Takes on Reagan

Viz: http://www.georgewbush.com/ vs http://www.johnkerry.com/ - via TPM:

From the Boston Globe: "After three days of suspended political activity, the Bush campaign began openly incorporating Ronald Reagan's death into its reelection message yesterday, revamping its website to give Reagan a dominant role and distributing official campaign letters that invoke the former president ... Visitors to the official campaign site were automatically redirected to the Reagan tribute, paid for by the Bush/Cheney committee. It replaced the spot usually occupied by the campaign home page."

Comments

[Chrish]

OK and? Meaning to say what's the big deal?
I was no fan of Reagan and I don't really see what all of the extended and long winded coverage is all about. I do give Reagan credit
for what he did accomplish during his Presidency
and mourn the passing of another leader.

I really don't understand what your criticism is all about? Is this really all about that underlying absolute hatred for the man
extending back to that 2000 election he won? Has it really left that much bitterness in the mouths of the Democrats? So bitter that they have become completely possessed by it they will find anything, anything at all to criticize
Bush over?

Get a grip for cryin out.

[JIm]

I actually saw a Democratic speech writer bring up again the "stolen" election. Even though nobody can be 100% objective it would seem that anybody looking at that objectively would give it up. Let's see, when the newspapers tallied the votes independantly, Bush won and Gore only wanted to recount the handful of highly Democratic counties/districts. Why not the whole state? I hate to say it, but since the Dems keep bringing it up, I know this leads to a lot of the Bush-hate. I know people will say it's his foreign policy, but if that's all, why do they keep bringing the 2000 election up at all?

[j.j.]

Bush is free to place whatever on earth he wants on his website. Just goes to show the desparation of his campaign. Since his policies are not likely to get him re-elected and his perpetually negative and misleading ads aren't helping his ratings, he now hopes some of Reagan's shine will rub off. Who cares?

[j.j.]

the Bush campaign is so predictable. This would be laughable if it wasn´t so damn opportunistic...

"The life and example of Ronald Reagan reinforces how important conviction and determination are in a president," Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said in an apparent dig at Bush's presumed Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), whom Republicans have accused of flip-flops. "Reagan's legacy of optimism and of patriotism should inspire everybody, regardless of political party."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040608/ts_latimes/aweekthatcouldbolsterbush&cid=2026&ncid=1926

[Jim]

"Opportunistic"? I'm waiting for one of you to say that Bush planned for Reagan to die during the election campaign.

[Jeff]

Obviously, the Bush campaign is free to do what they want. Some will swayed by sympathy and respect for the former president, others will feel exactly opposite. Doesn't matter.

Jim, regarding the 2000 election, you're right that many Democrats are still bitter about it to no useful end. But as a members of the American public, my problem with it is that both parties did absolutely everything they could, to swing things to their advantage instead of simply figuring out what the actual count was.

For the record, I think Bush would have won no matter how many hanging chads were recounted, but more importantly, I thought that our courts failed miserably on being non-partisan. They had the job to interpret the law and hand out a decision on an issue that really wasn't that complicated. But 5-4 votes in both the appeals and Supreme Court splitting straight down party lines... the real loser is the American voter, because what I saw in that whole mess was not democracy.

[Jeff]

The American public is also a loser when Justice throws our own citizens in a jail with no key on evidence that can't be admitted in court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5175105/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

[Chrish]

Ah yes Jeff, let me see now, "While Padilla did indeed propose such a mission, top Al Qaeda leaders were cool to the idea and directed him to pursue a more conventional plot to blow up apartment buildings, the report states."

I assume then that all's well so long as "one of our own citizens" blows up apartments rather than releasing a dirty bomb? All will be forgiven.

And I also assume that since Mr. Zubaydah didn't think a bloody dirty-bomb would and "cause too much of a problem for Al Qaedia", the poor unfortunate and misunderstood terrorists, that too is OK and all's well?

After meeting with Abu Zubaydah—who, according to another Al Qaeda detainee in custody, thought the “dirty-bomb plan would not work” and “would cause too much of a problem for al Qaeda,”

And, obviously, Mr. Padilla's trip to Pakistan
to meet with "master Al Qaeda operational planner"
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and proposed the dirty-bomb
plot **again** can also be ignored and all's well?

"according to the report—Padilla was sent to Pakistan in March 2002 to meet with master Al Qaeda operational planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Padilla then proposed the dirty-bomb plot again,"

And it is also quite obvious that since Mr. Mohammed was, fortunately, "very skeptical" about a dirty bomb plot and "instead suggested that Mr. Padilla, the poor "innocent citizen", and his accomplice undertake the "apartment-building operation" can also be overlooked and all's well?

"but Mohammed also was “very skeptical” about the dirty bomb plot and “instead suggested that Padilla and his accomplice undertake the apartment-building operation,” the Pentagon report states."

I guess that since no dirty bomb plot was approved by the beauracrats within Al Qaeda
and "only" an "apartment-building operation"
was approved and, fortunately, the operation
was prevented from happening then all's well and should be ignored.

And obviously since the evidence can't be admitted in court, for questionable reasons, it is glaringly obvious the poor misunderstood, and picked on Mr. Padilla should be freed and perhaps, next time, they'll catch him after he's either released a dirty bomb or blown up an apartment building. Maybe he'll even accomplish both the blowing up of a dirty bomb and an apartment building. But at least "one of our own citizens" will have been freed. Now that's really comforting to know.

Perhaps the Democrats will even make Mr. Padilla
their poster child for the upcoming elections?

Padilla, for his part, has told interrogators that he never swore an oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda and, after spending time in one of the terror group’s training camps, had second thoughts and wanted to return home. “He says he and his accomplice proposed the dirty-bomb plot only as a way to get out of Pakistan and avoid combat in Afghanistan, yet save face with Abu Zubaydah,” according to the Pentagon report.

[Chrish]

J.J., come on dude. You know as well as I do that if the shoe were on the other foot we Democrats would be doing the same thing and the Republicans would be whining about it.

Yes Bush's ratings are down but, isn't it interesting that Kerry, no matter what he says or does, can't seem to bring his ratings up that much either?

Now isn't that laughable?

[Pete]

"We democrats?"

Chrish, are you a democrat?

[Jeff]

Jim, I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be thrown in jail forever if he is guilty of those crimes. You have said nothing that I need to refute or disagree with. If he did all those things, then you charge him and try him. Realize that we do that with everything from serial killers to traffic tickets. Even Tim McVeigh got his day in court. Would you rather than a prosecutor could say that you were in bed with al Qaeda, resulting in you being locked up forever? Or beat the living crap out of you to get a confession?

All of the things that you have read about Padilla are completely one sided. He has disappeared off the face of the earth with no representation. There is no reason to believe any of it, especially since the government doesn't dare to bring the case to court. Why do you believe the Bush administration official line every time? Do you never question what they say to you?

I think you know full well that everyone deserves a chance to defend themselves. It's also obvous to me that you've never been in the mix yourself to see how biased police and prosecutors can be. I was involved in one case where state police hid evidence that would have proved the innocence of the accused.

In the Padilla case, they don't even have enough to charge the man with a crime. Check out this article on another case where they were completely wrong and realize it could happen to you any time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5157514/

[Jeff]

Jim, I wish you would just make an argument that is on point with what I'm saying instead of raving like a lunatic. Did I say that Padilla should be set free? No, I did not. I believe he should be able to defend himself and nowhere did you you address that.

Of course, the government should have certain powers for the sake of national security. But to throw someone in solitary confinement and throw away the key... that's Saddam's way of doing things and you know it. It's among the many reasons you justified the war.

[Chrish]

Pete,

yep I am a registered Democrat and not happy where the party has been going for the past several decades, especially here in California.

[Jeff]

I think one of the first rules in making an argument is to address the person who is arguing with you. You may want to look up at these posts again and see who is talking about Padilla. Don't assume everything that is said that you don't agree with was posted by me.

[Chrish]

Jeff, I believe you're addressing the wrong person in your posts. It t'was I not Jim that
posted that response to your initial post... :o)

Since you put it that way I do agree with your position that even a Padilla should be given the right to due process.

I don't deny that perhaps in some situations they've gone a little overboard in their fervor to protect the citizenry of this country.
But, I would rather they err on the side of caution rather than the stupidity, foolishness,
and political correctness pre 9/11.

"Political Correctness"? Yep, political correctness. It is political correctness, which
continues to this day, that avoids the hard choices that must be made to ensure the security of Our country and Our people.

It is political correctness that forces security at our airports to pull aside old people and babies or children to ensure they aren't terrorists while allowing those who fit a known
"profile" to board completely unchecked. It is
political correctness that ties the hands of our border patrols and allow illegal immigrants, of
which terrorists could be amongst them, to cross over in larger and larger numbers.

It is also political correctness that pushes the idea of giving illegal immigrants again, of which
terrorists could be amongst them, driver's licenses which would allow them to travel anywhere in the USA unencumbered.

Whether you wish to accept or not is fine but,
the reality is We are in a war against terrorists. Forget Iraq for the moment. Al Qaeda and other's are still determined to destroy us one way or another and will whatever is in their power to hit us again as hard as they possibly can. That is the reality. I don't like it anymore than you and wished it and they would all go away. I wished it were still like it was before 9/11 and we weren't at war with terrorists
and we weren't in Iraq and everything was nice and
we could all bitch at or praise the Bush presidency on his economic, environmental, energy, or job policies. Sadly, that is not the case there are those who's only intent and purpose is to do harm against Us, Our country, and
other's in the world whom they hate and are opposed to.

That's my point Jeff. I don't like it but, neither am I going to attempt to sit back and try
and act as though everything was like it was before 9/11.

Oops. My apologies, Jim.

Chrish, I'm sure we agree almost on every point in this case. But the war on terror began long before 9/11... just that most of the American public wasn't afraid of it earlier. Most of us forget how devastating the Oklahoma City bombing was and that was domestic terrorism.

We must pursue policies that stop terrorism, sometimes at the expense of liberty. But many policies that I've seen come out of this administration destroy the freedom and liberty that we're defending overseas with no benefit! Consider the suggestions that we turn the cable guy and the mailman into spies, reporting suspicious things. Or the tip line that is so overflooded that no one could ever determine a real threat from a fake one? Or telling illegal immigrants from the middle east to come forward only to deport them (never mind that people who voluntarily come forward are prone to being honest and trusting, rather than terror)?

The Padilla case provides a great example of this. In the name of national security, they have denied him everything. How is letting the man talk to a lawyer, a risk to national security? The fact of the matter is that it's not, yet they stopped him from having anyone to talk to for a damn long time. The only voice we've heard on this is from Ashcroft and prosecutors just love announcing "We caught the bad guy!" It's completely self serving, both for him and the whole administration.

All those passages that you quoted me above are from the prosecution to argue that he's an enemy combatant. The article that I cited raises doubts because even though the prosecution is the only side speaking, what they have said casts doubt on their own story. He's the dirty bomber! No wait, he was planning to bomb apartment buildings, no wait, maybe this, maybe that. This is not how American justice works.

They smeared him when they caught him, the world forgot about him for two years, and now that the Supremes are going to make a decision, they've begun yet another public campaign to smear him hopoing to sway the justices. How convenient. All of this is so suspicious, that we have no reason to believe anything that Justice says and we already know how incompetent the FBI can be.

It isn't even the Bush administration either... remember what Janet Reno did to Wen Ho Lee when Chinese spies were more important than terrorism? Nine months of solitary and punitive confinement (shackles), one dubious plea probably under extreme duress to a single charge out of 59, and an extraordinary apology from the judge, saying that he was pressured and misled by the executive branch.

I'm not even talking about guilt or innocence. You can only reach a conclusion about that when there is fairness.

[j.j.]

I came across a website of Bushisms. These quotes are not recent, but I was leafing through a relatively new book on his Bushisms and not much has changed.
Shouldn't the position of president require at least a semblance of capacity for abstract thought? I am perplexed at how people still consider voting for him. Jim/Crish, any input?

"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above that which is expected." Los Angeles, Sept. 27, 2000

"...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas." On NPR's Morning Edition (9/26)

"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."
Redwood, Calif., Sept. 27, 2000
(J.J. says: at least he told the truth, for once.)

"This is what I'm good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them." Outside Pittsburgh, Sept. 8, 2000
(J.J. says: interface this)

"Listen, Al Gore is a very tough opponent. He is the incumbent. He represents the incumbency. And a challenger is somebody who generally comes from the pack and wins, if you're going to win. And that's where I'm coming from."
Detroit, Sept. 7, 2000
(J.J. says: what does that mean? And what does it mean for Kerry?)

"We'll let our friends be the peacekeepers and the great country called America will be the pacemakers." Houston,Texas, Sept. 6, 2000
(J.J. says: what the...?)

"We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans." Scranton, Pa., Sept. 6, 2000
(J.J. says: apparently decisions are made based on approval ratings in the last poll)

"As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards."
CNN online chat, Aug.30, 2000
(J.J. concludes that "high standards" must be a relative term)

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." Ibid
(J.J. remembers many broken campaign promises. Now that is trustworthy!)

"This campaign not only hears the voices of the entrepreneurs and the farmers and the entrepreneurs, we hear the voices of those
struggling to get head" Ibid
(aaahh! no wonder he always ignores JJ)

[Jim]

Jim says: Why does J.J. refer to himself in the third person?

Peace out

[j.j.]

JJ does so because he does, sometimes have a sense of humor. =)

Jim, you didn't answer my question. How can people still consider voting for him? He is not exactly a bright guy.

[jj]

Hurray! Three cheers for the Brits...

International Herald Tribune: Labour headed for big losses in U.K.

Early results on Friday showed big losses for Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour government in local council elections in England and Wales in what was seen as a demonstration of anger over the war in Iraq.
.
Blair led Britain into Iraq despite the war's deep unpopularity, even among some of his cabinet members. The elections Thursday were the first opportunity for the British electorate to register their disapproval formally.
.
The vote is likely to be one of the most painful defeats for Labour in recent years and looked likely to push the government into an embarrassing third place behind the opposition Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
.
In another closely watched result on Friday, Dutch opposition parties critical of the Iraq war scored significant gains at the start of elections for the European Parliament. In Britain, the election results showed that Labour had lost more than 200 seats and control of at least seven councils, after about half of the 166 councils that voted Thursday declared results.
.
The results could be a bellwether for the British general election, which is now possibly less than a year away.
.
Blair, who was in the United States for the Group of 8 summit meeting in Georgia and Ronald Reagan's funeral in Washington, sought to play down the domestic political damage.
.
In Britain, David Blunkett, the home secretary, said he was mortified by Labour's losses.
.
Analysts said that the poor performance was likely to reopen questions about Blair's leadership and could give ammunition to challengers within the Labour Party.
.
Liam Fox, the Conservative Party chairman, told the BBC: "If I were the Labour Party I would be worried that for the first time in history in this country a governing party does not come second but third."

(The article goes on to mention the Dutch elections)

Provisional results were released early in the Netherlands, which voted along with Britain on Thursday.
.
Those results suggested strong gains for the leftist opposition parties and losses for the conservative coalition government, in a further sign of voter backlash against the war.

[Jim]

Because Albert Einstein is dead. Stephen Hawking isn't running. Neither are any nuclear physicists that I know of. Are you saying whoever has the high intelligence quotient should win? Of course now days when we do these tests we have to factor against people who are privilged by falling into money, so Kerry will be penalized.

How can I pick Bush over Kerry? I want a leader and not a waffler. I want someone with conviction. I want someone who will stand up for what is right and not worry about getting Chirac's permission. I want someone who is more concerned with protecting the his nation than he is about poll numbers. I want someone who believes that all people deserve a democracy. I've actually heard critics say, "Arabs don't want a democracy. Middle Easterners can't handle elections. blah blah blah" They said the same things about the Japanese after WWII. Hmmm...Japan, Germany, peaceful and prosperous. Nope it will never work. I don't want a Monday morning quarterback. I've even seen people on this sight say, "If they didn't want Saddam, they should have taken him out themselves." Ya right. I want someone who believes that democracy (giving people a say in their own government) leads to peace. I want someone who believes that BOTH Palestinians and Israelis have a right to live in peace and it will have to be in separate states. Afterall this is the root of most of our terror. I want someone who will reduce taxes and government spending (Bush needs to work on the second part - big time). I want someone who believes in EQUAL rights. I want someone who sees the glass as half full.
I don't want someone who will ignore the threats of the world ("bin laden, oh you can keep him"). ("Monsiuer, you have brought your Nazi tanks to Paris again. Merci.") I don't want Neville Chamberlain and I don't want this years winner of the Jeopardy Tournament of Champions. I want George Bush!!!

and by the way, I know all of the criticisms you will make of me so have fun.

[Jeff]

Jim, no criticism, seriously. But I would like you to defend the positions you take, because they are open to attack. Consider the often repeated Bush is a strong leader and Kerry is a waffler. How do the facts support this?

Bush said we could go it alone, Bush now needs the U.N. and the help of other countries. Bush said disband the Iraqi army and Baathists, now he needs them to come back. Bush said no to forming both Homeland Security and the 9/11 Commission, no to testifying, and no to Rice testifying. Bush is for free trade, but he puts in steel tariffs, then takes them back because they're illegal!

Each time, he's been forced back on his heels, worst of all because soldiers are dying. Of course, he avoids waffling on many topics by either complete silence or changing the topic. Since there's no WMD, admit no mistakes and push forward on terrorism and Saddam is a bad dude.

The main reason that Bush's plans for Iraq look so much like Kerry's is that he has been moving closer and closer to the Democrat position ever since the invasion. Ironically, this is a sore point since Kerry can't distinguish his plan, but it's the biggest waffle of all for Bush, being forced to take the opposing party's position that was there all along.

As for protecting the nation over poll numbers, what evidence is there of that? All people deserve a democracy? I believe that too, so exactly how is our ally, Saudi Arabia a democracy? Has Bush supported change there or helped the royal family get richer? How did he do in Haiti? Many of our war allies in central Asia are tremendously undemocratic, but now they get a free pass, just like Russia.

You mention the Palestinian issue, where the hell has Bush been on this, except supporting everything that Sharon does? I know he supported disbanding the settlements, now he supports keeping the settlements, another big waffle. In the beginning, he didn't even want to get his hands dirty, remember that?

As for reducing government spending, please, his record there is pathetic. Bush won't even tell us what real costs are and each estimate keeps going up. Social security is a myth and the value of our dollar (meaning all of our bank accounts) has dropped 30-40% against most major currencies.

[j.j.]

Sigh, where to begin?

Jim, name one person who has ever said, "Arabs don't want a democracy. Middle Easterners can't handle elections. blah blah blah" other than Bush claiming that someone has said it. Bush lies when he says that and now that you say it, I accuse you of lying as well. Don't take that personally, but you know its true.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but seriously, if you want someone with all that has all the characteristics that you posted, Bush should be the last person you should vote for.
As for Monday morning quarterbacks, I think that would describe most of the warmongers in regards to Iraq. The rest of us prefer to think of ourselves more as a Saturday afternoon coaches (you know, those who think about the consequences of their decisions.)
Someone concerned more about... than his poll numbers? Bush must take the cream for someone who governs by polls (when ratings are good, he is slave to big interests like no man before him; when ratings are bad, he is blames everyone but himself.)
Further, I am not suggesting that the higher the IQ, the better the president, but would hope to have someone who can at least prove to us that he is capable of abstract reasoning. His idiocy is downright scary. Did you actually bother to read some of his comments? It's ok if someone messes up once or twice in a while like that, but to do it consistently is a sure sign of major issues.

Hey, I didn't start out hating Bush; it was his policies that drove me that way. If, after all that has happened, you still chose to vote for him, I question your sense of objectivity. But, seeing the glass half empty now, I don't believe we can afford 4 more years of his moronic policies. Why? The biggest surplus ever turned into the biggest deficit ever in less than 3 years should be one reason.
Want another one? Wonder how Bush felt the other day when he kissed Chirac's ass and still got denied NATO assistance? Of course you can go and blame France for all our problems, that seems to be the only thing Bush-apologists seem to be good at. You can make fun of events from 60 years ago (no skin off my back), but that is not gonna pay the $200 billion that we now have to fork out in Iraq. I've asked you before if you wanted to pay my share but you just ignored it. I am offering it to you again.

Jeff,
well said. Wish more people could think like you. Bush-apologists would have us believe that he is a strong leader protecting us (he has been sent by God for this purpose, according to General Boykin and Rev. Falwell.) But do you recall the WHOLE month of August that Bush was on vacation in 2001 while our deficit was disappearing and he was ignoring warnings about terrorism in the US? Do you recall the 9 minutes of deer-in-the-headlights trance after Bush was informed of a the attack? (I used to think it was only a few seconds, but that terrible liberal media failed to inform us that he sat there for almost 9 minutes.) Do you remember how he ran off to his nuclear bunker in Nebraska once he actually did get his ass in motion? Too bad the people in the World Trade Centers didn't have the option of hiding in bunkers. Yes, Jim would have us believe that Bush is a strong and resilient leader. So fearless that he failed to show up while protecting us from surprise attack by Mexico during Vietnam.

[j.j.]

Crish,

was it you that mentioned you were from California? I'm kind of curious what your take on the Enron affair was and how you feel about Bush's "best friends" relationship with Ken Lay.
This is part of an opinion article from the Texas Star-Telegram, but it also quotes some Enron comments...

Sun, Jun. 06, 2004
AUSTIN - CBS News has acquired tapes of Enron employees boasting about how they were "[expletive] over" California during the late, great "energy crisis" there.

My favorite segment in these charming conversations is the dismay at Enron when local utilities try to get the money back. "They're [expletive] taking all the money back from you guys?" inquires an Enronite. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

"Yeah, Grandma Millie, man."

"Yeah, now she wants her [expletive] money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her [expletive] for [expletive] $250 a megawatt hour."

Grandma Millie. The nerve of her. Imagine thinking it's wrong to rig a market and overcharge by billions of dollars. But hey, no worries at Enron, because George W. Bush is about to be elected president. "It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay secretary of energy."

"When this election comes, Bush will [expletive] whack this [expletive], man. He won't play this price-cap [expletive]."

Bush said obligingly in May 2001, "We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse, and that's why I oppose price caps."

Bush eventually changed course, as he so often does, which adds such special piquancy to his campaign against John Kerry for "flip-flopping."

I just wanna point out that I am not accusing Bush of being involved in the price-fixing scheme, but it should be quite obvious that he more than bent over backwards to help out Enron and friends in regards to national energy policy. When the scandal finally broke out, I remember Bush turning down a request by then-governor Davis for federal help because it was a "state matter." (Ironically, just a few months later, Bush blocked Davis from introducing vehicle emissions standards for SUV's, saying that it was a "federal" matter.)
But also consider that Bush and Lay are best of friends, Bush refers to Lay as "Ken-boy" and that Ken-boy personally interviewed and approved/rejected every single person nominated to be on Bush's cabinet. That is a very cozy relationship in deed; a bit too cozy for me considering all that has happened in the energy industry in the past 3.5 years. How do Californians feel about all of this?

some expat related news

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=24&story_id=8137

[j.j.]

an analysis of Reagan vs. Bush presidencies. Jim, be sure to pay attention when you come to the paragraph on Bush and poll ratings....

http://www.iht.com/articles/524731.html

[Jim]

First, I am not smart enough to pay attention. But let me try to say a few things quickly. Why do you guys think if someone disagrees with you that they walk in lock-step with the administration? I have stated on this site that I think Bush needs to do more to control spending. I have said he needs to come down harder on Sharon. I have not said he is perfect, but he is the best person for the job.
1) Tariffs? The steel tariffs were wrong as they were bad for the economy - our economy. They were put in place for the U.S. Steel people who they helped in the short run but they devasted American manufacturers whose production costs rose dramatically. The tariffs weren't repealed because they were illegal - they were repealed because they were bad for the economy. Why is it when the U.S. imposes tariffs they are illegal, but when another country does it, it is necessary for their economy.
2) At least one person on this site has said, if the Iraqi's wanted Saddam out they should have voted him out or removed them himself. Others both here and in person to me have said that middle easterners don't want democracy.
3) Bush is moving toward Kerry's position on Iraq? Please!. Kerry said to hand over power on June 30? Kerry said we needed 130,000 troops? Kerry's position? Nope.
4) Saudi Arabia? When did I mention Saudi Arabia? When did I say we should invade Saudi Arabia? I'm not going to defend Saudi Arabia - a country which promotes racism. They are no friend to human rights. However, they neither invaded two sovereign nations nor ignored 18 U.N. sanctions. Granted they are far from perfect but they haven't gasses a whole city. Although I don't know how Saddam could have gassed one of his own cities when he never had WMD.

gotta run

[Chrish]

J.J,

As far as I'm concerned those bastards at Enron should not only be put in jail but, should also forfeit every last penny they made during that crisis and all of it returned to the employees retirement fund they stole from. Enron and all of the other energy companies involved in that ripoff should be forced to refund all of the money they robbed California of.

In regards to that so-called Energy summit that
Cheny, reps from Enron, and other energy companies
had. They should be forced to handover all documents, etc. and a completely open investigation made and the results be made public.

To be clear on this, I do not trust any of those politicians. Whether Democrat or Republican they all engage in these kinds of activities. Frankly
I'm sick and tired of these behind closed doors
meetings presumably for the benefit of us all which winds up only benefitting a few. Who are those few? They're the Special Interest Groups.

I haven't seen nor read anything that would imply that Bush knew or was involved in that whole thing and if he was then it should be brought ourt for all of us to see. I do see what could be considered suspicious as it concerns Cheny. If they, Cheny and the others involved in that Energy summit, did nothing wrong then they should have no problem releasing all of the documents, notes, etc. regarding that meeting. The fact that they are fighting it so hard is suspicious, very suspicious and, in all probability, means they have something to hide.

If, as we are told our Government is "A government of the people, by the people, and for the people" then anything done behind closed doors or in secret is not representative of the people, by the people, and for the people. How can it be if We, The People, don't know what they are doing? This especially holds true when what
"They" are doing behind closed doors or in secret
affects all of us.

I have not said that I am committed to voting for Bush any more than I am committed to voting for Kerry. Frankly I'm coming to the conclusion that voting for either one of them is a "Damned if you
do and Damned if you don't" proposition.

I also see nothing wrong with Bush trying to make peace with our so-called allies nor changing his position on whether or not to allow exBaathist members to be part of the emerging Iraqi government. It wasn't too long ago that you were all blasting Bush for being stubborn and having this go-it-alone attitude. Now that he's changed his position to not-going-it-alone, trying to make peace with our so-called allies, and including exBaathist party members you're blasting him for that as well. So, what gives here? It would seem that no matter what Bush does you will only find fault with it. One can only conclude that your hatred for the man is so great that you will fault him for anything he does; good or bad.

I still see the glass as half full not half empty.
I still have hope and pray for a successful hand over at the end of this month. I still hope and pray that the new Iraqi government will continue to flex their muscles, still push their way into the UN to have a voice in their future as they have already done, and will quickly take control
of their country, and Our people will come home sooner rather than later. That hope and prayer has absolutely nothing to do with our upcoming elections nor with who will win.

I want the Iraqi government to take control of their country, their future, their people and I want, more than anything else, Our people to return home in the shortest possible time. I
want Our returning people to be given a ticker tape parade in NYC like the one given to the returning troops at the end of WWII. I want Our people to know that they are much loved, much appreciated, and that We, as a nation, are grateful to them for their sacrifices. They've earned it, they deserve it, and it is owed to them.

[Jim]

"It wasn't too long ago that you were all blasting Bush for being stubborn and having this go-it-alone attitude. Now that he's changed his position to not-going-it-alone, trying to make peace with our so-called allies, and including exBaathist party members you're blasting him for that as well. So, what gives here? It would seem that no matter what Bush does you will only find fault with it."
-Chrish

Chrish, thank you so much for making the point above. I meant to. As far as the ex-Baathists issue, this is the biggest piece of Monday morning quarterbacking I have ever seen. If our military had allowed them to stay armed and in power we would have been roundly criticized for letting those that the Iraqi's don't trust have weapons.

[Jeff]

A couple of issues from Jim:

1. Steel tariffs - They weren't illegal in the U.S., but they were illegal for members of the WTO, of which, of course, we are one. So they were illegal and bad for the economy, both of which were obvious from the start.

2. Middle easterners don't want democracy - I haven't seen this posted here, but I've seen this position taken. It's very likely (but I'm not going to say that I'm sure) that commoners are all for democracy and having a voice in the government. But of the groups fighting for power, only the Shiites are really into democracy because they have the numbers. The Sunnis are afraid and the Kurds want some veto powers and have otherwise threatened to back out. Clerics may not be interested in democracy either because it lessens their power, especially on the morals area. Many commoners may back this position when they see that democracy also comes first with freedom to vices that weren't there before. I think this is a very tough issue and our expectations do not take into consideration how hard it is to achieve. How many years did it take Taiwan to become democratic? They're still struggling with it.

3. Bush moving towards Kerry's positions -
To quote the Washington Post, "Bush has moved toward Kerry's position, especially with his call for a bigger role for the United Nations and NATO, which the senator has advocated for nearly two years." This is the key ideological difference from the start and since Bush is moving towards the Democrat position, you have to realize that he's doing so only because he's being forced to by events in Iraq.

Handover time frame and troop strength are not issues that are relevant to gauge this. Bush set some sort of date and he's sticking to it. What are we handing over? A country with our army in it to a U.S. appointed government, which is having problems staying alive. Troop strength... both have said they'll provide what's needed.

4. Saudi Arabia - You didn't say that we should invade. But you are justifying our invasion partly for the purpose of bringing democracy. Based on that, a case for invading Saudi Arabia can be justified as well, right? Instead, our policy is to support a royal family that is incredibly corrupt and wealthy at the expense of its people.

No, they haven't gassed anyone or invaded two other countries, but that's beside the point. If bringing democracy to other countries is just cause for war then there are a large number of countries we can invade. If evil dictators are another reason, then again, large list of countries that are eligible for invasion.

I'm also disappointed that you would use gassing in 1988 to support the contention that Saddam had WMD in 2003. The U.N. inspectors went in and got rid of tons of stuff and were having another productive go of it before Bush short circuited them and invaded. The inspectors did so well that now we can't find any WMD at all.

The sovereign nation argument is also terrible. They invaded Kuwait and the world responded. End of that story. In the other case, they invaded Iran and we cheered them on! Neither of these arguments gives you a leg to stand on, so I wish you would stop using them.

Chrish... there is nothing wrong with Bush trying to make nice with our allies again, except that he should have done it the first time! Now it's too late... what help are we getting? Predictably nothing. His cries of wolf over WMD have killed our credibility and his attitude against people and countries that don't agree with him have diminished our standing even further.

To make myself clear, I'm not a big supporter of Kerry. But Bush has bungled so many things and yet so many of you still think he's this straight shooter with vision. The world has gone from loving us to either being very suspicious of our motives or downright hateful. Holding the line of not caring what our neighbors think is very damaging and results in the death of our troops and citizens abroad. Despite what many Americans believe, the world is still bigger than we are... we really need someone who can work with everyone. Bush has already blown his shot.

I want that ticker tape parade for our troops too. But wanting it and making it happen are two different things. Don't be seduced by Bush calling June 30 the "handover", without questioning what is happening underneath. We used to have a very nice term called roadmap for peace a couple of years ago. Where is it now?

[Chrish]

Jeff,

From my experiences overseas the world has not been as loving towards us as you would like to believe it is. They have always considered us as
arrogant, obnoxious, self-centered, and rather
spoiled. And quite honestly I can't blame them for that as I saw many of my fellow Americans over there acting like asses and treating the locals with a rather condescending attitude.
True most of them were tourists but, they do represent America and that is what locals are
mainly exposed to; tourists. That does not mean to say that all Americans conduct themselves in that manner but, a large number of them do. So
I'm really not surprised, shocked, or amazed that
there is animosity, dislike, or some amount of hatred towards us.

Jeff, if you wish to be cynical, pessimistic,
and negative about the handover at the end of this month that is your choice. It is not mine.
Yes, I know there are the underneath things aren't
there always? It doesn't matter whether it's a Bush administration, a Clinton administration, a
Republican administration, nor a Democratic administration there's always the underneath things going on. Like it or not that is the way
of things, of politics.

I choose to be optimistic, hopeful, and positive about this handover and continue to pray that it is successful despite the constant terrorists acts, the constant negativity, and the constant cynicism directed towards it. That is my choice.

[Jim]

Americans live under the microscope of the world. And this is not just since 9/11. It's probably really since WWII. If someone from Franct or Japan or Australia or Lithuania comes to town and is arrogant everybody shrugs it off. But because we have chosen to be the leaders of the free world anything we do is criticized. I can honestly say that when I have travelled abroad I have been respectful of whatever country I am in. But people come here and say, "Americans are fat, lazy, arrogant, etc." and it's always o.k. I shrug it off. But when an American does it, everyone tells their friends.
Unfortunately yes, since 9/11 I would rather be feared than loved. I don't dislike any group of people from any country. If they want to hate me though - so be it. Hate is a wasted emotion.

[Jeff]

Chrish, I don't choose to be cynical, the facts force me to be. I would like nothing more than for this handover to be a complete success. But we have to be realistic about this. From what we know, is expecting the handover to work likely or not? My conclusion is no and I think it's fairly drawn from the following:

1. U.S. troops and Iraqis are dying every day and have been for well over a year. There is no reason to believe that we can provide security without doing something drastically different, like doubling the number of troops.

2. Bush has alienated the rest of the world and our allies so we're not getting much help from them. U.S. credibility is shot because we haven't found any WMD.

3. Because of many occupation blunders, including prisoner abuse, disbanding the army, appointing exiles to the council with no popular support, Chalabi, constant problems with security, electricity, oil, etc., the Iraqi people want us out. Right or wrong, they are no longer grateful for the toppling of Saddam Hussein and it must be noted that many of the Sunni community, never wanted him toppled in the first place.

4. Our support for Israel, our cozy relationship with the royals of Saudi Arabia (not to mention a big military base), and our oil interests are among some of the causes of terrorism. Now we're occupiers of Iraq with suspect motives, creating even more reasons for Arabs and Muslims to hate us, therefore creating more terrorists.

5. On top of all that, the Bush administration is under serious fire here at home. They have outed anyone who has dared to disagree with them, mislead and lied to the American public, and a new scandal pops up every week. People within the administration itself are at war with each other, how do you think all these damaging memos get leaked?

So with all this evidence and our troops dying every day, how can you ask me to have faith and be optimistic? I would be optimistic if we got new leadership into the White House. I would be optimistic if we put some people in charge who could communicate with the rest of the world and restore our credibility. I would be optimistic if we were led by an administration that didn't try to deceive us.

You're right that Americans have had image problems before the war, but never had we been perceived as lying to the world to start a war, occupy a country with the most valuable commodity in the world, and have the occupation go so badly that lots of people die every day. If we're thought of as being arrogant, that's probably okay.

But if we're being hated, contrary to what Jim believes, that often results in death. It may be a wasted emotion, but the body count of thousands in 9/11, hundreds in Bali and Madrid, and constant barrage of deaths in Israel and Iraq show what happens when others hate us. The murderer is always wrong, but the victim is dead. Even if we're morally right (which I don't believe we are), we'd better figure out how to reduce the hate or we'll simply have more murderers on our hands.

[Jeff]

This really scares me:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5211241/

Dare to be optimistic and believe that it's not true? I hope, but I don't dare.

[Pete]

Quelle surprise:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1239065,00.html

[Jeff]

There are many topics that we've discussed that reasonable people can disagree on. But I think I've hit on one theme that is indisputable, particularly for Bush and Cheney.

1. They mislead and sometimes outright lie, despite obvious doubts.

2. Despite being the two most powerful men in the world, they can't prevent the truth from coming out, very troubling particularly since much of the truth comes from people working under them in their own administration.

3. Their supporters refuse to call them out for lying, letting them off the hook with "It was a mistake." or "I take full responsibility."

The clearest of these is Cheney and Halliburton. He was the former secretary of defense, then becomes CEO of a huge defense firm that conducts most of its business with the government, then becomes VP. We invade Iraq and then Halliburton gets a no bid contract to help out. Accusations then fly from the military (non-partisan) about overbilling and providing rotten services. Why do so many Bush supporters believe this is okay?

On top of that, he lies! He said and I quote, ""Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest," Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on September 14. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

You have to admire the balls of a man who can say that while still owning 433,000 stock options, $150,000/year of deferred compensation, and a $20 million retirement package. Technically, every freaking dollar that Halliburton rises above his strike prices, is worth nearly half a million to Cheney.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23898

Why are Bush and Cheney this way? Because they think they can get away with it. They can issue a report that says terrorism is decreasing when it's actually increasing because their supporters won't call them on it.

[Chrish]

Jeff,

1) US troops & Iraqis are dying. Why & by whom
do you think that is happening?

2) Has Bush alienated the rest of the world?
a) A long history between Chirac & Hussein
b) Known oil dealings between France & Iraq
even during the so-called santcions which Kennedy stated "were working". For whom? Not the Iraqi
people they continued to suffer during that whole
time.
c) Known that France, Germany, and Russia were selling weapons to Saddam, also during the so-called sanctions.
d) Now being investigated was the "profiteering"
going on with members of the UN and Saddam also
during the so-called sanction. Inspite the fact that that expose came from Chalabi doesn't minimize the possible corruption in the UN.

You talk of your reasonings for being cynical about the coming handover & Bush and that's fine.
Why doesn't your cynicism and suspicions of ulterior motives also extend to the UN, France, Germany, and Russia as well? Is that because they are not Bush?

3) Agreed there have been "occupation" blunders but, I do disagree with the term "occupation".
- prisoner abuse scandals but, do not forget the killings, burnings, mutiliations, nor the beheading of Nick Berg. Remember them?
- Chalabi's unpopularity I agree but, he's out and
should no longer be an issue.
- And why do you think there is the continuing problem with security, electricity, oil, etc.?
- It must also be noted that the Sunni community do not represent the majority in Iraq; remember that word "majority"? That would be the Shiites.
They also have a say in their country as well as the Kurds don't they?
- Now I wonder why the Sunni's never wanted Saddam targeted? Could it be because they had the good life during Saddam's control while the Shiites and Kurds suffered?

4) I agree the source of the problem is the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Until both sides are willing to accept each others right to exist and the terrorist attacks continue the problem will contiue. The acknowledement that Israel does have right to exist must also come from the Arab countries. Both sides have much to gain and much to lose so long as they continue with their mule headedness. What are you saying we should not support Israel and just let them kill each other?
Perhaps allow Israel to be pushed into the sea as Arafat wants?

I agree with you there is far too much coziness with the Saudi Royal family. Especially when you consider they have been one of the main sources, backers, and pushers, if you will, for terrorism.
Unfortunately for them the monster they've created
has come back to bit them on the arse. Now isn't that a cryin shame?
Oil!! That is the real source of our problems.
Eliminate our's and the world's dependencies on oil and things might get better. Now wouldn't that be a real shame for those who've been profiting off of it for all of these years?

BTW, speaking of support the Arab Leage has also given their support for the Iraqi Interim government. Yes I do continue to be positive and have hope for the handover. I refuse to succumb
to the cynicism and negativity despite what you
or the news media wants to focus on. That includes the news media's obsession with the prison abuse and their constant "titillating"
hints about more and "really disgusting" photos
that haven't been shown. It's as if those pathetic "We have a Constitutional Right" purveyors of everything foul and disgusting are trying their damndest to stir up things just to get those pictures we have not seen released.
What's the point? We know there were abuses, we
know those bastard guards did disgusting and inexcusable acts upon those prisoners. We also
know the investigation has not been completed, there have already been tribunals with sentencing
done so what the Hell more does the news media
want? What will be accomplished by insinuation, hinting, or suggesting that there are even more disgusting and terrible images that we have not seen? What's next? Those sleeze bags in the news media are going to jump on their self righteous band wagon and start bantering about "The people have a right to know" crap?
Yes, damn it, we do have a right to know the questions are do we really need to know, will it really benefit anybody or is this just more of the sleeze bag reporters continuing slide down to those rag mag's you see at the checkout stands;
"Inquiring Minds want to know" rubbish?

5) So what's new about that? Show me an administration where lies, misleading, leaks, and scandals weren't popping up? They are politicians, that's what politicians do; lie, mislead, leak things out, get into scandals.

We have been the targets of terrorists long before 9/11 happened. Lockerbie, Achille Laurel,
the first attack on the towers, USS Cole, embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania, on and on and on.
The murders of those people were wrong and those victims are also dead. At what point do you put your foot down and scream out "Enough!!". The Europeans countries as well as Asian countries have also suffered a number of terrorist attacks over the years. At what point do they, us say
"Enough!!!" and truly mean it? Never? Turn the other way, be thankful your arse wasn't one of their victims, hope that since your area has been struck it won't happen there again, and they'll move on and somplace else?

"the most valuable commodity in the world" -- there is the source of the whole bloody mess.
And so long as our so-called politicians be it Bush, Kerry, Democrat, Republican, you name it,
continue to pay lip service to the idea of "alternative sources of energy" for their own political gain while never truly do something about it. We will continue to have problems with this "most valuable commodity in the world" until all of it gone. Then what? Begin listening to those self serving politicians ranting "something must be done"? By then it will be too late. Won't that be a kick?

[j.j.]

Jeff,
did you catch that comment by Cheney the other day where he, once again, erroneously claimed that Saddam and al-Qaida were working together. Man, what a liar! The only thing worse than his lies is that fact that so many of his followers still believe it or let him get away with it. It's like a freaking cult.

[j.j.]

Ouch, harsh words from the Reagans on Bush!

http://www.iht.com/articles/525121.html

[Jim]

Ron Reagan Jr. and Sr. hardly saw things eye to eye. People hate that Bush believes in God, let alone has that gall to mention Him. Hilarious. So then you turn it into saying Bush is on a religious crusade. I'm trying to find that quote where Bush said that everybody needs to be a Christian or they will be doomed to an eternity in Hell. I know he must have said it, because afterall he is pure evil and he stole the 2000 election. I think if Bush wore a grey suit you would find something wrong with that too.

[j.j.]

Jim,
were you reading something from Ann Coulter again? You must have been, cause, man, you sound like you are pulling things out of your ass.

[Jeff]

I agree. Jim, you really should learn to stay on point. There are nut cases that hate Bush for irrational reasons, but nowhere do I see any of us getting on his case for his faith. Many love him for his open expression of faith, while many are uncomfortable. But it's certainly an interesting question whether he is using that expression for political gain and whether that is right or not. Why don't you go take it up with the Reagans?

Chrish, I agree that France, Russia, Germany, etc. do not have unclean hands. I agree that sanctions had virtually no effect other than to destroy the standard of living for ordinary Iraqis. I also think the U.N. itself was incredibly corrupt for allowing connected people to profit from oil for food.

But all of these issues are unrelated to our invasion. If you want to stop illegal activity by those other countries, invasion of Iraq is obviously not the solution. The bottom line is that we need their help and our failure to find WMD has dropped our credibility to nothing, not only among foreign governments, but foreign people as well.

There's really no doubt that U.S. troops would not be dying in Iraq if we were not there. There's also no doubt that the Iraqis killed by U.S. troops would be much healthier had we not invaded. Saddam Hussein's regime was reprehensible, but oil, security, and electricity were not a problem for the ordinary Iraqi and now they are because we invaded. It's too easy to be outraged at marauding terrorists in Iraq without asking whether we bear ultimate responsibility.

The people who beheaded Nick Berg are evil, but would he have been killed if he were sitting at home in Pennsylvania? Would he have been killed in Iraq if we hadn't invaded? Many are using his death to direct more anger at terrorists and justify what we're doing, while ignoring that what we're doing has caused more terrorism.

Some of the other issues that you brought up... Chalabi's gone, so everything is okay. How can you sweep this under the table? Our leaders went from paying him millions of dollars, swallowing all his dubious intelligence, flying him into Baghdad when the city fell, appointing him to the Governing Council to raiding his office and accusing him of being an Iranian spy. Forget how much of a disaster these facts present by itself, what does it say about our leaders, who have followed this guy for the past decade? There's only one conclusion, our leaders suck and must be replaced.

The Sunnis did have the good life when Saddam was in power... and again our leaders did not consider this. If you invaded and knew that 30% of the population, the most powerful and the most educated had the most to lose, would you have a plan to deal with them? Here again, we have failure. If any of us told our bosses that our troops would be welcomed with roses and they got suicide bombs instead, we would be fired. So it should be with Bush.

I don't think it has anything to do with optimism or pessimism. Realism would serve us all well. Pre-war "optimism" on WMD, price of invasion (both in lives and money), Chalabi, troops needed for security, the need for NATO or the U.N. support, and most of all, trust in the moral clarity of the Bush administration has come back to totally screw us. Fool us once already. Want to risk fool us twice?

[Jim]

No, J.J. and Jeff. Nice cheap shot with Ann Coulter. One thing she has in common with you guys is that she is very negative and takes pot shots. No Ann Coulter fan here. She gives conservatives a bad name just as many here give liberals a bad name. Negativity Negativity Negativity. People who worship Ann Coulter are as bad as people who think Michael Moore makes documentaries.

[j.j.]

Jim, in that case, I invite you to go back through every single post on this site and show me one time where I have referred to a crusade by Bush.
If you find one, then you are right and I am wrong. If not, then....

[Jeff]

Jim, who wrote:

"But I guess Singapore is better because you're there."
"Do they teach arrogance in Singapore?"
"Jeff (a typically middle eastern name)"
"Oh and by the way "Jeff"
"I was wondering what kind of person could constantly come up with such venemous, condescending, arrogant, personal attacks. But now I know. You're a lawyer. Congrats."

Oh that's right, you did! What a shock! Next time I want to receive etiquette lessons from a person who has made personal attacks involving where I live, my name, my ethnicity, and my profession, I'll let you know.

[Jim]

Having a bad day, Jeff?

Thanks for staying on the subject.

Sorry, I'm still busy looking for the quote where Bush said Hussein planned the 9/11 attacks.

[Jeff]

No, having a pretty fun day actually. Didn't realize it would be so easy to show how much of a hypocrite you are, screaming about personal attacks when you've proven to be so capable yourself. Incidentally, I am staying on the subject, the one that you brought up. Duh.

[Chrish]

Jeff, yes I am able to push the Chalabi thing aside as I'm grateful his activities were found out before he was able to position himself into office rather than after. Imagine how it would have been had those things been discovered after he got control?

Doesn't mean I like it and I don't necessarily blame Bush for that as it is the responsibility of the hands tied intelligence agencies for doing
the discovery on things like this. Which, sad to say, we have all discovered they have had a number of failures. I'm not going to blame Bush for that I will blame those who have been given the responsibility and failed. I would have the same attitude whether it is Bush, Clinton, Gore, or a Kerry. A person, individual, administration, or group will make decisions based on the information they have been givin.
If it is bad information then logic dictates the decisions will be bad. It follows that old addage GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out).

That does not mean to say that I completely exhonerate Bush from some of the obvious bad decisions he's made nor the obviously poor post war planning that had been done. The quickness and they way in which Our troops defeated Saddam
shows the war plan was well laid out. The aftermath and the resulting chaos there shows there was little or no real plan in place once Saddam was defeated. Bush, by my reckoning, should be man enough to stand up and, at least,
admit to the fact that he blew it and didn't take enough time to throughly plan out a post war Iraq
nor how to deal with the various groups in that country.

As far as NATO, the UN I'm still holding back on them as it has, as we all agree, that they also had their hands in the kitty and were profiteering off of Saddam while the people were suffering. With the reports on France, Germany, and Russia selling weapons to Saddam. France and their cozy little deal for oil with Saddam even during the sanction. The long very friendly relationship between Chirac and Saddma. And finally members of the UN were profiteering on the Oil for Food program how can one not be suspicious of their motivations for not going into Iraq?

With the countless Billions of dollars those various governments, agencies, and people were making and would stand to lose if Saddam were overthrown how can their resistance to invading Iraq not be suspect?

Bad enough those various countries were getting their blood money from Saddam but, the UN for God's sakes? Come on, be suspicious of Bush if you wish but, also be suspicious of those countries and the UN. They didn't suffer, the UN didn't suffer, Saddam didn't suffer during that period but, the Iraqi people suffered.

Yes, sadly, we have blood on our hands but, those European countries and the UN also have blood on their hands let's be realistic about that. As far as I can see most of this whole world has the
blood of the Iraqi people on their hands.

One would think that rather than shoving out a whole lot of pessimistic, negative feelings and words it would be far better to shove out more optimisim, hopeful, and positive feelings and words.

[j.j.]

Jim,

perhaps your time would be spent more productively trying to find some WMDs. I hear the Iraqi Survey Group is having a real difficult time.

[Jim]

Good one, J.J.
Jeff, did you really say, "duh"

Ya Chrish, I also find it funny that France, Russia and the U.N. (who collectively made Saddam rich while sanctions were supposed to be in place) are not accountable. But the U.S. (Bush especially) is The Devil. Those guys lost a big customer when Saddam got ousted. Too bad that oil for weapons and palaces program is over.

[Jeff]

Jim, you have a great streak of avoiding arguments that you can't win (the issue of personal attacks, which you brought up, and are the reigning king of) and blaming Saddam, France, Russia, etc. for our problems.

Are you really pushing the position that that other countries and the U.N. were profiting off of Iraq, therefore we must invade and kill tens of thousands of people? What does anything that we're doing have with holding France, Russia, etc. accountable? If we could suspect their motives, should we not suspect Bush's motives for leading us into this mess, particularly when claims of nuclear sales from Africa and WMD are completely false? You don't hear them use those mushroom cloud references anymore, do you?

Do you really believe that American companies are not doing their own profiteering with cozy to the government no bid contracts and being accused of overcharging the military despite those ties? The other countries suspect motives are out of the picture now, what about our own government? If we agree that almost all politicians have the tendency to look after their self interest, then we shouldn't give anyone a free pass.

If you make this war about rescuing the Iraqi people, well, there are lots of people suffering around the world and we don't rescue them. We could have invaded any number of African countries if we were really in the business of saving lives. Beyond that, it would have worked if the Iraqi people weren't asking to be rescued from us.

[j.j.]

you know what the worst part of all of this is: I would probably have supported a liberation if I felt it was real. But I can't get myself to believe that we didn't have other motivations and used liberation only as an excuse. I can't support a war based on deceptions. Maybe 100 years ago I would have, but not in this day and age. I would never have thought that democratic governments in the 21st century would still do this, that they would still attempt to mislead their own people.
Q. What is the difference between America and the UK?
A. The people of the UK were not fooled by their governments lies!

[j.j.]

by the way, I have to agree with Jeff's argument here (surprise).
France/Russia may have lost a big customer when Saddam went, but we obviously didn't. In fact, we are the only one's that are allowed to do business with the new government. So that is where the hypocrasy comes in.

[j.j.]

besides, are we really that different from the Russians? I used to think we were, but not so sure anymore in the past couple of years.

http://www.iht.com/articles/525610.html

[Chrish]

J.J., sorry I disagree with you. I don't recall reading anywhere where mass graves were found that were created by us, hundreds of people disappearing because of us??

"apologize for an ally who is "doing evil" while hiding behind America's cause."?? Why is it that no matter what someone, some entity, or some government does somewhere in the world everyone seems to find some way to put the blame on America and expects America to apologize?

Yet, when some other "ally" does something somewhere in the world that "ally" is not held accountable nor responsible for "their" actions?

How about placing the blame where the blame belongs; on the "ally", person, group, entity, or government that "actually" committed the act?

Yes, J.J, We, through our government, are responsible for some pretty damnable actions committed throughout various areas of the world.
South America comes to mind. But, for God's sakes not everything can be nor should be
attributed to us.

I think there is more than enough shameful things that have been done in the name of the people both here and in other countries to spread the blame around. And not all of it is our doing.

Is that where all of this Blame America thing come from? Now we're expected to sit down and spend some quality time navel gazing?

I don't think so.

[Jeff]

Chrish, what do our allies have to do with invading Iraq, other than the fact that we need their help and they're not helping? Their suspect motives do not excuse our own... sounds like a kid caught doing something wrong and saying, "but France was guilty too!"

You also have to redefine what exactly constitutes a mass grave. Do the 800+ dead American soldiers count as a mass grave? Not enough, how about the 20-30,000 Iraqi body count? How about the massive body counts in Africa that we're conveniently ignoring?

When are you going to accept that America does deserve the blame for this? Even if we don't, the reality is that many Iraqis blame us and have no qualms taking up arms against us. We would have taken the credit for a free, democratic, and prosperous Iraq, but when things go this wrong, why does the Bush administration avoid taking responsibility and mislead us about how well things are going instead?

[j.j.]

Crish/Jeff,

after several years of living in overseas, I have come to make an observation. Many europeans can name 50 things that America has done wrong, but when you ask them to say something positive about America, they kind of give you a blank look. You can tell that they are first surprised, then stuck cause they can't think of anything. (Jeff, have you tried this little experiment in Singapore?)
On the flipside, ask an American what we have done right and they will point out 50 things we have done that were right, but when you ask about something we have done wrong abroad, they will give you the same blank look, then come up with some crap that we are different than other nations and don't do anything to others except in order to help them.
There is a fundamental lack of understanding by both about certain realities.

Crish,

the reason I bring up so many wrongs and don't feel bad about saying it is because I am well aware of the many good things we have done as well. I am not some blindly anti-american guy but I do feel that currently we are in the wrong and most of the rest of the world is in the right. Particularly in Iraq, I am appalled to see our president abuse the democratic process to get us to fight an illegal war based on false premises and fake motivations.
You have asked repeatedly (paraphrasing here): is your hate for Bush really so great? The answer to your question is absolutely. And I think I am entirley justified to feel this way. In no way am I ashamed or embarrassed to admit it. In fact, as you well know, I am very vocal about this. It is my right to feel this way and I have no respect for people that tell me that I am not patriotic because I don't support our actions. People that tell me that don't understand the fundamentals of a democratic and open society.

(I am not alluding to you here, we may differ in our points of view, but over the many discussions, I have gained a certain respect for your positions and knowledge.)

[Jeff]

J.J., I think you hit exactly on the point of this entire web site. As Americans abroad, we will obviously have a different perspective of our country and it's important that we bring that additional viewpoint back home. I haven't tried to take your poll in Singapore, but I think opinions here would be different than what you've found in Europe.

Singapore still maintains a colonial type of attitude towards the British (with spillover to Americans) and the government has been a staunch supporter of the invasion. Of course, it's worth noting that President Bush signed a free trade agreement between the two nations on May 6, 2003. Quite a coincidence, don't you think?

Of course, that stance in combination with the geographical location of being completely surrounded by two Muslim giants, Malaysia and Indonesia, makes Singapore a very tempting target for terrorism too.

[Chrish]

J.J,

In your first block titled "Chrish/Jeff" I am in complete agreement with you. In my travels overseas back in the late 70's and early 80's I also found the same as you found to be true.

Sadly it seems everyone remembers the harm, and we have caused harm, that we've done but, cannot seem to remember the good, and we have done good as well, that we've done.

I feel, at times, that as far as foreign policy goes it sucks the big one. Not, and I do have to agree with you, just the current administration but the past number of administrations quite possibly all the way back to when we first jumped into foreign policy. We seem to have a propensity for supporting or propping up governments that anyone can plainly see is a tyrannical or dictatorial form of government under the guise of "Our National Interests". We continue to support these forms of government at the expense of those people who suffer under them.
And when the people rise up and throw out that tyrant or dictator and then turn around and spit in our hands we sit back and wonder why. Have you noticed that in almost every instance of support we give to some government it always seems to be "military" support with little or no
"people" support. By "people support" I mean economic, medical, agricultural, energy type of support. It's always seems to be "military" support. Given the past history of those governments we have and continue to support one can only conclude that the "military" support we've provided is not for protecting those governments from invasion or their neighbors as they have told us but, for nothing more than to keep their people down and under control. That, in all probablity, is why so many people and countries harbor this hatred or suspicions of us;
we're supporting the governments the people suffer under.

It would seem to me that as far as foreign policy goes We and the people of those countries would be far better served if We limited our support to
economic, medical, argicultural, and energy types of support and not allow any military support. I'm sure you can guess who would really be screaming and belly aching about that restriction
don't you?

Under your second heading titled "Chrish" I may disagree with some of your points and position but fully respect your points of view and your position. Yeah, I may scream at you and you may scream at me but, I still am respectful of your points of view and position. Even though you're wrong.... LOL!! Just kidding J.J.

No, I do not believe that you nor anyone else who disagrees with the President or his administration are unpatriotic. For those who would try to paint you and others in that light are wrong and I would be one of the first to stand up beside you and defend your position
even if I disagree with you. Quite the contrary you are being Patriotic, we all are, in one way or another, are being patriotic. We just disagree.

Quite honestly I am thankful that there are those who disagree and have the committment and courage to stand up and voice their opposition. As you have stated that is one of the basic fundamental principles of Democracy and is one the principles that Our people are fighting for.

I thank you for the kind words at the end of your post and, I assure you, I feel the same. Both you and Jeff have given me much to think, research, and consider and for that I am grateful.

Cheers... By the way did you post a link about Singapore? I would be interested in seeing it.

[Jeff]

Thanks for the heart warming comments Chrish. At the end of the day, I think we all have the same goals (hard not to when the main goal is to keep people from getting killed). Exploring and debating all the different ways of achieving that goal may help us get there yet.

About Singapore, I don't know that there are too many informational links that would give you a glimpse of what the culture is like here. Safe to say though, that it is truly a unique experiment in socialism. Most things work brilliantly... on the surface, the city is extremely clean, crime is low, and poverty and homelessness are non-existant (at least to the naked eye).

When you add in the fact that I've basically never been stuck in a traffic jam despite living with 4 million other people, you could conclude that Singapore is the most liveable city in the world. But while it's tough to question the results, you can certainly question the method. For example, traffic is controlled by taxing each car a whopping 150% and charging you a toll to enter different zones in the city. $50,000 only buys you a Toyota Corolla!

Disagreeing with the government is not exactly encouraged either. There's one place called the Speaker's Corner where you're supposed to be able to speak your mind, but you can't use a microphone and you have to apply for a permit. Needless to say, it's never used.

Some other interesting tidbits... importing chewing gum is outlawed (they got tired of scraping gum off the pavement), and crimes are often punished by caning. Social engineering: you get tax breaks for having 2 kids before the woman is 28, 3 kids before 30, and another tax break for living within a certain distance of your parents (in theory, this means that you'll take care of them).

As far as Singapore's relationship with the west, I would have to say that colonialism is still in the air. One of the most remarkable developments is the Speak Good English movement. The popular slang (Singlish) has been rejected by the government... so much so that a movie was given an NC rating, not for violence, nudity, or obscenity, but for improper grammar! Check out the sites below... in particular, try the Speak Good English online lessons. It never fails to make me laugh.

http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/newsarchive/Art523.txt

Wow, didn't know much about Singapore except maybe about the chewing gum thing. Sounds... interesting! I'll have to check it out sometime. Do you ever find any rules restrictive? Thanks for the info, Jeff.

btw, just cause a government does something doesn't mean the people support it (I'm referring to the invasion.) How do the people of Singapore feel about it?
After all, Iceland is in the coalition of the willing, but if there is anyone outside the president and prime minister's offices that support(ed) the war, I have yet to hear of it. Iceland, having only 268K people, does not have an air force and relies on our 4 F15s at the Keflavik NATO base for air protection. We had been thinking about closing the base down and withdrawing the soldiers which would hit Iceland with the double whamy of no air protection and a loss of 6000 people donating money to the local economy. That is a substantial impact on the economy of a country this small and it is for those 2 reasons that many believe Iceland lend its unqualified support for the war.
(About 2 weeks ago, it was announced that the base would be closed down anyways.)

[j.j.]

oops, last post by JJ

[Jeff]

Good point, J.J. Singapore has extensive economic and military ties to the U.S. Despite the fact that the country is only 40 miles long and 25 miles wide, I believe its the 11th largest trading partner for the U.S. Americans and American culture tend to be held in high esteem. Our TV channels are dominated by reality shows, CSI, The Practice, The West Wing, The OC, and especially American Idol.

But as foreign policy goes, public opinion of the Bush administration is terrible. You won't get much vocal opposition here, but Bush can't even convince most Americans that the Iraq invasion was justified, so forget doing that in a foreign country. Take away the actual moral rights or wrongs, in addition to a horrible set of facts: preemptive war, no WMD, inability to distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam, scores of people dying every day, etc., people are really turned off by the might makes right doctrine that we're seemingly using.

Of course, foreign opinion doesn't matter to American supporters of the war and it didn't matter to Bush until now. We're reaping the seeds of that display of arrogance now. It's not about whether the Russian, French, or German governments had unclean hands in Iraq, the people obviously have a very poor opinion of the war and American motives.

Therefore, big surprise, no help is coming, not even from coalition partners, almost all of whom could increase non-American/British troop strength. The number of troops provided is pathetic even before you take into consideration that they're not there to fight. It boggles the mind to imagine how many American lives would be saved if our traditional allies were with us.

[Chrish]

Jeff, most interesting about Singapore. I was
aware of their strictness but, had no idea that
they'd gone on a rampage regarding the speaking of English. Perhaps they should try bi-lingual
education? I can understand the interest in promoting the proper speaking of English but, not
to the extent that they've gone.

I do have to admit that I found the idea of caning
such as what was done to that American fool that
graffiti'd up a number of cars a few years ago
rather hilarious. Perhaps that would be one form of punishment that should be imported here and executed on some of the idiot individuals, i.e., gangbangers, we have here in this country?

J.J., I'm still hopeful and still am optimistic on the upcoming handover at the end of this month.

As regards all of the bases we have around the world I would have no problem with closing most, if not all, of those bases. Let those countries take care of their own defense.

On foreign aid I would also have no problem if we
either completely stopped it or only provided economic, medical, agricultural, educational, or food aid on the condition that we distribute it and not the governments of those countries. Most of it winds up on the black market, members of those governments get rich, and the people see very little, if any, of that aid. There would be absolutely no military aid whatsoever.

If those governments wish to win the hearts and minds of their people then let them provide for their needs not for their subjugation. If we wish to win the minds and hearts of their people then we also need to provide aid for their needs
not for their subjugation. This way of foreign policy should also be strongly encouraged
with other countries.

Now, I have no doubt that the military industrial complex that makes Billions on the sale of weapons
would have a major, major problem with this idea
but, so what. This is about helping people to stand up on their own two feet isn't it? You can't feed a hungry person with guns and bullets but, you can feed them with fish and teach them how to fish. You can feed them bread and teach them how to grow wheat. They can't do that with weapons so why does our foreign policy always seem to be primarily military aid and assistance?

We've been at this foreign policy, foreign aid thing for how many years now? Perhaps it is time for a change in how foreign policy is done and how or what foreign aid is provided.

That's my opinion for what it's worth..

[j.j.]

aaaahh! So it is not impossible for JJ and Crish to agree!
Listen, guys, I got no problem with US military bases overseas, but please, let's keep it within reason. Last I heard, we were up to 130-something countries with US soldiers. Remember that saying, "The sun never sets on the British empire." How about the sun never sets on US military bases.

[j.j.]

So after the Abu Ghraib torture, has beheading become the new norm in Iraq now? WTF???

That's the kind of crap that people used to do in the freaking dark ages. As if the prison witch-hunts weren't bad enough, we now have standard decapitations. Sick! What is wrong with these people?!

You know what the worst part of the Korean guys death was? I wasn't even shocked! The first time it happened, it turned my stomach just to think about it. Now, the third guy to get this horrid treatment, I just shook my head in pity. It's almost as if I have become desensitized to it. Bunch of fucking barbarians!

[Jeff]

What's the big deal about the beheadings? Really... lots of people have been talking about these beheadings as if the end result were different than being blown to bits by a bomb or being riddled lifeless by bullets. The media eats it up and the public over reacts (or under reacts, depending on how you look at it). Which is the worse headline, one American beheaded or ten U.S. soldiers killed?

I think that every death is the equal of a beheading and it makes me sick that we're dying for totally misguided causes. Go back to the basics of what a president is supposed to do and you'll find that Bush has failed on all fronts. He hasn't made us safer, he hasn't been truthful, and on top of all that, he's lowered our standing throughout the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/

What has he accomplished? Well, he's certainly made his supporters and friends a lot wealthier... can't think of much else.

[j.j.]

Jeff, it's true that a death is a death and I don't make a distinction of what country they are from. How many Iraqis has Bush killed in the name of freedom? And maybe someone ought to tell him that adopting Ariel Sharon's tactics is not a good idea, because in the 4 years that Sharon has been cracking down on the Palestinians, the issue has gone nowhere but backwards. I, for one, am of the opinion that the transfer of power is not worth much. People will continue to die whether our troops stay or not.
But honestly, beheadings (kind of like drawing and quartering) is something from the middle ages, not something you do in modern society. Or so I thought.

[Jeff]

Chrish, forgot to answer your questions on Singapore... the Good English campaign is pretty soft. Singlish is really popular and quite creative, even if it's barely understandable to others. I'm often reminded of the two guys speaking "jive" in Airplane.

The caning of the American... actually, many Americans were all for it and many Singaporeans were against it. The lash is really intense and messy. Breaks the skin and all that. Sometimes they put people on the front page of the paper saying that they littered... I suppose it's effective, but of course, prone to abuse.

[Chrish]

Jeff, Singapore question? What Singapore question
did I forget to answer? I musta had a brain fart.

Jeff,I disagree with your position on the beheadings those rabid dogs have been engaging in. If, as I suspect, they have been done the same way as it was with Nick Berg consider this,
it wasn't a swift cut as in a guillotine but, a sawing. They literally sawed his head off!! Put yourself in that position, if you are able, and think deeply what it must be like for someone to be sawing your head off. This is absolute animal barbarianism, pure and simple. There is no reason, no rhyme, no excuse, no justification that can be put forth as a plausible reason.

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that the so-called news media should drop their lame ass excuse of "not wanting to offend ones senses" and
put those videos on the air. Let people see what is actually being done. They have no problem airing the atrocities of Abu Gharib so why not the beheadings of "innocent" people?

Agreed J.J., they are F__king barbarians and a smear on the Muslim people. Their actions are showing that it is not about getting the infidels out but, wrecking the handover now that they've started targeting the Iraqi people themselves.

J.J & Jeff, on a different topic I would be interested in your opinions regarding these recent activities of members of the Democratic Party:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5272141/

[Chrish]

J.J. & Jeff,

In context with my previous post regarding Nader
what are your thoughts or opinion on this item?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123566,00.html

[j.j.]

first article:
I particularly like the "reaching out" to Nader part. Doesn't sound like reaching out, more like trying to undercut him. Much as I would like to see Nader drop out of the race this year, I cannot help but disapprove of this. This is wrong and has long-term ramifications. This means that in 50 years, we still will have 2 dominant and entrenched parties in the US, with no hope of anyone ever breaking into the system. I wish the Greens, Nader and Democrats would do something really radical for a change and unite, even if it is for just one election. The positives would be to get Bush out of office and to establish the roots of a pluralistic democracy that is so lacking in the country. But I am not stupid, it will never happen.

2nd article:
as long as it is not illegal to hire felons on parole, I don't see a problem so long they are not a threat to the public (except a possible PR issue which I am sure the RNC will jump on as soon as possible.) But honestly, haven't they supposedly served their time? Shouldn't they get a chance when coming out of prison to start a new life? I don't think it's an issue.

[Jeff]

Chrish, you didn't read what I wrote correctly. I was answering your questions, not asking you for answers!

I understand what you mean by imagining what it's like to get your head sawed off. It is absolutely barbaric and the whole intent of the beheading is to send a message.

That's not the only way of dying though... when you see the headlines flash 100 killed like it did today, you imagine everyone was taken out in a blinding flash of light and painless. How about lying on the ground with all sorts of metal imbedded in your body, having doctors cut you up only to gasp your last breath and die over the period of a few days? How about living after having your eyes and ears blown out? How about succumbing to radiation poisoning like the survivors of Hiroshima?

No argument on whether the beheadings are the act of barbarians. But it doesn't diminish the barbarism of dying under a hailstorm of bullets or those mystery deaths in Abu Ghraib (which have obviously been censored too, Chrish). Remember those pictures of Uday and Qusay? That's what our dead troops probably look like (and we have complete media censoring of that). If you fix on that image in your mind, ask again why 850 of our troops and 20-30K Iraqis had to end this way. I really can't imagine that any of the Bushies would tolerate their sons or daughters ending that way for such flimsy reasons and with such poor planning.

[Jeff]

Chrish, regarding the two links that you posted, keep in mind that I'm not a Democrat, so I won't be defending them just for the sake of doing so. I think it goes without saying that having felons go door to door isn't very smart politically, but if they've served their time and not commiting any more crimes...

I don't really get Nader. I've read a couple of articles where it looks like his motivation is to punish the Democratic Party. I would respect him a bit more if he didn't keep pushing the line that there's no difference between Bush and Kerry or Bush and Gore. Obviously, he's free to run, regardless...

[j.j.]

Jeff is right, there obviously is a difference between Dems and Reps and anyone who was not able to see the difference in the past 3.5 years has some major issues.