Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I just got a call from a company taking a poll. The guy asked me, are you or is anyone in your house a reporter or actively involved in a political campaign this year? I said, no. He said, alright, that's all the questions I have.

What's up with that?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I just got a call from a company taking a poll. The guy asked me, are you or is anyone in your house a reporter or actively involved in a political campaign this year? I said, no. He said, alright, that's all the questions I have.

What's up with that?

It means that you answered "Independent, likely voter, voting for Kerry" in the next LA Times poll.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It means that you answered "Independent, likely voter, voting for Kerry" in the next LA Times poll.

POTD.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I just got a call from a company taking a poll. The guy asked me, are you or is anyone in your house a reporter or actively involved in a political campaign this year? I said, no. He said, alright, that's all the questions I have.

What's up with that?

It sounds like they are doing a media bias poll. They are trying to find out what percentage of journalists are actively involved in political campaigns.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
It sounds like they are doing a media bias poll. They are trying to find out what percentage of journalists are actively involved in political campaigns.

Then they should have said "and" instead of "or."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Hank's a girl?

My bad Hank.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We're taking a risk on either Bush or Kerry. Even if you think that Bush has the right foreign-policy inclinations -- and I don't -- he keeps screwing things up. E.g., reasonable minds can differ about whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but not without a plan.

On the criticisms of Kerry, I think Republicans like to tell themselves that 9/11 changed everything, but that Democrats didn't get the message. As we've discussed ad nauseum on this board, Bush plainly did not give much attention to the threat posed by Al Qaeda before 9/11. Y'all give him credit, not unreasonably, for changing his priorities thereafter. Yet you look at Kerry's record before 9/11 and pretend that he would go back to that time. I understand why this is appealing as propaganda, but if you really believe it then you're not being serious.

Even if we say that Kerry's pre 9/11 record is irrelevent, and I don't think it is, what about his post 9/11 record? I know you like to justify it all sorts of ways, but he voted against $87 million in funding after saying that anyone who did that was not fit to be president. He's said Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, while troops are in harm's way. He's ridiculed the leadership of Iraq while Allawi was a guest of the US. He's belittled our allies who have joined the coalition. He's said that our foreign policy going forward would be governed by some amorphous "global test," which, giving him the benefit of the doubt, does not mean a veto by our allies, but I'm not sure what that means. He's made other statements suggesting that this "war" should be fought, more like the war on drugs, as a matter of global law enforcement. All of these statements are post 9/11 and cause for great concern.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Then they should have said "and" instead of "or."

They might want a control group of those who are not journalists and who are actively involved in political campaigns.

eta - I mean a cohort, not a control.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We now know that Iraq did not pose a threat to us. So why are we arguing about whether Kerry would act to protect us from imminent harm? Why aren't we arguing about the lives and resources spent because Bush made the wrong call. I think Kerry has better judgment.

We now know that Saddam did not pose an immediate threat. Read the Duelfer report, he was certainly a threat and would have become more so had the sanctions been lifted, which is the direction the world was moving. But more importantly, anyone who doesn't believe something drastic had to be done in the middle east is just not looking out far enough.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
anyone who doesn't believe something drastic had to be done in the middle east is just not looking out far enough.

2.

[confidential to Club]does this buy me an invite to "The Island" or no?[/confidential to Club]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Even if we say that Kerry's pre 9/11 record is irrelevent, and I don't think it is, what about his post 9/11 record?

OK.

I know you like to justify it all sorts of ways, but he voted against $87 million in funding after saying that anyone who did that was not fit to be president.

And he voted for a different measure to fund the $87 billion (b) that Bush opposed. At least Kerry's method of funding the war was fiscally responsible.

He's said Iraq is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, while troops are in harm's way.

He was right. Living in a democracy, as we do, you're allowed to say that our leaders have screwed up, even if our troops are being shot at. I recall Republicans criticizing Clinton while our troops were in harm's way in the former Yugoslavia.

He's ridiculed the leadership of Iraq while Allawi was a guest of the US.

If pointing out the truth constitutes ridicule, then you've got to blame the person who put Allawi in the situation. Bush has Allawi come to this country to campaign for him, reading a speech written by his campaign, and Kerry's to blame for pointing this out? You think no one in Iraq was going to see the Allawi puppet show on Al Jazeera if Kerry didn't point it out?

He's belittled our allies who have joined the coalition.

No, he said the problem was that there weren't more of them. They probably agree.

He's said that our foreign policy going forward would be governed by some amorphous "global test," which, giving him the benefit of the doubt, does not mean a veto by our allies, but I'm not sure what that means.

If you read what he said, it's pretty simple. Once you act unilaterally, you've got to be able to justify what you've done to your own countrymen and other countries.

It's not confusing. Bush is twisting his words intentionally, because after four years, that's what he's got left to run on. That and poor Mary Cheney.

He's made other statements suggesting that this "war" should be fought, more like the war on drugs, as a matter of global law enforcement.

He's said the war on terror involves law enforcement, which it does. Do you ever find yourself wondering why Attorney General Ashcroft, the nation's top law enforcement officer, keeps popping up in the war on terror? It's not because he's a member of the Reserves. This, again, is another straw man.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
We now know that Saddam did not pose an immediate threat. Read the Duelfer report, he was certainly a threat and would have become more so had the sanctions been lifted, which is the direction the world was moving. But more importantly, anyone who doesn't believe something drastic had to be done in the middle east is just not looking out far enough.

With all due respect, the Duelfer Report says his capacities were diminishing, not growing. He was not a threat to us. He was not cooperating with Al Qaeda, and he did not have any WMD to give terrorists. With our forces in Kuwait, he was no threat to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Turkey's military was easily superior to his, and he'd already failed with Iran. Who was he a threat to? And how so?

I'm not saying the Middle East was a bed of roses, but we've taken a suboptimal situation and made it worse. Who is the counterbalance to Iran now? Certainly not Iraq anytime soon. If we don't want Iran to dominate the region, we've got to stay there now, with all the problems that entails. Introducing democracy in the Middle East is a wonderful concept, except that we haven't figured out how to do it yet.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who was he a threat to? And how so?

We have been through this a hundred times. That really wasn't the issue. That may have been the issue presented to the UN, but it really wasn't the issue.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
we've taken a suboptimal situation and made it worse.

If they could talk, those lying in the mass graves would disagree with you.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who is the counterbalance to Iran now? Certainly not Iraq anytime soon.

That would be Israel. Long live Israel.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If you read what he said, it's pretty simple. Once you act unilaterally, you've got to be able to justify what you've done to your own countrymen and other countries.

And I will reiterate for the 7th time - by "this" standard, Bush passed the test.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
We have been through this a hundred times. That really wasn't the issue. That may have been the issue presented to the UN, but it really wasn't the issue.

Look a couple of posts above yours and you will see club saying that Hussein was a threat. I agree with you.

If they could talk, those lying in the mass graves would disagree with you.

They can debate it with the folks who've died recently.

The test of these policies is not just the body count. It's also whether we can bring stability to the region.

That would be Israel. Long live Israel.

Israel's not going to be doing much to protect the oil we rely on.