Get your Boots on - Bush Re-Election = Draft

[jku]

I've been talking to a lot of people in the know, and of course in public the Administration has been saying there is no chance of a draft - but with the majority of reserves and National Guard in Iraq not willing to re-up their commitment, I'm 95% sure there will be a draft under a Bush re-election - for the simple fact that Bush has destroyed our foreign relations and can't get additional troop support - but there is a HOPE that a new President can get additional support.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/147483_draft08.html

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/147483_draft08.html

Talk of a draft grows despite denials by White House
Saturday, November 8, 2003

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- The United States' uneven record in Iraq has kindled a small but persistent push to reinstitute the military draft, a politically charged idea that hasn't been seriously considered since the end of the Vietnam War.

Yet despite denials from the White House that a draft is under consideration, and despite the obvious political fallout of such a move during an election campaign, talk of a draft has heated up in recent days.

Asked this week if the president is considering reinstituting the draft, press secretary Scott McClellan gave a quick and emphatic answer. "No," he said, moving to the next question.

But military observers and some members of Congress say that the notion of a possible military draft is gaining traction, in part because of questions from Democrats in Congress about the conduct of the Iraqi reconstruction, from retired military officers who are worried that the force is too small to accomplish such a big and difficult job -- and because of the administration itself.

The Defense Department fueled the debate this week when it placed a notice on its Web site asking for "men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board."

The notice, which appeared on an official Web page for the Selective Service System titled "Defend America," explained: "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines. Positions are available in many communities across the Nation."

The Pentagon wouldn't comment on the notice, and by yesterday it had been pulled from the Web site without explanation.

Federal officials, falling in line behind President Bush and his official position, say there are no specific plans to bring back the draft but it's only prudent to have the plans and some of the people in place if it becomes necessary.

Despite those explanations, the public notice by the Pentagon marked the first formal request to re-establish draft boards since the draft was abolished in 1973.

Whether or not a draft is reinstated, debate about troop strength and the commitment to Iraq will continue. The United States has more than 130,000 soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, a deployment that has virtually drained the Army of its troops. One division remains in the United States.

Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officials have consistently said that the military is not stretched too thin and that there are enough soldiers to meet all responsibilities both domestically and overseas.

The Pentagon sought to underscore that point Thursday by announcing that it will send 85,000 new Army and Marine combat troops to Iraq to replace soldiers ending one-year tours. The Pentagon also alerted 43,000 National Guard and Reserve support troops that they may be sent to Iraq as well.

Taken together, those decisions constitute the largest rotation of U.S. troops since World War II.

In an added twist, the Army announced that soldiers in every unit designated for deployment to Iraq next year -- whether active duty or reserve -- will be prohibited from leaving the service during a period beginning 90 days before their departure to 90 days after they return.

Ironically, if the White House and Pentagon decide to reinstitute the draft they will earn support from some senior Democrats. Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York have both said that the country should bring back the draft.

Without a draft, they say, the current force will be overly dependent on National Guard and reserves. That fact, coupled with the yearlong tours required of Reserve forces, has sustained demands that a draft be considered.

Rangel and Hollings each sponsored legislation that would re-institute the draft. The identical bills call for mandatory national service in either the military or some other national service of all men and women between the ages of 18 and 26.

Rangel argues that poor and less-educated Americans suffer a disproportionate number of deaths and injuries in an all-volunteer force.

"In Iraq, minorities represented a disproportionate 32 percent of the deaths among combat-related specialties and 40 percent of those among the non-combat ranks," Rangel said.

"I do deplore the fact that Americans and Americans-to-be of their socioeconomic positions make up the overwhelming majority of our nation's armed forces, and that, by and large, those of wealth and position are absent from the ranks of ground troops," he said.

"The point is that, under a draft, every economic group, every social class, men and women, would be given the opportunity to contribute to the defense of their country," he said.

While some -- even many -- members of Congress privately accept Rangel's logic, no one expects Congress to publicly embrace the draft.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., who is one of the authorities on the military in Congress, opposes bringing back the draft, said his chief of staff, George Behan.

"He certainly doesn't think that an all-volunteer force is insufficient," Behan said. "We've been meeting all the recruiting goals and performance standards."

Not surprisingly, neither Hollings' nor Rangel's bill has gone anywhere this year.

And few expect Bush to take a step that would surely be politically unpopular, if not suicidal. Nor is Rumsfeld likely to push for the draft. He has consistently said that the all-volunteer force has performed well and meets all strategic demands.

VOICES ON THE DRAFT
Jon Myers, 22, waiting for a ride at the University of Washington: "It's one of those scary things. People our age haven't grown up with war being something we really think of as a possibility. It's not in our reality," Myers said. He's not worried, however, because he says he has a ticket out: "Color-blindness. I have a very mild red/green colorblindness. It runs in the family."
Carl Sheasley, 17, a member of the UW College Republicans, wearing a Bush/Cheney '04 sticker while attending a rally in opposition to a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich: "I would go right now. I will unilaterally support this country," he said, adding that military service isn't his first choice, but that he'd serve if his president asked him to. "I believe that the Iraq war was a just conflict."

Jameson Florence, 21, riding his mountain bike near the UW's Red Square: "Aren't college students exempt?" he asked first, before explaining that he's not opposed to the draft, just the administration. "If I was more for the cause -- I mean, we all live here. You've got to pay your dues."

Eric Solorio, 19, buying a ticket to see "The Matrix Revolutions" at the Bay Majestic theater in Ballard:

"He (Bush) better not ever. That's not me. It won't happen -- I'd have to leave the country. My mom has three boys, so we'd all have to go."

Solorio, who once contemplated enlisting in the Air Force, said he's not opposed to military service.

"I'm just opposed to him (Bush) forcing me to fight. I don't like him."

[RedHead1420]

First, I don't think that there will be draft if Bush gets reelected, but it brings up an interesting question, in my mind at least.

How would our generation react to being drafted? Think about the people...oh wait, I mean the straight men, that you know. How would they react to a draft? Personally, I think Canada's population would just about double. I'm curious what you guys think though.

[Benwa]

Unless they change the age requirement, I'm too old. But i would probably refuse to go. I suppose you could apply for Contientious Objector. But even though I'm too old I might still leave the country if the draft starts again. I think it would be the last straw for me. Just give up on America. I would either leave or become a hell raiser. Not blowing up cars or anything, but I would make it a mission to be the biggest pain in the ass for the admin as possible. Maybe I should be a pain in the ass now. I don't know.

[jku]

It's just staggering to think that SO much is riding on one political election. The American duty to vote in 2004 is more important than ever before. This could be the election of a generation - similar to Nixon/Goldwater.

[RedHead1420]

Originally posted by jku
It's just staggering to think that SO much is riding on one political election. The American duty to vote in 2004 is more important than ever before. This could be the election of a generation - similar to Nixon/Goldwater.

Don't you think that every election has a lot riding on it? I'm not trying to aruge with you, don't get me wrong, but it seems like every time there is a presidential election everyone thinks it'll be the most important one ever.... all that jazz.

But then to totally conflict what I just said, I *will* be voting in this election, unlike the last one, so thanks Pres Bush for inspiring me to vote. :)

[jku]

This is an interesting point - in 2000, popular opinion was that "I'm voting the lesser of two evils" or "all politicans are the same" (BTW, two CLASSIC lines endemic of people who don't read the paper). Can anyone honestly say this country would be in WORSE shape under Gore than it has been under Bush, and more importantly, a GOP led House and Senate?

1996 - not an election of a genration. The country was in pretty good shape, we were at peace, etc.

1992 - Not either, Bush1 worked with Congress to backed down from his "No New Taxes" pledge, basically sacrificing his political career for what he thought was better for America. Bush1 didn't invade Baghdad, because he predicted a mess on par with what is happening now. The economy was bad, but it was true that Clinton inherited the SPROUTS of a good economy; but Clinton took those sprouts and grew them into TREES.

1988 - Dukakis didn't have a chance after Hart got busted with Donna Rice. Bush was riding high on Reagan's coat-tails. Economy was doing well.

1984 - Mondale? Duh.

1980 - Reagan easily defeated Carter due in part to the Iran Hostage Crisis and rising inflation. Also the gas shortage - and Reagan was a movie star.

1976 - Ford lost to Carter because of Watergate.

1972 - This was McGovern v. Nixon (not Goldwater, my bad), and the Vietnam War was everyone's mind, the Economy was hurting, interesting thing was that Watergate was looked at as a "Political Attack from the LEFT" and people voted for Nixon anyways. It was only after Nixon was re-elected that he had to resign his post and leave in ignomy. The Vietnam War raged on till 1975, for no good reason either - sound familiar?

Bush V. ???? 2004 will be an election year with as much at stake as 1972. I just hope people will be smart enough to get rid of the Bush Administration - a failure among failed Administrations, reprsenting the worst of American politics, and the worst in America. Period.

[Crimson King]

I don't grant your premise jku, which seems to be that the "smart" voters will go against the President.

His poll numbers are on a par with virtually every first term president in their third year that won reelection the following year.

To decry this administration as a failure just isn't right either. Somewhere America went soft and now will tolerate no loss of life in protection of American rights and freedoms? When did that happen? If preservation of our way of life is only acceptable at a cost of Zero, then we're done and the founders have failed.

The Iraq "problem" is only the most successful military operation in history. Societal change is not unheard of nor unnecessary in this case. Remember Germany? Or Japan? Did it there. Bosnia? Clinton did it there for similar reasons, sans even the threat of terrorism and despotism.

Economy beginning to surge on the strength of tax cuts...just like what happened under JFK and Reagan, both of whom had read their Milton Friedman!

What you're seeing is a prominent administration overseeing one of the most historical eras ever and doing so with a great man at the helm...not unlike Churchill.

1972 is probably accurate...just wait and see what Howard Dean does. McGovern couldn't be more apropos.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Crimson King

Economy beginning to surge on the strength of tax cuts...just like what happened under JFK and Reagan, both of whom had read their Milton Friedman!


Bah. The huge gain in GDP in the last quarter was only partically due to the tax cuts, and that effect isn't expected to last much longer. Tax cuts are like a band aid on a huge wound. Especially when the bulk of the money is returned to extremely affluent people, who are not "spenders." (i.e. they will not spend their extra money, whereas if you give a poor person some cash back, they are much more likely to spend). Economists predict that GDP will be back down to about 4%, a good rate for an expanding economy. The economy is expanding because demand is finally growing, but this started to occur before the tax cuts. The final step will be when/if demand grows enough to force companies to hire again, because they've reached their productivity limits (productivity is jaw dropping lately).

However, I do not doubt Bush will get ALL the credit for the economy, when in reality, there are many other factors (non-governmental) that caused this recession and recovery, not the least of which is the cyclical nature of the economy. Nevertheless, presidents are blamed and applauded for the economy, as if they control it totally. All estimates are that the economy will continue to improve and job growth will be moderate throughout 2004, so I think he'll be re-elected, barring another disaster. Sad, really.

[jku]

Hey King - good to have someone who disagrees, I respectfully hope you can see things from the other side, I kindly ask you to bear with me :-)

"His poll numbers are on a par with virtually every first term president in their third year that won reelection the following year."

Well, that's the way it has been spun from the Administration, but the division in this country has never been so strong. We're in the midst of an all-out culture war. Any ideas on why that may be?

I have some doubts as to how Bush will be defeated, mainly what will they do with the $200 Million they've raised from corporate behemoths.

I think the way this Administration has managed the media is unprecedented. From "embedded" reporters in the war and a media embargo of deceased soldiers arriving home, to charges of anti-patriotism for valid critiques of a War policy driven by
re-election politics.

How about blocking the release of records detailing an Energy policy made by Enron et.al?

How about using executive priviledge to prevent the release of memos (particulalry August 6, 2001) which would give the Nation a more thorough view of the state of Intelligence prior to 9/11?
(why was Bush so focused on a missle defense shield prior to 9/11 and all but ignored terrorism? Are you aware of the influence of the military industry?)

How about leaking the name of Valeria Plame, Joe Wilson's wife?

Any single one of these issues would have knocked Clinton out -
but with a GOP controlled Senate and House, there's not going to be an investigation. No wonder the GOP spent so much money on the midterm election of 2002 - they knew they'd get slaughtered if someone was actually CHECKING and BALANCING.

And what is the GOP controlled Senate focused on right now? They've created a huge DIVERSION - making a non-issue an issue with FOUR judges who didn't get picked! How do these judges impact our lives? Does it give us healthcare, fight terror, make us more prosperous as a nation?

So Iraq is on par with Germany and Japan at the height of there powers? Where was the threat in Iraq? A eunuch of a leader beaten down with 10 years of embargos? What weapons did they have? Even the countries surrounding Iraq weren't threatened and didn't support this war? Progressives aren't wimps - why not get terror where it lives - by working with foreign governments to find the criminals in their midst?

Why would I bomb London if I wanted to get some criminals hidden in Dublin? This is Bush's war on terror. We're no safer now than we were in the past. A KID our age got 3 box cutters on three seperate flights? A nuclear bomb could be shipped on a cargo ship right now, as we speak? But we're spending billions on a war that we didn't NEED to get involved in, but are doing so to payback companies that gave money to Bush's political campaign? How is this good for America?

In re to the economy - yes, we had modest growth the past quarter. But was that really because of Bush's tax cuts? Some people may have already spent their meager rebate checks, so consumer spending propped that up - now what? Where was the spending on infrastructure? People buy a stereo made in China over the summer and we're in an economic boom?

What about future technology that can lead to greater economic growth - such as stem cell research and biotechnology? What about money spent on alternative fuel and getting us off the damn internal combustion engine? Why is it that Bush has snuffed stem cell research and alternative fuel technology? Could he be putting his personal political interests and the financial interests of his big-oil donors ahead of the American people?
What about the steel tariffs that may lead to the EU screwing us in the next few months - we'll see on that one. Give ol' George a chance...;-)

And what about a HALF-TRILLION dollar budget deficit? Is that going to magically dissapear? Will foreign countries continue to lend America money buying our bonds? Not the way Bush treats our neighbors - Japan just said today that they're NOT sending troop support to Iraq - now what? Will they be backing down on treasury bond spending too?

Yes, because Bush pissed off our neighbors, and one day we'll have to pay that money back in forms of higher taxes and decreased prosperity in our country. Most likely it'll be under a Deomcratic President, and most likely the GOP will criticize them for it. It's so frustrating. Make a mess, then point a finger. That's the Bush Reagan policy on Iraq in the 80s, and GWBush economic policy now.

Show me where any of the REAL progress Bush has made on terror, the economy, or making this country a truly better place and I'll vote for him, I'm no dummy.

Thanks for bearing with me, look forward to your reply.
JKU

[dakotagopher]

Couple of points.......

A) The economy is recovering and tax cuts played a big part (not the only part, but a big part). Any fair minded economist will admit this. It always amuses me how the Left gnashes their teeth at the very thought cutting tax on the wealthy is a good long term strategy, but that's bedrock liberalism and regardless of the facts, they stick to their guns. Of course the Right has similar bedrock positions.

B) If unemployment improves, it will be very tough to dislodge Bush. And it appears to be improving. I think more people really support Bush's foreign policy than the Left like to think.

C) On JKU's point about Bush refusing camera coverage of dead soldiers returning........I've been reading a lot about this in the paper lately and it seems the height of hypocrasy. Since when is it OK to use a dead soldier as a political pawn? Note that the Left has not stooped so low as to approach the family of a dead soldier asking for some media coverage........yet. It'll happen.

D) Bush has not had "any success fighting terrorism"? We're "no safer than we were before 9/11"? Remind me again how many US Citizens have been killed in domestic terror attacks since 9-11-01? That argument is a bit unfair........

E) Sure Bush has his problems and controversies......but the guy is a hell of a Leader. Does not appear afraid to make the tough, potentially unpopular, decision. And plenty of them are unpopular.

F) Presidents always are painted with the Economy and that's the biggest factor w/getting re-elected. That's what killed Bush 1, NOT his "no taxes" spiel. Unemployment was too high. Of course it was fully recovered by Nov 1992 but the voters didn't care and Clinton kept beating that drum........

G) RE the last election: I'll take GW Bush over Gore any day of the week, especially w/respect to the terror issue and our foreign policy moving forward. I believe we're on the right track. I know this annoys our Old Eurpoe allies, but that is frankly irrelevent.

H) Lastly, I was talking with my grandfater in the nursing home a couple of weeks ago.......WWII vet, and a big Bush supporter.....and he brought up an interesting point. Claimed that after WWII, there was, for several years, major problems for occupying forces in, especially, Germany. Many uprisings, unpopular outrage by the population, etc. Many people back home did not understand why we were still over there, still having soldiers killed every day in the random accident or attack. the reason is now clear: that was the prudent thing to do. I've done a bit of research on internet and actually found recent reprints of some of the stories published at that time, and it's interesting how they parallel the current Iraq situation.

[jku]

Hey Dakota -
If you read my post, I had some pretty specific points that I don't feel were adequately addressed. Sure the GDP rose, it was predicted, because the tax cuts by most economists are considered Economic steroids, they make us look strong now but they cause damage in the long run.

How are we going to react when taxes are raised because we can't borrow anymore money? Will this snail's pace growth cover half a trillion dollars and counting in the long term? How can we have a war, and cut taxes - it's illogical. Just like California, a day of reckoning will come for us, and Bush is blowing the long term health of America for short term political gain.

This is an excellent editorial:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_110503J.shtml

Bush will probably get re-elected with the way the public is looking at the situation NOW, but at WHAT cost? A huge deficit, major tax breaks for the wealthiest, a bleak future in terms of future industries that will sustain our economy, and a war in a foreign land sucking up our wealth and resources with no end in sight?

All I hear are generalizations from the Right about all these topics, which play well with the public - but the devil is in the details, right?

So WE haven't had an attack since 9/11, but did you forget Al Queda attacks in Bali, Riyadh, Southeast Asia - just because it didn't happen on American soil doesn't mean it didn't happen, and doesn't mean that it can't happen.

People can still get box cutters on planes, terrorists can still cross through Canada, and our ports are huge bullseyes - what has Bush done on any of these? The "What If John Wayne and Ronald Reagan had a Baby?" rhetoric in regards to defining Bush doesn't hold.

The post WW2 analogy isn't accurate either:
http://hnn.us/articles/1655.html
We could have success in Iraq now (because we MUST), if we weren't in there alone. What if Clinton went to War with basically zero financial and military support. Would you defend him as well? I don't think we should pull out, but the way Bush went into Iraq was reckless and stupid, there is no doubt about it.

What about the GRANTS to Iraq vs. Loans? Bush wanted grants because the money was under less scrutiny, that way it could be given to military corporate contributors without any oversight. Simple.
How is that responsible or good for America?
http://www.iht.com/articles/111524.html

This unilateral policy doesn't make Bush a strong leader. Quite the contrary, it shows his lack of leadership and ineptitude as a real Statesman, something Churchill Roosevelt definitely had.

Bush1 got Japan to fund the majority of the first Gulf War - but Japan just bailed out on GW BUSH. What do they see that Bush supporters in this country don't?

[dakotagopher]

JKU

A) Your analogy to cutting taxes while spending a bundle on a war is a good point. The piper will have to be paid. However, the need to stimulate the economy, even assuming your "economic steroid" argument is valid, was and remains obvious, at least to me.

B) When the economy takes off again, which it will, the deficit will take care of itself. You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. That being said, I do share concern about the long term effects on future generations..........something I have not seen on this board is the impact the baby boomers are going to have on all our lives in about 15 years. Social Security is the tip of the iceberg. Societally, we're heading into some interesting times.......

C) I read the article about post-WWII and it seems to make both points, rather, it seems to try to discredit the WWII analogy while at the same time repeated pointing out similarities. While Iraq is obviously not an exact mirror image of Post WWII Germany, the similarities are startling. Big picture wise, I agree, there were many differences, but consider how Bleak the picture looked in 1946-47 and then consider Iraq today........very similar.

D) Grants vs. Loans........another good argument. How about the argument that Loans would be seen by the people of the middle east as a cop out and another way the big bad USA was taking advantage of them? What really rankles me about this whole issue is that France, Germany, Russia, etc, nations that played no role in this project, still expect to be paid the monies owed them by Saddam for weapons and infrastructure. That in my opinion was one of the two reasons they didn't want the war in the first place........they were more concerned about their investment than long term health & stability in the region. In a perfect world, yes, all the funds would be a Loan. In the real world, it's not so easy.

E) Why are you surprised at Japans refusal to contribute more than their few billion when the rest of our old allies refuse to contribute even that much? The Japanese know the USA will foot the bill and cover their ass for them as we create a better world. Just like Germany and France do. They know we'll take care of the problem. Also, Japan was just a weeeee bit stronger financially a decade ago than they are today, so the practicality of them fronting more than a few billion is also in question......all that being said, yes, Bush ideally would have gotten more out of our old allies, but I think that was a long shot from the beginning considering their positions on Iraq.

Our old allies know we have the most to lose, and are most at risk, from militant Islam. Thus they also know we must fight this fight with or without them. It's smart business on their part to shrug and tell us it's "not their problem." Bad for us, good for them.

Lastly, YES, I would have supported Clinton in this endeavor the same as I now support Bush. Without question. This is not a political issue for me. It is the best strategy for long term security of our nation.

Sideissue: Clinton wasn't enough of a leader to do the unpopular (remove Saddam, directly confront the WMD threat), however, so he'd have found a way to appease Saddam yet again. In my opinion Gore would have done the same had he been in charge. And we'd still be wondering if he was developing WMD and he'd still be brutally ruling over that nation. My opinion. But if he would have, i'd be behind him 100% because, again, it's the Right Thing To Do.

[jku]

A) Yes, the economy must be stimulated, so why will it be done on the backs of the middle class? The group most needed for short term political gain, and with the least power to complain when the bill for this economic all-you-can-eat is given at the end of dinner, and we left the wallet at home? Will you and I be washing the dishes?
America is on economic steroids so Bush can win re-election - but the price to pay is that our foreheads will get bigger and our balls will shrink...

http://www.forbes.com/markets/economy/newswire/2003/09/09/rtr1077271.html
"The economic steroids in question are federal tax cuts. The most recent round went into effect July 1, boosting workers' take-home pay by lowering marginal tax rates while dishing out over $13 billion in child tax credit checks.
The tax-cut impact was clearly in evidence in a recent government report that showed a 1.5 percent surge in disposable income in July. That was the biggest gain since January of last year, largely the result of the reduction in taxes. (JKU note: Which led to the recent GDP numbers, strategically calculated for maximum political impact as Voters make up their mind the year before election)
In what some economists saw as a troubling sign, wage and salary income, which has been growing only sluggishly in recent months, actually fell marginally."

Sure there are risks - I hope it all works out and we'll be in fine shape. Pollyanna Bush and company seem to think so, but how can they be trusted? They have been planning re-election since the mid 1990s when Bush ran for Governor. The whole Bush term has been a re-election campaign, let's be honest.

B) The war on Iraq was planned in 1992, - lets be honest about it. This is an excellent summary of the state of affairs on Iraq prior to Bush and 9/11:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/synopsis.html

Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. It's a huge payback to the military industry. And Bush was well aware there were no WMDs, didn't he read the papers prior to the war? Maybe not according to Brit Hume

HUME: Is that a book or...

BUSH: No, it's just a couple of pieces of paper, prepared by the -- now the Department of Homeland Security. They take information from the FBI, the CIA, and they analyze the threats, potential threats to America. I look at them here, I go through mail. Remember I told you I can pick up the phone and call my mother and dad occasionally rack them out of the sack early. And then at 8:00, generally Andy Card will be here when I walk in. He's here earlier than I am. And he'll be here with the latest, and I'll ask him what's in the newspapers worth worrying about, or, you know...

HUME: And he'll say, nothing?

BUSH: No, he'll say something...

JKU: Damn right he'll say something! This is just some of the stuff Bush missed the past few months:

This is about the info Bush was told prior to war in Iraq:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/eveningnews/main560449.shtml

This is a list of Bush quotes prior to the Iraq war compiled by John Dean (forshadow of things to come? Not likely...)
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

Here's a commentary by the Godmother of White House Journalists, Helen Thomas, on Bush's lack of curiosity:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/143851_thomas15.html
Thomas Jefferson, relentless in his defense of the First Amendment, was fed up with the attacks on his leadership when he served as the nation's third president.
But Jefferson is remembered for saying he "would rather have newspapers without government than government without newspapers."

Dakota, you're right about Japan - they aren't as hot as they were back then. I know you seem to view Bush as a heroic leader going against what is popular, but the facts don't support the case. I'm also encouraged that you're staying true to your independent roots and considering some of the Dem Opponents to Bush. Nothing is more important for the future of America than to make sure Bush loses in 2004. The real agenda will begin when this Administration has nothing to lose.

BTW Dakota, I would like to get your thoughts on the military industry? Do you think they exist?
Do they have any power over foreign policy? (maybe a new thread?)

This article was published well before 9/11 and Iraq:
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=664
But what do you give to the industry which has everything? Which already receives some $200bn a year from the US taxpayer? You give America's arms companies what they most desire. You give them war.

And CBS 60 Minutes - did you see this episode?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml

Pamphlet on the Military Industry:
http://www.jca.apc.org/stopUSwar/Bushwar/pamphlet_bush_and_mic_e.htm

I respect your grandfather for having served in War, and he's lucky to have such a sharp memory. I'd be curious to see if remembers any discussion of war profiteeing after World War II?
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030512&s=editors

In re to Gore: I don't think there would have been a 9/11 under President Gore. Why? Because while Bush was focused on the bogus missle defense shield for obvious reasons, thus he ignored terrorism until 9/12/01, which was a priority of the Clinton Administration.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091601fornpol,1,694714.story

Thanks for the vigorous debate Dakota. Have a nice weekend!
:)

[Crimson King]

JKU--I'm back...always up for a good debate. I think public discourse should take place more often...think West Wing with more conservatives!

First, you give far too much credit to the Bush administration via the media. Clinton was really no different. For every leak and withholding you cite, there was an equally damaging one for which Bill Clinton received a pass. Remember the unprecedented 12th hour pardons in 2001? Or the FBI files found scattered throughout the West Wing and White House Counsel's office? Nevermind Monica Lewinsky...whatever happened to Juanita Broderick? The whole manipulation of the media is a push, really. For Clinton to survive impeachment it took quite a great deal of media savvy and communications moxie to pull that off.

On the polls...that's not spin. That's what the others' ratings were when similar numbers responded to the same question. It's a poll standard since the 1950s. It's one of the few ways presidents over different decades CAN be compared. A very relevant indicator.

Economic rebuttal: Revenues increase when taxes decrease. Happened with Reagan. Happened with JFK. It's because every dollar spent by consumers when given a tax cut becomes another dollar of income, which is then spent again at the rate of 50% (approximately). At the end of the day a $100 tax cut becomes about $198 of expenditures, multiplying tax revenue at a lower rate, thus increasing gross revenue. I agree that Reagan and now Bush gave up the farm when it comes to spending. Bush has to reign in Congress on that front, but forget this bogus whine about deficits. Economists have always said deficits for their own sake are not bad. Ike had deficits, so did Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton in the first term, and now Bush, yet each oversaw some good economic advance during their terms, with the exception of Carter, and most of those expansions had little or no inflation. I agree that the last quarter was an exception, but even a correction to gain a 4% growth rate will be an exceptional economy when 3% is considered healthy. The extra 1% in a 1 trillion dollar economy will mean bull markets and increased income for years to come.

The judges issue is a big deal. The democrats cried over the same thing when Clinton was in office and they controlled the Senate. The Republicans just didn't do the blocking on the Senate floor, favoring committees instead. Both parties should grow up on this one and give all presidential nominees an up or down senate vote. The biggest problem here seems to be that the Dems are holding up a number of the appointments for insincere reasons. In the case of Miguel Estrada, the Dems are VERY afraid he will become the first hispanic seated on the Supreme Court and they DO NOT want to cede that a wedge voter block may be conservative. They can't afford, long term, to give hispanics a conservative role model, lest they risk losing the hearts and minds of that group for years to come at the polls. Issue holds are one thing, but racial motivation is simply wrong.

Now the big one: Iraq. I recall in college and high school people standing amazed that no one intervened with Germany prior to it threatening England and uniting with Japan when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Hindsight told them preemptive intervention was wise. Fine. Now we've done that. Clearly Iraq was not Germany, but Germany didn't have nuclear weapons and we weren't sure that Iraq did not. If they did, then a rogue state with a madman at the helm is not a wise thing to have in the world. We are not seeing the full picture of Iraq. We are not seeing the full picture of the United States for that matter. How often do you hear about school shootings on the news, but do not hear about the wonderful advances being made with many students in public schools and universities? You don't. News is no different with Iraq...we're only hearing the worst. But even conceding the worst is indeed not a good situation, we must also see the Iraq war for what it is...the most successful military operation in history. Sure we're losing lives, but I, and many Americans (about half) think it's a just war for a just reason. Moreover, what if Bush loses in 2004, but our continued effort in Iraq provides a stabilizing force to the reason sprouting the root of a predominantly democratic middle east? Historically, there's no doubt whose vision will get all the credit...George W. Bush. It's simply too soon to sound the death knell on Iraq....which is why we must see the mission through.

I have no doubt we've made great strides on terrorism and despotism both in Afghanistan and Iraq. You cannot rely on "working with foreign governments," because they do not share our beliefs, our values, and our way of life. They are often controlled through finance, graft, and vice, by the very enemies who seek to destroy us. Clinton knew of Bin Laden and his ilk in the 1990s and pounded sand with missiles and fought air wars because the American people are getting soft...unable to tolerate any loss of life. The result? An ineffective effort at keeping us safe resulting in the furthering of planned attacks against the USS Cole, various embasies, and twice against the world trade center, including 9/11. So the Dems and liberals do not have any high ground on this issue. Dean is merely playing to isolationists and appeasers...a ploy that WILL NOT work in the South or the West in any election (wait and see).

Everyone always throws out the "Culture War." I'm not so sure. If it is a culture war, on what lines are the sides drawn? Liberal/Conservative? Republican/Democrat? Those two have been fighting since no later than 1964 when the Goldwater campaign first drew that line in the sand. So what then? I think we're simply polarized at approximately an equal pitch. The 2000 election saw that, well before all this terrorism and war stuff blew across the landscape. Like any election, 2000 saw a battle for the middle 20%, and there were two moderates running...one a moderate-liberal, the other a moderate-conservative. I'm sure the 2000 election would have been far different had Gore been a New England Liberal or had Bush been a Deep South, old style Reagan republican.

Now we're lining up to have Bush against a likely liberal, giving the President room to consolidate the right without having to try hard to do so, and probably gaining a stronghold with the centrists. Politics is marginal...a 10% shift with black voters will result in a 2% swing in an election. A 5% shift with catholics will bring Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to one side or the other. It's politics, not a culture war. But issues do exist, don't get me wrong. And I think the President is on the right side of those issues and I think the American people agree more than the media elites are even able to see.

Just my two cents...if I missed any area, let me know. And keep the debate alive...there's nothing better for us all!

[jku]

Hey Crimson - thanks for the reply, so you're a lawyer? What kind of law do you practice?

Bill Clinton did NOT get a pass with the media, and Bush wouldn't be if the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. The media just reports what's happening - it's a conduit of information. Simple. Whoever has control of the podium (i.e. The White House, Congress) sets the tone and national dialogue.

The Clinton pardons were huge story (I still remember the name Mark Rich), Juanita Broderick was found to be "inconclusive" by Ken Starr (don't you think a rapist President would be a better impeachment scandal? BTW, NBC broke the Juanita story, so where's the bias? - and regardless of all these Clinton "scandals," which I'm not defending because it was wrong to lie under oath, but no one died because Clinton lied. Clinton getting blown didn't impact our lives as Americans in any way other than some blushes and giggles. And if Clinton did something wrong, does that make Bush defensible? What Kohlberg moral scale does that fall under?

Let's be honest. The GOP knew they needed control of Congress in 2002 and won that election on money and fear, using 9/11 as the reason to vote Republican, thus gaining control of Congress; nevermind jobs and health care. And in regards to the media, who is the progressive Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? The only reason Right Wing radio and Fox News exist is to sell ADVERTISING, because the audience is an easy sale, totally trusting and open to suggestion.

Is the Right-wing hegemony in America even disputed? A Vietnam veteran with one arm and no legs, Max Cleland, LOST because he was framed as "unpatriotic." CBS didn't run the Reagan movie, but I don't recall any fervor over the Kennedy's multiple MOWs? This lie of a liberal media is infuriating to those who work in the media - all our bosses are Republicans anyways!

Economics: I hope your math is right, because there are other factors to consider. Reagan and other past Presidents could afford deficit spending because foreign nations were willing to lend money. Our Treasury bonds have a measly 4% ROI (return on investment) today, a far cry from 6%+ that rich investors could get in South Africa to name one. What if countries stop lending, Bush isn't exactly considered a reliable leader by the global community? What about Social Security?
We taxpayers will be paying down the interest on the debt, AND paying more in taxes just to keep the war and the country running. Bush is leading us into financial ruin - we may have GDP growth now which may work in the short term for re-election, but wages are decreasing, bankruptcies are increasing, and personal debt is at an all time high. What has the GOP done on these fronts?
How long can you keep a feather afloat with a straw?

Good point about Estrada and the Judgeship, in re to the fears Dems may have. But are you implying the Hispanic community is so naive as to vote GOP (thus anti-worker, anti-immigrant) because a Hispanic supreme court judge is a Republican?
The Judge issue is NOT an issue - healthcare and jobs are. It's an easy way to get the country away from thinking about legislation that might change our lives.

Let's see what happens with the Senate in the next two weeks. If the Energy bill is an indication (60% of it tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal industries - what about increased gas mileage, alternative energy research????) then our grandparents are in for it, AARP support or not.

Iraq is not World War II, and Hussein wasn't a Hitler. The fairy dust of World War II doesn't make all wars "GOOD" vs. "Evil." I'm sure you've realized foreign policy and life is a bit more complicated than that.
Saddam was our friend a mere 15 years ago, receiving foreign aid and American support against Iran - $200 million went to Hussein the same year he gassed the Kurds that GWBush used to justify his war in lieu of WMDS. Iraq was fought to get money for major corporate donors to the Bush/Cheney campaign, and an easy way to convince the American public Bush was doing something on the war on terror. Please see the link on my signature below, we can debate this further. Richard Perle and his ilk hold the key.

I think you're right about the Culture war, maybe this is how it has always been - but Bush is very vulnerable because this is probably one of the great failures of an Administration. Maybe Coolidge is a better model than Roosevelt.

BTW, tell us why if Clinton was so ineffective on Bin Laden, did Bush need 9/11 to wake up to the threat of terrorism? Why was Bush so fixated on a Missle Defense Shield prior to 9/11? Maybe the money found in Defense contracts will spark your interest, and provide some answers on this ineffectual "war on terror."

[Crimson King]

Thanks jku...I love this stuff. Would you believe I'm a Plaintiff's employment and civil rights lawyer? And a conservative? How does that work? On to the good stuff:

On Clinton vs. Bush Political Realities: I maintain Clinton got every bit of a pass as you claim Bush does. Prior to 1992 there's no way Clinton does not get removed from office for various indiscretions. Clinton had a media machine behind him, and they took care of business well. It was a Clinton administration staple. You never saw any conservative bent during the Clinton years, especially on network tv. Say what you want about Fox news, but the height of their viewership reaches about 1.1 million...CBS, NBC, and ABC get around 35 million. That's a lot of bias to overcome.

Moreover, when you say no one died because Clinton lied, I say fine. I do not concede that Bush has lied related to Iraq. I do believe Iraq was a threat. I do believe that an age of terrorism exacerbated any need to preempt Iraq from aligning itself with terror. I do believe the war was just and the result was good. I'll concede that Iraq was not Germany and Hussein was not Hitler (though how many murders does it take to constitute evil?), but only if the left comes to conclude that Iraq is neither Vietnam.

I do dispute this idea of right-wing hegemony. The left has a grip on the networks, the right has talk radio...hardly a fair and balanced order. Although I must say the Max Cleland campaign was weak. I've worked for a Georgia Congressman and dealt with Cleland...for the Republicans to say he's unpatriotic is off, but for voters to buy it something's not right. But how much of that is politics? All of it. And both sides do it...not just the right. Remember the Willie Horton ads in 1988? Do you remember who first raised that issue with Michael Dukakis? Al Gore! In primaries!

Economics: Don't confuse your issues. GDP growth is an economic measure, indicating economic strength. Federal Revenues are what formulate the federal budget, and revenues are simply the amount of money collected from taxes. GDP growth is the main concern. Even the "down" years from mid 2001 through mid 2003 saw economic growth higher than any period of history other than the period from 1995-2000, which was a ridiculous economic boom. By objective measure, Bush has overseen a successfully growing, though relatively (by 1995-2000 standards) sluggish economy. The economy is now seeing increased growth once more on the back of tax cuts. Deficits are not inherently bad...there's no economic data suggesting that. Most modern presidents have operated with deficits and seen good economies. There's no chance that other nations will stop doing business with the US. Why? The US is the only major economy that has never defaulted on any of its international or bond driven loans. That's what you're seeing in the mentioned bond rates. You get more in South Africa because you're also absorbing higher risk that the international bond collapses. There's always a bigger return when your money is on the long shot. Essentially however, we're using a platinum card with the highest credit rating ever. If a country decides, "Hey...no more US money is good here," their own economy collapses by virtue of sheer weight and strength of the US economy. That's not an arrogant position...it's an economic reality, given that we produce more exports and consume more imports than any economy anywhere else in the world. As such, deficit spending can prop up a slow economy and the deficit can recover itself in a heated economy at the same or lower levels of taxes. Economic deficits are not like personal debt...damn Ross Perot for putting that in people's heads. That troll used deficit spending as an "easy" concept that most voters understood far more easily than the complexities of international diplomacy and sound domestic policy. He used it to garner great strength among independent voters...swing votes. Both sides were forced to scramble for those same voters and adopted the deficit cry as their own in order to win in 1992 and 1996. While deficits should not be something like 25% of the GDP, they're not harmful in the short term (up to 15 years believe it or not!).

I love what you said on the Estrada thing...."are you implying the Hispanic community is so naive as to vote GOP (thus anti-worker, anti-immigrant) because a Hispanic supreme court judge is a Republican?"

No! The Democrats are! With no independent reason to think Hispanics will blindly follow and vote GOP, the Dems nonetheless hold up Estrada from advancement! And be careful with your terms...GOP=anti-worker? When did we become workers and burgeoise? I seem to think that left with Karl Marx into "the graveyard of history's discarded lies." (I'm a sucker for oratory and you have to agree, as a side note, that that was one of the greatest lines a president has ever given...it still brings chills to me!) Don't underestimate judges either. The Civil Rights movement was entirely a jurisprudential effort...very shrewd by Civil Rights leaders.

I agree with you somewhat on Energy...I'm in huge favor of alternate fuel sources. Why don't we have fuel cell vehicles yet? But, energy companies aren't just pyramid schemes to get rich. They are viable businesses that have the resources and means to acquire the fuel that all nations use. Fuel keeps our society moving...we need it, we want it, and rightfully so. You can't punish energy companies because you don't like them. Tax breaks for such companies aren't going to kill old people. It's a false choice. Moreover, those breaks become income, which multiplies itself, increasing revenues, and making available funding for jobs. Sound policy, sound energy policy too. But yeah, let's get onto the fuel cell train...we must become more energetically independent and get away from foreign oil...if we can get away from foreign oil we can get out of the middle east for the most part and never have to get involved in deep conflict with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, et al. again.

Which brings me to the Clinton failure on Bin Laden. Bush was in office for 8 months prior to 9/11. So put 8 months of failure on him. Clinton was there for 8 years. Put 8 years of failure on him. The scale tips. There were intel failures under both administrations. Bush largely kept Clinton's intel agencies intact (George Tenet--Clinton appointee). Clinton did a speech on Bin Laden to a national audience when he pounded the sand in Afghanistan and Sudan during the Lewinsky garbage. That alone shows he at least knew of Bin Laden two years before the attacks. Yet we still didn't get him...and that's fine...here we are two years after and don't have him! Mutual fault on that deal is fine. Bush was looking too far ahead...the missile defense shield is still a good idea. Some nation or rogue group will ultimately seek to lob a missile into San Francisco bay or into the Hudson river and we'll wish we had such a shield. But proper intel would have made us focus, more appropriately, on what was really going on. Mutual fault on pre 9/11 terror is fine...but the Dems have no higher authority on that issue. If anything, that serves to illustrate why Clinton should have resigned during Lewinsky. He did his Bin Laden bombing during that scandal. It raised the question of whether he was wagging the dog and failed to raise any real attention on the part of the American people to the real threat of terrorism. If nothing more, his problems may have caused him to let us down on getting the message of what threat we faced before us.

My post is ridiculously long now...hope I've covered everything. If not...let me know what I missed and I'll catch it in the next run. Now I'm going to finish the day and watch West Wing tonight!

[jku]

Hi Crimson - BTW, if you ever come out to LA, let me know.

The "liberal" media is a MYTH. Anyone who works in the media knows that to be true. I've listened to Goldberg, read Coulter, talked, observed - and come to some conclusions. The problem with the media is a pack mentality, pandering news to the lowest common denominator, and a fundamental lack of understanding on complex issues (SECRET: many media types were comm majors at 2nd tier universities)

The Right wing book buying public is a small minority of the voting public, constantly searching for some way to buttress their world view that zany liberals are brainwashing the public. In the world of ponzi schemes, they are known as "affinity groups," people that can be relied upon to believe anything and, more importantly, BUY anything targeted at them.

When Republican Power brokers couldn't defend the undefensible, they killed the messenger, plain and simple - that was the birth of this liberal media conspiracy theory.

Seeing the letters we get, the liberals say we have a conservative bias, and the conservatives say we have a liberal bias. Interesting point, during the war in Iraq, Al Jazeera was accused of having a Western/American bias, and later Rumsfeld accused Al Jazeera of having an Iraqi bias. Who was right? The answer is that when both sides are pissed off, you're doing your job.

I'll concede your economic argument is strong - we'll just have to wait and see. The future of this country depends on a lot of consumer driven indicators, and people are losing confidence. I suspect the GDP growth is somewhat driven by the War, all my engineer friends have been really confident in their jobs recently.

If Estrada and the other 4 judges were held up for political reasons (Estrada gave up, right?), why were 97% of the other judges approved? Isn't this a NON-ISSUE, done purely for political points. Hannity discusses it all the time, and I hear people calling in struggling to understand what it means to their lives. We live in a nation based on common law, which means precedent, so who gives a judge the right to exercise their personal viewpoints from the bench? The 10 Commandments Judge is an excellent example of why opinions should be left at the courthouse door.

At least you agree with me on fuel cells, good on you. Reagan held up energy research progression, but Clinton believed that it was potentially a multi-TRILLION dollar industry. If Gore was President, do you think we would even be discussing this? It would have been in progress. Exxon is the highest earning company in America.
They have HUGE influence in politics. We need a President who isn't owned by them if we are going to get anywhere as a nation in terms of fuel effic.

BTW, stem cell research is another potential future multi-trillion dollar industry America could have dominated if Bush wasn't in office.

On to Iraq, you say that you believe Iraq was a threat. Where is the proof??? Bin Laden and Hussein had totally different ideological beliefs - polar opposites. Sure they both hated America, but Iraq was WEAK, because of Weapons inspectors such as Scott Ritter and heavy sanctions during the past decade, right? The solution to the War on Terror is in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It would take TRUE guts to stand up to those countries.

You said: "I do believe that an age of terrorism exacerbated any need to preempt Iraq from aligning itself with terror."
Again, where is the proof that Iraq was planning on committing suicide by joining terror groups? Cheney pushed that LIE that Iraq met Al Queda agents in Chech - which he knew wasn't true.

MONEY and VOTES drives politics, and it is the only thing the Bush Administration believes in - damn the future of America. Sheen, as Bartlet, said that he liked being a statesman and hated running as a politician. When has Bush been a statesman (maybe for a few weeks after 9/11), and NOT a politician. Everything this Administration does is calculated for max votes and money to donors.

There's been ample evidence Clinton took Bin Laden and Al Queda seriously. Gore would have as well. Please show me any article to the contrary. Mainstream media has confirmed the fact that Bush took priority with the Missle Defense shield and didn't take terrorism seriously until it was too late. When did the biggest failure of an Administration become a POSITIVE for Bush? Check this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/22/attack/main564410.shtml
"One tidbit concerns President Bush's Aug. 6,
2001 daily briefing. Previously, national security
adviser Condoleezza Rice said the briefing was
"analytic," profiling Osama bin Laden, and not a
warning.
But the report released Thursday indicates the
briefing included information "acquired in May
2001 that indicated a group of Bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United
States with explosives." It referred to an al Qaeda support base in the United States, and FBI "judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."

Remember when Bush missed a chance to send Drones to kill Bin Laden?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/2020/predator030624.html
"When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had
recently spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three
times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned
planes with missiles to kill the al Qaeda leader.
But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11
attacks later that year, current and former U.S. officials say."

The marketed, Pentagon/Administration spun view that IRAQ was necessary for the War on terror has no PROOF to support it. But what does have proof is that this War and the $87 Billion was the downpayment on the Bush Re-election campaign, and a HUGE windfall for War profiteers that pushed this war.

Looking forward to your reply friend... :)

[Crimson King]

...I had to use that line, now didn't I?

This has been good, but looks like we're wearing down!

I don't guess I buy a LIBERAL MEDIA myth either. But it's far from conservative and people should be able to sort through and realize it. Ideologies will likely shade everything that a person does. More liberals are in the media(according to most self-descriptive polls), and coverage becomes shaded somewhat, perhaps even unknowingly, accordingly. It's more like Goldberg suggests (Ann Coulter...well...not so much...she implies it's a systematic effort...nah.). Subtle shading brought on by blinkers created from the longstanding place and location of most media power brokers. Sure there's no lefty media drive, but there certainly isn't a conservative one either. Fox is shaded right, and CBS, CNN, NBC, ABC, and others shade left. Major networks have larger viewerships. Perhaps it's not so far as to say bias, but it is certainly enough that the right is having to overcome some disparity.

I don't concede the war is indefensible. To say it's indefensible is presumptive. Plus, approximately half of the public feel it doesn't further need defending. I'll bet that if Zero American lives were lost, the left would not have such a problem...they're clearly anti-despot too. It's the cost they don't like. The problem is the costs aren't as high as they would like to portray...again, it's been the most successful military conflict in American history. Again, if twenty years hence sees a flourishing, peaceful, democratic middle east (or some semblance thereof), then Bush will be objectively one of the great leaders of all time. It's almost like screaming and crying when you have to put money into a 401k, without seeing what the payoff is when you cash in. Too early to tell, I'd say, but a calculated gamble with acceptable (not great) costs that may ultimately reach an unbelievably great payoff. I belive it's right, Bush does too, and his belief and conviction bring comfort to me, and I suspect to many others.

The judge issue is a big deal, I think. Jurisprudence has been the driving force behind societal change in America for roughly 150 years now, especially within the last 50. My problem is not that 97% were approved and 3% were not. The opposite of approval is denial. 3% did not get the chance to even be denied. The presidential appointment and appointee should always receive an up or down vote, regardless of party, absent some horrible character flaw. The Alabama judge is a bit of a red herring. State law is more localized, more reliant upon local networks, and relatively free of partisan influence compared to that at the federal level. He's not up for any appointment, and he has a steady legal argument to some degree. His problem was not the ten commandments as much as it was refusing a federal order from the circuit court. The courts, however, without legislation (or many say constitutional foundation) have decreed the ten commandments cannot be in the statehouse. That's why the appointments are important. Because these courts DO make law. There just happen to be more appointed judges that disagree with the Alabama judge on that issue. Were similar appointments voted on in the Senate...perhaps the Alabama judge stays and finds himself on the "legal" side of the issue. It's very tenuous.

I don't buy stem cells as an industry. The industry should be a by product of the scientific and moral justification for using them. They're probably helpful for research and medical treatment. Good. We need cures since we haven't had a major cure since Polio was eradicated. But I'm not versed enough on the procedure for obtaining them to make any claims on that.

On Iraq/Bin Laden, etc...sure Clinton "took Bin Laden seriously." He couldn't not take him seriously and be even a competent presidency. I simply think it's disingenuous for the Dems to turn on Bush and say he's handling Bin Laden poorly when the leader of their party and their favorite presidential model did poorly as well and was far less decisive. They simply cannot claim more than a push on Bin Laden, and as a tie breaker, at least Bush has cleared out the Taliban and put these people on the run. Clinton did not do anything close. Edge to Bush.

On Iraq...there's a great article in Weekly Standard this last week citing declassified and classified information linking Iraq to Bin Laden. There's also another article analyzing that article on Slate.com today. I'd link them, but can't seem to be able to. Nonetheless, even assuming arguendo no link exists, I'll refer to my above statements that the war has been successful, I believe just, and ultimately that it will result in great things for the mideast in the long run. The cost will not harm anything (see previous discussions on deficits), and all it will do is force congress to (hopefully) be more stingy when it does budgets each year (A REAL PROBLEM...STOP SPENDING ALREADY.) The 87 Billion is additional expense (adding to the deficit, but not forcing cuts in things like social security) so nothing is threatened.

In short, I think Bush is right in most of what he's doing. More importantly, I think he's a genuinely good, decent, and talented man, which is exactly what is needed in what is effectively war time.

Back to work for me...you're up, I suppose. Never been to LA yet though!

[jku]

Hey...
- The media is a conduit for information. Your point doesn't hold because the right-wing POV has more power because of one man: MATT DRUDGE (a loyal right-winger) .
http://www.drudgereportArchives.com/data/2003/01/21/20030121_180132_kerry3.htm

If you ever come into a newsroom in the morning, when rundown decisions are being made, Drudge is the place most producers look at in setting the day's news agenda. Do me a favor - check Drudge tomorrow morning, then watch the news the rest of the day and see how many news programs slate their stories directly off it.
If you want bias, go to Newsmax or Buzzflash.

- Question I have is why did we go to war? I made my case in the last post. I'm not anti-war, I'm just against the way Bush is handling this war, and he deserves to lose his job over it. Matt Miller, the ultimate CENTRIST, wrote a great editorial today that sums up my views, thoughts?
http://www.mattmilleronline.com/columns.php?id=67

"Why didn't Powell and Rumsfeld fan out to Berlin and London and Istanbul with similar messages -
generating national coverage and debate in which American officials would have been seen respectfully making the case to allies whose views were deemed relevant and worthy of persuasion? Why instead did Rumsfeld simply dismiss "Old Europe" in macho fashion and assert (wrongly, in the long run) that we could go it alone?
Why, in a word, didn't Bush lead?"

War is always a big money maker to the oil and military industry, which are (surprise!) BIG backers of Bush. Many members of the Defense Policy Board, which pushed Rumsfeld towards Iraq, also serve on the boards of companies that make their profits from war. You seem like a smart, principled guy - how do you reconcile this?
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/b03272003_bt164-03.html
Of course Perle resigned, only after the war was well in place and the money in his pockets was guaranteed.
Please read the link in my signature as well, I'd like to read your retort.
You say Bush's "belief and conviction" bring great comfort to you, but that's an EMOTIONAL response.
What happened to facts and reality?
Does my belief that the sky is GREEN bring great comfort as well? :)

- The taliban is gone? Where did you read that?
With the opium trade flourishing and our resources in Iraq, the return of the Taliban is inevitable, and to the detriment of America.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=123&art_id=qw1067686021259B212&set_id=1

- I know about the Weekly Standard article (owned by the company I work for BTW). The memo connecting Bin Laden and Iraq was written by Douglas Feith, who works under Richard Perle.
Already made the case on how Perle makes money off the war in Iraq. Here's Feith background:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Douglas_Feith

I would love for you to prove me wrong on this, and make me believe Bush is fearless leader looking out for the best interest of America in re to Iraq. But the FACTS don't support the case.
Emotion and belief don't substitute for fact and analysis.

What will we do the next time we NEED to go to war? Can we trust this Administration?

[Crimson King]

Obviously jku, we could do this forever. And it's been a hearty debate....good! But I'm going to wrap up succinctly because it's 9pm and I've been at work all day on a Saturday and I want to go see how my Sooners managed to put up 50 on Texas Tech!

We went to war to protect ourselves...we needed to in an age when madmen roam free with weapons of mass destruction, and yes we may not find them, but we KNOW that now he doesn't have them when we once suspected he did and secondly, we now have an opportunity to foster democracy in the mideast, which is an enviable and necessary pursuit. The cost? A few hundred lives, yes, but clearly not Vietnam. The benefit, potential protection from losing thousands and perhaps millions of lives of people who aren't even soldiers, a la 9/11, at the hand of a totalitarian dictator with a penchant for murdering and a hatred for America. Simple.

I don't buy Drudge as the feature template for media, and I'll concede that I haven't worked in any newsrooms. NYT still carries a lot of weight with the stories told, especially at the big 3 networks. Drudge scooped everyone on Lewinsky, and therefore probably deserves some validity as a source. But he's never trotted out on TV, never consulted publicly, never seen on opinion shows, with various rare exceptions a few times each year. I think the media think he's got a neat little independent operation and treat him as such, but don't give him the pleasure of seeing them structure based on what he does. Again, my opinion, and I simply restate my media posts previously.

Why didn't Bush lead? He did. He is. He will continue to. Powell and Rumsfeld did do those things. They toured and talked and then went to the UN. The UN made it's intentions known multiple times and the US followed the violated resolutions. The UN is spineless and will continue to be spineless. They dismissed "old europe," to an extent because "old europe" always dismisses the US except when they want something. I would contend that England is "Old Europe" also, and stands beside us resolutely.

This was not a war concocted to bolster the Oil companies. But yes, the Oil companies will benefit. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. I still would like to see fuel cells. But you know who will likely profit from that energy industry? Energy companies. They tend to be leaders in energy development. So, let's raid Amsterdam...plenty of garbage for fuel cells...energy companies can bank there too!

The next time we NEED to go to war...such as? What would be a just war, a necessary war in your opinion? Bosnia? Someone please tell me what that was about. I'm certain we can trust this administration. Bush will never need a lecture from the Dems about trust....that's not so much a position as it is a byproduct political reality from the Clinton years. Here was a President under threatened indictment and actual impeachment because of lies. Whether such lies warrant impeachment or not, the man was clearly lying. Lying publicly. Lying publicly under oath. Lying publicly under oath after he was suspected of being a liar during the 1992 election, which his party forgave him for. Not to take too much from Jim Rome, but there's a progression: I'm a Rhodes Scholar....I'm Attorney General....I'm Governor....I'm a candidate for President....I'm a candidate for President suspected of lying....I'm suspected of lying and forgiven....I'm a President already forgiven for lying when I take office....I'm a lying president...I'm a lying president under oath....I'm a lying president who's lying about lying under oath....I'm Likes to Lie Guy! Bush is not Likes to Lie Guy! (Don't get mad...consider that my effort at levity...but you get the idea).

I don't expect to prove you wrong...nor would I expect anything else to do so. But the problem is, we're all dug in. Both sides. Both parties. Are expectations too high? None in the office will be perfect. But I'll take Bush's imperfect ways over others' until another imperfect leader of sound character, optimism, clarity, and a desire to try hard comes along. But let me give you some insight where this comes from...take a look at Evan Thomas' biography of Robert Kennedy. Conservatives and Liberals alike, claim his legacy, so I won't get to that. But clearly it's that passion that's missing from the game these days. I think Bush is closer to that than the others, especially the Dem candidates. Gephardt, Kerry, Clark, and Edwards are shills for a team seeking a win. Dean is the latest craze that looks like a winner, but doesn't seem to know where he stands all the time and may not have influence with the mainstream. Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun have no chance of winning a coin toss. And Lieberman doesn't have the charisma to sell the message...and his party won't claim him. Bush brings conviction, whether the left agrees with him or not. He brings comfort to a nation seeking it. And he's the closest we have to real leadership.

Just my two cents...take it for what it's worth.

As for your question on the other post about Dean? No way. There's no electoral math that gets Dean in the White House. With Dean, say goodbye to Florida, Michigan, Ohio, probably Pennsylvania, all of the South(how Clinton won), and welcome California into the "toss-up" category. George McGovern would be proud.

[jku]

Hey Crimson - It's Sunday, I'm done too, it seems the facts can't change what you believe. But it was an interesting back and forth - and I did learn something.
Let me leave two things however; a recent editorial from Molly Ivins, and the memo from Rumsfeld recently, which is a stark contrast to what the Administration says is happening and more in line with criticisms from Democrats
Hope you have a chance to read them - take care! JKU

Call Me a Bush-Hater
By Molly Ivins
November 14, 2003

Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible president.

Robert Novak is quoted as saying in all his 44 years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush-haters" in Time magazine as though he had never before come across a similar phenomenon.

Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to – our last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery, and official misconduct. And they accuse his wife of even worse.


For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows and "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts – all were given hearings, credence, and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young rightwing hit man like David Brock, who has since made full confession, took that golden opportunity.


And these folks didn't stop with verbal and printed attacks. From the day Clinton was elected to office, he was the subject of the politics of personal destruction. They went after him with a multimillion-dollar smear campaign funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the rightwing billionaire. They went after him with lawsuits funded by rightwing legal foundations (Paula Jones), they got special counsels appointed to investigate every nitpicking nothing that ever happened (Filegate, Travelgate), and they never let go of that hardy perennial Whitewater.


After all this time and all those millions of dollars wasted, no one has ever proved that the Clintons did a single thing wrong. Bill Clinton lied about a pathetic, squalid affair that was none of anyone else's business anyway, and for that they impeached the man and dragged this country through more than a year of the most tawdry, ridiculous, unnecessary pain. The day President Clinton tried to take out Osama bin Laden with a missile strike, every right-winger in America said it was a case of "wag the dog." He was supposedly trying to divert our attention from the much more breathtakingly important and serious matter of Monica Lewinsky. And who did he think he was to make us focus on some piffle like bin Laden?


"The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from," mused the ineffable Mr. Krauthammer. Gosh, what a puzzle that is. How could anyone not be just crazy about George W. Bush? "Whence the anger?" asks Krauthammer. "It begins of course with the 'stolen' election of 2000 and the perception of Bush's illegitimacy."


I'd say so myself, yes, I would. I was in Florida during that chilling post-election fight, and am fully persuaded to this good day that Al Gore actually won Florida, not to mention getting 550,000 more votes than Bush overall. But I also remember thinking, as the scene became eerier and eerier, "Jeez, maybe we should just let them have this one, because Republican wing-nuts are so crazy, their bitterness would poison Gore's whole presidency." The night Gore conceded the race in one of the most graceful and honorable speeches I have ever heard, I was in a ballroom full of Republican Party flacks who booed and jeered through every word of it.


One thing I acknowledge about the right is that they're much better haters than liberals are. Your basic liberal – milk of human kindness flowing through every vein, and heart bleeding over everyone from the milk-shy Hottentot to the glandular obese – is pretty much a strikeout on the hatred front. Maybe further out on the left you can hit some good righteous anger, but liberals, and I am one, are generally real wusses. Guys like Rush Limbaugh figured that out a long time ago – attack a liberal and the first thing he says is, "You may have a point there."


To tell the truth, I'm kind of proud of us for holding the grudge this long. Normally, we'd remind ourselves that we have to be good sports, it's for the good of the country, we must unite behind the only president we've got, as Lyndon used to remind us. If there are still some of us out here sulking, "Yeah, but they stole that election," well, good. I don't think we should forget that.


But, onward. So George Dubya becomes president, having run as a "compassionate conservative," and what do we get? Hell's own conservative and dick for compassion.


His entire first eight months was tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, and he lied and said the tax cuts would help average Americans. Again and again, the "average" tax cut would be $1,000. That means you get $100, and the millionaire gets $92,000, and that's how they "averaged" it out. Then came 9/11, and we all rallied. Ready to give blood, get out of our cars and ride bicycles, whatever. Shop, said the President. And more tax cuts for the rich.


By now, we're starting to notice Bush's bait-and-switch. Make a deal with Ted Kennedy to improve education and then fail to put money into it. Promise $15 billion in new money to combat AIDS in Africa (wow!) but it turns out to be a cheap con, almost no new money. Bush comes to praise a job training effort, and then cuts the money. Bush says AmeriCorps is great, then cuts the money. Gee, what could we possibly have against this guy? We go along with the war in Afghanistan, and we still don't have bin Laden.


Then suddenly, in the greatest bait-and-switch of all time, Osama bin doesn't matter at all, and we have to go after Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11. But he does have horrible weapons of mass destruction, and our president "without doubt," without question, knows all about them, even unto the amounts – tons of sarin, pounds of anthrax. So we take out Saddam Hussein, and there are no weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the Iraqis are not overjoyed to see us.


By now, quite a few people who aren't even liberal are starting to say, "Wha the hey?" We got no Osama, we got no Saddam, we got no weapons of mass destruction, the road map to peace in the Middle East is blown to hell, we're stuck in this country for $87 billion just for one year and no one knows how long we'll be there. And still poor Mr. Krauthammer is hard-put to conceive how anyone could conclude that George W. Bush is a poor excuse for a President.


Chuck, honey, it ain't just the 2.6 million jobs we've lost: People are losing their pensions, their health insurance, the cost of health insurance is doubling, tripling in price, the Administration wants to cut off their overtime, and Bush was so too little, too late with extending unemployment compensation that one million Americans were left high and dry. And you wonder why we think he's a lousy president?


Sure, all that is just what's happening in people's lives, but what we need is the Big Picture. Well, the Big Picture is that after September 11, we had the sympathy of every nation on Earth. They all signed up, all our old allies volunteered, everybody was with us, and Bush just booted all of that away. Sneering, jeering, bad manners, hideous diplomacy, threats, demands, arrogance, bluster.


"In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of presidential will," says Krauthammer.


You bet your ass it was. We attacked a country that had done nothing to us, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and turns out not to have weapons of mass destruction.


It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he's a bad president. Grownups can do that, you know. You can decide someone's policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred.


Poor Bush is in way over his head, and the country is in bad shape because of his stupid economic policies.


If that makes me a Bush-hater, then sign me up.

[jku]

Oct. 16, 2003
TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism
The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?
DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.
With respect to global terrorism, the record since September 13th seems to be:
We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Ornar, Hekmatyar, etc.
With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.
Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection, and confidence in the US?
Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?
Today we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying 10 stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists’ costs of millions.
Do we need a new organization?
How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?
Is our current situation such that ’”the harder we work, the behinder we get”?
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.
Does CIA need a new finding?
Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madrassas to a more moderate course?
What else should we be considering?

[dakotagopher]

I love Molly Ivans.....though I seldom agree with her.....she spoke once at my college, which I managed to get in the standing room section for. Great writer.

All that being said, I remain disappointed with how easily she's always shrugged off Clinton's Perjury.

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar....a Yale Law grad.......the guy knew what Perjury is. And by "is" I mean not the semantical verbal ballet he did, but rather the deeper core meaning. Like how our whole justice system is dependent on the premise of people not lying under oath.

It matters not that it was a personal matter that "was nobody elses' business." My opinion.

[Crimson King]

...makes a good point. Molly Ivans is a Dem homer. She unabashedly hates GWB. I wouldn't even go so far as to call her a great writer...she's made a career on throwing bombs at the Bush family. There's not much intellectual honesty with her, I believe. She seems far more a syndicated opportunist to me.

The Rumsfeld memo doesn't surprise me, doesn't worry me, and doesn't paint anyone as a liar. It shows the SecDef is doing his job, considering all options, and finding out how to make this obligation we have work. I'd be far more concerned if there was no indication that the administration was looking at the strife associated with our effort, a la LBJ, Carter with the Economy, and Bush I with the economy.

My two cents...take or leave as you all will.

[jku]

Hey Crimson -
The memo is shocking in that it admits what is NOT being done to fight terrorism, for one getting at the source of religious schools, and stopping a new generation of terrorists from being created.
It's the only time the anyone in the Administration has been honest about anything in re to the War on terror, and not put on this pollyanna BS about how great everything is.

The reason I'm writing is because of an article in TIME this week about the filibuster on the Judges that we discussed last week. This is what the Republican sources in the Senate said about it. Thoughts?:
At the same time that Frist has been poaching in Democratic territory, he has
been careful to protect his flank with the G.O.P's hard-liners, who were
worried at the outset that he was a closet moderate. Late last spring
conservative and evangelical groups bluntly warned Frist that their activists
would sit out next year's elections if they didn't see him cracking down on
Democratic filibusters of conservative judges. "He got the message," says Free
Congress Foundation chairman Paul Weyrich. Earlier this month Frist staged a
39-hour talkathon on the Senate floor to harangue the Democrats on the
judges they blocked. The gabfest infuriated Daschle, who claimed Frist
double-crossed him. Daschle had agreed to Frist's request to keep the Senate
working through Veterans Day so it would have more time to clear its usual
backlog. Only later did he learn that Frist also planned to use the week's extra
time for a Republican telethon to promote conservative justices. Daschle
dismissed it as a "colossal waste of time"—the judges remained blocked—and
Democratic whip Harry Reid accused Frist of "amateur leadership." Many
Republican Senators privately admitted that "it was a mindless walk into a
cul-de-sac," as one put it, "designed to appeal to the 20% of our base that
listens to Rush Limbaugh every day." Still, Frist had done what he set out to
do: appease the restless troops on the right.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031201-548791,00.html

[Crimson King]

I don't really have anything to add except that there are probably a number of well-founded memos going through the administration that show the administration is fully aware of the circumstances on the ground and working with Paul Bremer to improve those things. No administration has ever put forward anything but a good face, and they all have their reasons for that. Plus, such activity bears no harm to national security or national agendas...but all I make of the memo is that we have a good SecDef in a good administration not susceptible to groupthink and aware of the realities.

As for the Senate...it's good to be in the Majority, I suppose. We knew Daschle would cry about it...that's what the Minority leaders always do. As for the right...so what I say. It's their judges being blocked. They have a right to be shown some love by leadership. Politics is a game...that was playing the game. Certainly nothing unusual for either side of the party. The Dems biggest concern is that the Reps are better at it than they are...by leaps and bounds. They know it and don't like it. That's all you're seeing there.