Bush is back!

I think it is obvious that Bush and the Republican party are the winners of this election, and that is even if Kerry manages to pull out some sort of electoral college victory. The turnout was large and clearly the majority popular vote has come out for the Republicans and Republican agendas, with perhaps the one exception of support for stem cell research in California.Obviously there was a difference between the largest cosmopolitan areas and rural areas, with the former coming out solidly for Democrats. But this country's majority is clearly not based in its largest cosmopolitan areas. And as an independent I am free to admit that we have been shown where the popular heart of the US stands.This does vindicate Bush's policies in a theoretical way, even if they showed no practical results, and he (or at least the republicans) have a mandate for the future. Unless some major scandal occurs with regards to voting (which I do not foresee), the republican party are the proper representatives of this nation's policies.That said, I am saddened. This is not because I have some allegiance to the Democrats, but because I take the results as a negative statement of where the heart of america lies.I think this shows that the heart of the US lies in unreasoned partisanship and a fallability to "violent spectacle" (thanks scorcese).I say this because many republicans turned out to support republicans clearly on that criteria alone. While hypercritical of Bush policies before, and sometimes during this administration, they fell in lockstep for the election process. That kind of partisanship makes me ill every time.You could see this in interviews where people like Falwell would say they were voting for Bush but not Cheney, and people like Schwarzenneger and McCain would say vote Republican like us, but there was no connection between them and Bush's policies. This means there was no solid plan for the future no set policy any republican could point to beyond glittering generalities.So exactly what policy has a mandate? It seems that more or less, whatever can lead the republicans to victory, and not necessarily any specific practical policy for what they think is best for the US. And in this they are willing to give whatever policy this administration has a popular vote since it is republican.People can accuse many democrats of the same thing and I would agree. It not only happens, but it is equally bad. However in this case it is pretty clear that most democrats in this election were not bending 180 degrees in order to support their candidate. The most you had were some disconnects on whether Iraq should ever have been invaded, and minor differences on approaches. The overall nature of future policy was pretty much consistent.The other issue I mentioned was many voters falling for "violent spectacle". It seems that many did not bother reasoning what violence had been necessary or profitable, but rather ran to the guy with the guns and other displays of power.You could see this in the wholly irrational debate on the use of force. Not one debate regarding the war in Iraq has been won by a republican, and many (unfortunately as I said even those which voted for Bush) republicans came out with how damaging Bush's policies actually have been.Yet, especially through the south and rural areas, voters insist Bush's use of the military has made them safer. No reasoning on this.So it seems the heart of the US is that of the true believer and the partisan.I can only hope that members of the republican party who I usually respect and are not true believer status, can make headway with the future administration. I guess I hope that their partisan political gamble pays off.In any case I will not accuse republicans of criminally attaining their victory unless someone uncovers something massive. They have won, and Bush has a popular mandate, even if not for specific policy (heheh a blank check policy mandate). For better or worse.PS---
For anyone about to criticize my post tell me three things:1) Which specific policy is this administration (and that includes the senate and congress) going to follow on: gay marriage, stem cell research, deficit spending?2) Given any specific answer to #1, why were there many republicans against those very policies at the convention and standing behind men supporting those policies despite the 180 degree difference.3) Give me any indicator that invading Iraq has provided a measure of safety to us, that simply pursuing Al-Queda with greater forces in Afghnistan and Malaysia would NOT have provided us.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

1) This is inconsistent with the Bush argument regarding the coalition in Iraq, which includes mainly european nations, and facts on the ground in any case. The only issue that separated some of the large european nations from the US on use of force was the invasion of Iraq. They were all for Afghanistan and are open for other military engagements.For the last time on this issue... though Bush supporters seem incapable of understanding this... Iraq did not hit us at all. Neither were they in an imminent threat position (even according to those who believed it posed a general threat).As it turns out, the arguments made by European nations against an invasion of Iraq at the time Bush wanted to, turned out to all be corrrect. Our rationale turned out to be fallacious at best, fabricated at worst.Picking on Europeans... didn't Bush say that's not the way to deal with allies?2) I am for use of military force and believe hitting back hard, or harder, is fine. But hit who, and how is the question. That is the only point I ever raised. Let's try reasoning once more. If we get hit again, or it is revealed there is a new threat, will we be in a worse position to address it than if we had not invaded? And if we had not invaded what is the chance we'd have to be facing them? I didn't say this. I happen to believe we are entering a new Dark Age but it began years ago and has nothing to do with Bush.So I guess you should try and keep track of who you are addressing. Snicker snicker snicker. So what exactly is your plan to deal with China and India?Face it, eventually at some point in history, the US and "American" will no longer exist except in history books. You missed the point. There is a section for federal legislation of gay marriage, a section against federal legislation, and in the latter camp those who are for and against. What plan did you vote for when voting Republican? You can't say because there was none.In fact, I understand that the majority of americans (and that includes democrats) are against gay marriage. That does not mean they are for having the feds bully states on the issue.I love how you are now trying to dodge my point that the republicans offered all plans and so voted for none with regards to voting for candidates. I had even mentioned the Fallwell quote where he said his group was voting for Bush but not for Cheney in this election, because of the different policies the different men represent. Still dodging, but thank you for proving my argument regarding the nature of republicans and where the majority of americans are.Reps are having it both ways by saying they are against it, but not really because it will still be privately funded. Well what the hell does that mean? So if something is discovered it will never be publicly funded? Take a moral position and stick with it.And of course you then had Reps like Schwarzenneger who were clearly for public funding of embryonic stem cell research. Listen to Arnold, no don't, yes do, no don't. Flip. Flop. And oh by the way that was accepted in California and as I understand it is supported by a majority in the US.If you want to debate the utility of embryonic stem cell research we can start another thread. I am not for it any more than adult stem cell research. I just have no reaon to be against it. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha... Didn't I tell you I was not a democrat? I am a relative fiscal conservative, so you can't pull that kind of wool over my eyes.I mean do I actually have to list the names of Republicans who have blasted Bush's taxation and deficit spending policies because it doesn't fit into traditional Republican policies?Or did we vote in a new reality? I understand this. The point was that Republicans abandoned any particular policy during the election in order to champion everything under the tent to get out the vote and make the Republicans stronger, despite the jarring inconsistencies this required.This might be appealing to partisan politicos, but not to people (like me) that prefer reasoned approaches to problems and voting on the reps of specific approaches.I think its safe to say that even Kerry and Edwards were commited to free markets and a foreign policy of strength. That was the kind of glittering generality I was referring to. What does that mean for republicans? Is it the McCain type policy, or the Wolfowitz type policy?You did not see this kind of partisanship within the democratic side. Yes your partisan hackery is noted... still trying to hit those talking points?Your us and them (aka dems vs reps) excludes quite a number of people including independents (which is what I am) and republicans that have said the exact opposite of the what you just said. Do I really need to name some names?First of all this is a war on terror, right? This does include many more than just Islamic terrorist groups, though there is absolutely no question that is one of the biggest terrorist threats the US is facing.It is not just get OBL and that's the end. However getting OBL is a much greater achievement than removing Hussein. Going into Iraq was not "hitting back harder" as you put it as they had nothing to do with the threat we were facing from terrorism.Neither did Iraq have anything to do with Islamic Fundamentalism. Hussein was an enemy of the fundamentalists as he was a commited secularist. Perhaps you should get to know actual Iraqis and the history of Iraq before trying to make that connection.Since Hussein's removal Islamic Fundamentalism has grown and is now more of a threat to us than it was before. Even a fully democratic Iraq will not mean that fundamentalism and support for its aims goes away. Has democracy ended Xian fundamentalist efforts? In the end a free Iraq may even remain or grow as a threat to Israel.Your ability to mistate my position continuously, as well as exhibit clear misunderstandings of facts on the ground, just goes to show what I was talking about.Thank you true believer and partisan hack.PS--- Putin was firmly behind Bush for an aggressive stance against terrorism. He was also firmly against Iraq. So was he a european or not? Whoops, there goes the stereotypes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First of all I will note that your criticism of Europe and how it handles issues of being attacked was successfully repudiated, and this is clearly seen in your current arguments which have abandoned that tack. Thank you. Again, no it is not. And unlike you, I actually have facts and reasons on my side, rather than the spin made after the supposed facts and reasons for invasion were revealed to be conclusively false to even the most diehard.I say this in full confidence as I am now addressing 180 degree different arguments from the same crowd I was arguing against before the invasion. My position has remained the same, with the exception of noting that my initial assessments have been proven right on Iraq and so have good reason to believe my future one's will be as well.As before Iraq, I am fully prepared for military action against governments supporting terrorist elements, though I do believe our first priority is to attack the single most powerful terrorist entity. That would be fighting Al-Queda and supporters of AQ. We can also pursue other entities but it should be based on relevance of their threat.Where I reject your argument is when it becomes a blanket justification for attacking anyone and everyone at such time as we see fit.9-11 did not put us beyond the law, or make us arbiters of the law. And by "the law" I mean the very rules of conduct we expect everyone else to play by.You cannot counterattack, or preemptively strike a nation that poses no physical threat, nor made no threat against one's nation. Our action has set precedent which is dangerous and can be used for example by China to take Taiwan, or India to attack Pakistan. It even legimitimates attacks on Israel by surrounding nations (not that they are capable of it). You see, you keep repeating partisan factoids, instead of applying reason to real facts. I know the above is the current explanation, but it isn't what was said before was it? You and I both know this is what has come after the original arguments were proven beyond a doubt to be groundless.Now here are the facts:1) Iraq was a secular government. While totalitarian in nature (this is not in dispute), it actually posed threats to the other fascist and Islamic Fundmentalist forces sweeping the region. If you remember that is exactly why Hussein was supported by the US even as he gassed all the people we are now supposed to be shocked by. He was a greedy totalitarian dictator, but had no real connection to the threats you have posited, and do threaten our physical security.The only way it supported terrorism (in general) was a support for Palestinian terrorist actions against Israel, and the singular revenge attempt on Bush sr. Neither were serious threats and could be dealt with later and via different mechanisms.2) Read more seriously on the nature of asymmetric warfare. You might even just go back and look at the writings of Rumsfeld on the subject, before Bush needed to call Iraq a front which drew forces away from us to that spot. The reality is nothing as you have described. Asymmetric warfare, which is what we are engaged in, almost by definition involves enemy forces not being able to be drawn to where military forces are for an open conflict at a "front".Oh we opened up a fresh geographic region so that the forces you described now have a more free hand to do what they've been trying to do for years (influence Iraq), and set our troops and diplomats in a place than can be attacked more easily. So yes you do see "forces" acting there. But any decent intelligence analyst will tell you (as Rumsfeld and even Bush once explained before heading to Iraq) that that in no way absorbs enemy resources from attacking mainland USA.We are in the exact same threat level after the invasion as before the invasion.3) Establishing a model democracy. Once again paisano, there was a model democracy established in Iraq almost 100 years ago by the British, using almost the exact same arguments you just made. The result was Saddam Hussein.While I am all for seeing well reasoned democracies flourish, and I cry no tears for Hussein, there is absolutely no guarantee that a democracy in Iraq will do anything for the war on terror or against the flourishing of Islamic fundamentalism or fascism.Indeed a truly democratic Iraq cannot be allowed, and our government has already said this. They would sweep people into office in ways that would make our election look tame, with agendas we certainly would not want them pursuing. Perhaps you have not studied the actual plans for this "model" democracy? It is being called a "representational democracy". Intriguingly if we accepted it here, you probably wouldn't have had Bush in the White House nor the gains in the Senate.But even with a representative democracy in place, rather than a real one, what is to stop Iraq from being against Israel, and individuals from pursuing actions against the US? Please let me know... oh and then pass that amazing plan on to intelligence services.4) If we were serious about promoting democracy then why not run in and free Kuwait? How about Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Oh yeah, how abut Israel (which is constructed to be only democratic for jews)? And why can't Afghanistan be the model democracy? Or why can't we simply promote our own as the model?The truth is that removing Hussein is a potentially good thing for the Iraqi people. Hopefully it will be captilized on, though how we half-assed it does not leave a lot of room for much good soon. In other words it was a giant nation building social program promoted by Republicans at great expense to the American people for the benefit of Israelis, and to some extent the Iraqis and oil interests.There was nothing there for protecting us and in the end may not even help the Israelis. I think that was really wishful thinking. Paisano, I have been over the facts and reasons before, and I am almost certain it was with you. This is my point. The majority of voters in america simply reject the facts and rational debate that they are given, to repeat the latest rationalizations and act like they never heard anything else. True believership and partisan hackery.It is truly pathetic, and that is why I am saddened. India yes, China no. I am not understanding where you even get the concept China is moving toward a free market society much less a vibrant one. They have more of an open market for trade between nations, but that is not the same.Again you have dodged the point. Your criticism of Europe's inattention to the threat being posed by increases in Islamic culture is the same we will be facing in the US at some point by Chinese and Indians (and Pakistanis). Especially birth rates and free movement between the two.Why do you believe two cultures with vastly more people will not one day influence us more than us influencing them? I think it's a bit naive to pretend we will retain the current US, while Europe loses itself. History just keeps moving and changing.One day all our efforts will be gone, at the very least, changed. You haven't been out of the US much have you? Poland is on the rise? All they did was be a more avid supporter of the Iraq war... that is ALL. What makes you feel Poland is so much on the rise besides Bush promoting it so much a great ally?You know what makes this such a laugh? My encountering all the Polish people coming to the European nation I'm in because Poland sucks politically and economically. Whoops!By the way have you ever heard of the EU... the future of all is getting connected? I love how 9-11 changed everything so that one could excuse anyone's previous record, except for Kerry. That includes the republicans he voted along with and that same historical "weakness" he showed. They say they are strong now, okay. He says it, not okay. Okay.Indeed one could even excuse the demonstrably failed actions by Bush, and point out that before 9-11 he would never have endorsed any of the actions we are currently engaged in.Yes that is the bizarre thing about the 2004 election. Anyone voting for Bush now was voting for the exact opposite policy positions of the same Bush that ran in 2000. So I guess 9-11 made everyone realize how wrong they were to vote for Bush in 2000?Heheheh.It is simple political hackery to pretend that Kerry or Edwards were somehow going to be less free market or soft militarily. They were not for a tax cut for the top percentage, that is all. Heheheh... Uh there certainly are fundamentalist Xian terrorists. And indeed Pat Robertson engaged in various denunciations of our government, including suggestions that someone physically attack them (the liberals of course). Do you not remember this?There was also the JDL's (jewish fundies) attempted assassination of a US congressman and bombing of mosques. Guess you don't remember that either.But you are correct that the violence from Xians does not look the same as the violence from Islamic terrorist groups. They do not wear suicide belts. Okeydoke. I suppose that depends on your definition of terrorism and warfare. Fundamentalist Xians and Jews are in positions of power and can use weapons of state to terrorize other groups under the guise of legitimate warfare.Islamic groups use asymmetric warfare techniques, which ironically we taught them as being fair to use when we wanted the to be violent, which they need to use because of their lack of overt military power.I am not trying to justify them at all. I was against them before we trained them, and I am against them now. I just disagree with your assessment that they are somehow more terrorist then other fundamentalists.In essence you are using the no true scotsman fallacy to void xian and jewish fundamentalist connections to the more violent factions, while not allowing Islamic fundamentalists the same argument. And you are using technical differences in methods of violence to make the argument the intent is somehow different.I do agree that routine law enforcement is not enough to deal with the problem (Xian or otherwise). Fundamentalism in general is a problem that should be dealt with socially, through programs that support tolerance and better reasoning skills. And the violent factions must be dealt with using counterterrorism intelligence resources and where necessary overt military resources. You just keep proving my point. This had nothing to do with substance on policy issues. Its all about style. Most republicans could individually not deliver a denouncement of actual failed policy and so voted for those rather than potentially be seen supporting Michael Moore types... whatever that means. These men had nothing new to offer, if they were put up as the democratic candidate then you might as well have voted for Bush.Again, you are requiring acceptance of Bush policy without realistic assessment of facts and effects as qualifying criteria. You label unquestioned obedience as somehow more "centrist", and open criticism as "radical".Most republicans simply did not want to admit that the emperor wore no clothes, and that he was prone to cry wolf on occassion. They wrapped themselves up in a festival of no specific policy, indeed contradictory ones (I will note I succeeded in making that point as well), in order to elect anyone as long as it was republican and did not seem to be critical of whatever had happened. If they did not admit a problem in large enough numbers, they could pretend it did not exist.This is not new under the sun. The world will not come to an end because of it (though many Xian fundamentalists are banking it will). It is just a sad statement of what occured.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is very similar to a friend of mine and his family. They weren't part of the violent side of Islamic Fundamentalism, but many were devout and those who stayed to tend a mosque and preach were persecuted by Hussein.They are actually glad that the invasion occured and seem to like Bush for it.Yet that reveals only the fact that fundamentalism of all stripes, and unfortunately all factions (including violent ones), have been allowed to flourish once again in Iraq.To me it was really a mixed bag. Glad to see a bad guy taken out. But at this point in time we had much bigger issues to deal with, and there is no guarantee of added security or a cooling of fundamentalism or religious intolerance. We may have created a bad guy machine.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heheheh...
let me say that again just to be clear.
Heheheh...

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The uncandidate? You mean never had it never will? I would have thought that was Bush. But maybe he's just great taste, less filling.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Saying this does not make it so, though I understand the point is to create an alternate reality by believing in something irrational in large enough numbers. Really? And which way does it point?East to the Bloomberg Republican morality which is for gay rights and abortion? North to the Cheney Republican morality, which is for gay rights, but not abortion? West to the Schwarzenneger Republican morality which is for gay rights, abortion, and public funded embryonic stem cell research>
South to the McCain Republic morality which is for gay rights, not abortion, against deficit spending, and critical of our war planning and execution?Or is it spiraling, with a Bush Republican morality that claims to be for a strong military, against nation building, against deficit spending, against growing the government, and against federalism... then after wetting his pants launches one of the largest and expensive social engineering programs this nation has engaged in, that is by definition nation building in a way that forces us into deficit spending, weakened our military position, and in other side ventures grew the government more than any of his democratic predecessers as well as petitioning for federal government control over state governments?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The same can be said with more credibility about the Bush campaign. The convention and campaigning focused on all members of the Republican party, and that is a pretty diverse group.In the end you had a lot of people come together in a giant bed for this election, and once the afterglow disappears and the sun rises on the facts, many will realize what strange bedfellows they have made.There is simply no connection between the people for constitutional amendments dictating to states what marriage is, and those who are firmly against it. Promises went out to both sides. Same went for stem cell research. Same went for abortion.We certainly know specifics that Bush mentioned, but if you followed what Cheney would say on his press stops it was essentially "don't worry... that won't happen." So which is it?That is why you had people like Falwell saying things like "we're voting for Bush and not Cheney". What happens when the religious right finds out they got Dick instead of Bush, or the nonzealot Reps find they got Bush instead of Dick?I think one of the more interesting aspects of the next four years will be watching the Republican party struggle with its identity. A two headed monster can be pretty effective in wiping out opponents, but might very well kill itself when it finds it has no one else to fight.Remember there will be no one else to blame except republicans for whatever happens for at least two years. Some group will have to become the enemy when all the promises made cannot be kept. Change that to militant fundamentalist muslim and you might be right. Keep telling yourself that... oh wait, you are. I think psychiatrists should start using Osama tapes as rorschach tests. Anyone claiming he supported either candidate is really exhibiting some amount of projection. Heck maybe he would have really preferred Nader? Lyndon Larouche?A professional journalist specializing in Al-Queda and OBL pointed out (on CNN) this latest tape was about his trying to create an identity for himself, and not about either Bush or Kerry in the election. He did make fun of Bush but that was a dig on Bush's slapstick routines outside of pure election issues.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Let me be the first to congratulate you on dropping this pearl of wisdom. I am not being sarcastic. I thought it was short, sweet, and extremely accurate.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I just got done mentioning some of them. Is this denial or something?Let me repeat, there was such a decided split in what was being promised that you had a leader of the religious wing saying they were voting for Bush, not for Cheney, and you had leaders of the more traditional conservatives saying that whatever Bush said, Cheney was explaining how it would be carried out. You are right about that. I think to promise that would have been promising the impossible. He didn't (show me where I am wrong). He said that was what they would be trying to achieve. Events on the ground would surely have made things more difficult, and plans would change.I think if you had watched the debates, or understood them, you would understand this distinction.Bush's plan? Actually this is not true either. What I find sort of funny is that you are now complaining about deficit spending when Bush is the one that created it, and now that the election is over is revealing he is set for much greater deficit spending.This is going to be the great thing about the next 4 years, watching a Republican owned gov't explain how everything is not their fault.By the way I love the reinvent reality mentality you got going for you. It was pretty widely acknowledged that Kerry won every single debate. So to depict him as the pie in the sky talk out his ass guy is a little disengenuous, no?Bush's plan? He gave one interesting defense of his invasion of Iraq during the second debate, which totally reinvented the reason although I admit made it sound a bit more compelling. Of course that is to forget our actual reasons for going in the first place, the way he botched it, and the way it has nothing to do with actually providing security here and now, rather about a giant social engineering project at taxpayers expense that is set to payoff, when?In the end Bush promised the deficit would be lowered, the people would have health insurance, secure retirements, better jobs, more money, and the entire middle east would be "saved" by realizing how great democracy is (as if Israeli issues were about hating democracy), and all of this while cutting taxes and spending more on massive military operations. That's less pie in the sky?Suckers got their man. Let's see where we are four years from now. No sweat for me, I think I've said repeatedly I am not a Democrat and essentially a Libertarian. That said, I'd rather just see an end to parties altogether so we don't see partisan fiascos like this last election. I'd rather see reasoned voting based on real world qualifications and assessments of performance. Which just goes to show you didn't listen to Nader either. I'm not going to defend all the mechanisms he proposed for the pursuit, I did not agree with them, but he was for nailing OBL. You misunderstood. The man was being interviewed on CNN. Though western, he is not american, and pretty well ranked by everyone, including our own intelligence agencies, as one of the top experts in AQ and OBL.As a side comment, it was also interesting to hear what he had to say about our losing OBL at Tora Bora. The guy was there and said it is pretty well without question that OBL was there and did escape because we handed the job off to the warlords. He said that it seemed there were more press reporters there than US troops. Obviously that wasn't literally the case, but you get the point. There has been enough information coming from other AQ members to substantiate that OBL was there and escaped.AKA Tommy Franks blew it and was a partisan hack (not to mention saving his own rep).Regardless of the election, my guess is OBL was quite glad during those days that we did not come in with all the forces we could (and did at Hussein), and let the tribal factions chase after him. Why? Are you bucking to be his press advisor or something?If we stick to facts as the journalist did, rather than partisan fantasy as you seem to enjoy, you would note that this tape was not similar to his others. The environmental setting was different as well as the nature of his comments. For example this is the first one where he did not have a rifle sitting around in frame. That is a dramatic departure and meant to indicate he no longer had to hold a military posture, but was comfortable and speaking as a solid diplomatic leader.We may all find it quite absurd, even as did the journalist who noted how he acted as if he could be a diplomatic partner with the american people after murdering 1000's in a terror attack, but that does not change the fact of what OBL was trying to do.Gee, do the actions of a megalomaniac disappoint your expectations? No, I'd say half-baked. Heheheh.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ohhh, I see you weren't around for the pre Iraq war debates at EvC. If you were you would realize (if the only choice is prescience or arrogance) that it was the former, even if I happen to have plenty of arrogance too.People like Red Vento spouted the Bush line at the time, and I countered with publicly stated intelligence assessments from overseas, as well as the assessments from prominent US intelligence officials.Are you aware that before the Iraq War began a number of high-ranking, highly respected, ex-intelligence officials formed a group to publically counter the misinformation coming out of the Bush administration?All the data "discovered" later by Congress and the US press, was public knowledge beforehand. At the time the administration, and its defenders, kept hinting that "our leaders" must know something more.Well they didn't. Rather than act like I am the one who is arrogant, why can't you look at the facts? This administration made many claims and they were all wrong... thus they were the one's who were (and still are) arrogant.I was just right because I listened to facts and reasoning from high placed intelligence officials. Really? The explanation you espoused before going into Iraq, is the one you are stating now? Are you honestly saying that while Bush and Co were talking about imminent threats of WMDs, you said: "no no, they aren't there, but what is important is that we invade some of these nations and convert them to democracies, because terrorists cannot form or exist in democratic countries and/or it will serve as a model government to reduce fascism across the midEast"?Pardon me if I don't believe you. When you make statements which clearly reflect current policy positions, separate from original policy positions, using language which is almost identical to what was developed and used during the campaign... I'm sorry I just do not buy it. Matter of concern? Yes. I have stated that after 9-11 it was wise to put more clamps on Hussein's military ambitions and I did not mind saber-rattling to get inspections back in to ensure he could not develop any WMDs. In that I would have included putting the clamps on his support for Palestinian Terrorist actions.You will have to explain how a military invasion of Iraq was necessary to end his form of support which was almost purely monetary?You will also have to explain how in a now democratic Iraq the free civilians will not be free to fund Palestinian terrorist actions on their own? It is amazing that Bush was able to sell people on the idea that anti-Israeli sentiment has something to do with democracy. As far as I can tell we have just opened up a larger can of worms for the Israelis. Now religious radicals, on top of purely palestinian sympathetic Iraqis, have a much freer hand at forming anti-Israeli initiatives.Hussein was limited in not wanting to fund purely Islamic Fundamentalist militant organizations which could come back to bite him in the ass. Free Iraqis will not have that limitation.Yes, yes I would like to hear your carefully reasoned explanation for why an invasion of Iraq helped reduce the terrorist threat against Israel, which other mechanisms could not have done for less cost (in money, prestige, and life). I agree. Thankfully I was never in either party. To be honest, it wasn't even a purely US muckup (whoops am I gonna bust the US bashing stereotype of an antiBushie?).France, Germany, I think Holland... heck there were a lot of nations which were gambling on Hussein's brand of gentle fascism to act as a cockblock on sweeping militant Islamic Fundamentalism in the region... which ironically grew in part as a reaction to our mucking around in Iran and the soviet union in Afghanistan.Frankly I think Britain holds most of the blame for starting the problems we are now facing across the midEast.However that does not change facts regarding Hussein's not being a part of the groups we are currently fighting and pose a real risk to the US. I am not a professional, nor do I play one on this forum. However I am a pretty good policy analyst (sometimes a philosophy degree can be handy) and look to some of the best sources for information on methods.Franks I would not trust to find me out of a paper bag. I am sick to death of hearing how great he was. He was a fuck up. He was the leading planner for our actions. He took the greatest military in the world against two of the most shrunken and decrepit military systems in history and won? Arnold Horschak could have beaten both Iraq and the Taliban.Heck Franks has now coined the term "catastrophic success" to explain how everything is so bad because he was so gooooooood. From the jaws of victory and all that. What is the sound of one hand clapping?In any case neither Franks, nor Clark, are intelligence professionals and that is the kind of war we are fighting. In fact I wish we'd stop calling it a war because it makes people think the military is a useful tool.Asymmetric warfare, and you can read plenty on this by many different professionals and they will agree, involves organizations which avoid military conflicts and fronts, opting for espionage style actions. Rumsfeld himself used this when explaining we had to change the nature of our military, but this goes doubly so for our intelligence agencies which must become more robust.This is essentially bond vs spectre kind of "warfare".Its too bad you must have also missed my big debate with Quetzal regarding the war on terror. I thought it was really well done from both sides. We definitely came off as more intelligent than we may actually be, heheheh. No, I am merely countering the pie in the sky "if you build a democracy they will come" arguments this administration has made.There is no guarantee that a democracy will stick, and even if it does (which I am hopeful it will and agree we should fight for at this point) that still does nothing to add security to the US regarding terrorism. A democracy will not mean that there is no poverty. A democracy will not mean there is no religious intolerance and as an extension, militarism.A democracy will in no way shape or form stop even reasonable people from being upset with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the US's unquestioned support for its brutal practices.Please detail a logical argument for any of the above. Stats please? We just had a series of studies in the Netherlands on this very issue. This was debunked. It is true that there are radicals coming in and trying to convince people to convert and they themselves are not assimilating. However that is not the trend. Ironically Islam is not race related, and they appeal to white Europeans as well as foreign immigrants. This is what is occuring. People want to believe what you have said despite the facts on the ground and are creating policies which are doing damage by making immigrants want to be oppositional rather than intergrational.I mentioned the study that debunked your claim. The people who started it were trying to prove your point. When it turned out 180 degrees opposite, they drew up a conclusion that their policies were still necessary because even if integration is happening it is obviously "in spite of" current liberal policies.What is the sound of one hand clapping? Oh that could be true. I would not deny it. What I was questioning was your assertion that Poland was "on the rise". If that is your qualification for "on the rise" then you are correct.I took it to mean that they were somehow gaining in prominence as a European power. I think they are definitely improving their lives from what they had under soviet control. And they are gaining some standing as European once again. But nothing close to becoming some major European player. Ah, I must be wrong when I am here and you never leave there, because you see so many people from here while you stay there. What is the sound of one hand clapping? 1) It is not deeply deeply unpopular. There is a clear majority who would not support a candidate at this time which was critical of US policies. It was not a humongous majority or significant that LIBERAL POLICIES are deeply deeply unpopular in the the US. Give me a 25-40% lead for a consistent "conservative" policy over a liberal one and we can begin making such statements.2) You are repeatedly making my point. While it is true that Moore sided with those critical of Bush and some liberal policies, the idea that Moore is a symbol of anyone voting Democrat or against Bush is simply ridiculous. It is however what helped Republicans scare themselves into voting style over substance (apparently Hannity, Limbaugh, Roberts, Fallwell, Carlson, Coulter, and O'Reilly were less scary).3) What dominated many people voting for a democrat this year, or simply not voting for Bush, was not signing on to a Moore agenda. You can see this in people like Quetzal and myself. Or how about the many conservatives (such as Clancy, Clark, Clarke, Buchanan, etc etc) who were highly critical of Bush. You think they are Moore-types? Give me a break. The performance of this president was so poor even from a staunch conservative perspective, that he was simply not a good candidate.I do not feel so bad for democrats having run Kerry, as I am for republicans voting in a man who was so clearly inefficient and costly to this nation. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice... shame on the republicans who let themselves get fooled again. I hope they all realize this and join the republican party. That'll be about as interesting as what the next 4 years will bring as Republicans are forced to take sides against themselves. This is exactly the problem. See you make it that if a person disagrees with Bush, or goes further and agrees with Kerry with regard to the war on terror, then they are less centrist. That was your statement.The fact is you could be plenty centrist and still find fault with Bush's strategies. No, not just strategies, his entire performance of his duties. His assembled teams failed time and time again. Remember that is how he is passing the buck? His intelligence officers failed and his military commanders were so good they create "catastrophic successes"? To my mind, and many consistent conservatives, that makes him a failure.I am hardpressed to call Tom Clancy and Richard Clarke noncentrist or Moore-ish.In fact, I am actually pretty centrist on military matters, which is why I actually preferred Bush over Gore during 2000 on those very points. Bush betrayed every position he held during the 2000 election regarding military and intelligence. Whoops, sorry for maintaining consistence to a centrist view... not to mention a pragmatic assessor of results in general... now I'm a lefty on defense?This message has been edited by holmes, 11-05-2004 06:32 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is one thing I never got.Reps loved to play on the "Dean Scream" as if he was off his rocker when he was (if you actually saw it in context) getting excited and rallying a crowd, ending with a smile and a Yeeeeha!Yet you never heard anything when in the second debate Bush actually got off of his chair and yelled at the moderator of the debate, interrupting a question, in order to address something he felt angry Kerry had said.Did you see that, and if so why was Bush's actions considered less bizarre than Dean's given context? That's okay, it was kind of funny. Of course I wish you would have either answered the questions I posed (beyond the clapping one), or admitted defeat on those points. Since you didn't do either, it appears the real answer to the hand clapping question is: a proBush Republican trying to answer real questions with facts and reason. Not so funny, but unfortunately accurate.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-05-2004 12:22 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually it is you who not only won't want to hear this, but are likely to dismiss it as you have with all the other facts and logic that have been handed to you...I have already said, though perhaps this was before you were part of EvC, that it is clear that the American public is not interested in gay "marriage". Personally I don't care, but many people do and whether it sounds ridiculous or not it all seems to hinge on protecting the word "marriage". Most are willing to give the same rights to gay legal unions just not the same name.It was my argument that gays ought to give up campaigning for use of the term "marriage" and focus on getting the specific rights they actually need. In my mind the gay movement believes getting that name will somehow grant their unions social acceptability, but it won't. So why try? You see I'm pragmatic, not ideological.And this is the funny thing, remember how you called all those people voting for Kerry or against Bush as somehow out of center? Well in actual fact, as your own demographics show, they are onboard with that opinion regarding marriage.Heck, Kerry and Edwards were both against gay marriage. Weren't you awake during the debates, this was made quite clear. The only difference between them and Bush is that Bush was willing to tamper with the constitution in order to prevent states from deciding whether to allow it. Of course you then had Cheney saying don't mind Bush that wasn't actually going to happen, but you know how it goes...So according to your own assessment the Democrats had fielded candidates well within the norm on the gay marriage issue. The actual differences were fiscal responsibility and how to use the military and diplomacy to achieve security objectives. The Democrats were for responsibility and focusing on immediate security objectives rather than beginning giant social engineering programs for other nations that are projected to payoff, when?I know I know, It sure sounded like if you voted against Bush gays would be marrying in your churches right after inauguration. That was of course part of the big scare. Picture that future as opposed to carefully examining the incredibly failed performance of the President over the last 4 years.Remember your centrist claim, you say you even have problems with all the YEC stuff in classrooms? Take a look at who you voted for (he installed a proreligion-in-class education secretary), and the actual agenda of the group the Republicans had to reach out to to get the deciding votes on their side. When religious extremists expect to get a payoff from the Reps, what are you going to say? If they get them, what are you going to say?Good luck with all that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Paisano, I have already been over this with you. You try to make this gay marriage thing into a reason that Dems were out of touch. It is so counterfactual as to be lying (especially since I have already addressed this with you).The Democratic Presidential and VP candidates were clearly supporting the majority opinion on the gay marriage issue. They were against gay marriage. They stated this numerous times and in no uncertain language. During the VP debate Cheney and Edwards might as well have been nudging and winking to each other over their shared values.I am uncertain why you feel it is proper to use this issue as an example of how the Dems did not get something right. And at this point I would like an explanation why feel you can keep saying this, or an admission that in fact you are wrong.Remember I'm not arguing what it should be or not be, just what the majority opinion is and what the Dem candidates were behind... not to mention it was the exact same position as Cheney.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In order to make this statement you have avoided all the points of fact which have already been made against it.This was a partisan and true believer victory. Traditional Reps chose their party over actual performance and policy (fantastic examples are McCain and Schwarz), while courting extremist elements on divisive social issues.The Dems certainly could not make the case that they were the Republican party, and it would be bizarre for them to reach across to far right elements of the electorate. So to that extent they could never "make the case". They were doomed from the start since they stuck to the middle.That does not change the fact that they proved the case that this economy (including Gov't surplus) and its military status has deteriorated under this presidency, and many Reps have directly criticized it in the exact same way (for example McCain).It is a historical fact that majority populations can and have ignored pragmatic, proven arguments in order to support partisan or emotionally charged platforms. That did mean the Minority (which I will point out is not small in this case) was errant in making their case, it means the majority was errant in proper evaluation, or at the very least hypocritical by denying their stated principles. This is undeniably one of those cases.We'll just have to see what the results are. I hope you are successful in fighting off the agendas that your party promised the far right. As an independent I am free to support the Reps that will do so. But I will always remember the open hypocrisy and partisanship necessary to support Bush.While I agree with him on many principles, McCain to me is now as strongwilled a defender and believer of those principles as an organ grinder's monkey.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)