Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when a country is found "checking out" an organization that has the destruction of the US as its main goals, then the country is on the bad side of an equation. When you start explaining your "benign al queda contacts" theory to voters next fall you'll see who is found lacking in credibiltiy*.

If your point is that voters will buy this garbage about contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda even if the CIA rejected it, I guess the answer is, maybe so. Bush has a lot of money to buy advertising with, the media tends not to want to resolve competing claims about who is right on factual matters, and the Dem candidate might run like Michael Dukakis.

If you find solace in all of this, though, it is because you care more about the prospects of the GOP than about what's happening to the country. In which case, go stand over there next to sgtclub and bilmore.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm no expert on this one, but isn't this belief a necessary component of adherence to any religion? If you accept a religion, doesn't that mean you do so to the exclusion of all others? Or, can you say "I'm a devout Moslem/Jew/Christian/Whatever, but you guys may have a point"?

Actually, not quite. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all accept the teachings of Abraham. Jews don't accept that Jesus Christ and Mohammed were prophets, and Christians don't accept that Mohammed was a prophet. But all are worshipping the same god.

This post is just a cue for Atticus and/or BRC to give a more comprehensive and accurate explanation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If your point is that voters will buy this garbage about contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda even if the CIA rejected it, I guess the answer is, maybe so. ...................If you find solace in all of this, though, it is because you care more about the prospects of the GOP than about what's happening to the country. In which case, go stand over there next to sgtclub and bilmore.

the CIA didn't "reject" it. the article alleges the contacts happened, but were benign. I'm just saying I don't get how you can have benign OBL contacts, especially if you're also considering building WMD. I don't take solace in any likely outcome from the election based upon this issue. I do believe, however, that the great bulk of American voters won't get the concept of "benign" al queda contacts to "check out" becoming friends.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the CIA didn't "reject" it. the article alleges the contacts happened, but were benign. I'm just saying I don't get how you can have benign OBL contacts, especially if you're also considering building WMD. I don't take solace in any likely outcome from the election based upon this issue. I do believe, however, that the great bulk of American voters won't get the concept of "benign" al queda contacts to "check out" becoming friends.

Benign is your word. Ignatius didn't say the contacts were benign, he said they were par for the course and not worth getting excited about. He also said that the contacts seemed to have happened years before 9/11 -- something you have blurred -- and that the CIA had a good source in Baghdad who told them that Hussein looked into collaborating with OBL and decided not to do so.

In other words, the contacts between OBL and Hussein were not worth making a federal case out of -- or going to war over. They are, however, good enough for post hoc ass covering, which is what is going on now.

edited to fix punctuation

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you find solace in all of this, though, it is because you care more about the prospects of the GOP than about what's happening to the country. In which case, go stand over there next to sgtclub and bilmore.

Scary thing about this line is, sub in DEMs for GOP, and this is exactly how I see the more partisan Dems. I think we're just defending two different countries, you and I. I'm defending a free and clear-minded America, one that is willing to use its power to defend justice and fairness. You're defending France.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But all are worshipping the same god.

Now, come on. Bush got in a load of trouble last week for saying exactly that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Scary thing about this line is, sub in DEMs for GOP, and this is exactly how I see the more partisan Dems. I think we're just defending two different countries, you and I. I'm defending a free and clear-minded America, one that is willing to use its power to defend justice and fairness. You're defending France.

As Will Rogers said, I'm not a part of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

Apparently you can't fathom the notion that there might be legitimate policy differences about how best to defend America, and justice and fairness, so argument in this vein gets derided and ignored as partisan and un-American. The partisan bit is annoying, and S_A_M has my proxy on that. The France crap is offensive as all get-out.

Which more partisan Dems? There are Dems who are too partisan for me. I'll cross party lines when I vote. And there are Dems who are unwilling to use the country's power, but none that get much support on this board. You guys are all so used to being part of an ideological orthodoxy that you often assume Dems come from the same place.

edited to quote Will Rogers

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm no expert on this one, but isn't this belief a necessary component of adherence to any religion? If you accept a religion, doesn't that mean you do so to the exclusion of all others? Or, can you say "I'm a devout Moslem/Jew/Christian/Whatever, but you guys may have a point"?

I think that many people can worship with the perspective, and that many branches allow the perspective, that essentially all monothestic religions flowing from the Middle East, for example, are pointing you in the same direction -- to the same God. The rest is just details.

However, evangelical Christians, and the Catholic Church -- are very very clear that ALL OTHER RELIGIONS ARE FALSE, and your soul is in grave peril if you do not follow our WAY. (Wonder if they neutralize each other.)

OTOH -- you can also discredit or disbelieve another religion without thinking that YOUR GOD will cause you to triumph in WAR because YOU BELIEVE IN HIM while the other guy doesn't. -- which I think was that dude's point.

I, for example, don't believe that God gets so involved in day to day life -- or that the deity intervenes in warfare. If I thought so, I would have to despise God, which would make the holidays very uncomfortable.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
He also said that the contacts seemed to have happened years before 9/11 -- something you have blurred -- and that the CIA had a good source in Baghdad who told them that Hussein looked into collaborating with OBL and decided not to do so.

In other words, the contacts between OBL and Hussein were not worth making a federal case out of -- or going to war over. They are, however, good enough for post hoc ass covering, which is what is going on now.

Perhaps, but not years before the 1994 WTC bombing, the embassy bombings or the Cole bombing.

I think we all can agree that the intelligence in respect of WMD/terrorist connection is not perfect. I think we also can agree that the intelligence in respect of the murderous nature of the Iraqi regime was, well, probably understated if anything, given the evidence of mass graves and torture chambers that have been found.

Let's put aside the potential geopolitcial/strategic benefits that could be realized if we are successful in building a "free" Iraq. When (a) the above cited evidence is viewed together and (b) you factor in that the left did not strongly protest Clinton's Bosnia/Serbia campaign (even though Clinton did not have a "plan"), we on the right simply cannot see how the left is willing to give these murderers/rapists/tyrants the benefit of the doubt, and so we conclude that it must be for political gains.

PS: I was using the term lecherous to connote the frenzy this issue has triggered in the left - i.e., similiar to a sexual frenzy.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Apparently you can't fathom the notion that there might be legitimate policy differences about how best to defend America, and justice and fairness, so argument in this vein gets derided and ignored as partisan and un-American. The partisan bit is annoying, and S_A_M has my proxy on that. The France crap is offensive as all get-out.

Lighten up. The France thing is a joke. The rest is entirely applicable to both sides right now. Read what you just wrote, and see if you can picture a Repub saying it, in seriousness, to a Dem.

Which more partisan Dems? There are Dems who are too partisan for me. I'll cross party lines when I vote. And there are Dems who are unwilling to use the country's power, but none that get much support on this board. You guys are all so used to being part of an ideological orthodoxy that you often assume Dems come from the same place.

I risk repeating myself here, but I've probably voted for more Dems than you, (and maybe even a higher proportion of dems, just to waylay the age jokes) and the "you guys are all so used to being part of an ideological orthodoxy . . ." line just fits Dems to a "t" these days. All in all, I think both "sides" are becoming so equally shrill and illogical as to appear identical.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think that many people can worship with the perspective, and that many branches allow the perspective, that essentially all monothestic religions flowing from the Middle East, for example, are pointing you in the same direction -- to the same God. The rest is just details.

However, evangelical Christians, and the Catholic Church -- are very very clear that ALL OTHER RELIGIONS ARE FALSE, and your soul is in grave peril if you do not follow our WAY. (Wonder if they neutralize each other.)

OTOH -- you can also discredit or disbelieve another religion without thinking that YOUR GOD will cause you to triumph in WAR because YOU BELIEVE IN HIM while the other guy doesn't. -- which I think was that dude's point.

I, for example, don't believe that God gets so involved in day to day life -- or that the deity intervenes in warfare. If I thought so, I would have to despise God, which would make the holidays very uncomfortable.

S_A_M

I was recently at a Jewish ceremony, and something I found very interesting in the service was that there were four or five places where a lack of knowledge on our party was acknowledged. Most such references have been edited out of the Masses where I attend.

It strikes me that the only way as a religion to denounce other religions is to claim infailiability, and even us Catholics only have a handful of infallable statements that we must believe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Perhaps, but not years before the 1994 WTC bombing, the embassy bombings or the Cole bombing.

I've never seen the 1994 bombing linked to OBL. I don't know enough about the intel to know whether the OBL/Hussein contacts were before or after the embassy and Cole bombings. If you have facts on these points, please link to them, because I would be curious.

I think we all can agree that the intelligence in respect of WMD/terrorist connection is not perfect.

Yes. We should all agree, too, that this casts grave doubt -- to say the least -- on a foreign policy based on preemptive action. So far, we're 0 for 1.

I think we also can agree that the intelligence in respect of the murderous nature of the Iraqi regime was, well, probably understated if anything, given the evidence of mass graves and torture chambers that have been found.

Let's put aside the potential geopolitcial/strategic benefits that could be realized if we are successful in building a "free" Iraq. When (a) the above cited evidence is viewed together and (b) you factor in that the left did not strongly protest Clinton's Bosnia/Serbia campaign (even though Clinton did not have a "plan"), we on the right simply cannot see how the left is willing to give these murderers/rapists/tyrants the benefit of the doubt, and so we conclude that it must be for political gains.

I think we can all agree that talking about what a bad man Hussein is, is changing the subject. The right did not agitate to intervene in Rwanda, and opposed Clinton in the Balkans. Your point about Clinton and the Balkans eludes me entirely. Note, also, that faced with GOP opposition to his course of action in the Balkans, Clinton did not exagerate/make up evidence tying Milosevic et al. to WMD and/or terrorists.

PS: I was using the term lecherous to connote the frenzy this issue has triggered in the left - i.e., similiar to a sexual frenzy.

Let's just not go there. From a purely anthropological perspective, I do not think you have summarized this very well.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you find solace in all of this, though, it is because you care more about the prospects of the GOP than about what's happening to the country. In which case, go stand over there next to sgtclub and bilmore.

Yes. Now you've figured it out. I care far more about the GOP prospects than about the country. That's exactly why I voted for Clinton in '92. I knew that by doing so, I would trigger the revolution of '94 and secure GWB's election in 2000.

Hank, I can't speak for Billmore, but there is plenty of room over here next to me.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I've never seen the 1994 bombing linked to OBL. I don't know enough about the intel to know whether the OBL/Hussein contacts were before or after the embassy and Cole bombings. If you have facts on these points, please link to them, because I would be curious.

I saw reports on this in the mainstream media a while ago, but nothing recently. I'll see what I can find.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop I think we can all agree that talking about what a bad man Hussein is, is changing the subject.

How is it changing the subject. It was certainly one of the reasons proffered for going to war and it is also true.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop Your point about Clinton and the Balkans eludes me entirely. Note, also, that faced with GOP opposition to his course of action in the Balkans, Clinton did not exagerate/make up evidence tying Milosevic et al. to WMD and/or terrorists.

The point being that apparently the left is only critical of military action when wielded by a member of the opposite party. And Clinton did not need to exagerate/make up evidence because he never sought congressional or UN approval (and the left was not too exercised over this either).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How is it changing the subject. It was certainly one of the reasons proffered for going to war and it is also true.

No one disagrees with the factual premise, and no one really thinks that Hussein's brutality was a sufficient reason to go to war. It keeps reappearing in the discussion of missing WMD and Al Qaeda ties to divert attention from the fact that they are missing.

The point being that apparently the left is only critical of military action when wielded by a member of the opposite party. And Clinton did not need to exagerate/make up evidence because he never sought congressional or UN approval (and the left was not too exercised over this either).

Plenty of Democrats were not thrilled about Clinton's intervention in the Balkans. The further left you go, the less thrilled they were, as I recall. But you're right -- no one on the left ever held Vietnam against JFK and LBJ. And most on the left were not critical of going to war in Afghanistan. Please recall that exactly one representative voted against the authorization in the House, and she voted to appropriate the money. So your suggestion that "the left" is opposed to what Bush is doing because of their ideological and partisan blinders doesn't hold much water.