It's a new day and I'm searching for a new tone for my posts. I think, (saying in a nice way) that maybe you're downplaying the Clinton thing a bit and Rove may or may not be overblown. Other CIA agents are saying now (today) that everyone knew she worked at the CIA. She told neighbors etc etc. Also, her husband said yesterday that she was not undercover or in a covert position while this happened. Not saying that it minimizes or whatever.......if Rove did wrong and is proven that way he should either be fired or exit on his own. But you have to admit that Dem's are thirsty to have a scandal stick cause they have pretty much failed to find anything that sticks to Bush so far. New tone.
I think it is simpler than that, LC. It's payback. Rove has been the presidents bulldog. Rove's campaigns emphasized negative tactics early and often. Much of the divisive rhetoric characterizing this administration comes from Rove political philosophy. He orchestrated the smear of John Kerry's military record in 2004 and John McCain's in 2000. He has been charcterized as the administrations Joseph Goebbels. He lambasts democrats at every opportunity with hateful rhetoric. Just last month he caused a controversy by stating that liberals "offered therapy and understanding" to the 9/11 terrorists. Such demagogues often end up with a long string of enemies in their wake and when they screw up a spotlight gets shined on it. People who live in glass houses . . . No, Bush is not immoral, evil, or crazy. His failings have not been personal scandals but persistant poor judgement, misleading the public, and the failure to heed the sound advice of career diplomats, allies, and congessional leaders. However the fruits of his poor decisions are sticking to him like glue. And among them are a few scandals like Abu Gharaib, the Halliburton profit-gouging, and the WMD blunders.
That's funny. It's career St. Dept. diplomats that have us in this shape with N. Korea and Iraq right now. Treaties and negoiations with murderous dictators worked really well in the past so let's keep trying it until they give a nuke to some terrorist freak who levels L.A. My question is and has been since 9/11.....how many people have to die due to terrorism until we quit worrying what other people think or how we may hurt their unique sensibilities? I thought 3,000 may have been enough but things wear off so quick in this country. When L.A. is coated in radiation and no one can return for 10,000 years and 6 million are dead, maybe that will do. Bush is attempting the best way he can to make sure that doesn't happen. Negotiations won't stop this stuff........but whipping their A$$e$ and installing a democracy may. If that's what it takes then so be it and I don't care what the EU thinks about it. Makes perfect sense to me.
Exactly. We've got about a million proposals/contracts that are out right now, waiting to be signed before we can proceed on any work. It's feast or famine sometimes. I tell you what, though, today was certainly a 'feast' day (I'm off already). I thought I was going to lose my mind, but I wasn't so lucky.
Outstanding point. I wasn't as concerned with politics in the Clinton era as I am now (age does that to ya), but I was reasonably informed for an 18y.o. And all of his 'shenanigans' you speak of made me cringe. He was a constant mockery to the judicial system. Someone as intelligent as him asking a prosecutor to define 'is'? Are you freaking kidding me? Then getting busted lying and nothing happening to him? What a joke. I remember that the Menendez brothers and OJ trials happened before that. When Clinton 'got off' (no pun intended), I acquired a permanent disdain for our legal system. I get the same vibe from the current administration, just not so much in a 'white trash' type of way. They have played off a serious amount of very questionable circumstances like they are nothing. I've yet to see a shred of accountability. Even if the Iraq fiasco was just a gigantic 'mistake' (based on 'flawed intelligence'), someone should have payed for it. To me, that just seems like something you accept when you're in that position. That's why you are qualified to be held in such high esteem. In my opinion, when you are responsible for making such colossal decisions that affect the lives of millions upon millions of people, there is NO excuse for error, and that's your ass if shyte hits the fan. This Rove thing is so small compared to the magnitude of some of the other things they've played off, so there is no doubt in my mind that it will quickly disappear with no consequence (maybe a resignation, but not much else). Yep. That's my biggest problem with him. I think that you can trace so much of the political poisoning and fierce polarization in this country directly to him. I'll admit, he's a hell of a strategist, some even say a 'genius'. But he is a demagogue of the highest degree. Preying on people's fears is reprehensible. Maybe that was his intention, but he failed miserably at that task. We've been turning a blind eye to the only countries with such a capability for some time now.
The main problem with that statement is that's what this is all about in Iraq. It's 2-fold: 1) To keep Saddam from getting a nuke weapon. Then we have to negotiate with this freak because he's crazy enough to use it. 2) To get him out so that if he is close to a nuke he doesn't give it or it's material to a terrorist to use on us anonymously. Clinton, through negotiating and treaties allowed N. Korea to gain nuclear material and build bombs. Now all you can do is isolate them. What other country is Bush ignoring that is acquiring nuke's? Iran? You wanna invade Iran but Iraq was a total mistake to you? I don't understand.
The difference b/w Iran and Iraq is that Iran has openly admitted to having a nuclear weapons program that is in full swing. What Iraq 'had' was just dreamed up any way you cut it, really. Additionally, I never said that we 'should' invade Iran. Maybe we should, but I don't know yet. However, it makes no sense to waste so many resources going after one country when its next-door neighbor is a much more serious threat.
Do you feel better now? Take a deep breath. Who said anything about "hurting their unique sensibilites"? No one. No one said we were worried about what others thought. I said Bush ignored advice (internal and external) that turned out to be true. You are arguing with yourself. I'm damned if I see how ignoring good advice that would have kept us out of the Iraq debacle is going to save us from Al Qaida terrorists that were responsible for 9/11. There is no doubt that Bush is hammering his shoe on the table. Whether or not he has the right table is open to serious question. Now we are mired in Iraq, possibly for decades, while Osama still runs free. This administration is making things up as they go. They ignored the intelligence, they ignored our best allies (NATO, not the EU), they ignored our professional experts and set about to kick some ass and show the world who has the biggest dick. Well, the world already knows that. Invading Iraq didn't help fight terrorism, it is actually creating new terrorists that were out of the fight before we went there. And Osama is still in the fight, hiding in Pakistan. Why aren't we in Pakistan going after him? Democracies can't just be installed because we went in and kicked ass. The people have to want it and they have to have the courage to take it for themselves, as we did in 1776.
We? I'm sure if that was the situation today that event would never happen. Too many 'professional experts???' are talkers and complainers yet are the ones who'd never do a damned thing about anything. I saw it in my years in the Army. the know-it-alls were the biggest pussy do-nothings who got recycled then discharged and it applied to most every other life experience as well. Which mold do you fit?
