Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sgtclub]

Afghanistan Votes
That fifteen presidential candidates declared the historic election illegitimate is certainly a serious concern. After all, if Afghans become disillusioned with the voting system, democracy will crumble before its foundation is even laid. So we should rigorously investigate the complaints.

But, at the same time, we must recognize that today's events were tremendously successful. For months, international observers worried about significant terrorist disruption. Yet, as the Washington Post reports:

An unprecedented deployment of nearly 100,000 Afghan and foreign security forces, who sealed off all major roads and guarded most polling centers, appeared to have staved off any major anti-election attacks.

Police said they discovered a fuel tanker truck carrying landmines and explosives in the southern city of Kandahar, and arrested three Pakistanis in it. They said the volatile cargo could have been detonated in the city, causing election-day mayhem. Interior Ministry officials said they found explosives or other dangerous items in cars throughout the capital, and arrested a group of Taliban members who were holding a clandestine meeting.

Scattered violence -- restricted to distant provinces -- was the exception, not the rule. In general, the atmosphere seemed conducive to voting. Note these dispatches from BBC correspondents stationed throughout the country:
[W]hat has been most remarkable is the large scale participation of women. In the northern Balkh province, women came out in their bridal finery -- with beads around their necks and henna on their hands -- to vote.

In Kabul, at the end of the day, emotional women told the BBC that it had been the most memorable day in their lives. Some of them were in tears.

[...]

Voting was very good in Shibergan with large numbers of people turning out to vote. There was tight security and in general the day was very peaceful.

[...]

A few here [in Mazar-e-Sharif] complained about voting irregularities, but on the whole the mood has been very positive and cheerful.

If Hamid Karzai's rivals reject the election now, the thousands of men and women who voted for them will be bitterly disappointed.

[...]

Voting has ended here in Herat and while there was some disappointment about the use of washable ink to mark voters' hands, the majority of Afghans have been content with the process.

[...]

And the mood here wasn't tarnished by the problem with the ink. It was a celebration today. There was a tremendous buzz of excitement at the polling stations.

I genuinely got the feeling that this was the people's opportunity and that's why in Kandahar the problem with the ink is being laughed out of town.

People here believe that it was no massive fraud but either incompetence or confusion.

http://www.tagorda.com/archives/003676.php

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think Clinton was a convert. Surely you are not suggesting that, absent the 94 takeover and the contract with amercia, that Clinton would have been the def hawk that he was? This notwithstanding, he should get his fair share of credit for not standing in the way. But to say that this was solely a Clinton driven endeavor is just a joke.

NotBob has already said this better, but note that the first deficit-reducing budget was passed in his first year, with almost no Republican support, and with GOP leadership predicting that by today we'd be in fucking breadlines because all American industry would've fled to Barbados.

[sgtclub]

But these headlines conceal the real news in the report of Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer. For the report makes it plain that George W. Bush had good reason to go to war in Iraq and end the regime of Saddam Hussein. . . .

Duelfer also reported that Saddam asked subordinates how long it would take to develop chemical weapons once sanctions ended. One Iraqi chemical weapons expert said it would require only a few days to develop mustard gas. Former Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz said that Iraq could have had a WMD capacity within two years after the end of sanctions.

If the weapons inspectors had been given more time to conduct inspections, as John Kerry has on occasion advocated, we now know they would not have found any WMDs. Nor does it seem possible that they would have uncovered Saddam's attempts to maintain WMD capability. There would have been heavy pressure then from France, Russia, and China—whose companies were given kickbacks and windfall profits from the Saddam-administered U.N. Oil for Food program, Duelfer reports—to disband U.S. military forces in the Middle East and to end sanctions. And once sanctions were gone, there would have been nothing to stop Saddam from developing WMDs.

In other words, we were facing a brutal dictator with the capability to develop WMDs and the proven willingness to use them. A dictator whose regime had had, as the 9/11 Commission has documented, frequent contacts with al Qaeda. We have no conclusive evidence that he collaborated with al Qaeda on 9/11—but also no conclusive evidence that he did not. Under those circumstances, George W. Bush acted prudently in deciding to remove this regime. He would have been imprudent not to have done so.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It sounds like you've been drinking Cheney's kool-ade again, Bilmore. You can't seriously believe that the US will be taken over by radical islamisicsts, do you? If not (and I think this is the case) then you are laying down the same line of demagogeury that you argued was so absurd it couldn't possibly be what Cheny meant a few weeks back when he said something along the lines of vote for Bush or we're all gonna die.

Funny stuff. I was at a wedding this weekend with a huge number of democrats with Chicago ties. A Union guy would say, do me a favor and vote for Kerry, I need my job. I'd retort, do me a favor and vote for Bush, we are in a war and I need to make sure we are actually fighting instead of trying to get out with pretty pictures after 6 months.

A business manager would say, we need a coalition of bigger countries. I'd retort, okay, so we are at war and this has happened before. Suddenly Kerry is going to get the French, Germans and Russians to jump in? These countries only helped when they were being directly threatened, and France didn't even help in Vietnam after it dragged us in. Blah blah blah. Then the business guy would say, but Australia was with us in Korea. Oh. My. God. (I'd say) They. Are. Still. With. Us! What nations are your people gonna bring in again?

A lawyer and a Union leader would say, we shouldn't be at war. I'd say, how many barracks should the Islamists in Lebanon be allowed to blow up? How many more airliners over Scotland should the Libyans be allowed to blow up? How many more skyscrapers should the Afghan-protected Saudi and Pakistani-expatriates be allowed to blow up? We aren't at war? Isn't it pretty to think so. The lawyer would retort with "b-b-but Bush is stupid!" And I'd say, which part of we-are-at-war don't you understand? misses smarty-pants.

To the last one, the Democrats who started each and every one of these conversations, found reasons to retreat from the conversation. I love these people, but Chicago has got to be the dummest city in America. Is there even a political opposition to Daley to ask questions about the last week? The guy looks like he's on the verge of being indicted (along with Degnan, Joyce and others) if any of their recently indicted mob, union, HDO (Hispanic Democratic Organization) friends start talking. Yet, politically brain-dead Chicagoans will complain about their job insecurity (despite high state and local taxes, horrible services, and extraordinary political-related theft of taxpayer funds), will complain about Bush endangering America (despite living in the least safe big-city in America under Democratic powerbrokers), and will complain about the ongoing war (as long as they don't work in a high-rise and their kids don't fly on overseas flights very often or join the military).

I'm not saying this is all Democrats, or even most. But you take these guys out of your equation (i.e., the Michael Moore fans such as the tort lawyers, the union goofs, and assorted other grand theft larceny democrats) out of the equation, and this election goes 80-20 for Bush.

Kerry's base is at least 50% who think he's too far to the right! People who, as a group, can't name one honorable Illinois Democratic leader. No offense or nothing, but Chicago is going farther under the bootheel for the next 4 years. I think y'all decent Democrats should consider moving out of there, because living there is gonna start to hurt.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not saying this is all Democrats, or even most. But you take these guys out of your equation (i.e., the Michael Moore fans such as the tort lawyers, the union goofs, and assorted other grand theft larceny democrats) out of the equation, and this election goes 80-20 for Bush.

Funny stuff, indeed. Hey, can I borrow that Crayola red brick you've been using? I'd like to use it to color portions of the GOP voter base for a while.

[Hank Chinaski]

help me figure out how this isn't a flip flop, I'm sure it's not, but only a Ty-like intellect can help us through:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

October 13,2003: Hardball
MATTHEWS: Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

then today

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...mpaign_iraq_dc

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday disputed a White House assertion that it was right to topple Saddam Hussein even if he had no illegal weapons because he posed a future threat.

The North Carolina senator, appearing on several television news programs, said Saddam's intention to eventually gather weapons of mass destruction was one of dozens of such threats.

"There are lots of threats waiting to happen all over the world," Edwards said. "That doesn't mean that that justifies invading a country."

Edwards was responding to U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. who told "Fox News Sunday" that President Bush was "absolutely" correct to have launched the invasion of Iraq even if they had known, as they do now, that the former Iraqi president had no stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The two continued a debate that has dominated the U.S. presidential campaign in recent weeks and intensified with the final report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who concluded Iraq had no unconventional weapons -- a main rationale for going to war.

"You know, the Bush administration's explanation is: 'We invaded a country because at some point in the future they might get weapons of mass destruction?' ... I mean, the bottom line is, this is a convoluted logic to try to justify in hindsight what we now know wasn't true," Edwards said on CNN's "Late Edition."

float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Funny stuff, indeed. Hey, can I borrow that Crayola red brick you've been using? I'd like to use it to color portions of the GOP voter base for a while.

Sure, would you like to start with the "pro-Choice Catholics"? Oops, my bad. Those pink elephants are Democrats. In fact, one of them was just on TV the other night trying to get elected. If you see him, can you let him know that We. Are. At. War? I know he's allergic to War, and even got a few purple hearts for it, but he probably should have figured put where we are before volunteering to run as a president during a war.

Please be careful to color between the lines. The GOP doesn't need no bad-drawers drawing Democrats and liberals into their picture. Someone here might not think it unintentional if you draw the GOP base badly. And the GOPers here tend to spank bad kids.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Sure, would you like to start with the "pro-Choice Catholics"? Oops, my bad. Those pink elephants are Democrats.

Wrong. Having been raissed Catholic and knowing hundreds of Catholics, I can assure you not more than 15-25% of them support Rome's edicts on matters such as abortion. Those who give a shit about keeping up appearances say they follow the church, but they don't. When their daughters get knocked up, almost all Catholics get pro-choice real quick.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Kerry's base is at least 50% who think he's too far to the right!

Um, yeah? What does Bush's base think of Bush? For extra credit, state your answer as a bullshit made-up percentage.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Wrong. Having been raissed Catholic and knowing hundreds of Catholics, I can assure you not more than 15-25% of them support Rome's edicts on matters such as abortion. Those who give a shit about keeping up appearances say they follow the church, but they don't. When their daughters get knocked up, almost all Catholics get pro-choice real quick.

2

The only Catholics who give the smallest shit about what Rome says on X, Y or Z are either first generation immigrants from the Phillipines or converts who drew straws for radical reactionary Catholicism on the one hand and Jehovah's Witnesses on the other.

Gatti, I'll let you have the crayon when I'm done with it, but this is too much fun.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Wrong. Having been raissed Catholic and knowing hundreds of Catholics, I can assure you not more than 15-25% of them support Rome's edicts on matters such as abortion. Those who give a shit about keeping up appearances say they follow the church, but they don't. When their daughters get knocked up, almost all Catholics get pro-choice real quick.

Uhm, wrong-yourself. Public schools? Its not that the substance of your description of Philadelphia Catholics is wrong. Its because there is no other positions of the Catholic Church that are as widely-known in today's political word as the pro-Life and anti-Gay-Marriage stances. Which is to say, you describe yourself in any political term as a pro-Life Catholic, you are a pink Elephant. At least, because the Vatican dictionary does not recognize these two terms as a valid expression.

And, FWIW, Chicago Catholic Democrats are just as stupid as any Philadelphia Democrat, but Chicago Catholics see widespread illegitimate births among young women in their teens and twenties. Call them whatever names you want, but this is probably the one thing they tend not to be hypocritical about. Here, I'll get you started on the names, ye of little faith. How 'bout "stoopid"? Personally, I can justify the choice to have a baby once you are pregnant. Unfortunately, all too many young women in those neighborhoods put themselves in positions where they will when they are 17-23. Not representative, but a relative of mine checked her old (early 80's) Catholic high school yearbook, and estimated that a bit less than half her class had illegitimate babies by 22.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
2

The only Catholics who give the smallest shit about what Rome says on X, Y or Z are either first generation immigrants from the Phillipines or converts who drew straws for radical reactionary Catholicism on the one hand and Jehovah's Witnesses on the other.

Gatti, I'll let you have the crayon when I'm done with it, but this is too much fun.

Uhm, yeah. But are they still Catholics? Come on Atty, you think the Pope is gonna recommend Senator O'Kerrystein for a slot? Don't answer. I checked with a Democratic priest for you. Kerry's out.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Um, yeah? What does Bush's base think of Bush? For extra credit, state your answer as a bullshit made-up percentage.

The conservatives say that boy ain't Right. But he's a lot closer than Senator Kerry on Odd-numbered days and weekends.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Uhm, yeah. But are they still Catholics? Come on Atty, you think the Pope is gonna recommend Senator O'Kerrystein for a slot? Don't answer. I checked with a Democratic priest for you. Kerry's out.

The entire history of the Catholic church shows quite clearly that Rome will talk a good game about kicking out people who say X or Y, but will only do it if it can seal the deal and burn them at the stake --- literally. Mother Church has learned all too painfully that if you can't silence the critic entirely, eventually he will start sounding sensible and bingo you've lost X% of your membership and 100% of your credibility.

Mark my words --- if Rome moves to excommunicate President Kerry, 40% of the Catholics in churches throughout America will vacate their pews. Good for the Lutherans and Episcopalians, I suppose, but bad for dioceses that still need to pay child abuse settlements. American bishops are begging Rome not to push the excommunication issue, and priests are begging their bishops to communicate that message, too --- they might want to end abortion, but they don't want to end Catholicism in America to accomplish it.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The entire history of the Catholic church shows quite clearly that Rome will talk a good game about kicking out people who say X or Y, but will only do it if it can seal the deal and burn them at the stake --- literally. Mother Church has learned all too painfully that if you can't silence the critic entirely, eventually he will start sounding sensible and bingo you've lost X% of your membership and 100% of your credibility.

Mark my words --- if Rome moves to excommunicate President Kerry, 40% of the Catholics in churches throughout America will vacate their pews. Good for the Lutherans and Episcopalians, I suppose, but bad for dioceses that still need to pay child abuse settlements. American bishops are begging Rome not to push the excommunication issue, and priests are begging their bishops to communicate that message, too --- they might want to end abortion, but they don't want to end Catholicism in America to accomplish it.

In other words, a giant "no comment". Hey, y'all are saying its merely a matter of people characterizing themselves. That part about the American church begging the Pope to look-over-there for a few minutes is a perfect explanation of how wrong those self-proclaimed Catholics are. Their names aren't in the Book, whether they cheer for Notre Dame or not. And I doubt that attendance at Mass goes down. These are a good portion of the people who only show up for midnight Mass at Christmas.

On a less hyperbolic note, just like your reasoning about how to get really-the-same-as-gay-marriage (i.e., don't use the term "gay marriage"), my vast experience with an almost entirely Catholic (or self-proclaimed "Catholic) background in Chicago is that 70 or 80% there can be talked into a state's-right view of the issue... just as long as they have the impression that it will be available somewhere. In other words, nobody really has an objection if its banned in Utah and Indiana.

Of course, if that happened, I'm probably moving to Indiana, but that's a topic for another day and another board.