Now this I agree with 90-95%, as opposed to the other threads I posted or commented upon recently (Schelsinger and Friedman): As this is written, the campaign known as "shock and awe" has begun over Iraq and the five million civilian inhabitants of Baghdad. Bombs indeed shock, but why the word "awe"? This is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's way of turning the Iraq bombardment against what he knows is a defenseless country, run by a brutal dictator, into a metaphor for the rest of the world. He wants the whole world in "awe" of the mighty military superpower in preparation for the next move against another country in or outside the "axis of evil". This is truly an extraordinary time in American history. A dozen men and one woman are making very risky consequential decisions sealed off from much muted dissent inside the Pentagon, the State Department, the CIA and other agencies that have warned the President and his small band of ideological cohorts to think more deeply before they leap. They are launching our nation into winning a war which generates later battles that may not be winnable - at least not without great economic and human costs to our country. But let's back up a moment. Our founding fathers most emphatically placed the warmaking power in the hands of Congress. They did not want some arrogant or brooding successor to King George III to plunge the country into war. They wanted a collegial body of many elected representatives to decide openly (Article I, section 8)... ...U.S. intelligence agencies say the Iraq war will likely increase global terrorism including inside this country. Respected retired military generals and admirals, such as Marine General Anthony Zinni, believe it will destabilize the Middle East region, undermine the war on terrorism and distract from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "King George" is not listening to them or to other prominent former leaders in the State Department, Pentagon or the major intelligence agencies, including his father's own National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft. This must be the only war in our history promoted by chickenhawks - former belligerent draft dodgers - and opposed by so many of those inside and outside of government who served in the armed forces. Still the Messianic militarist in the White House refuses to even listen - either to opposing viewpoints held by tens of millions of Americans or to viewpoints counseling other non-war ways to achieve the objectives in Iraq. Indeed, he has refused to meet with any domestic antiwar delegation. Groups representing veterans, labor, business, elected city officials, women, clergy, physicians and academics with intelligence experience have written requesting an audience (see www.essentialaction.org). Michael Kinsley is a sober, bright columnist who said that "in terms of the power he now claims, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world." One might also use a Canadian phrase - an elected dictator. Correction - a judicially-selected dictator.
I'll up your 90-95, Universal. I don't see anything here on a first read through that I disagree with. Nader is right on here. I'd love to read a "reasonable" analysis, btw, of how Nader caused this war, Ben. No can do? Didn't think so...
It's kind of funny that you want to promote Nader's ideas when you know with absolute certainty that this war would never happen but for a campaign that could only benefit George Bush. When push comes to shove, you really don't care about this war or the people that are dying. What you care about is your self-identity.
Actually, it is inconceivable that you would disagree. Since you voted for Nader/Bush, I can see why you wish to delude yourself. Still, if you need the dots connected: (1) But for Nader, Bush would have lost the election. Nader knew that he would take more votes away from Gore than from Bush. He knew the risks, but placed his ego ahead of 280 million Americans. (2) President Gore would not have started this war. (3) Hence, but for Nader, there would be no war.
I find Nader to be a refreshing alternative to the quiet acquiescence of the Democratic party to the Bush administration's quasi-criminal foreign policy. It will be interesting to see if the Bush presidency will result in a leftward shift among American voters, just as it has caused a radicalization of Arab liberals and moderates. One thing is for sure though: the Democratic presidential candidates thus far are crap.
Nobody gives a rats SS what percentage you agree with other writers. Why don't you start a thread some day with your own thoughts and we'll all just assume that you agree with the author 100%. Deal?
(BUZZER!!!) Wrong Again. (1) But for Gore and the Democratic Party's absolutely whorish nature, and their "New Democrat" penchant toward chasing the same funding - and giving the same assurances - as Republicans, there would have been a real difference between the two main Presidential candidates, and Ralph Nader would not have had to run, as ANY authentic Democrat with any palpable, non-"Republican-lite" stand on anything would have crushed Dubya... (2) Said Democratic President would not have started this war. (3) Hence, but for Gore, McAuliffe, and the shift towards whorishness of the Democratic Party, there would be no war. Put the blame DIRECTLY where the blame belongs.
Re: (BUZZER!!!) Wrong Again. The blame directly belongs with the Nader/Bush campaign and those who knowingly voted for Nader/Bush.
Re: Re: Re: (BUZZER!!!) Wrong Again. Not really, since that was predictable based on the composition of the Court.* Frankly, it was a judgment call and I don't blame the SC one bit. The blame rest squarely on the millions of liberals who voted for Nader/Bush. Remember, it was tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. The only thing Naderites didn't realize is that Nader was the tweedle-dum! I just find it terribly offensive for Nader to criticize Bush when nobody has done more to create the Bush Presidency than Ralph Nader. At best, it was one of the worst cases of political malpractice in American history. We have a guy that cuts estate taxes on billionaires while 40 million + have no healthcare and Nader calls that tweedle-dum/tweedle-dee as if Gore would do the same. We have a guy that destroyed Clinton/Gore's greatest accomplishment in a matter of months and is proposing another round of tax cuts to send the USA spiraling into fiscal madness. Gore would do the same? The list goes on and on. Saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore was demagoguery of the highest magnitude. It was sinful. *By the way, I was listening to a BBC special on George W. where they claimed that Bush Sr. put his people on the SC who then put Jr in. That kind of irked me given that Souter voted against (making it 1-1 for Bush appointees) and has turned out to be rather liberal. I guess it makes for a better story than Reagan put Bush Jr. in the White House.
Re: Re: Re: (BUZZER!!!) Wrong Again. I think every one of you liberals should blame the democratic party. . Stop going around claiming the election was stolen from him when it has been the Democratic parties strategy to forget the south, with hopes of winning bigger, but fewer electoral states up north like new york and michigan. Even a Mr. Kerry, a canidate in 2004 has said he believes he can forget the south, and still win. This strategy neglects a lot of states that could put them over the hump. This strategy is self defeating, and is the reason Gore lost. Look at how many southern states he won. Also consider his campainging there to be lackluster. So shift your blame to the parties strategy, and let's all move on already.