Election Comments

[oddfellow4870]

Re: My View on GWB

Originally posted by RichardNY
I know my views about GWB are a minority on this board and in the country - but that is how I see it.

Thanks for the lengthy response. Who could ask for more than your honest thoughts?

I see the entire UN following his lead ( by using their own policies as the goad).

I see spy planes blasting terrorists where they live.

I hope to see a U.S. presence in the middle east which will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and stabilize the region.

I hope to see a more secure U.S. and that is what matters the most.

For those in the Democrat party who see GW as an idiot, I think they will be outfoxed at each political turn. So far, they have been.

And if they care about their party, they should dump the Clintons and their cronies.

 

[pjorourke]

Thanks for sharing that with us RichardNY

 

[Ozzy]

"the GW team is competent to lead the world - just as Ghengis Kahn was competent'

This is what I mean..... The Dems keep comparing a guy like GW to people like Hitler and now Ghengis Khan. Go read your history books and see exactly what mr Khan was responsible for before you make STUPID comparisons in the future.

Christine Whitman was not meant as a Presidential candidate... VP or cabinet member...Yes, Pres...No.

And of course W has great people behind him.. but do I give him the credit for that? Not likely. GW sr and friends probably had as much to do with picking Cheney, Rumsfield and Co. as anyone. But I said this before and very recently... I think W has probably the most experienced minds behind him that any President has ever had before. If you ever stop bickering about Bush and Co. it would do one good to look up Dick Cheney's extensive resume.... I think it just about tops anyone's I can remember over the last 50 years or so (same goes for Rumsfield). As for GW being illiterate... That's a stretch. He is the perfect person to speak to his nation in their own native tongue and not some stuffed shirt politician (which is what Gore IS) who side steps any question thrown at him. W isn't the second comming but like Regan he knows how to capture the Nations attention.


BTW.. Richard.... what's your idea for rounding up Al-Queda and rooting out terrorism if it's to be done without "raw force and power"... negotiate with them...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... Go stick your head back in the sand. You just proved me and my above post about the whining Democrats to be the sad but utter truth about your party.

I don't agree with a lot of the republicans agenda's... I think they should keep abortion and religion on the back burner (and since 9/11 they have) and take care of business first. Security for the people of this country is the first order of business, the economy is second. That's the natural order of things and the Dems better get with the program or they'll find themselves as the third party in very short time if they don't wake up.

 

[pjorourke]

Two points

1) GWB's assumed bandwidth shortage: First off let me say that I don't agree with everything that GWB is/has done but the pattern I'm beginning to see is that this guy is a lot more big picture than any of his adversaries realize. In my experience, the best CEO’s are not the flashiest ones. They tend to appear simple and plainspoken. However, they do: 1) hire people that are smarter than them, 2) listen to those people, 3) set broad directions and policies (not details) based on the input they receive, and 4) let their people run their show. Looks to me like George is doing all of this.

2) Ossama bin Laden as most wanted: Shortly after 9/11 and GWB’s threat to get ObL dead or alive, I read an analysis of what would be best for the US in terms of ObL alive or dead and whether it was known or unknown. Curiously, the best outcome, in this analysis was ObL dead, but nobody knowing it. Among other points, this prevented him from being a martyr to the “Arab cause”. Anyone heard from him directly recently?

 

[RichardNY]

PJ, excellent analysis in my opinion!

Ozzy, I think you took the analogy the wrong way. Here is what World Book Online has to say about him.

"(1162?-1227), was a Mongol conqueror who founded the largest land empire in history. He ruled an area that stretched across central Asia from the Caspian Sea to the Sea of Japan. His name is also spelled Chingis or Jenghis.

Genghis Khan was a political and military genius who united Mongol and other nomadic tribes into a disciplined, effective fighting force. "

I did not mean to reference Kahn's brutality, although to the extent he too did not respect civil liberties, I see a similarity there. My point was that yes, Bush is a leader and will have a profound effect on the world and this country - but I see it as a negative effect, not a positive. I did not mean to equate Bush with Kahn - other than note that both are negative, Kahn far more so than Bush.

 

[oddfellow4870]

Re: Two points

Originally posted by pjorourke
Curiously, the best outcome, in this analysis was ObL dead, but nobody knowing it. Among other points, this prevented him from being a martyr to the “Arab cause”. Anyone heard from him directly recently?

I agree. Osa is not known to be dead, but he is silent. My guess is that he may have died of natural causes. But it hardly matters. The beast we're fighting has many little heads, not one big one. It's not an easy task.

I think one of the things that blinds Dem advocates is that they just cannot stomach the use of force that is required to fight a war like this. You have to fight dirty, be sneaky, be everywhere and to be secure, you MUST do the same things at home. It's the only way.

 

[One Eyed Trouser Trout]

What I think.......

GWB is a fairly shrewd negotiator. He knows what he's comfortable with and then moves that position several degrees beyond that point so that he can make a compromise.

Today's unanimous vote at the UN on Iraq proves to me that he's doing a fairly decent job (directly or indirectly) with the heads of China, Russia, France, etc.

And slowly but surely, the corrupt heads of corporations are being brought to some level of justice.

I don't think I see anybody else on the political landscape that could have met the challenges of the issue of terrorism, and evil regimes and their nukes,etc. any better than George.

By the way, did anybody else notice the decline in the stock markets' following Clinton's Justice Department win over Microsoft?

 

[pjorourke]

Re: Re: Two points

Originally posted by oddfellow4870
I think one of the things that blinds Dem advocates is that they just cannot stomach the use of force that is required to fight a war like this. You have to fight dirty, be sneaky, be everywhere and to be secure, you MUST do the same things at home. It's the only way.

Maybe they should use Al Bore's lawyers, fight dirty, be sneaky, etc. Yup, sounds like them.

 

[justme]

You know, anyone who thinks that big energy's sucess at fleecing California and at skirting and abusing laws was beneficial to Texans needs to speak with the O&G companies in my portfolio, almost all of who were caught with a ton of bad Enron (and Enron related) A/R. No one is feeling the negative impact of this shit more than East Texas. (And that's not counting the number of people around here who have had their retirements devastated.)

In the end, only a very few, very rich, very connected group has come out on top in all of this.

(Hey Oz, I agree with you 100% that the Dems have no platform)

((that's why I avoided voting for them this election))

 

[pjorourke]

Originally posted by justme
You know, anyone who thinks that big energy's sucess at fleecing California...

If California, in the interest of protecting consumer’s rights to watch their big screen TV's from the hot tub, hadn’t put in a bunch of incredibly stupid and nieve rules to be skirted, Enron and the rest wouldn't have been able to fleece them.

To err is human. To really fuck things up you need a government agency trying to “tame” market forces.

 

[RichardNY]

Originally posted by oddfellow4870
I think one of the things that blinds Dem advocates is that they just cannot stomach the use of force that is required to fight a war like this. You have to fight dirty, be sneaky, be everywhere and to be secure, you MUST do the same things at home. It's the only way.

Again, speaking for myself, I do have major ethical problems dropping to the level you suggest above. It becomes even worse when you do it at home - because at that point, there is very little difference between sides. If, in making ourselves secure, we become as unfree as some Arab countries are, I believe the terrorists will have won the battle. They will have succeeded in ridding the world of American freedom, democracy, modenity and liberality. Civil liberties and the Bill of Rights will be a thing of the past.

Admittedly some changes had to be made, and compromises were needed. I would love to see much tighter controls on immigration, including the monitoring of all immigrants, their locations, etc. Our borders are so porous it is not funny. And when one's visa expires --> goodbye! That has not been the case for a long, long time. More suprisingingly, it still is not the case.

Unfortunately, Bush's National Security policy document ignored existing laws and treaties, the sovereignty of foreign states, civil liberties, etc. He went too far the other way, IMHO.

 

[RichardNY]

Originally posted by justme
You know, anyone who thinks that big energy's sucess at fleecing California and at skirting and abusing laws was beneficial to Texans needs to speak with the O&G companies in my portfolio, almost all of who were caught with a ton of bad Enron (and Enron related) A/R. No one is feeling the negative impact of this shit more than East Texas.

That is true, AFTER the fact. Before the scandal was public - the good ole boys were doing fine, thank you! Only after the crookery became public did they experience pain.

Interestingly, some of the very same type of financing and acounting schemes objected to at Enron et alia were utilized by Cheney at Halliburton while he was CEO. But there is no need to investigate further, just as there was no need to investigate Enron either.

 

[SkellyChamp]

Re: Two points

Originally posted by pjorourke
1) GWB's assumed bandwidth shortage: First off let me say that I don't agree with everything that GWB is/has done but the pattern I'm beginning to see is that this guy is a lot more big picture than any of his adversaries realize. In my experience, the best CEO’s are not the flashiest ones. They tend to appear simple and plainspoken. However, they do: 1) hire people that are smarter than them, 2) listen to those people, 3) set broad directions and policies (not details) based on the input they receive, and 4) let their people run their show. Looks to me like George is doing all of this.

2) Ossama bin Laden as most wanted: Shortly after 9/11 and GWB’s threat to get ObL dead or alive, I read an analysis of what would be best for the US in terms of ObL alive or dead and whether it was known or unknown. Curiously, the best outcome, in this analysis was ObL dead, but nobody knowing it. Among other points, this prevented him from being a martyr to the “Arab cause”. Anyone heard from him directly recently?

I'm shocked that I could be moved to respond to a serious thread and post but I have to say that I think your first point is an intelligent, succint and on the spot analysis with whcih I fully concur. I do agree with your second point though I do believe that he is alive and well but just laying low and watching the machinery he put in motion work without him.

Richard - I think your passion and sincereity are evident though I don't agree with (most of) your views as to what is good and needed for America. I can say that I think the holding and expression of differeing views is needed if for no other reason as a valuable "checks and balance" on our leaders getting too out of hand and comfortable. The problem with the "democratic view" (such as it is) is that it is out of touch with the way the world operates. Unfortunately, we live in a world where we can't turn the cheek because that will/does get slapped too. Is it a higher moral ground? Certainly. Does it have to start somewhere? Certainly But in my view it won't eventually change things or the way certain countries/people feel about us. I don't think a large segment of the world is willing to meet us half way. How many billions of dollars have we poured into countires (and continue to do so) that trash us or attack us at every turn. I'm not suggesting that they have to agree with everything we do out of gratitude, but in my view it has become that these countries feel they are entitled to our aid and know that with few exceptions we won't close down their bank and yet they still hate us for our lifestyle and freedoms. Just my rambling bullshit. A very Hobbsian view I know but very real too.

Oh last point - The death penalty. First, I personally like to think it is a deterrent. I've always had a problem with basing the view that it is not a deterrent on data showing that murders haven't gone down or even stayed the same. Unless
the data includes some sort of verifiable data about the number of criminals who would have committed murder but for the death penalty. There may very well be a whole component of criminals who would have murdered someone but didn't. Can you tell me conclusively that someone one didn't kill another because of their fear of the death penalty. Or something like that anyway. Second point is that........... sorry, have to take this call....

 

[pargolfer]

Ideology Aside.

The republican strategy focused on keepng the House and winning the Senate. Their mantra focused on the "War" and "National Security" The republican used their common threads, there were no edicts on abortion or religious themes.

The democratic party under the auspices of the Clintonian Doctrine - which had many familiar players but strayed from the things that got Clinton elected co opt the issues. Terry Macauliffe did an abysmal job of preparing his party. He chose to focus on Florida. The reality is did anyone really believe Mondale had a shot .

George Pataki ran an election to win he co opted the party instead of issues Labor - UFT, UNITE and 1199. With bland policy towards healthcare and education there was the UFT and 1199 standing side by side. Carl may not have had a shot but the party threw in the towel too early.

 

[justme]

Originally posted by RichardNY
That is true, AFTER the fact. Before the scandal was public - the good ole boys were doing fine, thank you! Only after the crookery became public did they experience pain.

I'm not sure you understood my point.

 

[Stecchino]

Re: Re: Two points

Originally posted by SkellyChamp
How many billions of dollars have we poured into countires (and continue to do so) that trash us or attack us at every turn. I'm not suggesting that they have to agree with everything we do out of gratitude, but in my view it has become that these countries feel they are entitled to our aid and know that with few exceptions we won't close down their bank ....

This is a perfect example of how Americans are clueless as to what's really going on in the world. Those "billions of dollars" that you refer to that the US "gives" to other countries ... do you have any idea who that money goes to? You honestly think the civilians of those poor countries see one red cent of that money? Do you think our gov't doesn't know exactly where that money goes? That's not money for "aid". Those our mine and your tax dollars being used by our gov't to "buy" the heads of the foreign gov'ts. What are the poor of those countries supposed to feel gratitude for? For our gov't being co-conspirators in keeping them as low in the dirt as they possibly can? WAKE UP!!!!!!

and yet they still hate us for our lifestyle and freedoms

Ahhh .... the "we got attacked on 9/11 cuz they hate our freedoms" line. (unbelievable)

 

[RichardNY]

Re: Re: Two points

Originally posted by SkellyChamp
Unfortunately, we live in a world where we can't turn the cheek because that will/does get slapped too.

I am not advocating turning the other cheek; not at all. I believe our response in Afghanistan was appropriate and warranted, and that was far from turning the other cheek.

What I do advocate is that we not throw out the rule of law - for then we will be operating like the terrorists. Bush, to my understanding, is playing things both ways: 1) He has declared war (but Congress never really voted it) against al Qaeda but views all potential ad Qaeda members not as prisoners of war; instead they are enemy combatants, which puts them in a legal no man's land. 2) Domestically he has ignored the Constitutional protections provided by the Bill of Rights.

With the missile attack on the Yemen car, Amnesty International (as per CNN) has raised the question of a violation of international human rights. Amnesty noted that the car was not in a combat zone, there was no immediate danger, and the "execution" (I think assassination is more accurate) was done in lieu of an arrest. An American was killed. While the Pentagon says being an American does not allow one to be a terrorist, others say: where is the proof that the American was indeed a terrorist? Such has not been determined in court. The CIA apparently acted as judge, jury, and executioner in a non-combat situation. That to me is an abuse of power.

Bush's policy, as demonstrated in Yemen, apparently means that we view the entire planet as a combat zone, open for the CIA to pick people off at its whim.

Turn the other cheek - never. BUT - become as bad as they are - NEVER! And that is where Bush must be held in check and restrained.

 

[SkellyChamp]

Richard - The reality is you are talking about two different kinds of war. Notwithstanding that soldiers are involved and people killed, there is a difference between a "war against terrorism" or a war against a terrorist group and a war against a country. Congress needs to formally vote on the second (after a time), but not the first. Do we need a formal declaration for a "war on drugs".

And sometimes "war" is a dirty business and individual freedoms sometimes be subordinated to other concerns and issues. If you feel comfortable sitting in your chair and judging when that is, that's good for you. I am not in a position to do so on an individual, case by case basis. I just know that at times it is necessary.

In this kind of "war" the entire planet IS a combat zone.
Become as bad as they are - last I checked we haven't hijacked commercial airliners and flown them into public buildings or blown up nightclubs, restaurants, buses, etc. And I'm not saying that we haven't done regrettable things, but I don't think that we are bad as they are.

P.S. What else do you think AI is going to say. They are not my gospel.

 

[pjorourke]

Re: Re: Re: Two points

Originally posted by Stecchino
Those "billions of dollars" that you refer to that the US "gives" to other countries ... do you have any idea who that money goes to? You honestly think the civilians of those poor countries see one red cent of that money? Do you think our gov't doesn't know exactly where that money goes? That's not money for "aid". Those our mine and your tax dollars being used by our gov't to "buy" the heads of the foreign gov'ts.

Duh!!!

So I guess we can pay for this war with Iraq by cutting out foreign aid payments for the next year or two.

 

[Stecchino]

a) the "war" with Iraq will cost far more than any "aid" the US gives to all the countries combined

b) YOU try telling our gov't to stop buying off the leaders of other countries which allows them to cut sweetheart deals with each other and see how far you get

c) even if you accomplished that feat, how about leaving Iraq alone and putting that fucking money back into THIS country at a time it's in need of it.

btw ... i'm waiting for someone to tell me why Saudi Arabia isn't the boogie man considering almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and there are far more links between SA and Al Qaeda then there is with Iraq (which to this day has ZERO links except bogus ones already exposed as bogus).

After you answer me that, try and guess how many times a day we would have heard "13 of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis ... what more evidence do you need that Iraq is supporting the destruction of the USA" should those "terrorists" had been from Iraq instead of our butt-buddies the Saudis. Would we have heard that a thousand times? Five thousand? How about ten thousand? Getting warmer i think.