|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>BlackSoxFan</b><p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/news/benazir.bhutto/index.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/news/benazir.bhutto/index.html</a><br /><br />Regards,<br />Black Sox Fan<br /><br />- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /><a href="http://www.blacksoxfan.com" target="new" border="0"><img src="http://www.blacksoxfan.com/images/art/sig.jpg"></a><br /><a href=mailto:shoelessjoe@blacksoxfan.com?subject=Ne t54>email me</a><br /><a href="http://blog.blacksoxfan.com/" target="_blank">The Black Sox Blog</a><br /><br />edited per request...
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>what awful news for all of the world.<br /><br />pete in mn
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>Though obviously off topic, very relavent to some on here.<br><br>Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p> Because whilst we would like to believe that the collecting of vintage cards is in its own little bubble -- many times either world affairs or economic affairs does affect how we buy/sell these trinkets. <br /> This has obviously had an effect on the downward trend of the stock market today and I would not be surprised if that trend continued for a while. In addition, any time we have a major downward or upward trend in the market; that can have an impact on disposable income.<br /> I, personally, just hope that this does not change the equation of America's relation with Pakistan or India. India and Pakistan don't get along and think about how many jobs are outsourced to India. In addition, Pakistan borders many important countries that we have an active presence in.<br /> Do I know the actual long-term impact on the world from this event; no I don't -- but this certainly eliminates a voice for reason and that is never a good sign.<br /><br /> Regards<br /> Rich Klein<br /> <br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Peter, Bhutto's assassination was not just bad news for Pakistan, it is bad news for America as well.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I assumed when she returned to Pakistan that her life would be in danger.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>sorry folks...i wasn't implying this news won't affect us here in the us...or that it is not a big deal...just that's it's OT...and should be named as such.<br /><br />peter ullman
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>12/28/2007 7:17 am CST
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>-and I like The Benny Hill Show for not only its irreverent wit, but also the relevance of its socio-economic commentary as pertaining to the mating habits of the various lemur and chameleon species of Madagascar.<br /><br />So what?<br /><br /><br /><br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>This is obviously very off topic but it is a fairly large world event. I don't think we have to be so stale as to not allow some off topic of this epic proportion. No need to worry...this won't be a daily news chat board....BTW, this could have some serious effects on the world economy which could trickle down into card valuations.......best regards<br /><br />edited typo
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />While this is of course a great human tragedy, I think its far from clear that this is bad for America. Lets not forget that this is a nuclear dictatorship run by a small elite over a country it has little if any control over. Its an Islamic state that was likely and is likely to be prone to extremism. <br /><br />The ray of hope is that this was seen as America's fight. Hopefully, this will make the Pakistani military take the radical Islamic threat more seriously and it will clamp down hard on violence. Its likely the U.S. saw the present civilian regime and a future Bhutto regime as unsustainable and was already in back channel discussions with the military.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Leon- like the deftness with which you connected an assassination of a world leader in Pakistan to our hobby. Couldn't have done it better myself.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Let's see. America went to war in Afghanistan to fight Al-Queda but then quickly moved to Iraq for no good reason. Al-Queda and the Taliban have become more powerful in Afghanistan the last couple of years and the violence and death there have increased.<br /><br />America is staying in Iraq while the UN says there needs to be more troops in Afghanistan. No OTHER nations are stepping up to add these troops, so it looks like the United States is going to have to go back with more troops.<br /><br />In 2005, there was a plan by the US to go into Pakistan and take out some of the high level Al-Queda leaders but the plan was cancelled while the troops were in the air, going to that mission. If it is found that these leaders were invloved in the assassination of Bhutto, which has caused chaos and which leaders from around the world have denounced because of the affect on Democracy in Pakistan, then Bush would be responsible for this because he called took United States tropps out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq and because he cancelled the mission to Pakistan in 2005.<br /><br />In effect, Bush's actions will, again, have caused MORE terrorism violence and deaths to occur and a decrease in Democracy in the world. It will also mean more US troops will be killed and injured and that more money will have to be spent fighting the terrorists which SHOULD have been taken care of three or four years ago.<br /><br />Fearful of a Draft which might ensnare my Niece and Nephews,<br /><br />David
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>Wow.<br /><br />Simply, wow.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Our friends the Pakistanis.......sure am glad they have the bomb.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>David -<br /><br />----<br />"then Bush would be responsible for this because he called took United States tropps out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq and because he cancelled the mission to Pakistan in 2005."<br />----<br /><br /><br />all I can say to that logic is ---- huh?!?<br /><br /><br />My one and only post here - I don't want to get involved in a political debate - but my brain hurt after trying to understand that logic.<br /><br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Well, since we are here, and there is almost no way around it, lets let there be politics talk in this thread ONLY......please keep it to this thread or it will be deleted...thanks ....moderator dude
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Randy Trierweiler</b><p>Joe, the logic is that its always George Bush's fault. No matter what happens, where it happens, how it happens, its George Bush's fault. If your mail is late today, that's George Bush's fault too. Hurts my brain too Joe.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I think he's trying to say we should have taken care of business in Afghanistan instead of redirecting our efforts and resources to Iraq then maybe this assassination wouldn't have happened today. The assassination of Bhutto looks like it may have been done by Al Qaeda - the same guys who attacked America on 9/11 (Anyone remember them?)....of course there's no way to know for sure at the moment. Musharraf's guys could have done this as well. IIRC Bush called off the hit on the Al Qaeda in Pakistan because too many civilians would have been killed, so as far as that goes Bush IMO was in a no win situation.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>ernest reyes</b><p>Ya know.. it seems to me that whoever is President invariably gets the blame.. rightly or wrongly.. I remember Clinton receiving the same type of criticism when anything went wrong while he was in office.. same with Bush #41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc... it seems like par for the course to me<br><br><a href="http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/</a><br /><a href="http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes</a><br /><a href="http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/</a>
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Whoever is in charge is where the buck stops and takes the blame....I know that feeling all too well....I think Bush means well (the guy has aged 40 yrs in the last 7) but has made some poor decisions in hindsight....I can't imagine how he feels when he is speaking with a parent that just lost a son or daughter in the war. Right or wrong, it must be aweful. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.....
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Bill Stone</b><p>Whoever is responsible --in the words of Babu Bhatt " you bad<br />man! You very very bad man!
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Bob Pomilla</b><p>Pretty fair amount of sympathy for militant Islam in the Pakistani military. To fully what extent, we can't be sure. So, if we are "back-channeling" with them, there's still no guarantee that they will take aggressive steps against the radicals.<br /><br /><br /><br />How much support do radical Islamists have within Pakistan's army?<br /><br /><br />Experts disagree. While Gannon says there is "a great deal of sympathy within the army for the radical religious right," Weinbaum doubts there is a large group "sympathetic to the most radical of groups." On the other hand, if even a small percentage is willing to block Musharraf's orders to crack down on militants, it can greatly undermine the army's effectiveness. Pakistani military officers have recently been arrested for alleged ties to al Qaeda, according to press reports. Disloyal army and intelligence officials can also provide information to militants to help Musharraf's assassins. Pakistani investigators, for example, suspect that the Christmas Day attackers may have had inside information about the president's route and schedule.<br /><br />The above was excerpted from:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/7743/pakistan.html#14" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/7743/pakistan.html#14</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.cfr.org/publication/7743/pakistan.html#14</a</a>>
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>And Babu was Pakistani.<br /><br />There are many ways to look at this tragic event but the fact is the world is a very dangerous place. It's sad that terrorists dictate so much of what goes on today. That they are gaining strength and still operating practically unchecked is one of the worst developments in the world today.<br /><br />And that we are doing virtually nothing to defeat these terrorists (sorry, the Iraq war was misguided) is going to come back and haunt us dearly.<br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jim, there are a hundred different ways to look at the situation but here is my simple take: Bhutto hated the jihadists and vowed to rout them and they hated her. She's dead. That's bad for people that hate the jihadists.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>Bhutto's assination is clearly bad for America because it causes greater instability in a country that is a key ally in America's war on terror. Bhutto represented a far more reasonable and democratic alternative to either the existing military dictatorship and the religious extremists in Pakistan that spawned Al-Qaeda ...
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Chris, I agree totally.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />You may be right--just do not see it as black and white--just because Bhutto is a reasonable alternative does not mean thats what Pakistanis will select. It may be best if the country was a dictatorship and it is possible that this might push the country toward that outcome. The key is if the dictatorship is allied with us.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Like Saddam in the 1980's? That worked out well.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Bob Pomilla</b><p>Leave us not forget the Shah.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>This assasination will never be linked to Musharraf. It's all Charlie Wilson's fault ctown, not Bush's.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>Talk about OT... <br /><br />My fear is probably the same as others in the US. When we start seeing acts of terrorism like these (suicide bombers)in the US then life as we know it pretty much ceases. The sad part is that some idiot in our government will interpret some document that will protect the people involved due to some stupid technicality. Hey, this could be driven by religion, wouldn't that be protected under the constitution as freedom of religious expression? Ok, that's a bit extreme. <br /><br />Living in fear of something that isn't "yet" a reality is a loss of freedom, I just want to live my life without the fear of going somewhere public and then losing life or limb because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. <br /><br />I'd start giving my views about the death penalty and the loss of a few freedoms but that's another OT thread that I wont start.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Joe D.<br /><br />Who was behind the 9/11 attack on the US? Al Queda<br /><br />Who is the leader of Al Queda? Osama Bin Ladin<br /><br />Where was Osama Bin Laden supposed to have been located and where were the Al Queda training camps? Afghanistan<br /><br />Where did Bush start a war and what did he say his objectives were? Afghanistan. To find and capture or kill those who were responsible for 9/11<br /><br />Where did Bush pull the troops from, where did he send them to and how was that connected to 9/11? Afghanistan. Iraq. There was NO connection.<br /><br />If Bush had done what he said he was going to do, which was go to Afghanistan and take care of the Taliban and Al Queda and capture Osama Bin Laden, then those groups wouldn't STILL be in existence and wouldn't be causing the deaths, violence and chaos that they currently are.<br /><br />If you don't like hwat I have said or believe it, then go to CNN and look at what Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul told Wolf Blitzer about an hour ago.<br /><br />After 9/11, the United States had the world's sympathy and foreigh leader's backing to do pretty much whatever we wanted to do, as far as going after Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden. Taking care of business in Afghanistan was the first thing to do and if the terrorists/extremists fled to Pakistan, then the US could have gone there and taken care of things. But, we didn't.<br /><br />There was a plan to take out some of the extremist leaders in Pakistan in 2005 and troops were in the air to do just that but for some reason, Bush cancelled the military operation.<br /><br />Since the US is supporting Musharef (the puppet leader of Pakistan) with economic and military aid, which totals billions of dollars a month, he should be able to take care of the extremists himself or the US should be allowed to go in and take care of things. But neither are happening and things just get worse for the United States.<br /><br />So, to recap, Bush doesn't follow through on what he said he ws going to do. The terrorists/extremists regroup and regain strength and increase the violence and deaths in Afghanistan. The UN says there needs to be more troops there but because of Bush's mistakes and lack of trust from world leaders, nobody is stepping up. This means the US is going to have to send in troops and spend more money in a place that SHOULD have already been taken care of. But because it wasn't, Bhutto MAY have been killed because of it.<br /><br />Hopefully you don't have any children or relatives who are young enough to be Drafted. Because if things continue to get worse and the world doesn't step up to help and with retention of soldiers and recruitment dropping, the Draft may be a reality in a few years.<br /><br />David<br /><br />Edited for typing errors and to add Ron Paul's name.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Fred C.<br /><br />I don't live my life in fear becaus eI am not really scared of terrorists attacks. Not becuase Bush has done anything special, other than reduce our Civil Liberties and, increase our National Debt and made Big Brother an even greater presense in our lives.<br /><br />No, I don't live in fear because look at what and where the attacks have occured.<br /><br />1993 - New York and the World Trade Center<br /><br />2001 - New York, the World Trade Center. Washington, D.C., the Pentagon. Pennsylvania (though the attack was probably aimed at the White House).<br /><br />On those dates, over 99.99% of the American public was safe and over 99.95% (or more) of New York City residents were safe. The terrorists target major public buildings or icons. Why? Because if they damage or destroy them, they take innocent lives and they get WORLD attention for what they have done and that helps them with recruits.<br /><br />If terrorists targeted a farm house in Iowa and killed a family, that wouldn't get much attention world-wide. No, they want BIG targets that will gain them major publicity.<br /><br />On 9/11, I was MORE afraid of the idiots on the road driving around trying to find gasoline than I was of being attacked by a terrorist. Today, I am still not worried about terrorists. I am MORE worried about the National debt and how the heck we are going to pay for it. Because like I said before, when the terrorists attacked, over 99.99% of the American public was safe but with Bush continuing to fight these wars and intruding on our Civil Liberties by using illegal spying techniques, 100% of our population is at risk.<br /><br />David
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>ernest reyes</b><p>Leon<br /><br />I agree. The buck always stops with the president and ultimately he/she will get the blame at the end of the day. I guess my comment was meant to explain a phenomena that can be both frustrating and consoling. I'd call it a way to comment without taking sides- a classic cop-out on my part.<br /><br />anyway, a part of me keeps saying we all should have known better. Afterall, the country was sold on the idea that this President wasn't some intellectual know-it-all. He was a straight talking, brush clearing, semi-literate cowboy who would not shame the office by having sex with the help. Heck, cable TV news boasted about how this guy was someone you could sit down and have a beer with. As if that's a reasonable reason to vote for a person. So, we really should have expected him to make a series of bad decisions when faced with a difficult and complex situation. <br /><br />The one thing that frustrates me about the last 6 years is how apathetic our country really is. With all the scandal, graft, spying on Americans, torture, politicization of non-politic institutions, etc. we as a whole seem unwilling to get off our butts to scream, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="<a href="http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/</a</a>" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/</a</a>>" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/</a</a>></a>;<br /><a href="http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="<a href="http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes</a</a>" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes</a</a>>" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes</a</a>></a>;<br /><a href="http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="<a href="http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/</a</a>" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/</a</a>>" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/</a</a>></a>;
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I am most worried about health care.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>John J. Grillo</b><p>Bhutto death was tragic, but let's face it, she was a crook! Some like to say it was only her husband, but both of them literally robbed Pakistan blind while she was PM. (see below). I will remind you what you read below was just the tip of the iceberg with this lady.<br /><br />Bhutto was in tight with the US Republican Party and Bush and might have been a little more responsive than Musharraf in dealing with the Taliban and Al Queda in her country---again, might have!<br /><br />Now the networks are trying to make her out to be some sort of Martyr? Give me a break, she probably ran out of $$$ and needed more, which is why she probably came back to Pakistan. She tried to bribe Musharraf into power sharing and when that didn't work, well the only alternative was to challenge his power directly.<br /><br />I agree Musharraf could be doing more to secure his borders and do some cleaning up of any Al Queda or Taliban that may be lurking there; however, he is in a tight spot (it's just not that easy). Yes, I agree he is not the answer to Democracy in Pakistan, but Bhutto would've been more iron-fisted and crooked than he. From the international herald tribune.<br /><br />"Swiss Want Bhutto Indicted in Pakistan for Money Laundering"<br /><br />By ELIZABETH OLSON<br />Published: August 20, 1998<br /><br />A Swiss investigating magistrate said today that he had amassed enough evidence, including the purchase of a diamond necklace, to indict Pakistan's former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, on money-laundering charges tied to contracts with two Geneva-based companies.<br /><br />The magistrate, Daniel Devaud, decided not to bring the charges against Ms. Bhutto in Switzerland, but rather to ask Pakistani authorities to indict her.<br /><br />''She is not able to leave the country to defend herself, so I have asked Pakistan to bring the charges,'' Judge Devaud said. Ms. Bhutto was forced from office in November 1996 amid corruption charges and has since had her travels restricted by Pakistani Government authorities.<br /><br />The Geneva magistrate has been conducting a wide-ranging inquiry seeking to account for more than $13.7 million frozen by Swiss authorities last fall. The money was allegedly stashed in Swiss banks by Ms. Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari.<br /><br />Judge Devaud, who indicted three others in the case in June, also asked Pakistan last month to indict Mr. Zardari on similar charges.<br /><br />It is unclear if or how soon Pakistani investigators would act on the Swiss request, or even whether Ms. Bhutto could be tried for a breach of Swiss law in a Pakistani court.<br /><br />The Swiss request -- which concerns a relatively small portion of the vast wealth the Bhuttos have amassed -- may be far down on the list of concerns for the Pakistani investigators. Only last week, they brought the first criminal charges against Ms. Bhutto in their efforts to track down what they estimate is $1.5 billion the couple received in bribes, kickbacks and commissions in a variety of enterprises.<br /><br />Judge Devaud said that part of some 150 pages of evidence sent to Pakistan included documentation of the purchase of a $188,370 diamond necklace. That money, he emphasized, was only a small part of the funds his investigation has uncovered. He declined to give an exact figure, but said the amount was in excess of $10 million.<br /><br />The money, investigators say, came from payments made by Societe Generale de Surveillance Holding S.A. and Cotecna Inspection S.A., two of the world's leading goods inspections companies, to a Bhutto family lawyer, who deposited them in offshore accounts.<br /><br />Since freezing the Bhutto accounts last fall, Swiss authorities have cast a wide net for criminal wrongdoing. This spring, officials disclosed that they had been investigating whether any money in the Swiss accounts came from drug trafficking as well.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>I am most worried about illegal immigration....and that Hillary might be elected and put through Government-controlled health care. <br /><br />Hey--we agree Barry! We both are afraid of Hillary's health care <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>David - ctown,<br /><br />Your 6:00 post was perfect. Great job of distilling the logic and trail of thinking that many Americans have followed.<br /><br />I only see two ways out - lose or draft - and neither good. I don't think it helps us to "lose" the Iraq war - meaning leave such that extremists can take over. The newest generation in my family is just now hitting draft age, and that scares me to death, plus I have a brother-in-law that will be there in the next few months.<br /><br />I feel like I have two bad choices. One is to expose my family - children really, only 18 or so - to the draft and to danger in general with my bil on his way. The other is to protect them by having the US just leave and give Iraq and its people to the religious and political extremists, plus Afghanistan as well, and wind up far worse than we started. <br /><br />Once we lose the war over there we will have to protect ourselves over here, and there is really only one way to protect ourselves here - that is further erosion of our civil liberties. We had one shot to get it right over there, and now it does appear to me that the only way to possibly, remotely salvage that opportunity is with the draft. Bush will, of course, stick the next president with that reality. He is a moron and a coward.<br /><br />It grinds me to sawdust that this terrible polarity of choice is only because Bush screwed it all up so bad. It didn't need to come down to this. Bush's delusions of grandeur and arrogant insistence that we could conduct a "nimble and agile" war got us here. Period. And where is Eric Shenseki? Playing golf and watching kids get their asses shot up on CNN. <br /><br />It doesn't matter what Bush does, how he characterizes his actions, how he mugs for the cameras and history books, and how he dumps the lose-or-draft decision on his successor. I am convinced that this country is smart enough to see through all that, and his legacy will be as the most incompetent and destructive president in history. I just hope I'm still around to see it being taught that way.<br /><br />Joann
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You know Jim- I'm a little afraid of Hillary too. In fact all the candidates frighten me! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />But I do think the costs of healthcare are unconscionable and I am afraid that mess will never be fixed.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>And thank you Joann for that scathing attack on Bush. Why was this man ever elected-twice?
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I tend to think the less we meddle with middle eastern politics the better off we will be. Someone above wrote that we should blame Charlie Wilson and not Dubya...part of that would be correct in that he got the money through congress to arm the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan...of course it seems everyone we ally with in that area of the world eventually turns into our enemy....The more we meddle the more extreme they become. Iran is the perfect place for democracy to take root, but it has to come from within and can not be forced upon them. <br /><br />a good article on that subject is here:<br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301761.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301761.html</a>
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>John J. Grillo</b><p>Kevin Costner said it best...the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is about 25 extra base hits year...weak grounders, seeing-eye bloop hits, etc. <br /><br />1) Every reputable intelligence service (foreign and otherwise) on the face of this earth thought Saddam had chemical weapons.<br />2) Fact: Some older weapons consisting of mostly mustard and nerve gas were found. Although the more modern chem weapons weren't found, the infrastructure, labs were. He could have reconstituted his chemical program in days if he wanted to.<br />3) Terrorist training camps were found...terrorists were given safe haven in Iraq, albeit not Al Queda.<br /><br />Bush's biggest mistake was listening to Rumsfeld's advice. Colin Powell wanted to go in with overwhelming force and if so, we probably wouldn't have lost so many lives. Also, we initially had the wrong generals (incompetent) running the show over there...they are now CNN analysts who, to save a little face, obviously find fault in everything Bush does.<br /><br />We finally got a General (Petreaus) who can get the job done. Probably the world's foremost expert on counter-terrorism, we are slowly starting to see positive results of what competent leadership can provide, along with the men and women in uniform who believe in him as well.<br /><br />If we would've went in there initially with the right leadership and more limited goals, Iraq would've been a cakewalk and people would be comparing Bush to Teddy Roosevelt today. There's a thin line between love and hate.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Joann, hindsight is always 20-20. Tell me who was there actively opposing the Iraq campaign at the time? Do you really believe Bush allowed arrogance to trump his judgment based on what his intelligence was telling him, combined with Saddam's absolute intransigence in the face of sanctions, diplomatic pressure, etc.?
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Bush compared to Teddy Roosevelt if a few more of his weak grounders went through the infield? <br /><br />Bush should count his blessings his brother was governor of Florida in 2000, that John Kerry couldn't find his way out of a paper bag, much less lead this country, and that he passed on that Dick Cheney hunting trip awhile ago.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>ernest reyes</b><p>John:<br /><br />I'm increasingly frustrated by the rhetoric justifying the attack on Iraq. <br /><br />1) What does it matter that every intelligence operation in the world thought he had chemical weapons? He certainly didn't have the means to attack us. Afterall, ultimately, our foreign policy, at its core, should be based on our security only. He was in a box, as they say.<br /><br />2) The older weapons found were weapons we are responsible for. Remember Saddam was our ally first, and we gave him chemical weapons. On top of that, those weapons are essentially useless now. BTW, we did not find any labs large enough to make chemical weapons in large enough supply to go to war with. They simply did not exist. You are wrong, they did not have the means to reconstitute this weapon program. That is a farce and the evidence gathered since Saddams fall bears that out. Sure, they had the technical know how to make the weapons, but so does half the countries on earth. Chemistry is not a secret.<br /><br />3) The so called terrorist training camps where found in Northern Iraq under the protection of the Kurds. (BTW, they had this camp to fight Turkey who they commit terrorist attacks on) That is a fact. You have to remember that between the 1st and 2nd wars in Iraq, British and American planes where bombing the northern and southern part of Iraq (literally) on a daily basis. Saddam effectively had very little control of those areas, or control on any bases there. Remember the embargo. Remember how a bunch of people where complaining about how it was hurting more Iraqi children then acting as a vice grip on Saddam. Not only that, it makes no logical sense for Saddam, who was a egocentric dictator to welcome Al-Quada type terrorist in Iraq. Remember, Al Queda's goals is a pan-Islamic State which would mean overthrowing every monarchy and government in the Middle East. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc. have no interest in losing their sovereignty. <br /><br />The simple fact remains there is no logical reason why attacking Iraq would have advanced our desired goal of defeating terrorism. Afganistan and Pakistan (and it financial backers within the House of Saud) is where the real war is.<br><br><a href="http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://dodgersblueheaven.blogspot.com/</a><br /><a href="http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/ernestreyes</a><br /><a href="http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://mywantlist.blogspot.com/</a>
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>When I saw a follow-up report on CNN this morning about the tiger attack at the San Francisco zoo, I jokingly said that before that day was over, someone would blame the attack on the president not doing his part to make the zoos in this country safe enough. I haven't heard that yet, but I have faith that someone on this board will come through before the clock strikes midnight.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Leon -- why have a rule for this forum, expressed so clearly and unequivocally, that politics is not allowed to be discussed, and then allow this. I realize friends need to have fun together, and they should. I guess I just don't quite fit in.<br /><br />I live in Colorado and right now it is very wintry and I'm watching those people on the road who think they can drive 50mph on an icy road because they have "4 wheel drive." They are spinning out of control.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Peter,<br /><br />I know hindsight is 20/20, and all I can say is that I was genuinely opposed to going into Iraq before we went in. One February - must have been a few months before we went in - Bush came to GR and I took a late lunch and went downtown and stood in the snow on the side of Michigan St in GR to shout slogans against going into Iraq at the limo as it went by. It was really quite pathetic, actually. Although there was a fairly good turnout (especially considering that I basically live at Ground Zero of 'Neck Nation), it was basically 15 seconds of nothing. But I still thought it was important to go.<br /><br />However, I will own up to mine being a case of right answer, wrong reason. I too thought Saddam had WMD. But I couldn't for the life of me figure out why this was suddenly an emergency. I kept thinking I was missing something, but as far as I could see he had been doing the tap dance for years - even decades. I sort of presumed that he had them and everyone knew he had them, so I thought that this suddenly being a disastrous situation meant that is was a pretense for something else.<br /><br />My absolute opinion at the time, as it is now, is that we went into Iraq to create some action. We went into Afghanistan with a flourish, and made great strides immediately. But months had gone by, and no Osama, and no new news every day. I sensed that people were getting antsy for "something to happen". We were all so amped up on the whole 9/11 and getting Osama, that I really felt like it was getting to be boring to a lot of people. Heck, even I was losing interest.<br /><br />But I kept in mind what Bush had said in his great speech to Congress or State of the Union - I forget which - shortly after 9/11 (which, by the way, I do and probably always will consider the most powerful speech of my time). He said we would have to be patient. He said it would take awhile and there would be long periods where it might appear that nothing was happening.<br /><br />When we started rattling our sabres about Iraq, and suddenly the old chestnut of Saddam and the Inspectors became a call to arms, I felt like Bush abandoned his own (actually wise) advice. He didn't want to tell people to continue to be patient with Afghanistan and Osama. He felt like he had to make something happen. Do something so that the American people could keep that pumped up patriotism, to know that we were doing ... something. <br /><br />He had it right to begin with and should have stayed focused on Afghanistan, Osama and Al Quaeda.<br /><br />And a final clarification - my argument with him is not really just the whole pretense for going into Iraq although that's part of it. My bigger issue is that he and his staff completely ignored the advice of competent military professionals as to the size of the force needed.<br /><br />Cheney and Rumsfeld - career politicians with no real experience in running a military campaign - had this political lollipop of the "agile war" all preconceived, and they laid waste to anyone that rained on their sunshiny parade. This was on the news, and was widely reported. The Gulf War was largely successful because we just flat out overwhelmed them with the sheer number bodies and people and technology. We hit them every which way from Tuesday and it was over before it started.<br /><br />Bush ignored the advice to take a similar approach, and instead took the politically attractive advice of his inexperienced advisors. When it started clearly going wrong, he stubbornly refused to acknowledge the mistake and allowed the resistance to gain enough of a foothold so as to become equal to or even superior to our troops in influence and force.<br /><br />And for that reason we are now faced with what amounts to a choice of lose or draft.<br /><br />Joann<br /><br />PS - and Leon - thanks for allowing the thread. I usually don't participate in the political kinds of threads, but it is nice that we can occasionally express those parts of ourselves that are not card-related. <br /> <br />And I think it's great that, at least so far (kind of holding my breath on this one though), this has been a fairly well-thought out and civil discourse on an extremely divisive topic.<br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>David,<br /> Nevermind what a politician said. If you really believe that this organization would have been taken care if nailed in Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, you are sorely mistaken. This group was already in multiple countries pre 9/11, and still is, around the world.<br><br>Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I believe mistakes were made. I do not believe, however, that the President of the United States knowingly started a war as a political diversion.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"hindsight is always 20-20. Tell me who was there actively opposing the Iraq campaign at the time? Do you really believe Bush allowed arrogance to trump his judgment based on what his intelligence was telling him, combined with Saddam's absolute intransigence in the face of sanctions, diplomatic pressure, etc.?"<br /><br />Peter, I ( along with millions of others protesting on the streets in cities across America in 2003) must have been psychic because all of this is turning out exactly as we predicted: no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq falls into complete chaos and civil war, terrorists gather and build strength, Afghanistan and Al Quaeda get virtually ignored, and we find ourselves in an endless war with an amorphous enemy. We did not predict the erosion of civil rights or the use of torture as an instrument of war being condoned by Americans, but nobody is perfect.<br /><br />Let's not forget that the pretense was weapons of mass destruction. Weapons inspectors were in Iraq for months and found nothing. I would hardly say that "intelligence" was telling Bush otherwise. It was telling him exactly as it turned out to be. At best, Bush was selective and stupid in the information he chose to follow. There was absolutely no reason to rush to war with Iraq. They were an impotent threat to nobody. But Haliburtin is powerful. A $26 million retirement package to Cheney in 2000 sure paid off. Talk about lobbying! No bid contracts for an endless war. Cha-ching!<br />JimB<br /><br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Peter, you dope. Don't you know it was all about the oil?<br /><br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>first:<br /><br />Congrats to all of us; we've kept this on-topic and civilized.<br /><br />Second:<br /><br />I went to a speech given by a former Reagan aide a couple of years back. His point about Iraq was that we got rid of a very evil man in Sadaam Hussein and that was not a bad outcome. In addition, the shock and awe campaign did exactly that. The biggest problem was that the after effects of the invasion was not as well planned as the military part. This was was before the surge; but his statement was basically that America did not plan for the after the warfare conclusion. <br /><br />If we had the troops then we do now; much of what occured in Iraq may not have happenned and many lives could and should have been saved.<br /><br />Third:<br /><br />Personally; like with anyone else; there are things I believe people have good viewpoints on and things people don't. But we're in Iraq and I'll repeat one thing I said earlier; no matter if you like or don't like how we got there; for crying out loud; please support our troops who are performing their jobs. It's dangerous work for not a lot of reward and they deserve our respect.<br /><br />Regards<br />Rich<br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>paulstratton</b><p>"Once we lose the war over there..." Ouch. Just 'cause you don't like the management doesn't mean you should be a team cancer.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>JimB, right, we went to war so Haliburton could get contracts. That is truly lame.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>I read these posts and it's mind-boggling....the majority of the comments posted here smack of a myopic and uninformed view of<br />what the freedom loving people of this world are facing in the form of evil. <br /><br />We are in a 21st Century WAR against evil. In many ways it is no different than what we faced in WWII. Except that this enemy<br /> values life even less than the Nazis or Japs did, since they are willing to blow themselves up (or their children) in order to murder<br /> innocent human beings.....this is sheer evil in its most diabolical form. And, Benazir Bhutto is the latest victim of this evil.<br /><br />We fought evil on multiple fronts during WWII.....the Nazis in France, Germany, the Balkans and Africa. We fought the Facists in<br /> Italy. We fought the Japs in the South Pacific Islands.<br /><br />So, now we are fighting evil on just two fronts.....Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly in a lot less battlefields than in WWII. I do not<br /> understand what you naysayers problem is ? And, this obsession to get Bin Laden....where was this obsession when Clinton had<br /> him targeted back in the mid-1990's and let him go ?<br /> In all probability he is dead by now. We have not seen his evil face since Oct. 2004. We only see his cohort, Al Zawahari, and he<br /> looks like he is on his deathbed spouting out the Liberal "talking points".<br /><br />My suggestion to some of you is to find a well-written book on WWII and try to be more informed before you post this crap you<br /> see and hear on the Commie News Network....CNN.<br /><br />The bottom line guys and gals is we have not had a terrorist strike in our country in 6 years and 3 months....and, that is not due<br /> to just plain luck or coincidence. Bush and Co. must be doing something right.<br /><br />T-Rex TED
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>By the way what ever happened to the Nancy Pelosi promise to take the supposed mandate from the midterm elections and cut off funding for the war?
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>It was only a matter of time before someone invoked Godwin's law. By the way, if comparing WWII to what we are facing today isn't myopic, then I don't know what is. I would try to explain further, but I'm sure someone who is a member of the NRA, or one of the anti abortion people would just pile on next. Hope this link is <br />OK Leon; just in case someone hasn't heard of Godwin's law.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law</a>
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>It's all how you say it, isn't it? Pro life sounds SO much better.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>And by the way, "Japs" is an offensive term. Perhaps dinosaur is an appropriate moniker.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"JimB, right, we went to war so Haliburton could get contracts. That is truly lame."<br /><br />I could not agree more.<br />JimB
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"The bottom line guys and gals is we have not had a terrorist strike in our country in 6 years and 3 months....and, that is not due<br />to just plain luck or coincidence. Bush and Co. must be doing something right."<br /><br />Anthrax aside, many more Americans have been killed since 9/11 due to our misdirected efforts than on 9/11. Just with regard to American deaths, they are on the rise. But let's not forget the tens of thousands of our innocent Iraqi brothers and sisters who have been killed and whom we love so much that we are willing to make the ultimate sacrafices to insure their democracy and prosperity. Humans are humans in my book. 3000 killed on 9/11. Hundreds of thousands killed since. We live in a very confused time. What is ultimately important?<br />JimB
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Who was on watch 6 years and 3 months ago? Good leaders take responsibility, regardless. I can't remember, but I don't think Mrs. O'Leary let the cow stand watch after the fire. "By the way, here's a gas lamp for light and warmth Bessie".
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Bob Pomilla</b><p>"And, this obsession to get Bin Laden....where was this obsession when Clinton had<br />him targeted back in the mid-1990's and let him go ?"<br /><br />Um, 9/11 hadn't occured yet. <br /><br />I don't think wanting to take down the architect of that horrible day should be dismissed as being obsessive, as if it were some kind of psychological disorder..<br /><br />"In all probability he is dead by now. We have not seen his evil face since Oct. 2004"<br /><br />Reported today:<br /><br /><br />Group: Osama Bin Laden to Release Internet Message on Iraq, al-Qaida Linked Insurgent Group<br /><br /><br />(AP) 10:36:20 PM (ET), Thursday, December 27, 2007 (NEW YORK)<br /><br /><br /><br />Terror leader Osama bin Laden will release a new Internet message that focuses on Iraq and an al-Qaida linked insurgent group, a terrorism monitoring group said Thursday.<br /><br /><br />The SITE intelligence group said the al-Qaida leader will discuss Iraq and the group the Islamic State of Iraq, a longtime foe of the Iraqi government and U.S. forces.<br /><br /><br />SITE, which provides counter-terrorism information to government and private groups, said the announcement of the impending message was posted to Islamic militant Web sites earlier in the day.<br /><br /><br />The posting said the message _ titled `The way to contain conspiracies" _ would last 56 minutes. It did not say when it would be released, but such ads usually precede the actual message by one to three days.<br /><br /><br />The authenticity of the posting couldn't immediately be determined. But SITE said it was signed by As-Sahab, the production branch that releases al-Qaida messages. The Internet message didn't say if bin Laden's statement would be in a video or just audio form.<br /><br /><br />The message will mark the sixth public statement by the terror leader this year. Audio or video communiques were sent over the Internet on Sept. 7, Sept. 11, Sept. 20, Oct. 22 and Nov. 29. A video on Sept. 7 was his first in three years and was issued to mark the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.<br /><br /><br />Al-Qaida has dramatically stepped up its messages _ a pace seen as a sign of its increasing technical sophistication and the relative security felt by its leadership.<br /><br /><br />The terror group has also been campaigning to reach a broader audience, announcing that its No. 2 figure, Ayman al-Zawahri, would respond to journalists' questions sent over the Internet. The deadline for the queries was Jan. 16.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Pennsylvania Ted,<br /><br />What a load of crap. The US was attacked in 1993 and the Sheik and the people behind that attack were captured and inprisoned under Clinton. 9/11 happened during Bush's term and the people who were behind THAT attack are still free and running around. <br /><br />As far as Bin Ladin, he is alive and is sending out video messages. Just because Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh don't think so doesn't make it true.<br /><br />As far as another attack, there were eight years between attacks. To do what the terrorists want to do, make a LARGE impression for all the world to see, it takes time. Just because it has been six years and so many months doesn't mean anything. The longer Bush stays in Iraq and leaves Afghanistan and Pakistan to their own devices, the more likely an attack will occur.<br /><br />What will YOU say when an attack happens under Bush (again) even though he has decreased our Civil Liberties by increasing surveillance here in the US (some of which is illegal) and increased our budget deficit?<br /><br />Our phone lines are being tapped without permission (that is why Bush wants the FISA Bill re-enacted with amnesty for the telephone companies). Our trust around the world has been eroded because of Bush's lies and also things that have happened (waterboarding) under his authority. Our Justice Department has been put to shame because of Bush's lust for COMPLETE power. Finally, our economy is being wrecked because of high oil prices and the inflation it brings, the lack of trust in the US (lowers the value of the dollar) and the HUGE budget deficits Bush has caused.<br /><br />During Bush's term in Office, the budget deficit has almost doubled. do you know who buys out debt? Foreigners, with China being a leading purchaser. The last I heard, China owned almost a TRILLION dollars of US debt. Do YOU like that? I don't. The three ways to reduce this debt is to 1) stop or slow down spending. 2) grow our way out of it or 3) raise taxes.<br /><br />Bush wont stop the Wars, so stopping the spending or slowing it down is NOT an option. Even though the Democrats have tried, it is the Republicans who keep thwarting their efforts. <br /><br />Growing our way out is looking dimmer by the month because of the housing problem, the continued high oil prices and the decreasing purchasing power of the dollar. If (when) a recession hits, the US is REALLY in trouble.<br /><br />Instead of raising taxes, something EVERY President in the history of the US has done during a time of War, Bush keeps lowering them and wanting to lower them more. With low taxes already, a recession will hit the Governments revenue stream HARD. But that wont be Bush's problem. No, he will leave THAT for the next President to deal with.<br /><br />Bush's diatribe about the Democrats raising taxes will become a self-fulfilling prophecy because of his NOT being responsible and raising taxes to pay for HIS Wars. Of course, if Bush had done the responsible thing in the first palce, we wuld NOT be in Iraq, our troops wouldn't be getting injured and killed and our deficit would not be going through the roof.<br /><br />As far as Saddam being a bad man. Yes, he was. But there are others in the world just as bad and we are not going after them. Heck, Bush going into a soverign country and overthrowing their leader might be looked upon by other countries and other people as Bush being a bad man....<br /><br />David
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Bill,<br /><br />No, taking out AL Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan wouldn't stop them but it WOULD put a huge dent in their world wide operations. Stopping the poppy growth and sale of opium would decrease their cash flow. Capturing and/or killing thier leaders would also hurt their efforts.<br /><br />Bush NOT finishing the job in Afghanistan is inexcusable. Because he didn't finish the job, he lied to the American people and the rest of the world. He further lied about Iraq. These lies (and others he has told) have caused the trust in the United States to fall around thw world. We are less a shining beacon now and more of a thug nation. A nation that will say and do whatever it takes to get it's way.<br /><br />I would like my Niece and Nephews to grow up in a world that trusts the United States. A world where people from other nations think of us as something special. That we do things the right way. Right now, because of Bush and Cheney, THAT is not the way it is.<br /><br />David
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Kenneth A. Cohen</b><p>I lived in the 3rd World as a Foreign Service Officer for over 20 years from the late seventies to the mid nineties. Anyone who believes that widespread mistrust and dislike for the United States started with the Bush administration hasn't a clue what they're talking about and is living in Lalaland.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>That might be true BUT Bush is just making things worse instead of better. Also, many Americans, for the first time, are coming to this realization.<br /><br />David
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Kenny Cole</b><p>OK, I tried to stay out of the thread, but I just couldn't. So here goes.<br /><br />Last year, I went to a talk given by Edwin Chemerinsky, who I believe is recognized to be one of the leading Constitutional scholars of our generation. I don't think any lawyer who knows anything about the Constitution can seriously argue that point. They can argue his polictical bent, but they can't argue his knowledge or qualifications. The topic of his lecture was the Constitutional crisis that the Bush administration has created. Chemerinsky listed and discussed the 6 generally agreed upon previous constitutional crises, almost all of which were war-related, but indicated that in his opinion, the current erosion of American's Constitutional rights was the most pervasive and the most insidious. I think he is right. And it scares me that so many people seem to unthinkingly accept the loss of their Constitional rights as if its no big deal. It is. Those basic rights are what we are purportedly fighting for when we say that we want to "allow" the Iraquis to create a democratic form of government, whether they want it or not. They are the same rights that are being eroded here on a daily basis.<br /><br />I read with some degree of dismay the amount of revisionist history that is being spouted here by some. As best as I can recall, we didn't invade Iraq due to terrorism issues. At least purportedly, we invaded Iraq because it wasn't complying with various UN resolutions that we unilaterally decided to enforce -- a decision that even the UN disagreed with. By the way, I think the UN is, on the whole, pretty much a worthless organization. Nonetheless, it strikes me as both extremely disingenuous and hugely ironic that we can unilaterally decide to invade a country to enforce resolutions that the entity issuing them, of which we are a member, chooses not to enforce, then later use our propaganda/disinformation machine to convice many, if not most, of our citizens that the reason we went there in the first place was to fight terrorism. That is a pure crock of ****. Ted Z, if you truly believe that nonsense, and the nonsense you spouted about the similarities between this problem and those involving Nazi Germany [which we stayed strictly out of, while the Nazis were committing incredible atrocities, until they declared war on us], then I suggest that you need to read more and think more. The comparison you attempt to make is inapt at best.<br /><br />As for Bush, I agree that he made a great speech after 9/11. His writers are to be commended. He then proceeded to completely trample our civil liberties and constitutional rights, in the name of fighting the war on terror. In fact in my opinion, he violated the very Constitution he swore to uphold and defend and, I think it is clear, authorized things that we as a nation purport to abhore. Among other things, he sanctioned torture, confinement for unlimited periods of time, violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments, etc. Those sorts of things violate not just our laws, but international laws and conventions. Consequently, by not only condoning but authorizing those sorts of activities, it seems to me that Bush has lost whatever moral high ground he might once have held. It also seems to me that we, as a society, almost always lose when our "leader's" position is that the end justifies the means. That is the position that has historically been taken by all of those dicatators that our schoolbooks tell our kids are evil. <br /><br />I guess it all comes down to who's ox is getting gored. In that regard, I understand the slipery-slope argument (which I think suffers problems of proof), that by violating the Constitition, American lives were saved here at home. Maybe so. However, aren't those same American lives being lost over-seas in defense of purported Constitutional ideals that are currently being violated at home? How can we say that we want to bring a democratic, constitutional regime to Iraq [whether they want it or not, which is yet another issue], when our President no longer respects the very constitutional rights he is purporting to fight for?<br /><br />Joann is right -- Dubya is by far the worst President that our nation has ever had to endure. I think history will judge him harshly. It should. To say he deserves harsh judgment is kind. <br /><br />All that being said, I also agree with Mr. Klein that we must support the troops. They're there, generally not of their choosing, but because they were sent there by people with a political agenda -- people whose own children are not and will not ever be there. Nonetheless, that fact does not diminish their efforts or their sacrifice. It simply makes the fact that we are losing them that much more tragic. 'Nuff said.<br /><br />Kenny Cole<br /><br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Kenny,<br /><br />Excellent post. I was thinking the same thing earlier tonight. Over the course of the history of this nation and even before, millions of people have given their lives and many millions more have been injured, in defense of the Constitution and OUR Rights. Yet, during Bush's term in Office, he has pretty much torn each and every one of those Rights down and deemed them insignificant in his Sociopathic quest to become King George.<br /><br />What troubles me is, he has done ALL of these things and there STILL might be a terrorist attack on the US. One which is planned outside the country and which NO information can be gathered before hand using his domestic spying tactics and surveillance.<br /><br />With all the information gathered by the Government, you SURELY don't think that they haven't also used those technics to gather info on business leaders and members of the opposite political party do you? I think so and if they haven't used it, members of the Democratic Party may feel they have it and will use it if they don't vote for what Bush wants.<br /><br />The problem with this logic comes when another President is elected. The next President isn't going to have the same views as Bush, so they could use all these powers he has accumulared in a different way. I don't know what religion Mike Huckabee is but I do know he is an ordained Minister. What if he chooses to use these domestic spying programs to filter information and find out who the pro-abortion supporters are and go after them?<br /><br />What if Hillary uses the info to go after Republicans or men? What if Obama uses it to go after women or white people? Once these powers are used and the Congress and Senate allow it to happen, then future Presidents will think they have the same rights to that power. That is why it MUST be stopped NOW. <br /><br />That is why the domestic spying program must be scaled back and put under the control of people other than politicians. That is why the telephone companies should NOT get any amnesty for allowing the government to use them illegally. That is why waterboarding incidents should be investigated and thsoe responsible for them convicted, just like the United States convicted Japanese soldiers after WW II for doing it to American soldiers.<br /><br />That is why the hypocrisy must stop.<br /><br />David
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Scott</b><p><br />As a Bush supporter I would agree that there are three very large mistakes which have hurt the USA.<br /><br />The first mistake was to not properly fight in Afghanistan. By making politics part of the war planning, the administration seemed to avoid casualties at all cost. Instead of American Marines sweeping through the country we paid "warlords" to do it for us. I don't want any US soldier to die, but lets face the fact that the US army had the motivation to totally destroyed Bin Laden and his crew instead of paid ex-Taliban supporters letting him get away at Tora Bora.<br /><br />The second mistake was the invasion of Iraq. Yes Sadam was a really bad guy, but there are about 20 other really bad guys leading nations. I personally believe that Bush both listened to some very bad advice (from the group of "neo-cons") and had personal leanings against Sadam due to the assassination attempt on his father. The cost of this Iraq war will hurt us economically and within the world community for another 5-10 years. And lets not forget that the intelligence community failed in a big way, and this is a community that aside from a few political appointments is a "career civil servant" organization - its broken and needs to be fixed.<br /><br />The third mistake is our reaction to 9/11. We should have clamped down hard on certain country's citizens coming to the US - but not Japan, Korea, UK, Italy, Czech Republic, Spain, Russia, etc, etc. Single out Saudia Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt etc - and for whomever cried that its discriminitory against Muslims too damn bad. Allow students to come and study just like we always did. Think of how much we could have done with all the money wasted in Iraq - both in the US and around the world. Allowing increased immigration from Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia, Japan, Korea, Russia, New Zealand while cutting it off from most Arab countries would have been the right move. Additionally, I agree that the constitution and the freedoms it enspouses are extremely important and that we (USA) should strive to set the example for others - some of the programs and stances currently taken don't do that and they need to be changed.<br /><br />Finally, I'd just add that its always much easier to make decisions after the fact. I believe that Bush had made some very bad decisions, listened to the wrong people. He is the president and he is responsible. But lets not pretend that removing him will cure all ills...the breakdown in our intelligence happened over many years...the reduction in our Armed Forces happened over many years...the building of our budget deficit and current account deficit happened over many years....and it will all take many years of hard work to get us back to where we all want to be.<br /><br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Funniest line of this whole thread:<br /><br />CNN= Commie News Network<br /><br />Ted, where do you dig this stuff up?
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>even though I promised myself (and the board) I would not.....<br /><br /><br />hindsight is a wonderful thing.... and yes there have been strategic mistakes in these wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) -<br />but there is a one major success:<br /><br />On 9/11 the Terrorism War was fought in NYC, in America.<br /><br />Today Al Qaeda is very preoccupied in Iraq in Afghanistan.<br /><br />Thank you President Bush, and thank you to our fine men and women in the armed services - for moving the battlezone to the middle east and for fighting this battle.<br /><br /><br /><br />So you can call it an unintended benefit (if you are a bush basher) -<br />I personally don't care what it is called....<br />the reality is - the warzone moved.... and no doubt Al Qaeda would have hit America again if they were not so preoccupied with Iraq.<br /><br />For that reason alone - this war was worthwhile.<br /><br />Did we go in for the wrong reasons? - perhaps.<br />Did have we had military strategic mistakes? - sure did - and hopefully from the mistakes we are getting better at fighting this war and not running from it.<br /><br /><br />Some people seem to forget:<br />this is a real enemy. Real death and destruction.<br />Daniel Pearl knew all about how real al Qaeda is.<br />The people in Iraq know all about how real al Qaeda is with the constant suicide bombings.<br />The people in NY know all about how real al Qaeda is.<br />On 9/11 - I was close enough to smell, taste, feel, hear the destruction. I watched people jump to their death. I fealt the rumble of the buildings as they came down.<br /><br />Some people on this board seem to have a very scholarly, very removed and sterile view of the situation. They seem to get their reality from a newspaper clipping. I got mine right in front of me.<br /><br /><br /><br />lets see....<br />Joann - I used to like you! (<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> - just kidding, you are still cool. I just look at is as a differing opinion - hopefully others can look at my post the same way.)<br /><br />Ted Z - you the man! We have got to go out for drinks one day - on me!
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>CNN = Clinton News Network. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Regards<br />Rich
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I've never voted for a republican in my life.<br /><br />That being said, to suggest that we went in to Iraq due to oil is embarrassing. I echo what Joe D said: the reasons we went in were apparently not what Bush said they were -- which is an appalling lack of intelligence -- but we did tie up Al Qaeda and Iraq is stabilizing (at least until we leave). And whoever said they feel safe here just because the Islamic fundamentalists are only going after big ticket items in NYC -- and the poster doesn't live in NYC -- well, that sounds like the kind of guy I'd want in my foxhole! I can tell you as someone who watched the towers fall that day, everyone in NY was scared, not just the poor people who died. And if you think that Islamic fundamentalists only strike big ticket items, just ask the Israelis or the Spanish, or the English, or the (add 19 other countries) in which they struck places as mundane as pizza parlors or supermarkets or buses.<br /><br />Sadly our country has become so partisan that no matter what the administration does the Democrats will be against it -- at least until the election ends (and same goes for the Republicans against the Dems). As one Dem senator said "If the surge works that's bad for the Democratic party." Very sad. I think the last time I felt that we lived in a united country, all for one and one for all, was during the few days after 9/11. After that it was back to slimy partisan politics.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Kenneth A. Cohen</b><p>I feel that in some cases the Dems have not acted as a constructive and loyal opposition. That said, politics used to be about solving problems, such as improving transportation or making sure drinking water was safe. It seems that now, on both sides of the aisle, it's about exploiting problems and keeping them festering for partisan political gain. Sadly, there is no end in sight. <br /><br />As to those who posit what the Bush legacy will be, you are much too intelligent to be wasting time in the inconsequential world of baseball cards. You might consider hiring yourselves out as philosopher-kings with your Nostrodomus-like foresight.<br /><br />Finally, I hope everyone will continue to check in with this forum. With King George's government surveillance of this thread, it will be comforting for me to know that no one has been carted off to a secret prision.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I think another of the many systems broken in our country is our political one. There are about 15 people who are running for president at this moment, and none of them on either side seem to be particularly talented or even principled. I get the feeling they all just say whatever it takes to get them votes. And I understand that it is expected that $1 billion will be spent by the candidates on the 2008 election. How appalling.<br /><br />While I am one who believes that Bush will in fact go down as one of our worst presidents ever, my greater fear is whoever replaces him may be no better. Wish I could feel more optimistic but I just don't.
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Barry you might not have agreed with Patrick Henry but you wouldn't have accused him of waffling or lack of talent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/henry.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/henry.htm</a><br /><br />
|
OT: Bhutto Assassinated
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Yes, there was a time when politicians had passion. Now, they have advisors telling them what to say and what not to say. It's really a joke. How do you believe any of them? All of them say they will radically change health care, but I already know none of them will be able to. Once the powerful lobbies intercede the new president will be virtually powerless. It's a very different world we live in.<br /><br />Anyone notice how civil and respectful this thread has been compared to other political ones we've had? I think Net54 is growing up! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:01 AM. |