Mickey

I have always been of the opinion that the Iraq war was a decison in search of a justification long before a single boot crossed the border. In those pre-war days, it seemed every other week a new reason to invade Iraq was being run up the flagpole. The main ones were WMD's, Iraq-9/11 connections and building a democracy in Iraq as a catalyst for change in the whole region. Well, neither the WMD's nor the 9/11 connections really held up and the building of a democracy there is on shaky ground. We are even seeing trial baloons about an Islamic Republic not being such a bad thing after all. Personally, I am leaning towards the idea that the Powell Pottery Barn doctrine maybe is not such a good one. Yeah, we broke it but why does that mean we now own it? Let Pottery Barn clean it up. Its their floor, their store. Powell's idea is based on us bearing a responsibility to put Humpty Dumpty back together again since we are the ones that pushed him off the wall. If we don't, we are told, there will be a civil war in Iraq or it will become a breeding ground for terrorists. Isn't it already a breeding ground for terrorists? Isn't a civil war there inevitable if enough people there choose to have one rather than to work with a united government? Would it really be so terrible for us if the north was controlled by Kurds, the south by Shiites and the middle by Sunnis with all three fighting eachother on the borders? Saddam was a threat to us so we went in and took him out and his regime. We tried to help them create a stable society, a democracy. It wasn't our responsibility to do so, it was a humanitarian effort and it isn't working. I would like Iraq to be a stable democracy but that isn't going to happen. There is no way, no matter how many Iraqi troops are trained, that they are going to be able to handle the insurgency any better than our own forces have. If we can't shut it down, what fantasy would justify the belief that Iraqi forces will be able to do just that? It just isn't going to happen. Whether they ever had WMD's or not doesn't matter, they don't have them now, threat gone. Would Saddam have made common cause with terrorists? Doesn't matter, he is gone and so is his regime so that threat is gone. If Iraqi's want a civil war, they will have one, sooner or later. Will it be a breeding ground for terrorists? It is now and which type of government do you think would have the most success cleaning out the country of terrorists, a democracy or a despot? Fine, let the Kurds and the Shiites and the Sunnis set up their enclaves and have at it, one despot vs. another. It is like a forest after a fire. All manner of weeds quickly take root in the aftermath. You can't weed a forest so you leave it to its own devices to re-grow. You hope more Oaks grow than weeeds but in the end, you can't control that. If at some point it encroaches on the farm again, you burn it down once more. Iraq, so the administration believed, was a threat to the farm so we burned it down. We've planted some Oaks and we have pulled many a weed to try and start it off in the right direction. If continuing to do that from now till doomsday would insure a weed free forest, fine, lets stay there forever. If that won't do it, then we need to pull up and let nature take its course for awhile. I'm not saying, I'm just asking, do we really have a responsibility to fix Iraq or can we take the position that Iraq is Iraq's problem and once we have removed the threats against us that it presented and that could reasonably be removed, we can leave and not look back?

See? Now that is clear, you are not against assassination in principle but take the position in this particular case that all things considered, it would not benefit us. It is a position based on expediency, not principle. Thats fine but now don't complain if someone goes after you for being in favor of assassinations of foreign leaders. None of this, "I never said that" stuff. As for our policy on the assassination of foreign leaders, I am not sure what it presently is but I know Ford signed the first executive order prohibiting it and it was reaffirmed by Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and, I think, Bush II. Maybe it changed after 9-11 but since no foreign leader (President, Prime Minister, Top Banana, etc) was involved, I don't see why it would have been. The order would not have prevented the assassination of Bin Laden for example which Clinton actually tried. The point of this history is that the prohibition against such assassinations has been a bipartisan one.

"Senator Schiavo" is Bill Frist and he is running. Your comparison, drafting an erstwhile "celebrity" to run for office, is off the mark. If democrats in the Senate ever call an emergency session and pass a federal law ordering the President to meet with Cindy Sheehan, then we'll talk.

Why are we still talking about Drew Bledsoe? Is the insecurity over the decision to ship him out so deep that we need to be reassured, by Michael Irvin no less, of the wisdom of that decision? We have a new sheriff in town and all the excitement that comes with it, can't we just have fun with JP instead of spending time trashing the long gone Drew Bledsoe? This is like the guy who never stops telling you what a jerk his ex-wife was long after the divorce is final.

Which is why I asked him the following question, one which he hasn't answered: I didn't know what you were trying to say, hence the question. Do you think it is right to call for his assasination? A. Yes B. NO C. That depends (explain) The central point of this thread was quite simply that Pat Robertson was wrong to call for the assassination of this guy. You would think that wasn't a very controversial point yet the responses are of the "Oh yeah but...." variety. JSP's repsponses were typical: "He manipulated that election, of that there is little doubt. And since then he's locked up opposition and used force agianst his own people." "If Chavez was elected in a clean and honest election, then I'm Minnie Pearl." "Did I say that? Look, I think Chavez is a grade-a-****. Would I like to see him gone? Yes. But I hardly think that we'd ever get away with it. So it'd be better not to do it." I don't see what is so hard about simply agreeing that Pat Robertson was wrong to call for the assassination of this guy but instead there are these murky posts that don't quite say, "yeah, lets kill him" but don't exactly join in the condemnation of Robertson either. So that is why I am asking him a direct and simple question so there is no confusion. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I am genuinely confused by his reponses, especially that last one. It seems he disagrees with Robertson but does want the guy to be shot and it would be okay if we did it as long as we weren't caught. That makes his disagreement with Robertson seem like one over tactics.

I think the on-cue salivating started with the initial post. That post didn't mention that the guy is an ex-convict nor that the FBI has been after him as a dangerous fruitcake. Instead it was billed as yet another "can you believe our government????" kind of post which we see regularly vomited up from right wing web sites. Excuse me for adding a few facts about this lunatic. You seem to agree that there should be some sort of rule that a person illegally in the United States should not be able to collect a judment won in a US court against a US citizen. Before we get into the logic of that position, I want to be clear if that is really the position you are taking. If you aren't, there is no need to discuss it but if you are, lets get it on the record so I am not accused later of putting words in your mouth. Should there be a rule that prevents a foreign born citizen from collecting a judgment against a US citizen won in a US court of competent jurisdiction if that foreign citizen was, at any time prior to the judgment, illegally in the United States?

I see, so a citizen of Canada can't sue a citizen of the United States in a US Court? If I am walking down the street, see a hispanic looking person and then shoot him in the head for no reason, under your rules I would be immune from having to pay a judgment obtained by his family in a civil court if it turns out he was here illegally. Makes sense. The Judge wasn't being cute, the guy defaulted on the case. Even the most worthless case in the world can be won if the other side doesn't show.

I didn't see Senator Schiavo on the list. He is certainly running.

Nethercott is a certifiable lunatic. Oh, and he has also previously served time on assualt and gun charges in California. Maybe you think its a good thing that an ex-con is parading around as a self appointed border avenger whacking illegals on the head with a pistol but I'm not impressed. He shouldn't even have a pistol. He defaulted on the case so it serves him right. A default, a failure to defend yourself is considered an admission of guilt. The FBI has been after him and that is the FBI of George Bush and Al Gonzalez. That guy was an Eric Rudolph in the making.

Actually, I believe that is a stunt butt.

Is there some reason why we are still talking about Drew Bledsoe?

Go Long.

Because he is not the astute judge of athletic talent we are? Nah.

Once again a conservative judges his side of the board to be reasonable and the other not. Surprising? No. Objective? Not. I think most of the links to "moveon.com" on this board are provided by righties in "can you believe this?" types of posts.

I didn't know what you were trying to say, hence the question. Do you think it is right to call for his assasination? A. Yes B. NO C. That depends (explain)

Does that mean then that calling for his murder is not wrong?

Do you know if these were "for cause" dismissals or peremptory challenges?

I guess it just would have been too hard to say "Pat Robertson calling for the assasination of a democratically elected leader is simply wrong" and then been done with the issue. Instead, even this has to be some sort of an argument. Its like when you say something seemingly uncontroversial like "It was wrong for Matthew Shepherd to be tied to a fence and left to die simply because he was gay" and the reaction you get is something along the lines of "Oh yeah? Well those gays are asking for special rights and that's wrong." Even better, "Homosexuality is wrong, it says so in the Bible."

I have never heard such a thing. Not even close. I can't speak for her but the parties I got to are rarely (never) for just democrats. When I have discussed things with just a democrat or two over lunch or a drink or whatever, I have never heard such a thing said. Do you really think that is what deomcrats do? I know a lot of that kind of looney talk was a staple of the right through the Clinton years and beyond but as for the democrats I hang with, that stuff never caught on with us.

No doubt Kerry was trying to do just as you say however, I believe Bush was doing the same, trying to be all things to all people. The party platform was totally against gay marriage and civil unions but on the eve of the election, Bush suddenly said he was for civil unions. Four words: Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Those are just a few examples. My own view is that there were many factors in play that could be analyzed and argued over for years. The one dominant issue however was the war and the American people just do not like changing leaders in the middle of a war. History demonstrates that pretty well. Roosevelt's extra terms for example. As long as the President isn't being blamed for the national crisis at hand (see Hoover), people are not going to change captains in the middle of a stormy sea unless that captain is Cpt. Queeg. Just my view, I am certainly not staking out ground here.

Actually, if I recall correctly, Clark was the candidate the Clinton's most preferred.

I won't argue with you over whether Kerry is a kook or a leftist, my point is that to democrats, he was our "conservative" candidate. I am fairly confident that no matter who we nominated, that person would have been skewered as a maniac liberal from the git-go. Maybe if a democrat stepped forward who was for cutting all taxes, against gays, willing to outlaw abortion, limit stem cell research, teach religion in science class and pull a Schiavo, then they wouldn't be a "kook" or a "leftist" but then they would be Zel Miller and a democrat in name only. Frankly, on most positions, Kerry wasn't all that far from Bush. He voted for the war but thought it could have been handled better. He was against gay marriage but for civil unions. He was for a tax cut, just a different one than the President wanted. On and on. The positions really weren't all that far apart but as you concluded, many thought Kerry was a "kook" and a "leftist". I agree that not every transplant was a liberal, that is what I meant by "politically diverse". You have a diverse population transplanting to a homogenous area. That kind of shift moves electoral strength but doesn't change the political majority in the newly strengthened states. If you have a state with 8 republicans and 2 democrats and then you add 5 more of each, you still have a state that is predominantly republican (13-7). The state doubles its electoral strength but keeps its politcal identity. I don't mean to say that people changing their minds on certain issues doesn't play a role. I'm just saying that demographics, not just ideology, alters elections. With the winner take all electoral system, minor differences that could be explained by many things besides ideology are magnified into some sort of titanic shif in attitudes that might not really have taken place. Just a hypothesis.

The winner take all system really does provide additional power to the dedicated fringes of both parties. Without it, candidates would have to be much more moderate to win. I sometimes wonder if the polarization everyone keeps complaining about is genuine or just a result of demographic changes and our electoral system. Much of the population increase in the south is due to northern transplants who are politically diverse comparatively although by and large more moderate than homegrown southerners. However, it is not as if they all moved to one state. The transplants have fanned out in many different states so that they don't have significant enough numbers in any one state to be much of a force making those states more moderate. The result is a shift in electoral power to the least politically diverse states. The result is that we appear more polarized but in fact, the real numbers are still just as much in the center as they always were. The problem is that the center, due to the electoral system and population shifts, has lost its power. To win, a politician needs to appeal to the dedicated fringe, the so-called "base" of the party. This could just be my own perceptions based on my political beliefs but with that caveat, it seems to me that the shift to the edge by each party has been worse on the right than the left. Republicans might deplore Kerry as a super liberal but among democrats, he was looked at as the centrist moderate. The real liberal was Dean and when it came down to it, the democrats chose the centrist in droves and rejected Dean. Kerry's loss actually has given a boost to the edgers in the democratic party. The argument being, "we tried it your way and look what happened..." Accordingly, you have Pelosi and Dean in more prominent positions. With too few swing voters out there, the name of the game is turnout, ie, fire up the base. The tension and uncertainty in the democratic party right now is over this issue, should they move left and fire up the base or continue to shift a little right in an effort to follow the middle. I think the odds of a 3rd party having any success in this environment is, for better or worse, pretty bleak.

Egads man, Cheney is not the President you say?

I think he co-invented it with Walter Carlos who did the music for "A Clockwork Orange" and then later, became a woman if I'm not mistaken.