It appears Bush was right after all...

[snoboy]

Always right.

[Kiwi]

My problem with Bush and Iraq is that I don't think he went in there for WMD, Saddam, or to free Iraq's people.

[Fence_Sitter]

Kiwi said:

My problem with Bush and Iraq is that I don't think he went in there for WMD, Saddam, or to free Iraq's people.

 

please please... tell me you dont think it is oil...

[mattp]

Fence, we are not being told anything like the truth of the matter, so we may never know but I think it is about power and position in the Middle East and that at least indirectly it DOES have a lot to do with oil. No doubt Saddam was a bad guy, but there are lots of bad guys around the world and many of them are our friends. By all accounts (I think even Bush and company agree if you read between the lines) the Saudi's posed and still pose a much greater threat. They have a much stronger military, they are funding terrorist organizations, and almost all the hijacker's on 9-11 were from there. "Freedom" doesn't exist in that country either. But they are not in the "axis of evil." I don't know all the reasons why, but I would venture a guess that part of it has to do with the fact that they are more friendly toward U.S. oil interests (aren't they?).

 

I don't know what Trask is talking about, though. A bunch of jets buried in the sand? Were these banned weapons? I think not. Did Saddam's airforce threaten the U.S.? Of course not. Fox news IS just blowing smoke.

 

ChucK has it right, I think. The democrats are idiots. They pin themselves to this issue of our not finding the weapons of mass destruction, and we will of course find something somewhere so the republicans can say "I told you so." Moreover, it is just a loser of an issue because it really doesn't matter all that much at this point. Those who believe we did the right thing in Iraq don't really care if we don't find anything and those who think it is wrong to engage in pre-emptive war when our interests are not severely threatened are not going to change their minds over this issue either. I think the democrats are equally stupid in their narrowly focused complaints about the State of the Union speech. Yes, he lied and they have caught him in the act. But the point is not that he lied -- the point is, in my opinion, that he lies all the time. Just last week or the week before, he said that we went in to Iraq because the Iraqi's had refused to permit inspections and nobody said anything about this obvious lie. The democrats have no balls and they lack vision. Have any of them said what they think we should do now? Not really. They probably will go down in flames because they just can't piece together any coherent position. As much as I can't stand the republicans, there's no leadership in the democratic party.

[chucK]

Matt,

I think if the demos did have leadership it might be bad. Then they would have all their heads on the same chopping block. I kinda like them "diversified" .

[Fairweather]

Mattp,

 

I agree with much of your post. ( The last paragraph, anyway) I think Trask's point regarding the found Mig jets is, "if it's this easy to hide 30 or so aircraft for this long, then it is probably comparably easy to hide a few dozen/hundred chemical warheads." The jets themselves are/ were never a threat obviously.

 

The Democrats are losing the heart of the overall debate not because they have truly compromised their values, but because they regularly compromise these values publicly to appeal to mainstream America, and then once in office go back to the same old left-wing playbook. (ie: socialized medicine, gay rights, pacifism, extreme environentalism, federalism, union activism, etc.) IMHO, these values, whether they have any validity or not, are no longer mainstream American values. Probably never were. To state their true values publicly is a good way to get through the Democrat primaries, but a political death sentence with the public at large. (I think Mr Dean will soon find this out the hard way.)

 

The general public now understands that the Dems will lie to get elected....just like the Republicans! I don't think the Republicans have 2004 "in the bag". A lot could happen before then ala Winston Churchill or GHW in 1992. And the truth be told, there may be one true moderate Democrat in the running that could give GW a run for his $$$. (Care to guess?) The others have almost no chance.

[allthumbs]

HELLOOO -- THREAD DRIFT

My point to this thread was not to get back into the WMD debate. We've argued that to death. I simply wanted to point out that we do occasionally find some goodies.

[Fence_Sitter]

mattp said:

Fence, we are not being told anything like the truth of the matter, so we may never know but I think it is about power and position in the Middle East and that at least indirectly it DOES have a lot to do with oil. No doubt Saddam was a bad guy, but there are lots of bad guys around the world and many of them are our friends. By all accounts (I think even Bush and company agree if you read between the lines) the Saudi's posed and still pose a much greater threat. They have a much stronger military, they are funding terrorist organizations, and almost all the hijacker's on 9-11 were from there. "Freedom" doesn't exist in that country either. But they are not in the "axis of evil." I don't know all the reasons why, but I would venture a guess that part of it has to do with the fact that they are more friendly toward U.S. oil interests (aren't they?).

 

I don't know what Trask is talking about, though. A bunch of jets buried in the sand? Were these banned weapons? I think not. Did Saddam's airforce threaten the U.S.? Of course not. Fox news IS just blowing smoke.

 

ChucK has it right, I think. The democrats are idiots. They pin themselves to this issue of our not finding the weapons of mass destruction, and we will of course find something somewhere so the republicans can say "I told you so." Moreover, it is just a loser of an issue because it really doesn't matter all that much at this point. Those who believe we did the right thing in Iraq don't really care if we don't find anything and those who think it is wrong to engage in pre-emptive war when our interests are not severely threatened are not going to change their minds over this issue either. I think the democrats are equally stupid in their narrowly focused complaints about the State of the Union speech. Yes, he lied and they have caught him in the act. But the point is not that he lied -- the point is, in my opinion, that he lies all the time. Just last week or the week before, he said that we went in to Iraq because the Iraqi's had refused to permit inspections and nobody said anything about this obvious lie. The democrats have no balls and they lack vision. Have any of them said what they think we should do now? Not really. They probably will go down in flames because they just can't piece together any coherent position. As much as I can't stand the republicans, there's no leadership in the democratic party.

 

i agree with this, but it is different than the common euro position that we are just goin in there to litterally steal oil... believe it or not many here and abroad are certain that this is the case... obviously this is just ludicrous... i agree with you, but not with those... that sy the "ONLY" reason is oil... obviously it is. With war there are many many factors that go into a pre-emptive strike... so say that oil is the only reason is just blatently stupid as well as false...

[Billygoat]

How many American soldiers have to die so we can be entertained as they search for "goodies"? Iraq never was and never will be a threat to us. The conflict is a waste. Now, the military govener says they will be ready for general elections in a year, so that means we will have to stay there in force for the next two at least and likely post a garrison for longer at the minimum. BTW, have they found Osama, the guy (Saudi Arabian) who actually attacked us September 11th?

[mattp]

Fairweather said:

socialized medicine, gay rights, pacifism, extreme environentalism, federalism, union activism, etc. ... are no longer mainstream American values. Probably never were.

 

You may be in for a surprise, Fairweather! It looks to me as if most of these ideas are gaining in popular acceptance, rather than fading toward the fringe. Maybe I'm just a naive leftist extremist, though.

[Sphinx]

Billygoat said:

Iraq never was and never will be a threat to us.

 

 

You are stupid beyond belief. Read up on Saddam. The guy was a MAJOR risk to everyone. Remember the Gulf War?

[Fairweather]

We had troops in Saudi Arabia (to protect the Saudis from Iraq). This was the stated reason Muslim extremists murdered 3000 Americans (and others from 40+nations) on 9/11/01. Now that Iraq/Saddam has been neutralized as a threat to our allies (...and yes, 17% of our oil supply!) we are pulling out of Saudi while not appearing to "cave in" to Osama and his followers.

 

Is this not reason enough to have invaded Iraq? Now when the Al-queda kills innocents they'll have to come up with another excuse, at least. And you lefties here will have to come up with another excuse for them.

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

Fairweather said:

socialized medicine, gay rights, pacifism, extreme environentalism, federalism, union activism, etc. ... are no longer mainstream American values. Probably never were.

 

You may be in for a surprise, Fairweather! It looks to me as if most of these ideas are gaining in popular acceptance, rather than fading toward the fringe. Maybe I'm just a naive leftist extremist, though.

 

Mattp,

 

Is it possible that you have so immersed yourself in the liberal/Seattle culture, and surrounded yourself with such like-minded people, that you aren't seeing the "big picture"?

 

This isn't a slam. I regularly ask myself the same question and listen to the other side....like NPR, Dave Ross & Mike Webb on KIRO, CNN, etc. I've even been swayed on a small number of issues.

 

[mattp]

Fairweather, it is possible I'm not seeing the "big picture." Hell, I even believe that it is possible that human industrial activity has altered the balance of nature and that it could have effects on such things as climate! That's environmental extremism for sure.

 

With regard to gay rights, I see that the Supreme Court just struck down sodomy laws in Texas and that many states and cities are only recently starting to allow people to name their gay partners as spouses for the purposes of survior's benefits in employe pension plans and the like. The best man at my wedding is a twisted gay pervert and I could be way wacko for thinking that we are seeing increasing tolerance for gays.

 

Pacivism? By that I assume you mean a preference for us to take care of our own problems at home and let other nations deal with theirs themselves. Hell - even George W. Bush the candidate said he liked that idea!

 

Socialized Medicine? We'll see. It's been a back and forth issue, for sure, but if the insurance companies keep chipping away at us with "tort reform" and the healthcare crisis keeps on expanding, we may yet see a turn toward government regulation or even, horrors, a single payor system. I don't see much support for the abolishment of medicaid or medicare.

 

Federalism? Do you mean an erosion of State's rights? I think the trend has been more or less in this direction for, like, 200 years.

 

Unionism? Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Lots of people are bitching about laws regulating wrongful termination and such, and perhaps rightfully so, but I don't think we're seeing a reduction in these kinds of regulations, are we?

 

Yes, I live in Seattle and I have mostly liberal friends. But I believe I get more of "the big picture" from NPR and the New York Times than I do from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News or USA Today. What is in your "big picture?"

[Fairweather]

I ask a sincere question and get a reply full of sarcasm. How typical.

 

Do you really believe that NPR is not biased to the left? Wow! You may very well be a lost cause.

 

Re: gay rights. Please read my position in a very recent thread.

 

I find it strange that liberals almost univerasally decry those on the right as "closed-minded". But I think you have demonstrated that you have no intention of considering all sides. Who really has the open mind Mattp?

 

[chucK]

Hey Fairweather,

It looks to me like Mattp articulated a bunch of his beliefs. You on the other hand just acted the evasive crybaby .

 

I don't think Matt's point was that NPR is not biased to the left. I think his point was that NPR reports closer to the truth than does FoxNews. What do you think about this statement?

[Fairweather]

I believe that NPR reports mainly on stories that are of interest to those on the left. They conveniently fail to report on issues that others might find interesting. I believe that to someone who has been fed a lifelong diet of PBS, NPR, and network news, FOX would certainly seem slanted to the right. As for the NY Times; I think their recent spate of reporters caught fabricating stories speaks for itself.

 

I would also point out that Matt omited a portion of my quote in his reply with "...", and addressed only that. It somewhat changed to the reader what the perception of my positions is/might be.

 

 

[Fence_Sitter]

But I believe I get more of "the big picture" from NPR and the New York Times than I do from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News or USA Today. What is in your "big picture?"

 

i laugh at liberals who lambast conservatives for not being thouroughly read... i read from pravda (russian paper certianly not sympathetic with teh U.S. right) NYtimes, Reuter, MSN, Le Monde, and various other news sources... it is clear that where you are brought up and who brought you up will influence your slant to the news... you call those in the south yokels, but they are probably just as well read as you, but were born with diffferent view points. They will invaiably say the same things about you "feminatzi liberals" so mabe if we all just take a step back and realize that we will NEVER see things form the same exact slant... it is not someone reading something into it they want, but rather different perspectivs that are part of us and as hard to change as our eye color...

[mattp]

Fairweather-

Please explain to me how my excerpt of your statement altered the meaning of what you wrote in any way. Please also answer my points if you disagree with them. It could be that I haven't read the history correctly, but I believe the trend is not in the direction that you suggested -- at least with regard to these particular issues.

 

My point about NPR and NYT vs. Fox News or USA Today is that they give much more information, including the historical background to the stories they present. With regard the sensational story about the award-winning reporter who fabricated his stories for the NYT, I believe this is a case where the exception proves the rule: the fact that it was such a big story indicates that it is extremely unusual for this to occur.

[mattp]

Fairweather,

I think that your belief that our recent actions will in any way reduce the anger of Moslem extremists is misplaced. I agree that our troop presence in the holy land of Islam has been a sore spot, and I agree that we may well be seeking to move some bases out of Saudi Arabia, but I doubt that our war on Iraq is going to reduce Arab dislike for the U.S. in any way. Do you think that Arabs who don't want us in the Middle East are going to see it as a step in the right direction when, instead of maintaining bases in Saudi Arabia by an agreement with their government, we maintain troops in Iraq and Afghanistan following successful invasions? Or do you believe that B.S. about how in a year or two we are going to put these countries back on their feet, with benevolent democratic governments, and then leave them alone? If we were to push Israel into allowing a real Palestinian state it might help reduce Arab enmity toward the U.S., but I'd be surprised if we actually do that.

[mattp]

Fence_Sitter said:

i laugh at liberals who lambast conservatives for not being thouroughly read...

 

I agree that there are some smart, articulate, and well-read conservatives, and anybody who dismisses all southerners as ignorant is clearly incorrect. However, isn't it a fact that more highly educated and well-read individuals, on average, are more liberal? That doesn't necessarily mean conservatives are stupid -- but of course they are, aren't they? Ignorant rednecks...

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

Fairweather-

 

 

My point about NPR and NYT vs. Fox News or USA Today is that they give much more information, including the historical background to the stories they present. With regard the sensational story about the award-winning reporter who fabricated his stories for the NYT, I believe this is a case where the exception proves the rule: the fact that it was such a big story indicates that it is extremely unusual for this to occur.

 

No. Simply that is extremely unusual for a reporter to get caught, and then called to account.

[Fence_Sitter]

mattp said:However, isn't it a fact that more highly educated and well-read individuals, on average, are more liberal?

i dont think so... mabe in state schools, where many of conservatives are not in attendance because they attend private schools... this may account for the apparent discrepancy. i think you are generalizing the conservatives as a bunch of 'king of the hill" types adn in reality they are not... get this... they are just like you they jsut have different viewpoints. i think if you weren't grown up in the N.W. things might be different... many of you are from here and this state is muuuch different than eastern and especailly central states... perspective!

[Fairweather]

mattp said:

 

However, isn't it a fact that more highly educated and well-read individuals, on average, are more liberal?

 

Are you asking a question, or can you show facts to support this arrogant statement? I strongly disagree.

[Fence_Sitter]

Fairweather said:

mattp said:

 

However, isn't it a fact that more highly educated and well-read individuals, on average, are more liberal?

 

Are you asking a question, or can you show facts to support this arrogant statement? I strongly disagree.

 

only if you mean well read as someone who reads the stranger