Sulaco

Kimmy: Add a "too" to the end of that first pragraph and your statement would basically be accurate. What is this - an appeal to authority? A strawman? You certainly haven't been hearing that from me. I've only just met you. Yes - CLinton was a putz. But hey - he was working with an international order left to him by Bush Sr.

And this is part of the problem with the environmentalist movement (and many movements) - the tying down to an overblown problem and the resulting investment in that problem even as it becomes irrelevant. The fault is not with the people however, but with those who tied their wagon to global warming in their alarmist crying. So here you come admonishing us to not forget the other problems - when the only danger of them being forgotten is a result of single-minded politically-driven alarmism.

I guess I might be misreading that - but the sentence seems absurd. No one is talking about a "license to destory". But I think we are talking about how much of our economy should be diverted to "eco-protection". Without an analysis of costs and benefits your statement is meaningless twaddle - if you will pardon me.

That's silly. The neat resolution resulted in massive repression that led to no-fly zones. It also resulted in an arms control regime that was ignored by Saddam from the get go. Furthermore it resulted in a sanctions regime in general that by 2000 was under attack on every front. The French and Russians were trading around it - agitation for abolishing it was gaining steam. And, in my humble opinion, there is no question the sanctions were mainly effective at lowering the Iraqi people's standards of living. You're just trying to shift the blame on the next administration so that your theory re. Bush Sr. can stand. But the architect of that status quo was Bush Sr. As for the claim that OBL's objective was to see Pres. Bush reelected - quoting CIA operatives is hardly helpful. The agency has demonstrated its incompetency in the lead up to this war, since then, and frankly for amny years prior. They also appear to have an institutional ahtred of Pres. Bush. Without having seen prior attempts by OBL to influence elections (I don't think anyone is claiming his other tapes have had the goal of influencing elections one way or another), they claim that this was one such and claim to know his desires. Ridiculous. Especially given that OBL has not shown much political savvy prior to releasing that tape and had never demonstrated much interest in domestic politics. But again the theory plays into certain modes of thinking about this conflict and Pres. Bush's decisions. So of course you, like they work backward. You conclude OBL must be intelligent and that his tape must ahve been meant to do what actually occured. You assume a motive. And then you work backward to bolster our argument. There is no a priori support for the claim.

Well... Dick Chaney is here from time to time. Drops by and throws his two-cents in. Why don't you ask him to what extent the Bushes have merely been puppets of this evil mastermind.

And to tie it all back on itself: That's of course why you think Bush Sr. was filled with wisdom. because he attempted to avoid unintended consequences by moving carefully. Amsuingly all that got him was shit in iraq and shit in Somalia but furthermore left nothing resolved. However the bureaucrat always creates cover - I acted prudently so the consequences cannot be my fault. Bah!

Kimmy: The "wisdom" of George Bush Sr. was to rile up the Shias and Kurds of Iraq and leave them to suffer. That wisdom led to a cease fire difficult to enforce, sanctions that, by the arguments of those who now claim they wanted sanctions all along, killed a hundred thousand per year, the oil for food programme and, frankly, the mess today. Call Bush what you will but wise he was not. He was a bureaucrat and like all bureaucrats he did not act with vision. Rather he needed to bring along as many people as he could to spread the blame before he moved foreward, and he left behind carelessly those who relied on him - and who gave him cover. Wisdom seem to now be a stand in for calcification. In addition on the general argument. You rely, in your claim, that OBL is very intelligent - thus the result he got must have been the one he expectedf and thus intended. You're arguing backward. Via same argument OBL was seeking the fall of the Taliban and the loss of his sanctuaries. Assuming OBL was smart he also saw the demoralizing effect the "defeat" in somalia had on the US - no US meddling in Arab colonization of Africa from that time on. It also galvanized OBL's movement. Arguably then his goal would be to seek US withdrawal for that very effect. The point is: Smart men make mistakes and those mistakes can be amde at any point of their reasoning. OBL is included. Most consequences are unintended. Your method of argument explains too much.

An interesting article. A point I've made before. The country has been moving right for the last 3 decades. No matter how much Daily Kos claims they are seeing a turnaround in that trend, the positions of the democratic party imply a status qio is bing maintained or, arguably, the center is continuing to shift right. http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/str...to_the_left.php While this speaks to where the dem candidates sit, usually one can spot the center by finding the most popular candidates of the two parties. This is, of course, bacuse the shape of the curve of voters on a political spectrum axis is that of a bell. Most voters cluster around a center. As the center moves, the curve also moves. The center-feeders (ie. those who are actually trying to win rather than make intellectual and political points) will move with it.

It is strange that in some circles all morality is subjective, but rationality seems to arrive at absolutes. What a strnage flip of reality. You'd think thousands of years of history would at least undermine the second clause of that outlook, if not the first. Instead - weirdness. I am not a basher of rational thinking, I just propose we think rationally about rationality.

Of course you can put a price on the lives lost. The civil justice system in the US does so all the time. In fact Judge Learned Hand provided a formula for how one calculates negligence - with one variable (more of a constant back then) being the cost of human life (or the cost of any other damages). Just as seriously - perfection is economically unfeasable. A corollary - "full" prevention is also economically unfeasible. A certain number of accidents are acceptable.

Persecution complex. A neo-con conspiracy - right?

Hypocrisy is the smallest sin. Anyone with aspirations engages in it. There are far better reasons to attack the dems.

This is incorrect. McCain has been hurt by his immigration stance, McCain-Feingold - a big issue amongst conservative primary voters and donors), and his general derision for those who make up the base of the party. Amongst the base of the party I've spoken to the one saving grace for him is support of the war. But I do not begrudge you your misunderstanding, painted as it is by your personal bias and support it gets from the media. The truth is most Republican voters support the war as long as it is being run to win. The disaffection is not with the Iraq war per se but with the idea that Bush screwed the pooch. Successes in iraq - or heck even the percveption that the US military is fighting to win again - will bring republican back to the fold. Other than Ron Paul there is no Republican who is calling for withdrawal in the race. You know they do carry out focus groups. A nominee who is perceived to be ready to win Iraq will be lauded - at this poiunt at least - by Republicans. A nominee who nattempts distancing via defeatism will sink. The media reads polls showing disaffection with Iraq in one way only - as a loss of support for the war. It is a simplistic reading that plays to their agenda. It is a reading I welcome - as long as the dems believe the Repubs lost in '06 due to the war they will not exploit the true weakness of the Repubs. Rather they will, and are, missing the target. To gain Repub support, and to bring out voters in '08, all a Republican nominee will have to do is play clips of Dem defeatism. If the Dems realized that the Repubs really lost in '06 due to perceived corruption, overspending OTHER THAN THE WAR, and the beginning of the immigration battle they could press a PResident on these issues - issues where the Republican party can face defeat again because their reforms have stalled. But as is often the case the Democrat-media alliance creats an echo-chamber with little input from outside. All the dems have to do is to listen to conservative talk radion to figure out why Republican voters are dissatisfied with their party and which drums they should bang. They'll never "stoop" to taking direction from Limbaugh however. Even if the guy put down all he says regarding the Repubs failings on paper and titled it a manual to defeat the Republicans. Mark my words.

False premise. Ever hear of William F. Buckley? How about 2/3 of the American republicans and possibly a greater amount of Canadian Conservatives. .....are there even neo-conservatives in the ROW? Arguably there cannot be neo-cons in the ROW. It is a purely Ameri9can phenomenon caused by the uniqueness of the political spectrum in the US. THough recently I've heard of real American style libertarians abroad - so who knows. Every ideological commitment gets it fellow travellers in other countries. The ignorance of what Neo-Con means is, however, staggering. But then given that it is quickly becoming as easily thrown about as the term "Fascist" it's not surprising that it would be just as misunderstood.

He should unask it. His question is based on ignorance of underlying premises. It's as if I went to Hawking and asked him why black holes don't just get sown up.

Generally I disagree. Depite media scepticism Guiliani continues to retain a surprisingly large prortion of core republican supporters. His support numbers within the party indicate a sizable number of supporters amongst those who are unlikely to agree with him on "social" or "family values" issues. Guiliani's biggert problem is that he has not concentrated enough in New Hampshire. Iowa is a loss for him and will probably give the "socially conservative" candidate momentum but with a right mix of pro-gun rights and other libertarian sounding mezsssages in New Hampshire Guiliani would have the ability to win that primary. Sucha win would break the back of any challanger. While Giliani has good support among conservatives (and arguably surprising support) he is in danger of lossing both of these key battles, while pursuing the larger nomination. Sometimes you have to ignore the forest of the few key trees. Clinton wins the dem nomination hands down. Obama is going to be forced to become negative really soon, unless he gives up and decides to "run" for VP instead. At this point Clinton is beginning to run away with it. To win the nomination Obama has to demonstrate that in a alrger election her baggage will bring her down, in order to start drawing some of the Dem supervoters away from her. To do that he has to go negative. Edwards does not have a chance in hell of winning that nomination. That's too bad for the republicans. Of the three he would be the least likely to win a general election. The man is a joke and he is not helping his credibility by kowtowing, at times, to the far fringes of the Democratic party. I'll point out to you that Dean crashed and burned by carrying out the same tactic and Edwards doesn't have nearly the momentum Dean had. Your analysis, I dare say, is not very serious. It's a long way from now until the conventions and many things can happen between now and then both caused by outside forces and by the candidates themselves. As Harold Wilson pointed out, a week is an eternity in politics. Clinton and Giuliani have opposite problems. It would be easier for him to win the general election than get the nomination and Clinton is more likely to win the nomination than win in the November election. I don't think Clinton's appeal with the public will last. The more you hear her the more grating she becomes. Giuliani comes across better than Clinton but I don't think he has long-term appeal to Repubs. I disagree on Clinton. She is a good public candidate and perosnally I believe Obama, in a general election, would show that there is little of substance there and what is would be far less paletable to American voters than what Clinton might say. You're probably more on the ball with Guiliani. But the current evidence seems to belie your theory. Guiliani is, for now, more than holding his own in the race. Of course it's a long time from now 'till then. But we are still having this discussion. As such we must look at what is happening now. Taking the bromide you cite to its extreme - we shouldn';t even be discussing this at this early time. Maybe right in a platonic sense, but pragmatically - we are all thinking about it so why not chat.

No statement could be more wrong. The term neo conservative taken in proper context, is actually a red Tory. Often calling themselves fiscal conservatives as opposed to social conservative. What the left really mean when they use the term neo, are cultural conservatives and there is nothing new about that. Cultural conservative principals encompass both cultural and the economic side of conservatism. Where fiscal conservatism does not. Cultural conservatives are strict constitutionalists. Who know full well that limited government is only possible by adherence to a restrictive constitution that provides for limited government. Something the left and their activist judges continually attack. Not exactly right. First off the US is generally more socially conservative. A red Tory in Canada would be a "New Democrat" of Clinton's like in the US. But neo-conservatives are not really "sociall liberal". They pay elss attention than other conservatives to social issues. But they do believe that "traditional values" are important in underpinning American success. In fact, in developing the philosophy (and I think Bush_Chaney is worng here - neo conservativism is new in America - not surprising generally because the US is relatively very homogeneous in it political philosophy - we are all offshoots of whigs) neo-con theorists acknowledged fusionism. Basically a view that maintenance of certain social traditions is neccessary for the success of a robust, defendable, capitalist America. This has been characterized as cynical. As for specific views on social issues - neo-cons are quite varied. There are those who believe in more traditional values and those who do not. As above, the do agree however on the importance of values in general and specifically some fundamental values.

Generally I disagree. Depite media scepticism Guiliani continues to retain a surprisingly large prortion of core republican supporters. His support numbers within the party indicate a sizable number of supporters amongst those who are unlikely to agree with him on "social" or "family values" issues. Guiliani's biggert problem is that he has not concentrated enough in New Hampshire. Iowa is a loss for him and will probably give the "socially conservative" candidate momentum but with a right mix of pro-gun rights and other libertarian sounding mezsssages in New Hampshire Guiliani would have the ability to win that primary. Sucha win would break the back of any challanger. While Giliani has good support among conservatives (and arguably surprising support) he is in danger of lossing both of these key battles, while pursuing the larger nomination. Sometimes you have to ignore the forest of the few key trees. Clinton wins the dem nomination hands down. Obama is going to be forced to become negative really soon, unless he gives up and decides to "run" for VP instead. At this point Clinton is beginning to run away with it. To win the nomination Obama has to demonstrate that in a alrger election her baggage will bring her down, in order to start drawing some of the Dem supervoters away from her. To do that he has to go negative. Edwards does not have a chance in hell of winning that nomination. That's too bad for the republicans. Of the three he would be the least likely to win a general election. The man is a joke and he is not helping his credibility by kowtowing, at times, to the far fringes of the Democratic party. I'll point out to you that Dean crashed and burned by carrying out the same tactic and Edwards doesn't have nearly the momentum Dean had. Your analysis, I dare say, is not very serious.

What a creepy website. I'll keep it in mind next time somebody asks what's wrong with Islam. Great example of the kind of people who are afraid of Benazir Bhutto, and example enough of why I hope that she can again be leader of Pakistan. -k My impression is that Bhutto did very little to reign in Islamism. Or to modernize the country. Like many others she fed it when she felt she could control the spigot on the resultinbg steam. Am mistaken?

I believe the target date was and is September. But I doubt that it will make much difference in the long run. You are right, the Iraqis want civil war, and the only thing the US is accomplishing is keeping them from full scale genocide. At this point - same thing we did in Kosovo, and arguably once we pushed Nato involvement, in Bosnia. That might be a goal in itself. As we saw in Bosnia and in Kosovo the energies kicked up in ethnic war can spend themselves.

I never said otherwise. The decision to 'intervene' itself is unconstitutional. Thus, the Bush victory that it enables is 'fruit of the poisoned tree' to use the common legal expression. That legal expression you refer to is not common. It is a term of art and applies specifically to 4th and 5th amendment issues. To take it outside of that context is ridiculous except - I guess - metaphorically. But what you said could have been said without invoking legal jargon. As to your first claim - You make a bald assertion with little to support it. Whether the decision to interven was constitutional is an issue that is controversial. For instance viewed through the lens of the 14 amendment the court could be said to have had to intervene. Note that federal intervention in state elections is constitutional under the 14th amendment and extensive precedent. The best argument put forth by the analyst you refer to is that this case should have been rejected under the "political question doctrine". Note that that doctrine is not constitutional in any way. It is rather a policy doctrine of the court intended to maintain the apolitical anture of the court. The PQD is often at odds with constitutional provisions and arguably should lose out to these.

Such a clear cut view of such clear cut laws required a very unusual and unique Supreme Court ruling that has been criticized relentlessly from day one as one of the ugliest precedent setting decisions in SCOTUS history. Bush didn't actually win the election on the ground, though he was officially pronounced the winner. I can't see any rational defence of the Supreme Court ruling - not in any context of law. Pure partisanship legislating from the Bench. Legal certainly, but that doesn't reverse Bush's loss at the polls, though it gives the victory to him via the arbitrary assignment of electoral votes. My intense dislike of Gore, and my recognition that the election was his to lose and that he ran the worst Presidential campaign since Michael Dukakis did in 1988, does not detract from the fact that the decision on the 2000 election was made by the US Supreme Court through a ruling they had no business making. Actually the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore was quite sound. An equal protection fo the law argument would be sufficient to support the decision. (Arguably it can support either a win for Gore or for Bush - but hey - that's constitutional law for you) Serious criticism of the decision attacks the Court's choice to hear the case and rule on it in the first place. It does not attack the reasoning of the opinion itself.

I would be superhuman for someone to never utter a hypocritical statement, I agree. Everyone is human. The problem I have is when someone takes an iron-clad stance on an issue, to be a warrior on some topic (and to demonize those who don't meet his or her standards) only to be later discovered to engaging in the very acts which stand in direct contradiction to his public persona. I don't care if the guy is a Republican or a Democrat. It just so happens that this guy is another "family values" cretin who is anything but what he says. I'd feel the same if some liberal human rights activist was discovered to be profiting from sweat-shop child labor overseas. (Actually, though, I think Vitter has earned just a little bit more of my scorn since and I do take his statements quite personally. I am gay and he went out of his way to cast people like me as the enemy of "the family". Little does he know how many people there are like me: single gay parent raising a couple of kids on his own. Yeah, we're such a threat to all that is good and decent and he is such a model citizen, cheating on his wife while paying cash for hookers and all.) Your homosexuality merely proves you have an extra axe to grind. I am not sure it speaks to whether his views on family values are right, wrong, correct, incorrect or irrelevant. Would a liberal's profiteering from sweatshops undermine your view that sweatshops are not a rpoper way for business to order production? The fact is that all in all you're just being snide. Vitter's failure's are no proof his views are invalid. (Though I do not dismiss that they may have some, albeit miniscule, effect on what we should think of his views).

You assume way too much about my position. Here's a Republican's take on this, which I agree with: http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/hypocrisy_all_around.php Key quote: "I will say to my Republican friends that it does no good to whine about double standards. You’re going to have to concede the hypocrisy point to our Democratic friends on this one. If you’re going to lecture people about the sanctity of marriage as it relates to banning gay unions or campaign on a platform stressing “family values,” it would be best if you didn’t go whoring around on your wife, wetting your wick at $300 a pop." I conceded the "hypocrisy point" at the outset of this thread. I just argue that it is human to be hypocritical. If we were to discount any normative statements made by "hypocrites" we'd be able to seek guidance from no one.

Don't get me started on my opinion of grand juries. Clinton eventually paid the price. I'm sure some Republicans would have liked to have seen him go to jail but I doubt that even Bush would have left an ex-President sit in the pen. I don't know that Vitter will be charged with a crime. One thing is certain and that is he has gone into hiding rather than face his critics. It is possible he might be forgiven by the electorate. He has a long way to go before facing them again. Still, it will be hard for him to talk about family values without someone always asking where he went wrong. I see a visit to FOX to grovel for understanding coming. And his best defense politically is to answer - "This is where I went wrong." And then lecture. People love "I returned to the fold stories".