Security versus freedom in a time of terrorism

[Buffy]

"That would be telling...You are number six."

 

What I'm actually saying is that Bush II is totally hypocritical in saying they're going to be tough, and then softballing whenever its painful. So we're going to bring democracy to the middle east, but we'll put no pressure on our friends the Saudi's because we depend on them to keep oil cheap and on the Egyptians who stay peacable with Israel. We're going to be tough on trade cheats and countries who threaten others and make belligerent statements, but we give China a free ride because they're too big to mess with (they *are* a superpower, no matter what Bolton says).

 

"Appeasement" is a pejorative term, and unfortunately the neo-cons have used it heavily to describe anyone who does not ascribe to a unilateralist, "our way or the highway" view of the world. There is something to the left of John Bolton (who by the way is not a neo-con, but rather an old fashioned America-firster who used to work for Jesse Helms, the main problem with Mr. Bolton is not really his views but his anger-management problem: I would not trust him with much of anything, let alone being our main contact with the international community), that is still tough but not just telling everyone to, to use our Vice President's colorful phrase, to "go f*** yourself." This is not diplomacy, its dangerous, self righteous, and lemming-like.

 

While conservatives love to dump on Clinton, its important to note that his adminstration actually *did* consider taking out Saddam *on humanitarian grounds*, but the Republicans objected that we had no direct interest in Iraq, and we should *never* get involved in "nation building." What a difference an election makes... Clinton kept up the no fly zone and extensive pressure on Saddam even though the Republicans *and* the international community did not like it.

 

My bottom line here is that what is being portrayed as "tough, but even-handed diplomacy" is nothing of the sort, and you can disagree with it and still be "middle of the road."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

There are two key questions here:

 

1) When do the ends justify the means? Thoughout American history, the populace has come down on the side of "better to let 10 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent." Your argument here...is that basically there because of the threat is so evil, that all means may be permitted.

Wrong metaphor. We use that "10 guity go free" for historical acts. It is a different calculus when there is bona fide future risk of substance. We routinely limit personal freedoms for the good of the community (speed limits, non-smoking ordinances, personal property guarantees against tresspass, etc). In all cases, we balance the community good against the personal limitation. We've been doing this for hundreds of years. This is a long way from "all" means being justified.

Under Patriot, there are no limitations on searches, indeterminant incarceration, and because almost everything can be a state secret, the reasons can be witheld. There are nominal limitations that require some okay by the courts, but the government has been quite successful in fishing for the right judge...

So, you agree there are limits in the Patriot act. I am not sure how we will deal with the weak judge problem, because that would get around any constraint you might put into law. That, in fact, is a problem.

Judicial review has been heavily dialed back, and we're just supposed to "trust" the law enforcement authorities

This part has already been reversed in appellate court.

...you made the argument earlier that although the act permits invasions of privacy, that there were no instances of it.

And I believe this is one of the portions held unconstitutional by the appellate court at well. I believe the third element held unconstitutional by the couts is the denial of rights to communicate about the investigation, even to counsel

I can tell you that Ashcroft and others have said that they need the Patriot act not just for terrorists, but also for child murderers, rapists, dope dealers, etc. etc.

Most of this was already in place for dope dealers since the late '80s. That is where the feds got the idea for the act.

its no more right with the war on terror to justify tactics to catch terrorists, than it has *ever* been to abridge the rights of the Gacys, Son of Sams, or Capones. They do kill a lot of people, but there's a strong argument that this is *not* a war, its simply criminal activity.

I don't agree with that, when is it an organized action against a state.

2) At what point does exercising those means result in decreasing marginal returns?

This would be a worthwhile discussion

Although we have a different view, Al Jazeera and other outlets fully equate the kidnappings in Iraq with what we've done with the Gitmo internees. If you sink to the level of your opponent, you cannot gain the moral high ground and get others to assist you in your goals.

We will never be able to offer a behavior that will not be misrepresented by local propaganda. This is not a reasonable standard.

...in Israel...the government policies such as bulldozing the houses of *relatives* of terrorists is hard for *anyone* to justify.

I am not close enough to the specifics on this one, but I think it is a serious problem when the press characterizes Israeli counterattacks for homicide bombers as a "cycle of violence". This is like saying the police shooting at armed drug lords is "escalating" the violence. The internal Israel/Palestinian conflict is a little off topic , I think.

You can argue that we haven't gone that far, but that's an opionion that many out there disagree with. Putting people like John Bolton in the UN is a great example of why the general view of the US these days is that we're going to do whatever we want to do, and if others don't like it, well, we can tell them where to put it. That makes us no better than Osama.

It is a bit of a leap to suggest that putting Bolton in as US ambassador (supported by numerous historical Secretaries of State) is analogous to the behavior of OBL. We are not initiating unprovoked attacks on civilians.

[Buffy]

Wrong metaphor. We use that "10 guity go free" for historical acts. It is a different calculus when there is bona fide future risk of substance.

Are you saying we have no bona fide future risk from organized crime or child molesters? Its always been amusing to me that Conservatives bash Liberals for "moral relativism" when this sort of "its different because the scale is bigger" is exactly that sort of relativistic argument. The point here being that with the approaches being taken, 10 or even 100 innocents have to have their civil liberties violated before we stumble upon even one real terrorist is exactly why we don't just lock all sex offenders up permanently: "Well they *could* attack a child next time, so its better for the community to just lock them up." Not to say he's innocent, but that's exactly what has happened with Jose Padilla, locked up, no formal charges, no prospect for trial. He's probably guilty as heck, but if so, lets convict him!

We routinely limit personal freedoms for the good of the community (speed limits, non-smoking ordinances, personal property guarantees against tresspass, etc). In all cases, we balance the community good against the personal limitation.

I agree! The problem is when you turn it all over to law enforcement. I've dropped your several references to issues that have been overturned by appellate courts, but remember that DeLay and crew are calling these judges traitors for having voted against the act. And who knows how the SC is going to vote?

I am not sure how we will deal with the weak judge problem, because that would get around any constraint you might put into law.

The way you deal with it is to have a fair and independent judiciary, something again, DeLay and crew want to eliminate (note his quotes in the last week about "rethinking government": its scary!)

Most of this was already in place for dope dealers since the late '80s. That is where the feds got the idea for the act.

Right, and these laws are horrible violations of due process. The drug laws essentially now allow confiscation of any property the prosecutors want BEFORE any trial, and it doesn't even have to belong to the defendant: it can belong to any one who can be identified as an unindicted co-conspirator. They can even keep the property if there's no conviction! Its totally outrageous...

I don't agree with that, when is it an organized action against a state.

From Al Capone to the Columbian drug lords, Organized Crime syndicates have been organized against the state. The only difference is that their goal is money rather than political power (although that is changing in South America!) I really do not see any difference *except* the scope of their callous indifference to life, which has become a hallmark of international drug cartells who don't only kill indiscriminantly but ensure that they torture as well (and not just their targets but families, friends and anyone who happens to be nearby).

We will never be able to offer a behavior that will not be misrepresented by local propaganda.

No, but on the other hand, Al Jazeera is no more biased than Fox News. I happen to have long ago dumped the US news magazines in favor of The Economist, which is pretty darn conservative (albeit fiscally and not socially) and they're views are pretty much in line with what I've been talking about here (although not as strident! They're Brits!).

I am not close enough to the specifics on this one, but I have a serious problem whent the press characterizes Israeli counterattacks for homicide bombers as a "cycle of violence".

Then you should look into it. Not for the details of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, but concerning the effectiveness of using "terror" in this case, not too different from the Columbian cartel's habit of killing the entire family of people who cross them, differing only in scale. The "cycle of violence" has nothing to do with it: its the negative attitudes that are formed by the law-abiding about the Israeli government by tearing down houses owned by terrorists families, not that it drives extremists to retaliate.

It is a bit of a leap to suggest that putting Bolton in as US ambassador (supported by numerous historical Secretaries of State) is analogous to the behavior of OBL. We are not initiating unprovoked attacks on civilians.

That's *not* what I said. The overall attitude and actions of the administration are just of dismissive of opposing opinions as OBL is though. And its not easy to argue against the notion that among the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have died in the last two years do not contain just as many innocents as the World Trade Center: the event was singular, horrific and abominable, but saying they're different is easily argued as being solely one of "scale."

 

Be careful of what you read into what I've said here, because my personal opinions happen to be on the *opposite* side of many of the statements here. The issue I'm trying to reinforce is that the Bush II Administration and the Republicans *style* and *actions* so poison the atmosphere--no matter *how* righteous, moral or even "reasonable" they think they are--that it has become impossible to work with anyone, and we will be cleaning up this mess for decades to come.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Fishteacher73]

Over 30+ years young muslim male activists have created terror throughout the world and we are worried about old ladies whose hip replacement set of the metal detector instead of focusing on those that fit the profile. If we're going to punish some majority for the actions of the few couldn't we at least restrict it to those that fit the description.

 

Thats a great idea. It should make the Arab world just thrilled with the US. Racial profiling is the answer!!! Better round up all those drunk injuns too..How about them uppity drug dealing colored folk? Anyone that isn't like Micheal Bolton is part of the decay of America's Glory, let's ship them to Cuba!!!.... :) :) :) :)

[Biochemist]

What I'm actually saying is that Bush II is totally hypocritical in saying they're going to be tough, and then softballing whenever its painful.

This is a fair criticism, but I'm not sure its hypocrisy. I think he is not particularly skilled at this. Bush has been pretty candid with Putin and Sharon about his disagreements with them. He has confronted the Saudis for the first time in memory. He has ignored France (as he probably should) and has been mixed on the Germans (who have behaved quite reprehensibly). He hs sent mixed messages to Pakistan, but I frankly can't see an obvious solution to that one. He is going along with the (reasonably impotent) European position on Iran, and is probalby waiting for it to fail (like Iraq did) before taking any more bold position.

So we're going to bring democracy to the middle east, but we'll put no pressure on our friends the Saudi's because we depend on them to keep oil cheap and on the Egyptians who stay peacable with Israel.

I think Bush has (rightly) put more pressure on the Saudis than on any previous adminsitration. I don't have an opinion about the correct quantity of pressure on the Saudis. Theya re a set up for a civil war, and the US probably could not stand by idly while the Saudis collapse into anarchy. Bush has to be a little careful with his pro-democracy rhetoric when it could lead to millions of civilian deaths in a US ally.

We're going to be tough on trade cheats and countries who threaten others and make belligerent statements, but we give China a free ride because they're too big to mess with (they *are* a superpower, no matter what Bolton says).

I agree it is impossible to reconcile the US position on China with the US position on Cuba. That has been true since the 60s. I agree we treat China with kid gloves, and we should not. I think the problem with China is that they have real power in their ability to deal with North Korea. That position gives them far greater leverage than any arab oil producer.

 

Frankly, for all of the noise about it, oil producing countries have almost no power. The world oil market is fungible and oil sold anywhere goes to any end buyer. The oil cartels have been reasonably impotent in the past at keeping oil prices high. We are victimized by a real increase in global demand above global supply. Any individual oil producing country (even the Saudis) has no real power other than to nudge pricing slightly on a temporary basis for political purposes.

"Appeasement" is a pejorative term, and unfortunately the neo-cons have used it heavily to describe anyone who does not ascribe to a unilateralist, "our way or the highway" view of the world.

I agree on both points, and I humbly apologize for using it. I do feel that we have been too appeasing at times, but it was unfair of me to use the term generally to apply to a more concilatory model.

Mr. Bolton... anger-management problem

I understand the point, but I think it has been (like many characteristics of political appointees) grossly exaggerated by the press. Bolton is recommended by a half dozen previous secretaries of state from both parties (as I recall) and this is nothing but a classic political-press lynching.

While conservatives love to dump on Clinton, its important to note that his adminstration actually *did* consider taking out Saddam *on humanitarian grounds*

I did not intend to dump on Clinton. I would, of course, be happy to do so, but not over this. My point only was that being short-sighted was normative 10 years ago. No one at the time (well, almost no one) though our stance toward terrorism should have been more aggressive. The Republican congress is easily equally culpable.

Clinton kept up the no fly zone and extensive pressure on Saddam even though the Republicans *and* the international community did not like it.

True. But Clinton did not do much with the hundreds (thousands?) of act-of-war level no fly zone violations. He pretty much passed that ball to Bush.

My bottom line here is that what is being portrayed as "tough, but even-handed diplomacy" is nothing of the sort, and you can disagree with it and still be "middle of the road."

I agree with that statement. And I don't think I ever said that Bush was consistent. I suggested that he is tougher than his predecessors on several fronts. I think that is true, although he could certainly use more consistency.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Buff.

[UncleAl]

Should at least SOME of the powers that we typically reserve for a time of war be permitted?

 

Terrorism replaced the Cold War as an excuse for otherwise unjustifiable unending massive expenditures (especially to political friends) and for broad blatantly illegal suspension of civil rights. There is no War on Terrorism just as there is no War on Drugs or War on Poverty. The business model is Great Britain in India covertly supporting the Thuggees, then "protecting" the general populace.

 

One does not plug a funnel by bunging its broad end. When you are up to your *** in alligators you expunge the hatchery. Bush the Lesser had a week post 11 September 2000 to arbitrarily thermonuke any Muslem country. The correct response to stateless terrorism is to ablate one of its hosts - vitrify a dozen cities, kill maybe 10 million Muslims, leave nothing. This motviates peripheral SOBs to mind their manners. What Bush the Lesser did was attempt killing a million ants. He's still doing it, having bankrupted America and killed more than 1200 American soldiers.

 

Arabia lives like crap plus a huge birthrate plus almost no investment in their offspring. The Prophet allows four wives/man. It's a warror cult: they have nothing to lose; expunging 80% of the male population has no effect upon repoductive rate.

 

Bush the Lesser has three choices: Crunch them into a river of blood to get their attention (Japan and Germany, WWII) or run away with his tail between his legs (Vietnam) or utterly destroy America while the enemy laughs (current course).

[Buffy]

I understand the point, but I think it has been (like many characteristics of political appointees) grossly exaggerated by the press. Bolton is recommended by a half dozen previous secretaries of state from both parties (as I recall) and this is nothing but a classic political-press lynching.

I'm having trouble finding much of anyone outside the Republican crowd who is endorsing him, in fact it sounds like only Condi is publically saying anything positive, and she's just being a trooper given the fact that he embarrassed her publicly with his manuvering to insert of the false report that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium from Niger in the 2002 State of the Union in spite of the fact that the CIA and State Department tried to get it removed. His efforts to get State Department and CIA analysts removed because they would not back up his opinion that Cuba has biological weapons is now well documented: the person in question's boss, Thomas Fingar, said in testimony to the Senate panel:

"[He said] that he [bolton] was the president's appointee, that he had every right to say what he believed, that he wasn't going to be told what he could say by a midlevel INR munchkin analyst.... [He said] that he wanted Westerman [state's chief expert on chemical and biological warfare] taken off his accounts. I said, 'He's our CW/BW [chemical and biological weapons] specialist, this is what he does.' He expressed again, as I remember it, that he was the president's appointee, [and] he could say what he wanted."

These are facts, not opinions, and I don't think they guy would commit perjury. There's more too if you want to look it up, but this guy scares the heck out of me. On the other hand, like a lot of these things I kind of hope his nomination goes through, because only by crashing and burning horribly will many people start to see how bad this administration really is for the US.

But Clinton did not do much with the hundreds (thousands?) of act-of-war level no fly zone violations. He pretty much passed that ball to Bush.

He had standing orders for the military to shoot anything that moved in the air or on the ground, and blast away they did. Not a single SAM or Military airplane got off the ground without being shot at. It did not get publicized much because so many people inside and outside the US thought it was wrong, but Clinton's Defense and State folks knew that Saddam had to be severly contained or they would have another Kuwait to deal with. Unfortunately between the Republican's "no national interest/no nation building" stance (not to mention that "Wag the Dog" had just been released) and the Monica circus, there was really no more that Clinton *could* do even if he wanted to.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Buff- I have to tell you that this is a really good interchange. You generally stay on topic, you avoid colorful (i.e. politically inflammatory) rhetoric, and you tune your positions well for clarity.

Are you saying we have no bona fide future risk from organized crime or child molesters? Its always been amusing to me that Conservatives bash Liberals for "moral relativism" when this sort of "its different because the scale is bigger" is exactly that sort of relativistic argument.

I think this is a straw-man argument. I don't know (or care, really) who the aforementioned conservatives are, but the issue is that we Americans regularly balance individual freedoms against the benefit to the community. The fundamental proposition of law (in the US) is that individuals have personal and property rights. Those are only abridged when the public good outweighs. We do it all the time. Examples include speed laws, emminent domain, restrictions on automatic weapons, restrictions on hand guns, restrictions on pollutants, requirements for insurance liquidity, and even moral hazard in banking. The list is endless. It is ludicrous to suggest that we do not abridge personal liberties. We do it every day, and it is a balancing process agains the public good. We set bail for danagerous criminals (or remand them) based on preliinary perception of risk to the community.

The point here being that with the approaches being taken, 10 or even 100 innocents have to have their civil liberties violated before we stumble upon even one real terrorist.

This seems a little hyperbolic to me. Are you talking about the issues at Guantanamo, or in this US?

..why we don't just lock all sex offenders up permanently: "Well they *could* attack a child next time, so its better for the community to just lock them up."

Now we are discussing sentencing guidelines. Again, this is all a question of balancing personal liberty against the public good. We even put sex offenders names on registries. I have a very close friend who was incorrectly incarcerated for a sexual offense. He has been in jail several years and is incontrovertibly innocent. When he gets cleared, he will have to do a lot of work to get his name off of registries. Don't tell him that we go to great lengths to make sure that 10 guilty go free.

DeLay and crew are calling these judges traitors.....

Hmmm. But neither you or I are agreeing with Delay.

...and these {drug enforcement} laws are horrible violations of due process.

I agree that the property confiscation components of the drug enforcement laws are inappropriate, and are a clear violation of due process. I do not think that the roving wiretaps are inappropriate. I was not aware that the confiscation elements of the drug enforcement laws were carried over into the Patriot act. Were they?

From Al Capone to the Columbian drug lords, Organized Crime syndicates have been organized against the state. The only difference is that their goal is money rather than political power

I don't think this is a fair comparison. If the Colombian drug lords were left alone, they would probably leave the government alone. They use violence and intimidation to protect an illegal business. They do not generally target innocent civilians although there are probably examples of such. These guys are ruthless, but not generally pointlessly so. They intimidate to maintain their power to run illegal activities.

 

This is wholly different than a loose knit but well-organized and well-funded political operation that attempts to kill any civilian associated with a foreign state.

...Al Jazeera is no more biased than Fox News.

Really. No political bias there. I think the New York Times is far more biased than Fox News. Why pick Fox?

I happen to have long ago dumped the US news magazines in favor of The Economist, which is pretty darn conservative (albeit fiscally and not socially) and they're views are pretty much in line with what I've been talking about here (although not as strident! They're Brits!).

I like the Economist as well, but I usually read the Wall Street Journal.

Then you should look into {Israeli practices toward the Palestinians}. Not for the details of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, but concerning the effectiveness of using "terror" in this case, not too different from the Columbian cartel's habit of killing the entire family of people who cross them, differing only in scale.

Buff- This is a ludicrous comparison. An internal group, a subset of the Palestinians, targets and kills civilians regularly. The police respond as best they can to stop the killing and retore order. I am not sure I agree with the practice of leveling buildings, but the collaborator problem, particularly in the "refugee" camps, is pretty severe. It is absolutely an abuse of english to call this terrorism.

That's *not* what I said.

I apologize for misunderstanding.

...its not easy to argue against the notion that among the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have died in the last two years do not contain just as many innocents as the World Trade Center: the event was singular, horrific and abominable, but saying they're different is easily argued as being solely one of "scale."

I think this position is unfounded as well. First, the vast majority of Iraqis killed were either combattants or were killed by their own people. Second, any way you look at it, the number of Iraqis dying per year is falling. The question is intent, not head count. The US (rightly or wrongly) intended to free the Iraqis from a brutal dictatorship. If accomplished, this is an improvement. OBL was not intending to improve the US in any way.

The issue I'm trying to reinforce is that the Bush II Administration and the Republicans *style* and *actions* so poison the atmosphere--no matter *how* righteous, moral or even "reasonable" they think they are--that it has become impossible to work with anyone, and we will be cleaning up this mess for decades to come.

This outcome remains to be seen. But I think it is disingenuous to blame the existing tone in Washington on Republicans. The really negative tone started during the Clinton years, and carried on into the Bush administration. And please don't blame Gingrich next. Clinton had far more to do with the decay in tone that Gingrich did, and Clinton used his extraordinary political skill to blame others like Gingrich. During Bush's first term, I thought the key protagonists on the negative tenor front were the lead democratic senators, and there a several besides Daschle. I don't see Frist or Hastert as poisoning the atmosphere. There are just some obnoxious folks in DC (on both sides of the aisle). I think you do your argument a disservice by making it a "Republican" problem.

[Biochemist]

He {Clinton}had standing orders for the military to shoot anything that moved in the air or on the ground, and blast away they did. Not a single SAM or Military airplane got off the ground without being shot at. It did not get publicized much because so many people inside and outside the US thought it was wrong...

Well, I was one of the folks that thought Clinton was right, not wrong. The issue here is not that Clinton did the correct thing militarily. The issue is that Iraq regularly firing on coalition warplanes (that had fly rights granted in a surrender treaty) is an ACT OF WAR. We did nothing about this but put another half dozen complaints through the UN. 10 years of repetitive violations of the UN sanctions just emboldened Saddam.

[Buffy]

Amazing what happens when you get two people in such violent agreement huh? ;)

 

I think the main thrust of our disagreement here is simply one of opinion and perception. Much of what you questioned in the last post I agree with, my point is only that your distinctions are lost on the vast number of outside observers. This is due to a great extent on the "bias" of the various outlets. What's funny about this point is that there is a continuum:

• Rush
  
• Fox
  
• WSJ
  
• The Economist
  
• SF Chronicle
  
• NY Times
  
• Jon Stewart
  
• Al Franken
  
• Al Jazeera
  
• OBL
  

Its my opinion that Fox is much further from middle of the road than the Times, and Fairnbalanced is a bit of a stretch for them. But that's just my personal opinion, and there are those who think the WSJ has started to become a radical left-wing outlet. Reasonable people may disagree. I only argue that if you only listen to the voices at the extreme that you get biased opinions, and most of my earlier posts simply point out why so many have a negative view of us. The only thing I'd ask you to think about is ignore for a moment what you believe is a "reasonable" opinion and look at what needs to be done in order to change peoples minds when they have "unreasonable" opinions that are perfectly reasonable to them given the information they have been give. I'd like to convince you for example that Clinton was about as effective as he could be, given the political environment, and I make head way mainly by being civil, open-minded and explanatory to earn your trust. I of course fault the R's for having perfected--although I'll admit maybe not invented--the politics of personal destruction, and I think in terms of trying to convince the world to work with us, a policy of saying the "US is the only superpower and other countries opinions are irrelevant" as Bolton has said and most R's chime in on, is no way to gain that respect and trust that can change opinions.

 

Try to take a look at my examples (Israeli/Palestinian, Organized Crime, etc.) as relevant to the issue of rhetoric and communications, not as geo-political issues: its the communications and working on the "can't we all just...get along" issues that are really at the heart of it all. If you don't respect me, how can I be bothered to try to even listen to your reasonable arguments. If you use one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for another group, no matter how "justified" you think that is, its easy for me to just dismiss you as a hypocrite. Be nice to people, listen to them, think about what they have to say, talk back: It works!

 

Thanks for the fun dicussion Bio!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Another great post, Buff-

...This is due to a great extent on the "bias" of the various outlets. What's funny about this point is that there is a continuum:

• Rush
  
• Fox
  
• WSJ
  
• The Economist
  
• SF Chronicle
  
• NY Times
  
• Jon Stewart
  
• Al Franken
  
• Al Jazeera
  
• OBL
  

Its my opinion that Fox is much further from middle of the road than the Times...

I understand the point. I have to admit I equate Fox to Brit Hume (and his panel of one conservative and 2 liberals or vice versa) and I do think his handling is centrist. Others, like O'Reilly are harder to label. O'Reilly is mostly a populist with traditional values. He says things that are absolutely moronic at times (e.g., they should make short selling illegal, murderers shouldn't get a defense attorneys, etc. ) because he avoids complexity and pursues simple, value-oriented issues. O'Reilly does not appear partisan, just traditional-values oriented. He gets really high ratings, even though FoxNews is a premium cable channel. People apparently love this style of simplistic thinking.

 

Limbaugh, on the other hand, is really a moderate conservative (compared to William F. Buclkey, or even Bill Kristol) but is remarkably partisan. The Wall Street Journal (editorial pages!) is usually conservative socially and financially, but they have some of the best liberal op-ed posts in journalism, far better than the editorials in the NYT. The NYT is more partisan than liberal, and I find it actually irritating. Some NYT eidtorials seem almost vacuous. The news pages of the WSJ have drifted left in recent years (although I stilll would not call them left wing).

The only thing I'd ask you to think about is ignore for a moment what you believe is a "reasonable" opinion and look at what needs to be done in order to change peoples minds when they have "unreasonable" opinions that are perfectly reasonable to them given the information they have been give.

This is an admirable position. And I will think about it.

...Clinton was about as effective as he could be, given the political environment

I suspect this is true. But it doesn't look like Clinton had any large-scale plans other than his attempt (with Hillary) to revise US health care. Monica might have slowed him down, but he seemed to be sort of a get-along kind of guy. His big initiatives (NAFTA, Welfare reform) were conservative causes, so naturally he got those through. He had the best political skills of any president since FDR, and I feel like he did not use them much for the greater good. But at least he could pronounce "nuclear" correctly.

 

Camille Paglia once said that Bush really isn't a bad guy, but Americans really ought to reasonably expect that their president could speak well in public. It is hard to disagree with that.

[paultrr]

I'm having trouble finding much of anyone outside the Republican crowd who is endorsing him, in fact it sounds like only Condi is publically saying anything positive, and she's just being a trooper given the fact that he embarrassed her publicly with his manuvering to insert of the false report that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium from Niger in the 2002 State of the Union in spite of the fact that the CIA and State Department tried to get it removed. His efforts to get State Department and CIA analysts removed because they would not back up his opinion that Cuba has biological weapons is now well documented: the person in question's boss, Thomas Fingar, said in testimony to the Senate panel:

"[He said] that he [bolton] was the president's appointee, that he had every right to say what he believed, that he wasn't going to be told what he could say by a midlevel INR munchkin analyst.... [He said] that he wanted Westerman [state's chief expert on chemical and biological warfare] taken off his accounts. I said, 'He's our CW/BW [chemical and biological weapons] specialist, this is what he does.' He expressed again, as I remember it, that he was the president's appointee, [and] he could say what he wanted."

These are facts, not opinions, and I don't think they guy would commit perjury. There's more too if you want to look it up, but this guy scares the heck out of me. On the other hand, like a lot of these things I kind of hope his nomination goes through, because only by crashing and burning horribly will many people start to see how bad this administration really is for the US.

He had standing orders for the military to shoot anything that moved in the air or on the ground, and blast away they did. Not a single SAM or Military airplane got off the ground without being shot at. It did not get publicized much because so many people inside and outside the US thought it was wrong, but Clinton's Defense and State folks knew that Saddam had to be severly contained or they would have another Kuwait to deal with. Unfortunately between the Republican's "no national interest/no nation building" stance (not to mention that "Wag the Dog" had just been released) and the Monica circus, there was really no more that Clinton *could* do even if he wanted to.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Good points all of them. Personally on many fronts I disliked Clinton as much as I do Bush. But given the times I think he did what he could do then all in all between blow jobs under the table so to speak. He was a man who burned many a candle at both ends and somehow managed to come out smelling anything but burnt. He had his own home brew terror to deal with. As I remember a certain women managed to take the blunt of those affairs. Handled it very well with the statement that the buck stops here in one major case(Waco). Of course we could also bring up the fact that here again it was religious zeal versus military mindedness that lead to that whole affair.

 

As to rights being trampled how many of those who are religious here would react very well if say the government barged into their church service? Not that they would given most church goers do not attend a church where weaphons are stored and the Pastor has a thing going on with all their wives. In most cases the police simply would arrest a Pastor at his home. But in David's case his home was his church even if they could have taken him unarmed on public streets at least a dozen times.

 

The Law protects us from unreasonable search. I don't think any reasonable person would find a search of a church cleary by the evidence armed to the teeth as unreasonable. I do think the law was designed along with the Bill of rights from law enforcement and the Military from using racial profiling. I think the law of the world courts is also designed to keep one from blowing up a place simply because we feel like doing it. We have a right to wage war against those who wage such against us. That's known as the right to protect oneself which is rather a human given not actually proscibed by any set law. Its more up to the courts in general to determine when such is right or wrong.

 

But all of this overlooks the fact of who helped create this same enemy we now face. Remember the history of Afgan during the old cold war. It was us who funded and trained these same monsters come back to bite us in the ***. Why do they really hate us? Probably because of the way Us and the Cia handled them in the first place. Also, I think the old aged absolute power corrupts rather fits here also.