The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Karachi Vyce]

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.

I like how you think, Towelmaster.

I've heard that story before, and it's why I've always admired the Russians when it comes to how they fight terrorists. Sure, Russia now is just about a charade of a democracy, but at least they know what to do to defend themselves. And they don't have any of this guilt over doing it. It's what bugs me most of the anti-war left. All this guilt over killing people who would eagerly behead THEM if given half the chance.

[B5_Obsessed]

Even as a fairly conservative Republican, I'm satisfied with the election results. Americans on both sides tend to want moderation, and the only way they get it is to divide control of the executive and legistlative branches. It keeps the old checks and balances in place. The Republican congress worked VERY well to Bill Clinton's advantage in his second term and he owes much of his legacy to Newt Gingrich and the freshman House of 1998. We might have actually seen a Democrat-Controlled congress sooner if it were not for the overriding issue of 9/11 and the public's lack of faith in Democrats to protect them. However, since the terrorists have kept their antics for the most part overseas while the Iraqi occupation claims the lives of servicemen almost daily, public sentiment has swung away from the long protracted fight Bush promised us way back when this all started. In the absence of a common foe, the parties have split along predictable lines and will stay that way until the next inevitable attack on American soil.

For now, I welcome the balance of power. I feel the Republicans have become to cocky and unresponsive. Nothing promotes better public service than a whuppin' at the polls.

And now that the Dems have won this time, in some cases by VERY narrow margins, we won't have to listen to six years of bitching about election tampering, fraud, disenfranchisement and hanging chads.

Oh yeah, and that was real classy was the Menendez crowd did to Kean's campaign headquarters in New Jersey. Good form. Good form.

[Towelmaster]

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.

Did you read this by any chance?

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html?hp

Sounds a lot like what you have just described I think.

[Dr Maturin]

Even as a fairly conservative Republican, I'm satisfied with the election results. Americans on both sides tend to want moderation, and the only way they get it is to divide control of the executive and legistlative branches. It keeps the old checks and balances in place. The Republican congress worked VERY well to Bill Clinton's advantage in his second term and he owes much of his legacy to Newt Gingrich and the freshman House of 1998. We might have actually seen a Democrat-Controlled congress sooner if it were not for the overriding issue of 9/11 and the public's lack of faith in Democrats to protect them. However, since the terrorists have kept their antics for the most part overseas while the Iraqi occupation claims the lives of servicemen almost daily, public sentiment has swung away from the long protracted fight Bush promised us way back when this all started. In the absence of a common foe, the parties have split along predictable lines and will stay that way until the next inevitable attack on American soil.

Agreed for the most part. Thing is, the Democrats won't have anything to improve Iraq. "Pull out now" is about all we'll see. What we NEED is more ruthlessness and less touchy feely speeches about democratization of former dictatorships.

For now, I welcome the balance of power. I feel the Republicans have become to cocky and unresponsive. Nothing promotes better public service than a whuppin' at the polls.

We definitely rid ourselves of some crappy officials, that's for sure.

And now that the Dems have won this time, in some cases by VERY narrow margins, we won't have to listen to six years of bitching about election tampering, fraud, disenfranchisement and hanging chads.

And you won't see the minority threatening to move to another country, writing open apology notes to foreign countries or going to their shrinks to get diagnosed with "post-election trauma."

Oh yeah, and that was real classy was the Menendez crowd did to Kean's campaign headquarters in New Jersey. Good form. Good form.

Hey, it's Jersey!

[Dr Maturin]

Did you read this by any chance?

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/opinion/08friedman.html?hp

Sounds a lot like what you have just described I think.

I tend not to read anything from THAT Friedman. I skimmed it just now.

[Towelmaster]

I tend not to read anything from THAT Friedman. I skimmed it just now.

Oh, I was quite surprised that there would be something in the NYT that you could agree on. I've been on this forum long enough now... *ducks*

[SmileOfTheShadow]

For now, I welcome the balance of power. I feel the Republicans have become to cocky and unresponsive. Nothing promotes better public service than a whuppin' at the polls.

I think President Bush today described it as a "thumpin'."

[B5_Obsessed]

Agreed for the most part. Thing is, the Democrats won't have anything to improve Iraq. "Pull out now" is about all we'll see. What we NEED is more ruthlessness and less touchy feely speeches about democratization of former dictatorships.

Well, that's not going to happen. I was only really addressing the domestic agenda. As for Iraq, Bush has 2 years to get things in order. I believe the Democrats will produce sound bytes on the subject but largely stay out of his way, as they gear up for the 2008 elections. The last thing they really want right now is to assume control or responsibility for the execution of the war.

[Towelmaster]

Indeed, the democrats are winning more by doing absolutely nothing about Iraq at the moment.

BTW : Pelosi has already ruled out any impeachment-procedure against Bush. Stinks like 'You fire Rumsfeld and we won't impeach you George'...

[Dr Maturin]

Well, that's not going to happen. I was only really addressing the domestic agenda.

I'm fine with the domestic agenda for now. Yeah, spending is running pretty wild, but the tax revenues have offset the spending for the most part. The economy is booming.

The worst part of it all is that the Democrats will drive health care costs even higher, prompting more social assistance, prompting higher taxes. The health care system will be in shambles.

And you can FORGET about Social Security reform. It's a shame that special interest groups such as AARP used scare tactics to ruin that venture.

BTW : Pelosi has already ruled out any impeachment-procedure against Bush. Stinks like 'You fire Rumsfeld and we won't impeach you George'...

Well, he did call her on Wednesday.

[Karachi Vyce]

BTW : Pelosi has already ruled out any impeachment-procedure against Bush. Stinks like 'You fire Rumsfeld and we won't impeach you George'...

You really believe that cunt?

This will come up again. They'll revisit the issue six months or a year into their control of Congress.

And Dems will be unable to distance themselves from Iraq now. They control Congress; they WILL be moving for troop deployment sooner than later, but more importantly they control the purse strings for the war. If they start cutting funding, there's no way they can pass that off on the Administration.

[Towelmaster]

I don't believe politicians. Full Stop.
But it means that the Republicans will be able to accuse her of not keeping her word if she tries to impeach Bush.

Me, I think they should get on with running the country...

[SmileOfTheShadow]

I heard an interesting theory today that Bush wanted a democratic congress because he's passed everything he needed to with republicans, and only one issue remains: his immigration program, which republicans are violently against. Firing of Rummy could fit in with that because they could have made the deal "work with me on this...I'll fire Rumsfeld."

Just a theory. But it's interesting, despite how conspiratorial it sounds.

[Dr Maturin]

I heard an interesting theory today that Bush wanted a democratic congress because he's passed everything he needed to with republicans, and only one issue remains: his immigration program, which republicans are violently against. Firing of Rummy could fit in with that because they could have made the deal "work with me on this...I'll fire Rumsfeld."

Just a theory. But it's interesting, despite how conspiratorial it sounds.

Not to mention illogical.

[AaronB]

I heard an interesting theory today that Bush wanted a democratic congress because he's passed everything he needed to with republicans, and only one issue remains: his immigration program, which republicans are violently against. Firing of Rummy could fit in with that because they could have made the deal "work with me on this...I'll fire Rumsfeld."

Just a theory. But it's interesting, despite how conspiratorial it sounds.

And in addition to that, they made all of the voting machines have the votes go to the democratic candidate.

It's amazing how I have seen no complaints about voter disenfranchisement this year...