Politics: A new beginning

[rufus leeking]

ok. is he gone? what bugs me is someone posts some accusiation from some extreme source, and its taken as true that Bush has changed some policy to better implement the plots these people believe he is hatching. the SS isn't politically appointed, and it has been behaving much the same way for awhile, I'm sure.

originally posted by Atticus Grinch your position in this matter justifies isolating all sitting presidents from any anti-administration protest on the ground that your stereotype of a protestor presents a marginally greater security risk than yahoos who would gladly suck his dick

The implcation that Secret Service is somehow treating protesters different today than under clinton is vile, vile I say. of course US government agents should have been guarding against what the clinotn's were saying and doing to the country, and stopping that! but instead they were keeping protesters far from the Clintons.

http://www.newsmax.com/archive/print...00/6/28/104208 spree safe-alleged ss excesses

The Mendozas are hardly alone. In 1993 the Secret Service arrested William Kelly - also unarmed - who merely challenged Clinton at a town meeting about his failure to deliver on a promised middle-class tax cut. Not only was Kelly booted out of the meeting, hours later his home was surrounded by armed agents who took him into custody.

In 1996 a pro-life activist who confronted Clinton after a Washington, D.C., church service was detained and questioned by the Secret Service.

The Secret Service has been extraordinarily protective of Mrs. Clinton, who, according to New York Post Albany bureau chief Fred Dicker, is shielded from tough questioning, by bodyguards who physically block reporters, even as she campaigns for the U.S. Senate.

After this year's St. Patrick's Day parade, Metro Network News reporter Glenn Shuck told a New York radio audience that he and six other reporters were assaulted by agents guarding the first lady. (See: Hillary's Secret Service Agents Rough Up Reporters as St. Pat's Day Crowd Boos.)

the Crawford ranch is in the middle of nowhere. the residence is so far from anyone there that it isn't shielding to keep the 2 groups in seperate places. bush probably seldom see either group. around the White House protesters can protest- this he sees.

[sgtclub]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100232,00.html

Now that we have "international support" what will the whine be on the left?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Now that we have "international support" what will the whine be on the left?

I thought you were among those who thought Powell was a pussy for seeking U.N. support pre-invasion. Bush is now a hero for seeking and getting backup from an institution his defenders here called whores and murder marchers?

That does it for me. I'm off to give pats on the back to men who stop beating their wives.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
I'm trying man, I'm trying, but the new sock thing is harder than it used to be. As to arguing with you on the other point, I will pass. I feel much the same way Flannery O'Conner felt when being compared to Faulkner..." You know, we all have to get off the tracks when that big frieght train comes through!"

I think that was Flann O'Brien.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I thought you were among those who thought Powell was a pussy for seeking U.N. support pre-invasion. Bush is now a hero for seeking and getting backup from an institution his defenders here called whores and murder marchers?

That does it for me. I'm off to give pats on the back to men who stop beating their wives.

I was, once it became clear it was a futile exercise. As scary as this admission is to me, I am like Clinton in this regard.

He is not a hero. This was a domestically motivated political move. We do not expect to get significant international funding as a result of this resolution, nor will we get significant number of international troops.

The bigger issue is the following. For the last year, the DEM hopefulls have been running on the following issues: (1) War was the wrong decision/we were misled; (2) we have no international support and thus (a) no friends in the international community and (b) no financial or military help in rebuilding Iraq; and (3) the economy sucks.

With this resolution, (2) has been gutted. Also, by every indication, the economy has turned, and within the next 6 months the "jobless recovery" theory will have been proven untrue (e.g., IBM announced it will be making 10,000 new hires in 2004). So the only real issue left will be 1. I'd be happy to run on 1.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was, once it became clear it was a futile exercise. As scary as this admission is to me, I am like Clinton in this regard.

He is not a hero. This was a domestically motivated political move. We do not expect to get significant international funding as a result of this resolution, nor will we get significant number of international troops.

The bigger issue is the following. For the last year, the DEM hopefulls have been running on the following issues: (1) War was the wrong decision/we were misled; (2) we have no international support and thus (a) no friends in the international community and (b) no financial or military help in rebuilding Iraq; and (3) the economy sucks.

With this resolution, (2) has been gutted. Also, by every indication, the economy has turned, and within the next 6 months the "jobless recovery" theory will have been proven untrue (e.g., IBM announced it will be making 10,000 new hires in 2004). So the only real issue left will be 1. I'd be happy to run on 1.

In other words, this is a wonderful campaign tool, but is too little to late too be a substantive diplomatic victory? If that's the case, that's the Dem. campaign issue, and expect more pounding on Bush's lack of substance.

The Dem. criticisms are based in part on the fact that in the case of both George the First and Billy Boy, and even in the case of George the Second's Afghanistan Adventure, our diplomatic efforts resulted in significant international support from both a monetary and a military perspective.

It is my sincere hope that this first diplomatic victory (yes, victory)does get translated into substantial and meaningful support, and I think it is George's job to make sure that happens.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
In other words, this is a wonderful campaign tool, but is too little to late too be a substantive diplomatic victory? If that's the case, that's the Dem. campaign issue, and expect more pounding on Bush's lack of substance.

I don't think UN approval pre-War was ever possible. That could be the campaign issue, but in another year and with Iraq in a very different place than today, I don't think it will be very effective.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy It is my sincere hope that this first diplomatic victory (yes, victory)does get translated into substantial and meaningful support, and I think it is George's job to make sure that happens.

Mine too. I think the financial front is more realistic. I've heard Japan may step up with a substantial sum. Other than that, I haven't heard any significant amounts being contemplated. Same on the military front, with the exception of Turkey, but apparently the Iraqi Governing Council is opposed to Turkish troops.

[sgtclub]

The PA hasn't been able to arrest militants the last three years when they kill Israelis, but kill a few Americans and look what happens . . .

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._nm/mideast_dc

[Say_hello_for_me]

Lotso reports in the Chicago media about a series of reverse narcotics stings on the west side yesterday. This may be the only time I ever say a good word about her, but columnist Mary Mitchell wrote a pretty good piece in the Suntimes (suntimes.com) that gives a good perspective from the street. Very sad stuff.

Its one of the better ways to move markets out of a neighborhood, i.e., targeting the buyers en masse so they will be encouraged to look elsewhere for narcotics. On the other hand, if you want a scary perspective on the number and makeup of junkies in this country, coverage of these operations (or a quick perusal of, e.g., the FB) can prove quite shocking.

I'd post the link, but the suntimes site is loading a little slow this morning.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Albright, perhaps the worst Secretary of State in US history, criticizes Bush in France.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/031016/19/m40i.html

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sgtclub
criticizes Bush in France.

Ahhh the French. Dontcha just love 'em??

EU fumbles over statement blasting Malaysian PM for remarks against Jews

BRUSSELS, Belgium - French President Jacques Chirac blocked the European Union from ending a two-day summit Friday with a harshly worded statement condemning Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's remarks about Jews a day earlier.

Backed by Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, officials said,
Chirac objected to a few short sentences in a 19-page summit statement deploring Mahathir's comment at an Islamic leaders summit that "Jews rule the world by proxy."

Foreign ministers Thursday night had drafted a text that said: "His unacceptable comments hinder all our efforts to further
interethnic and religious harmony, and have no place in a decent world. Such false and anti-Semitic remarks are as offensive to Muslims as they are to others."

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini told reporters Thursday night Mahathir's remarks were "gravely offensive."

But when the paper was handed to EU leaders Friday morning, Chirac said there was no place in an EU declaration for a text of this kind, diplomats said. Other leaders agreed, although
the Netherlands wanted the wording to stay in the declaration.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/351102.html

aV

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For the last year, the DEM hopefulls have been running on the following issues: (1) War was the wrong decision/we were misled; (2) we have no international support and thus (a) no friends in the international community and (b) no financial or military help in rebuilding Iraq; and (3) the economy sucks.

With this resolution, (2) has been gutted.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Mine too. I think the financial front is more realistic. I've heard Japan may step up with a substantial sum. Other than that, I haven't heard any significant amounts being contemplated. Same on the military front, with the exception of Turkey, but apparently the Iraqi Governing Council is opposed to Turkish troops.

I was going to write in response to the first post above but I see from your second post that you already made my point. I would have far less of a problem with the admin's professed preference for "coalitions of the willing" rather than actions based on the anachronistic UN if the admin had found a way to make the Iraq effort something more than just a coalition in name only. If this reso only results in a possible Japan donation and some troops from Turkey that Iraqis won't accept, I would not say that your Dem platform #2 is gutted at all. Rather, I think this is a large blow to the neocon goal of marginalizing the UN.

In other words, don't worry about us dems, we are very versatile in our whining abilities. Credit where credit is due, I think this reso sends a good signal to the world, and as G3 rightly said, it now respresents an opportunity to improve our situation, not only in Iraq but in other hot spots where we could use some international cooperation to help us pressure other regimes to come correct.

This leads me to bring up another strange irony coming from the current Iraq situation. Before the war a number of hawkish pundits (and posters, although not necessarily anyone in this discussion) seemed to take joy in pointing out the fact that Iraq's oil riches would pay for its own reconstruction. But now, after the reconstruction effort has been slowed somewhat and costs have skyrocketed, the admin is now saying that structuring the $20 billion in additional reconstruction aid as a loan against future oil revenues would be tantamount to stealing the oil.

To be clear, I do not disagree with the admin on this point. I just wish they could have gotten this straight before the war rather than after it when we as a country are presented with a large bill for a you-broke-it-you-bought-it style foreign aid program. Not that it would have quieted anyone who saw an imminent security threat emanating from Iraq, but at least I would feel more confident that the decision to go to war was made by an informed electorate and their representatives in view of all of the risks and costs associated with such an endeavor.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
To be clear, I do not disagree with the admin on this point. I just wish they could have gotten this straight before the war rather than after it when we as a country are presented with a large bill for a you-broke-it-you-bought-it style foreign aid program. Not that it would have quieted anyone who saw an imminent security threat emanating from Iraq, but at least I would feel more confident that the decision to go to war was made by an informed electorate and their representatives in view of all of the risks and costs associated with such an endeavor.

Maybe I'm just green, but I think the administration did not give a clear cost estimate pre-war because they had no clue what they would find on the ground or what would be destroyed as a result of the war and, thus, simply could not make a credible estimate. And frankly, if congressional support of the was contingent on the costs, they had an obligation to withhold support until they were satisfied.

Which brings up another point. Many of those in congress (DEMS and, to a lesser extent, GOPs) are trying to have it both ways. They voted for the war, but now they are trying to hedge that vote and are using the cost and bad intel for this purpose.

[sgtclub]

On the similarities he shares with Arnold:

"We both married well," Bush said, people talk about "both of us not being able to speak the English language," and "we both have big biceps.''

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think the administration did not give a clear cost estimate pre-war because they had no clue what they would find on the ground or what would be destroyed as a result of the war and, thus, simply could not make a credible estimate.

Excellent point. But the admin also said that the "Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people" and that oil revenues would pay for reconstruction. Now it could very well be that my memory is tinged by pundits and posters taking this point to the extreme of saying that the war would pay for itself, but it seemed to me that that was the prevailing sentiment at the time. Only a few news outlets (NPR being the only one I can remember specifically) took pains to point out that Iraq had an oil revenue stream of approximately $18 billion a year and approximately $350 billion in national debt, which would make it tough to afford that new power grid they were looking for. It frustrated me, almost as much as the more recent polls which point out that 97% of america believe that saddam was flying both planes that hit the WTC.

Gen. Shinseki gave Congress a credible prewar estimate of troop levels required for keeping the peace in Iraq, and he was promptly censured for it because it was far too large. Then Wolfowitz repeatedly stonewalled Congressional inquiries when costs were escalating during the few months leading up to Bush's "it's your money, but we need more of it" speech. It's a stretch to say that there was just no way to give any credible estimate. I think the problem the admin has faced throughout this undertaking is the task of giving a credible estimate that the nation would be ok with hearing.

Originally posted by sgtclub
And frankly, if congressional support of the was contingent on the costs, they had an obligation to withhold support until they were satisfied.

Which brings up another point.Many of those in congress (DEMS and, to a lesser extent, GOPs) are trying to have it both ways. They voted for the war, but now they are trying to hedge that vote and are using the cost and bad intel for this purpose.

But that's just it. Congress never declared this war. The vote was basically for GWB to "handle it." An abdication of their constitutional responsibility as our legislature, and I agree that we should hold them accountable for that failure. But frankly that decision was made with a set of facts and assumptions that seems far from the reality we have encountered a year later. Is this really having it both ways? I don't think so. Having it both ways would be voting for the war and then crying horror when CNN shows chem weapons being used on our troops or some other nightmare that we were warned about comes to pass.

Query: does anyone think that there will be a time in the future where a president asks Congress for a formal declaration of war? It seems like this perpertual war on terror has pretty much eliminated the need for that formality.