So you don’t think more could be done to coordinate between various US govt agencies, to seal off borders better especially with Syria, to coordinate with other UN forces better? to improve security measures? to stem the guerilla resistance better? to improve relations with Iraqis better? or is it too early to say?
Let’s say the Iraq experiment is a success. but wait, it would be one of maybe 2 or 3 states in the region with some semblance of democracy, and realistically would be very vulnerable to outside hostile influences from neighbouring countries perhaps Syria, perhaps Iran. What do you think the US or EU or UN, or no one should do to prevent Iraq from being infiltrated, destablized and turned into either Lebanon or another resurrection of the Baathists or another fundamentalist, violently anti-western “islamic” non-western democracy type power?
Invade them all and “denazify” all of them?
You make it sound as if the US is capable of coordinating things perfectly even at home. Hah! The only thing that lets me sleep at night is knowing governments in Syria and Iran are probably even less capable of coordination than the US.
The reason that the 25K to 35K troops remain behind is precisely to ensure the security balance.
The UN ran at the first sign of trouble. This is the organization that so many put their faith in. Again, in the multiculturalist’s world, where’s the stick to go with the carrot. How do you defend against people who don’t play by the same rules. They don’t have an answer. The US army does.
The truth plain and simple is that Germany and France have no help to give. They are over their deficit targets and have no usable troops free. Okay, maybe France has 3,000 that it could spare. Not going to tip the balance either way.
Iraq will have to be run for better or worse by the people of Iraq. They will make mistakes as do we all and they will suffer through the consequences. The important thing is that Saddam is gone and now maybe there can be peace with the neighbors and within the region as a whole.
If Iran and Syria get out of line (anymore than they are now), they will be dealt with in the manner that the US government (and any willing partners) is able to deal with them. Each case is separate but I for one would not mind seeing a lot more heat put on Syria and Saudi Arabia.
What else can I tell you? The world ain’t perfect. People will suffer and die and that’s true everywhere but it’s only reported by international media when it happens in Iraq.
Is it still a problem. Hell yes. Is it manageable? More and more every day.
[quote]Bush’s job approval was at 61 percent in the National Annenberg Election Survey conducted the four days after the holiday, up from 56 percent during the four days before Thanksgiving. Disapproval of the president dropped from 41 percent to 36 percent, according to the poll released Tuesday.
[quote=“Howard Dean during December 1st Hardball interview”]Iran is a more complex problem because the problem support as clearly verifiable as it is in North Korea. Also, we have less-fewer levers much the key, I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons. That is also a country that must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons much the key to all this is foresight. Let
That was hilarious (I won’t say hysterical since that is an emotionally laden (or leaden) word).
Should we start a thread with Democrat candidates missteps? It might be hard to find these though since I hardly imagine that this is something the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe and CNN are going to run with any great frequency.
[quote][color=red]
2004 Will Be the U.S.'s Best Year Economically in Last 20 Years, The Conference Board Reports in a Revised Forecast
[/color]
Thursday December 11, 11:01 am ET
NEW YORK, Dec. 11 /PRNewswire/ – Revising its year-end economic forecast sharply upward, The Conference Board today projected that real GDP growth will hit 5.7% next year, making 2004 the best year economically in the last 20 years.
The forecast, by Conference Board Chief Economist Gail Fosler, expects worker productivity, which set a 20-year record in the third quarter, to rise at a healthy 3.6% next year. That would follow a gain of 4.3% this year.
The economic forecast is prepared for more than 2,500 corporate members of The Conference Board’s global business network, based in 66 nations.
Great news. But following the election, we had better see a bit of program cutting and shrinking of the federal government going on or I am going to be getting pretty pissed with the Bush administration.
Let’s work on getting rid of the depts of energy, education, commerce, agriculture, hud for starters and letting states manage welfare, transportation projects and unemployment insurance without routing all these things through bureaucratic Washington. Think of how it would reduce the power of lobbyists and money politics when all those contracts are decided in 50 state capitals rather than one national capital. I really want to see some serious reform in these areas, but given Iraq… will still support Bush.
Check out this cool map that splits the county into 10 political regions, each with a distinct political character rather than the red-blue divide of previous maps that looked at how American voters voted:
[quote=“Chewycorns”]My take on the Democratic candidates:
Wesley Clark - the best candidate. 1st in his class at West Point. Went to Oxford(heheheheheh - should have went to LSE). Served and was injured in Vietnam. While he was putting his life on the line, Bush was snorting coke and drinking endless kegs of beer on the Houston cocktail circuit.
[/quote]
There’s a reason why Wes isn’t a general anymore. Here’s a photo of him and his buddy Serbian General (wanted war criminal) Ratko Mladic. They were such good buddies they even exchanged hats. The State Department was not amused.
I assume these pictures were taken at some meeting or negotiation session. Therefore, I don’t think Clark should be lambasted for the photo opportunity, although I do think it is in poor taste. Furthermore, sometimes in the line of duty people have to meet with unsavoury characters (ex. Rumsfeld meeting Saddam in 1983 during the Iran-Iraq war, Reagan’s Latin American policy which gave money to tyrants like Mr. Monte in Guatemala) Regarding Sheldon’s comments - I agree. Clark is a maverick and not well liked in the military. And its for this reason (his independence, intelligence and bluntness), I think we would make a fine Commander-in -Chief. I remember a Jeff Greenfield analysis on CNN where he stated that Clark was too “good looking, too independent, and too ambitious” to be a consensus builder in the armed forces. He did things his way and this often put him at odds with many of his colleagues.
However, I still think he is the best candidate for the Democratic Party. He could appeal to the Reagan Democrats (after all he voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr.), Southerners, and moderate Democrats - all vital groups if the Dems hope to sit in the White House. The liberal base will vote for him regardless cuz of their antipathy for George W.
Clark has had an illustrious military career with the US Armed Forces and NATO and this will play well if foreign policy issues dominate the election. During election time, Clark can attack Bush as being too unilateralist and tell the public he again will value multilateralism and will respect the UN. Of course on domestic issues, he can surround himself with the best and the brightest (Rubin for economics matters etc) He can contrast his record of public service since Vietnam vs. Bush, who visits the troops in Iraq and acts like he is a fucking Texas Ranger. Shit, are these troops so stupid that they forget that when good veterans and many members of the lower middle class (who didn’t go to uni) were fighting and dying in Vietnam, Bush was serving in a plum air force division in Texas thanks to daddy and, later, went AWOL for some time (must have been some bodacious cocaine. hehehehe).
Clark will appeal to swing voters in battleground states, and will allow the Dems to capture one or two Southern states. Unless he is the Dem candidate in 2004, I am afraid Dubya will be a two-term president. If the Democrats are so stupid as to nominate Dean, then George W. really does deserve another four years.
I think Howard Dean doesn’t have it, he will never make it. The Dems are lost this year. Bush will win again. Period. Sad. the USA needs new blood, but where is it? Nobody cares about politics anymore.
[quote] [color=red]Inflation at 38 Year Low[/color]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. consumer prices took a surprise tumble last month, dragging the underlying inflation rate to a nearly 38-year low, even as industrial output and groundbreaking for homes surged, reports showed on Tuesday… A separate report showed the shortfall in the U.S. current account, the broadest measure of America’s trade with the rest of the world, shrank more than expected in the third quarter… The slew of data suggested the economy was stronger than most analysts had thought.
Here are some funny excerpts from an article about Dean:
[quote]It’s odd that when something big happens, as on Sunday, the Democratic candidates seem irrelevant to the story, like asking a lacrosse expert what he thinks of the Super Bowl. … You can’t help feeling that, on the big questions roiling around America’s national security, the Dems don’t really have speaking parts.
There was a revealing moment on MSNBC the other night. Chris Matthews asked Dr. Dean whether Osama bin Laden should be tried in an American court or at The Hague. “I don’t think it makes a lot of difference,” said the governor airily. Mr. Matthews pressed once more. “It doesn’t make a lot of difference to me,” he said again. … Gov. Dean couldn’t have been less interested. So how about Saddam? The Hague “suits me fine,” he said, the very model of ennui. Saddam? Osama? Whatever, dude.
So what does get the Dean juices going? A few days later, the governor was on CNN and Judy Woodruff asked him about his admission that he’d left the Episcopal Church and become a Congregationalist because “I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church over the bike path.” I hasten to add that, in contrast to current Anglican controversies over gay marriage in British Columbia and gay bishops in New Hampshire, this does not appear to have been a gay bike path: its orientation was not an issue; it would seem to be a rare example of a non-gay controversy in the Anglican Communion. But nevertheless it provoked Howard into “a big fight.” “I was fighting to have public access to the waterfront, and we were fighting very hard in the citizens group,” he told Judy Woodruff. Fighting, fighting, fighting.
And that’s our pugnacious little Democrat. On Osama bin Laden, he’s Mister Insouciant. But he gets mad about bike paths. Destroy the World Trade Center and he’s languid and laconic and blasé. Obstruct plans to convert the ravaged site into a memorial bike path and he’ll hunt you down wherever you are.
Question to those of you who are offended by W’s reliance on his religious beliefs in office:
Are you equally offended by Dean’s declarations recently that he intends to talk more about Jesus?
[quote]Howard B. Dean… described himself… as a committed believer in Jesus Christ and said he expects to increasingly include references to Jesus and God in his speeches as he stumps in the South… Dean… explained the move as a desire to share his beliefs with audiences willing to listen… Dean said that Jesus was an important influence in his life and that he would probably share with some voters the model Jesus has served for him.
[quote=“tigerman”]Question to those of you who are offended by W’s reliance on his religious beliefs in office:
Are you equally offended by Dean’s declarations recently that he intends to talk more about Jesus?[/quote]
Nope. The Dems have an “idea distribution” problem that can be (at least partially) solved by American religion, i.e., church on Sunday. And lots of political hacks think that the Dem retreat from church-going folk has cost them votes as well. The GOP has a big leg up on the Dems there, so I cut Dean some slack and just chalk it up to PAU (Politics As Usual).
[quote=“tigerman”]Question to those of you who are offended by W’s reliance on his religious beliefs in office:
Are you equally offended by Dean’s declarations recently that he intends to talk more about Jesus?[/quote]
OK. Do you think W’s exhibiting religious beliefs is also PAU, and if yes, do you likewise cut W some slack?
Conversely, if you believe that W’s religious beliefs are sincerely held, do you think his sincerity is better or worse than Dean’s lies (per your opinion) regarding the role/influence of religion on his life?
[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“tigerman”]Question to those of you who are offended by W’s reliance on his religious beliefs in office:
Are you equally offended by Dean’s declarations recently that he intends to talk more about Jesus?[/quote]
OK. Do you think W’s exhibiting religious beliefs is also PAU, and if yes, do you likewise cut W some slack?[/quote]
I think W personally believes what he says about his relationship with God. I do think much of the GOP’s behavior vis-a-vis Christianity can be explained by PAU. I do cut W slack here.
I’m not sure that’s the converse of your first statement (the converse would be, I believe, “If I think W should get some slack from me, then do I think his professed beliefs are merely PAU?”). You know, I could simply follow an American figure of some authority here and say, “That’s a trick question, tigerman, and I’m not gonna answer it.” Does that answer your question about what I think about W’s sincere beliefs whether it’s better or worse than Dean’s “lies?” (and what’s with that clever trap, is it a lawyer’s version of “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”)
Ok, since I’m not the president, I’ll play. I think Dean has said before that he’s attended church in the past, Christian even (I thought it was Episcopalian but your link says Congregationalist). So I’m not sure he really told any big whopper here. And if W can believe, then so can Dean. More importantly for politicians, though, is that if W can wear his relationship with God on his sleeve, then Dean can surely mention his own. I think the point is that, especially in the American South, political beliefs are largely filtered through religious beliefs first. That is, if you can’t talk about your personal relationship with Christ (and you better have one), then you may as well stay out of the South. So, it’s PAU. Christianity is necessary but not sufficient in the South, period.
[quote=“flike”] [quote=“tigerman”][quote=“tigerman”]Question to those of you who are offended by W’s reliance on his religious beliefs in office:
Are you equally offended by Dean’s declarations recently that he intends to talk more about Jesus?[/quote]
OK. Do you think W’s exhibiting religious beliefs is also PAU, and if yes, do you likewise cut W some slack?[/quote]
I think W personally believes what he says about his relationship with God. I do think much of the GOP’s behavior vis-a-vis Christianity can be explained by PAU. I do cut W slack here.
I’m not sure that’s the converse of your first statement (the converse would be, I believe, “If I think W should get some slack from me, then do I think his professed beliefs are merely PAU?”). You know, I could simply follow an American figure of some authority here and say, “That’s a trick question, tigerman, and I’m not gonna answer it.” Does that answer your question about what I think about W’s sincere beliefs whether it’s better or worse than Dean’s “lies?” (and what’s with that clever trap, is it a lawyer’s version of “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”)
Ok, since I’m not the president, I’ll play. I think Dean has said before that he’s attended church in the past, Christian even (I thought it was Episcopalian but your link says Congregationalist). So I’m not sure he really told any big whopper here. And if W can believe, then so can Dean. More importantly for politicians, though, is that if W can wear his relationship with God on his sleeve, then Dean can surely mention his own. I think the point is that, especially in the American South, political beliefs are largely filtered through religious beliefs first. That is, if you can’t talk about your personal relationship with Christ (and you better have one), then you may as well stay out of the South. So, it’s PAU. Christianity is necessary but not sufficient in the South, period.[/quote]
No, I’m not trying to trip you or anyone up. I’m just trying to see if Bush bashers (at least those who take issue with his professed religious beliefs) are going to be consistent with respect to Dean.
You indicated that you think Bush is sincere in his beliefs. You also indicated that you think Dean’s professed beliefs are for PAU. Thus, I see a distinction.
Now, my second question (the one I introduced with the “conversely” opening) asks whether you think it is better for a candidate to be sincere or insincere with regard to his/her professed religious beliefs. In other words, do you think W’s sincerely professed religious beliefs are more or less dangerous than Dean’s insincerely professed religious beliefs?
In general, I would like to think that insincerely held beliefs are always more dangerous than those held sincerely. But to me, and to every politician in the world (imo), insincerity is what happens. It’s the norm; it’s PAU. For instance, in late October this year Bush decided not to answer when a reporter asked, “Can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?” Although I think it would have been much more sincere (perhaps less dangerous) for him to simply say, “I can’t promise you that now because things may change, and if they do then you’ll come back and whack me on the head with it,” he chose to say, “The second question is a trick question, so I won’t answer it” with a mini-smirk and pointed his finger at the next reporter, his body language clearly saying, “Next question, now.”
Now, I understand why he said what he did; the real Bush would appear to be profoundly untelegenic. The fact is that he’s not a man who’s comfortable in his own skin and, imo, he probably needs lots of time between personal events and how he perceives their impact on him before he’s comfortable talking about them. Obviously this is my opinion, and I admit that I’m still trying to understand him as a human. What I mean is that, for me, he just couldn’t think fast enough to reach the conclusion that he could be completely honest at that very moment. I’m not trying to be obtuse here, I’m saying that if you watch Bush closely you can see that for a professed Christian he’s often remarkably hostile. (I believe that his response to the reporter was remarkably hostile) He’s hostile because, imo, he’s unsure about lots of things, basically inward-looking, introspective things about himself and how he relates to the outside world, how he fits in. The hostility, the smirk, those are defensive actions designed to buy him time, imo. In my opinion, this is why that particular press conference was so heavily scripted, all questions known in advance. It was simply too politically dangerous for Bush to be too open because when he tries to do so the real Bush comes out, a man who’s still being formed, still recovering from some deep wound, who still hasn’t made up his mind about how he relates to something or some things, almost certainly intensely personal, that have happened to him. That’s when Bush is liable to go into smirk mode, imo. I think that for such a man, gettin’ the born-again passion is powerful medicine, a kind of painkiller even. I think he’s much more comfortable, and thus sincere, when he discusses how Christ changed his life (as an aside, I have noticed that he rarely finds ways to talk about what he does for Christ; for Bush, his relationship with Christ seems to be largely utilitarian). However, his response to the reporter was PAU. I understand. He could have done better, imo, but he would have been crazy to answer straight up because the reporter was, indeed, looking for tomorrow’s club with which to whack him. He was right, it was a trick question, and the only correct answer was to be sincere. Unfortunately, he failed (although for many Bush supporters, his effort was sufficient. Not great, but good enough).
As for what you’re getting at, just as Dean was noticeably insincere with his religious beliefs, so was Bush noticeably insincere with his response to the reporter’s question. In both cases, the danger to the outside world was slightly increased (for Dean, that the US might elect a president who lies about his religious beliefs; for Bush, that the US would not signal its intentions vis-a-vis resource deployment) at the cost of political expediency. I’m not trying to compare apples to oranges here, I’m just saying that both occasions were apples, or instances of PAU and as such, understandable. In politics, certain words and certain behaviors are necessary. And in general, yes, I would like to believe that sincerity is inversely proportional to danger.
Sometimes, unfortunately, they are unlinked by the need to win in politics. I believe that Bush needs an intense personal relationship with Christ; I do not believe Dean has a similar need. In Dean’s calculus, he must talk about religion in the South anyway.
Here’s an excerpt from an interesting article regarding this subject:
[quote]It’s common for liberals to complain that Bush talks about religion too much. But few Americans agree. Recent polling by Pew shows that only 14 percent think Bush talks about his faith too much. The vast majority, 62 percent, like the way he deploys religion, and 11 percent think he doesn’t invoke it enough. This is one reason there’s little hope of Dean riding a secular backlash into the White House, but it is not the only one. Although the number of Americans who attend church less than once per year is growing, it is still at 30 percent, a decided minority. According to the pollster John Zogby, “Appealing to secular voters might help you win a Democratic primary–but that’s it.” The University of Akron’s John Green, the pollster who has looked the hardest at the electoral implications of religion, argues that voters “are looking for signs that they can trust a candidate. One of the things that they are looking for, one of the things that makes sense to them, is religiosity. If they don’t see it, they may have a hard time voting for a candidate.”
