Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Palomar · 2005-06-20 12:56:47

What Hilary Clinto does have going for her is that her husband is Bill Clinton.
From my observations of the USA there is a desire to return to what life was like before 9/11 and the war on terror. Then the USA had a budget surplus, it had no apparent enemies and the economy was booming.

*...and many in the American populace, including myself, were very tired of the scandal-ridden Clintons. That factor alone can't be underestimated. The endless *personal* scandals were wearisome.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-06-20 13:01:45

What Hilary Clinto does have going for her is that her husband is Bill Clinton.
From my observations of the USA there is a desire to return to what life was like before 9/11 and the war on terror. Then the USA had a budget surplus, it had no apparent enemies and the economy was booming.
*...and many in the American populace, including myself, were very tired of the scandal-ridden Clintons. That factor alone can't be underestimated. The endless *personal* scandals were wearisome.
--Cindy

True but they where all more or less "his" scandals and she appeared the good dutiful wife. That can play both ways.

Palomar · 2005-06-20 13:07:58

What Hilary Clinto does have going for her is that her husband is Bill Clinton.
From my observations of the USA there is a desire to return to what life was like before 9/11 and the war on terror. Then the USA had a budget surplus, it had no apparent enemies and the economy was booming.
*...and many in the American populace, including myself, were very tired of the scandal-ridden Clintons. That factor alone can't be underestimated. The endless *personal* scandals were wearisome.
--Cindy
True but they where all more or less "his" scandals and she appeared the good dutiful wife. That can play both ways.

*That's a really good point.

Of course stranger things have happened, but I'd be surprised if all scandals centering on Bill wouldn't adversely effect Hillary in the same manner it affected Al Gore. I was surprised that Gore was tainted with the same brush as Clinton, and that the voters in 2000 apparently went with the "guilt by association" mentality. I've never heard any personal/private scandals about Gore, except for the "I invented the internet" thing (-yawn-).

A lot of people did hate Hillary. She might be able to capitalize on the sympathy paid to her as strong, resilient, long-suffering wife. But a lot of people here were really fed up with Bill. So many hateful bumperstickers and expressions, etc. Oddly, nothing comparable against Bush has been seen on bumperstickers -- either in sentiment or in numbers.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-06-20 13:16:10

*Also -- and of course trends can and do change -- the U.S. is currently in the grips of a much more intensive religionism, thanks to Dubya and his evangelical pals. Things could change within the next 3 years, but if the trend holds...well, Hillary and Bill are liberal of course -- which equates to secularism, etc. The Righties certainly have the whipping hand currently, and they've had enough of the liberal secularists.

When America's greatest vampire novelist is writing a book about the life of Jesus Christ -- in a very reverential and devoted manner -- you know which side of the bread is getting the butter...

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-20 13:18:46

True but they where all more or less "his" scandals and she appeared the good dutiful wife. That can play both ways.

I've heard rumblings of that hurting her with the hardcore feminists, supposedly part of her base. Then there is a considerable chunk of the Democrat base that doesn't think she's the best candidate, coupled with several other Democrats angling for the nomination. I'll be mildly surprised if she survives the primaries, she won't win the election.

She's also doing her "move to the center" bit right now which may make her more attractive to some moderates but it also alienates some of the Democrat base. The most active fundraisers and activists are much further Left than she's positioning herself. Whether one will outweigh the other remains to be seen. Best case scenario, she pulls in enough to win the primaries and the general election is within five points.

Of course she'll only run if she thinks she can win and this all rests on whether she's re-elected to her Senate seat in '06. I stand by my prediction. Unless some totally unforeseeable bizzaro world event happens. Always in motion is the future.

BWhite · 2005-06-20 15:54:15

Perhaps we should http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/ … .html]wish this guy (Prado) some luck.

http://draftprado.org/home]Draft Prado.org

Edited By BWhite on 1119304489

clark · 2005-06-21 08:20:44

Today, walking by the ruins of the WTC, a rank fetid odor arose from the bowls of the blasted pit that once was the Twin Towers. There is nothing particularly special about foul smells in New York, a city of millions, endless humidity, and miles of concrete; however the experience was something new for me.

The crater of the WTC is a memorial now, adorned with the names of ordinary people and hero’s who disappeared in a moment. Pictures and timelines of that brief day hang on a non-descript metal chain fence surrounding the last remains of the towers. Everyday, people from around the world visit this memorial, paying their respects, reflecting, or taking pictures to remember this place and what it means. There is a hushed silence that surrounds the place, broken only by the scattering of different people speaking different languages.

Walking by the WTC today, mulling this over, it made me wonder how America should best honor the memory of those who so tragically died on September 11, 2001. Avenge their deaths? Gladly, as their deaths should not be in vain and a greater good must come from this loss.

Yet does torturing our prisoners honor their deaths? I will pragmatically agree that we have a need to prevent bad people from doing bad things, but I fail to see how torture, or humiliation, is necessary to achieve that. I would also point out that degrading ourselves in such a way makes a mockery of the deaths of those who have died since 9/11.

We were attacked because some disliked our way of life. We met their challenge, and united, because we believe our way of life is worth defending and protecting. When we sacrifice our basic values, the very things we hold worth dying for, for the sake of expediency, we lose the very thing we are fighting for.

In the name of thousands, we have waged war to prevent more loss, and protect what we hold dear. Does lowering ourselves and our standards to the extent where we make a mockery of our ideals honor those who have died, and those willing to sacrifice themselves for our way of life? Are we willing to allow good men and women to die in the name of torture or humiliation?

I ask this because if we continue as we are, then the day will come when people no longer honor the memory of those who died on 9/11. They will forget why it was wrong for them to have died that day, and will wonder what we are really fighting for.

To me, whether or not we close or keep open every prison is irrelevant. The need of such facilities is dictated by events. However, our behavior within these prisons is dictated by our ideals, and by our morality. There is no need to systematically torture or humiliate our prisoners on the scale that is being witnessed. Lock them up for as long as is necessary, but adhere to the ideals for which so many died for, and so many fight for.

BWhite · 2005-06-21 11:15:39

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/st … 1.gif]This cartoon is very well done.

Your memory is in error. We regret the mistake.

Edited By BWhite on 1119374177

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-21 11:32:27

Isn't it interesting that both Left and Right will selectively pick things from the media to justify their positions while ignoring others?

Why do I get the feeling that this Downing Street Meme (not a typo) is the new Weapons of Mass Destruction? A politically expedient fudging based in fact.

Just watch, ten years from now we're going to know that Bush exagerrated intel on the weapons stockpiles/programs that Saddam actually had. Everybody's gonna look like asses.

Ran across this as well, another nail in the "illegal war" jibber-jabber coffin.

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. " H.R. 4655

"It didn't mean invading!" I hear on the wind. Eh, Bush sensibilities on a Clinton policy. It's gonna be doubly screwy.

Bah, what's done is done. Might as well argue about George McClellan's timid tactics against the Confederates, just for a change of pace.

clark · 2005-06-21 11:39:46

You throw out a House Resolution? :laugh:

CC is scraping the bottom of the barrel for justifications. Correct me if I am wrong, but House Resolutions are a dime a dozen and created for all manners of things (like we think x person is swell)

A politically expedient fudging based in fact.

i just love this... as opposed to a politically expedient fudging based on fantasy? Wait, that's a Bushism.

Just watch, ten years from now we're going to know that Bush exagerrated intel on the weapons stockpiles/programs that Saddam actually had.

??? We know that now. Why wait ten years?

Bah, what's done is done.

True, but we can still impeach the bastard. Afterall, we stuck with the mantra "what's done is done," and there would be no reason to convict and execute murderers

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-21 11:50:27

You throw out a House Resolution?

It was signed into law in 1998, apparently. Haven't checked it out thoroughly because, quite frankly, I don't care. But I'm trying Leftist tactics, throwing a bunch of garbage and see what sticks.

Nice catch.

just love this... as opposed to a politically expedient fudging based on fantasy? Wait, that's a Bushism.

If it's totally fabricated it isn't fudging. One needs some intel in order to fix intel.

We know that now. Why wait ten years?

So you're now accepting that Saddam did in fact have Weapons of Mass Destruction?.

True, but we can still impeach the bastard. Afterall, we stuck with the mantra "what's done is done," and there would be no reason to convict and execute murderers

Actually, impeachment would be a waste of time. Ever hear of Tecumseh's Curse?

If not, I'll tell you about it after Cheney is sworn in.

Saddam had banned weapons, executing murderers, you're making progress.

clark · 2005-06-21 12:00:21

It was signed into law in 1998, apparently. Haven't checked it out thoroughly because, quite frankly, I don't care. But I'm trying Leftist tactics, throwing a bunch of garbage and see what sticks.

Thanks!

As opposed to Righty tactics, you know, spewing nothing but garbage to see what the uninformed masses will accept. You are doing remarkably well practicing this fine art. I see a bright future at FOX for you.

If it's totally fabricated it isn't fudging. One needs some intel in order to fix intel.

You are right of course, totally fabricated isn't 'fudging'. It's called bullsh*ting. A time honored tradition among this adminsitration.

They had intel, and the intel didn't fit policy, so the intel was fixed in such a way as to seemingly support the assertion that policy was made to fit intel. They knew the evdience did not support their claims, but then after the fact simply claimed that they had been duped!

But the sheep go baaaaaaa.

So you're now accepting that Saddam did in fact have Weapons of Mass Destruction?.

I never doubted for one second that at one time he had WMD's. However, I and you and the rest of the world were told that he had WMD's that could reach Europe and be launched on 45 minutes notice. I was also told, in no uncertain terms, that we knew where the WMD's were, and that the UN inspectors couldn't do anything about it (which is supposedly why we never shared our intel with them) so we just had to go and stop it ourselves.

Actually, impeachment would be a waste of time. Ever hear of Tecumseh's Curse?

Yes, but first we impeach, then we try him for war crimes. I think with a guilty verdict, that would meet the criteria for the Curse (not of course in the literal sense..)

Palomar · 2005-06-21 12:07:18

Cobra: Isn't it interesting that both Left and Right will selectively pick things from the media to justify their positions while ignoring others?

*Yes. :-\ But I suppose they can count on apathy, confusion or whatever on the part of the general public to get away with doing so.

Bah, what's done is done. Might as well argue about George McClellan's timid tactics against the Confederates, just for a change of pace.

Time to pick up the pieces and go forward.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-21 12:14:56

As opposed to Righty tactics, you know, spewing nothing but garbage to see what the uninformed masses will accept. You are doing remarkably well practicing this fine art. I see a bright future at FOX for you.

Plenty of trash to go around.

Harder to smell one's own though. <shrug>

I never doubted for one second that at one time he had WMD's. However, I and you and the rest of the world were told that he had WMD's that could reach Europe and be launched on 45 minutes notice.

Okay, that's a reasonable position. I'll meet you in the middle on this one, fudged intel on real weapons. So Bush exaggerated, or presented worse-case scenario depending on one's political alignment.

Yes, but first we impeach, then we try him for war crimes.

Now we're talkin' crazy. What war crimes exactly? The war itself was not only authorized but arguably compelled by Congressional vote, UN resolution and the terms of the cease-fire. Prisoner abuse? No evidence directly links Bush to it, punishments are being meted out and the prisoners in question at present have only one legal status that readily applies. Unlawful combatant. Is it a war crime to not execute people when it's legally allowed?

This is what I was afraid of with the Clinton impeachment, now every President is going to have to face this for some ridiculous nonsense.

BWhite · 2005-06-21 12:20:18

Bill Clinton on Gitmo:

In his interview with the FT, Clinton struck a pragmatic note about the abuses, citing "two huge problems" that have nothing to do with morality.
"Practical problem number one. If American or British troops get the reputation for abusing people in their prisons, " Clinton said, "it puts are own soldiers much more at risk" when they are serving overseas.
"The second problem is, if you rough somebody up bad enough they'll eventually tell you, most of them, whatever you want to hear to get you to stop doing it.
"And if you run a dictatorship, maybe all you want is for somebody to say they are guilty. If you are trying to preserve and expand freedom you want to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. If people are abused and they confess, or the finger other people [sic], and you gather up those who are not guilty, then as a practical matter you've let the guilty go free."

BWhite · 2005-06-21 12:30:46

Iraq's http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8298669/]new justice minister - - yup, the one appointed after regime change and while 140,000 US soldiers are in country - - says Saddam should be tried sooner rather than later and in a transparent manner:

“There should be transparency and there should be frankness, but there are secrets that if revealed, won’t be in the interest of many countries,” he said. “Who was helping Saddam all those years?”

Hey, Saddam is an evil MF but maybe its better to keep him quiet so all those Texas connections to the "oil for food" scandal are not revealed.

Either way, for our new friends in Bahgdad to be slamming the US is not good news.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-21 12:33:43

Bill Clinton, as quoted by Bill White.

"Practical problem number one. If American or British troops get the reputation for abusing people in their prisons, " Clinton said, "it puts are own soldiers much more at risk" when they are serving overseas.

In theory, yes. Perhaps in the long term, which is why we need to work it out. However it must be understood that the problem is not with our prisoners being treated worse now, given that our enemies already behead them and string up burning bodies, but rather that in some future war. A real war against a real nation.

I wonder how the Chinese treat their prisoners of war. That's the real concern here. Not necessarily China, but some actual nation with a poor human rights record.

"The second problem is, if you rough somebody up bad enough they'll eventually tell you, most of them, whatever you want to hear to get you to stop doing it.

Yep, quite right. There's a place for the use of force in interrogations. Do it too much and you get useless garbage. Don't do it at all and you may get nothing.

To use one of Bill's analogies, sometimes it's hammering a screw.

That said, there is so much bull being spun at the moment that we don't know what's really happening. Abu Ghraib was over the line. SOme incidents at Gitmo seem to have been as well. Others are being blown way out of proportion in the name of smearing the Administration.

Were it my call, at this point I'd probably just get fed up with it all, voluntarily recognize them as POWs while citing the Geneva Convention unlawful combatant clauses, then hold them indefinitely. Can't release them until the war is over and then only to their nation of origin. Once their governments are replaced, it's safe to transfer custody.

But in the end we'll do something stupid, either with immediate policy or with precedent.

clark · 2005-06-21 12:34:13

The war itself was not only authorized but arguably compelled by Congressional vote, UN resolution and the terms of the cease-fire.

Okay, sure. Baaaaaaa.

Prisoner abuse? No evidence directly links Bush to it,

Okay, sure. Baaaaaa.

punishments are being meted out and the prisoners in question at present have only one legal status that readily applies.

Okay, a prevalent and systemic practice of degradation and humiliation by US troops across the globe in multiple theaters for years has been the result of low level grunts who just got out of hand.

Higher ups didn't approve anything, and the even higher ups were completely unaware.

Is it a war crime to not execute people when it's legally allowed?

We've been killing prisoners in our custody through torture. Torture that was approved and directed by the highest levels of the US government. It was policy. We can play legal games, but down in the mud where the rest of us live, you know that Bush and Company gave the green light for this crap.

It's a f*cking disgrace.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-21 12:42:18

Hey, Saddam is an evil MF but maybe its better to keep him quiet so all those Texas connections to the "oil for food" scandal are not revealed.

I won't be surprised if a few Americans get smearing when everythign comes out. But it's also going to make damn clear why certain parties (read France/Germany/Russia) were so opposed. Follow the money. Trying to make any sort of political gains from it will backfire.

It was policy. We can play legal games, but down in the mud where the rest of us live, you know that Bush and Company gave the green light for this crap.

Even if that's the case, you need something more for impeachment. Go into like a partisan inquisition and you'll not only kill the effort but the already tense political climate will blow up in your face. Like the points you so cavalierly baaaaaa off, legal facts matter in legal proceedings.

I'm not too concerned should it happen, but to think that any good will come from impeachment is madness.

Besides, do you want Cheney in the White House that badly?

clark · 2005-06-21 12:57:03

Even if that's the case, you need something more for impeachment.

Knowingly engaging in a war on false pretense and lying to the public is pretty good ground if ever there was one.

Besides, do you want Cheney in the White House that badly?

He already is in the White House. Impeachment of the President would take him along, and if it didn't, then he wouldn't be able to do a damn thing anyway .

But I don't honestly believe that Bush will be impeached. Just wish he would be to demonstrate to future executives the limit of their power.

When we started all of this, the american public accepted the costs based on the rationale they were given. The backlash now is the result of people realizing that the costs for the reality of the situation are not justified.

BWhite · 2005-06-21 13:00:54

Cobra and I agree on the prudence of applying the Geneva Convention to all Gitmo-esque detainees, even as we also agree that legal fine print might not require it. Pragmatism should rule here and abstract philosophy can wait for beer and pretzels.

Torture diminishes anyone who practices it or tolerates it. Therefore, merely taking Rummy's word that "we aren't doing it" just ain't good enough for me.

= = =

=IF= Saddam and his top aides have revealed information about French involvement with the oil-for-food scandal (follow the money trial) =THEN= I believe the RWNM (Right Wing Noise Machine) would have its volume cranked and Saddam's own words would be plastered all over the air waves.

=IF= a public trial of Saddam would bolster the Bushian world view on Iraq it would have happened by now. In matters of public opinion, remaining silent can and should be used against you, the same with secrecy for places like Gitmo.

If there is nothing to hide, open the doors to Gitmo and start Saddam''s trial.

On principle, I categorically oppose capital punishment as a judicila option but in Saddam's case I won't be holding no candellight vigil - - after a truly transparent trial. Back when Saddam was nabbed I recall thinking that "shot while trying to escape" might have been the best option.

Palomar · 2005-06-21 13:05:14

Besides, do you want Cheney in the White House that badly?

*Good question.

This is what I was afraid of with the Clinton impeachment, now every President is going to have to face this for some ridiculous nonsense.

Hmmmm. Good point.

In other news, did anyone catch the little spat between Dean Howard and Cheney over Howard's mother? Cheney saying on a TV interview that he didn't know of anyone who loves Dean Howard, except maybe his mother...Howard biting back with "I don't care if Cheney doesn't like my mother..." (huh?)

Politics at the grade-school level. Sheesh.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-21 13:14:17

Knowingly engaging in a war on false pretense and lying to the public is pretty good ground if ever there was one.

The war itself was legally justified, and the lying to the public is an interpretation based more on politics than on fact. Maybe it was the case, maybe not. But what the Lefties has is nothing. Like trying to convict someone for murder on the sole grounds that they denied it.

Congress condemning someone for lying to the public. :laugh:
Gets funnier everytime I see it.

He already is in the White House. Impeachment of the President would take him along, and if it didn't, then he wouldn't be able to do a damn thing anyway .

So now the Senate is not only impeaching the President of the US but the President of the Senate as well?
Does Cheney get to vote at his own impeachment?

But I don't honestly believe that Bush will be impeached. Just wish he would be to demonstrate to future executives the limit of their power.

Oh yeah, way to nip that one in the bud.

When we started all of this, the american public accepted the costs based on the rationale they were given. The backlash now is the result of people realizing that the costs for the reality of the situation are not justified.

What backlash? The vocal oppoents were against Bush from the beginning, a few more answer "not worth it" in polls. It hardly qualifies as a backlash.

=IF= Saddam and his top aides have revealed information about French involvement with the oil-for-food scandal (follow the money trial) =THEN= I believe the RWNM (Right Wing Noise Machine) would have its volume cranked and Saddam's own words would be plastered all over the air waves.

Unless there's potentially damaging stuff as well. French kickbacks with "Oil for Food" are documented, though not totally ironclad proven to my knowledge. But if American interests are also compromised nothign will be said. Everyone knows the US backed Iraq against Iran, I'm sure there's some dirt. But in this case, silence most likely means nothing but everyone is up to their eyeballs in excrement.

Smearing Old Europe just isn't worth the damage and serves no purpose. But the connections are sure to be enlightening.

BWhite · 2005-06-21 13:17:03

This is what I was afraid of with the Clinton impeachment, now every President is going to have to face this for some ridiculous nonsense.

See, its like with the judicial nominations. The GOP hits first and then seeks to outlaw hitting, for the alleged good of the country.

This nuclear option on the filibuster thing and the Atty General's decree that Jose Padilla ain't got no rights is going to boomerang in ways the rightie-libertarians don't like.

In ways I don't like either, except in the crude "what goes around, comes around" sense.

Palomar · 2005-06-21 13:18:43

Knowingly engaging in a war on false pretense and lying to the public is pretty good ground if ever there was one.
The war itself was legally justified, and the lying to the public is an interpretation based more on politics than on fact. Maybe it was the case, maybe not. But what the Lefties has is nothing. Like trying to convict someone for murder on the sole grounds that they denied it.
Congress condemning someone for lying to the public. :laugh:
Gets funnier everytime I see it.
He already is in the White House. Impeachment of the President would take him along, and if it didn't, then he wouldn't be able to do a damn thing anyway .
So now the Senate is not only impeaching the President of the US but the President of the Senate as well?
Does Cheney get to vote at his own impeachment?
But I don't honestly believe that Bush will be impeached. Just wish he would be to demonstrate to future executives the limit of their power.
Oh yeah, way to nip that one in the bud.

:laugh:

Well, doesn't hurt to try I suppose.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2005-06-20 12:56:47

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#177 2005-06-20 13:01:45

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#178 2005-06-20 13:07:58

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#179 2005-06-20 13:16:10

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#180 2005-06-20 13:18:46

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#181 2005-06-20 15:54:15

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#182 2005-06-21 08:20:44

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#183 2005-06-21 11:15:39

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#184 2005-06-21 11:32:27

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#185 2005-06-21 11:39:46

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#186 2005-06-21 11:50:27

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#187 2005-06-21 12:00:21

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#188 2005-06-21 12:07:18

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#189 2005-06-21 12:14:56

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#190 2005-06-21 12:20:18

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#191 2005-06-21 12:30:46

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#192 2005-06-21 12:33:43

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#193 2005-06-21 12:34:13

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#194 2005-06-21 12:42:18

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#195 2005-06-21 12:57:03

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#196 2005-06-21 13:00:54

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#197 2005-06-21 13:05:14

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#198 2005-06-21 13:14:17

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#199 2005-06-21 13:17:03

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#200 2005-06-21 13:18:43

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer