**
Well, I dunno. Wilson did win the 1916 presidential election on with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.”
xenophon41, I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but if it’s assurances of debate and discussion within the Bush Administration (bearing in mind that dissension within an administration is generally considered a bad thing), here’s a State Dept. release dated Sept. 4, 2002:
As for the OP, the fact that the popular course isn’t always the best one is one of the reasons to elect representatives, rather than run the country by poll. If I heard correctly, school integration wasn’t too popular in America when it was first enforced by the federal government, but it’s proven to be the correct decision.
TS, the slogan was based on Wilson, post-Lusitania, forcing the Germans to end the first round of unrestricted submarine warfare. The possibility of US involvement (and thus debate in the US) lessened dramatically from mid-1915 through the January 31 announcement by the Germans.
The slogan was more self-congratulatory about having won the first round of debate, rather than part of an ongoing debate.
Sua
LOL, you don’t have a fucking clue what I beleive in. No one here has harrassed or threatened anyone personally, so take your thin skin and shove it. If yu really are a teacher you would know to take what is said into the context of the whole post.
Evidently you lack that understanding, or you would have seen that it is the harrassing is what pisses me off.
:wally
LOL, you don’t have a fucking clue what I beleive in. No one here has harrassed or threatened anyone personally, so take your thin skin and shove it. If you really are a teacher you would know to take what is said into the context of the whole post.
Evidently you lack that understanding, or you would have seen that it is the harrassing is what pisses me off.
:wally
Alright, Truth, Sua, december…
You say the “debate” has been substantial enough for you. Bush/Rove & Co. have convincingly answered all questions regarding the justification for this war, and settled all doubts regarding its efficacy. You’re satisfied that the war will solve some things. Kudoes to our Commander. I’ll bow out now, seeing that the extensive debate of the past six, 12 or 25 months has shown my protestations to be so meaningless.
Carthago delenda est.
I’ll tell you one true thing before I go, though. Not long ago I made the single largest leap of faith of my adult life, despite decades of establishing intellectual convictions which I still hold telling me not to believe. And I found that leap the easiest thing I’ve ever done.
But this effort you’re asking of me now, to have faith in the rightness of this war is beyond my ability; I fear to vault that distance. I fear the premises were laid with smoke and mirrors by carny shucksters. I fear the precipice hidden by that illusion. I fear nothing good can come of this war.
God bless America, indeed, and keep her safe. For the coming war will not.
Where the hell did I say that?!! All my questions have certainnly not been answered, etc., etc. I’m just saying that there has been an extensive debate.
We have debates here in GD that last 8 pages. All issues are not addressed, all questions are not answered. But a debate, and an extensive one, has occurred.
Sua
Got married? 
**
As I’ve said repeatedly, the main point is that there is no “rush.” to war. I’d also have to say, however, that there has been a substantial debate as well.
No one, not even you, can argue that the American administration has tried to “surprise” the world. How much advance notice do you want? You may not like them, but the Bush administration certainly been forthcoming about its intentions.
The real problem you have xenophon41, isn’t that there has been no debate about a war with Iraq ( compelete with cost estimates, I might add) but that based on that debate, you believe the Bush administration is in error.
I’m not entirely convinced myself, mostly because I question whether the administration has a viable exit strategy. (I also am somewhat surprised that the adminstration hasn’t raised what I believe to be the strongest, and most internationally palatable justificaton for war: ending the sanctions.) Nonetheless, I do recognize that reasonable minds can differ. You may believe that Bush is an idiot and that Rumsfeld is Dr. Strangelove, however, Rice certainly isn’t an idiot and Powell is smart, assertive and probably the single most knowledgable person on the planet regarding the costs and risks of fighting a large-scale war in the mideast. Now I might even disagree with their assesment and I might even be proven right at the end of the day. But I don’t believe for a minute that these people are making blindly stupid decisions or are secret agents of Osama bin Laden intent on driving the West off of a cliff.
One of the main difficulties I have with many of the naysayers is that they often object on broad philosophical grounds rather wonky technical ones. There’s a whole debate to be had about the emerging U.S. strategy in the mideast and central asia and how it might play out in the long-term. But come on, everybody on the planet has put their oar in on discussing this particular military action – you just don’t like the conclusions.
You guys have short memories. The complaint in early 2002 was that the Democrats were refusing to engage in debate. Remember, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
The Democrats know that defense is a losing issue for them, so they tried to push the Iraq debate off the table before the election. The issue was active in conservative newspapers, in the pundit press, on TV, and elsewhere. But Democrats just kept refusing to debate it. They wanted more “information”. They felt the time wasn’t right for the debate. They were stalling. But events overtook them, and finally they were forced to start taking about it. And that strategy hurt them badly in the last election.
Um, the elections were less than 90 days ago. Who’s got a short memory? Or perhaps Canada uses a different calendar and timebase than elsewhere?
The ‘rush to war’ criticism is with respect to the inspection process, which began on November 18, 2002, about 10 weeks ago. The Bush administration seems to feel that inspections have run thier course. Some disagree. Got it?
Boasting about what…?
Somehow, that scenario feels unlikely to me, but yes, anything’s possible. I guess that depends on a few things, like how successful any efforts are to keep WMDs from leaving the country during the war itself, what happens during the conflict (of course), and what we think Saddam would have done with any WMDs he has now had a course other than war been taken.
Actually, that’s something I wonder about. What DO we think he’ll do with any WMDs? I’ve seen it argued quite a bit that he wouldn’t dare do anything major with them for fear of bringing on multilateral war (if I’m not misinterpreting arguments I’ve seen presented - please correct me if I’m wrong). I suppose it partly depends whether you believe in a firm Saddam/Osama link or not…
I’d hope we do more than hope. I’m sure that many people in the administration have done the math (consequences of not going to war vs. going), and I’m sure that they even believe that their result is correct and justified. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be trouble afterwards no matter what happens, of course.
Has the Bush administration addressed at all how they plan to deal with the probable consequences of war, such as increased Middle East unrest and increased possibility of major terrorist attack (to clarify: increased as opposed to if no war had happened at all)? I don’t remember hearing about any such plans even existing; then again, they haven’t had much reason to announce them yet, considering war hasn’t even started, but that’s why I’m asking.
I’d love to hear that the administration has been seriously dealing with these issues, especially considering how much we hear daily about how easy it is for any sort of potential terrorist to do whatever they want within these borders with little challenge. (An exaggeration, yes, but that’s certainly the tone Time and Newsweek seem to enjoy on their current week’s cover stories on this very topic…)
Regarding the “context of the whole post” from Saen:
Saen said:
Neither I nor any of the other people that I knew during the peace movement spat on anyone, threw feces, called the soldiers “baby killers” or threatened their families. Your generalizations void your arguments. There were individuals who participated that were not peaceful at all. They were not representative of most of the protestors.
Surely you aren’t suggesting that the veterans who joined the peace movement weren’t strong enough or intelligent enough to think for themselves. That is an insult to many who served their country well, often at great personal sacrifice. Kovic is an excellent example.
Apparently, any vet who differs in opinion from you has been brainwashed.
Most importantly, Saen said:
[quoteThe “positive” thing I learned from such ineptitude is I am more than willing to go to jail over the first amendment. And I don’t mean I would be expressing my freedom of speech, but something a little more expressive and illegal against those that cross the line.[/quote]
You might want to explain how your last sentence could be construed to mean anything other than harrassment of “those who cross the line.” BTW, the Constitution draws the line. You don’t.
Just because I address only part of what you say does not mean that I haven’t considered the context.
I have approximately 300 clues about what you believe. But I do admit that your posts are sometimes contradictory. Nevertheless, you are indeed the only authority on what you believe, think and feel. The same is true for me. I doubt that you know what that war cost me.
My point was that those who protest against the war are not just “groups” for you to label. We are made up of individuals just as those who support the war are.
It pisses me off too.
I’m going to return now to the subject of this particular debate.[/hijack]
Pax
Thank you Zoe.
Of course I remember the whole deal about the Zimmermann note. I also remember that the Lusitania was the public rallying cry, the big propaganda tool; not entirely like the whole “he gassed his own people” line that is repeated ad nauseum. Gee, and we didn’t take Saddam to task for it at the time because…? Answer: We needed more impetus, like a few thousand dead Americans and the fear of more. See what I mean? If we view history as merely a discrete series of singular events leading up to one cause and one effect, we’re grossly over-simplifying. Without the combination of both the Gulf War and Sept 11, Iraq wouldn’t be on the radar, poison gas or no.
The point is, to argue that we’re not rushing based solely on the length and/or content of debate is a specious argument. The US Civil War can be traced back to John Brown. The US entry into WW2 looks back to Japan’s invasion of China. The American Revolution was by no means a one year debate, nor was our involvement in Vietnam. And of course, history has plenty of speedy declarations of war, but when are they made? Well, generally when a clearly smoking gun is established–Pearl Harbor, the Maine, Fort Sumter, the invasion of Kuwait… We all know the whole debate would well be ended with strong evidence linking Iraq to Sept. 11.
But without a specific act of aggression (or even intent of aggression) toward us, Bush’s apparent insistence on war can appear aggressive in itself. Let’s face it… regardless of your feelings on the war, one should be able to recognize that Bush has potentially painted himself into a diplomatic corner. If Iraq suddenly finds some significant quantity of “lost” nerve gas (“We thought it was destroyed. See, we’re honest, really!”) and hands it over, then what does he do? We look like fools whether we go to war or not. (And realistically, we probably would anyway, because we would claim [correctly] Saddam is still lying.)
As far as I’m concerned, I tend to agree with TS: there was never a real public debate here–the decision was already made over a year ago by Bush’s inner circle. Perceived political expediency on the part of the Democrats relinquished any real possibility of preventing the inevitable. Good, bad, or indifferent, the war is coming, and the only person worth debating has already quite clearly made up his mind, despite the probable self-deception that he hasn’t. Now, it’s certainly possible that the war will have a positive outcome, I’ll gladly grant that… but I have the nagging feeling we’re biting off more than the most vocal war supporters either admit or realize. Whether or not we can swallow it remains to be seen.
The OP asked about the “checks and balances” of the US governmental apparatus. It looks to me like those “checks and balances” are only as strong as those in power want them to be.
In the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the right to Habeas Corpus.
In WWII thousands were rounded up and interned and this action survived a challenge that reached the Supreme Court. As I understand that outcome, the Court upheld the internment on the grounds that it was in accord with the applicable wartime Executive Order without ever getting to the question of the legitimacy of the Executive Order.
Now the Congress has abdicated its war making powers to a presidential determination that war is necessary. With the seeming acquiesence of the courts, people are denied due process, in the ordinary sense of that phrase, based on the executive department’s sole determination that they are “combatants.”
If people get frightened enough, “exigent circumstances” can always be found.
Hey now, David; it’s not like those due process suspensions haven’t been extensively debated. Whatsyerbitch?
“Extensively debated” doesn’t necessarily equal a good thing to do. At least not to me. I’ve just gone back and read the route by which Hitler assumed full powers of legislative, judicial, and executive powers. The mainspring was an Enabling Act passed by the Reichstag gve Hitler power to act on its behalf for a period of time. That was debated in that body and passed just like our Patriot Act (1984 doublespeak anyone?). It turned out to be a real bad idea, but by then it was much too late.
I don’t think that GW wants to be a dictator in general like Hitler. He only wants such broad powers in those areas that he decides are “necessary for the national security.”
Bad people can screw up even a good system and regularly do. Much as those currently managing the “free enterprise” system in the US have done more damage to that concept than 80 years of Soviet Russia ever did.
The question posed was about “checks and balances.” Such a mechanism needs good faith on the part of those running the system, much as a contract requires good faith from those involved.
I think the Parlimentary system is somewhat more responsive to public opinion than is ours. If the parlimentary executive gets out of touch with the people and the legislature an election can be forced whereas we are stuck with GW and his cronies at least until 2005.
Maybe I won’t last that long and won’t have to worry about it any more.