points out, they are trained to kill and break things and are superbly trained and equipped to do both.

Perhaps some kind of cover whilst spiriting away those in the most direct line of fire, but let's not send our military in without a clear objective. It's hard enough in places like Iraq.

Herb

Herb writes:

I say we go in there and help out.
If not us, then who?
And here's a novel idea:
How about our aid agencies like Medical Teams Northwest, the Red Cross, Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army help bring those dying little kids over here for adoption once they've been stabilized. There are plenty of childless couples who would love to give them a home. Why let Angelina Jolie and Madonna do it and not other families?

Your president thinks big talk is enough. Can't offend his big business buddies.

If the US wants to be the go-it-alone policeman of the world, we're going to need to increase taxes (sorry, you can't have both a tax cut for Paris Hilton and more military spending and just keep borrowing for it). And we're going to need a draft. The US military is stretched too thin as it is. And any draft, you just know, is not going to allow the kids of the upper middle class skip out of service as they were able to do in Vietnam.

So...US military help for Darfur simply won't fly, sad to say. I would not support it with the US doing it alone anyway. The UN is dysfunctional but we do need other nations' help. When the UN failed in the Balkans, Clinton went with NATO - maybe we need to try something like that again.

Andrew

Care to define and defend that cryptic message?

Herb

andrew said: "When the UN failed in the Balkans, Clinton went with NATO - maybe we need to try something like that again."

Good idea, but with this president, probably not a chance it will happen. Brilliant ideas come from brilliant minds, not from loyalists of the dumb.

Oh, I don't expect anything positive to happen in Darfur until at least January 21, 2009 if the US has anything to do with it. And even then, no new president is going to just rush in there. So sad for those poor suffering people. Iraq most definitely limits our options with or without the rest of NATO.

Andrew

Herb, do not take something out of context and make me an "America basher" when I am referring to our failed foreign policy, not the efforts of private charities. Americans are still loved, and often, still generous, but our government has become a dark and sinister punchline.

Nwokie, I appreciate your candor. I also appreciate that you would have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to see the poor and defenseless of the world fed. I would imagine that many of our military, like you, are proud of the work we do when we have a noble goal and a clear strategy. Even if it is just guarding relief workers, the results are worth the risks.

"Darfu is not in an area of vital us interests, so our involvment should be minimal.

Area of vital US interest defined as important natural resources or shipping/trade lanes."

So they are less of people than those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Than US?

Did you REALLY just say that? "F*** Darfur, they aren't vital to US interests so they don't count."

This isn't about fighting and knowing who to fight, it is about helping the people who can't help themselves. It is about being part of a world order to help these people.

I side with Herb in personally not being a big UN fan, the premise is noble but this organization is FAR from what Woodrow Wilson envisioned. That said, if the UN can show the lead, with us helping lead the way, to help the people in Darfur, then I am all for it.

The people arent less important, the area is.
People are dying and starvien etc ll over the world, the US can only do so much, and when it does, it should be where it directly affects us.

And I said I had no problem helping in Darfu, as long as its well though out, just sending food and medical people isnt going to help. There are some people there that have to be shown the thunder and lightening. For any lasting solution.

Thats like saying in 43, we need to send food and medicine to help the jews in Warsaw, someone had to deal with the SS and gestapo first.

"Thats like saying in 43, we need to send food and medicine to help the jews in Warsaw, someone had to deal with the SS and gestapo first."

Your point is very well made, Nwokie. That's a great analogy.

Herb

Nwokie said>>>Darfu is not in an area of vital us interests, so our involvment should be minimal.

NO OIL!

You may not like it, But a continued flow of oil is vital to the US.

But it shouldn't be just about that! That's where the neo-CONers like yourself don't get it. YES! Oil is vital but so are schools and the HEALTH of a nation. The ECONOMY! The infrastructure of a country!
If you can't see the forest for the trees you loose sight of what is really important. And keeping the United States of America THRIVING with people, jobs and EDUCATION is vital.
Stick that in your neo-CONer pipe and smoke it.

But a continued flow of oil is vital to the US.

Only if we continue putting off the R&D required to address that problem. That's gonna take an investment that none of the major energy companies appear to take seriously.

(Chevron ads aside)

If Al Gore took office in 2000, not only we wouldn't be in Iraq, but we'd be a little bit less dependent on oil. Its the shortsighted thinking of Bush and NWokie types that have us in the mess we are today.

Because we screwed up, the continued flow of oil is vital to us today. In our country, we reward bad decision making.

(clearly this post was not brought to you by ExxonMobile)

If al gore had been in charge, we would hae surrendered to al queda.

And Gore would be using all the oil to heat his swimming pool.

no we wouldn't. we would have gone to afghanisan and sticked with the job until bin laden was captured.

there is also the chance that gore would have listened to the same info bush got and prevented 9/11.

saddam hussien would still be contained and/or lynched by his own people. 3320 Americans would still be alive and $400 Billion available for tax cuts.

If Al Gore had been president on September 11, 2001, he wouldn't have kept reading a book to school children for eight minutes after being told a 2nd plane had hit the World Trade Center. Nor would he, despite his history as a military hawk, have so recklessly invaded Iraq. But ANY president would have gone after the Taliban after 9/11. My guess is that Gore wouldn't have let Osama go free, though.

Andrew

Nwokie said>>>
If al gore had been in charge, we would hae surrendered to al queda.

HORSESHIT! NO President in their right mind would give up! But maybe we would have gone after Osama a little harder instead of GIVING UP ON HIM like IDIOT DUHbya has.....

You know, I was thinking....Dan should change the name of this side of the board to “Bush Bashing and Every Once in a Great While a Thread that Doesn't Turn Into Bush Bashing"

The majority of posters on this side of the board are so anti Bush that he could save the world from some horrific disaster and they would still find fault with him for not doing it their way.

It would really be nice to read some posts that don't ultimately turn to Bush Bashing.

Would really be nice to hear more acceptance of his poor leadership too.

More then half the bashing is in response to denial surrounding the poor leadership of the Bush Administration and the ongoing GOP support for it.

I don't think it's in any of our best interests to give these clowns, nor their supporters, any deference at all. They have not earned it. Additionally, many of the discussion topics are relevant to this (P)resident. When solid info is presented, then dismissed with bogus support that leverages the (P)resident, what do you expect?

I would like to see less of it too, but that comes with a cost. Acceptance is where it all starts.

It's either that, or bring some support to the table that justfies said deference and many people here will play ball.

Sky,

"It would really be nice to read some posts that don't ultimately turn to Bush Bashing."

Sky, please feel free to take my challenge on another thread asking for a(ny) link to a warm fuzzy or any positive article on Bush and the US Constutution.

Your buddies here seem to be unable to find anything.

sky, if clinton was president, or any democrat for that matter, at the moment, the focus would be on his job performance and/or behavior. It just so happens Bush is the president now and he is about as inept as they come and his ineptness affects every American each day. Exactly what are we to talk about here?

Name a democrat who takes a significant poop on our lives each day and I'll be happy to take a break from Bush for a day or two.

Skybill, given that this board is dominated by democrats & democrat-sympathizers, the constant Bush-bashing is expected. It's a lot like the left-leaning media. Also, if you point out one honest negative fact about the impeached Mr. Clinton, the feigned outrage is hilarious.

Herb

Well, nobody cares about Clinton! He's not the (P)resident is he? Bush is the (P)resident now, he calls the shots and remains accountable. The GOP, by continuing to support him, despite many mistakes, lies, etc... also remains accountable. Who else can there be? Clinton? Hahahaha!

(and I would have gladly hammered Clinton, had I been here during his Presidency. He did plenty wrong.)

As always, let's hear the good stuff. Surely it's out there right? Herb, you posted stats that debunked the whole, "Bush looks bad because the media makes him look bad." bit.

Everybody has bias. The bias here does not matter. The bias in the media does not matter. What matters are the facts surrounding the quality of leadership and it's impact on all of us.

Those facts are not favorable. Additionally, any (minor) progress on pet issues does not justify the price of victory either. This clown is just not worth it period. There is no upside --none whatsoever.

I'm really sorry that sucks, but that is the reality we currently live in. If it were any different, the discourse here would have reflected that over the 4+ years I've been involved with it.

Until I see something SOLID that tilts the balance in favor, I'm just not inclined to grant any deference period. The guy sucks and a growing majority of Americans, from all ideologies, know it. Greater acceptance of that is only a good thing as it is the only way forward to better leadership.

"The bias here does not matter."

Only a committed liberal could make that statement with a straight face. I told you guys it was hilarious.

Read Emmy-award winner Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias." He worked side-by-side with people like Dan Rather. It tells you what you need to know, and pulls no punches.

Herb

Where are the facts Herb?

And you continue to label me --incorrectly I might add. Socially liberal, all over the map in other areas. Registered Republican for over 15 years.

Show me the facts, or consider some acceptance on just how badly the (P)resident and the GOP supporting him have screwed the pooch, but don't bitch and whine about how horrible it is to hear about all the damage all the time.

We live here too you know.

Let's start with these. I don't think bias is playing a significant role in this discussion. I'm sure there are some duds on this list. So, let's say 10 of them are completely bogus, and another 10 are just a matter of preference. That leaves a lot of poor decisions, affecting a HUGE number of people.

So, where is the list of positives? You know, those things that balance this out. If it comes down to worth, I gotta say this clown is worthless. Any upside is a significant burden.

You got a Pro-Life victory the other day right? Just by way of example, is all this crap worth that? For all I know, you might be right on pro-life. That's open for discussion, but is getting it done this way the right thing to do?

That's what I'm getting at with my own critique of Bush. Not your beliefs or anything else. It's the leadership that's a serious issue. Nobody is gaining in this. Nobody.

1. George Tenet's new revelations about Bush/Cheney on the Iraq War.

2. Ignoring the victims of Hurricane Katrina and going golfing while this tragedy unfolded.

3. For Emailgate, Karl Rove, and violations of the Hatch Act..

4. Pajama Pete Domenici and the WH interfering with Iglesias' prosecutorial duties.

5. For Cooking intelligence for the Iraqi war.

6. Attorneygate.

7. The outing of Valerie Plame, an undercover, covert, CIA agent, done solely for retaliatory purposes against her husband.

8. For Monica Goodling.

9. For failing to fund the levies for the New Orleans area.

10. For Systematic Voter Fraud during the 2004 Election.

11. For knowingly not supplying enough Body Armor for our troops.

12. For The Jack Abramoff Scandals.

13. Bush deliberately endangering our troops by supporting a surge for political reasons even when doing so is against the welfare of our troops.

14. For the Duke Cunningham Scandal.

15. Cheney was doing business with the Taliban in early 2001.

16. Bush ignored the August 6th, 2001 PDB warning of an imminent attack on American soil by Osama Bin Laden using commercial airplanes.

17. For The Medicare misrepresentations to Congress.

18. For Lying to Congress about intelligence for the Iraqi War.

19. For The Enron Scandals.

20. For Knowingly sending troops into harm's way without proper training.

21. The Walter Reed Scandals.

22. For Illegally Wiretapping Americans.

23. Violating the FISA Act.

24. For cutting and Running in Afghanistan.

25. Bush turned Large Surpluses into Record Deficits.

26. Health Care Premiums up more than 70% since 2001.

27. Gas prices over $3.00 a gallon.

28. For using a recess appointment to make swiftboater Sam Fox a US ambassador to Belgium.

29. For the Dubai Ports Sellout.

30. Bush's Cozy Relationship with Saudi Arabia's anti-American dictators.

31. Bush gutted student loans.

32. Reducing educational scholarships for hard working students.

33. Princess Paulose, the 33 yr old nutjob attorney in Minnesota.

34. For the revelations made in Victor Gold's new book.

35. Halliburton giving spoiled food to our troops.

36. AG's prosecuting Democrats solely b/c they are Democrats.

37. Lying about Niger/Iraq and uranium in the SOTU.

38. The Forged Niger Documents.

39. Cheney claiming there was a link between Saddam and Osama.

40. The deliberate failure by the Bush administration to capture or kill Zarqawi prior to 2003 so he could be used as an argument to invade Iraq.

41. For the faith based initiative scandals.

42. For Hiring 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's low rated University.

43. For nominating, anti constitution radical Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

44. For nominating, anti constitution radical John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

45. For turning America from the most loved nation in the world to the most hated.

46. For Illegal Domestic Spying on Americans.

47. For suspending the Bacon-Davis Act after Hurricane Katrina.

48. Tax cuts for millionaires, tax increases on ordinary Americans.

49. The smears against former treasury secretaryPaul O'Neill.

50. Paul Wolfowitz, his scandals, and the coverups.

51. George Bush read "My Pet Goat" after being told by Andrew Kard that "America was under attack." Bush then spent 25 more minutes doing photoops in a school auditorium instead of dealing with, or being concerned about, the worst terrorist attack in American history.

52. Bush cut back on mine worker safety regulations and the enforcement thereof.

53. Bush selling our forests and national parks to the highest bidder and his cronies.

54. The NCLB scandals where statistics are cooked to conceal the anti-education failures of this dreadful piece of legislation.

55. Torture at Guantanamo Bay and other locations around the world of innocent people.

56. Denial of habeas corpus rights to American citizens.

57. Bush's attempts to destroy Social Security.

58. Bush refusing to allow Medicare recipients access to more affordable prescription drugs.

59. Bush supporting an attempted coup of a democratically elected leader in South America.

60. For lying about what really happened to Jessica Lynch and using her story for propaganda purposes.

61. For knowing that Pat Tillman was killed in friendly fire and then perpetuating lies about Pat Tillman for political purposes.

62. For illegally data mining American citizens.

63. For issuing an executive order allowing private mercenaries to kill, rape, and torture innocent Iraqis without lawful repercussions.

64. For failing to go back to the United Nations for a second resolution on Iraq when he said that the second resolution was a criteria for invading Iraq.

65. For refusing to participate in the Kyoto Treaty.

66. For allowing junk scientists to deny the existence of global warming.

67. For suppressing the votes of millions of people across the country.

68. For participating in an active coup of overthrowing the democratically elected President of Haiti and allowing a return to the dictator's Duvalier's followers.

69. For authorizing Colin Powell to present false information to the United Nations about the level of threat in Iraq.

70. For allowing the Secret Service to arrest and detain law abiding American citizens for having bumper stickers or T shirts that Busheviks disapprove of.

71. For aiding and abetting the Taliban in Afghanistan to this day.

72. For committing insider trading fraud. (RE: Harken).

73. Funeralgate.

74. For issuing illegal signing statements under the guise of the unitary executive.

75. For just being George W Bush, who will go down in history as one of the ten worst people to ever walk the face of the earth.


Found on Kos.

Any corrupt politician, anywhere on this big ball of mud, is fair game. I think we have taken more than just his pathetic ass to the cleaners. If you scroll through, you will find the shrub has been in fine company.

Almost April 23, and still, no plan for Darfur. Of course, there is no plan for Iraq either, so the administration, as usual, is doing the best that they can.

What gets me is how Herb seems to think that we should show Bush respect because he is the President of the United States of America, and thus demands our respect ... when he shows ex-Presidents Clinton and Carter absolutely zero respect. Shouldn't THEY be granted the same respect? After all, they WERE the POTUS!

Wow, the historical record on our President looks really, really, bad, man.

After leaving office, Bush isn't gonna be able to appear in any public venue without getting booed, including his own funeral.

Practically everything on the list is a lie, or a big twist on the truth.

Missing,I'm noticing that over the months this anti-Bush thing is getting a little far out. I'd hate to see it go further, for your own good. There are other, more useful things in life to occupy your mind than this, especially since you can't do anything about it anyway.

To be completely fair, it comes and goes. If it bothers you, I really must say I'm just not sorry. While we are at it, don't forget the GOP in general. They did support this bozo through all that crap. Rubberstampers are dangerous, are they not? Remember back when we talked about this being their show and where the blame and accountability would be?

I remember hearing lots about being uninformed, naive, selfish, etc... I remember hearing a lot of "just you wait and see". Well? I've waited and I've seen Deane. It's not good, not good at all, and it's not over just yet, and it could very easily get worse! What I didn't hear was, "maybe this was a bad idea", or "ok, we've gotta do something"...

I hear, "it could be worse, at least we got...", or "he's trying to do the right thing, but", or "people don't understand..." and it's time to just put some reality on the table. If that makes others uncomfortable, good! Perhaps then they might reconsider and act on that feeling.

I know that list is not inclusive (and that's not a good thing), nor it it completely fair, but the fact that one like it exists and has as many solid items on it as it does, speaks volumes where matters of worth are concerned.

It's ok to get these things out. When we've got bad leaders we need to be able to talk about that in rational terms, without all the BS. One can recognize this and not be threatened in their beliefs, desires, etc... fully half of what I've posted is in response to BS! I'll call it and always ask for the support.

Believe me, if there is an upside, I want to know it.

I know strong people, who understand this crap is happening, yet turn a blind eye because their fear trumps being American. I know others that are ok with it because they personally have come out on top, with no regard for the people as a whole. There are others...

That's the greater point. If we cannot do this, then the elements of this nation, that make it great, have been diminished. If you feel good about the current state of things, there are some issues period, or you know something I don't. Which is it?

There is one other thing too. It's somewhat morbid, but it's real; namely, I push hard to see what shakes out, in the hopes that there really is some good and that I can take that as a sign that perhaps things are better than I think they are.

So far, no luck

As always, what have I written that's not defensible? I don't hate the guy, but I've not seen anything that justifies anything beyond that.

Not only is it a politically-motivated and bogus list made up by hate America firsters, but how about something actually significant for a change-Like the security-damaging leftist Sandy Burglar's breach of national security by stuffing classified intel in his socks?

Herb

And your support for "hate America firsters" is what exactly? And bogus? Where is the balance, as in the items that make these worth enduring, or where the items are wrong, incomplete, etc...? Finally, what items on that list, are not significant?

(P)resident Bush is not America. He does not embody what makes great Americans. Anyone, who loves this nation, can easily look at that list and understand the two are clearly seperate.

"Where is the balance, as in the items that make these worth enduring, or where the items are wrong, incomplete, etc...?"

You may find time to cut and paste prattle from a leftist website, but few would actually spend time rebutting such ham-fisted inanities.

Conservatives are constantly berated for citing sources like WorldNetDaily and FoxNews. Yet when radical socialist sites are invoked by liberals, that's just fine and dandy?

Spin on.

Herbert Milhous Nixon IV

When I cut and paste I'm up front about it. Nearly all of those items have come under discussion here, sans the cut and paste. Those discussions were linked with the stories published at the time.

Those discussions did not result in a favorable outlook on this (P)resident. In fact, the many dodges seen at the end of them, prompted me to list them for easy reference later.

Too many to bother with Herb? Frankly I would agree! And that is the point isn't it? This leader, and the party who empowered him is largely a lost cause right now. Anyone, who is a solid leader, would not have such a list easily compiled that contains so many problematic items.

You only get to say "ham-fisted" if you've got support for it! Where is it? You imply this is a cheap shot against what would otherwise be a good guy? If he is so good, or at the very least deserving of better treatment, how come this never came out over the years?

Generally, when somebody says Fox News is BS, they can tell us why. I've done it plenty of times.

So, why is Kos the problem here and not the information contained above?

These are two different issues. One, being that really ugly list and the other being where it came from. Do you want to just accept that ugly list and talk about Kos, or maybe both and we can move on to bigger and better things?

You just can't wave that many transgressions away Herb. Not with out some solid support for why we should be doing so.

I will start with one item on your list.

As a person that lived in a Hurricane area for several years and went through 3, including 1 four level.

NO was devestated by the hurricane for several reasons, none of which were President Bush's fault.

To begin with, NO was built on the coast in an area below sea level.

then The levee commission spent hundreds of millions that were supposed to be used on levee maintenance on Casinos and other tourist attracting business.

Any one that lives in a hurricane area, knows that before a hurricane you do a few things, the first being get away, if you can, if you can't. You board up, and put aside some basic items, like water and canned food.

Many of the NO residents did either, instead, they went to hurricane parties.

FEMA prior to the hurricane, inspected the hospitals and other govt agencies, and recommended several hurricane related improvements, such as move back up power from basements etc. The city agreed, but did nothing.

Just prior to the hurricane, the president asked for the guard to be activated, the gov refused.

During the hurricane, the local police abandoned the city.

After the hurricane, FEMA moved in, on the schedule it is suppossed to. And started the evacuation, that the state and city should have already done. It even gave thousands of residents cash cards to cover expenses, which the residents used on such necessities as strip clubs and booze.

"75. ...For just being George W Bush..."

Another nauseating vitriolic ad hominem attack. You've got less than nothing and come off looking far smaller than the President ever could. Little minds come up with this kind of stuff.

Herb

I'll totally give you #75. It's redundant, given the other 74 uglies on there. Hell, I'll give you 10 more as I'm sure of that many being problematic.

Feel better?

Now, about that support for:

-hate america firsters
-bogus
-significance
-kos not valid source in a way that marginalizes this list?

Nwokie, did the (P)resident not deny funding for the federal levies?

57, thats easy, the dems have destroyed social security, in their constant raiding of the SS trust fund, and constant widening of what social security pays for.

President Bush's plan was more than reasonable, unfortunatly, it would have taken too much money thaqt the demos liked to use in bribing people.

"...about that support for:

-hate america firsters
-bogus
-significance
-kos not valid source in a way that marginalizes this list..."

Since you deny the legitimacy of Fox News, the same can easily be said of subversive leftist rags like the Daily Koz.

Herb

I dont know if the president ever denied levee funding, but since they werent spending the money they had on levees, guess they didnt need any.

And the NO levee board was composed of appointees from the city and state. All demos.

Nwokie, your point is essentially, "they get what they get for living there." Agreed actually. It's a high risk area.

This does not excuse the terrible handling of the disaster though. It's two seperate things.

Herb, I've solid support for what I've written about Fox News. Do you have the same for Kos?

Even so, that list stands regardless. It's a seperate matter altogether.

The dodges are piling up quickly...

(as they always do)

It's not a dodge when responding to ham-fisted, partisan attacks. You besmirch those who attempt to make purely partisan points, yet appear to be doing the same.

Sorry, this isn't Burger King. You can't have it your way.

Spin on.

Herb

And those are ham-fisted how exactly?

If this is ham-fisted (and it isn't), then surely you can set me straight right? Come on, it's not hard. Just point out where it's all ok and we are fine, just not realizing it.

On the matter of partisan, I would be totally happy to see solid Republicans elected and enjoy their perspective on the matters of the day. Sadly, we've got a rubber stamp GOP supporting a very bad leader.

It's American to realize this and act accordingly. If that makes your side look bad, you might reconsider who you are backing you know. Conservative is ok, Republican is ok, etc...

Seems to me, having to endure that big of a black eye, is a strong incentive to ask your guys to step up and start doing the right things!

No my point was living in a hurricane prone area, and living below sealevel should have meant, individuals would take a minimum level of preperationess.

FEMA actuall did a pretty good job, when measured against their mission. FEMA was never meant to be a first responder, thats the local police/fire and guard.

Fema usuall takes about 3 days to respond, and they beat that.

FEMA had to be prepared to respond whereve the hurricane hit, and it could have been from Mobile to Brownsville.


So FEMA prepositions equipment outside the areas that could be hit, then after the disaster is over, starts moving in men and equipment.

Yep, as the president said, "great job brownie!"

I think it was "Heckuva job, Brownie."

Herb

Mr Brownie did do a good job, nearly everything he was criticized for, was the responsibility of local and state agencies.

It was their job to ensure an orderly evacuation, it was their job to preposition supplies to designated shelters, it was their job to provide security before and immediatly following a disaster.

as in "YOU'RE FIRED"!

I question why taxpayers should have to pay for Katrina damage at all. The people of NO choose to live in a high risk area. They choose not to get out when the warnings are given. They choose their local political leaders who are supposed to be the first responders. They choose their state leaders who are supposed to be the second responders.

I've lived in NO. I've lived in the 9th ward that was so badly devastated. I've been through the eye of a 145mph hurricane that passed over my house. I've watched the water come over the levees and come within feet of my house. I moved out of NO, vowing to never return. I haven't.

I know a little about how the people think and it ain't good. Then, when the crap hits the fan, we're supposed to bail them out. And Bush is a bad guy for not doing it soon enough. More BS.

Well here we are. Buried in Katrina commentary.

Say what you want folks. Worst President Ever. He's the gift that's gonna keep on giving for a very long time. Before you vote GOP, remember that, and the stuff posted here by the supporters.

I will.

SO what your saying is that we don't help??? So much for being an American.....

deane, 2 different things here.

1) assistance after the storm -- the basics -- food, shelter and RESCUE was lacking. The President failed here.

2) rebuilding N.O. I agree, we shouldn't rebuild N.O. Its nonsense to spend this kind of money to fight mother nature forever.

The basics, at least immediatly was the responsibility of local govt.

It was the mayor that designated the Superdome as a shelter, but he purposefully didnt send in supplies, he didnt want people spending too long there.

WOKIE said>>>
It was the mayor that designated the Superdome as a shelter, but he purposefully didnt send in supplies, he didnt want people spending too long there.

More IGNORANCE from the EXTREME REICH.

People were sitting dead in wheelchairs on national tv a week after the storm. So the city that got entirely wiped out was to deal with the matter all by itself?

Skep points out the IGNORNACE of the neo-CONers...

If the state had activated teh guard beforehand, or allowed the president to do it, that wouldnt have happened.


Also if the city had lived up to its agrrments with FEMA it wouldnt have happened.

And if the Police Dept hadnt deserted it wouldnt have happened.

If the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT would have taken care of the levees 3 years before hand this wouldn't have happened...

THANKS DUHbya and CO.!!!!!

>>>"If the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT would have taken care of the levees 3 years before hand this wouldn't have happened..."

Why is it the Federal Government's job to fix the levees. Why do I care if it goes under water once and for all.

And why did the citty and state spend a couple of hundred million designated for levees on casinos?

http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL082705nagin.b7724856.html

Mayor Nagins order, and he knew there were few supplies in the Superdome, why didnt he move some there?

And since he ordered an evacuation, why didnt he supply city busses for it?

#25, there was never a surplus, at no time did the actual debt decrease, the so called surplus was a bookkeeping trick. And the hint of a surplus caused the economy to tank.


And the current defecit in relation to GNP is bery resonable.

"the so called surplus was a bookkeeping trick."

sort of like the "Social Security/Medicare in deep doo doo" BS that Bush was yakking about 2 years ago to push private accounts but abandoned once he realized most ALL Americans said leave Social Security alone?

DJ said>>>
Why do I care if it goes under water once and for all.

Let's hope YOU have the funds to fix everything when your town goes down the drain....

DJ, I guess you won't be needing us there to help pick up your DVD's that are spread out over 5 counties after the Perfect Storm™ giant tornado. And we'll be sure to make a note on our Mercy Corps/NW Medical Team donation checks to skip your house. (I will help out with your pets rescue, though.)

Mrs. Airy Fairy

;-B

And the (P)resident still sucks huge. The GOP still rubber stamped him, and our lives are all changed for the worse.

Ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack. Blah, blah, blah.

Better get some new talking points at moveon.org and the dailykoz. You're repeating yourself.

Herb

"You're repeating yourself."

That's hysterically funny, coming from you.

Maybe it is, but this lily-livered, hand-wringing, ham-fisted ad-hominem stuff has to stop.

I mean, the president still sucks huge? If I said that about Mr. Clinton, with no supporting argument, you guys would be on me like flies on a pig.

You just did that very thing about 15 minutes ago on the abortion thread.

Bzzzzzzzt, how's the poop tonight? I mean soup!

*Plonk*

It does not have to stop at all, unless you've got something to justify doing otherwise. Where is it Herb? You really do need to put up, or deal.

He sucks huge Herb. Really huge. So does most all of the GOP for rubber stamping the madness. I changed parties over this clown. It's that bad!

Every time this has come up, for at least FOUR years, I've made sure to always ask for information to the contrary, and I've always said why I asked these things. I got dodges, mis-information, personal attacks, --the works! I didn't get anything, ever, that suggests things might be otherwise however, and that remains true today.

Perhaps, if the pressure is high enough, something will shake loose. Not expressing these things is granting acceptance and deference to one who does not deserve it period. I'm not inclined to reward these things because I stand to lose by these things. I am a complete fool to grant any deference at all.

If this upsets you, perhaps you should reconsider if this is all worth it. I sure would, given the roles were reversed and my complete inability to bring any solid counter points to the table.

There is plenty of incentive to keep this front and center. I've a long life yet. Maybe I'll see the damage undone, maybe I won't, but I sure as hell won't be one of the sheeple, who stood by and said nothing.

Elections are coming along with a lot of ugly stuff. People need to know why we are here, who did it, and what their options are.

I've put up.

No attacks since 9/11.
Record low interest rates.
Unemployment is very low.
He's Pro-Life.

You just don't want to hear it.
Could it because you don't like Republicans?

Herb

And these things balance the 70 or so items?

Same short list you've been posting for a long time. Every one of the items has been refuted by me and others repeatedly.

This isn't about me. If you think the guy is the stuff, great! You've got no worries right? If I say he sucks, and you are on solid ground for believing he doesn't, what's the big deal?

Oh... yeah, it's that solid ground thing. Guess that would be worrysome. Remember, there is always reconsideration!

..but that would mean a lame Resident President, combined with a rubber stamp Congress, put whackos on the court to pass your law. Ouch!

I'll lighten up for a while and let you stew on it.

"If I say he sucks, and you are on solid ground for believing he doesn't, what's the big deal?"

If you wanna go ad hominem on us, then be consistent and give it a rest when conservatives treat liberals that way.

What you're saying is anything goes. You wanna operate that way, then don't whine when it doesn't go your way.

Herb

Actually I'm not really saying that.

My opinion happens to be in the growing majority of Americans --conservative, liberal, wierd, etc...

I've got solid support for characterizing the (P)resident's job performance as that which sucks. This is not an ad hominem attack. The difference is this:

Let's say Bob contributes something to the discussion. Bob has solid sources and contributes those as well.

Joe gets bent because Bob makes him look like an idiot, based on his prior statements.

Joe has a coupla choices. He could refute Bob's opinion, or he could ignore Bob, or accept what Bob has contributed and move on, knowing more than he did before, etc.... All of these are just ordinary discourse. No biggie.

The peer group will weigh the exchange and act accordingly. Points made, taken, etc... all add up and people move on.

If Joe were to say Bob's statement is meaningless because Bob is too young, gay, likes Fred the treehugger, reads too many books for his own good, does not believe in God, etc... that is an ad hominem. This is attacking the person, not the statement and it's a fallacy, therefore false and essentially useless.

When I say Bush sucks, I am referring directly to his performance as (P)resident, not his person. I've made that clear plenty of times. Over a period of several years, this assertion has held up under a lot of discussion from all sides. Additionally, there are people here, who now share that opinion, who did not before.

There is no one, on any venue I've engaged in, who has gone the other way.

If I lived next door to the guy, and we were interacting as peers, I'll bet he would be the kind of neighbor that would have you over for a barbque, or talk over the fence, etc... Maybe help you out if you needed it.

As a person, I'm not gonna judge him. I really don't know and can only guess.

To say it's anything goes is slippery Herb. That's not the case with me at all. Again, if my characterization worries you, the choices are clear:

-deal, secure in your understanding that I lack same,

-refute it with solid info,

(I'll totally engage that, for many reasons I've already given.)

-reconsider your own characterization, given your relative lack of support for it, and the growing numbers who no longer share it.

There may be others, but those are the most obvious.

I'm gonna lighten up for a while. Better things to do. I'm going to do so for the overall greater good, not because there is any reason to grant deference to anyone on this matter. I'm completely entitled to express my characterization, and it is supported nicely by the facts of the day.

"When I say Bush sucks, I am referring directly to his performance as president, not his person. I've made that clear plenty of times."

Fine. Then either back it up with concrete evidence when you Trash N' Bash™, or realize that it simply makes you look like a sore loser.

You wouldn't want conservatives doing the same to Mr. Clinton. Practice what you preach.

Herb

It's been presented here over a LONG time.

IMHO, you might consider actually doing that. I've easily met my burden over the years, you on the other hand, just have not.

Herb said>>>
You wouldn't want conservatives doing the same to Mr. Clinton. Practice what you preach.

But that's ALL you neo-CONers did with YOUR hero LimBLAH leading the way EVERYDAY!

I feel that Herb is either morphing into Wayne and making less and less sense in his hypocritical posts, or he refuses to admit he's backed himself into a corner and hasn't figured out the "flight" half of "fight or flight" and is lashing out with a blindfold on.

Poor sap. Go out and rip the lips off some female fish, club them, and toss the eggs in the trash while cleaning them. you'll feel so much better.


Yes, I am a doctor.

P.S. Bill Clinton and Nixon are SO over. Nobody cares about either of them regarding CURRENT events and politics. It's all water under the bridge and irrelevant.

"...lashing out with a blindfold on.."

Wait a minute.

A Bush-hater rants without supporting evidence.
I call him on it.
And I'M the one lashing out?

Only in the grey dark & murky void of liberal relativism.
Nice try.
Spin on.

Herb

See what I mean? Thanks for proving my point.

"back it up with concrete evidence..."?

Are you kidding? How much more does it take? How many articles and links posted here will satisfy you? I would guess that there have been literally thousands of items here over the past 3 years. YOU rarely, if ever, cite evidence. And you refuse to answer direct questions and seldom bring any solid counterpoint to the table over and over.

Hey! The pinata is over here!

"P.S. Bill Clinton and Nixon are SO over. Nobody cares about either of them regarding CURRENT events and politics. It's all water under the bridge and irrelevant."

Mrs. M, I'm not sure, but I don't think Nixon has anything to do with "CURRENT" events....I'm pretty sure he's dead!!!!!!

Just funnin with ya!

Worm Food!

(I stole that from somebody here, I just love it)

But his ideas live on. (Nixon's).

Like I said, the troll is a TROLL!

My biggest disappointment with Speaker Gingrich's
congress, was they didnt vote President Nixon an apology.

Ya know, Nwokie, the fact that Mr. Nixon is now recognized as among our finest presidents in international matters goes a long way toward underscoring Mr. Nixon's outstanding capabilities.

Herbert Milhous

We get it. Now give it a rest, Herb.

Hey, compared to the (P)resident, Nixon is a good guy!

--Just another great way to express the amount of suckage Herb!

BTW: I'm not, nor will I be, a Bush hater. Can we cut this short Herb and just get right down to the number of times and ways I've gotta articulate that before you quit labeling me as such? Get the numbers for America Hater too.

We quantified the difference between hate and disregard, worked through the difference between the person and their deeds / performance, spent some time trying to list good things (and that was tough), seperated ideologies from the people (ok to be conservative and not support Bush, etc..), talked about the founders and their claim we've duty to question, clarified why entitlement is tied to respect, trust, results, etc...

I seriously need to know what it actually takes to shake that label being applied to me every coupla weeks.

Thanks and appreciated,

KSKD

If one is a one-note Johnny, it indicates an obsession.

We hear little about how good the left is, only mud-slinging at conservatives.

Show us the positives of your view. That helps tip the hate-meter the other way. Otherwise, it simply appears that you're simply another foaming at the mouth radical who hates, a la Michael Moore.

Herb

Ok, so it's gonna take a while. I completely understand. Sometimes acceptance is really tough. Take all the time you need.

I'm here to help!

Herb said>>>
Show us the positives of your view. That helps tip the hate-meter the other way. Otherwise, it simply appears that you're simply another foaming at the mouth radical who hates, a la Michael Moore.


MOORE Venom from Herb. The mouth of the EXTREME REICH!
WOW!
Keep it up Herb and the REICH is bound to loose the White House.
Damn, your a mad person.

Name-call and swear all you want, Trixter.
It merely proves my point.
If you decide keep it up, expect to lose in '08.

Herb

"If one is a one-note Johnny, it indicates an obsession."

See: Nixon

Guilty as charged on that one.
At least I admit it.

Herb

Back to Darfu, how come none of the libs have come up with an answer.

I came up woth a temperory solution, send in a Brigade of infantry, which could keep the peace while various civilian agencies distribute food and medecine.


Then theres the hard part, if you leave, its going to go back to like it was.

You could choose sides, and kill all of the "bad" side. Or train one sides militia to run things, but then it would be the same in reverse.

KSKD sed: (on this thread alone!)

"When we've got bad leaders we need to be able to talk about that in rational terms, without all the BS. One can recognize this and not be threatened in their beliefs, desires, etc... fully half of what I've posted is in response to BS! I'll call it and always ask for the support.

Believe me, if there is an upside, I want to know it. "

With the stuff I've posted, I nearly always ask for the counter points! Over a FOUR year period, there really haven't been that many, and that's the ongoing rub, I'm not willing to just let go.

Sure, I'll ignore it for a time, but every so often we get this rise in disinformation directly related to the quality of this leadership. So, it comes up again, and so the cycle goes.

When I get completely and totally hammered on a given point I hold dear, I will take a hard look at it and either just drop it because I don't want to go there (my issue), or reconsider all that's been presented and go from there.

That's happened here many times. It's not worrysome to me because I prefer working in terms that are real, not some state of ongoing denial that requires a LOT of BS to support on a longer term basis.

Essentially, I work toward the higher ground in the hopes that my statements, deeds and thoughts are defensible to a greater degree over time.

So, letting something go --even if it's important must happen if greater understanding is to be achieved. That's just how things are. Either one accepts they are wrong, ignorant, etc... or they don't.

What you call an obsession, I call an impasse.

The reality is that a very large percentage of political topics involve our current leadership! There simply is no way around this, unless one just wants to compare / contrast ideologies

(which we all have done, from time to time)

,or

we simply refrain from any meaningful discussion, or restrict the topics to that smaller set of things like jokes, habits, music, etc...

I've noted changes in my beliefs, understanding of facts and other things here, in public, for all to see. Again, it's no biggie, for reasons I just stated. Some times one is just on the wrong side of things. With that comes the usual tough choices of denial, acceptance, or more work to perhaps uncover an error somewhere that changes the discussion in a meaningful way.

(that means doing some serious digging, soul searching, etc... granting acceptance without this is just being weak --can't have that.)

So here we are. Look back through this thread and read it through.

We all posted our ideas on Darfur. Lots of good stuff in there. At some point, we ended up talking about no oil there and the focus of our efforts reflecting that fact. We also talked about dollars and implied return on investment.

Our leadership really frames that discussion, does it not?

The group thought so, because we started down the path of oil, if we didn't need so much of it, etc...

Then Bush bashing came into play.

The essense of the discussion, where Bush is concerned, comes from the frustration of knowing there are lots of potential solutions to things on the table, but very little in the way of consideration. (this happens with poor leaders)

So then the whole, "can we quit Bush bashing?" bit starts.

Essentially the question, "why?" was asked. We are still there.

Rather than address that question, out come the labels! The implication here is that it's all hopeless! People are so blinded by their own bias they cannot see; therefore, it's better to just sideline that and move on.

Move on to what exactly?

And, if our leadership is such a problem, why not talk about it? What reason is there to grant deference on this matter when it impacts all of us?

Those remain unanswered, but for some people might feel better if we grant that deference.

(which is valid, but I've yet to see a solid reason why this should be so, other than for the greater health of the forum in general, which I agree with.)

Since I didn't see those answers, I put a little fuel on the fire and snagged a list of bad things from Kos. Not all of that list is fair, but a whole lot of it is.

My statement essentially was to establish that our leadership IS the PROBLEM. That stands right now on this thread.

I accompanied that list with the statement that none of us are gaining from bad leadership, therefore, talking about it is not a bad thing. It is relevant to a lot of discussion and given the lack of support for the idea of not talking about it, the issue should be closed.

We are still right there. Provide some solid answers to the simple questions above, demonstrate they are not relevant, or some other thing, or quit labeling and attacking those who are stating completely defensible opinions about (P)resident Bush.

BTW: Out came the labels again, from that last exchange.

Read my posts Herb. I didn't use labels. I didn't dodge. I put the question(s) on the table, they are still on the table and they still remain unaddressed. You've a burden you are ignoring, along with others, that needs to be met before you can make demands and apply labels to people.

Then we started on Katrina. Fine and dandy, let's tackle one item on the list. The end result of that discussion was not very defensible where claiming Bush did the right things is concerned.

So, rather than lose focus on the core questions, I brought focus back to the core questions, that remained unaddressed at that time.

Then came a claim I was attacking Bush the person. I clarified that and reiterated that it was about his poor performance. This was in response to, "it's just gotta stop!", but with no solid answer to, "Why?".

Then comes some reiteration of well refuted points, some of which help, but come no where near reaching balance where supporting a "good" characterization of his performance is concerned. Those were laced with yet another bogus claim that I don't like Republicans, despite having been one for a very long time, and the implication that this somehow nullifies all that had been posted before.

Finally, we reach some new ground, but still it's slippery. Essentially, you concede that I can say Bush sucks, and imply that it's warranted, but in exchange you get to also say what you want and I have to just deal.

(which is not really fair, all things considered)

Then we get the bizzare, "fine, but back it up then" bit, with the implication that I havent over FOUR years.

Some commentary passes and again we get a nasty label from you. Coupla them actually, but whose counting right?

We then get Nixon again. Interestingly, this is relevant in that he's solid compared to Bush.

I ask again, what it takes to lose the labels and just get some answers or acceptance of points lost.

In response I get demands, no answers to decent questions, laced with more labels.

And here we are.

It's all back full circle.

I say Bush sucks. I provide years of support for it, and the idea that expressing it does us all some good, particularly when put in the context of what kind of leader we need going forward.

You grumble, label, lash out, threaten even greater losses for anyone not in your camp, even though your team took it in the sack this last election, dodge, devalue me personally, the works!

I'm ok with going forward, knowing you simply cannot or will not reach any level of acceptance on this issue. That's ok. It's really tough, particularly when one has a lot invested. Understandable.

But, I'm entitled to continue to ask for support, and that you quit labeling me, until such time as you do provide that support and justification for said labels.

Like I said, I'm here to help. Really.

Nwokie, I think it's a combination of things applied at the same time that would work. Military, diplomatic, international, etc...

IMHO, there really isn't one answer, but a process that could be outlined that would lead to improved conditions there. This is not a conservative -vs- liberal thing, in that the ideologies will suggest solutions, but are not the ends in and of themselves.

If we end up with leadership here, that will actually engage in something like that, we then will get answers.

"I put the question(s) on the table, they are still on the table and they still remain unaddressed."

When you ask what good Mr. Bush has accomplished in his administration, just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they weren't addressed.

Herb

Negotiate? With who? The tribal leaders are just that, and only care for their tribe.

Any agreement will last as long as someone is there with guns enforcing it.

No attacks since 9/11.
Record low interest rates.
Unemployment is very low.
He's Pro-Life.

What 4 things, compared to 70 something that counter? Of those 4, two are highly arbitrary. I could say I'm good for the nation because we've had no attacks! Pro-life is not an accomplishment, just a belief. (though he did get a law through for you, good for some, bad for some, let's call that one a draw)

This leaves interest rates and low unemployment. I'll not even bother. Let's say that's two for your side of things. Heck, let's quadruple that and assume a few slipped through the cracks. And that every one of your points is twice as important as the counter ones presented here.

Have we met the burden for balance?

No. Not even close. So it's not even questionable at the least. More than enough to warrant the use of simplistic numerical comparisons at this point.

Bush really sucks hard Herb, given one half of the list I posted is as viable as the list you did. (and that's generous)

Gonna apologize for the nasty labels and personal statements now?

"Have we met the burden for balance?"

Sure, because your 'list' is contrived, partisan and spurious at best.

Fortunately, we've got a commander in chief that has a backbone, unlike democrat 'leaders' who put their finger to the wind and continually take polls. Thank God that Mr. Bush is more like George Washington than the lily-livered leftists who formerly occupied the oval office.

Herb

And you've got support for that where?

Contrived means crafted to show a specific result, in this context. So, where is the info that demonstrates that to be the case? Again, given the number of contributors over a long time, that's reasonable to ask. Where is it?

Partisan is redundant really. Contrived gets us here, so that's a non-starter.

Spurious is also redundant as it's a sub-set of contrived. (cherry picking is contrived!)

And out with the labels again! Sheesh Herb. I know you are pissed at simply not having anything solid here, but do you really have to do that?

Isn't it easier to just engage the discussion, instead of getting beat all to hell on labels at the same time as getting just spanked on this topic as well?

The troll is yet again making convincing arguments that he is indeed a troll.

Folks, its simple as this. Bush is in the top leadership office as a result of American elections. He IS the leader. In fact, he says so.

After 6 years we have plenty of results of his leadership decisions as "the decider". (There's 70 listed elsewhere here.)

There's nobody else to blame for these decisions. Trolls call it Bush Bashing. Most Americans call it holding their leader accountable.

Even non-trolls can come up with 4 "positive" atributes to otherwise monsters (like Hitler). Bush isn't a monster, but as a "decider", the record show he is among the worse.

There is is!

Done, next.

And I would seriously appreciate that apology for the nasty labels Herb. Remember when we talked about profanity? I stepped up and granted you some deference on that because we both thought it made better sense all things considered.

The trade for me keeping profanity to a bare minimum, (which I have gladly done!), was you engaging these kinds of discussions in a solid way. ie: answers, some recognition of points taken, dodges, and keeping labels to a bare minimum, etc...

Should I ask, "Where the fuck did all that go?", or perhaps I can simply consider that an honest oversight and count on your end of the deal coming through in the future?

Herb threw more stuff against the wall hoping it would stick>>>>
Name-call and swear all you want, Trixter.
It merely proves my point.
If you decide keep it up, expect to lose in '08.

Just keep proving my point Herb.. Your EXTREME views are NOT what America wants! Unless a Middle of the road Republican runs WE'RE DOOMED! If we put a EXTREMIST in the White House again someone like Hillary will win. Would you like that Herb??? Just keep it up with your venom and that's going to happen!!!!!!!!!
And I'm moving to Switzerland.....

Switzerland is a little far....If Hillary were to be elected, I was thinking Vancouver, B.C. That way I wouldn't have to learn to spell something new! Eh!

"... someone like Hillary will win. Would you like that Herb???"

Ah, no.

Herb

Vancouver BC is the San Francisco of the Great White North. I'd suggest Edmonton, Alberta. You'll find the Hee-Haw crowd there.

What to do about Dafur?

Save them. I'd pay almost whatever asked to be able to feel good about fixing that.

How to fix it? Shit, I don't know anymore. Whatever would work, I guess. I don't mean to sound trite. But I would follow some leadership on this issue that I felt would fix it.

SAVE THEM.

If there was a truthful guarantee that immediate draftees were ONLY sent to Darfur, is there anyone here who would support that draft?

Not with this administration.

Point taken.

But are your doubts about them keeping their word that it would only be for Darfur? Or how they would handle the actual, you know, work?

Or both?

Look, I know it's a pipe dream to even acknowledge this as a reasonable - much less optimistic option - but I'm just talking for a moment.

I said just the other night to my wife, that if there was a draft implemented for Iraq, and someone came to my door and said " It's Max's time to go there now." I would say " But he's only 4 years old..."

Kidding.

But if he were of age, adn a draft came a knockin' - for THIS reason ( Iraq ) - I would refuse on every level I could. EVERY level.

I also think that this mindset is so prevalent that it prohibits a draft today. THAT would be the catalyst for real change.

However, I am not wholly opposed to a draft. I read an interesting story while getting an education about two men drafted for Viet Nam. They were both conscientious objectors. When asked to complete whatever form was required - a petition, I believe - the one who said he was opposed to THIS war was granted status. The other who said he was opposed to all war was not.

I relate to that.

If I believed in a solution presented for Darfur that involved military intervention, from what little I understand, I think I would support it.

No.

It's actually both.

I'm in the same mindset right now. If we end up with a draft (and the ground work has been in progress for a long while now), it's hard to justify participation. (and I've done the ground work on that for about as long!)

On one hand, the work needs to get done, on the other, we've squandered so many resources...

I think if we get military affairs under control again, the need for a draft will fade.

Heck, who wants to go in right now? Horrible mess, no goal, shoddy gear, watching contractors make 10x and getting treated like dirt afterword?

No thanks, and that's the trouble in a nutshell.

Its called "shock and awe."

Our mighty military has been humbled, not by insurgents, but rather, an inept commander-in-chief.

Not to fret -- better days are ahead in 1 year and 200-odd days.

I admire the thinking folks for putting on the hip boots and bothering with this discussion at all. I have an observation to make, and I have little doubt that others may have noticed this too.

Here we were, engaged in a potentially great discussion. It was about helping poor Black PEOPLE who are being murdered and starved by corrupt powers in a far-off land. Seems like a great thread idea, and it was for a moment or two.

Soon, the victims were marginalized or forgotten. We got caught up in a discusson of the economic benefits of military action and the potential risks to the poor we send to fight our wars. As we chattered and prattled, the bodies continued to stack up like cordwood. Few solutions were offered -- though the good ones were very good -- and the conversation began to slowly slip into a dive.

Somehow, through some stroke of genius, another group of poor and marginalized Blacks were dragged into the discussion. These PEOPLE live in a far closer place, and have been victimized by corrupt powers, died and were stacked like cordwood -- right here at home. Ah, but they too are just Blacks, so they get what they get.

This not just subtle racist drivel. This is not just defending a crowd of unqualified cronies and morons. It is blatant, in my face hate. I would like to think it is not who you are, but you are really giving me little choice but to consider a few of you dyed in the wool bigots.

Perhaps this was just carry over from Imus. Are you really still mad that a walking corpse was fired for being a fool? Or are you still smarting from having to sew the eye holes shut and put the sheets back over the rut in your dirty bed?

I am not asking for political correctness. If you are a hater, do not change your spots. I like to know the species around me and how deep their potential dung might be when I walk outside. Keep those smores hot over the crosses boys, so we can all know who you are.

If you have an idea to help, let's all hear it. If all you can bring is racial hate, I can't help you with that tiny mind. To anyone who thinks this racist antique line of thought is fine and dandy, I give a resounding, canyon echoing, tent pissing, bird scattering, bear scaring, STOP BREEDING!

Ironically, the thread has taken another turn. Now, the deeds of the most pathetic White person on the planet are more important to defend and discuss than solutions for millions of Black people who are still displaced by war and famine. Ah, neo-conservative priorities.

I will take a deep breath and enjoy the solutions and intelligent thoughts of the majority that aren't simple minded mouth breathers. This rant was written while more PEOPLE died in the Sudan.

Negotiate? With who?

Damn good question. My thought would be somewhere higher up the chain. There are people interested in Darfur, either that interest is worth some greater involvement, or it is not. No way to really know, but to go knocking on some doors, is there?

Having military there just sweetens the deal in that there is actually some action on our part. If they throw in, however they can, it's better than just asking them to help.

Herb, there is plenty of time to address the labeling.

Here, just cut 'n paste.

Sorry KSKD.

Eazy cheezy. You don't even have to type it!