Shodan I can guess the source, but let me thank you for providing yet another example of the slimy, dirty, misleading techniques that the right employs so deftly. I mean, here we are discussing the right’s use of such tactics, and you come in to prove us right.
Not one word about yellowcake from Niger. Not one word about aluminum tubes that are actually unsuitable for application to a nuclear program. Not one word about Valerie Plame.
In short, your version is an intentionally deceptive hack job. This is another Repulbican effort at false equivalence, useing additional deceit to boot.
Insulting insinuation aside, yes I do, and yet again I am always one to appreciate a drive by snarky remark by Brutus - at least he’s keeping to profile. Got anything substative to contribute, there Brutus?
Any minute I expect Ryan_Liam to spout off that we’re winning in Iraq in spite of the damn Leftists and nay sayers. :rolleyes:
To my mind, a representative democracy, in the case of the United States as it stands now, would mean that 48% or as close as possible to that percentage of the House and Senate are Democrats. As this is not the case, I believe that our ‘People’s House,’ intended by the Framers of the Constitution to balance the power of the Executive, is no longer closely representative of the demographics of the United States. Some of this is down to some very shady political maneuverings by the Republican party, such as the controversial redistricting of Texas congressional districts and naked power grabbing in California, as well as untoward pressures brought by a centralized Republican leadership in some smaller state races, including the one that unseated Tom Daschle.
This is also due to the fact that less populous states cannot be closely representative of their demographics due to a limited number of Representatives. One example is Montana, where a rougly 47-53% Democrat - Republican split among voters as borne out in the 2004 Presidential election is represented in the House by 1 Republican Representative. In no way is this truly representative of the state, as nearly ALL urban(-ish) areas are Democratic majority whilst nearly all Rural areas are Republican.
None the less, the Senate and the House do not represent the voter demographics in this country. This fact is frightening to me, as it is indicative of a replacement of 229 years of Constitutional rule by a simple majority rule, and by a majority that in my opinion does not have my interest at heart.
I assume you mean by this that when Clinton was in office, he was supported by only 43% of the Electorate. In spite of this, Congress was a Republican majority, thus balancing the power of the Executive and also, bye the bye representing the country’s views on how it wished to be governed and the demographics of the electorate. So I don’t honestly see how your apples to oranges comparison bears any relevance to the situation represented here. Perhaps you could illuminate me as to how your post is relevant?
You should be cognisant of the fact that the US is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. So a simply majority is never enough to govern all three branches, which is as the the Framers designed the government
So I guess you could say that if we’ve resorted to simple majority rule, we’ve departed pretty far from both the intent and the actual words of the Founding Fathers, who designed our government to avoid the ‘tyranny of the majority’ in government.
You’re making the assumption that the Bush admin was possibly misinformed. There are no indications that they were misinformed, and plenty that they were well informed, like Wilson’s revelaitons about the Nigerian yellowcake debacle. Bush lied.
BZZZZT! Sorry, wrong. From 1993 - 1995, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.
Well, apart from your factual error, you seem to be objecting when the majority gets its (Republican) preference, but not when the minority gets its (Democratic) preference.
So if it is a violation of the intent of the Founding Fathers to not have a divided Congress, I would have expected you to complain when we did not have a divided Congress - especially since, in 1993, the party holding Congress received substantially less than half of the Presidental votes, instead of an absolute majority of those votes.
I assumed that when you used the phrase “representative democracy”, you meant the same thing as “republic”.
I am not sure if you are factually mistaken again, or making an original intent argument.
The fact of the matter is that a simple majority is indeed enough to gain office in the federal government. If your intention is to argue that we ought to have proportional elections, that is another argument.
And again, please explain how a simple majority is never enough to gain control of all three branches of the federal government, but a simple minority is.
Love the “Genetic Fallacy” link, Shodan. It’s impossible to quote a source in a politically charged debate without the opposition’ attempt at invalidating the source due to bias, while ignoring the merits of any points made therein.
It’s a shame that due to such logical fallacy that many points won’t be given any intellectual consideration.
Perhaps. Except they did not say the same thing. They said very different things. Reading is Fun!
But I didn’t guess. My guess as to your source is a Freeper web page. I suspect this because you provide no direct links to the quotes, which allow for the reading of the actual quote itself. (Or are you saying that the source for the Kerry quote was not the speech I linked to?)
Can you link to the source of the quote, please?
And the Republican gander remains blindly partisan and unable to cite, contrast and avoid lying. Hey, all you need to do is cite Kerry, Hillary Clinton or anyone else saying that “We found the WMD” or “the aluminum tubes were only useful for nuclear weapons applications” or “I read this IAEA report that doesn’t actually exist” or “We must invade their country without provocation prior to the completion of the UN inspectors work”. Then you might have an argument. Otherwise, you are just spouting freeper charges. And proving the point regarding the underhanded and loathsome methods of the right.
Finally we’re making progress. But let’s keep going: What are the implications of Bush’s lying? How do they compare to the implications of others, of both parties, having believed him?
I really hope, Shodan, that you’re not trying to claim the Clinton adminstration was illegitimate due to him not winning a true majority. He won a significant majority of votes in both of his elections, which is more than I can say for your boy.
Honest mistake, you’re right.
Uh, no, not really. I want to be represented by people who at least come close to sharing my views of the world. Not all of them, obviously, because being part of a democracy means that my view is not the only one represented, but I at least assume that I am represented somewhere in the process. And considering that I am a citizen of the United States, I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Clinton received over half of the Presidential votes cast in every election he ran in. He just didn’t receive a majority of all eligible votes. And I do complain every time we don’t have a divided congress that I have been old enough to notice. I think Congress works best when it IS divided, not when everyone agrees and rubber stamps things. Additionally, I believe that government works best when ALL 3 branches are opposed to each other. At least that means the laws that get passed and upheld are at least deliberated over, rather than simply voted in in knee-jerk party line votes.
And more’s the pity. My point, and this is the point where I fully expect you to attempt to dismiss it as off topic, is that the intent of the founding fathers was never to have all three branches of government in harmony. The situation now is deeply alarming to me for this very reason - an unrestrained majority is quite a disadvantage for reasoned debate and somber choices.
I spoke in error when I said it’s ‘never enough;’ I should have said that it shouldn’t be enough.
All this babble about a ‘mandate’ and a ‘vast majority supporting Bush’ aside, there is 48% of the US who didn’t vote for him, don’t support his policies, and are marginalized by an incredibly vocal, arrogant, and judgemental majority with an alarming propensity for screwing over minorities whenever they have been able to. And I wonder how long the minority will take it before truly bad things happen.
Evading can be just as damaging as outright deliberate falsehood. Withholding crucial bits of information in order to sell something (cherry picking) can lead to disaster. A wise man chooses to act based on information. A fool selects the information that supports what he has already decided and discards the rest. Here we differ. You saw evasion, I saw more.
That is one hell of a question. I have to question where the blame for the intelligence failure is.
I refer to the CIA report on the subject, conducted by the Iraq Survey Group (CIA).
Nuclear capability:
“Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.”
Chemical:
“There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions…”
“… ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor chemicals in bulk…”
“ISG found no credible evidence that any field elements knew about plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
“…there was no CW activity, unlike previously assessed.”
Biological:
“…Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain enhanced BW weapons quickly…there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level.”
“ISG has uncovered no evidence of illicit research conducted into BW agents by universities or research organizations.”
Here is a snip from the Couric-Carter interview:
Couric - “But what about the grave and gathering threat as President Bush has said?”
Carter - “That was a false statement. It was false to state that Saddam Hussein had a vast store of weapons of mass destruction or that Iraq was a direct threat to the security of the United States.”
One more, the MSNBC version of the “Democrat rioters” in New York:
“…interviews with state court officials, City Council representatives, prosecutors, protesters and civil libertarians – and a review of videos of demonstrations – point to many problems with the police performance. Officers often sealed off streets with orange netting and used motor scooters and horses to swepp up hundreds of protesters at a time, including many who appear to have broken no laws.”
“The overriding problem during the convention was the indiscriminate arrests …of people who did nothing wrong”, Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liverty Union said…“they were arrested because they were…participating in a lawful demonstration.”
Well, I HAD a long post in reply to the various knee jerk responses to what I wrote last night…but it just got eaten by the hampsters. Something that doesn’t happen as much now I have to admit…but is still annoying when it does.
Anyway, I’m too frustrated ATM to go back into it all. Let me see if I can hit the highlights real fast:
Before getting too worked up about what I wrote, let me ask you a question that ties into what I wrote (you might want to go back and re-read it slowly this time). Do you think Roosevelt was wrong to commit US forces to a covert naval war against Germany without informing the American people because he knew what their reaction would be? I don’t think he was wrong to do so, though if it had gotten out it probably would have been his ass. I think you (and others) are SO focused on Bush that you lose sight of the bigger picture sometimes.
I’ve already addressed the rest of your post in previous posts. Your baseline assumption is that they lied about the entire thing. Mine is that their core belief was such that they believed the data pointed to WMD in Iraq, and that they lied (or distorted or mostly gave more public weight to marginal intelligence) about SOME things but their over all assumption was indeed that Iraq had the things. Others looking at the same data came to the same conclusion after all…and not just in the US.
I had a long response to your post, but what it boils down to is you are wrong about several things. First off, the US sent more than a ‘few dozen’ Special Forces troops to Afghanistan. Secondly, we provided significantly more than ‘limited’ air support.
You advocate sending in ‘thousands’ of troops as opposed to a very large army (btw, afaik we DID send in thousands of SF and other elite troops…but they were wisely mostly dispursed and in small groups), but to my mind this would be the worst of all worlds. It would be a large enough force to require heavy logistics in a very difficult and hostile environment, while not being large enough to actually DO anything…maybe not even large enough to defend itself properly. Instead the US chose to go with lightly armed Special Forces troops to scout, to identify targets for air strikes, and to interface with the local tribes and coordinate THEIR activities. It was a VERY good plan and it worked well even if ObL did get away. His getting away was less important IMHO than taking the Taliban out.
Anyway, sorry for the brevity here, especially in response to your post…I just don’t have the heart to do it all again. Maybe later time permitting.
Did you actually read what I wrote about the Swifties in context or did you just skim it until certain key words flashed up and respond to that? I didn’t say the Swift Boat Vets simply shaded the truth (I make no comment on how accurate they were at all in fact), I said some on the right think that…as some on the left think MM’s F911 movie was accurate because he only used factual material.
To be honest with you I didn’t follow the Swift Boat Vets, didn’t see their movie, didn’t follow their ads and didn’t really follow the endless debate about them on this board…because I didn’t GIVE a shit what Kerry did or didn’t do in Vietnam. It had zero impact on whether or not I would vote for Kerry. My point was that MM’s movie and the Swift Boat Vets were comparable as attack dogs for each side. No ‘high road’ and all that. If that makes me a ‘partisan’ in your eyes…well, to me it makes you deluded to think so based on this.
ElvisL1ves, I had a long post for you too but again I don’t have the heart atm to do it all again. I’ll try and respond to you later if I can.
You know it does SM…but I have to (unfortunately) live in the real world, not my fantasy world of small l libertarianism. This is how the game is played in this country, reguardless of who is in power. Its how its been played practically since the republic was founded in fact, if you look at things historically. It happens under every president. Luckily we only have to put up with Bush for 4 more years, and at least in theory the Dems COULD get their shit together and run someone better…or I suppose the Pubs could too.
And I thought I was the only one who thought about this. The reasons stated above are all good justifications. It puts the Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans and others that we will act when necessary. It especially serves a great purpose in drawing out those who might otherwise be planning to blow themselves up in the middle of Disneyworld.
Japan and Germany worked out pretty well…and I’m sure there were those who thought the Marshall Plan was the height of idiocy. A democrtic Iraq will look very enticing to the Iranians who are younger than 30 or so and are tired of the Mullahs running their lives. Partisianship rules the day now…but history will be the ultimate judge on whether Iraq was a mistake.
Clinton never received the majority of Presidential votes cast in any election. Bush did, in the most recent election. He was, in fact, the first President since Reagan to be re-elected with a majority of the popular vote. Bush therefore has a much better claim to a “mandate” than any President of the last twenty years - better than Clinton, in fact.
And I want to be represented by people who come close to sharing my view of the world. And so we all vote, and whoever gets more votes than anyone else wins. As happened with Bush.
Just as I had to put up with Clinton and Carter, you have to put up with Bush. This is hardly a violation of republican principles, it is pretty much unavoidable. We can’t agree (usuall) on who should represent us, so we have a vote and the majority (or plurality) wins.
You are represented, when you vote. But there is only one office of President, so we can’t “divide” the office. The closest we can come to proportional voting seems to be the Electoral College, and I don’t see you lefties as big fans of that institution ever since - oh, a few years back.
Probably true, but I would have thought that if the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that Congress was divided, they would have made some provision for it - reserving seats in Congress for one side or the other, or something like that. But they didn’t, and no Constitutional amendment proposed ever since that was intended for that purpose has been ratified (like Lani Guinier’s notions about proportionate voting, or whatever it was).
What bad things? Whining and lawsuits? We got over that in 2000, or most of us did. Revolution? Is that what you mean? Piffle.
The winning side, and those on the losing side with a commitment to majoritarian principle and the rule of law, will make common cause against the rebels and pitch most into prison for treason and hang the rest. And good riddance.
You lefties need to give up this apocalyptic crap every time you lose an election. It happens. Get over it. The Republic will survive.
If it lived thru Clinton, it can live thru Bush. At least he has a majority to support him.
Then how was he re-elected? Oh right. The quote below.
I’m assuming that based on your location and spelling that you are British, Abe. Therefore, you apparently share the combined bewilderment and contempt that many Europeans seem to feel about anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy.
The frustration that many here on the left are feeling right now is based in part on the fact that they are outnumbered. The response to that is contempt for the “ignorant masses”. Based on the current political and demographic climate in the United States, I don’t see things changing any time soon.
That wasn’t my point, and I was deliberately not assuming anything, because it isn’t necessary to do so.
Even if Bush himself was misled by his vulcan mentors and the sexed up/stovepiped intel they fed him, he’s responsible and accountable, same as if he lied.
Same deal for Clinton, who still claims to this day he believed there were WMD. When he ordered the strikes in '98 the right screamed bloody murder because the UNSCOM intel didn’t justify it, right?
So in 1998 everyone was informed there was no significant evidence of WMD since 1991.
The Bush admin is lying if they say they were misled by the Clinton admin - they knew that intel didn’t signify an imminent threat.
But they knew they could get away with cooked up intel, because so many Dems had already spouted the rhetoric - and so would have to go along - or admit they were wrong, or misled, or lying… Clinton didn’t go completely hawk and invade, in spite of being pressured by the PNACers, but spouting the rhetoric hamstrung the Dems. There was no opposition party.
I’m angry about that too. IMO, we need more non-partisan anger and scepticism. 'Cause we all pay no matter which side screws up.
Really? So “grave and gathering” is completely different from “imminent”? And when Hilary Clinton said that Saddam had given aid to al-Queda members, that is completely different from saying that Iraq had links to terrorism?
Reading is Fun, indeed. What is less fun is arguing with people who engage in blackwhite.
Sure you did. Since I provided a link earlier that gave both the author and occasion of the quotes, and you still guessed Kerry when it was really Hilary, you obviously did not click on the link I provided.
And your further guess, that I got it from FreeRepublic.com, is also wrong. Again. Unless by “Freeper” you mean “any website presenting facts that I desperately want to ignore”.
So your apparent inability to read is my fault? The effort of a mouse click is really beyond you?
Sheesh!
OK - “We found the WMD” -
“We need to invade Iraq” -
Etc., etc.
None so blind as those who will not see. And blinder than that are those who will look at the sky on a cloudless day, and say, “If Bush says that is blue, then it isn’t blue. And if he says so, it’s a lie!”
