ouch
 

what's worse is that i would actually like to see some more Dems get elected to senate in '06, and I'd like an actually electable Dem candidate in '08- and it ain't going to happen.

GGG- do YOU want bet about board sponsorship for Dec '08?

ouch
 

Oh and as to your party icons:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42464


It might actually be that it was an embarassment for Michael Moore to sit next To Mr. Carter at the convention.

Bush's inaugural speech
 

You've moved the bar. The question was: "What have we done to promote democracy?" _not_ "Have we succeeded yet in transforming any country from an authoritarian state to a functioning, Western-style democracy in the past three years?"

The answer to the second question is negative, of course, but its not a realistic question. Iraq and Afghanistan are clearly positive answers to the first question: Two authoriarian dictatorships -- one modern & secular, and one theocratic & non-modern -- have been overturned. Structures are in place in both countries to ultimately lead to a modified parliamentary system. Afgahnistan is further along.

As to Palestine -- several things come to mind (in terms of promoting democracy). You're right that Arafat's death was pre-condition for progress, but that's because he simply refused to change, and it doesn't mean we didn't try to promote democracy.

One key piece was freezing out Arafat completely -- making it clear that we would _never_ deal with the lying, corrupt, terrorist authoritarian. That helped force change by (1) changing the dynamics -- the Palestinian leadership couldn't spin their wheels and b.s. anymore, or use us against Israel -- and (2) by providing support for the anti-corruption crusaders in the PA. We also strongly supported Queria (SP?) and Abbas -- privately even more than publicly. The CIA served and serves an important role as a liason between the Israelis and the Palestinian security services -- helping them work together when the Palestinians wish to do so. We've encouraged Egypt to take an active role in maintaining peace and security in the Gaza Strip after the Israeli withdrawal. They've beefed up border security _and_ have agreed to help train new PA security forces in Gaza after the withdrawal (counter-weight to Hamas).

You might ask what the military and intelligence efforts have to do with promoting democracy. In my view they are key to setting the conditions to move towards a meaningful democracy and a functioning Palestinian state.

As to what we do generally to promote democracy -- I'm not being a wiseacre when I say "google it." Even with the unfortunate cutbacks in our U.S.-sponsored foreign radio programming, we have several government agencies dedicated to providing aid and spreading democratic ideals throughout the world. (I don't know if the budgets add up to much more than a couple of billion dollars, but their work is meaningful.)

To say "we've done it for fifty years," or "we're not doing it for altruistic reasons" is rather beside the point.

S_A_M

Bush's inaugural speech
 

This is your (meaning you SAM) POTY.

Danish Abuse Iraqis
 

First the Brits, now the Danish: http://reuters.myway.com/article/200...ABUSE-DC.html.

Funny, how is this one Rummy's fault?

Bush's inaugural speech
 

Thanks, but don't get too choked up.

I'm still not convinced that we should have invaded Iraq (especially in the absence of WMD). I'm too risk-averse -- and that was/is a truly enormous risk with the prospect of a corresponding reward hazy and long-term at best. (I may also have trouble with "the vision thing.")

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

Bush's inaugural speech
 

That's a rational position.

Danish Abuse Iraqis
 

Club, we can see you're not a Fashion Board guy. Rummy invented it, of course it's his work.

ouch
 

Oh, you mean this guy?

Bush's inaugural speech
 

I don't think that's fair at all. Look at my post, and you'll see that in places like Ukraine and Palestine, my question was, what have we done? Not, what was the result, but what have we done?

If you look back at my post, you'll see I acknowledged what's happened in both countries. Although perhaps I'm less optimistic than you are about what's going to happen. Because neither country's government has authority throughout its territory.

Clearly, Iraq and Afghanistan are different cases, because installing a new government is easier if you actually go in militarily to remove the prior government.

It's not clear to me that freezing out Arafat forced any change, since the election happened only when he died. Not that I'm saying there weren't good reasons to freeze him out. The other things you mention are nice, but isn't there any part of our foreign policy that isn't about setting conditions for people around the world to move towards a meaningful democracy? 'Cause free trade and security both do that.

If you're saying that we're going to keep doing all of the things we've been doing for fifty years, that's fine and good. I just figured that for a subject that's the centerpiece of the Bush inaugural, there be something else there, but I guess not.

I wasn't trying to suggest that we do nothing to promote democracy. Duh. It's just that we often put those principles on the back shelf while something else is on the front burner, and so I wanted to know what Bush was going to different. You seem to be saying, not much. Maybe he just didn't have any other big ideas to talk about.

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

What the hell is the "International Republican Institute?" A place to keep GOP pollsters off the streets between elections?

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

I don't know, but it was good enough for WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan20.html

Speech
 

I haven't seen it yet, but my girl Peggy didn't like it:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110006184

Well it's not a 100% so it must be a failure
 

I was just making a joke, but this post has a lot more from and about that poll.