All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

FLORIDA: HARRIS CAMPAIGN GETS EVEN MORE BIZARRE.
Former defense contractor Mitchell Wade -- who already pled guilty to bribing Congressman Duke Cunningham (R-CA) -- picked up the $2,800 tab for a dinner he had with Congresswoman Katherine Harris (R) at an exclusive DC restaurant last year. The value of the unreported dinner far exceeded the $50 congressional gift limits, and was intended to get Harris to help Wade land a $10 million contract. So, who spilled the beans about this to the Orlando Sentinel? The answer: veteran GOP political strategist Ed Rollins, who had worked on Harris' campaign until he and the rest of the staff quit two weeks ago. "Rollins said he and Harris discussed the meal and its cost early this year after Wade" pled guilty to corruption charges, reported the newspaper. The price of the dinner was "news to me," Harris told the newspaper. She also said "her campaign had, at some point, 'reimbursed' the restaurant. When asked how she could have reimbursed a business that was owed no money -- Wade paid the bill that evening -- she abruptly ended the interview and walked off." A Harris staffer later called the Sentinel and begged them to not quote anything Harris said in the phone interview. The next day, Harris changed her story: "I have donated to a local Florida charity $100 which will more than adequately compensate for the cost of my beverage and appetizer." Harris said she thought the bill was so high because Wade may have ordered expensive wines and also brought some bottles home uncorked. As was previously reported, Harris received over $32,000 in illegal campaigns contributions from Wade -- more than any other member of Congress. After Wade pled guilty, Harris later donated an equal amount of money to charities. With stories like this continuing to appear, it is only a matter of time before some other Republican steps forward to challenge Harris in the primary. A statewide poll conducted last week -- for which no one claimed responsibility -- reportedly tested House Speaker Allan Bense in a possible primary contest against Harris. If Harris is the GOP nominee, move incumbent Bill Nelson (D) to the safe column.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why is this always an either/or? Is there any argument that more troops in Afghanistan would have made, or would make, a difference. i thought the issue with OBL is that he is likely in a part of Pakistan where we cannot go.

your way there'd be 200k more US troops in afghanistan who couldn't cross the border. how would that help catch him?

To help seal the border so he couldn't get into Pakistan? Just a thought . . .

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with this generally, although when it comes to evil regimes, if you take it out, an evil regime may takes its place, but a chance that a better one will come along, even if it is small, in my opinion, is worth the risk.

Reasonable minds can disagree on this, but it is pretty hard for me to imagine a situation developing in Iraq that I would label worse than Saddam Hussein.

I agree with your second point, from the perspective of the Iraqi people. From the perspective of American security, I disagree -- a regime that is friendly to Iran, or to al Qaeda, would be much worse for the US.

As to your first point, though, the question in my mind is not whether it is worth the "risk" of a worse regime coming in. The question is whether it was worth the cost.

Note -- I actually have to work today so don't expect any lengthy responses, and just assume that I disagree with everything you say.

[adebisi, esq.]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
just assume that I disagree with everything you say.

will do. that will nicely bookend the assumption that everything you say is a smoking pile of cat doodie.

[Spanky]

On April six the moderate Republican revolution started. There was a contest over the State Senate seat in Orange County (it was opened up when Campbell left it to take Cox's open congressional seat when Cox went to take over the SEC). Not surprisingly, this is considered one of the more conservative State Senate seats in California (CA State Senate seats represent 850,000 people - much bigger than a congressional seat). Harman, a prochoice moderate Republican supported by yours truly defeated Diane Harkey, a right wing pro-life nightmare.

In San Diego, Brian Bilbray, a Republican moderate, lead the Republican field in the fight to take Duke Cunningham's old seat. Another seat that is the traditional stronghold of the conservatives.

First we take back California, then the nation.

[adebisi, esq.]

Originally posted by Spanky


First we take back California, then the nation.

technically, we have not lost the nation, yet. in today's electoral world, the old line conservatives will likely need the right and far right factions, to some degree, for a long time.

don't forget, no dis intended, no matter how you slice it, cali ain't the mainstream. thank god.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
On April six the moderate Republican revolution started. There was a contest over the State Senate seat in Orange County (it was opened up when Campbell left it to take Cox's open congressional seat when Cox went to take over the SEC). Not surprisingly, this is considered one of the more conservative State Senate seats in California (CA State Senate seats represent 850,000 people - much bigger than a congressional seat). Harman, a prochoice moderate Republican supported by yours truly defeated Diane Harkey, a right wing pro-life nightmare.

In San Diego, Brian Bilbray, a Republican moderate, lead the Republican field in the fight to take Duke Cunningham's old seat. Another seat that is the traditional stronghold of the conservatives.

First we take back California, then the nation.

Yeah, I'm thinking of sending Eric Roach some money. Got the address?

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Because that's not the way we do things.

We don't arrest people for being inclined to commit robbery. We arest them when they commit robbery. Or attempt it. Really attempt it. Not just talk about it.

Interestingly, a google search of "conspiracy to commit armed robbery" returns about 10,000 hits, many of which contain examples of people being arrested even though an armed robbery was not actually committed. Also, an admittedly quick review of conspiracy statutes found no examples which required the suspect to "really attempt" the robbery in order to obtain a conviction.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I agree with your second point, from the perspective of the Iraqi people. From the perspective of American security, I disagree -- a regime that is friendly to Iran, or to al Qaeda, would be much worse for the US.

As to your first point, though, the question in my mind is not whether it is worth the "risk" of a worse regime coming in. The question is whether it was worth the cost.

Note -- I actually have to work today so don't expect any lengthy responses, and just assume that I disagree with everything you say.

From my perspective, what is good for the Iraqi people is good for the US in the long run. It may be expensive now, but if over time what we did leads to a prosperous Iraq it was worth every penny.

Saddam was running a kleptocracy, and things were never going to improve for the Iraqi people. As long as he was in power, sanctions or no sanctions, Iraq was going to get poorer and less educted. This in turn was making it more and more difficult for a future stable regime to ever take power and then hold power. Therefore, a stable democracy was never going to happen on its own, and the chance of creating a stable propsperous democracy in Iraq was diminishing every day Saddam was in power. Taking the chance of creating a prosperous Iraq was not only the moral thing to do (because it was good for the Iraqi people), but in the long term interests of the United States.

Most of the countrys in the world are becoming more democratic and have government that are adopting policies that are improving the standard of living in those countries. There are exceptions, but that is the overall trend which is great. But as long as there are countries in the world that are not democratic and are not prospering (or are declining in prosperity), that is bad for US interests. Whether by hook or by crook, we need to do whatever we can (and at whatever cost) to turn every country on the globe into a growing, prosperous democracy.

Once we achive that, national security will cease to be an issue.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky

I have thought about it a lot and many people hold this position, not just me. Did you miss the whole post 9-11 reassessment of the rules of engagament. I remember watching Al Franken (who supported the invasion at the time) saying that in a post 9-11 world we can't wait to be hit first. And it is not that these countrys just pose a greater danger, they have not only said they want to destroy the US, but they have taken affirmative steps in that direction.





Arrogance and ignorance: again you demonstrate why they are such an annoying combination.

Let me say this very slowly: if another country (let's pick one, say, Syria) is a greater threat to the US than Afghanistan, then that may be justification for invading Syria.

It is not justification for invading Iraq.

(Unless you go for the "bloody nose" theory, i.e., when confronted with a half dozen bullies, pick the biggest one and bloody his nose and the rest will run away. Except, well, that hasn't worked out very well. Is that what you're saying?)

The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were heinous rulers who abused their people. From a moral perspective taking them out was a good thing for their people.

Keeping murderous thugs in power may be prudent from a national security perspective, but its pathetic to try and defend their existence from a morality perspective.

From my perspective, not attacking until you have been attacked first, in the international arean, can be and often is an immoral position. If you have the ability to stop genocide, I believe it is a moral imperative stop the genocide, regardless if the country perpetuating the genocide has attacked you.

If only any of that had been the justification for going into Iraq. if only it had been so clean. But it wasn't. It just wasn't. Was not.

I'm not saying that one can only attack when attacked. I'm saying that nobody disagrees that when one is striking back that one is on the high ground. In the absence of that, one better have one's ducks in a row or anticipate criticism.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Yeah, I'm thinking of sending Eric Roach some money. Got the address?

I think he has all the money he needs.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
Interestingly, a google search of "conspiracy to commit armed robbery" returns about 10,000 hits, many of which contain examples of people being arrested even though an armed robbery was not actually committed. Also, an admittedly quick review of conspiracy statutes found no examples which required the suspect to "really attempt" the robbery in order to obtain a conviction.

Conspiracy requires an act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. This is loosely interpreted. Driving to the bank with the guns in the car is enough, even if no one gets out (though affirmatively withdrawing from the conspiracy is a defense).

As noted, I disagree with balt on the significance of "who started it."

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Saddam was running a kleptocracy, and things were never going to improve for the Iraqi people. As long as he was in power, sanctions or no sanctions, Iraq was going to get poorer and less educted. This in turn was making it more and more difficult for a future stable regime to ever take power and then hold power. Therefore, a stable democracy was never going to happen on its own, and the chance of creating a stable propsperous democracy in Iraq was diminishing every day Saddam was in power. Taking the chance of creating a prosperous Iraq was not only the moral thing to do (because it was good for the Iraqi people), but in the long term interests of the United States.

Very few people think Saddam is a good guy. Most questioning is not whether toppling Saddam was a good idea from a moral perspective, but why, in light of a) our tolerance of his existance for a dozen years and b) the existence of other threats, we chose the moment we did to invade. Without a plan on how to control the country after we got in. Taking a chance on invading Iraq to make it a more prosperous place might have been the moral choice. But doing so in such a manner so as to minimize the chances of that prosperity (by not having a plan to establish control and order), is absolutely unmoral. And not in the long term interests of the US.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
To help seal the border so he couldn't get into Pakistan? Just a thought . . .

it's not really a thought, or at least not a good one- sorry. To seal the other end of the caves and passes you would have needed troops in Pakistan, although it likely there are so many passes you couldn't seal them with a million troops.

more importantly, the guy got out of Afghanistan BEFORE we invaded Iraq you numbskull.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
it's not really a thought, or at least not a good one- sorry. To seal the other end of the caves and passes you would have needed troops in Pakistan, although it likely there are so many passes you couldn't seal them with a million troops.

more importantly, the guy got out of Afghanistan BEFORE we invaded Iraq you numbskull.

Wait, are you saying it's a fools errand to send troops in to chase Osama bin Laden?

So tell me again, why did my cousin Daisy's fiance have to die? And what do we tell the kid about why his father died?