Kerry on the war on terror
 

Are you awake?

we can't send troops into a friendly country where the government says no. believe me, if we could, invading French Canada and cleaning up its terror cells would be going on right now.

Kerry on the war on terror
 

Okay. That's a step. I think we, as a country have agreed somewhat that some of our liberties have to be curtailed to increase safety. Although, I think Ashcroft and Bush have gone a little overboard, I'm not going to go nuts because if they're going to err on this front, it should be on the side of safety.

The problem is, they count on that. They have been using it to get themselves re-elected. Whether it be Cheney using the art of the soundbite to get the message across that if you don't vote for them, you're putting us all in danger, to having the convention in New York and playing up 9/11 as often as possible (and if I see Giuliani one more time sucking Bush's dick, I'm going to lose it). I think it is dishonest and disgusting.

It wouldn't be so bad if what he was doing overseas made sense. Maybe I would be able to give him the benefit of the doubt on domestic safety issues if he wasn't so full of shit about Iraq. But he is full of it when it comes to foreign policy. And then he turns around and wraps himself in the bodies of the people who died on 9/11, while trying his best to keep you scared. Don't question him. Don't criticize him. He knows how people think. Follow, follow, follow. Don't think. Follow.

TM

Kerry on the war on terror
 

Arghhh. There is no such thing as French Canada. The name of the province is Quebec. Many francophones live in other parts of the country. If you mean Quebec, say it. If you say French Canada, you are referring to the entire country.

This lack of precision really pisses me off for reasons I don't fully understand, no offense Hank.

Kerry on the war on terror
 

If they're so friendly, why would we need to send troops in? If they're harboring terrorists, they're "against us." W's failure to act shows that he is incapable of successfully waging a war on terror. He is a flip-flopping equivocator.

Kerry on the war on terror
 

Your treasonous questioning of the decisions of the President during a time of war and while troops are at risk is shameful. It also has been noted by the authorities.

Kerry on the war on terror
 

Rappelez-vous Deerfield ! Descendez avec la Nouvelle France !

Got Crack?
 

Kerry on the war on terror
 

I noted the internal contradiction when I wrote that post. Bush's plan has a flaw in it - it assumes the radicals will fight in their own yard and never look over here again. To a degree, Iraq is an effective distraction to keep the crazies busy. Loads of Arabs who'd be training in camps to attack us are instead working for freelancers like Zarqawi in Iraq. Bush is betting that the extremists will always take the easier avenue. Its a short sighted plan, but it does work a quick fix for a little while.

I think Bush's plan might have been near sighted, but I think that Iraq, combined with Afghanistan, have kept the terrorists either disjointed or on the run. Thats bought us some short term security. How long that will last is another question. My suspicion is not long.

But none of this changes the fact that we haven't been attacked in 3 years, for which Bush does deserve credit. And it cannot be disproved that the Iraq distraction did not play a part in keeping such attacks from our shores.

I disagree that Bush just wanted to make people feel happy. with this Iraq war. You allude to his real motivation in your post - Bush had this war planned BEFORE 9/11. He is guided by ideologues who really believe in this "New American Century" project, a neocons wet dream which is actually little more than the old British theory that "If you democratize the savages, they'll behave." Well, there is a case to be made that the British did civilize an awful lot of savages, but the British also left Iraq with their tails between their legs. They never got their arms around the place. No one has.

The war was not a grudge match. Its an academic notion come to life.

Kerry on the war on terror
 

This is my chief gripe with Bush. Why isn't our ally, Pakistan, letting us into the provinces? Why has Bush began saying bib Laden is marginalized? There's something very rotten going on in Pakistan and I can't put my finger on it. Our ally should be giving us unbridled access. We should be testing all sorts of horrific weapons on militants in the provinces and running assassination squads on AQ in the larger Pakistani cities. I know we'll never hear about the latter, but why are we not doing the former?

I believe Afghanistan, not Iraq, should have been the "swamp" where Bush "placed" the war on terror. But Afghanistan has no oil. Its got no strategic value. Nobody cares about it. As Rumsfeld said when the Joint Chiefs suggested bombing it initially after 9/11, "Afghanistan has no good targets."

Kerry on the war on terror
 

if you're going to buy into the conspiracies, you've gotta take it all. Mike explained why Bush was in bed with the Taliban- to get a pipeline.

As to your other point, we start attacking the Paki tribesmen and pretty soon you've another Al Queda controlled country to deal with. The Paki's get to vote.

Kerry on the war on terror
 

I see it differently. It seems to me that people who were going to be flying over here aren't now rushing into Iraq to fight. There are plenty of new recruits in Iraq who no longer have a home or a family (and I'm not saying this to be a bleeding heart, but to understand why we're having such a problem) who are more than willing to do whatever to take out some Americans there.

So, the missile Clinton shot off after the first attempt on the WTC was equally as effective as Bush's war? I don't buy it. Just because we haven't been hit again doesn't mean Bush gets credit for it. It seems clear that they hit us and have turned to convincing other countries to back away from us. I'm not going to give Bush credit for influencing their strategy -- especially when, as you and Hank said, it is so easy to hit us here in the states. Hell, we've lost over a thousand soldiers in Iraq. For all any of us know, Osama puts this in his win column. They haven't gotten him and he's directly and indirectly responsible for the death of 4,000 people and counting. And everyday, another Osama clone pops up beheading people or blowing somebody up.

TM

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

Excited about the Mike Montgomery era in Oaktown, are we?

Kerry on the war on terror
 

I'm no geo-politician. All I know is heading east, at first I can go into a Tims, order an angel cream, and get no lip; just a nice pastry. Then somewhere past Toronto, I start hearing them sputter about "creme de la ange." That's where I'd draw the line.

Excommunicated
 

It has been explained to me by intelligent devout conservative Catholics that the death penalty is OK if there are not effective alternative means of justice (e.g., no imprisonment or whatever available). They acknowledged (I think) that the death penalty is inappropriate in the US. I think there is a general feeling that murderers are damned so it's less bad to kill them than to kill innocent babies.

I have some sympathy with getting people who are pro-choice or pro-death penalty or OK with people being gay out of the Catholic church. I mean, seriously, such people are like my stupid college roommate who said she was a vegetarian except she ate chicken and seafood. That's just not a vegetarian. That's someone who doesn't eat red meat.* If you are pro-choice and want the ceremony, go be Episcopalian.

*"Pork, the other white meat" is bullshit crap advertising. Pork is red meat.

Sympathy for the Devil
 

Help how? What precise help are you upset about losing and from which countries? I don’t recall any country in a position to send us money to help rebuild our towers so I’m thinking you mean countries were willing after 9/11 to search harder for terrorists in their countries. If so, nabbing terror cells in one’s country benefits one’s own country and not just Americans.

Anyways, if you are saying Bush lost this “help” by going to war in Iraq, what do you perceive as the consequences? A particular country will get lax in searching for terror cells because the country is pissed off that Bush went forward without full UN backing in Iraq? Well, that’s really smart of the country. They’ll sure show US, won’t they?

Before I hear any more sob stories about how bad it sucks that Norway no longer feels sorry for us (The Horror!) and how important it is that France and Russia think our President is “Not Diplomatic” why don’t you all finally tell us what exactly you want from these countries. List it all out by country – France, Russia, Sweden, Spain... Probably, you’ll think about it and decide to skirt the issue by joking about how awful a cheese/wine ban would be. Because I have yet to hear anything beyond “Diplomacy is good” and “everyone really liked us after 9/11 and now they don’t.” Or anyone explain why being felt sorry for is a good position to be in, as opposed to a strong position.

Excommunicated
 

A pentagram?

My husband, the Catholic, married a self-proclaimed heathen. His mother looks down her nose at me because I do not want a "house full of children" for her.

In other news, Arnold Schwartzenegger, who has been conspicuously absent from "Republican events" thrown in Kaleeforneea, has chosen stem cell research.

SAN FRANCISCO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed a $3 billion bond measure that would fund human embryonic stem cell research, breaking with California’s Republican Party.

The endorsement will also put Schwarzenegger at odds with the state Republican Party, which officially opposes Proposition 71, and perhaps the Bush administration, which has limited funding of the research.

Schwarzenegger has said he supports the technology. His father-in-law, Sargent Shriver, is in the early grips of Alzheimer’s disease, which supporters of the measure say could someday be treated with stem cells.


And I'm sure that Nancy Reagan fully supports him on this. So is this a Republican trend? More R's for stem cell?


link to entire article

eta, that he never really seemed like a Republican. He's a pro-choice, pro stem-cell Republican. Maybe it's the Shriver influence. I think he should switch parties.

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

In most other industrialized countries, businesses and individuals bear a higher tax burden. That's in part because they have federally funded retirement benefits. It's also because these states have much higher welfare benefits. So in essence, whether you look at funding or payment out, broad-based or universal benefits result in a higher tax burden.

Excommunicated
 

The bottom line is most American Catholics (barring recent immigrants) aren't truly Catholics any more. The religion has a core set of basic, non-negotiable principles. That is, actually, a reasonable position for a religion to take. If you don't believe, you're not in the club. Amen.

In sum, while this is a nasty process that would make lots of people feel bad, I actually think this is an admirably principled stand by the Church (and no doubt led by non-Americans). J2P2 is a hard-core, conservative, traditionalist, principled guy. He actually IS a "compassionate conservative" in a way that puts pretenders and corporate whores like our President to shame.

I'd kind of hate to be excommunciated, but I'd just formally join the religion of the church I'm a member in anyway.

S_A_M

[edited to remove random words.]

Kerry on the war on terror
 

Some blogger, and I can't remember which one, was suggesting that the smartest move for the Pakistani government would be to quitely kill bin Laden and hide the body. That way, they've fulfilled their mission on an international scale, but they don't get the backlash from home. More of the population there, it seems, sympathizes with bin Laden than the US.

Excommunicated
 

Exactly. And while you are at it, stop by the local Catholic Church and nail your protests to the door. Except, I'm not so sure the Catholic Church is so totally opposed to gay people per-se or in favor of the death penalty. In fact, I seem to recall some anti-death-penalty bias in the Catholic church.

Hell, I'm not even in favor of the death penalty in this country with the way its out (on fairness grounds). I'm anxiously waiting for the day that Texas and Illinois lawyers take some responsibility for cleaning up the insanity in their respective states.

Atty says 50% would leave. Others here say 40% will leave. I'm guessing its going to be about 10-15%, and not the ones who go to Church anyways. Ya know something else? I heard a few other major denominations want back in. Hell, I'll bet some conservative Jews would reconsider their religious beliefs if the Catholic church ends the hypocricy and kicks out the Kennedys and Heinz-Kerrys.

Between this, my Dimetapp and having the NYT describe loud Rage against the Machine music as torture, this is truly a blessed and joyous week.

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

But in most countries, you don't limit the funding of retirement benefits to the wage base, effectively adding that cost to the cost of goods. And to the extent expenses like retirements costs are added to the cost of goods through the VAT, there is a refund on export (virtually all VATs are refundable on exported goods). This puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

I think reform based on leveling the competitive playing field could be something both Rs and Ds could agree on, and they could fix a regressive tax while they are at it.

Kerry on the war on terror
 

Instead of impugning his motives, why don't you look at what Kerry actually did. According to factcheck.org, which comes endorsed by Dick Cheney, Kerry "voted for an alternative resolution that would have approved $87 billion in emergency funds for troops and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was conditioned on repealing much of Bush's tax cuts, and it failed 57-42." That was a vote for funding the $87 billion. Your objection is not that he wouldn't vote to fund the troops, but that he wouldn't borrow to do it. You could just as easily attack Bush for refusing to ask the rich to forego tax cuts while the country is at war.

This is a new code of conduct for Presidents that apparently just got pulled out of Karl Rove's ass. So during an election, political candidates are supposed to avoid dissent on the most important issues of the day? If that's what you think, you should be writing in a vote for Putin.

It would apply to the French if Allawi were their puppet. WTF are you talking about?

Is that not true of many of the countries on the list?

After you act, you open your mouth and say things that are true and correct, not bullshit. The issue here is that Bush thinks he should be above explaining anything to anyone. William Saletan in Slate (internal links omitted) said it better than I can:

• It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. But notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Ohio. He's talking about you.
  
  What do you have in common with a Frenchman? Look again at Kerry's words. He says the test is to "prove" that our reasons for attacking were legitimate. In the next sentence, he gives an example of someone failing that test: Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What did Powell apologize for? The inaccuracy of our intelligence. Kerry contrasts this with the trust France once placed in American spy photos.
  
  Proof, intelligence, spy photos. The pattern is obvious. The test isn't moral. It's factual. What you and the Frenchman share is the evidence of your senses. The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real world, the world you and I can see.
  
  This is the test Bush has failed. He has failed to produce evidence for his prewar claims of Iraqi WMD and operational ties to al-Qaida, or for his postwar claims of success against the insurgency. Now he's going further. He's not simply failing the test. He's refusing to take it.
  
  Listen to Bush's words again. "The president's job is not to take an international poll," he says. "Our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals." Bush doesn't say these decisions belong to the United States. He says they belong to the Oval Office. He frames this as patriotism, boasting that he doesn't care whether he offers evidence sufficient to convince people in France. He shows no awareness or concern that evidence is also necessary to convince people in Ohio. He says it isn't his job to take a "poll," to hear what others think. He needs no validation.
  
  Bush pretends he's just blowing off the French. But his comments show a pattern of blowing off external feedback in general. He shrugs off information that debunks his claims about WMD, arguing that it's more important for a president to understand the overall nature of the world. He defines credibility as agreement with himself. He reinterprets evidence of policy mistakes in postwar Iraq as evidence of success. In Thursday's debate, he dismissed unwelcome reports from that country as too offensive to heed. And according to Sunday's New York Times, he and his aides exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capability, ignoring warnings from "the government's foremost nuclear experts."
  
  Bush claims he has done all this to protect you. But that claim is precisely what's challenged by the evidence he conceals or disregards. What he's protecting you from is the ability to measure his assertions against the world that you and I can see. That's the global test he's mocking. And he expects you to applaud him for it, because he thinks you resent the French so much you'd rather have a president accountable to no one.

If you can't understand Kerry's explanation of the so-called "global test," it's no wonder that you think he doesn't have a platform.

On what basis do you believe this? Kerry's website talks about his proposal to enlarge the military, and then says, "The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone." That's not the same thing as saying the military has no role.

You conservatives like to pretend that Democrats were somehow opposed to the war in Afghanistan. Barbara Lee voted against the $$$, but every other Democratic Senator and Representative was in favor. It's a straw man.

Kerry on the war on terror
 

Hank just gets a little confused about St. Pierre et Miquelon. So close to Canada, but French!

Catholic dissidents strike back:
 

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/arch...04/100104y.htm

I guess this summarizes the arguments in the Church. They say you can still vote for Kerry because Bush is 1.) in favor of preemptive war, and 2.) because abortion is not likely to be altered anytime soon (among other reasons given).

Re: #1. So I guess that means Kerry is not, at least under any circumstance he can define and/or foresee?

Re: #2. I think the author is wrong, and changes are on the horizon with the right set of circumstances.

Who'd imagine that dissidents and editorials appear in a Catholic paper.

Hello

Kerry on the war on terror
 

Well, it still remains to be seen whether the Iraqis will decide to take revenge on us or just get their infrastructure together and get on with their lives. I will say this - Perle, Wolfowitz and Chalabi should be indicted for something. Those three idiots sold the "The Iraqis will greet us with roses" story, and thats turned out to be utterly unsupported horseshit.

As to your second point, no one can ever prove how effective or ineffective a response to terror has been. On what criteria do we determine success or failure? No one knows why nothing heppened in the last three years. My theory was that the Iraqi distraction was partly the reason, but your theory says otherwise. I can see you point, and historians will debate this for a long time.

I think Bush will have the strangest legacy in Presidential history -he'll be thought by half the people a visionary, the other half a war criminal. Our kids' kids will know his name because this "war" we're in, its going to be around for good. Think about it.... the one difference between this war and all others was that the others had finite lives. One group (Nazis, Communism) would lose, one (Democratic states) would win. But now, there's no win and no lose. There's just struggle. Its really not a war at all. Its just a struggle like the Israeli intifada on a global scale (yes, I apologize for citing the obvious). You don't end that kind of conflict because it never has an all-deciding battle. Fucking scary when you think about it this way, since the only all-deciding battle possible, which AQ clearly wants, is nuclear. In that regard, Cheney ain't wrong in his perception, just his reaction.

Sympathy for the Devil
 

A big fat 2

That a bunch of governments sent condolences and that the citizens of countries like, say, Portugal, Brussels, Sri Lanka and Peru, all came together for one shining moment to hold hands and sing "Kum Bah Yah" really amounts to not much more than a hill of beans.

"squandering" nothing is still nothing.

Excommunicated
 

Yes, gorgeous, the Church does have a caveat about death possibly being appropriate if there are no alternatives, but, as a practical matter, it doesn't apply to a situation where the state can put you in a jail. Your intelligent devout conservative Catholic (is that some sort of oxymoron?) friends are correct.

That is absolutely the general feeling among the laity. Sadly, it looks like this attitude is starting to gain ground in the Church itself. One of the things that used to impress me about the Church was its consistent position on being "pro-life" -- no abortion, no euthanasia, no death penalty. Now it looks like they are picking and choosing, and choosing to go after those who dissent on the "liberal" side of the life issue.

Wrong-o, my little cabbage. The Church has evolved and will contiue to evolve. It hasn't burned a witch in years, and seems to have stopped perpetrating the blood libel as well. Dissent within the bounds of individual conscience has always been part of Catholicism.

Hmm. I seem to be unduly agitated by this. Maybe I should either go to Mass more than once a decade or stop this......

Excommunicated
 

If you were to purge the people you cite out of the Catholic Church, there would be no Catholic Church. Its impossible to live a productive, sensible, constructive life in the modern world and still follow all the "non-negotiable" Catholic teachings. Sure, somebody will claim he's done so, and that person, if you examine him closely, will almost always turn out to be nuts. I'd personally welcome your purging of the Church. Shut the Goddamned thing down, fire all the employees sucking off it and start again. As I said before, if Jesus were to come back, he'd be pretty fucking pissed at what's going on in Rome, and a whole lotta fancy frock-wearing child-fucking screwheads would be out of work.

What's so good about white meat anyway? White turkey tastes like cardboard. The brown meat has all the juices. Fuck it - I hate pork anyway, except bacon, which I've recently grown to enjoy.

Excommunicated
 

Note that there is a significant conflict within the Catholic Church on the doctrine of infallibility and what it means. For many of us, infallibility is limited to specific pronouncements of a Pope spoken in combination with a Church council. But the doctrine has only been in place since 1870 and is still being defined. This may well be the bigger issue, and my fear is that if infallibility is available to a pope on a day to day issue the Church itself will have lost the eternal faith.

Sympathy for the Devil
 

You ought to be more grateful. A bunch of countries which are not with us in Iraq sent troops to Afghanistan, permitting us to get by there with fewer forces.

Sympathy for the Devil
 

Stop being such a shrill bitch. If you're going to look at my criticism as an attack on you because you want to vote for Bush, you are incapable of having a straight-up conversation and should just PM club and NotMe to get your attention fix. So I'm not going to parse every single word you say or defend every single word I say in an effort to extend the argument to it's illogical conclusion.

We don't know exactly to what extent we could have leveraged other countries' ability or desire to help us because we told them all to go fuck themselves. That is our foreign (and domestic) policy.

But it's not insane to think that if you're a country that we suspect has terrorist cells and the US comes to you after making its intent known that we intend to hunt down everyone responsible for this vicious, cowardly attack, you might see some serious cooperation.

Nabbing a terrorist cell in your country is in your best interests, yes. But it's not a priority when they aren't targeting you or your citizens and are simply hiding/raising money/plotting/whatever on your soil.

Hold your breath.

But while you are doing so, please explain to me how it helps us to go at it virtually alone against a number of (i) countries and (ii) people hiding in places we don't have access to while asking ourselves questions like, "How do we achieve our goals without reinstituting the draft?"

You're bitchy attitude and empty sarcasm doesn't change the fact that you are hiding behind Bush's failed diplomacy. It is impossible to see the extent of the help that might have been offered if someone with brains and vision had been in the White House at the time when everyone was on our side. And the reason why we don't know how much assistance would have been provided was because Bush doesn't need to listen to anyone but Jesus Christ and the three or four advisors who make all of his decisions.

TM

Sympathy for the Devil
 

Did they have lucrative contracts in place with the Taliban - like they did with Saddam? I don't think so.

Kum Bah Yah, indeed.

Excommunicated
 

The definition employed generally is "bullshit."

Infallible? What the hell kind of organization is the Church? Sounds like some fucking silly fraternity ritual... "And now, we shall read from the infallible text of our founder, Cornelious Bottomely." Nonsense. I mean, I get being spiritual, but this "Institution Worship" is bizarre. How in the hell can any of this bureaucratic, self-perpoetuating corpotrate horseshit have anything to do with getting closer to God.

You want to find God? Stay as far away from a Church as possible. I think Mencken, perhaps Twain said that. Couldn't agree more.

Absurd, fucking absurd. Infallibility... I mean, really... what are we laity, a mass of imbeciles?

Sympathy for the Devil
 

I'm still waiting to hear the name of one relevant Ally that wasn't involved, other than perhaps [a big perhaps] Canada.

Sympathy for the Devil
 

Possibly -- just possibly -- they figured that while the Taliban let OBL use their country as a launching pad for heinous attacks against us, Saddam Hussein might not have WMD and wasn't allied with Al Qaeda.

Nah. It's got to be the government contracts. All I can say is, we're lucky that Poland didn't have those deals with Iraq.

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/crowd.jpg

Excommunicated
 

I totally agree. I think the conservative intelligent Catholic people even kind of agree, but they are happy to see the Church cracking down so are not quibbling with exactly how it's being carried out.

I did not intend to upset you, my big cucumber. It just seems like rejecting a huge chunk of the beliefs kind of goes beyond the "dissent within the bounds of individual conscience" and that RT's issue was being very unhappy with the Church for wanting to excommunicate such dissenters. I still think y'all would be reasonably happy being Episcopalians who don't go to church rather than Catholics who don't go to church.

Excommunicated
 

How do I sign up to be excomminicated? Just about every revolutionary thinker in history who has done something productive for mankind has been threatened with this sanction. I don't think I'll ever be as smart or useful as Galileo, but I'd like to be on a list with him somewhere.

Pot to kettle: You're black!
 

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think about this.

Kerry on the war on terror
 

Hmmmm. Wasn't somebody arguing this around here? It sounds familiar.

Sympathy for the Devil
 

Rope-a-Dope answer.

Completely non-reponsive with a snarky riposte. I like this. touche.