this issue which should not be an issue regarding the presidential race just really galls me. People here are talking about abortion and then talking out both sides of their mouths regarding the war in Iraq? Yeah, let's go kill innocent people, but deny women a right to their own bodies,
qsducks;975621 wrote: this issue which should not be an issue regarding the presidential race just really galls me. People here are talking about abortion and then talking out both sides of their mouths regarding the war in Iraq? Yeah, let's go kill innocent people, but deny women a right to their own bodies,
Someone told me we went to Iraq to kill terrorists and liberate Iraqi's....? I even heard we did that once or twice...?? :wah:
fuzzy butt;975632 wrote: It's been widely reported by Mcains own people that he has forgotten where he was twice and what he was supposed to say many times.
And he stalls on his answers and I think he's more scarier than bush.
A family friend who served in Vietnam told us that American voters who vote for himwould be crazy because he never had any psychological help and also refused it and he is a gung ho "let's bomb the crap out of anyone".
yaaarrrgg;975480 wrote: You never included the case of a female getting raped.
I suppose in your constitution, it's her job to prove it. Really if you want to be a originalist, 'men' means white adult male. That excludes fetuses anyway.
I find it odd that lay people want to debate this issue with Obama ... who went to Harvard and taught constitutional law for, what. 11 years? Surely you don't think he's dumb, do you?
I think he's a politician, who ducks and dodges like you do in this post.
qsducks;975545 wrote: Abortion and I know it is a sensitive issue here obviously has no place in this election. We are really getting off topic here folks. There is a war on and our economy is in the toilet. Does anybody care about those issues? I feel some posters are screaming about abortion over the complete obvious issues of the day. But then of course, the rebubs have no issues/agenda to talk about, so they are throwing in a topic that will get our minds off the real topics.
The issue was raised in this thread by an Obama supporter, but you're right about the issue. The point's moot. Neither candidate can or will make abortion illegal.
fuzzy butt;975632 wrote: It's been widely reported by Mcains own people that he has forgotten where he was twice and what he was supposed to say many times.
Same with Obama. Man that campaign trail must be gruelling. City after city with speeches, interviews. I'd think it would be easy to forget where you are. That's why Obama first said he was in St Louis then Kansas City during that satellite get-together at the convention.
qsducks;975634 wrote: A family friend who served in Vietnam told us that American voters who vote for himwould be crazy because he never had any psychological help and also refused it and he is a gung ho "let's bomb the crap out of anyone".
Tell your family friend to stop gossiping and check McCain's record. He has been criticized for being too passivist in peacetime debates about whether to send troops to fight. This warmonger label is new.
Anybody realize McCain's the one who leads the fight against torture, even waterboarding?
The thing I can't help but notice is how dis-honest they have all become,, and I feel for the Americans that have blindly followed,, especially those that followed because of their religious beliefs,, believing in the most un-Godly people in America,, The political republican conservative,,,criminals..
God be with you,, as you discover,, and it's coming..
facts wrote:
ALEX CASTELLANOS: The amazing thing about Sarah Palin is when she became governor she actually stood up and said no.
BEGALA: That’s not true.
CASTELLANOS: She took a strong stand. That is rare and that never happened.
BEGALA: That’s just not true. You know, John, the facts matter. There’s lots of things that are debatable who is more qualified or less experienced or more this or more passionate, whatever. It is a fact that she campaigned and supported that bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists to get earmarks. It is a fact that as governor she lobbies for earmarks. Her state is essentially a welfare state taking money from the federal government… This is the problem. We have this false debate when we ought to have at least agreed upon facts.
Begala couldn’t be more spot on here: Facts are facts. Opinions can be debated, but facts are concrete and can’t simply be spun away. It seems to me that this is the crux of the McCain strategy: take an unknown hockey mom from Alaska, tell everyone she’s a reformer, lie about her record in order to convince people of it, then keep her sequestered from the press when they start asking questions. Are the American people really dumb enough to fall for it?
Full transcript below the fold:
ROBERTS: Paul, there’s a lot of controversy about whether or not she supported the bridge to nowhere. We pulled some sound from a 2006 debate in which she appears to at least give tacit approval to it. Let’s listen to what she said.
Everything is new now,,, but in 30 days the facts will shine,, but does it matter?
facts wrote:
GOV. SARAH PALIN, VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I’m not going to stand in the way of progress that our congressional delegation and the position of strength that they have right now. They’re making those efforts for the state of Alaska to build up our infrastructure. I would not get in the way of progress — this project or other projects that they are working so hard on.
On thanksgiving we all play cards and watch football,, I notice if anything negative happens in the third and 4th quarters we all get nervous about the end result,,, but try to look at this election as being in the 1st quarter,,, both veeps have been chosen,,, the debates will mark the quarters,, the developments of truth will weigh on all Americans,, but this early panic of democrats is un-nessassary,,, Bush/Cheney will kick in,, when all facts are known..
The pig with lips is there,, but dont the media make that pig look cute sometimes?
Fear not,, save it for election day,, and I agree,,vote early and often if possible,,,
Because believe me,,, the right will be,, especially those that will be effected when America starts thinking of it's people in it's policies,,, healthcare for all will hurt those getting rich on your bad health...
Here's a true reflection of the right's vp pick,,, picking an unknown was their only hope,, they can flat lie to election day and some voters will never be the wiser,, these are the people that claim to be patriots of this country,, but merely want to rob Americans,,, The truth is coming,, I feel for all who have believed in them,, no matter what happens..
facts wrote: An early debate;
ROBERTS: That would appear, Paul, to end any argument over whether or not she supported the bridge initially. But why can’t Barack Obama make that point stick?
PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Because the press won’t do its job, John. I criticized Barack Obama when he hasn’t been tough enough. Barack’s job is to run against John McCain, right. Don’t shoot the monkey when you can shoot for the organ grinder. His job is not to focus on number two but number one. But it is the media’s job when a politician flat out lies like she’s doing on this bridge to nowhere so call her on it. Or this matter of earmarks where she’s attacking Barack Obama for having earmarks, when she was the mayor of little Wasilla, Alaska, 6,000 people, she hired a lobbyist who was connected to Jack Abramoff, who is a criminal and they brought home $27 million in earmarks. She carried so much pork home she got trichinosis. But we in the media are letting her tell lies about her record.
ROBERTS: Hey, OK. We got to let Alex respond to that. Flat out lies, Alex?
ALEX CASTELLANOS, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Let’s be a little gentle. Look, every elected official in this country works under the system we have, which is you try to get a little bit of your tax money back. You just don’t want to leave it all in Washington. The amazing thing about Sarah Palin is when she became governor she actually stood up and said no. And she made it -
BEGALA: That’s not true.
CASTELLANOS: She took a strong stand. That is rare and that never happened.
ROBERTS: All right.
BEGALA: That’s just not true. You know, John, the facts matter. There’s lots of things that are debatable who is more qualified or less experienced or more this or more passionate, whatever. It is a fact that she campaigned and supported that bridge to nowhere. It is a fact that she hired lobbyists to get earmarks. It is a fact that as governor she lobbies for earmarks. Her state is essentially a welfare state taking money from the federal government.
ROBERTS: We still have 56 days to talk about this back and forth.
BEGALA: This is the problem. We have this false debate when we ought to have at least agreed upon facts.
It's one of the most unbelievable things I've ever learned about American leaders,, The lies,, they aren't what they seem,, even to those who will vote that way... Even they would be in for a shock if by chance they elected another Mc Bush...
opinion wrote:
I’ve been saying that this is the time America was finally ready to turn away from the phony notion that being a conservative is a good thing—go left and reject conservatism completely. I mean, it’s been an utter failure and John McCain has been a big part of that failure. I’ve been calling on the Obama campaign to attack the ideals that conservatism apply. Not to be used like a wedge issue since he has been running on a platform of bipartisanship, (I disapprove of that also) but to point out the obvious. If a party hates government then they will prove how bad government is. And what we get are people left stranded in NOLA with no water for a week as an example of how dangerous it is.
Well, all summer we had a chance to point that out to America, but unfortunately that did not happen and now we’re left watching John McCain try to remake the image of his party while he gets sucked into the conservative Borg organism in the process. And the media rejoices. He’s a Maverick they say! What a guy. And if you believe the polls, the public is buying it to so far.
I’ve also thought that this would come down to the debates because Americans just don’t know Obama all that well and when he’s side by side with McSame, America will truly see the difference. It’s tough to wait it out till then, but that’s going to be the defining moments I think in this election unless some really bad news or crazy gaffes take place.
Digby has a great post up called: Self Correcting Conservatives. The Republicans do a great job of defining liberals and The Democratic Party lets them get away with this crap every time.
And I always felt that Democrats should have run hard against conservatism itself so that a majority of voters would reject the GOP brand no matter who was wearing it. Instead we saw airy campaigns rife with symbols of liberal progress and the promise of some new post partisan agreement that only one side had signed on to. Indeed, they have all spent way too much time for the last year extolling the other side, genuflecting to their icons and pretending that there was some national consensus that everyone wanted Democrats to stop their vicious partisanship — when they hadn’t lifted a finger. It’s been maddening to watch.
So here we are. It doesn’t mean Obama will lose, of course. He probably won’t. Their side is even fundamentally weaker now than when the campaign began. But since both sides decided to run on personality and symbols we now have an empty campaign. McCain had no choice because his party is as decrepit as he is and their ideas are even more dessicated. But Democrats didn’t have to help them hide it. If they had worked a little bit harder at discrediting conservatism itself, people wouldn’t have felt so comfortable coming back to it, which is what Nate Silver thinks may have happened. There’s much about the Obama campaign that I admire. But I have always believed it was a mistake to box themselves into a post-partisan trap…They probably had to be careful about the tone, so that people would feel "comfortable" with a young black presidential candidate, but I think they overcompensated. This was a partisan year and it should have been a partisan rout. But somebody had to make that case.
It's probably too late to make the message of conservative failure stick at this point. It is now a 60 day dogfight fight between a gifted, young African American reformer and a grizzled old veteran ... reformer. The Republicans are "coming home" even in the face of their massive, nearly unprecedented disaster at governance over the past eight years because there's no price to pay as far as anyone's concerned --- the Republican brand is "self-correcting."
It's a tie today (or very close) and if the Obama campaign focuses on the economy, does well in the debates and gets out the vote as well as the GOP's re-invigorated churches do, they should win. But the days of arguing that this is a map changer or that "The Obama Movement" represents a seismic political shift are over. It's a 50/50 fight, just like it was in 2004. Half of the country still doesn't know that George W. Bush's failed governance wasn't a bug but a feature. And you certainly can't blame them for not telling anybody.
Ole Republican voters,,, just enough to get your hopes up,, isn't it?
I wonder which way the supreme court will vote this time!
Fear not,, an intelligence can make the lies look exactly like they are,,, cheating and childish,,
You can put lipstick on a corporate conservative republican politician,,,,,,
This Just In From Afghanistan: Bush Doctrine Still Dead.
The steady stream of bad news about Afghanistan this week served to highlight two inescapable truths regarding the conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. First, Barack Obama was right that the ongoing commitment of American forces in Iraq is preventing the United States from successfully pursuing Al Qaeda along the Pakistan frontier. Second, the Bush Doctrine - with its tenet of no safe havens for terrorists - is still dead.
In Washington, President Bush acknowledged that June, which saw the highest U.S. casualties of the Afghan war, was a "tough month." Bush, who is reported to have recently ordered U.S. intelligence assets and Special Forces to make a final push to capture Osama Bin Laden, then promised more soldiers and Marines for the fight. As Time rightly noted:
"We're going to increase troops by 2009," Bush said, without offering details about exactly when or how many.
The President would have done well to first consult with Admiral Michael Mullen, his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. On the very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned their tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen admitted to reporters at the Pentagon that the United States could only deploy more forces there by first drawing down from Iraq:
"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."
Unfortunately, that "reduced requirement" in Iraq doesn't appear likely to happen time soon. As the AP reported last week, the Pentagon is preparing to rotate 30,000 troops in a move that maintain U.S. force levels in Iraq at 15 combat brigades through 2009. While General Petraeus may yet recommend further force reductions, American troop levels at 142,000 are currently slated to remain above pre-surge levels through next year.
Failing the commitment of additional forces by NATO members, the U.S. is going to have to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to choosing between the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. During his joint Senate testimony with General Petraeus in April, U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker to Baghdad acknowledged to Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) that the Afghan-Pakistan border region was the higher priority for the United States in its fight against Al Qaeda:
AMB. CROCKER: Well given the progress that has been made again Al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive, and not in a position of -
SEN. BIDEN: Which would you pick, Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.
SEN BIDEN: That would be a smart choice.
Crocker's trade-off is precisely the one advocated by Barack Obama throughout the 2008 campaign. As he has insisted repeatedly, the Bush administration let Al Qaeda off the mat in 2002 and with its solitary focus on Iraq, has taken its eyes off the prize. As Obama put it just two weeks ago:
"The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors - the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11...
...Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership - the people who murdered 3000 Americans - have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.
We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan."
As it turns out, Obama is right, and George W. Bush and John McCain are wrong, on both counts. As Admiral Mullen readily admitted, overstretched American forces in Iraq are simply unavailable for the campaign against Bin Laden. And as a devastating account in the New York Times Monday revealed, the Bush administration's diversion of assets to Iraq and its confused policy towards the Musharraf government enabled Al Qaeda to establish a safe haven in Pakistan.
Dating back to the moments after the September 11 attacks, "no safe havens" emerged as one of the three pillars of the Bush Doctrine. (The other two - preemptive war and democracy promotion - arose with the invasion of Iraq.) In his address to Congress on September 20, 2001, a determined President Bush declared his "no safe havens" principle even as the World Trade Center towers still smoldered in lower Manhattan:
"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
But seven years later, an Al Qaeda safe haven in the Pakistani tribal regions is precisely what the United States now encounters. As President Bush himself confessed in the wake of a July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate:
"One of the most troubling [points in the NIE] is its assessment that al Qaeda has managed to establish a safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan."
Little has changed since. As the New York Times details, the new Bush policy of authorizing unilateral strikes against Al Qaeda leaders and the deployment of U.S. Special Forces into Pakistan remains stymied by disagreements within the administration and with the new government in Islamabad. (Ironically, John McCain attacked Barack Obama for the same aggressive posture towards Al Qaeda in Pakistan that President Bush later adopted.) Despite the new-found willingness of the U.S. to act alone within Pakistan, Bush's past dependence on Musharraf and Musharraf's truce with tribal leaders sympathetic to Bin Laden and the Taliban had left Al Qaeda firmly entrenched:
"It is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world."
To paraphrase Chevy Chase from the old Saturday Night Live news sketches, the Bush Doctrine is still dead. For Barack Obama's part, he's still right when it comes to America's unfinished business with - and the White House's diversion of resources from - Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As for President Bush and John McCain, they're still wrong.
DrJ;981613 wrote: The thing I can't help but notice is how dis-honest they have all become,, and I feel for the Americans that have blindly followed,, especially those that followed because of their religious beliefs,,
Blindly following for secular reasons is better?? :-2
Accountable;981736 wrote: Blindly following for secular reasons is better?? :-2
People that are basically good,,, trust,, without any thought,, until they are jolted into reality by those that would take advantage of said trust,,, knowing full well that they don't deserve it,, thinking what they don't know,, don't hurt them..
I believe people are about to know!
Many will be hurt by it...
Do you believe they even care who gets hurt?
Something to think about,,
In honor of Sarah who when asked if she believed in the Bush doctrine,, she replied,,
Homina,,,Homina,,,Homina,, Say What?!!
Well of course I do,, I trim it once or twice a week!(edited out)
When asked what experience in foriegn policy,,,she brought to the ticket,, she replied,,
I can see Russia,, from my back yard!!!!!
facts wrote:
Two Russian supersonic strategic bombers, the advance party for a deployment of Russian forces for a joint exercise, landed in Venezuela on Wednesday in a move guaranteed to infuriate all believers in America’s divine right to hegemony. The Tu-160 bombers(pictured above) are reputed to be the equals of America’s B-1 and with an even bigger weapons load. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that the bombers were there for ‘training purposes’ and added that he planned to fly one of the aircraft himself.
The entire exercise is designed to send a “how do you like it?†message to the West, following the US and allied military presence in Georgia and the Black Sea:
Russia’s Defense Ministry said the two Tu-160 bombers flew to Venezuela on a training mission. It said in a statement carried by the Russian news wires that the planes will conduct training flights over neutral waters over the next few days before heading back to Russia. Also Wednesday, NATO said it ended a routine exercise by four naval ships in the Black Sea. Russia had denounced the exercise as part of a Western military buildup sparked by the Georgia conflict. … Earlier this week, Russia said it will send a naval squadron and long-range patrol planes to Venezuela in November for a joint military exercise in the Caribbean.
Let’s not forget, too, that US advisers were in Georgia when it launched its full military might into its own breakaway province of South Ossetia and that neoconservative advisers to the administration and the McCain campaign have called for turning states along Russia’s borders into US-armed “porcupinesâ€. To imagine how Russia sees its own national interest threatened, imagine if Cuba, Venezuela and other nations around America’s Caribbean “pond†became Russian-armed permanent bastions in America’s backyard. There’s a lot of other tit-for-tat going on right now too. Not only has Russia said it will send a fleet to Venezuela - something that will tax Russian naval readiness to the utmost - but it has called for an embargo on arms imports to Georgia at the UN. That one won’t get out of the Security Council because the US will veto it but it is another purely political maneuver, making a statement about involvement in Russia’s backyard. There’s a new combatative style of rhetoric at the UN too, which again points to a breakdown in the post-perestroika monopolar world the neocons foolishly believed would last forever. Matters haven’t become as bad as during the actual Cold War just yet, experts say - but does anyone doubt that with the angry man, John McCain, in control of what would pass for US diplomacy, it wouldn’t get worse? He might even make John Bolton his Secretary of State! A McCain presidency would lead to America’s allies putting even more distance between themselves and the US and finish off the assault on American prestige that George Bush has so successfully mounted. Obama, by contrast, offers a badly needed new detente before the world returns to dark days and a ticking nuclear clock.
That is the last I will ever speak of Sarah Palin,,
she is merely the monkey with lipstick,, McCain is the organ grinder!~!
They're in trouble,,, and I truly feel for them...
In honor of Sarah who when asked if she believed in the Bush doctrine,, she replied,,
Homina,,,Homina,,,Homina,, Say What?!!
I've been looking for the Bush Doctrine and can't find it. What is it, please? Can you give me a link so I can read it myself?
I think I found video of what you're talking about, Doc, but it's Gibson who's stammering. I don't think I've ever seen Him be condescending before like he is in this clip.
Accountable;982676 wrote: I've been looking for the Bush Doctrine and can't find it. What is it, please? Can you give me a link so I can read it myself?
I know,,, to much trouble to google yourself,,eh?
I'll help ya,, the path begins here,,
facts wrote: The Myth of the Bush Doctrine
These are pretty heady days for the White House and its fellow travelers. In Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia, movements for popular, democratic change seem to rule the day. The wisdom, rightness and prescience of the Bush Doctrine, they say, have been vindicated.
In triumphant and self-congratulatory tones, the President and his allies are taking credit for the sweeping reform throughout the Middle East. President Bush proclaimed, "Freedom is on the march." The National Review's Rich Lowry crowed "Bush has put the United States in the right position to encourage and take advantage of democratic irruptions in the region." And in Time, while "history has yet to yield a verdict on the final outcome," Charles Krauthammer was not so cautious: "three cheers for the Bush Doctrine."
It's too bad there's no such thing.
For conservatives, the Bush Doctrine is the Rorschach Test as foreign policy paradigm; apparently, it is whatever you see in it. Unfortunately, what the Bush Doctrine has become in the popular imagination is not what how it started life, and certainly not anything that its neoconservative champions would recognize as their own...[MORE]
Read the full article.
The Bush Doctrine has come to have three central tenets. First, "No Safe Havens" states the United States will equate terrorist groups with the states that sponsor, shelter or provide them safe haven. Second is the concept of preemption. The United States will attack nations or groups posing an immediate threat to America, its citizens or interests. Last, the expansion of democracy worldwide is critical to winning the war against terrorism. Freeing the repressed from the yoke of despotic regimes, the argument goes, removes the root cause of terrorism. Besides, democracies never attack each other.
Those three ingredients - no safe havens, preemption and democracy promotion - represent a stunning evolution of Republican foreign policy and an impressive feat of historical revisionism.
Whither Democracy?
The transformation of George Bush is the most striking. In 2000, candidate Bush decried the role of nation building in American foreign policy. In the October 12, 2000 presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush sounded a cautious tone about American unilateralism and its role as global policeman, "If we're an arrogant nation they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong they'll welcome us."
After the September 11 attacks, Bush�s worldview changed dramatically. In his September 20, 2001 address to Congress, Bush declared the first principle of the Bush Doctrine.
We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
The full articulation of Bush�s second pillar of national security strategy, preemption, did not come until later. On June 1, 2002, President Bush addressed the cadets at West Point and made clear the role preemptive action would play in the future of American foreign policy and national defense:
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long - Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.
The U.S. claim of right to preemption, with its Pearl Harbor Harbor connotations that so worried Robert F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, quickly became entrenched in American defense doctrine. Preemption was codified in September with the release of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (2002). The Brookings Institution was quick to highlight the sea change for both American security strategy and international law:
Preemption, defined as the anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack, has long been accepted as legitimate and appropriate under international law. In the new NSS, however, the administration is broadening the meaning to encompass preventive war as well, in which force may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack to ensure that a serious threat to the United States does not "gather" or grow over time. The strategy also elevates preemption in importance, and visibility, within the tool kit of U.S. foreign policy.
The global promotion of democracy, however, was nowhere to be found in administration thinking prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This third pillar, currently equated with the Bush Doctrine, played only a bit part in the 2002 NSS. The document declares an American "war of ideas" that includes "supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation." The President also dedicates a section on "building the infrastructure" of democracy, but the discussion is essentially confined to the context of foreign aid. Aside from admonishments of China and Russia regarding the need for democratic reforms, that's it.
In fact, the word "democracy" is for all intents and purposes missing from the Bush administration�s rhetoric regarding the War on Terror prior to the invasion of Iraq. There is no mention of "democracy" in President Bush's address to Congress and the nation on September 20, 2001. Aside from a reference to Russia, it cannot be found in the June 2002 West Point speech. Democracy was absent from Bush�s September 12, 2002 address to the UN and his October 7, 2002 Iraq war justification in Cincinnati. And in the run-up to the invasion, democracy promotion remained essentially invisible in the 2003 State of the Union (ironically, it is mentioned regarding Iran), March 17 press conference, and even during Bush�s March 19 address to the nation declaring the commencement of hostilities. The closest the President could come was one of his favorite platitudes:
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.
In 2003, God's gift simply had not become an American national security requirement.
Better Lucky Than Good
The Bush administration's conflation of American national security with the expansion of democracy in the Middle East does not come until much later, when evaporating war justifications and conditions on the ground in Iraq required serious attitude adjustment. President Bush, the man who as a candidate called for a "humble" America face to the world, backed into freedom as his calling. With Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, his supposed 9/11 link, his Al Qaeda partnership and all other rationales for the Iraq conflict refuted, democracy promotion was left as the ex post facto causus belli. We did not invade Iraq to promote democracy; we promote democracy because we invaded Iraq.
Fast forward to 2005. President Bush shows it is better to be lucky than good. In Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani saved Bush from himself, insisting on direct national elections rather than U.S. controlled regional caucuses. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai is elected president of greater Kabul. Despite the administration's inaction, the situation in the Palestinian territories is transformed with the death of Arafat and the election of Abu Mazen. In Ukraine, Bush ally Vladimir Putin's heavy hand, and possibly poisoned soup, helps lead to the Orange Revolution that makes Viktor Yushchenko a global hero. And in Lebanon, it is Syrian bungling in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, not American policy, which ushers in the Cedar Revolution and the possibility of democracy in Beirut.
All of which brings us to George Bush, born-again democrat, Wilsonian idealist on steroids. His Second Inaugural, 2005 State of the Union address, and March 8 speech describe a new American vision that is "determined to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Whether viewed as transformation, revisionism, opportunism or sheer hypocrisy, the Second Inaugural offers perhaps the clearest statement of the third pillar of the latest incarnation of the Bush Doctrine:
The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
The Amen Corner
Like President Bush himself, conservative pundits, propagandists and academics have been transformed into born-again advocates of democratic expansionism. Their history shows that democracy, like fine scotch or caviar, is an acquired taste.
Take neoconservative doyenne Jeane Kirkpatrick. No friend of democracy promotion, it was Reagan�s UN ambassador who in 1979 drew the distinction between totalitarian states like the Soviet Union and merely authoritarian states, which included a host of U.S. allies. In articles like "Dictatorships & Double Standards" (Commentary, November 1979), Kirkpatrick justified American support of repressive, dictatorial regimes as part of the larger struggle against the Soviets and global communism. John Negroponte, Bush�s nominee for the post of National Intelligence Director, was clearly an adherent, turning a blind eye to Honduran death squads while serving as American ambassador there in the early 1980's.
Much of the neocon brain trust showed little interest in prioritizing the expansion of democracy prior to our difficulties in Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz�s famous redacted and retracted draft 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) was a blueprint for American unilateralism that set as its first objective "to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival." On January 26, 1998, the best and brightest of the team at the Project for a New American Century (including Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Elliott Abrams and William Bennett) sent a letter to President Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq. Their mission certainly was not to bring democracy to the Iraqi people:
We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power�We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country.
And where did the conservative punditocracy stand on democracy promotion? Charles Krauthammer in October 1993 defended Mubarak's crackdown in Egypt and the Algerians' attempts to crush the FIS, "It would be not just expedient but right to support undemocratic measures undertaken to avert a far more anti-democratic outcome." And in July 2003, Charles Krauthammer didn�t even give one cheer for the Bush Doctrine. In his July 21, 2003 piece, "Why Did Bush Go to War?", Krauthammer cited the "grave and gathering threat," one that �"ad not yet even fully emerged, Bush was asserting, but nonetheless it had to be faced because it would only get worse."
As for Rich Lowry, he poignantly expressed his concern for the freedom and democratic aspirations of the people of the Muslim world on September 12, 2001, a day after the attacks on the twin towers:
The American response should be closer to something along these lines: identifying the one or two nations most closely associated with our enemies, giving them 24-hours notice to evacuate their capitals (in keeping with our desire to wage war as morally as possible), then systematically destroying every significant piece of military, financial, and political infrastructure in those cities.
Hedonism as Foreign Policy
The short and happy life of the Bush Doctrine, then, is one of political expediency, intellectual dishonesty, and strategic confusion. The United States will punish states providing safe haven to terrorists, except in those countries like Lebanon where we don't. The U.S. will act preemptively against gathering threats from rogue states possessing weapons of mass destruction, especially if they don�t in fact have them, as in Iraq, but not when they shortly will, as in Iran and North Korea. And the U.S. will not merely protect free, democratic states as it has it the past. America will spread democracy around the globe, and end tyranny in our world, unless the world includes China, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and a host of others.
In a nutshell, there is no "Bush Doctrine." Or more accurately, there are many Bush Doctrines. It is whatever you need to it to be. It is the foreign policy hedonism of President Bush and the conservative ascendancy: if it feels good, do it.
Basically,, it's the moronic view of past imperialistic leaders,,, made new by some people who think they figured the world belonged to them..
Republicans have become the laughing stock of the world.. we're just along for the ride,, are you enjoying it?
Accountable;982700 wrote: Have you got somebody in mind to vote for? Try a positive post for a change. Is there a candidate that you can support?
I Just think its sad how the world views regular everyday Americans,, because of the ignorance of the right wing republicans who have won so called free elections and did it by hook and crook,, lies,, and spins over lies and spins,,
They let a lot of good people down,, now idiots can keep voting them in over and over,, it doesn't change that reality...
I already know whose going to win the election,, but I for one want all the republicans to be held Accountable for what they tried to do to America!
DrJ;982704 wrote: I Just think its sad how the world views regular everyday Americans,, because of the ignorance of the right wing republicans who have won so called free elections and did it by hook and crook,, lies,, and spins over lies and spins,,
They let a lot of good people down,, now idiots can keep voting them in over and over,, it doesn't change that reality...
I already know whose going to win the election,, but I for one want all the republicans to be held Accountable for what they tried to do to America!
I guess that was an okay first effort. Keep trying and you'll get it.
leanin' haevy to da right,,,,to da right,,,to da right
facts wrote:
Politicizing the Definition of Crime
With the 2006 mid-term elections looming, the Democratic leadership acted swiftly against the miscreants in its ranks. West Virginia Congressman Alan Mollohan, who directed lobbyist funds to a host of associated non-profits, stepped down from the House ethics committee. On May 25th, Pelosi wrote to Jefferson demanding his immediate resignation from the Ways and Means Committee. Arthur Davis (D-AL) of the Congressional Black Caucus concurred, "If there is significant evidence you've been involved in criminal activity and you misused your office, you stand to be denied privileges in the House."
In contrast, the Republicans have resorted to semantic games to define away the very criminality of their members. This is summed up by the classic "criminalization of politics" sound bite offered by Republican leaders and their amen corner in the conservative media. (Republican silence on their misdeeds is also aided by a second, Plame scandal sound bite, citing an "ongoing investigation.")
The mobilization of the conservative commentariat around the "criminalizing politics" talking point has been complete. In just the latest example, former prosecutor and right wing water carrier Joseph DiGenova called for President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby, and branded Fitzgerald's prosecution of Libby "the epitome of the criminalization of the political process." His fellow travelers have long been singing from the same hymnal. As early as April 2005, Tom Delay attacked the "left-wing syndicate" for "the criminalization of politics." On October 3rd, Delay ally and Karl Rove PlameGate confidant Robert Novak penned a column not coincidentally called "Criminalizing Politics." An October 14th segment on Fox News, always a reliable tool of the Republican Party, featured host Stuart Varney and Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus pressing guest David Corn of The Nation on prosecutor Ronnie Earle's supposed "criminalization of politics" in regard to charges against Tom Delay.
Protecting Their Positions
Of course, the Republicans meet accusations of their own wrongdoing not just with words, but with deeds. Chief among their actions is taking steps to preserve the positions of their threatened partisans.
Former House Majority Tom Delay provides a case in point. After the House Ethics Committee admonished Delay three times in 2004 (including his 2003 use of the FAA to track down renegade Texas Democrats who left the state to avoid a quorum over the Hammer's redistricting plan), the House GOP leadership move to handcuff the ethics process. First, the GOP replaced the committee chairman Joel Hefley with the more agreeable Doc Hastings. Then, the Republican leadership team effectively shut down the ethics committee altogether, preventing it from digging into Delay's voluminous rap sheet. In previous months, the Congressional GOP revised its leadership rules, doing away with previous practice that barred an indicted member from serving as majority leader. Eventually, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert delayed the start of 2006 session of the 109th Congress in the ultimately fruitless hope that Texas courts would throw out the indictments against Delay. It is altogether fitting that Hastert's Republican majority will hold the shortest session since the "Do-Nothing" Republicans of 1948.
The conservatives' circling of the wagons around their ethically challenged extends to the states as well. In Kentucky, Governor Ernie Fletcher has been indicted on charges stemming from a Republican patronage operation he led featuring a group of advisers derisively referred to as "the Disciples." But like Tom Delay, Fletcher has refused to step down, declaring "we're not going to let these folks run us out of town" and imperiling his own Republican majority in the state. Meanwhile in Ohio, Governor Robert Taft, the grandson of "Mr. Republican," remains in office despite pleading guilty to four misdemeanor ethics violations arising from his dealings with CoinGate swindler and convicted Bush Pioneer Tom Noe.
And let's not forget the fanatical rear-guard action by the White House and its allies to protect Karl Rove at all costs. As the scandal over the outing of Valerie Plame broke in the fall of 2003, a coy President Bush concluded on October 7, 2003, "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official." Only two weeks earlier, press secretary Scott McClellan assured White House reporters that Rove had no role, "I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove." (Rove himself denied any involvement to ABC News in 2003.) That, of course, turned out to be untrue.
But despite his 2000 campaign pledges to "uphold the honor and dignity of the office" and to do "not only what is legal, but what is right - not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves," President Bush reversed course on ousting Rove. In June 2004, a confident Bush had answered "Yes" when asked if he would fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name. By July 2005, the standard changed to indictment in an "on-going investigation."
Blocking Investigations
As the Delay case demonstrated, a staple in the Republican corruption playbook is avoiding, halting or misdirecting investigations of any kind. With its effective control of all three branches of government, that approach has been quite successful indeed.
The imbroglio over the 2003 passage of the President's Medicare prescription drug plan offers a compelling example. In 2004, it was revealed that Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, was threatened with dismissal by then-agency chief Thomas Scully if he answered questions from congressional Democrats about the true cost of the Medicare reform bill. (In 2003, Foster estimated the price tag at $550 billion over 10 years, and not the $400 billion as reported to Congress.) But while then HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson launched a cursory investigation, neither the Justice Department nor the Republican Congress chose to act.
This cowardice has been even more pronounced when its come to the unending series of intelligence and civil liberties scandals engulfing the Bush administration. The Bush White House, of course, initially opposed the creation of both the 9/11 Commission and the Robb-Silberman Commission on Iraq WMD before succumbing to public pressure on each. The request for a Justice Department investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame came from the CIA itself. And with the mushrooming domestic spying programs, the NSA has effectively squelched inquiries by both the FCC and the DOJ by denying the needed security clearances for reviewing key classified documents.
In these efforts, the Bush administration has been ably aided and abetted by its allies in Congress. Despite occasional threats from Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, the Republican Congress has given Bush carte blanche on the illegal domestic spying by his National Security Agency. (As of this writing, Specter is backing a bill codifying that abdication of oversight, giving discretion on FISA warrants to the White House and offering amnesty to violators.) In their defense of the administration, GOP Senators Cornyn, Sessions and Roberts have joined in a chorus of "you have no civil liberties if you are dead" in response to calls for investigations.
Kansas Republican Senator Pat Roberts has been especially effective in stonewalling inquiries into the misdeeds of the Bush administration. It was Roberts who led the successful effort by his Senate Intelligence Committee to split its investigation of the uses and misuses of pre-war Iraq intelligence into two phases. While the Committee reported back in the summer of 2004 on the failings of the U.S. intelligence community, Roberts' deferred the so-called "Phase II" report on possible political manipulation of intelligence by the White House until after the 2004 election. Unsurprisingly, that Phase II report has never been delivered, even after Minority Leader Harry Reid took the Senate to closed session in protest.
Denying Access to Records
Another hallmark of Bush-era ethics damage control is withholding access to records that might shed light on Republican wrongdoing.
The comedy of errors over the Jack Abramoff White House visits highlights the lengths to which the administration will go to avoid embarrassing disclosures. Initially, former press secretary Scott McClellan denied GOP uber-lobbyist and Bush Pioneer Abramoff had visited the White House, at least, not for anything other than holiday visits. When Abramoff himself admitted to "dozens of meetings" in an email exchange with the Washingtonian magazine (including visits to Bush with some of his tribal clients later shown in photographs), McClellan began to change course.
Ultimately, a lawsuit by Judicial Watch forced the Secret Service to release its records. Luckily for President Bush, the Secret Service earlier changed its methods for recording White House visits and as a result, showed only two Abramoff trips. As TPMMuckraker details, perhaps dozens of other Abramoff visits are detailed in yet-to-be released White House CD ROMs now in storage in the National Archives.
The Abramoff logs, of course, aren't the only embarrassing records of inappropriate White House visits still being withheld by the Bush team. 18 months after the fact, Americans still don't know how often male escort-turned-faux journalist Jeff Gannon journeyed to the White House. Moreover, we still don't know who authorized Gannon's unprecedented press credentials in the first place.
(It is worth contrasting Bush's stonewalling with the Clinton White House. The Clinton team provided detailed records of the controversial Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers, as well as information central to the Lewinsky affair.)
Size Matters
The isolated cases of Jefferson and Mollohan show that Republican corruption and the party's response to it doesn't merely differ in kind, but in degree. The sheer scale of wrongdoing by the governing Republican majority is simply unmatched politically - or historically.
In Congress, the taint of Republican scandal extends far beyond Tom Delay. Ohio Congressman Bob Ney is, after all, "Representative #1" in the Abramoff case. San Diego Republican Duke Cunningham is now serving 8 years in prison for taking 2.4 million in bribes from defense contractor MZM and its bagmen Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes. And while Wilkes' poker and prostitute parties at the Watergate may yet claim several more GOP Congressman, Wade's illegal campaign contributions have already implicated Florida's Katherine Harris and Virginia's Virgil Goode. In addition, California Rep. Jerry Lewis is under the microscope for directing lobbyist dollars to a PAC run by his daughter. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist still faces an SEC investigation into potential insider trading even as revelations show Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert leveraged federal highway funds to drive profits from real estate deals back in his home district in Illinois. (It's no wonder Hastert protested so vigorously when the FBI raided Democrat Jefferson's Capitol Hill office.)
Within the Bush administration, conspiracy and criminality are hardly restricted to Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. Former GSA official David Safavian was convicted on four of five charges for his role Jack Abramoff's schemes. Porter Goss' #3 man at the CIA Kyle Foggo stepped down after his role in the Watergate prostitute parties and MZM came to light. Philip Cooney, the former head of the White House Office of Environmental Quality and a one-time petroleum industry lobbyist, resigned and headed to Exxon Mobil after it was revealed he personally doctored reports to downplay global warming. Meanwhile, Bush senior domestic policy advisor Claude Allen resigned after his arrest for credit fraud at Target and other stores. And this laundry list doesn't even include the pedophiles (DHS press secretary Brian Doyle), the negligent (FEMA's Michael Brown) and the unqualified (Immigration and Customs Enforcement head Julie Myers.)
Over on K Street, the GOP project of Tom Delay and Rick Santorum to make Washington's army of lobbyists an appendage of the Republican Party promises to produce more jailbirds. Jack Abramoff and his associate Michael Scanlon are already in jail. Another Abramoff golfing partner and colleague is none other than former Christian Coalition wunderkind Ralph Reed, who helped extract millions from tribal casino clients. One-time Ney aide Neil Volz has also been brought low, pleading guilty in May for his role in Abramoff-related schemes. Meanwhile, former Delay aides Tony Rudy and Edwin Buckham face legal scrutiny for conspiracy and skimming from Delay's non-profit USA Family Network, respectively. (With the Delay clan, corruption is a family affair; in 2001, Delay's wife and daughter hauled in over $500,000 from his political action and campaign committees.) And Grover Norquist, the man who sought to shrink government to the point where he could "drown it in a bathtub," may himself be in hot water for his Abramoff schenanigans.
Back in the states, indicted or convicted Republicans such as Kentucky's Fletcher and Ohio's Taft find their approval ratings falling off the charts. And in California, Arnold Schwarzenegger faces reelection under the cloud of a conflict of interest scandal involving $8 million in payments he received from a bodybuilding publication, all while blocking legislation to regulate vitamin supplements it featured.
The list of Banana Republicans goes on and on, and even includes Bush fundraisers and friends like Tom Noe and Enron's Ken Lay. Which of them will go to prison and what impact their corruption will have on the 2006 mid-term election remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: there most certainly is a Culture of Corruption and the Republican Party is its home.
—Perrspective 11:00 PM Permalink Comments
That is an amazing Republican rap sheet. It should be on the lips of every Democrat.
Posted by Jim_in_Jacksonville at June 21, 2006 12:55 PM
Wow, they truly have no shame, no morals, no ethics.
Great work - linking to it here and here, if you don't mind.
Posted by Flamethrower at June 22, 2006 06:54 AM
The slowness of Fitzgeralds investigation is a political statement. He had enough information proir to the 2004 election to keep GWB from getting a second term of office as President. His not publishing that information was a political statement in itself.
What Fitzgerald seemingly doesn't get is that everything he does has political implications. What he determines to reveal or not reveal has a profound effect on American politics.
In a case like this, taking a stand for moral values is the right thing to do.
Fitzgerald has not done this. He is a shill for the Republicans performing damage control on a sinking ship.
Posted by John at June 22, 2006 07:31 AM
I just heard this stupid braying idiot of a woman, Cheri Jacobus, on UK Channel 4 News and it made me extremely angry and once again embarrassed to be an American. If there was any justice, which we know there isn’t, any one seeing her stupid gurning grinning made up American bimbo-ette face and hearing her ignorant facile so called “commentary†on the American presidential campaign, put downs of Obama and glowing tributes to the religious zealot Republican VP nominee lady governor of Alaska, would be utterly convinced that the only possible candidate to vote for is Obama. I swear this sort of commentator makes my blood boil.
"Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of `anticipatory self-defense.'" -- New York Times, Sept. 12
WASHINGTON -- Informed her? Rubbish.
The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.
Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden ... to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.
If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about Bush's grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.
Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.
Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.
yaaarrrgg;967489 wrote: Well, guess what ... McCain isn't in your family, His father didn't live past 70.
Reagan was showing signs of dementia at the end of his term. McCain is already showing some signs of senility. That's relevant to the job.
You avoided my question too. I think you know the self-professed "hockey mom" can't handle two wars as well as Biden could. Why else would you evade the question? You also know there's a real chance she might be called to do so. Acting like this is a non-issue is self-delusional.
I like Biden a lot. He is cool under pressure. Best of all he rides Amtrak every day. My pension comes in part from Amtrak. McCain has tried to kill
Amtrak. bush said he wanted Amtrak to go broke so private industry could take it over. We need 'Amtrak as well as airlines and buses.
Here's a letter written to bush,,by neo cons,, before the Iraq invasion,,
Check the signatures and get a rope!
These are the lambs committing our lions to an unnessessary war....
so Bush Lied and 4000 died,,,
Sir charles has a dog in this fight,,
she should have known something about the "bush doctrine"
she doesn't know anything,,. you right wing numb nut,,
check your sources teach,,,
facts wrote:
September 20, 2001
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President,
We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”
In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.
Osama bin Laden
We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.
Iraq
We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.
Hezbollah
Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.
Israel and the Palestinian Authority
Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.
U.S. Defense Budget
A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.
There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.
Sincerely,
William Kristol
Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett
Everyone knows where the republicans stand,,, and it's not anywhere near the people of this country,,,
facts wrote:
Democrats on the Hill have won a significant victory, as the White House and congressional Republicans baulked at voting to lose hundreds of thousands of construction jobs at the same time as they were shoring up financial insitutions.
Two months after the White House called a highway trust fund rescue plan a “gimmick†and threatened a presidential veto, President Bush is expected to sign legislation infusing $8 billion into the financially teetering fund that supports road and bridge projects around the country.
That change of heart came after the administration acknowledged last week that the trust fund, which derives its revenues from the federal gas tax, was going broke much faster than anticipated and that Washington would have to begin delaying payments to states for construction work as early as this month.
That could have meant the loss of thousands of high-paying construction jobs just weeks before the election.
“I’m glad the Republicans came to their senses — you can’t play politics with 300,000 jobs when we’re in a recession,†said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The House on Thursday voted 376-29 on the measure to transfer $8 billion from the Treasury’s general fund to shore up the 52-year-old highway trust fund. The Senate approved the measure by a voice vote on Wednesday after several Republicans who had held up the legislation for months agreed to let it go forward.
… The American Road and Transportation Builders Association, using Transportation Department figures, said that without the fix federal highway aid to the states would drop from $35 billion in the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30 to $24 billion in the next fiscal year 2009. It estimated that 379,000 jobs would be lost without congressional action.
Yes, this will be deficit spending. At this point of the Bush administration’s dying days, pretty much everything is deficit spending. But the situation, I feel, is analogous to the “kitchen table†problem of being $1,000 in the hole on your credit card. At that point, spending a couple of bucks to take the bus to work and earn a paycheck is vastly preferable to just throwing those bucks at the massive debt. A small amount of deficit spending to keep people in jobs, especially blue-collar workers, and so stimulate the economy from the bottom up is far better than not doing so.
That the White House and Republican legislators didn’t see it that way and were quite prepared to shaft those workers until Democrats started connecting that to the massive financial bailout currently underway speaks volumes about where their true loyalties lie.
They would sacrifices all Americans to get their campaign money,, I mean thats a natural thing,, they work for the business end of America,,, it's the people that needs to become aware and put someone else in there,, that has more interest in doing the regular peoples business,,,,
research your vote,, find out exactly what happen in your name,, pay attention,,, this country needs more regular folk in leadership positions,, Tell the rich with your vote,, to get out of govt. if all they can do is take care of people that are well off,, while screwing the rest of the country,, like the people that can't afford gas, or can barely get by,, it's been the most shameful 7 yrs I've ever seen,, I can't believe Christians voted these right wing conservatives in,, and to the ones that are defending them,, they ought to be ashamed of themselves,,
Okie;983444 wrote: I like Biden a lot. He is cool under pressure. Best of all he rides Amtrak every day. My pension comes in part from Amtrak. McCain has tried to kill
Amtrak. bush said he wanted Amtrak to go broke so private industry could take it over. We need 'Amtrak as well as airlines and buses.
Doesn't Amtrak lose money? If it does, why do we need to keep it as is when private industry can do it better and cheaper?
Hoss;983448 wrote: Can you show me evidence of McCain's people circulating information that he did not know where he was at and forgets what to say? I find that very difficult to believe, not that your lying, but that it's false and we haven’t found the source yet.
I think it's very easy to believe. Obama does it all the time. At the convention via satellite he said he was in St Louis first then Kansas City when his daughter asked him again. Hitting one or two cities every day, day after day ... you're bound to forget where you are sometimes.
DrJ;983450 wrote: she doesn't know anything,,. you right wing numb nut,,check your sources teach,,,
:wah: This from a guy that copies and pastes by the pound, yet fails to link a single site. Afraid to show us your sources, Doc?
Accountable;983566 wrote: :wah: This from a guy that copies and pastes by the pound, yet fails to link a single site. Afraid to show us your sources, Doc?
By the pound? Crooksandliars.com-and why good people are sucked in by them.
Don't the right use the "privatizing" argument for medical treatment of veterans as well? How's that been goin'? I believe any idea from the right needs more study in the light,,, Sometimes less govt. means more crooks,,than liars..
Here's a quarter pounder for ya,,Teach!
The "Sarah" effect has worked very well for the republican ticket so far,,, but it really had only one direction it could have possibly gone,,, I believe this is merely a fad that will fade as fast as it came,, the strategy of lies,, will bite the right wing ticket here fairly quick,, the media subscribes to polls religiously,, it's a topic of discussion as to the future unknown,, I remember the polls in a new hampshire primary had Obama up by 10,,, Hillary trounced him,,, How could the sooth-saying polls be wrong?
As far as raising taxes goes,, it is going to happen no matter who gets in,, if McCain wins the poor and Middle class will pay more,,, I believe the "trickle down" philosophy has shown America in its maturity,, as the match that started the fire,,,,,,,,,
WALL ST IS BURNING!
facts wrote:
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor tells Fortune columnist Matt Miller in a forthcoming book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, that the next President is simply going to have to raise taxes.
“If you do nothing on the spending side, you’re going to have to raise taxes whether you’re a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian,” he tells Miller…and then he immediately makes it clear that the “spending side” part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf.
“It’s arithmetic.” Federal revenue today is 18.8 percent of GDP and federal spending is 20 percent. Holtz-Eakin observes that “the pressure are there” to lift spending [on entitlement programs, mostly] and taxes to 23 or 24 percent of GDP by around 2020, and to as much as 27 percent if health costs remain out of control.
Miller does the arithmetic: that’s an annual tax hike of $550 to $700 billion, well beyond the range of any spending cuts that McCain has or might propose. (Those vaunted earmarks cost about $20 billion per year.)
So how come, with this guy on board, the McCain campaign is still pushing tax cuts and more tax cuts even if they are fiscal suicide?
“It’s the brand,” he said, “and you don’t dilute the brand.”
How’s that for cynical? Of course, the book isn’t out until after the elections.
Klein may well think Holz-Eakin is ‘an honest man”, but to me he looks like just another Republican hack willing to deceive about McCain’s economic policies and their impact. He has been doing the rounds of the likes of Forbes magazine pushing McCain’s tax-cut budget and while admitting that it’s “not exactly revenue-neutral,” saying that it’s a pro-business plan. However, he also told the wonks at the Center for American Progress that McCain’s plan would “make deficits expand up front, no question”. Expert economists at the the Center for American Progress Action Fund seriously questioned McCain’s deficit-funded corporate-welfare budget because in the short-run such tax cuts are the least cost-effective stimulus among 13 options, andin the medium or longer-run, the effect on growth of deficit-financed tax cuts “tends to be small”.
Obama, of course, says that his greater tax breaks for the less well off would be paid for by tax increases on those in upper tax brackets, especially those earning over $600,000 a year. Anderson Cooper recently explained the differences in tax proposals very simply on CNN:
I don't understand how anyone can say,, with a straight face,, McCain/Palin are the best America has to offer,, the right has lost it's way,, the republican party needs to go away,, find a better con to tell people thats a little closer to the truth..
Christians who support these people clearly have to be going in with their eyes firmly shut.. It's the only reasonable explanation to support people with so many honesty issues...
facts wrote:
I recently received the following email from the McCain campaign, titled “Shameful Attacks”:
Friends,
You’ve surely seen the shameful attacks Senator Obama and his liberal allies have launched against our vice presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin.
Even before our national convention, the Obama campaign dispatched what The Wall Street Journal called a “mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers” to Alaska to dig up dirt for their personal attacks on Governor Palin and her family. FactCheck.org has called the attacks on Governor Palin, “completely false” and “misleading.” However, the Obama Democrats continue to launch these attacks, hoping you’ll never find out the truth.
These misleading, offensive attacks must be stopped.
Factcheck.org was on Hardball this week, and in a very non-partisan manner debunked McCain’s claims:
From a man who just recently approved the most misleading and sleazy attack ad of the entire political season. Second, the very same FactCheck.org website that John McCain cites in his email has a new post up today saying that McCain’s attack ad is distorted their finding.
For McCain to say that “these misleading, offensive attacks must be stopped” is downright ridiculous. But then again, it’s becoming clearer every day that McCain’s strategy consists of lying and lying, hoping that the media and fact-checkers can’t keep up. It’s gonna be a long, tedious two months. Buckle your seat belts.
McCain is clearly the worst liar I have ever seen the republican party roll out..
They must have made a deal back in 2000 when he conceded to what was then,,, the soon to be,, worst President in the history of America,,,,,,,,bar none... I bet the RNC wish they could re-nig on the deal made to Mac....
I can see them with their eyes shut and fingers crossed the rest of the way,, hoping for disaster after disaster,, hurricane after hurricane,, to take time off the media clock,, till erection day..
Hoss;975506 wrote: I mean no disrespect to anyone in particular; please realize that before we go any further.
Pro Choice means that you advocate a woman’s right to choose abortion if she so chooses. Abortion ends life. Pro-choice allows the choice of ending life. Those two cannot coexist. Sorry.
The world is not so black and white, there is a middle way where abortion is available if medically necessary but not on whim - under your terms I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice because both are extreme positions that I find morally unsupportable.
Snidely Whiplash;975539 wrote: Barrack Obama voted for allowing living babies that were from botched abortions to be put on a shelf in a soiled linen closet and left to die, and voted to make it unlawful for those living babies to have any medical care.... In his own words he defended letting living born babies die by saying, giving them medical care might contridict the wishes of the mother who chose an abortion..... Thats called euthanasia, and Barrack Obama was the "ONLY" senator in the entire senate that voted yes to this......
This guy is so radical in his views, there seems no limits to what he could possibly do if given enough political power......
Could you possibly post a verifiable link to this please?
Hoss;975617 wrote: I think any man who hits a woman let alone rapes a woman has just forfeited all right to humanity and should be killed on the spot. I’m not sure what you’re talking about as 'crap', I was serious in all that I wrote. I may not ever get to be a dad, which I hope someday I will be, but I'm human and I have feelings on this issue. I was born and I have a mother. I’m glad I was born, and I almost wasn't! My mom had eclampsia, and almost died giving birth to me because she thought I was more important than he own life. I can be grateful for that and I can know how a baby might feel in retrospect.
I'm sorry my words upset you.
Yes, the man who raped the woman has forfeited all rights to humanity - but where does that leave the woman?
A woman becomes pregnant in good faith but, due to a medical condition she did not know she had, will die if she tries to carry the foetus to term resulting in the loss of both lives - what then?
The world is a complex place and simple yes no answers are rarely the complete answer.
Accountable;983563 wrote: Doesn't Amtrak lose money? If it does, why do we need to keep it as is when private industry can do it better and cheaper?
In the early 1960s we had a guy who thought the same way, his name was Dr. Richard Beeching and the Beeching Plan has been cursed ever since as the worst thing ever to happen to our transport infrastructure.
Then in the 1990s the government decided that wholesale de-nationalisation was the answer and the results are nearly as bad.
Whilst I admit that the wide open spaces of the USA might make it a different situation to the UK I would recommend that you take a time out before ploughing ahead with dismembering the rail system.
Anyone who thinks this election is about abortion is living in the dark ages,, and aren't paying enough attention to whats happening to this country... Under a conservative trickle down philosophy,, the money is supposed to trickle down thru the rich to the middle class and poor,, instead of money trickling down,, the pain of the poor is trickling up,, I don't feel sorry for none of them...
i think people that don't truly realize what the stakes are,, should only get a half a vote,, all their doing is guessing and what's the chance of them making an informed choice in the last 60 days?
You can tell who understands how politics effect everyday citizens,, their the ones that aren't relying on the wedge to decide,, those that for whatever reason aren't interested in politics,, will latch on to those extreme opinions,, there much easier to discuss and form opinions on...
I don't mean to hurt anyones feelings,, i know people that flat don't have the time it takes to understand what everything means to them,,
All I know is what I've learned by living life,,,
When I was married and having babies,, I was pro=life,, when my 14 yr old daughter got pregnant,, I was pro choice,, and I would have done what i had to do,, to make sure my daughter had a choice,, since I had 2 of mine before 20..
I know this,, Republicans have been in power for the last 8,, and choice is still there,, so that tells me,, it will always be....
Wall st has been run into the ground by these incompetent conservatives,, it's time to let someone else try it,, see if thwey can do any better..
I can't take away a choice from a woman,, if I don't ever have to make that choice.
I say buy the babies,, and you will end abortion,, put your money where your mouth is,, because politics will never change it...
Hoss;985940 wrote: All I see in what you wrote is that you’re a man of shifting principles, unstable, and situational ethics rule your life.
I realized early on I was merely a work in progress,, but to inflict my way upon you, I wouldn't think of it,, maybe the ignorance of any man is measured by how much we assume everyone should be exactly the same,, I'm good,, everyone not like me,, is bad,,, the morons of a society are those that think our invidual values should all be the same,, rigid beliefs lead to many of lifes many mistakes,, in fact rigidity is something more suited for machines,,
The Christian right has always been a cult who claim Christ as a leader,, religious fundamentalist of any country should be judged accordingly,, just as we judge other religions,, the right wing are usually the nuts,,, who believe they,, and only they have been blessed with the answers,, and the lessons of life, a god given life, completely taken out of the equasion,, I believe they are wrong....
Jesus the Jew,, shun by his own,, Why?
Maybe it was because he couldn't hand them the monopoly on GOD they felt they deserved,,, an equasion right wing Christians ought to study,,
Check the cult in action,, do you recognize anyone?
Is this what your calling Christianity?
Lies are understood,, the end justifies the means,,
This is total brain washing,, any who know people that have bought into this,, this is a cult,, a lie!
YOU NEED TO HELP THIS PERSON!
facts wrote:
The Woman in A Mink Coat
By Joan Bokaer Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 08:49:19 AM EST print story
The year was 1986. I was on a speaking tour of Iowa, talking about the Religious Right's support for nuclear weapons. As usual, after the talk several people approached me. But this time one woman stood out. She was wearing a mink coat. I remember her because it wasn't often in the nuclear disarmament movement that you see someone wearing a mink coat, especially indoors. As she spoke to me, she was visibly shaking, fighting to hold back tears. She said that she couldn't bear to go to Republican Party meetings anymore and handed me a memo from Pat Robertson. It read:
How to Participate in a Political Party
Rule the world for God.
Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
Hide your strength.
Don't flaunt your Christianity.
Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions, God willing.
topic: All Topics
I was to see Pat Robertson in person two years later when he was running for President. We were both speaking in the same hotel in Manchester, New Hampshire. After my talk, I slipped into the room where he was speaking to his supporters. I just remember two things: the venom and the numbers. He talked about those "homosexuals" and "feminists" with such fury that the words came out of his mouth like venom. He was scary.
But his speech was mostly about numbers. He gave a date, then subtracted another date, then added something ... I had no idea where all this addition and subtraction was leading until he came to the sum and his eyes lit up. The final tally came to the number 666 -- the mark of the Beast. That's all I remember of that event - the venom and the numbers.
Soon after his numbers speech in Manchester, Robertson pulled off a coup. He actually beat Vice President George HW Bush in the Republican Iowa caucuses for President, 1988. He lost the primaries soundly, but his upset in Iowa should have been a wake-up call. But it wasn't. At least not for me. Robertson was defeated.
One year later the Moral Majority disbanded. The Moral Majority was created in 1979 by Republican strategists to swell the ranks of the Republican Party by recruiting members of fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches. Political strategist Paul Weyrich, who coined the term "Moral Majority" stated the movement's goals:
We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel in a political context.
These political operatives worked hand-in-hand with religious leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye who wanted to use the Republican Party to promote their religious beliefs. But in 1989 the Moral Majority disbanded.
Surely the movement had peaked, and I could focus on better things. Right?
Coming next - The Christian Coalition takes working control of the Republican Party
***
[ed: Joan Bokaer's four part series is:
The Woman in A Mink Coat,
While We Were Sleeping,
Angels on A Pinhead
Under Cover Of Night]
The Woman in A Mink Coat | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden)
"Rule the World For God" (none / 0)
That, right there in a nutshell, is the ultimate goal of the Dominionists. That little memo was their marching orders, and they are still following them today.
Our goal should be to yank the deliberately deceptive sheepskin off these people, and reveal them for the Dominionists that they are. With the Internet and all the other resources at out disposal today, there is no reason why any candidate for office cannot be thoroughly vetted and unveiled as another Dominionist foot soldier.
We can make it impossible for them to continue to use this stealth tactic to gain more power if we apply ourselves. It might be like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, but in doing so, we can prevent more damage.
by Lorie Johnson on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:38:56 AM EST
This is all very scary (none / 0)
and the more I hear about it the scarier it seems. However, it also seems to me that the mainstream culture is further and further from this. It seems to me that so much of the dominionist movement is insidious because it does operate in "stealth" mode. That said, it also seems as if they suffer setbacks when they finally come out and operate in the open. It seems to me that mainstream America doesn't really take the threat seriously and are consequently pretty apathetic. I wonder how long that would last once the dominionists actually did start passing social control legislation. Their business and environmental legislation is certainly what is desired by the corporate branch of the party, so that's not likely to create the same general hue and cry.
by montpellier on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:51:30 AM EST
They have to be stealthy (none / 0)
Dominionists have to be stealthy and deceptive until they gain power because if they came into the game already flying the Jolly Roger, they'd be immediately torpedoed. The bottom line, and one which we must address is this:
Most people do not mind religious faith- unless it is imposed upon them legally. That is what the Dominionists seek to do: impose a 'biblically based' legal system upon this country. They've already made inroads with state constitutions- making it illegal for same-sex couples to enjoy the advantages of civil marriage, and the law that Texas just passed is so restrictive (and punitive) that it actually anulls heterosexual civil marriages, too.
Dominionists are very punitive and legalistic in their form of rule. Providing for the needs of the poor, helping people get a leg up, caring for children, providing public education and other social programs are on the bottom of their list of governence- if they're there at all. Punishing 'evildoers', removing women from the public sphere, creating Christian citizens, and persecuting certain minorities are much higher on their lists. Reading their agenda is like reading a fundementalist's wet dream. It's very ugly and punitive.
We're the frogs in that cauldron. It's time to hop out of it.
by Lorie Johnson on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 10:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder (none / 0)
I wonder how these people could have no idea that they are being used by greedy business types who have so little care for what they believe in. The only thing I can think of is hate. They all hate the some of the same things so they work hand in hand.
by Grumpymann on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:21:58 PM EST
I used to wonder, too. (none / 0)
And then it occurred to me that they weren't the poor victims. In fact, I suspect they are using each other and, for some at least , in a cynical way. The corporate/neocon wing would have had trouble taking over so completely without the support of the religious Right. On the other hand, I suspect that the dominionists would have had far less success in pushing their agenda without an administration anxious to keep them happy and inflame their prejudices in order to get their votes.
There also seems to be some overlap between the groups, at least in terms of leadership. The influential groups, and leaders such a Robertson, Dobson et al., are big business, money-making machines. Power seems to be the goal with the hate perhaps more instrumental.
Although I sense we all share some pessimism about containing this real threat to democracy, it is the symbiotic nature of the relationship that may be a source of hope. If the political Right implodes - as seems to be happening - and moderates and progressives are able to achieve a balance of power, the faith-based wing will lose considerable clout. It also appears that the religious Right has been emboldened to over-reach (Schiavo, Supreme Court nominations, ID battles) and this could alienate moderates who might have been tempted to be sympathetic to, or at least tolerant of, their goals.
Perhaps a combination of political action to change the balance in congress and education of the public to reveal the dangers of the dominionists would be most effective.
by Psyche on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 01:38:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that is wise advice (none / 0)
"Perhaps a combination of political action to change the balance in congress and education of the public to reveal the dangers of the dominionists would be most effective."
And there are - as always - devils lurking in details.
by Bruce Wilson on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 02:32:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
intersting annecdote, Joan (none / 0)
Around the same time, I was getting calls from Republicans around the country with similar stories to tell. They were horrified and grief stricken much like your woman in the mink coat. Their GOP precinct groups were being systematically taken over and, Christian Right activists were installed as officers. And then they moved on the county and statewide GOP organizations.
Looking forward to more of your story!
by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:55:25 PM EST
)
Joan writes:
Surely the movement had peaked, and I could focus on better things. Right?
Southern Baptists have been waiting for the fundamentalist takeover of the Convention to peak for more than 25 years.
Baptists kept waiting for the pendulum to swing back to the center. Instead, the center of Southern Baptist life shifted to the right. Here's a link to a chart about the pendulum in Baptist life.
The same thing is happening in this country. The only difference is that moderate Baptists were willing to leave their denomination. How many moderate and progressive Americans will be willing to leave their country?
I look forward to seeing your article about the Christian Coalition.
by Mainstream Baptist on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:58:48 PM EST
What will Roberton do to the rest of us? (none / 0)
If Pat Robertson (or rather, his supporters) did actually manage to win the white house one day, what would be done to non-Christian citizens of the United States?
Back in the 1990's, I did not really have any fear of a "TV preacher" and his flock. Now, I am beginning to worry about what people such as the supporters of Robertson's CBN and of Jerry Falwell would do to those of us who do not subscribe to their path of faith.
If they had the power to, would the 'Dominionists' detain all non-Christians as political prisoners? Or worse, would they stoop to creating a "Final Solution" scenario like the Nazis once did 60-65 years ago?
by Heathen1 on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:06:36 PM EST
Oh (none / 0)
I have to say it was a very lucky thing that this man didn't become president, it would have been scary. Not exactly the kind of prson one would like to see rule a powerful place like the US.
Jared, Programmer currently working on the hoodia appetite project.
by Jared B on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 04:17:44 AM EST
We are all but GOD on earth in pieces!
Separated by shadows,, cast to present the Illusion of a challenge,,
Hoss & I myself have discussed abortion issues here in this thread and we're not in the dark ages - so you may want to bite the bit here with you implying we're idiots.
I'm worried about Roe v Wade
If one is Pro Life - the concern for the fetus
what about the concern for the pregnant woman? If this law is reversed, then women will continue to seek out means to abort - like back in the '50's (dark ages)
so is Pro Life - save the fetus/baby and let the woman bleed to death in a alley
what about the womans life & choice??
I'm dark skinned - I'm not in the dark ages Thank You..
Hoss & I myself have discussed abortion issues here in this thread and we're not in the dark ages - so you may want to bite the bit here with you implying we're idiots.
I'm worried about Roe v Wade
If one is Pro Life - the concern for the fetus
what about the concern for the pregnant woman? If this law is reversed, then women will continue to seek out means to abort - like back in the '50's (dark ages)
so is Pro Life - save the fetus/baby and let the woman bleed to death in a alley
what about the womans life & choice??
I'm dark skinned - I'm not in the dark ages Thank You..
Patsy
That's not exactly my point,, my point was that if roe-v wade shadows every other issue you think of in the voting booth,, I Believe,, this is just me now,, I think you are ignoring a lot of other issues that can ruin America for regular everyday people far quicker than letting woman choose,,,
This is a political thread,,correct?
I believe roe/wade shouldn't be in the voting process,, it should be in the personal choice column,, what we teach our children,, changing the law wouldn't end abortions,, it would merely make it harder on those without money,,
Changing the law wouldn't change gun ownership,, it would merely stop people from registering their guns...
The right have been in power,,, politics will never change anything..
Dark ages,,,,,,,it's just a term that describes the right wings con on those who still believe anything will ever change,, "almost" is as close as it will ever get..
