Reported today in the St Paul Pioneer Press, the results of the latest Washington Post-ABC news Poll paint a bleak picture for the Bush administration as well as both sides of the aisle in congress.

For the first time, more than half of respondents disagree with Bush that the war in Iraq is making the U.S. safer from terrorism; nearly 3/4 say the number of casualties is unacceptable and 6 out of 10 say the war was not worth fighting. More than 4 in 10 (yeah, that seems silly to me too; just say 5 in 10, or whatever) are comparing the war in Iraq to the Viet Nam experience.

Over half of respondents disapprove of how Bush is doing his job, and 56 % disapprove of both Republicans and Democrats in congress.

Surprisingly, 67% blamed Bush and the Republicans for not making progress on the nation's problems; and, for the first time, a majority (55%) said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.

Some authorities are saying the pessimism on the war is reaching a dangerous level, and could lead to people making the determination that the war was not necessary to begin with and is unwinnable.

Independents have steadily gone down in their approval ratings for Bush since March of this year.

* * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * *

The above information is all from the article. My take on the poll is that, okay, here is another poll. /shrug

But, even tho polls are only taking a relatively small sampling, I would hope that people in Washington would be paying attention to the "voice of the people" and maybe a few might realize that Bush is NOT the great war-time president he wants everyone to believe. Or, at the least, he is not helping his party by taking a 'my way or the highway approach' (much like Frist, who has hurt his chances for higher office with the Nuclear Option fiasco).

In the past 20 years, the median cost of a home has doubled, but the minimum wage has not kept up; government has steadily sought to suppress unions while allowing big business to foist their pension plans onto tax-payers to pay, at half the promised value; the average salary has not kept up with the cost of living index, and when gains are made the increases of medical insurance wipes them out; and, now the increased fuel costs are creating an even more stressfull situation with folks leaving their big gas-guzzlers for smaller cars and the car companies looking at layoffs and discontinuing lines of production.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that the next election offers us a choice between two capable candidates, who will offer plans for the country and it's citizens, and not just for fringe groups and/or big business, and that the real problems of the U.S. take center stage in the debates.

(I have to wonder what would have happened in the 2000 election if Bush's campaign had not used their telephone banks in the Carolinas to inform voters of McCain's "black" adopted child, and where the country would be at now)

In the past 20 years, the median cost of a home has doubled, but the minimum wage has not;

I agree that the minimum wage is too low, but minimum wage earners have never been home owners in teh grand scheme of things, i think that's a logical fallacy to compare the two.

"For the first time, more than half of respondents disagree with Bush that the war in Iraq is making the U.S. safer from terrorism; nearly 3/4 say the number of casualties is unacceptable and 6 out of 10 say the war was not worth fighting. More than 4 in 10 (yeah, that seems silly to me too; just say 5 in 10, or whatever) are comparing the war in Iraq to the Viet Nam experience."

A little late, huh? :) Its like my neighbor's bumper sticker says, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry"

Its like my neighbor's bumper sticker says, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry"
Meaning your neighbor's probably more decisive than Kerry himself?

I agree that the minimum wage is too low, but minimum wage earners have never been home owners in teh grand scheme of things, i think that's a logical fallacy to compare the two.

Not really making a comparison, but rather showing the widening gap between the haves and have-nots; the point can also be made by looking at the steadily rising healthcare costs and the numbers of folks unable to afford that.

It was a Washington Post-ABC poll. I am sure they polled highly populated areas of liberal influence. I wonder if they polled the area I live in if thhings would be a might bit different. Polls are nothing more then statistics. You can make them say what ever you want. I highly doubt either The Post or ABC would do a poll that actually favored the Bush Administation. Pity all the more. I think he is doing fine.

Does it really matter? I mean he can't stay another term, what can anyone really do other than say I don't like it, I disagree?

I think it matters quite a great bit. Gonna be hard for people to put another republican in office, with their less than stellar track record these last 2 Bush terms. It's almost getting to the point where a guy can run on the platform of not being republican.

While the democratic party is having its own issues, the axiom of lesser of two evils comes to mind.

I agree that the minimum wage is too low, but minimum wage earners have never been home owners in teh grand scheme of things, i think that's a logical fallacy to compare the two.
Wage growth overall has stagnated except for corporate CEOs (I read that California based CEO salaries have increased something like 20% over the last year). We're riding a bubble in housing supply and demand, but it will -- like the dot.com bubble -- burst, probably sooner than later, and the economy will depress even more.
I highly doubt either The Post or ABC would do a poll that actually favored the Bush Administation.
*laugh* That's right, if it's against Bush it much be liberal media bias! Bush's numbers have been slipping for months. Hell, he spent millions of taxpayer dollars on staged "town hall" meetings, and could only garner a ~30% approval rating for his handling of Social Security. Given the mediocre election results and worsening situation in Iraq and in the US, it's no surprise at all that his approval rating suffers.
Pity all the more. I think he is doing fine.
No surprise, given you've never displayed a mote of thought independent from Bushspeak or the party line. But in the reality-based world, we find that the war's progress (forgetting reasons for being there at all), the enormous budget deficits, focusing on Social Security in a manner more attuned to phasing out the program rather than fixing it, not focusing on the real crisis (healthcare), polarization of the nation, major military recruitment problems, use of torture and rendition to facilitate torture, the increasing flow of wealth to the already wealthy, etc etc are anything but "fine."

More Americans are agreeing with each passing month.

We're riding a bubble in housing supply and demand, but it will -- like the dot.com bubble -- burst, probably sooner than later, and the economy will depress even more.



I disagree with this for the simple fact dot.coms blew up because they were built on false promises. Land on the other hand..you simply cannot "make" more land. Sure in some areas it will devaluate but never "burst" like the dot.coms did.

It's almost getting to the point where a guy can run on the platform of not being republican.

Kerry thought the same thing. You right I follow Bushspeak thank you. I happen to agree with the majority of his ideas. Not all mind you but far more then not.

More Americans are agreeing with each passing month. well sure when you poll liberal/victim mind set innere cities. Besides things are 10000% better then Carters lovely administration.

Bush failing huh...

Elections in Afganastan and Iraq, Syria pushed out of Lebanon, quieting of the Palastinian/Israel conflict, Iran/Korea coming to talks about their nuclear proliferation.

Yup, you are SooOoo right.

Blame the poll results more on the Mediagiants spreading their bullshit agenda and the common sheep eating it up.

How's the cud taste?

Oh, and I'll surely put into office a party that supports the likes of Howard "The Maniac" Dean...

Fandros

well sure when you poll liberal/victim mind set innere cities.
What evidence do you have that the poll only covered inner cities? Present the evidence or shut up. I have to laugh at a Repub clamiing someone else has a "victim mind set," given the "Judicial war on faith" rallying cry of the last several months. Most Americans are Christians (by a wide majority), and most judges were appointed by Reagan or a Bush, but they're at war against America!!!!!
Elections in Afganastan and Iraq, Syria pushed out of Lebanon, quieting of the Palastinian/Israel conflict, Iran/Korea coming to talks about their nuclear proliferation.
And by Afghanistan we mean Kabul, since warlords still dominate territory outside the capital. Ask any of those newly elected Iraq officials to drive the 6 miles from the Green Zone to the Baghdad airport without an accompanying arsenal of defense. The insurgency is as strong or stronger than ever, and bodycounts continue to rise. Compare pre-war predictions with the results, and tell me it's not a failure. Elections are nice, but nation building (and rebuilding) wasn't part of the original plan.

Syria out of Lebanon is a good thing, though I don't hear the right trumpeting over recent election results. I wonder why (http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-06-06-voa29.cfm)...
In the second stage of Lebanon's parliamentary elections, a pro-Syrian coalition, led by the militant group, Hezbollah, won all 23 seats at stake in the southern region where voting was held Sunday. The results in the south were in stark contrast to the result of the previous Sunday's voting in Beirut, where a ticket headed by the anti-Syrian opposition parties swept all the seats at stake in and around the capital.
Hopefully the rest of the elections don't turn out so overwhelmingly in this vein, but it's not exactly great news.

Iran and North Korea have yet to be resolved in any significant way. It's a little early to claim victory here of any sort. It's notable that other than Iraq you didn't touch on any point I made.
Blame the poll results more on the Mediagiants spreading their bullshit agenda and the common sheep eating it up.
What agenda? The media has been kissing Bush's ass for years. Investigative journalism is out the window, replaced by "he said/she said" "debates." And I wouldn't knock spreading bullshit agendas for the common sheep to eat up; that''s how Bush was elected in the first (well, second) place. Just shout, "OMG, it's a gay person!" and they go running to the polls. :rolleyes:
Oh, and I'll surely put into office a party that supports the likes of Howard "The Maniac" Dean...
But you'll put into office a party that supports Tom "the most corrupt man in Washington" DeLay, Bill "and when I say Frist, and I mean Dobson" Dobson, and George "nothing more need be said" Bush? Dean makes a funny shout, and he's a maniac you'd never support. But the three above (and so many more!) engage in the array of behaviors and actions I cited earlier, and they're your party? Well, you can have 'em.

I'll leave off with a quote from a more sensible Republican:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

-President Eisenhower, Nov 8, 1954

/chuckle

Most corrupt man in Washington.

Thor, you need to pull your head out of the collective Democratic donkey's ass bud.

Aslong as you have a murderer sitting in the senate /cough Ted Kennedy, it's unlikely anyone can top him.

Mind you I'm no supporter of the rank and file. I'd rather we had moderates in office and no partisan politics at all.

As for the press kissing Bush's ass for years. /chuckle forgetting already CBS's madeup lies you have?

How much news coverage do you see regarding the common Iraqi's overwhelming support for our troops over there? Trust me it's rampant, I've family and friends over there and yet noone covers it.

Ya'll fav news crews would rather do more damage to morale than to support the folks over there. Nothing new under the sun there by gods, was the same way back in 91 when I was over there.

So please Thor, cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the fuck over it. Ya'll lost fair and square, and I've yet to see a Dem up and coming that I'd rather have in office than Bush.

And this is coming from me, who since Regan , has voted more Dem than Republican.

Fandros

Dean makes a funny shout, forgot to address that one.

He's a lunatic plain and simple. Hell he's making racial slurs one day and spouting religion the next. And this is at a recent gathering...

Lost touch we have in our ire for the right...

Fandros

Thor, you need to pull your head out of the collective Democratic donkey's ass bud.
Brings the question of what's best, having your head in a donkey's ass, or an elephant's ass...

I let our political experts answer this one! :p

Thor, you need to pull your head out of the collective Democratic donkey's ass bud.
I'm an Independent. Call 'em as I see 'em.
Aslong as you have a murderer sitting in the senate /cough Ted Kennedy, it's unlikely anyone can top him.
As suspicious as that whole affair is, he was acquitted. But it's telling that you have to go back to Chappaquiddick to find someone to match DeLay. Of course, it's immaterial. Kennedy is neither in charge, nor does his alleged murder impact the country in any way comparable to DeLay's various scandals. That's not a defense of Kennedy (I question his innocence), but your implication of Kennedy's decades old affair is no defense of DeLay.
Mind you I'm no supporter of the rank and file. I'd rather we had moderates in office and no partisan politics at all.
Good, I'd like that as well. It's a pipe dream, especially these days, but we can hope, eh?
As for the press kissing Bush's ass for years. /chuckle forgetting already CBS's madeup lies you have?
The "lies" that passed through the White House without comment or rebuttal prior to publication? Did CBS screw up out of some overt liberal bias or because they were in a hurry to get the scoop on a story before USA Today? CBS is guilty of poor journalism. But overt, consistent bias? One episode does not a position make. And seriously, if the Clinton White House had a partisan gay ex-hooker with no credentials among its press corp, a guy operating under an alias who was in the White House even when the President was out and no press conferences were scheduled, do you think the press would have ignored it like they did the Gannon/Guckert affair? Really?
How much news coverage do you see regarding the common Iraqi's overwhelming support for our troops over there? Trust me it's rampant, I've family and friends over there and yet noone covers it.
I know that Iraqis in some number support our presence and the democratic effort under way. How many? It's pretty hard to say. It's so dangerous outside the Green Zone that I suspect any kind of accurate polling is next to impossible. But I know if I was over there, I'd want to think people supported my efforts, too. I hope your friends and relations are right, Fanny, but I'd like more information to back that up.

I will say that it's far easier to report who died where than to poll Iraqi support for our efforts in regions where even armored convoys aren't safe. Keep that in mind, that reality of war, before accusing journalists -- already operating in dangerous territory -- of exhibiting bias in not acquiring such data. Would you go to Iraq to conduct such a poll outside the Green Zone?
Ya'll fav news crews would rather do more damage to morale than to support the folks over there. Nothing new under the sun there by gods, was the same way back in 91 when I was over there.
More damage than what? Than the reality of the quagmire that is Iraq? Than the incompetence with which this war and its aftermath have been engaged? Should news crews bullshit us for the sake of morale? Orwell on line 1 for ya, Fanny.
So please Thor, cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the fuck over it. Ya'll lost fair and square, and I've yet to see a Dem up and coming that I'd rather have in office than Bush.
Oh stop babbling. You've responded to one point I made of many, and I've responded back. I haven't mentioned the elections or the problems with them, so why you frame my posts as "crying about the election results" is beyond me (and below you). By all the points I cited, Bush has failed in all sorts of ways, and your posts do nothing to contradict that. I know you're not a simple-minded partisan, but really, to extol Bush in such a way is just ignoring reality on too many levels. There's more to America than the Iraq war, and the conduct of the war itself isn't something to be proud of.

So please Thor, cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the fuck over it. Ya'll lost fair and square, and I've yet to see a Dem up and coming that I'd rather have in office than Bush

We aren't talking about the election....(please notice how the republicans can now tout "fair and square" finally).

Also, loved the Eisenhower quote :)
Its not just the democrats that are anti-bush, I consider myself independant, and evenhave a couple republican views.

I just hope Bush Gets rid of the House and Senate and declares himself Emperor. Then he will take over the world. All Hail Emperor bush.

More reminder that Eisenhower was the greatest Republican president of the last century and probably the last true American conservative in office. He's probably spinning in his grave over the "conservative" fiscal policy of the last 25 years. :( The neocon shill we have in office should be ashamed to sit at the same desk.

/chuckle


Mind you I'm no supporter of the rank and file. I'd rather we had moderates in office and no partisan politics at all.

Fandros

/agree wholeheartedly!

My biggest problem with the administration is the manner in which they have attempted to change all the rules once they were in power, to prevent the Dems from doing exactly the same as what the Reps had done when the Dems were in power; obviously knowing the possibility of payback was there and not being sure they would come out on top of all the confrontations.

AND, I am still peeved that they spent far less money investigating the 9/11 attacks than what they were willing to spend investigating Clinton for Whitewater, and subsequent piling-ons.

Moderates would not tolerate such bullshit.

So hard to stir up real palatable nags anymore ;(

Damn off election years!!!

Fandros

Bush failing huh...

Elections in Afganastan and Iraq, Syria pushed out of Lebanon, quieting of the Palastinian/Israel conflict, Iran/Korea coming to talks about their nuclear proliferation.
Yes because it is much more important for Bush to be doing foreign work instead of working on the financial problems he has created in this country as a result of his war, you're so right. Best president ever.

Truly Talid, you remain a spoonfed product of the masses.

Best read up on recent economic gains you young spoonful of misguided miscreant.

Greenspan said some interesting things today and all economic indicators are looking up. Hell it appears folks were massaging the numbers in a downward slant from his first term.

I shudder to think such a potential intellect is being guided by some professor with a twisted agenda...

Here's a twist for ya boyo, even tho I'm not a big Bush fan. He's persistent and still working to improve our world. Globaly and domestically...

Fandros

Truly Talid, you remain a spoonfed product of the masses.

Best read up on recent economic gains you young spoonful of misguided miscreant.

Greenspan said some interesting things today and all economic indicators are looking up. Hell it appears folks were massaging the numbers in a downward slant from his first term.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=au9oPIxwqc7g&refer=top_world_news
I guess Bloomberg is lying then
A text of his testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress was released at 10 a.m. In it, he said the economy is on ``firm footing'' and the central bank can keep raising interest rates at a ``measured'' pace.

The Standard & Poor's 500 Index slipped 1.64, or 0.1 percent, to 1193.03 as of 10:24 a.m. in New York.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 19.06, or 0.2 percent, to 10,457.80. oops!

The interest rate being raised is always a good sign too.

I shudder to think such a potential intellect is being guided by some professor with a twisted agenda...

My political views are a result of my own feelings and observations, the political views of my teachers never came into consideration when it was time to hit the voting booth, or when it came time to register to vote or any other time.
Here's a twist for ya boyo, even tho I'm not a big Bush fan. He's persistent and still working to improve our world. Globaly and domestically...

No matter how hard you hit it, you're not going to bring the horse back to life.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Learn it. Love it. Live it. The wave of the future.

All that is needed is a leader then, I guess.;)

You know, I was raised christian but I am now a heathenous atheist. I don't care if Bush wants to christianize the world, I can fit in. I don't care if they want to teach kids in school about noahs ark instead of astronomy. When it really comes down to it, the cons are not sticking to the heritage when it comes to fiscal policy. I have heard some refer to arnold as "socially liberal and fiscally conservative". All I ask of the cons is to get back to fiscal conservation, small federal government and state power. That is what the GOP is all about isn't it? I think the whole social security thing is absolutely irresponsibility. Let me ask this, is the net result of the GOP's fiscal policies to borrow as much money from the rest of the world as possible then tell them all to fuck off? If so, just say so. I could go along with that. Lets drain every last drop of blood from every other country on the face of the earth. Either we play by the rules and be smart about our investments and debt or we kick the shit out of the world, take all their money and laugh at them. Pick one and let me know what it is please.

Best read up on recent economic gains you young spoonful of misguided miscreant

2002 Deficit: $6.2 Trillion
2005 Deficit: $7.8 Trillion (increases roughly $1.64 Billion a day)

Clearly we have two different definitions of gains. You can focus on "small" stats and show positive indicators (House sale are up on tuesdays following the full moon on streets whose names have a 't' in the name) , but the bottom line....our money situation sucks.

And of course the deficiet is all Bush's fault. Even tho it was growing during Clinton's tutelage.

Ahhhh and I'll listen to Greenspan over Bloomberg anytime. Most follow this example.

Raising interest rate is a tool used to control inflation. In itself it's neither good nor evil....

It's often lowered to spark the economy and then raised to help temper gain inorder to help avoid inflation. I think you'll cover that in economics 101...

Fandros

I don't think you can honestly compare Clinton budgets and deficits with those of Bush. We've gone from surpluses to massive overspending, and Greenspan lost a lot of credibility in abetting the revenue loss and borrowing that's gotten us to this point.

I had to chuckle over Osg's neocon site. Let's see what we have here:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
To start, American leadership isn't inherently good for anyone; it's only as good as our leaders make it. One wonders how our military is to remain strong with our being bogged down in Iraq (probably for years), recruitment plummeting, and money being inefficiently (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/business/08weapons.html?) and irresponsibly blown on too many hypothetical weapons systems for the budget to handle.

Further, this administration (under neocon guidance, mind you) is hardly known for its diplomatic panache. Nominating Bolton to the UN is just one of numerous questionable steps made in the diplomatic process (and note, I have no problem with putting a reform-minded individual into the post, but not a self-obsessed megalomaniac such as Bolton). One would hope Kristol & Company would prefer a less pernicious route to diplomatic success, but given Bolton's status as a fellow neocon, I doubt it.

Lastly, commitment to moral principle. I'll let Kristol speak (http://mediamatters.org/items/200405170006) for himself:

From the May 16 [2004] edition of FOX Broadcasting Company’s FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace:

KRISTOL: We’ve got to win this war. And it is insane for this country to be obsessing … about a small prisoner abuse scandal.

WILLIAMS: A small prisoner abuse scandal?

KRISTOL: Absolutely.

[crosstalk]

KRISTOL: ... and the president should make this point. The president will win the debate, will win the debate [sic] if the Democrats and the liberal media want to obsess about seven guys from Cumberland … humiliation of Iraqi prisoners.

WILLIAMS: I see, I see. So you want to make this into liberals versus conservatives…

KRISTOL: Absolutely.

WILLIAMS: …over the treatment of prisoners. Well, I think you should go talk to Senator Lindsey Graham and people who have been military prosecutors and they’ll tell you that this is not what America should stand for.
The administration hasn't been particularly apologetic regarding the torture and murder of prisoners, preferring a state of denial to candidly addressing the issue. Abu Graib was clearly not the actions of a few bad apples, but on par with administration policy. We cannot hold or claim moral high ground under such conditions or with such attitudes as held by William Kristol and the neocons.

I really hate it when people show stats comparing Clinton to Bush. Things have happened in the last 5 years that have devastated the economy that Clinton never had to deal with. In fact, Clinton had the help of the Dot.com and the cutting of 50% of the active military force to help him lower the debt. Once Bush gets in office, the Dot.com market crashed, Enron Scandel, Worldcom Scandel, and of ya.. 9-11. Those are factors that are out of Bush's hands, yet he gets the blame. 9-11 caused ripple effects in the workforce that we are still feeling. But, if you want to look at numbers, lets look below....


In 1989 the debt was $5,676,989,904,887. family share: $73,733

fast forward to today.. $7,793,606,812,834. Family share is $26,304

So, technically each family is actually LESS responsible for the debt. Plus, if the US stopped being the NUMBER 1 donor to charity causes around the world, the debt might look even better. Instead of spending Millions of dollars on AIDS in Africa, or Millions of dollars in Tsunami aid, or better yet, how about if the US piles on the taxes on products coming into the country, making the local vendors raise the costs. This might force people to buy products made in America.. make it so that it is NOT cost effective to outsource. But if they did that, the democrats then would blame Bush for the cost of products going up. Until the day that we can force the Chinese to pay their people more then a dollar a day, we can nor will ever be able to compete...

Shanno
Monk (retired)
IVM

Once Bush gets in office, the Dot.com market crashed, Enron Scandel, Worldcom Scandel, and of ya.. 9-11. Those are factors that are out of Bush's hands, yet he gets the blame.
Arguments might be made that Republican favored policies (such as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 put forth by Chris Cox, Bush's upcoming nominee to head the SEC) abetted Enron, Worldcom, etc. This isn't squarely on Bush, of course, but obviously in nominating Cox Bush approves of his policies. Once more, for the pure peurile joy in it: Bush likes Cox, so will be nominating Cox to take on a position favorable to Bush.

There were also warnings prior to 9/11 that Al-Qaeda might use airplanes in an attack on the US. That's not to lay 9/11 at Bush's feet, but it's not clear (and may never be) how much he knew and what he could do about it. In any case, there's hardly been a clamoring of blame leveled at Bush for any of it. But forgetting all that, Bush cut taxes in a time of war; that alone is enough to put deficits through the roof.
In 1989 the debt was $5,676,989,904,887. family share: $73,733

fast forward to today.. $7,793,606,812,834. Family share is $26,304
I'd like some backup on this, since it's counter-intuitive to say the least.
Plus, if the US stopped being the NUMBER 1 donor to charity causes around the world, the debt might look even better. Instead of spending Millions of dollars on AIDS in Africa, or Millions of dollars in Tsunami aid,...
There's something wrong with charity? I think you lose a lot of credibility here. The world is fortunate to have an America that gives as much as it does. The world needs that. Hell, broadly speaking it's one of the few issues we can get bipartisan agreement on, and compared to the costs of war, it's not much.
...or better yet, how about if the US piles on the taxes on products coming into the country, making the local vendors raise the costs. This might force people to buy products made in America.. make it so that it is NOT cost effective to outsource.
Oy. Well, in the case of China, applying tarrifs at this point might be a good thing, yes. That might help balance the yuan against the dollar, something that would happen normally but for China's lending practices. But I don't think your proposal would really help the deficit. I think your take on the Democrats is well off base, too. Instead, direct your ire at the Republicans who actually control the government. Yeesh.

Work time!

Let play the broken record again.. Abu Graib, Gitmo.. Prisoner abuse..etc.. This is just another tool the the Liberals have used to help divide the people. The media is a joke, and used this to make alot of money, not to mention control the will of the masses. If you think that what happen at Abu Graib is the first time that has happened in the history of the US or the world, Wake up. You do not get information out of people by giving them Milk and cookies and tucking them in with a kiss on the forehead. If you ask me, we are TOO nice to the prisoners. Ya, having a woman lead you around on a leash naked is HORRIBLE. Hell, there are people who pay to have that done to them. I do not see anyone getting fingers broke, or nails ripped off, or broken bones. We are talking about having a dog barking at you.. give me a fuckin break.


One of the biggest jokes of this war was what happened to COL Allen West. Early in the war, his unit capture an insurgent. They knew that the prisoner knew details about activity in the area, and when he would not talk, COL West took out his pistol, and after shoving the head of the prisoner into a clearing barrel (which is a 55 gallon drum with sand in it used to make sure that the weapon is not loaded), and fired a round next to his head. The prisoner sung like a canary, and they foiled an ambush. He was made a poster child for abusing prisoner rights. But not once did the media congratulate him for saving the lives of soldiers that did not have to drive into the trap. If I thought I could save the lives of my soldiers.. I would have done alot more then fire the weapon NEXT to him...

I am sick of it. The biggest mistake that happened at Abu Graib was the taking of pictures..

Shanno
Monk (retired)
IVM

In 1989 the debt was $5,676,989,904,887. family share: $73,733

fast forward to today.. $7,793,606,812,834. Family share is $26,304

This would lead one to believe that there is 4 times the number of families in the United States today than there were 16 years ago, which is simply NOT true. I'm sorry Shanno, you know I love ya, but you can't come here and make up statistics and have people turn a blind eye.

And to quote thorimir
That might help balance the yuan against the dollar, something that would happen normally

This wouldn't help balance the Yuan against anything, the Chinese government fixes the value of the Yuan against the dollar, it's not something that the market decides. It's one of the biggest problems the US has with trade with China, a cheaper Yuan than the world market would allow.

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/federal-debt-GDP.gif

Let play the broken record again.. Abu Graib, Gitmo.. Prisoner abuse..etc.. This is just another tool the the Liberals have used to help divide the people.
This would be comedic were it not so sad. Clue incoming to Shanno: People are unhappy because they don't like the US engaging in torture. The US has always prided itself on trying to maintain the moral high ground. To engage in this behavior makes us no better than those we criticize, demeans the professionalism of our military, and cripples our ability to effectively and legitimately lead the world community. The Pentagon has recognized acts of abuse, and the military is investigating the deaths of numerous captives; but I suppose they are just Liberals as well, right?.
If you think that what happen at Abu Graib is the first time that has happened in the history of the US or the world, Wake up.
If you think I've ever said anything of the sort, Wake up. Or point it out.
I do not see anyone getting fingers broke, or nails ripped off, or broken bones. We are talking about having a dog barking at you.. give me a fuckin break.
You are so completely out of the loop on this, it's beyond amazing. Captives have been killed (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/16/national/w113007S95.DTL)during torture sessions, both during interrogation and by soldiers who were just plain bored or angry. "To date there have been approximately 370 criminal investigations into the charges of misconduct involving detainees" since Sept. 11, 2001. That's Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/02/rumsfeld_defends_handling_of_detainees/) speaking in defense of his record.

Those familiar with the reward-for-failure program of the Bush Administration won't be surprised to see the following, however:

• Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller has been implicated in the abuses at both Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. He actually ordered Abu Ghraib personnel to "soften up" the prisoners. He was made an assistant chief of staff.

• Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast had knowledge of the abuses in 2003 as the head of military intelligence in Iraq and was accused of pressuring the interrogators. She was given a new position as the commander at the Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., where U.S. and foreign troops are taught interrogation techniques.

• Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was the ranking officer in Iraq and approved many of the interrogation techniques now deemed abusive. He was returned to his command in Germany of the prestigious Army V Corps.

• The officer who oversaw interrogation at Abu Ghraib, Col. Thomas Pappas, was given a light administrative punishment.

Here's a summation (http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1878) of the torture issue, with a stamp of approval from Glenn Reynolds (http://instapundit.com/archives/023326.php), who can hardly be called a "Liberal."

This wouldn't help balance the Yuan against anything, the Chinese government fixes the value of the Yuan against the dollar, it's not something that the market decides. It's one of the biggest problems the US has with trade with China, a cheaper Yuan than the world market would allow.
I was presenting a simplified version of a more complicated statement. I just knew that wouldn't cut it. ;)

From my reading (and I may not be getting the wording right, or lucid, so bear with me), the trade surplus China enjoys would normally increase the yuan's value through market forces. The way the Chinese keep the yuan devalued is by buying up hundreds of billions of dollars worth of dollar-denominated assets -- essentially making low interest loans to the US. As soon as the money rolls in, the Chinese buy US debt, and the yuan stays low.

In lieu of applying tarriffs to Chinese imports, John Snow has called upon the Chinese to change their evil ways, but given the need for the US to borrow, I'm not sure how a) this is possible, or b) we can sustain current practices if China decides to up their interest rates.

Raising the minimum wage just results in inflation. Higher cost of doing business = higher prices. The downside of that is that if a company can cut costs, they would rather it go into their profits than pass that savings to consumers who are willing to buy their products anyhow.

The Eisenhower quote is good for a smile, but it is incomplete. The whole quote is:
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid

There's something wrong with charity? I think you lose a lot of credibility here. The world is fortunate to have an America that gives as much as it does. The world needs that. Hell, broadly speaking it's one of the few issues we can get bipartisan agreement on, and compared to the costs of war, it's not much

In lieu of applying tarriffs to Chinese imports, John Snow has called upon the Chinese to change their evil ways, but given the need for the US to borrow, I'm not sure how a) this is possible, or b) we can sustain current practices if China decides to up their interest rates.


Perhaps we wouldn't need to borrow so much if we stopped handing out money. There is PLENTY we could be spending it on domesticly.

Yes, the reason we hand out all the cash is to increase our standing in the world and to possibly make allies- very good goals. Still, it is money that isn't having a direct impact on the citizens of the USA.

Yes, the reason we hand out all the cash is to increase our standing in the world ...
Or maybe because it's a good thing to do on its own merits and in the tradition of the United States? Again, compare US charity handouts to Iraq war spending (or even just the spending on Iraq that we cannot account for) and to the revenues not earned due to tax cuts on the wealthy. When it comes to "pissing money away," charity is a leaky pipe compared to the burst dam down the road.

Shut down all bases in Europe, stop loaning out huge sums of cash, retool social security so it's there when I get 65 ;P, and ditch income tax in lieu of sales tax.....

While I'm pipe dreaming let's ditch rider bills and special interest groups/lobbiests...

So much we could do, and so much just given lip service by both parties...

Fandros

I don't know about Shanno being completely out of the loop, speaking he was in Iraq this time last year.

(Thanks for serving homey)

Honestly, I cannot understand why Bush went into Iraq. Post 9-11 he had both parties blessings to go into Afghanistan and find Osama. Had he poured all the troops and resources that he wasted in Iraq on Afghanistan, we probably could have found him by now.

Honestly, I cannot understand why Bush went into Iraq. Post 9-11 he had both parties blessings to go into Afghanistan and find Osama. Had he poured all the troops and resources that he wasted in Iraq on Afghanistan, we probably could have found him by now.

There are two commonly discussed reasons for invading Iraq, rather than focusing on pursuit of Osama;

1) get the guy that tried to kill GW's daddy (the Bush vendetta/priority)

2) get access to both the oil and the reconstruction contracts for Cheney's "former" company (the Cheney priority)

Whether either is accurate will most likely never really be known. The stated reasons for the invasion have proven false. However, if Bush were to be sincere to his chest beating pledge of going after anyone or any country that supports "terrorists" than we should be sending an invasion force to France any time now, due to the financial dealings they had with the "terrorist" state of Iraq in violation of several UN mandates. And then Russia, and who knows after that......:rolleyes:


Hmmm, it is hard to keep tongue in cheek when the mouth is numb from novacaine:p

In keeping with times past, a haiku:


Bush and Cheney lies;

Soldiers continue to die.

Tears fall from my eyes.

The stated reasons for the invasion have proven false.

Since when? Which reasons (plural) are you using as having been proved false?

I agree there were many reasons for invading Iraq but am not aware that all of them have been "proven false".

Since when? Which reasons (plural) are you using as having been proved false?
Iraq lacked WMDs.
Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US.
Iraq did not have meaningful ties to Al-Qaeda.

The reasons Bush went into Iraq are massively complicated. There is much more than meets the eye here and I think the Bush people fucked up in their attempt to oversimplify the reasons.

According to John Merschiemer, the most a nation can achieve is regional hegemony (Being the lone superpower and exerting extreme influence over its neighbors)
This has proven to be true. Despite our massive military and economic advantages we really do not control events beyond our hemisphere. This is illustrated in a number of ways. This is evident in Europe, despite having many cultural connections, the Iraq War has shown us that it is very difficult to get all of our allies in line. Additionally it has become apparent in Asia, where we find ourselves unable to resolve or make progress with the North Korean issue without going to the regional heavyweight, China for brokerage. Thirdly we see it in Africa, despite all our words vows and promises we find ourselves woefully unable to prevent genocidal massacre after genocidal massacre. Finally we see it the most important region, The Middle East. The regional heavy weight there is Saudi Arabia, who despite prima facia appearences, has an agenda in direct oppostion of the United States, but they have lots of oil, so we need them.

As the worlds consumption of oil increases expotentially in the next 10 years we must concern ourselves with the inevitability of the Hubberts Curve (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=36&ItemID=5351), as all industrial societies must. China is no exception. We have seen China move to a high powered capitalized society in the past decade it has been quietly pouring money in its military capacities. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/11876828.htm
What is most interesting is the type of investing they are doing.
The ultimate symbol of the United States ability to project power is the Aircraft Carrier, our investment in them has been long and extensive. We have an insurmountable lead in this regard. Even larger than we had in 20th Century when Japan learned to its demise the folly of trying to play catch up in this game.
China has no Aircraft Carriers, but as 9/11 showed us, the only way to confront the United States is by using Asymmetrical types of warfare.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/sept1997/0997china.asp
Whatever Beijing's intentions, it seems clear that China won't be able to go on too much longer without creating a major response from nations such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. As the report of the QDR put it, "China's efforts to modernize its forces and improve its power-projection capabilities will not go unnoticed, likely spurring concerns from others in the region."

Of major interest in that article is the news that China is building one Aircraft Carrier, and is investing Heavily in Nuclear powered Subs to replace its old Diesel ones. Both of these weapon types are power projection oriented. The Diesel subs were more than enough for coastal defense and even offensive moves at Taiwan. The new ones show that China now feels the need to assert itself on the global stage and have the ability to present power anywhere on globe. Additionally the missle systems China is developing are specially designed to take out Aircraft Carriers, the core of US power. So the plan seems to project itself outwardly while at the same time depriving the US of the ability to present in its region.

The question is why?
The simple answer is oil. We will run out.

So when you look to the real reasons why we went into the Middle East so heavily and are willing to accept such cost, the answer becomes clear.
The US needs a greater foothold and ability to exert influence on the region than it currently has. China was in a far greater position to leverage influence from a geographical perspective, its close relationship with Iran, and was making extreme pushes on the material means.
A Democratic and closely US aligned Iraq and Afganistan change this dramatically (Iraq much more than Afganistan) The US is trying to create regional surrogates in a plan to prepare for the uncertain and inevitible future.

WMDs?? dont make me laugh.

Too simplistic of a response Thorimir. As Leu states, the reasons are a lot more complicated and certainly have not been "proven" false.

You questioned the "stated" reasons for going to war with Iraq. I cited those "stated" reasons, all of which have been shown to be false. That there are unstated reasons should surprise no one, just as it should surprise no one that "intelligence was being fixed around the facts" and that the US and Britain sought legal pretexts to fulfill their decision to attack Iraq. If you want answers, ask the right questions.

I should add that there was one stated reason for the war, primarily advanced by Wolfowitz, that was certainly true: Saddam Hussein was a very bad man. No one disputes that fact, though whether that is enough to go to war over is questionable.

I think this argument was already long exhausted months ago.

I would agree, if a) the Downing Street Memo(s) had not surfaced, and/or b) we had a definite timetable on leaving Iraq (or at least were achieving greater success there).

I could not put any better than Thormir already has my answer regarding the stated reasons proving false. The reasons we went before the UN with and used in our public pleas for support have proven false.

As far as Saddam being a bad man who killed thousands of his people, well.....
.....who was the last African leader guilty of the same and more that we went in and removed?

Lleauric gave a great post regarding the most plausible reason for our efforts there. Every time the war comes up in conversation when I am visiting the folks, my 83 year old dad says "it's all about the oil, the rest is bullshit", hehe.

The only reason I was willing to revisit this dead horse was the poll results last week showing such movement in an anti-war and anti-Bush vein. Many of the readers here are too young to have the memories I do, and I am seeing some interesting parallels to another conflict from 40 years ago, and how public opinion fluctuated. Bush being a lame duck at this point will most likely attempt to stay the course he feels is best, regardless of public opinion. It will be the rest of the folks in elected office who will need to steer him to more acceptable and/or appropriate action, since they are the ones in vulnerable positions.

Or maybe because it's a good thing to do on its own merits and in the tradition of the United States?

Helping those in need here in the U.S. > helping others. I'd rate that as the greater good at face value. The primary function of the U.S. government is to serve the people of the U.S. Sending bucks to help others shouldn't be done unless it improves the lot of U.S. citizens in some way- such as earning the U.S. allies or supporters.
As a side note, our tradition has been one of isolation outside of our hemisphere until recently.

Isolation until recently?

Hmmm define recently please. In my lifetime we've been helping globably. Picking up bags and put'em down on foreign soil with regularity. Hell during my grandfathers lifetime for that matter. Bear in mind I'm no spring chicken ;P

And I'd have to agree with your post in general Esbat. If 9/11 showed us anything it was that we are not secure from troubles abroad. 12 years of sitting on our collective hands with our heads in the sand allowed us to bear the brunt of another countries/collective individuals anger...

Fandros

It wasn't until after WWII that we really started stomping all over the place. Before that, we were reluctant to get involved. To me, "Traditional roles" take much longer than 50 years to overthrow. Currently, our global role is one of the unwanted beat-cop- but it wasn't always so.

Hmmm define recently please. In my lifetime we've been helping globably.

From generally the Civil War through WWII America had significantly more isolationist policies, however we had defined our sphere of isolation to include all the brown-people countries south of us (resulting in things like the Spanish-American war). The WWI intervention was relatively unpopular in its time, requiring a lot of government and press hype. WWII itself was considered "another European problem" until Pearl Harbor by much of the population, lending some credibility to the theory that Roosevelt let it happen. There are always going to be counterpoints like the opening of Japan for trade and such, but in general, America didn't go sticking its nose outside the Americas until after WWII.

During the same period Spain, Portugal, France, England, Germany, and a handful of other European states were all active Imperial powers controling significant territory on every continent.

Well, I guess we could include going back to when we all lived in caves inorder to make our points if we wanted to.

Truth is, the USA you live in today and have lived in your entire lives has been a Global player.

Fandros

Helping those in need here in the U.S. > helping others.

From a moral or pragmatic standpoint? =p

Well, I guess we could include going back to when we all lived in caves inorder to make our points if we wanted to.

Truth is, the USA you live in today and have lived in your entire lives has been a Global player.


What does that have to do with anything? For the majority of its history, the US was an isolationist nation. That was not a lightly taken stance, people didn't want to be involved in the constant warfare that dominated 1700-1850ish Europe, nor did they really want to get involved in 1914. Just because my lifetime happen to take place in the comparitively short period of hegemony activity doesn't change that.

Every major involvement since WWII has also been fairly unpopular here. Korea and Vietnam were not popular wars. Vietnam was so unpopular that we don't even declare war anymore, but wrap it up in euphemistic misdirection and peace-keeping actions. I'm willing to bet that if there had been a referendum on invading Iraq, it would have come up negative. The first Iraq war, if you want to call it that, was popularly condoned because it was short and there was a clear and obvious threat to another sovereign power. The only clear and obvious threats out there now are bin Laden, who we ignored to invade Iraq, and North Korea, who we are ignoring for equally unfathomable reasons.

US citizens, even within some of our lifetimes, have generally not been in favor of interventionist policy without clear, obvious threats like a fleet of aircraft carriers bombing one of our islands.

Well, I guess we could include going back to when we all lived in caves inorder to make our points if we wanted to.

It was the use of the word "Tradition" that I was dealing with. Two or three generations of policy does not a tradition make when dealing with the lifespan of nations. Our policy of globalism is recent- we live in a changing world, after all, and isolationism isn't going to work any longer. ICBMs took care of that, really :D

There is no doubt that we've diverted from our isolationist tradition and are in the process of building a new one.

From a moral or pragmatic standpoint? =p

Both. It is the government's job to look out for the welfare of its people, therefore the moral thing to do is to do this. An analogy is a parent who has trouble feeding their children giving 5 bucks to a homeless person.

From a pragmatic standpoint, unless extending goodwill to other countries is going to get you some form of return, it is a very poor investment. The ideal solution would be to offer programs that turned those that drain society into productive members. The most realistic situation to hope for is a break even or future outlook: we might lose this generation's taxes, but perhaps their children will be productive.

The change from our isolationist policies stem's directly from WWII. after the fall of the axis powers we were literally the last man standing, the only industrialized nation left untouched. remember europe and japan (the only industrial asian nation) where left with a completely devastated infra structure.

In the span of 4 1/2 years the US went from a depression economy to a booming one and was the top dog on a global scale. this left US business interests in the unprecedented position to dominate the world markets on a level that would have never been seen if not for WWII.
The only other nation that was in any position to compete with US interests was Russia. communism bieng the antithesis to capitalism and our corporations dominance on a global level was the root cause of the cold war in a nut shell.
The tail has forever wagged the dog and our morphing into the champions of the world mentality is and was nothing more than assuring that US business interests have complete and total access to whichever markets the may so choose to pursue.

Actually, our change in perceived isolationist stance occurred when we were able to project our power globally....aircraft carriers, subs etc etc.

Fandros

Just one thing...

Let play the broken record again.. Abu Graib, Gitmo.. Prisoner abuse..etc.. This is just another tool the the Liberals have used to help divide the people. The media is a joke, and used this to make alot of money, not to mention control the will of the masses. If you think that what happen at Abu Graib is the first time that has happened in the history of the US or the world, Wake up. You do not get information out of people by giving them Milk and cookies and tucking them in with a kiss on the forehead. If you ask me, we are TOO nice to the prisoners. Ya, having a woman lead you around on a leash naked is HORRIBLE. Hell, there are people who pay to have that done to them. I do not see anyone getting fingers broke, or nails ripped off, or broken bones. We are talking about having a dog barking at you.. give me a fuckin break.

This sounds, word for word, like something I've heard on talk radio various times. Do you listen to a lot of Mike Savage?

The morality of person can be judged by where that person stands.

We have moved closer to Gulags then we were before Gitmo opened. Are we like them, or as bad? No, but it doesnt make it consistant about where we want to be.

Both Reagan and Kennedy once compared America to a "shining city on a hill".. a Model for all other nations to aspire to. We would hold ourselves to a higher standard and encourage the rest of the world to follow in our example.
It seems Mr. Bush has forgotten this promise, and he seems willing to allow the Cheneys and the Wolfawitzs of this world replace that shining city with a Prison Camp.

Holding people indefinitly, with no charges, and with minimum oversight is unacceptable. But it belies the real problem, the problem haunting this administration. WHERE IS THE PLAN... What are we going to do with these people in Gitmo? Hold them forever? Shoot them? Turn Gitmo into a retirement home? What the fuck is the plan? Bush doesnt seem to have one, and seems content to pass so many bucks onto the next president. He will leave office with nothing resolved.

Actually, our change in perceived isolationist stance occurred when we were able to project our power globally....aircraft carriers, subs etc etc.

FandrosYou beat me to it. In 1800, it didn't much matter if the Turks went to war with the Ottomans (or with some other piece of living room furntiure). They weren't going to slowly sail their steam powered armada to us afterwards.

To follow from L2's post, the principle of exclusivism -- that the US operates by its own rules, will not be bound by international court, will wage war unilaterally, pursues nuclear disarmament among other nations, etc. -- rests on this idea that the US is a force for good in the world, and that it's best for the world as a whole -- indeed, it is a moral imperative -- that we apply our considerable power where we see fit.

But the US is not inherently good; each action must be weighed on its own merits. The policies of the current administration sabotage the country's moral standing. Torturing prisoners, even unto death, is simply not a moral act, no matter how shanno and others would like to spin it. Such acts debase us as a nation. We may as well simply white-out the Constitution, scrawl "Might makes Right" over the blanched pages, and have done with it.

For the majority of its history, the US was an isolationist nation. That was not a lightly taken stance, people didn't want to be involved in the constant warfare that dominated 1700-1850ish Europe, nor did they really want to get involved in 1914. Just because my lifetime happen to take place in the comparitively short period of hegemony activity doesn't change that.

I'm not sure why that historical trend should dictate what we should do now. If you're just trying to show that global policies have been historically unpopular, that's reasonable. However, it's rhetorical to say that we should do something simply because we've previously done so. The arguments for and against isolationism should be held in context of the present and future, not the past.

Well, if you'd looked at the next paragraph ...

Someone brought up the US history of interventionism. I was providing a couterpoint that not only was our history decidedly isolationist, but that even in the more globally active period since WWII we have still maintained an overriding sentiment against large-scale foreign involvement.

You beat me to it. In 1800, it didn't much matter if the Turks went to war with the Ottomans (or with some other piece of living room furntiure). They weren't going to slowly sail their steam powered armada to us afterwards.

Perhaps just as important, in 1800 we didn't have far flung global markets upon which we depended (. If the China/Taiwan situation were going down in 1800, most people wouldn't give a flying leap about it. Now, things are different.

One could say that the NEED to project in a global fashion gave rise to the practice, just as one could argue the other point, since we started to really globalize once we could project.. Kind of a chicken/egg discussion, with liberal dashes of "How the Industrial Revolution and Assembly Line Production Changed Things Forever" mixed in.

Hmm.. first off, I do not listen to Michael Savage. I think I have listen to him once for about 10 mins before I turned him off. This is just how I feel. One of the things that bothers me is that you get people spouting off on how it is inhuman to torture people and it demeans and debases this country. That is all good to say, but once again, it boils down to the fact that you will get ZERO information out of these people if you are nice to them. They are willing to DIE to cause us misery, and only when they cannot die for thier cause, and are broken down, made to feel that they are failing will they start to talk as a means to correct that. That is all part of "torture". We are not putting bamboo under the fingernails, or pulling thier teeth out with pliers.. We are shaving their beards, and making them piss themselves. Hell, some of you here have done that after a all night drinking binge. I do have one question to the naysayers.. What would you think about this torture if it was used to prevent a terrorist attack at school that your children attended? And don't say you have no proof that there is even any chance of that happening. You never know...

As for what LL said about Gitmo, I also would like to see a plan. But what does not help is when you have politicians and media demanding we pull out of Iraq or close Gitmo. It gives the enemy hope that we will rot from within and gives them the determination to see this through. If there is a show of no wavering, then it makes it that much harder for them to recruit help. Would you rather face a determined enemy that will never quit or one that has internal strife that you can exploit?


As for the charity, it was just an example that I used to talk about the deficiet. I am for helping other countries out when we can. Whether it be giving medicine and money for AIDS, or removing dictators. Btw, I also got my comparison data in my first post from the USA Todayv archieves via a google search. So I did not make it up Taleren.. by the way.. tell the wife HI and hug the sprout for me.
Shanno

That is all good to say, but once again, it boils down to the fact that you will get ZERO information out of these people if you are nice to them.
You can be "not nice" to people and still not be torturing them. The FBI itself has stated that torture is an ineffective means of information gathering. People will say anything to end the pain. Deception is one example of an alternative method.
We are not putting bamboo under the fingernails, or pulling thier teeth out with pliers.. We are shaving their beards, and making them piss themselves.
You're simply not familiar with the extent of torture applied in Iraq, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan, not to mention whatever happens to those individuals sent to places like Syria and Egypt. The US has acknowledged several deaths at the hands of interrogators, such as Dilawar (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ex=1274241600&en=4579413ecb14ce16&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) in Afghanistan. Subscription is free, but I'll post some excerpts (emphasis mine):
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
...
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
...
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
...
The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.
It's a long article, but should give you greater perspective on the very real use of torture by the US, and how it's at least as bad as "bamboo under the fingernails."
What would you think about this torture if it was used to prevent a terrorist attack at school that your children attended?
What would you say if the guy who planned it claimed he was retaliating for the torture of his countrymen by the US? Torture doesn't fight terrorism, it just creates more pissed off terrorists. The US is better than that, or at least it should be. Stopping torture was one of the stated reasons for going to war in the first place.
But what does not help is when you have politicians and media demanding we pull out of Iraq or close Gitmo.
Gitmo is a stain on our nation's honor and should be closed, but never fear, Shanno! Halliburton (remember them?) has just been given a contract (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/politics/19gitmo.html) to expand the facility. There is no easy solution in Iraq. If we stay, it's a mess with no end in sight, costing us money, blood, military capability, and the rehabilitation of thousands of the physically and mentally injured back home. If we leave, Iraq likely descends into chaos and civil war. But while leaving may give the enemy impressions of weakness, it does not mean we are weak. Conventional fighting strategies aren't effective against the kind of terrorism we're trying to suppress anyway. Long post as is, so I'll leave it at that.
Btw, I also got my comparison data in my first post from the USA Todayv archieves via a google search.
Got link?

I think the best way to handle the terrorists and insurgents we hold as prisoners would be to use sodium pentathol, a few plastic surgeons and give them all breast implants. Once they all realize that unless they tell us what we need to know they will be set free with a set of 40 DD boobs.

However, if they talk, then we give them back their normal boobs.

Won't talk? Live life with huge man boobs. Talk? live life with normal boobs.

live life with normal boobs.

Better yet, give them sex changes and let them live as the women the Taliban so love to subgigate.

Gee, why would the people of the USA be frustrated with the government they elected in trust to be representative of their best intrests?

Well, lets see what is going on right now:

We are still in Iraq and there is not immediate signs of progress presented by the media to the people. Saddam is gone but Iraq is still not completely receptive to democracy, so if the war was about freeing Iraq well the results arn't in yet.

Moving on to energy prices and also going back to the war in Iraq. Now then, if the war in Iraq was about securing some cheap fuel for the nation, the results arn't in yet there either. Gas prices have gone down some, but they are still uncomfortably high. Its also a important note in that energy producers are considered a hot stock. Oil companies are posting record profits. maybe thats because the price of crude has gone down alot, but the fuels produced from it have not.

Housing. Lets take the little town of Camarillo, California in Ventura county. It was once all strawberry fields not so long ago but now a typical new house there, lets say 2000 square feet, costs 600k-800k. That same house in Texas might cost you 180k-200k tops. Yah its California and its nice and the climate is very agreeable...but 800k? Projections have the same house listing for 1.2 million by 2010. Speculation runs rampant and its just the excitement of this 20% a year equity increase that is driving this very increase. So please tell me with these kind of property values, where can you even think to build housing for the employees that work at the services needed by the residents of these homes? Even if the construction costs of the apartment building was free and there was no upkeep or employees to pay, the rents would still be 2000 bux for a 1 bedroom. Maybe 20 to 40 miles away, over the hills in the high desert where land is cheap since it sucks to live there would be more appropriate? Like I can really see someone making a wage that after an hour of work buys you 2 gallons of gas wanting to make that kind of commute. The same thing is happening in alot of places across the country. Also, how can an area remain desirable if no one can even afford to work at the services it needs? If anything will bust the housing bubble, its that.

Jobs: Well, corporate profits are up but wages are not and there is not a substantial addition of new jobs to reflect how well the corporate economy is doing. Meanwhile, everything else is getting more expensive.

Couple that to all the freedoms that the government has been percieved as taken steps to remove or repeal in the name of family values and security of the nation. Oh, and we still have asshole nations like Iran and N.Korea as well as Osama running lose in spite of all that.

Thats just a sampling. Never mind Gitmo and all that rot. So perhaps the average American feels they might be getting the shaft by the WHOLE government and not just the Bush administration, since too few people are getting the benifit of the government's endevours done on their behalf. Too many feel they arn't. Yet, maybe its just the fact that the results srn't in yet and the nation is being impatient.