The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Karachi Vyce]

They could win the Senate. It depends on the VA race. Webb won the count, but by only something like a 1000 votes or so, and supposedly whatever his vote tally was, it's actually decreased even more overnight. Basically, it's going to be a recount. Allen could still pull it out, but it might be a long shot.

I've got my own thoughts on the election, but I don't quite feel like expounding on them just yet. I will say, though, that I disagree with you, LIM, when you say this new crop of Dems are conservative (Dems ALWAYS lie during campaigns to present themselves as more centrist than they really are), and Bush better start using his veto power now that he's in a situation where he's going to be needing it. Dems don't have the numbers to overturn too much if he does.

[Dr Maturin]

TM doesn't know what he's talking about again.

Using liberal theory, the Democrats are dividers because the voting in this country is divided and they won the House.-Credit: Mike

I don't think the entire crop are conservative, but a good majority of the winners are more traditional than the batshit insane wing of the party (read: Pelosi, Rangel, etc.). Problem is, the batshit ones will be chairing committees.

Also, Bush has needed to use the veto power long before now.

[Jan]

Donald Rumsfield is resigning.

Jan

[Dr Maturin]

Good. But the media will not portray this as Bush doing a good thing; it'll be an endless tirade of "HE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT LONG AGO!" Should he have? Rumsfeld is a likable enough guy, but he's eighty-two years old and didn't have the power to stand up to the critics that have made the Iraq War into the debacle that it now is. That's the president's job and it's probably the more moderate Bush that wouldn't let Rummy "take the gloves off" and do what is necessary to win. More, more and more of the same old stuff isn't going to win, no matter who the defense secretary is.

Ever since the AG "scandal," we've handed control of the prisons and part of the justice system over to the Iraqis. The same "insurgents" are being rounded up and released over and over again, after going through three layers of assessors, including US military commanders and Iraqi judges. Not to mention the fact that Iraqi prisons are overflowing.

Prison camps need to be made and the captured insurgents should NOT be handed over to Iraqi judges. What the insurgents have learned is that even if they get caight, there's a good chance that they'll be released. This has created an anarchist environment over there...all because we're too afraid of the media finding out about another isolated story of abuse (the abuses that the Iraqi prison wardens have dealt out shames what the small group of US military personnel did).

So, public perception might be that Rummy needs to go, but he has probably been telling Bush all along what needs to be done. War is not a PR campaign. War is war.

[Towelmaster]

TM doesn't know what he's talking about again.

Erm, at the risk of being rude(...) : I read both leftish and rightish American newspapers, websources(Drudge et al), etcetera. And if there is OnE thing they agree on, it is that this administration - together with the Republicans in the House and the Senate - have systematically ignored the voice of the Democratic opposition. Even more ; most of these sources state that this has not happened for a long long time, and led to undesirable situations in the past. So what do I 'not know' exactly?

Using liberal theory, the Democrats are dividers because the voting in this country is divided and they won the House.-Credit: Mike

So if the population is undecided because they don't want to vote for a guy anymore that they elected in a landslide last time, that means that the opposition is to blame? Or perhaps I missed the point of your remark. I admit : it wouldn't be the first time.

I don't think the entire crop are conservative, but a good majority of the winners are more traditional than the batshit insane wing of the party (read: Pelosi, Rangel, etc.). Problem is, the batshit ones will be chairing committees.

Isn't that always the case? The fanatics who shout the loudest get the jobs?

Also, Bush has needed to use the veto power long before now.

Yes, I imagine he will veto more often. But doesn't that work against him? If he frustrates the Democratic House-majority, won't this come across as not abiding by the majority of the voting americans? I understand that if these had been Presidential elections Bush would have lost. I know that people vote differently when it comes to a President, but still; I can image that vetoing wil backfire in two years.

- over to the panel -

[Karachi Vyce]

TM doesn't know what he's talking about again.

Using liberal theory, the Democrats are dividers because the voting in this country is divided and they won the House.-Credit: Mike

I don't think the entire crop are conservative, but a good majority of the winners are more traditional than the batshit insane wing of the party (read: Pelosi, Rangel, etc.). Problem is, the batshit ones will be chairing committees.

Also, Bush has needed to use the veto power long before now.

See, that's my fear. That the "conservative" or "traditional" Democrats who just got elected will blindly follow the batshit insane ones like that cunt Pelosi. I'm not really that concerned with their domestic agenda, because I think Republicans can screw things up for them or Bush uses his veto if they get too screwy. But there are two things I'm concerned with.

1. I don't want to go through another goddamn impeachment process. Fuck that noise. The last one was a waste of time and energy and an all around nightmare, I'd rather not go through all of that again, especially considering the Dems have even less shit on Bush than Republicans did against Clinton (who should have just been left alone anyway).

2. War on Terror. This is where Pelosi and company will destroy us. Literally. With them in control, forget about us just pulling out of Iraq, you're going to see the dawn of a new era of American isolationism, in which Iran and maybe others probably WILL get the bomb, because fuck if Pelosi will let us do anything to stop them.

[Towelmaster]

War is not a PR campaign. War is war.

Absolutely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue among voters/americans whether the war should have been started in the first place? That's definitely the perception that foreigners have at the moment.

[Dr Maturin]

Erm, at the risk of being rude(...) : I read both leftish and rightish American newspapers, websources(Drudge et al), etcetera. And if there is OnE thing they agree on, it is that this administration - together with the Republicans in the House and the Senate - have systematically ignored the voice of the Democratic opposition. Even more ; most of these sources state that this has not happened for a long long time, and led to undesirable situations in the past. So what do I 'not know' exactly?

Not listening to the opposition and not listening to bad ideas are not one in the same. Bush didn't want to initiate a "timetable." It's not to say that he didn't listen; he just didn't like their ideas.

So if the population is undecided because they don't want to vote for a guy anymore that they elected in a landslide last time, that means that the opposition is to blame? Or perhaps I missed the point of your remark. I admit : it wouldn't be the first time.

In 2004, Bush won the election by a little more than half of the votes. The left cried that he was dividing the country. We don't see these insinuations now about themselves.

Isn't that always the case? The fanatics who shout the loudest get the jobs?

It's about seniority, clout, money and favors.

Yes, I imagine he will veto more often. But doesn't that work against him? If he frustrates the Democratic House-majority, won't this come across as not abinding by the majority of the voting americans? I understand that if these had been Presidential elections Bush would have lost. I know that people vote differently when it comes to a President, but still; I can image that vetoing wil backfire in two years.

Bush doesn't have to run for reelection.

[Towelmaster]

See, that's my fear.... Pelosi ...

I just read up on her. That is one leftie American if I ever saw one. That she's in the Democratic Party I can understand. But how on Earth did she get this high up? She almost makes Ralph Nader look like a Republican...

[Towelmaster]

Bush doesn't have to run for reelection.

Sorry, I meant backfire for the Republican Party.

[Dr Maturin]

Absolutely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the issue among voters/americans whether the war should have been started in the first place? That's definitely the perception that foreigners have at the moment.

If that was the case, then American voters would have to blame themselves, since an overwhelming majority supported invading Iraq. To the average person, seeing a war going on for three and a half years, and three years after Saddam was captured is not a good thing. The death toll on American troops is amazingly small for a war that long, but there is no reason that we shouldn't have finished them off two years ago. As I stated above, I blame Bush's fear of the media's portrayal of what would have been needed to be done to win.

[Dr Maturin]

I just read up on her. That is one leftie American if I ever saw one. That she's in the Democratic Party I can understand. But how on Earth did she get this high up? She almost makes Ralph Nader look like a Republican...

It's all about the districts, man. Two districts side by side can have immensely different political views. Her district is north San Francisco.

Get ready for the media to hit us with "FIRST FEMALE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE."

Sorry, I meant backfire for the Republican Party.

Not really. What with the onslaught of media and the sheer bulk of political affairs in this country, Americans tend to have short memories (see the Democrats winning House majority). Plus, there are two years for Democrats to screw stuff up.

[Karachi Vyce]

I'm not sure why Bush hasn't just admitted the truth to the American public. The reason we're not out of Iraq yet, and the reason why we can't leave until....maybe another year or so......it's because the people there are animals. You can say we didn't have an exit strategy, but we did. We just thought they'd act like civilized human beings instead of savages. But instead, we helped them set up their government, and then they immediately got down to the serious business of killing each other. That's why we can't leave - we're not supposed to leave until the Iraqi defense forces can take over control of the country from us. But half of them are too inept or chickenshit to do the job, and the other half are part of the goddamn death squads engaged in ethnic (or perhaps more accurately, religious) cleansing.

That's the long and short of it. I think it's perfectly fine to install democracies in the Middle East. But once again that goddamn religion of theirs screwed things up.

[Towelmaster]

If that was the case, then American voters would have to blame themselves, since an overwhelming majority supported invading Iraq. To the average person, seeing a war going on for three and a half years, and three years after Saddam was captured is not a good thing. The death toll on American troops is amazingly small for a war that long, but there is no reason that we shouldn't have finished them off two years ago. As I stated above, I blame Bush's fear of the media's portrayal of what would have been needed to be done to win.

Interesting. I would think that the American voters can blame themselves for their choices, just like voters in any other democratic country. What is more likely though, is that they will go into a state of denial(no pun intended) and blame it on somebody else. Which would be Bush I presume. Or Rumsfeld of course, the proverbial scapegoat at the moment.

About what would have been needed; I just reread Bob Woodward's book 'Veil, the secret wars of the CIA'. He describes the CIA under Ronald Reagan, and pretty good. He got all the cooperation he needed from the administration and Casey talked to him for hours.
Anyway : in the book he tells the story about how after the truckbomb in Lebanon(which killed I think 241 American soldiers), there were two Russians who were abducted by Hamas. Within a day, the Russians sent a special Ops team who abducted 3 Hamas-honcho's, cut off their scrotum, stuck it in their mouths and then killed them. They then sent the bodies to Hamas with a note saying that if Hamas did not return the two Russians this would only be the beginning. The two Russians were returned unharmed the same day. And the CIA was jealous. Because that is what it will take to win a war against terrorists. And that is still exactly what the CIA is not allowed to do. Even after Bush giving them more freedom.

You fight terror with terror. Innocent people will get killed during such a war : War is war, such is life. Regardless whether I'm in favour of such a war or not, I believe it is the only way you can fight terrorists.

[Dr Maturin]

I'm not sure why Bush hasn't just admitted the truth to the American public. The reason we're not out of Iraq yet, and the reason why we can't leave until....maybe another year or so......it's because the people there are animals. You can say we didn't have an exit strategy, but we did. We just thought they'd act like civilized human beings instead of savages. But instead, we helped them set up their government, and then they immediately got down to the serious business of killing each other. That's why we can't leave - we're not supposed to leave until the Iraqi defense forces can take over control of the country from us. But half of them are too inept or chickenshit to do the job, and the other half are part of the goddamn death squads engaged in ethnic (or perhaps more accurately, religious) cleansing.

That's the long and short of it. I think it's perfectly fine to install democracies in the Middle East. But once again that goddamn religion of theirs screwed things up.

They should have killed every troublemaker on sight, and then sat down and asked the Kurds, Sunni and Shiites if they wanted three countries, and who wanted to take the Marsh Arabs if that were to be the case. If they all threw a shitfit (less likely with the Kurds) and wanted all the oil to themselves, then we should have divded the country anyways and built bases all along the borders with checkpoints and patrols. If anybody were to start shit, they'd be dealt with, courtesy of coalition forces. Frankly, I wouldn't care so much what kind of government they instituted in the three new nations, so long as it wasn't a military dictatorship or another Iranian terrorist proxy.