Mickey

I think they are only deleting "mindless, senseless" stuff. If that is true and what you say is correct, that the posts of the "right" are getting bounced more than those of the "left" at a rate of 10-1, wouldn't that mean that for every mindless, senseleess post by the left there are 10 mindless, senseless posts by the right? I think my math is right on that.

That is the reason Nixon gave but it was hardly the reason. He had no idea if such a challenge would work or make a difference but it certainly would have damaged his reputation irreparably if it turned out he would have lost anyway. It would also have triggered very close scrutiny of his own campaign and I'm guessing by what we know of the kind of campaigns he ran in '68 and '72 that the last thing he would have wanted was a close examination of his own tactics. Such a challenge, if made, could easily have backfired and ruined any chance for him to live to fight another day. The idea that he was so noble that he put aside his ambition for the good of the Republic is impossibly and even laughably naive. This is a politician remember. Not only that but one of the most successfully Macciavellian ones of all time. Even Eisenhower despised him.

On December 28, 2001, the President held a "Press Availability" session at his ranch in Texas with Tommie Franks and he was asked about a new tape from Osama and whether the President worried that he had eluded capture and was capable of masterminding another attack and this is what the President said: THE PRESIDENT: "Oh, the tape, yes. I didn't watch it all. I saw snippets of it on TV. You know, it's -- who knows when it was made. Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy who, three months ago, was in control of a county. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in a cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know. There's all kinds of reports and all kinds of speculation. But one thing we know is that he's not in charge of Afghanistan anymore. He's not in charge of the -- he's not the parasite that invaded the host, the Taliban. We know that for certain. And we also know that we're on the hunt, and he knows that we're on the hunt. And I like our position better than his.... ...And so, while I hope 2002 is a year of peace, I'm realistic. As to whether or not bin Laden is in control of some network, who knows? The thing we're certain about is that he's on the run, that he's hiding in caves, if hiding at all. And the other thing I'm certain about is we will bring him to justice. I don't know whether it's going to be tomorrow, but Tommy will tell you that I haven't said, Tommy, get him tomorrow. I said, just get him. And we will. We will bring him to justice. " We don't know, David, whether or not he's given any orders to any of his soldiers, but we take nothing for granted. And so our country still remains on alert, and we're actively looking for anybody who would harm America. Well, we are getting near to a thousand "tommorows" and we still haven't got him. What scares me about this is the President's apparent belief that Osama is neutralized or at least far less dangerous because he no longer controls territory and instead controls just a "cave". Coupled with the apparent lack of concern over whether he controls a "network" (who in the world doubts that he does?) or not as long as he is "hiding in caves". This is the same old tired model of state supported terrorism that prevailed before 9/11 and is the supposed motivation behind the Iraq war. A bunch of guys in caves have been doing a pretty good job of making life miserable and murderous for an awful lot of people. They haven't the slightest need for holding onto territory. This is not a war for land. Taking and holding territory isn't going to get it done. Terrorists can be quite effective without any state support at all and the idea that a terrorist danger is neutralized because of actions against a state is a dangerous one. It sure didn't stop them from hitting Madrid and Bali and many other places I have listed in prior posts. AQ is up and running and doing just fine despite "hiding in caves". It is those very same caves which allowed the Aghans to hide and eventually defeat the Soviet Union. When it comes to terrorism, despite all the tough talk, I don't think Bush really gets it.

There have always been loonies on the left and the right. None of them have ever had enough political sway to be much of a factor. That is no longer true. For example, neither hippies nor skin heads ever elected anyone. The christian right is the first radical fringe element to ever have much success on the political front, now more than ever before. The goof you mention from MTV to the 1997 WTO protesters have zero political clout. In terms of actual power, they have none. They are no more than a sideshow, something for the right to use as a bogeyman to scare up the faithful. The loonies of the right however are running the republican show. The party is in the thrall of Limbaugh, Coulter and the rest. Fanatic extremists who have to out-do eachother when it comes to ever more ludicrous accusations against anyone who disagrees with them. We see those kinds of accusations pop up on this board daily from the usual characters. By the time they are debunked, five more take their place. Two weeks later, accusations are recycled and appear again and you have to go through it all one more time. Before you know it, pure bs is repeated as presumed fact over and over. If one seriously believes it is a contest between a godless heathen satan worshipper and a virtual messiah, any means can be justified by the end.

I wouldn't count on it. Some have had innocents in their own family killed by US action and the fact that it was unavoidable collateral damage probalby doesn't matter to them. Some are simply afraid to have anything to do with us or them and so will want to hide on the sidelines until all this ends somehow. Still others will find a way to justify this lunacy. Wars have crazy, unpredictabe results. Once a war starts, it can't be controlled.

If this is what is really happening out there, some people need to go to jail.

The investigations of Republican sponsored fraud in voter registration efforts are growing. Having started in Nevada, there are now investigations in Oregon and new accusations in Pennsylvania, Minnesota and West Virginia. Charges Mounting of Republican Sponsored Fraud The group, Voter's Outreach of America, received half a million bucks from the Republican National Committee and now are being investigated for allegedly registering democrats and then tearing up their applications so that they would not in fact be registered and not realize it until election night when it would be too late. Nice. Lee Atwater would be so proud.

Scary stuff. There are lots of different types of fanatics but they all have one thing in common, they are absolutely certain they are right. That is their weakness and their strength. Because they are so certain, they act without hesitation and with resolution. However, because they are so certain, they ignore any reality which contradicts their beliefs. Sooner or later, one of those ignored realities takes them down.

Kind of like your posts about Kerry, always predictably and unflaggingly negative. Should I ignore everything you say about Kerry because you never compliment him or should I simply address the substance of your opinions?

"Insurgency" ???? Was McCain's campaign for the Presidency an "insurgency"? Don't be ridiculous. The primaries were for the purpose of figuring out who the party wanted as their candidate. Kerry had no right to it until he won it. Dean was no more an insurgent than Kerry was or any other candidate. The mere fact that every single democrat on the planet is not going to vote for Kerry is not very revealing especially when you look at the democrats you mentioned. Being a truly diverse party, democrats almost never act monolithically, each marching in lock step with the other. Republicans are the more disciplined party in terms of always singing the same tune. Remember Reagan's rule? "Thou shalt never speak ill of another republican." Democrats are not so fanatical when it comes to silencing dissent in their own party.

Actually, I beleive what Kerry has said is that if Bush gets a second term, there is a "great potential" for a draft (great potential). People on the right however have accused Kerry of having a "secret draft plan" (Blogs for Bush). The more wars we are in at once and the longer they last increases the possibility that we will run out of manpower does it not? If one believes that under Bush we are more likely to be involved in additional conflicts (Iran is one example) and/or that the conflicts we are now engaged in are more likely to last longer, it is reasonable to conclude that under Bush, a draft is more likely than it would be under Kerry. The very same conclusion could be reached if one believes that under Kerry additional war and prolonged conflict is more likely than if Bush were elected. The fact is that being unable to predict the future course of events, we can't know for certain if a draft will become a necessity. For people of draft age, to the extent this issue is critical for them and I see no reason why it wouldn't be, they are going to have to decide for themselves who is more likely to get us into a situation where a draft is necessary. That decision will have to be based largely on speculation and each candidate has to make their best pitch to these voters and then they will make their decision. Saying that there is a "great potential" for a draft under Bush is just speculation and sales puffing but it is no more disingenuous than Bush promising that there will be no draft. Certainly, if a draft were absolutely necessary for our security, Bush would have a draft and so would Kerry. Promises now on that issue mean very little because obviously, if events in the future require it, there will absolutely be a draft. I think it is a fair issue for people to consider, the relative likelihood of a draft under Bush vs. under Kerry.

I guess it isn't possible to do both, make money and do good for the world or to have more than one motivation?

I think it is a good question, what is the criteria upon which to measure the quality of a Senator's performance in office? I don't think it is fair to just look at the bills he has sponsored. I think it is fair to look at every vote he ever made and ask yourself whether you think he made the right call. At the end of the day, compare the "right" calls with the "wrong" ones and that is pretty much your answer. I think you could also look at the committees he has been on and what he has contributed to its work, reports, hearings, etc. I think it probably is pretty hard to pin down what contributions are made on an individual basis. I know the right likes to say that he has "done nothing" as a Senator but that is because the only yardstick they are using is bill sponsorship or at least that is the stat I here quoted so often. I don't know for sure but I have a hunch that the same criticism could be made against just about every Senator. It is the nature of the Senate beast. It may be that even in that pool his record is less than stellar but, like I said, I have a hunch that his record compares pretty evenly with most other Senators. I seem to remember this same criticism being made against just about every Senator running for higher office that wasn't a senior Senator in place for many years. Longevity is the secret to Senatorial power.

What if it were called "Civil Gay Marriage" to try and emphasize that effects only the secular aspects of the relationship?

How many were polled in Falluja? It is not possible to take a "random sample" in Iraq right now and random sampling is one of the least accurate polling methods, it is about as accurate as an internet poll. These polls then are just "some evidence" to consider, neither dispositive nor worthless.

Whenever I think about trying his method, I also try to recall that he was executed.

Without going into the veracity of these points or what they mean as far as Iraqi complicity in terrorism is concerned, I still want to know how many Americans were killed by Saddam between 9/11 and when we invaded. I suspect it is zero and if so, then even accepting the above and some of the implications of that information, the plain fact is that as bad as Iraq might have been, it hadn't resulted in the death of Americans. Compare that with how many have died since the invasion and the question arises, was Sadda worth a war? Was he worth this war given what we now know? It may still be too early to make that assessment since we are still paying for this war in lives and material and further, the full benefits the war might bring are not yet realized if they ever will be. I recognize that the judgment of history on this question is not yet in. You opposed the war, have you now changed your view and support the war?

Not really, this particular one was simply because I wanted to see if NY was such a bad place to live. Around here all I ever hear is that this state some sort of unmitigated disaster. I went to the US Abstract and thought that I would look at things that generally go into determining quality of life. Income and good health care resulting in low infant mortality rates seemed to be worthwhile issues and low and behold, NY fared quite well on both issues. The state rankings for mobile homes was there and I couldn't resist checking it out and it was immediately evident that Bush was leading in trailer park states and that is when I recalled that post tarring all democrats as welfare cheats and felons. I figured I would post it and then when all the folks on the right went apoplectic that it was an unfair stereotype, I would chime in with "exactly", hopefully getting bipartisan agreement that stereotyping the supporters of each party was wrong. That was not smart-assism but a classic attempt at the Socratic method, sort of. In these quarrelsome times, such rhetoric is just not doable.

I think AD had a rule that the first one who brings up Hitler in a debate on the board loses. However, because I am in a good mood today I will let that one slide, besides the question that is disguised behind that poor comparison is a valid one, do we have to wait until we are attacked before we invade a country? There are several reasons I think looking at how many Americans were killed by Saddam in that time period is a relevant inquiry. First, the President's father and Cheney left Saddam in power and did so for compelling reasons. From the end of the Gulf war until sometime after we invaded Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, no one was seriously arguing that we should invade Iraq to take out Saddam. Republicans were not clamoring for Clinton to invade Iraq before 9/11. Everyone was willing to just keep on trying to contain him and swat him down once in a while whenever he got out of hand. Sure, people carped about that situation but no one was seriously talking about going to war with Iraq again. That didn't happen until 9/11 so I think you have to look at that period and see if there was some new reason to justify going after Iraq. Surely, if Saddam could have killed Americans, is there any doubt that he would have? Fact is, he didn't. Now that means that he either was unable to do so or that despite his lunacy, he had decided that it wasn't what he wanted to do. He was either prevented or refrained from doing so. If prevented, why couldn't we go on preventing him? If he refrained, why were we suddenly seeing him as an imminent threat? Maybe the question isn't a simple one of just whether he was or was not a bad guy. Maybe it was a more complicated question such as whether or not he was worth a war to remove. The President frequently says that we are safer with Saddam out of power as if that is a self evident proposition that needs no proof. No Americans were killed by him between 9/11 and our invasion. Since then over a thousand Americans have been killed and plenty of Iraqis, at least some of whom were innocent of having anything to do with Saddam. If losing a thousand lives makes us safer, would losing two thousand make us safer still? At what point do our losses in this war reach a point that one would conclude that Saddam was not, in fact, worth a war to remove? Maybe that question can't be answered yet since the war is still going on. Yet we certainly know more now than we did when this debate took place before the war. Sure he was a threat, but how much of a threat was he? Sure I am glad he is gone but was the price we paid and are continuing to pay too much? I am not trying to go after Bush here. I supported this war and now I want to see if I was wrong to have done so. Everyone who took a stand on the war can now take a look at what has happened and check up on the soundness of their original position.

I am not afraid to investigate evidence that weighs on a question even when there is a chance it might not support my own position. I like to think that such a course would be considered more objective than the alternative which would be to ignore any evidence that might prove me to have been wrong.

I very much want OIF to succeed which is why I want to replace the group that have screwed up so bad so far. I don't know how many times I have to say that this election is not a referendum on going to war with Iraq, that is a done deal. The election is a referendum on who is the best leader to win it. To that extent, Bush's record in leading us in to this war and the results so far are perfectly relevant. I think he has failed pretty miserably, bad enough that I want him out. Numerous republican leaders pretty much accept that as fact though they still want him in to keep trying. You think we will be better and safer with him, I think we will be better and safer with a different leader. Pretty simple and you know what? Neither my view nor yours can be summed up or petulantly dismissed by reference to yet another talking head apparatchik from the right or left.

Why don't you provide a link for Kerry's entire statement from 1994 rather than just the snippets cut and pasted by Kristol and then I'll respond. By the way, do you want me to respond to what Kerry actually said or do you want me to respond to Kristol's "interpretation" of what he said? Can I compare what Kerry said with what others have said on the same subject to demonstrate that his postion then was no different than the one held by President Bush I? I know you like people only to respond the way you want them to rather than to think for themselves so I thought I would lay out the ground rules first. Lastly, if I respond to this will you finally answer the question I have been asking and you have been dodging now for days? How many Americans were killed by Saddam between 9/11 and when we invaded?

The stereotypes are what get to me. There was a post not long ago by a person I shall not name because, hey, he could have just been having a bad day, that pretty much said that all democratic voters are urban, unemployed, crack heads, whores, welfare cheats, felons and deviants. I found it pretty offensive and loaded with racial overtones. I said so at the time and was pretty saddened not to see those on the right who I thought were pretty reasonable express their outrage as well. I don't think "only dumb hicks vote for Bush" but please recognize that the notion is just the flip side of "only welfare cheats vote for Kerry". Both stereotypes are ridiculous and deplorable. Besides, plenty of dumb sophisitcates are voting for Bush as well.

How about "revenue-challenged"?

Actually, there are some correlations that are interesting here but they don't really prove much. In statistics, when you reach a certain correlation level, a relationship is believed to exist even though you can't describe the exact mechanism of that relationship. It is a useful principle to a point. For example, in the early days of the HIV epidemic, they found a statistically significant correlation between Hepatitis and HIV. When a person had Hepatitis (not sure which type), a disease for which we had a diagnostic test, they also had HIV a large precentage of the time, a disease for which we did not have a test, so the Hepatitis test was actually pretty good at finding out if a person had HIV though no one knew why. A correletion this high could be significant but that would take a lot more studying than I have time for. The one point I will permit myself to speculate on is that often on this board I have heard politicians being blamed for or given credit for economic success or failures in their bailiwick. The states not doing well in terms of annual salaries are pretty solidly republican and have been for awhile. If we are going to blame politicians for that, shouldn't republicans in those states get hammered? If we aren't going to blame or reward politicians for economic numbers, then can y'all please stop blaming democrats for every economic problem there is? Let's just be consistent and that goes for democrats as well. If they are going to blame Bush for the bad, they must reward him for the good and vice versa.