uuuggg...the presidential address

I was watching the Law&Order SVU marathon... Chris Meloni...purrrrrr.

[Rapunzel]

Here is the transcript of the President's speech:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/ ... index.html

Which portion(s) did you disagree with and why?

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

Touching on the popularity of presidents: I read the following piece today and thought it put things into perspective quite nicely. After all, both Truman and Lincoln had dismally low approval ratings as well:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003905.htm

Taken from:

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2005/11/ ... other.html

and

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid. ... detail.asp

It's always interesting to see things through the lens of time. Living through history is so much different than reading about it long afterward.

Jennifer

Well, we can see that the Korean conflict didn't really do much. SK is still threatened from the North, China is stronger than ever.

Pretty much every war we have been in that didn't involve our own land being attacked hasn't resolved well.

WWI led to WWII.

WWII we got hit, we hit back, even though we did ally with the Commies.

Korean...well, look at the loon in NK.

VN...yeah, that worked.

Gulf I...Gulf 2.

Sept 11 was somwhat avenged when we attacked and deposed the Taliban, who were hiding Bin Laden. If we were able to devote more time and resources there, Afganistan might be that doorway to Democracy that Iraq is being touted to be becoming.

[Rapunzel]

I did not listen to the speech (was out with family). We all know I do not like the guy. I've decided that the best thing about Bush is that he's turning so many people off that perhaps the dems (or independents) can recapture power.

The analysis I just read says otherwise:

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary ... 05_JM.html

"Have The Democrats Walked Into a Trap......Again?"


Regarding the use of wiretapping of suspected terrorists (ie organized crime syndicates in reality), here is what the FBI agent in charge of Salt Lake City had to say:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3319577

Now, I have disagreed with many things the FBI and the ATF have done in the past. Particularly egregious are the things that Janet Reno (shudder) did to civilians' Constitutional rights (anyone remember Ruby Ridge for example?). I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be yet another example of the FBI overstepping their bounds. On the other hand, I'm waiting to see which part of the law the White House sites it acted under. Here's what I'm reading so far on it:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051 ... -4493r.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00211.html

Evidently the Senate Intelligence Committee (including a number of top democrats) new about the wiretapping as well.

My thinking on this is that this is very similar to the way we had to combat the organized Italian crime syndicates in the early 20th century and it requires a different thought process on using the law (ie using the law "creatively"). And, I'm thinking that what is going to occur is that this is a case of using the law "creatively" and the criticism will be on whether it is ethical - rather than legal - to use the law in that way (ie to place immediate wiretaps on persons suspected of communicating with foreign entities regarding attacking U.S. citizens). On one hand I believe it is a very good idea for us to closely monitor the actions of our government - it's what keeps us apart from totalitarian governments (such as the one in Venezuala at the moment - or Cuba). But, on the other hand, if American lives have now been compromised here then that is very, very bad. If "outing" Plame was bad then "outing" a legal use of the law for political reasons needs to be similarly treated as a criminal action.

In the end, this is a still-unfolding story and I'm interested to see what happens....

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

Tracy, don't forget all of the "little" military actions in-between. Clinton, for example managed to involve U.S. troops in more military actions outside of declared war than any other U.S. president - all of which proved to be failures. But, I'll discuss that more in a just a bit.

I do agree that we involve our military in far too many conflicts that are outside of our personal interests - far too many and Madeline Albright did a wonderful job of increasing that exponentially with her "policing the world" philosophy.

But, let's examine terrorism for a moment. You have to know the history of Islamic muhajadeen to understand the fluidity of a "jihad". For over 1400 years there have been large numbers of mercenaries that travel from war to war if that war involves Muslim entities. This happened with the Serbian conflict, Kuwait, is currently happening in Thailand and Indonesia and Chechnya. They are soldiers of fortune fighting in the name of religion.

So, we have this fluid group of fighters from many different nations who have religion in common and fight on the basis of that single denominator. What we saw with the botched Serbian campaign (thank you UN and Clinton ) was that Croatia has now become a training ground for these muhajadeen fighters who are then exported to places such as Chechnya and Iraq. There are other similar training ground nations such as Sudan. These fighters are not necessarily natives of the nations in which they train - those training grounds are generally in nations friendly to their cause, however.

The conventional means of warfare is Nation A attacks Nation B and war ensues with either nation invading the other one's territory. WWII changed things somewhat in that we saw a massive alliance of nations against another massive alliance of nations but, the pattern of A attacks B still held true. What we see here is different. We have groups that may consist of members of several nations training for combat in one nation, funded by another nation (or group of nations - or just groups of people without any cohesive nationality) and then sent out to attack one nation and move on to the next and the next conflict and so on. (Interesting side note: In LDS scripture there is a similar group central to the Book of Mormon called the Gadianton Robbers.)

So, how do you defeat such a group? They are not concerned with the needs of the particular nation which they are fighting with, rather, they are concerned with meeting their own religious principles (whether or not those principles are the same exactly as the civilians who they claim to support). Answers: 1)You cut off their funding (and, the Patriot Act, in part, served to do that), 2)You begin lobbying the nations harboring these training camps to put a stop to it (which won't be successful for the nations whose leaders share an ideological need for such fighters). And, then there is #3 where you have a choice. Do you: A)Rush around the world with your military putting out "fires" of conflicts arising from these muhajadeen fighters (this is what Clinton and Albright did) or B)Attack a nation that has clear ties to these nomadic fighters with the twofold solution of freeing the people from a despotic, mass-murdering dictator AND providing a magnet for these fighters to run to and mow them down?

We've done choice B with this administration. I read on a military blog that the U.S. army on the ground in Iraq estimates they've killed about 30,000 of these fighters who range from being of Syrian nationality to Croatian (according to passport evidence). Bush's strategy is to bleed them until they run dry - until there aren't any of these soldiers-of-fortune left to invade a nation while at the same time introducing a drug that will cause these nations themselves to clear out that cancer - democracy.

Whether we succeed with this particular method is still for history to decide. The previous method employed by the Clinton administration was a dismal failure as September 11th showed. We have to rethink war. War is now committed without regard to national status (unless we subscribe to a conspiracy among a large number of nations - which is possible I suppose).

So, the above is an answer of a definitive "no" to the notion that Sept. 11 was "avenged" when we attacked and deposed the Taliban because it ignores the reality of who we are fighting and why.

As to Afghan democracy vs. Iraqi democracy:
Iraq is in a better position both economically and geographically to be an instigator of democracy for the entire region. Afghanistan has always been a poor backwater of a nation. Whereas, Iraq was a serious force to be reckoned with prior to the war and has the best chance to be (over Afghanistan whose primary export is - heroin) after the war as well. And, guess who sits on the other side of Iraq? Iran. Have you read what is coming out of Iran lately? You can bet that Iran will be attacking somebody very soon and it will be fortuitous to have it sandwhiched between two democracies (Israel and Iraq) when that happens.

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

I thought I hated Reagan, but OH, No, not even close..

Now you've piqued my interest. I think Reagan was one of the greatest presidents we've had - ever. I think he was an outstanding leader and a pretty good human being. My German aunt's relatives are now free because of his actions during the Cold War and I hear personal testimony of that everytime I am around her. I also know a number of Russian immigrants as well as a few Estonians who agree with that assessment.

So, why do you have such a strong hatred of Reagan??? I must admit I've encountered a handful of people like that in Boston and have never heard an explanation.

[DCJenn]

Well, for starters he spent us into the ground, much like W is doing. I hated his domestic policies. I think he mismanaged a lot of internal issues. But, as a person, I think he was a genuine nice guy. W. on the other hand scares the bejeezuz out of me, always has. I DON'T think he's a nice person.

I will say that Reagan and Tip O'Neill did an excellent job of keeping the politics polite and semi-sane. The partisan diatribes from both sides just pisses me off these days. (Thanks Newt)

Nancy Pelosi makes me want to scream with her knee-jerk reactions to the some of the proposals and bills. Makes the Democratic party sound like a bunch of whiners.

Essentially, we need to wipe the slate and start all over again. I think some of them have been around way too long. (Like Cunningham from California- what about any of his decisions sounded like a good idea to him? I mean really?)

What wrong with being fiscally conservative and socially liberal? What ever happened to the Moderates? There are so few decent discussions anymore. Why?

But, back to Reagan, I just disagree for the most part with his economics. But his wife sure made things fun in the city. Talk about some major glam. Of course, only the Bushes have had the least amount of State events. Who in their right mind would be honored to go to the middle of Texas in the summer? I personally would rather put on a fancy dress and eat good food at the While House.


Jenn

The moderates on both side are being bullied by the extremists on both sides.

[Rapunzel]

Who in their right mind would be honored to go to the middle of Texas in the summer? I personally would rather put on a fancy dress and eat good food at the While House.

I can see that from one angle.

But, now that I have lived in the Northeast I can definitely say I prefer the heat of a Texas summer. Going back there in August is hard - but there's something about that heat that I miss. And, we would go camping and work on a ranch during those summer months as well. I was so used to the 100+ degree heat before we moved that I could be outside all day in July and not break a sweat unless I was running!

But, I really can understand how someone who isn't from Texas would be horrified by the idea of wanting to spend summer there. It's like wanting to spend winter in Alaska in a way....

Jennifer

[Rapunzel]

The moderates on both side are being bullied by the extremists on both sides.

See, I find this comment interesting because I'll bet the people you think are moderate I would find extremist in their views and practices (such as Hillary Clinton). If by moderate you mean someone who is politically expedient and places political power over personal ethics then I have a problem with that as well.

Additionally, I think that desiring a government where everyone agrees is also a bit of a scary prospect. Our government is designed to be adversarial so that little gets done. The modern "big government" of almost cradle-to-grave care is a nightmare that springs from laws being passed far too easily. Laws are supposed to be hard to pass. One of the checks in our government is the adversarial relationship among political parties so that little gets passed.

Jennifer

Its not just adversalial attitudes between parties but WITHIN them.

The attitude now seems to be that if you even sit down and try to find a solution to a problem with someone in the other party you are giving in. Its not wanting everyone to be agreeing, its having people realize that compromising is a part of life.

Anyone sitting down these days and discussing things like Reagan and Tip did in the 1980's would be treated like they are making deals with the devil himself.

FWIW, I consider McCain to be a moderate. Clinton isn't on my radar and I hope she doesn't run.

[PrincessFiona]

Tracy, I consider McCain to be a moderate too...but I do like Hillary. I agree with you that it isn't even possible for people to come together and talk with the 'other team' anymore without being considered traitors.

If someone takes a moderate view, they're suddenly 'switching teams'...if they disagree with the president, they're liberal extremists....it's crazy.

Specter, Todd Whitman, Guiliani, and even AAhnold are moderates too..

Zell Miller is NOT a moderate.

I like Clinton, but I think running her wouldn't work. I actually think she can do more in the Senate than as president.

Right now my dream team is Mark Warner Pres., Russ Feingold VP.

Mark Warner straightened out the financial mess left by the last Gov who wouldnt' let go of his "promise" to get rid of personal property taxes on vehicles. Plus, he was the Gov of a Southern state, which seems to be working lately.

Then, if want someone voting his values, look at the only one who didn't sign the Patriot Act the first time around. Of course, Feingold's a bleeding heart Pinko , but he votes his values.

[PrincessFiona]

Zen Miller is SCAREY (for a lot of reasons!) and I don't like Lieberman either.