Something Evil, This Way Comes

[NWA/AMT]

The current Democratic Party is NOT the party of FDR, Truman, JFK or even Scoop Jackson, Zell Miller or Sam Nunn when it comes to Foreign Affairs and military action.

[post="185812"][/post]​

Having learned, from Lyndon Johnson's mistakes in Vietnam, that the military solution is not always the only solution does not alter the fact that the Democratic party is the same party it was when Roosevelt or, for that matter Woodrow Wilson, was in office. Indeed, both clearly demonstrated the same refusal to rush to war and the same resolve to make sure they picked the right enemy.

Since when is Zell a Democrat again? Even when he was, he wasn't.

Then they want unanimous approval from the U.N. before they take even the most timid of actions.

Yet when Clinton, with the UN behind him, went into Kosovo, there was nothing from the Republicans but carping and criticism about how he was trying to distract attention from their crusade against him. Never mind that we were trying to stop a genocide. Where was the 'lets get behind the President' spirit then?

You're comparing apples and oranges by pointing to events years ago when the world situation was different.

Yet you bring up Carter, something even older? Your double standard is showing. The terrorist organizations that Reagan traded with were Hezbullah, financed by Iran, and Abu Nidal, financed by Syria, both still active and both still targeting Americans. That's apples to apples right there.

As for Reagan, his administration helped train and sold arms to the very same terrorists that are attacking us now. More apples anyone?

 

[AgMedallion]

BTW...did you even read the iconoclast article?

The link finally worked and I did read it, although parts of it appear to be written by Michael Moore. For example, it states:
Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:
• Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

Fiscal irresponsibility? Bush inherited a recession and did the editors ever hear about 9/11 and it's impact? What slashes in Social Security benefits? They've gone up each year. Does the "term cost of living increase" i.e. COLA, ring a bell? Check here for an example: http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/colafacts2003.htm

and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

I never knew Bush had the power to do this. Simply amazing that anyone could believe this.

Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war,

As opposed to wars not involving death? WWII was deadly too. Should we castigate FDR?


Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

Remember the internet stock bubble bursting and 9/11? The recession started before Jan 20, 2001. Maybe this little paper didn't realize that the National Debt has been huge for many years and would take generations to repay for much of the 20th century.


President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.

AFAIK the changes proposed would involve the ability for citizens to
voluntarily direct part of their SSA funds be invested in broad-based funds which would follow the long term growth of the U.S. stock market. This would provide a much better rate of return than SSA funds currently earn. Heck, even a passbook savings account betters the current rate of return for SSA funds. To hear this little paper talk, you'd think Bush is proposing that Americans would have to invest their Social Security money in penny stocks or companies run by crooks.


Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.

This is total bovine excrement. Historically the stock market provides a much greater rate of return than what is currently earned by Social Security. To suggest that a fund based on the S&P 500 is subject to fraud and market manipulation is plain ignorant.

Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.

Social Security is a ticking demographic time bomb, the problems of which have been known for years and have not been addressed by any political party. To somehow blame Bush or suggest that Kerry has the cure is patently absurd.

When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.

This is the Michael Moore element. Are they suggesting that the government should have just assumed that there were no further attacks planned, including the assassination of the President? This is just too stupid for words and, more than anything else in this editorial, casts doubt on the integrity of the editors.


Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden

Bush did, in fact, go after the terrorists, including OBL. Don't the editors remember the war in Afghanistan? In regard to getting OBL, I wonder if the editors ever complained about Clinton's failure to take Bin Laden into custody when Sudan offered him to us. I wonder if the readers of this thread ever think about how things might have been different if Clinton thought more about the threats to this country instead of when he was going to get his next BJ.

After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him,

The intelligence agencies of most major countries believed the same thing re WMD. Yet, instead of saying that the President (and other world leaders) relied on bad intelligence, they say he "lied". If you have a malfunctioning speedometer and you're actually doing 65mph in a 55 zone when the dial reads 55 and when the cop pulls you over and asks how fast you were going and you say "55", does that make you a liar?

I could on and on re this editorial, but what's the point? Most, if not all of it, is crapola biased against Bush.

 

[AgMedallion]

Having learned, from Lyndon Johnson's mistakes in Vietnam, that the military solution is not always the only solution

When it comes to the terrorists, it sure as hel* is! How do you negotiate with monsters like Al Qaeda? Although I'm sure Kerry would consider doing just that.

does not alter the fact that the Democratic party is the same party it was when Roosevelt or, for that matter Woodrow Wilson, was in office. Indeed, both clearly demonstrated the same refusal to rush to war and the same resolve to make sure they picked the right enemy.

When it comes to military action, it most definitely is NOT the same party, it just has the same name. You call going after Iraq after 12 years of their violating U.N. resolutions a "rush to war"? Do you figure 25 or 50 years would have been sufficient?

Yet when Clinton, with the UN behind him, went into Kosovo, there was nothing from the Republicans but carping and criticism about how he was trying to distract attention from their crusade against him.

Not their "crusade against him", but a constitutional proceeding known as an impeachment. Personally, I hold Clinton in such low regard (how the heck could anyone hold him in high regard?) that I think a "wag the dog" scenario was entirely possible, even probable. Funny how he didn't have the same energy to stop the much more serious genocide in Rwanda. Maybe because there was no impeachment pending?

Yet you bring up Carter, something even older? Your double standard is showing.

I only bring him up as another example of how low the Democratic Party has sunk from the days of FDR/HST/JFK when it comes to defending American security.

As for Reagan, his administration helped train and sold arms to the very same terrorists that are attacking us now.

You seem to forget that we were helping them defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. That doesn't mean we approve of them or their beliefs, anymore than we approved of Stalin when we were "allied" with him in defeating the Nazis. Same with helping Saddam fight the Iranians. Foreign Affairs and military alliances aren't always so clear cut and certainly change over the years. That doesn't mean they didn't serve American interests at the time they were done.

 

[KCFlyer]

AFAIK the changes proposed would involve the ability for citizens to
voluntarily direct part of their SSA funds be invested in broad-based funds which would follow the long term growth of the U.S. stock market. This would provide a much better rate of return than SSA funds currently earn. Heck, even a passbook savings account betters the current rate of return for SSA funds. To hear this little paper talk, you'd think Bush is proposing that Americans would have to invest their Social Security money in penny stocks or companies run by crooks.

You are missing their point...it's great if my kid wants to "own" her own social security...But I've been paying in for over 30 years, and the funds I put in paid for my parents...not me. If several folks "own" their own SS, then who will fund mine? And how will it be funded? The Bush Administration doesn't want anyone to "own" their social security...they want the to let them "invest" in the stock market. Just don't let the shareholders have a say in granting stock options and pay packages for the executives who now control their retirement accounts. And maybe it's just us "liberals" who recognize that the power and lure of greed is very strong. How many times over the past 4 years have we read of corporated executives screwed over shareholders while making themselves weatlhier? Think those guys would want to let a bunch of shareholders determine whether or not they should get repriced stock options, or have any kind of say in what kind of golden parachute he can negotiate? Yes...the past 4 years have shown that indeed, there are many "crooks" running companies. Kenny Boy Lay is a very good example.

This is total bovine excrement. Historically the stock market provides a much greater rate of return than what is currently earned by Social Security. To suggest that a fund based on the S&P 500 is subject to fraud and market manipulation is plain ignorant.

S&P 500 5 year performance

Click on that to see your S&P 500 for the past 5 years. How'd you like your retirement to be tied to that?

Bush did, in fact, go after the terrorists, including OBL. Don't the editors remember the war in Afghanistan? In regard to getting OBL, I wonder if the editors ever complained about Clinton's failure to take Bin Laden into custody when Sudan offered him to us. I wonder if the readers of this thread ever think about how things might have been different if Clinton thought more about the threats to this country instead of when he was going to get his next BJ.

Yes, he did go after Osama. But then he went after Saddam. And you have to look at risk versus reward...what was the ultimate goal? To make the US safer against terrorism? If so, then that goal has failed. The risks involved with unilaterally ousting Saddam haven't outweighed any rewards...because we don't HAVE any tangible rewards, other than a bunch of freed Iraqi's who are often times wondering if life might not have been better under Saddam. I wish Bush would have sought out a good BJ so he could have time to think about what was best for this country.

The intelligence agencies of most major countries believed the same thing re WMD. Yet, instead of saying that the President (and other world leaders) relied on bad intelligence, they say he "lied". If you have a malfunctioning speedometer and you're actually doing 65mph in a 55 zone when the dial reads 55 and when the cop pulls you over and asks how fast you were going and you say "55", does that make you a liar?

I could on and on re this editorial, but what's the point? Most, if not all of it, is crapola biased against Bush.

Yeah...except that they endorsed Bush last year and initially supported the war effort. You miss a bit on the analogy with the speedometer though...It's be one thing to say, after the speedometer was checked and indeed proved to be wrong, "Dang, that speedometer was wrong". But Bush can't/won't do that...instead he says "Your radar gun was miscalibrated, because my mechanic told me last month that my speedometer was working great"...in other words, he can't/won't admit a mistake. When confronted that the information on WMD's was in error, he shifted the topic to "harboring terrorists". Bush is supposedly a godly man...has he ever read in the scripture that to err is human? Can his pastor maybe tell him that it's okay to say "hey, that was a mistake"? Instead, his actions have an appearance of evasiveness...and evasiveness usually indicates...lying.

 

[NWA/AMT]

How do you negotiate with monsters like Al Qaeda? Although I'm sure Kerry would consider doing just that.

[post="185961"][/post]​

At no point has Kerry suggested anything of the sort. The only ones saying anything even similar are the Republicans, cynically trying to SCARE people into voting for them. Kerry has fully supported the President in our REAL war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as have just about every Democrat on this board, myself included.

When it comes to military action, it most definitely is NOT the same party, it just has the same name.

How on earth do you know that? When have the Democrats found themselves in the same position as FDR? Which Democrats opposed taking on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

You call going after Iraq after 12 years of their violating U.N. resolutions a "rush to war"?

No, the UN did.

Do you figure 25 or 50 years would have been sufficient?

Since there was no credible imminent threat to the US from Iraq, then having ANY one nation decide what's best for the world is dangerous. We used to criticize the British Empire for just such actions and we helped found the UN in an attempt to preclude ANY nation from doing just such a thing.

Not their "crusade against him", but a constitutional proceeding known as an impeachment.

And the many thousands of unfounded allegations that preceded and followed it. Does it not strike you that while he was criticizing Clinton for adultery, Newt Gingrich was doing worse himself? Do you really not see the double standard you're promoting?

Funny how he didn't have the same energy to stop the much more serious genocide in Rwanda.

When Congress had made it very clear that he would not be allowed to do so? I realize that the current administrations policies may be confusing you, but you do realize that only Congress has Constitutional authority to declare war, don't you? Nor did he have the backing from Congress to avenge our dead in Somalia, but I suppose that's all his fault too.

You seem to forget that we were helping them defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Something they were doing very handily without our help, incidentally. After that we just walked away from Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban to take control of the government there, even giving them money in May, 2001 in the hope they wouldn't grow opium. Wonder what they spent the money on?

The enemy of our enemy is our friend.

That policy has found us allied with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two nations who DID support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, as well as the government of Vladimir Putin who is determined to return Russia to the bad old days of centralized authority and control of the media. Swell friends!

That doesn't mean we approve of them or their beliefs, anymore than we approved of Stalin when we were "allied" with him in defeating the Nazis.

Actually it does imply tacit approval to do anything in concert with such a government.

Same with helping Saddam fight the Iranians.

We certainly didn't complain about his use of WMDs then, did we? Meanwhile, there was a school of thought in the US military at the time that found it entirely probable that the 'mistaken' Iraqi attack on the USS Stark was in retaliation for the illicit arms sales to Iran uncovered by the Iran/Contra investigation. Some friends!

Foreign Affairs and military alliances aren't always so clear cut and certainly change over the years.

Indeed. However, dividing the world along the lines of 'You're either for us or against us', as if global politics were the gunfight at the OK Corral, certainly doesn't help.

That doesn't mean they didn't serve American interests at the time they were done.

So we should just write of 9/11 as the 'collateral damage' of the policies that preceded it? I think not. We are responsible for ALL the consequences of our actions, both intended and unintended, and should clearly consider ALL the possibilities that may come from them. Not just the ones we like.

We helped train Osama when he was for us, now he's against us. We dealt freely with Saddam when he was for us, then he was against us. We gave money to the Taliban when they weren't even for us. We train the Pakistanis, who were against us but now are for us, for the time being anyway, meanwhile they sell nuclear technology to the highest bidder - including those, like the Iranians and North Koreans who are against us. We protect the Saudis who say they are for us but fund the schools that train those who are against us. Some friends.

 

[AgMedallion]

You are missing their point...it's great if my kid wants to "own" her own social security...But I've been paying in for over 30 years, and the funds I put in paid for my parents...not me. If several folks "own" their own SS, then who will fund mine? And how will it be funded? The Bush Administration doesn't want anyone to "own" their social security...they want the to let them "invest" in the stock market. Just don't let the shareholders have a say in granting stock options and pay packages for the executives who now control their retirement accounts. And maybe it's just us "liberals" who recognize that the power and lure of greed is very strong. How many times over the past 4 years have we read of corporated executives screwed over shareholders while making themselves weatlhier? Think those guys would want to let a bunch of shareholders determine whether or not they should get repriced stock options, or have any kind of say in what kind of golden parachute he can negotiate? Yes...the past 4 years have shown that indeed, there are many "crooks" running companies. Kenny Boy Lay is a very good example.

You think the current deductions for FICA are held in some special fund and the money is paid out to John Q. Retiree each month? Like it's held in some special, to quote Al Gore, "lockbox"? Heck no. That money is spent by the government. To hear the liberals talk, you'd think the stock market is composed of stocks in fly-by-night companies run by crooks, just because of some thieves like Ken Lay or Terry McAuliffe's best buddy, Global Crossing CEO Gary Winnick. Do you also assume all Presidents sell pardons, lie under oath and obstruct justice because Clinton did it? Most companies, especially major ones which make up the S&P 500 are run by basically honest businessmen, not crooked thieves like Lay or incompetent and overpaid boobs like Wolf & Gangwal at USAirways. If you do think that the S&P 500 companies are all crooks, then you simply don't believe in our capitalist system. To allow folks paying into Social Security to voluntarily invest part of their deductions into a broad-based stock fund isn't some Republican fat cat plot to defraud the masses. It simply allows people to get a better return on that money in a safe manner. Big brother doesn't always know best, despite what the liberals think.

If you object to this, then why don't the libs object to state lotteries, which are, after all, a tax on people with poor math skills?

S&P 500 5 year performance

Click on that to see your S&P 500 for the past 5 years. How'd you like your retirement to be tied to that?

How about click on this for a truer picture: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^SPX&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

I don't know why the change is shown as "0.00%", because the graph clearly shows otherwise. Perhaps because it just shows the day's change and trading hadn't begun. I can do as you did (i.e. pick and choose a certain time time frame to prove my point) to show some fantastic return, but the only true picture is long-term, which is what I did, and which is what the reality would be for wage earners after a lifetime of working. This could easily be accomplished by only allowing wage earners under the age of 50 to take part in any new voluntary program. That would ensure that at least 12 years would pass before they were retirement eligible and they wouldn't get burned if the S&P 500 dipped for several years.

Yes, he did go after Osama. But then he went after Saddam. And you have to look at risk versus reward...what was the ultimate goal? To make the US safer against terrorism? If so, then that goal has failed.

He had to go after Osama because Clinton turned down the chance to grab him when he was offered, something which the Democrats conveniently ignore. He was still going after Osama while going after Saddam. For all we know, Osama was killed at Tora Bora. It would be relatively easy for Al Qaeda to prove he's alive, something they haven't done, instead of providing grainy audio tapes. I have heard speculation that the audio tapes could simply be patched together concoctions done on a computer using pre-recorded stuff from before his demise. They won't admit to his death for political reasons. Even the video stuff could easily prove he's alive if they showed him, for example, holding a current newspaper. But they haven't done that either.

The risks involved with unilaterally ousting Saddam haven't outweighed any rewards...because we don't HAVE any tangible rewards, other than a bunch of freed Iraqi's who are often times wondering if life might not have been better under Saddam.

Unilaterally? I guess the Brits and Australians, among others, don't count worth crap in the liberal's world. Only the mighty French military juggernaut is worth anything. Those SOB's wouldn't even let us overfly their country when we bombed Libya in the 80s. That's who you want help from? Or the mighty U.N., when they're not busy collecting graft/bribes/kickbacks from their favorite dictator?

The "freed Iraqis" would prefer Saddam to what they have now? I guess the ones who weren't being tortured and raped during his reign. The only problems they have are the ones caused by terrorists. You know, the ones compared to our Revolutionary War Minutemen by Michael Moore. The ones who behead innocent people but who aren't condemned by the likes of Teddy "A Blonde In Every Pond" Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. They've identified the true evil doers as U.S. Servicemen/women putting panties on Iraqi prisoners' heads.

Yeah...except that they endorsed Bush last year and initially supported the war effort. You miss a bit on the analogy with the speedometer though...It's be one thing to say, after the speedometer was checked and indeed proved to be wrong, "Dang, that speedometer was wrong". But Bush can't/won't do that...instead he says "Your radar gun was miscalibrated, because my mechanic told me last month that my speedometer was working great"...in other words, he can't/won't admit a mistake. When confronted that the information on WMD's was in error, he shifted the topic to "harboring terrorists". Bush is supposedly a godly man...has he ever read in the scripture that to err is human? Can his pastor maybe tell him that it's okay to say "hey, that was a mistake"? Instead, his actions have an appearance of evasiveness...and evasiveness usually indicates...lying.

So first you sort of admit he wasn't really lying, just wouldn't admit to what you call a mistake. Then you go back to saying he was lying because he was, what you call, evasive.

Talking about admitting to mistakes, I remember a creep who waved his Johnson at a female subordinate. The subordinate took him to court and all she really wanted was an admission of guilt and an apology. The creep refused to admit his behavior or apologize and instead stonewalled, obstructed justice, tried to bribe witnesses, and got a squad of lawyers to fight tooth and nail against what was obviously a truthful charge. That creep was Bill Clinton, but since he was a Democrat, I guess you have no problem with his refusing to admit to a mistake?

 

[KCFlyer]

You think the current deductions for FICA are held in some special fund and the money is paid out to John Q. Retiree each month? Like it's held in some special, to quote Al Gore, "lockbox"? Heck no. That money is spent by the government. To hear the liberals talk, you'd think the stock market is composed of stocks in fly-by-night companies run by crooks, just because of some thieves like Ken Lay or Terry McAuliffe's best buddy, Global Crossing CEO Gary Winnick. Do you also assume all Presidents sell pardons, lie under oath and obstruct justice because Clinton did it? Most companies, especially major ones which make up the S&P 500 are run by basically honest businessmen, not crooked thieves like Lay or incompetent and overpaid boobs like Wolf & Gangwal at USAirways. If you do think that the S&P 500 companies are all crooks, then you simply don't believe in our capitalist system. To allow folks paying into Social Security to voluntarily invest part of their deductions into a broad-based stock fund isn't some Republican fat cat plot to defraud the masses. It simply allows people to get a better return on that money in a safe manner. Big brother doesn't always know best, despite what the liberals think.

If you object to this, then why don't the libs object to state lotteries, which are, after all, a tax on people with poor math skills?

I'm well aware that the money is spent. Thats why I said that I have been paying for my parents social security...I ask you, who is paying for mine, since the money I put in has been spent? Seems to me the government is going to have to borrow some from someplace to pay to the people who have paid in for 30-40 years.

Lotteries? Hmmm..you refer to me as "liberal", but I see myself as more of a conservative. Websters says this about conservative: \Con*serv"a*tive\, n.
1. One who, or that which, preserves from ruin, injury, innovation, or radical change; a preserver; a conserver. I have to wonder, just what has Bush conserved? Is he a fiscal conservative? With a 7.5 trillion dollar deficiet, I'd have to say no. Is he environmentally conservative? Considering all the environmental standards he has repealed, and considering his energy plan consists of drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, I think not. In just what way is Bush a "conservative". So back to lotteries - I don't play them. If someone chooses to play them, let them. Heck...when the lotto gets up in the several millions of dollars, you'd be surpised at the number of Lexus and SUV's with "W'04" on the back window are lining up to buy one. Does that mean that many conservative republicans lack math skills? They must, as somehow they view a 7.5 trillion dollar deficiet as "no big thing".

How about click on this for a truer picture: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^SPX&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

I don't know why the change is shown as "0.00%", because the graph clearly shows otherwise. Perhaps because it just shows the day's change and trading hadn't begun. I can do as you did (i.e. pick and choose a certain time time frame to prove my point) to show some fantastic return, but the only true picture is long-term, which is what I did, and which is what the reality would be for wage earners after a lifetime of working. This could easily be accomplished by only allowing wage earners under the age of 50 to take part in any new voluntary program. That would ensure that at least 12 years would pass before they were retirement eligible and they wouldn't get burned if the S&P 500 dipped for several years.

That picture is fantastic...if I weren't planning on retiring for over 40 years. But I am planning on retiring in less than 20. Some folks will be retiring within 5 to 10 years. The usual financial advice for those nearing retirement is to move your money into something much less volatile....a "conservative" investment if you will. As I said...the Social Security Fund doesn't have the money in it, and "voluntary" contributions to a fund "owned" (but with no voice in the company running things for them) means that there isn't going to be enough money to pay out those folks retiring in the near future. Where will that money come from? Borrowing from foreign countries? Is that "fiscally conservative?"

He had to go after Osama because Clinton turned down the chance to grab him when he was offered, something which the Democrats conveniently ignore. He was still going after Osama while going after Saddam. For all we know, Osama was killed at Tora Bora. It would be relatively easy for Al Qaeda to prove he's alive, something they haven't done, instead of providing grainy audio tapes. I have heard speculation that the audio tapes could simply be patched together concoctions done on a computer using pre-recorded stuff from before his demise. They won't admit to his death for political reasons. Even the video stuff could easily prove he's alive if they showed him, for example, holding a current newspaper. But they haven't done that either.
So first you sort of admit he wasn't really lying, just wouldn't admit to what you call a mistake. Then you go back to saying he was lying because he was, what you call, evasive.

Hmmm...when Clinton tried to bomb Saddam, the conservative wing of the Congress said it was to detract from Monica Lewinsky. Wonder what would have happened had he had the support of a republican congress. And read again... I said he may not have been lying, but Bush appears unable to admit that information he used was wrong. Instead, he looked for another reason to do what he did. That appears evasive. Remember the republican battle cry of "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is"? Made Clinton look a bit evasive, didn't it. And when he looked a bit evasive, what was the word that republicans used to describe him? Wait....it's coming to me....oh yeah...LIAR. BTW....how come Osama "ain't that important" to the Crawford Cowboy any more?

Talking about admitting to mistakes, I remember a creep who waved his Johnson at a female subordinate. The subordinate took him to court and all she really wanted was an admission of guilt and an apology. The creep refused to admit his behavior or apologize and instead stonewalled, obstructed justice, tried to bribe witnesses, and got a squad of lawyers to fight tooth and nail against what was obviously a truthful charge. That creep was Bill Clinton, but since he was a Democrat, I guess you have no problem with his refusing to admit to a mistake?

No...what he did was flat out wrong. But you know, his waving Johnson psychologically damaged one person. Bush's waving of his "johnson" (the armed forces) has resulted in how many physical deaths? Oh....FWIW, I didn't vote for Clinton either time. I voted for Perot in 92 and Dole in 96. See, I don't let a political party determine my vote.

 

[KCFlyer]

here's something for the rose colored glasses folks out there:

E-mail from WSJ reporter in Iraq.

 

[FredF]

And here is something for the pure pessamists out there as well.



Gen. John Abizaid, U.S. Central Command

an exerpt from meet the press

GEN. ABIZAID: You know, Tim, every now and then in Washington, we need to take a deep breath and we need to look at what's happening in the region as opposed to the reports of one or two journalists that happen to think that everybody in Iraq is in the resistance. If everybody in Iraq was in the resistance, Prime Minister Allawi would not be trying to lead his nation forward to a better future. If everybody in Iraq happened to be part of the resistance, they wouldn't be volunteering for the armed forces. We've got over 100,000 people that are trained and equipped now. That number is going up higher. There is more people that are coming forward to fight for the future of Iraq than are fighting against it.

So the constant drumbeat in Washington of a war that is being lost, that can't be won, of a resistance that is out of control, simply do not square with the facts on the ground. Yes, there is a resistance. Yes, it is hard. But the truth of the matter is that Iraqis and Americans and other members of the coalition will face that resistance together, will through a series of economic, political and military means, figure out how to defeat it and will move on to allow the elections to take place and a constitutional government to emerge. So I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying it's possible.

And remember that the enemy wants to break our will. They are experts at manipulating the media. They have yet to win a single military engagement in that country. They have yet to win a single military engagement against the forces of the new Iraqi armed forces that are standing up. No doubt that there are difficulties in building up these new armed forces, but I think the way is clear. I think that Iraqis will take the lead in this entire endeavor and will emerge victorious and they'll do so with our help.

 

[AgMedallion]

here's something for the rose colored glasses folks out there:

E-mail from WSJ reporter in Iraq.

[post="186216"][/post]​

While I agree with GWB's getting rid of Saddam and I think his trying to turn Iraq into a democracy (or anything but a corrupt dictatorship run by mullahs and religious zealots) is the true solution to many of that miserable region's problems, I personally don't think that those radical Muslim screwballs would ever allow that to happen, nor would the unwashed masses there support it. I simply have a realistic, pragmatic (and very low) opinion of any Muslim Arab society's ability to create/support an environment which recognizes human rights and the rule of law. Call me a bigot or racist but I'm simply recognizing many centuries of human history in that region. If you think that it's just a coincidence that there are no Arab Muslim democracies and never have been, you're not being objective. But Bush's dream of creating a modern free society there is a noble one and is rather surprising if one were to believe even a small fraction of the horrible things the liberals say about him. I really hate to say it, but I fear that we're going to have to periodically use severe force in that area for the rest of our lifetimes just to keep the monsters that exist there at bay. I sort of feel guilty holding an entire culture in such low regard, but history unfortunately supports that low opinion. Where else could so-called humans lopping off innocent people's heads be used as a recruitment device? Even the Nazis, as horrible as they were, would have never stooped so low as to brag about the wholesale torture and murdering of millions that they were conducting during their reign and produced films of Jews being gassed as a device to recruit more SS.

 

[NWA/AMT]

And here is something for the pure pessamists out there as well.
Gen. John Abizaid, U.S. Central Command

an exerpt from meet the press

GEN. ABIZAID: You know, Tim, every now and then in Washington, we need to take a deep breath and we need to look at what's happening in the region as opposed to the reports of one or two journalists that happen to think that everybody in Iraq is in the resistance. If everybody in Iraq was in the resistance, Prime Minister Allawi would not be trying to lead his nation forward to a better future. If everybody in Iraq happened to be part of the resistance, they wouldn't be volunteering for the armed forces. We've got over 100,000 people that are trained and equipped now. That number is going up higher. There is more people that are coming forward to fight for the future of Iraq than are fighting against it.

So the constant drumbeat in Washington of a war that is being lost, that can't be won, of a resistance that is out of control, simply do not square with the facts on the ground. Yes, there is a resistance. Yes, it is hard. But the truth of the matter is that Iraqis and Americans and other members of the coalition will face that resistance together, will through a series of economic, political and military means, figure out how to defeat it and will move on to allow the elections to take place and a constitutional government to emerge. So I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying it's possible.

And remember that the enemy wants to break our will. They are experts at manipulating the media. They have yet to win a single military engagement in that country. They have yet to win a single military engagement against the forces of the new Iraqi armed forces that are standing up. No doubt that there are difficulties in building up these new armed forces, but I think the way is clear. I think that Iraqis will take the lead in this entire endeavor and will emerge victorious and they'll do so with our help.

[post="186235"][/post]​

You know, I remember reading almost the exact same article with William Westmoreland telling us how there was 'light at the end of the tunnel' in Vietnam. What did you expect him to say?