posted on December 19, 2003 07:37:47 AM new
"Free enterprise has done more to reduce poverty than all the government programs dreamed up by Democrats." --Ronald Reagan
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 19, 2003 07:59:53 AM new
::Democrats wanted a plan to help people...not the drug industry and the insurance industry and surprise, surprise, it would not have cost as much.:: Oh really? Well they had 8 years to pass what they wanted....it didn't happen. Meanwhile our elderly are finding fewer and fewer doctors that are willing to accept Medicare payments because they're too low. There are millions of our seniors who can't afford their medicines. YOUR PARTY DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change that.
So...while you're more than willing to support and care for each and every illegal person that enters this country, I feel we need to take care of our own first.
::She can't answer with a simple yes or no but "things are improving" and "lies are truth". War is peace, freedom is slavery and bush is president.::
It couldn't be answered with a simple yes or no because he was talking about ALL spending done during this administration. And what is this? A demand for a response in only one way? This is a chat board, for crying out loud...NOT a court room.
We all have our opinions on WHERE the funds should be spent. I'd reduce spending in different areas than others would.
But I do support all funding spent on the wars, supporting our troops, HomeLand Security, all costs involved in fighting terrorism and all the other costs of recovering from 9-11.
What I'd like to see eliminated is all foreign aid.
I'd like to see absolutely NO pork spending. Let the states fund their own little pork projects.
I'd like to see NO money spent for any illegal immigrants benefits.
I'd like to see welfare reduced.
I'd like to see all these proposals for child care not inacted. [Head Start, etc] Proposed child day care, etc.
I'd like not to RAISE the decifit even MORE by putting in a National Health Care System, which you support even though they're FAILING in almost every country that has one.
I'm sure there are others that I'm just forgetting.
So...as I said we each have our own opinions on where we'd like to see our tax dollars spent.
::The country can't survive another "mission accomplished" Helen:: Really....according to the latest poll....YOUR opinion is in the minority. They support this war, the president and think Saddam being captured IS a good thing.
posted on December 19, 2003 08:38:20 AM new
That' an interesting concept Linda - the way I see it you will successfully eliminate an threat of terrorism in 5 years. I mean once we stop investing in our future and dump every program that helps kids there really is no reason for terrorists to to bother with us - they can just sit back and watch us implode.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Dec 19, 2003 08:43 AM ]
posted on December 19, 2003 09:11:09 AM new
So Linda - what do we do in 10 years when all of these pitifully uneducated kids who society abandoned in the name of more guns are adults? It seems to me that you are more concerned about the next five years than about long term success of the nation. DId a single act of homeland terrorism really scare you so much that you no longer care what happens here as long as it's not done by an Arab?
It looks to me as if the terrorists won. They wanted to destroy the American spirit and way of life and if plans like yours succeed - so did they.
This countries strength does not stem from its guns, carriers or missles. Our countries strength comes from the people and their unity - why are you so determined to abandon future generations?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 19, 2003 10:34:12 AM new
fenix -
::what do we do in 10 years when all of these pitifully uneducated kids who society abandoned in the name of more guns are adults?::
We've paid for and had a bigger military force for many, many years. It didn't stop students *who wanted to learn* from doing so. Past generations of students have done better in school without taking funds from our military.
[By more guns I'm presuming you mean more funding spent on our military???]
::These pitifully uneducated kids you refer to have been the one's being educated, given head start help and it hasn't worked for the last two [or more] generations. Pouring the millions and millions of dollars into these programs that we have, hasn't given us a more educated population. High school drop out rates are still high. Those who can't read are still increasing. It's a social problem....not a funding problem.
So now...we're trying it a different way. We'll see if that way works any better.
::It seems to me that you are more concerned about the next five years than about long term success of the nation.:: Where do you get that from? I've always been interested in my country....no matter who the president is. But the support you see me putting behind the republican party this time, should show I don't trust the democrats to protect this nation.
:Id a single act of homeland terrorism really scare you so much that you no longer care what happens here as long as it's not done by an Arab?:: First of all, I'm not scared. I'm angry. And a single act? That's where I think the dems don't see clearly. This wasn't a single act....the terrorists started small and then hit the 'jackpot'. There were other terrorist attacks against the US, just not quite like 9-11. To me, those should have been dealt with more strongly at the time. Us not doing so was the cause of BinLanden saying we were cowards...paper tigers. And I believe led up to 9-11.
We had to learn the hard way. Too many wanted peace so badly they were willing to ignore the signs that needed to be dealt with. Peace at any price....doesn't work.
::It looks to me as if the terrorists won. They wanted to destroy the American spirit and way of life and if plans like yours succeed - so did they.:: No, they haven't won. Our spirit hasn't been destroyed. We were more united after 9-11 as a nation than we've been for years. But people have short memories. But they sure will have won if an anti-war president gets in. Or one who thinks we can negociate with terrorist. Take a look at Hamas....good example. Imo, having an anti-war president will be an open invitation for another strike.
This President and all that has been put in place since 9-11 has prevented further attacks.
Plans like mine? What? to continue to hunt down the terrorists? You think they're just going to go away, or what? Do you think BinLaden and his irk have retired? I don't. And I believe it's quite clear that all those who thought going to war in the ME was going to start WWIII....were wrong. The terrorist safehavens in Afghanistan have been taken down. Saddam has been removed. And Syria and other nations now know the US isn't fearful or playing around.
This president has been VERY successful getting many nations to start dealing with terrorism. It's out there, it's not going to go away on it's own and we're not going to let them win. We're also not fighting this alone. Because of the great example this president has been, many nations are now taking steps against terrorist groups.
::This countries strength does not stem from its guns, carriers or missles. Our countries strength comes from the people and their unity - why are you so determined to abandon future generations?:: I'm not clear on how this is abandoning future generations. Our future generations won't be enjoying life as we've know it IF the terrorists are allowed to continue with their plans. If we'd allowed more 9-11s what future do you see in that? This country hasn't had 'unity' for I don't know how long. It's something to strive for...but unlikely to happen.
Guns, carriers and missles - STRENGTH and POWER - are the only thing the terrorists understand. I don't want to see us become another Israel....bombings in our public places becoming a continuing problem and lasting for years. So far, we've been able to prevent that....because of the actions this administration has taken.
I fully support this 'War on Terrorism' and this president for having the courage to take them on.
I just hope that everyone will read your post, lindak and especially the good analysis by fenix which you failed to answer. Your pitiful lack of understanding would take years to correct because your position is not just a conservative Republican position but rather a selfish, bogoted, greedy and ignorant position. You want to retrogress to an era of cowboys and indians. We can't survive by ignoring problems in our country while we make preemptive attacks against other countries and then call THEM terrorists. You say that you don't want us to "become another Israel with bombings in OUR public places becoming a continuing problem and lasting for years". THAT, linda is what we have done in Iraq to the Iraqi citizens. Do you still fail to see that we are not fighting the terrorists there who were responsible for 9/11? We are occupying a country where over 70% of the citizens want us out.
You say, This president has been VERY successful in dealing with terrorism. The truth is that this president has only inflamed terrorists all over the world making our country considerably less safe.
posted on December 19, 2003 01:14:39 PM new
Linda, I was asking, certainly not demanding. My question probably WAS too broad. Let me narrow it down. Regardless of what Democrats have done in the past or will do in the future, is $91 billion dollars spent towards the war in Iraq so far OK with you?
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 19, 2003 01:40:00 PM new
profe - Linda, I was asking, certainly not demanding. Then I ask that you please accept my most sincere apology for taking it in a way other than what was intended.
is $91 billion dollars spent towards the war in Iraq so far OK with you? Yes.
Over 20B of that was for our own troops...I would have liked to have seen more of those funds go to them.
I'm sure you're well aware of how much American spent after WWII in Europe and Japan. And in the following years we saw that ever penny of the money we spent was worth it. That's how I see this Iraq war. To have democracy in the ME, to have another country like Israel, in that part of our world, is a very positive direction for our nation to take, imo. It wasn't easy nor cheap after WWII, nor will this be either.
posted on December 19, 2003 03:03:51 PM new
No fenix it wasn't. Trying to address their type of government...free...where citizens get to vote...no dictator running the country. Maybe I should have included Turkey in there too. Iraq a country set up like Turkey.
posted on December 19, 2003 03:18:26 PM new
This may explain it better than I can. The long term Gallup Poll that's being conducted in Iraq and what the people might like to see for their own government.
September 26, 2003
What Form of Government for Iraq?
by Lydia Saad, Senior Gallup Poll Editor
With Saddam Hussein's dictatorship gone, the residents of Iraq are living in something of a political limbo. But if all goes according to plan, the Coalition Provisional Authority currently administering Iraq will eventually yield to self-government under a new constitution, followed by free elections.
The form of government that ultimately results will be determined by that constitution, the drafting of which will be done under the auspices of the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council.
Gallup's new scientific survey in the capital city of Baghdad asked Baghdadis what form of government they would prefer if they were drafting the new constitution, and what form of government they think the country will have five years from now.
Among the nearly 150 question items Gallup asked in its scientific poll of Baghdadis, several focused on the type of government the people of Baghdad would like to see established in Iraq.
Respondents were most supportive of those systems that would seemingly provide the most public participation: either a multiparty parliamentary democracy, or a system based on the Islamic concept of shura (whereby leaders work through a process of consultation and
public consensus). This latter option was added to the list based on
pretests of the Gallup questionnaire, in which many respondents --
particularly those with less education -- volunteered it as an option that appealed to them.
Other forms of rule that do not provide for public input are much less attractive to the people of Baghdad.
Baghdadis' governmental preferences are more likely to differ by educational background than by any other demographic variable tested including gender, age, and income differences.
The higher a respondent's level of formal education, the less likely he or she is to favor an Islamic-based system of government and the more likely to favor either a parliamentary democracy or a constitutional monarchy.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 19, 2003 03:26 PM ]
posted on December 19, 2003 03:42:59 PM new
I don't mind another democracy in the area - I would mind another Isreal - democratic or otherwise.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on December 19, 2003 04:24:48 PM new
Thanks for the answer Linda...but I don't think there's any comparison between an honest to god world war in which at least one tyrant was actively trying to conquer the world, and the Iraq war. For me, the two bear virtually no similarity. Iraq hasn't attacked anybody since it attacked Kuwait over 10 years ago. We're not trying to stem the march of totalitarianism steamrolling across a continent full of our allies in this one.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 19, 2003 04:43:42 PM new
profe - Iraq hasn't attacked anybody since it attacked Kuwait over 10 years ago.
[This is going to piss bunni off ] [and bunni I'm not trying to do so]
BUT I truly would like to understand, from those who supported clinton, why clinton saying Saddam posed a threat to our nation and to the world, is different when Bush says the same thing?
He too said Saddam had WOMD, he too said he was a threat, he too said he needed to be removed from power. And he did order our military to bomb Iraq.
I just have never understood how you guys see it differently. Maybe someone can explain that to me?
posted on December 19, 2003 04:49:58 PM new
I didn't see it differently. I spoke out against that, too. Sodid a lot of others--both democrat & republican. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 19, 2003 05:35:56 PM new
bunni - Okay...did you support the bombing of Afganistan? Or are you totally anti-war. Or??
As I recall most Republicans were upset because of the timing of the 1998 Iraqi bombing. Some thought it was only to distract the nation from the Impeachment hearings....rather than that they didn't think Saddam was a threat. Do you remember it differently?
posted on December 19, 2003 07:04:51 PM new
Linda, it IS different. Clinton bombed Iraq. Bush INVADED. That isn't a judgement on either of them, but they are in fact different. Just as WWII and our current action are different.
Not that you asked me, but I didn't have too many issues with the action in Afghanistan. At least we were after actual terrorists, rather than boogey-men.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 19, 2003 07:51:14 PM new
The problem, lindak is that you want to justify Bush actions such as his bungled preemptive war with beliefs that Clinton had in 1998. Nothing that Clinton did resembled what Bush has done. Not only was the situation different in 1998 but Clinton's method of dealing with the situation was different. As surprising as it may be to you, I'm not defending Clinton for the daily bombings of Iraq and the sanctions placed on Iraq which affected the poor innocent people more than it did Saddam Hussein.
The problem is that whenever a Bush manuever fails, you attempt to excuse it by blaming Clinton. When will you hold Bush responsible for his acts. Bush is the president and he should be able to think and act independently of previous presidents.
For example, you said previously,..."Nothing changed after the Dec. 1998 bombings in regards to clinton being able to assure the US that those weapons were destroyed. He said he had no knowledge if they were destroyed at all."
That's true. But then Bush became president and according to what he told Congress and America Saddam did have WMD...Clinton had doubt as your statement indicates. Bush had no doubt and in fact stated that the the weapons were ready to use. There was a rush to vote to give Bush the authority to INVADE Iraq.
One president had no knowledge if they were destroyed.
The other president knew without a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had WMD ready to fire.
One president dropped bombs.
The other president invaded a country at a cost of over 91 billion dollars with no exit plan.
posted on December 19, 2003 08:12:12 PM new
profe - Linda, it IS different. Clinton bombed Iraq. Bush INVADED. That isn't a judgement on either of them, but they are in fact different. Just as WWII and our current action are different. Not that you asked me, but I didn't have too many issues with the action in Afghanistan. At least we were after actual terrorists, rather than boogey-men.
My point was that clinton and both Bushs' believed Saddam had womd and that's what they ALL told our nation before going to war.
The point I was making about WWII being the same was ONLY in reference to the fact that both cost us a ton of money for rebuilding those countries and that now we see it was worth the money spent.....not in comparing the reasons we went to war in the first place.
So...it was okay with you that clinton bombed Iraq to rid them of the womd...but not okay for Bush to do what he's done, for the same reason. Imo, one either believed clinton's reasons or they didn't. Either both were lying or neither were. I'm not speaking to what action they took....just their reasons WHY.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 19, 2003 08:15 PM ]
posted on December 19, 2003 09:36:19 PM new
I didn't say it was ok with me that Clinton bombed Iraq Linda. I had very mixed emotions about his motives at the time.... I know you'd like to think that those of us here who support some (much) of the Clinton presidency, support it all, but that may or may not in fact be the case. It isn't for me. Please don't assume so in my case.
Either both were lying or neither were
I'm afraid that just doesn't make sense to me. One may have had very different information to go on than the other. Clinton may have lied as an excuse to go to Iraq in order to dodge his Monica problems. Or, he may have had information he truly believed gave evidence of the existence of womd. Bush may have truly believed the same thing, or he may have ignored the many sources in his own government who doubted that Iraq was an imminent threat, and pursued a war against Iraq for other reasons, using a frightened populace looking for revenge for an unrelated act of terror to back him up. That they either both lied or both didn't doesn't wash.
___________________________________
The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then gets elected and proves it.
-- P. J. ORourke (Holidays in hell, 1989)
posted on December 20, 2003 06:43:46 AM newHume Notes Fallacious Idea Bush Cited Iraq's "Imminent Threat"
MRC ^ | Tuesday October 7, 2003 | BrentBaker
Posted on 10/07/2003 6:01:16 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Eminently wrong on imminent threat. FNC's Brit Hume pointed out Monday night how, despite frequent media claims that President Bush cited the "imminent threat" from Saddam Hussein's Iraq as justification for going to war, "in fact, President Bush has publicly said just the opposite."
On the October 6 Special Report with Brit Hume, during the "Grapevine" segment, Hume observed: "The Associated Press says it. Reuters says it, the New York Times says it repeatedly. Senator Levin says it, so does Senator Rockefeller. What they all say is that the Bush administration claimed, as a justification for going to war in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein posed a quote, 'imminent threat.' In fact, President Bush has publicly said just the opposite, most conspicuously is his State of the Union address last January."
Bush in the State of the Union address: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
--------
Just wanted to be sure everyone is clear on what was actually said....not what's been report to have been said.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 20, 2003 06:46 AM ]
posted on December 20, 2003 07:56:13 AM new
The Associated Press says it. Reuters says it, the New York Times says it repeatedly. Senator Levin says it, so does Senator Rockefeller. What they all say is that the Bush administration claimed, as a justification for going to war in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein posed a quote, 'imminent threat.' In fact, President Bush has publicly said just the opposite.
posted on December 20, 2003 08:32:40 AM new
Of course, the word "imminent" was spread througout the media by the Bush administration. Do you believe that the media caused the rush to war and determined that weapons were ready to fire in 45 minutes? Do you believe that the media determined that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and were ready to attack the U.S. again?
Can't you see that the Bush speech that you quoted above is an attempt to justify a rush to war...inferring an imminent threat?
posted on December 20, 2003 08:43:10 AM new
Bush said,...from your quote...
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
Doesn't that sound like a message of imminent threat to you??? As Bush said, "If this threat is permitted to fuly and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."
The truth of course was that there were no WMD in Iraq and no terrorists in Iraq threatening the United States of America. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/ll.
Id a single act of homeland terrorism really scare you so much that you no longer care what happens here as long as it's not done by an Arab?:: First of all, I'm not scared. I'm angry. And a single act? That's where I think the dems don't see clearly. This wasn't a single act....the terrorists started small and then hit the 'jackpot'. There were other terrorist attacks against the US, just not quite like 9-11. To me, those should have been dealt with more strongly at the time. Us not doing so was the cause of BinLanden saying we were cowards...paper tigers. And I believe led up to 9-11.
] [and bunni I'm not trying to do so]
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 20, 2003 06:46 AM ]