Political Punch

wow thank for your post

The day is here!!
together YES We Can !!!

Broderick:

You challenge the rationality of US voters without engaging the ideas in the posts. Can you clarify?

Well, reading some of the posts, as a British contributor, I can see why the USA is in the state, it is in. It has become a country of irrational voters. It is becoming a country that looks FACTS in the face, not only argue against it but against it.

The USA has just one bad leader just like George Bush to go before it is completely on its knees. For looking FACT in the face and scorn at it.

Soon the Chinese and the Japanese may not have monies left to loan to the US to finance another US Iraq adventure. Instead of burdening next generations with Trillions of Dollars debt, the generation that borrowed the monies may have to pay for it. Then, the cost of war will actually be there for all to see.

Only then talking to your enemies will make sense to an average US citizen.

Kerry was offering a weak foreign policy, and Bush offered a strong offensive foreign policy that included victories in Afghanistan AND Iraq as part of a much larger global war on terrorists. Bush's policy exposed the Achilles Heel of international terrorists: they only thrive and flourish when the West is timid. Each withdrawal, from Lebanon to Kuwait, only encouraged our foes. The game has changed, and the Bush administration has gained the momentum.

Nik...interesting point...are you influenced by any political ideology, or is what you believe the "truth?"

People hear what they want to hear and they believe what they want to believe, despite evidence or lack thereof. Political ideology is the gospel truth for too many Americans. The proof is in some of these comments. I read a comment to the effect that Bush is right to spread democracy throughout the middle east. I'm sorry, but throughout historical civilization, there has always been multiple forms of government. Every nation is not (and should not) be a democracy. Democracy has its shortcoming too. Case in point...America.

Tokyo2nite, in spite of the Bush Administration's determination that these "enemy combatants" did not fit the specific definitions of "prisoners of war," as detailed within the Geneva Conventions, President Bush did state--very early on--that they would be treated as "prisoners of war."

Yes, the current U.S. Supreme Court did erroneously overturn Johnson v. Eisentrager. But that is NOW the law of the land. But to say, as many others have, that President Bush violated the U. S. Constitution by detaining these "enemy combatants" without habeas corpus is flat out wrong. President Bush WAS abiding by the law as it existed at the time.

Now then, you wrote: "It's kind of ironic: they call this a "war on terror," yet no war has been declared..." Actually, the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution was passed by Congress on September 18, 2001. Sec. 2 (a) states:

"IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Tokyo2Nite:

I believe at the time that Kerry followed the Democratic party's general opinion that a military solution to terror was not necessary, and it was a "law enforcement" issue. Thus, I believe Kerry chose to downplay the threat of terror in order to more easily disagree with the Bush administration's stance. I do not know whether Kerry understood that terror was worse than gambling or not..he did make the inept comparison, whether you choose to believe that he was sincere or not.

Maybe the Iraq War was unnecessary, a tragedy, and all the rest.

However, it is impossible to determine what would have happened had Kerry been elected, the troops pulled out, a "law enforcement" strategy put in place, etc. What if that failed ( I am not saying it would have)? Would the Pentagon be making the same assessment today?

There is an argument to be made, don't you think, that military efforts have led to a situation, now, after years of hard effort and sacrifice, in which the Pentagon may make such a statement regarding the eventual defeat of terror? (and yes, reducing terror to a "nuisance" level would be a defeat). I also think the Pentagon's choice of "nuisance" might not be very accurate. I mean, are ETA and Tamil Tiger bombings only a "nuisance"? Wouldn't it have been much more difficult to make such a statement in 2004, before the war had been fought through?

Your discussion of the alleged loss of liberties and the "imperial presidency" are unrelated to this subject. This discussion has to do with whether the Pentagon's recent statement mirrors Kerry's 2004 statement regarding the threat level of terror and the proper response to it. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but I don't think that is the subject here.

Thank you for your thoughtful discussion regarding this subject, it is rare.

It is sad that the American public can easily be swayed by aggressive postures than by rational logic.It is naive to think that the Middle East needs our help.They do not.Bush has not gone there to help to improve the people's life there or establiash democracy.His own words:"for American security"!And what qualifies America to dicatate to another country how to conduct itself while here we have worsening economy,unbelievable deficit,uncontrolled pollution, corporate greed with CEO earning obscene income irrespctive of their performance, people with no jobs,no health care,religious fundamentalists who groom children with their ideology in camps,foreclosures,corporate corruption,gang violence and so on.Now our oil companies are going to have major share in thier oil wealth!People should remember history.If we had not interfered in thier affairs and supported unscrupulous leaders in those counties to our gain,do you think those people will hate us.We ruined countries and thier economies while supporting those thugs at the expense of the people for our selfish interests.Bush made matters worse by destablizing the region with his war and policies.Now we expect them to greet us for what we did?Come on wake up guys,goback to refresh yourselves with facts from history and then you would understand.

>>James Danley ripostes: "You are ignoring two incredibly important items: 1) The U. S. Supreme Court RULED just after WWII that habeas corpus did NOT cover foreign captives held under American command outside the United States;

As you know, that decision (Johnson v. Eisentrager) was effectively overturned just this June by the Supreme Court in
Boumediene v. Bush; namely, "all prisoners detained at Guantánamo Bay are constitutionally entitled to bring habeas corpus in federal court to challenge the legality of their detention." Although it took five years to get there, the point is that it was possible, if one looked at it historically, to see that things like torture and Abu Ghraib would be *inherent* in this extra-legal process of detentions. As we know now (e.g., via Jane Mayer's *The Dark Side*), those "few bad apples" at Abu Ghraib were just the terminus of a process that began at the very top. (It's kind of ironic: they call this a "war on terror," yet no war has been declared, and all the combatants on the other side are "illegal." So who are the "legal" ones?)

James Danley>> 2) These Islamic extremists do NOT fit the Geneva Convention's definition of "prisoner of war." "

You're joking, surely. You should also know by now that Yoo's memoranda have been roundly recognized as "tortured" attempts to change the interpretation of the Conventions universally held for the past half century; even the Pentagon acknowledges that all detainees held by the US military are covered by the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions apply to *all*, not just some detainees. To wit,

"For more than half a century the conventions have laid out clear and inflexible standards on the detention and interrogation of prisoners and detainees in a war. Geneva's guidelines have long been interpreted as covering any detainee, whether combatant or civilian. As the International Committee of the Red Cross's commentary on the convention states: 'There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be considered outside the law.'"

>>James Danley: 3: "The Islamic extremists are not just a few oppressed individuals in a struggle against their oppressor. The Islamic extremists (i.e., Abu Sayyaf, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, etc.) are ARMIES of well-trained individuals with a desire to turn the entire world into their own caliphate. "

Wow, you mean they *all* want a caliphate? You'd think from their sectarian differences that Hizbollah (Shiite) and al Qaeda (Sunni) were deadly enemies (according to Juah Cole, they are: "As Shiites, the members of Hizbullah do not believe in a caliphate, unlike some sectarian Sunnis"). Hamas and most of the other groups you name are intensely concerned with local issues, and have no interest--nor ability--to think in the grandiose terms of a global caliphate. Some among the Al Quaida leadership may think in such unrealistic terms, but unrealistic is what they are: this from Der Speigel regarding a book by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein:

"Nevertheless, there is no way the scenario he [Hussein] depicts can be seen as a plan which al-Qaida can follow step by step. The terrorist network just doesn't work like that anymore. The significance of the central leadership has diminished and its direct commands have lost a great deal of importance. The supposed master plan for the years 2000 to 2020 reads in parts more like a group of ideas cobbled together in retrospect, than something planned and presented in advance. And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: the idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality . . ."

Winston Churchill - "America always does the right thing, after they've tried everything else..." Perhaps we're done trying everything else now.

President Bush has a great vision for the Middle East. But the Liberal Left hate Bush and the Republicans so much that they will never understand his vision.

A study was conducted recently which asked what people thought of certain ideals. Interestingly they approved of these ideals overwhelming. That is until they were told that these were Republican ideals. Then they overwhelmingly changed their minds.

President Bush envisions Iraq and Afghanistan becoming vibrant democracies with thriving economies and being incredible role models for their neighbors. That one day their neighbors will demand that their governments become democratic as well. But democracy alone will not work. The root of the problem--the Israeli-Palistinian conflict--must be solved. And the two-state solution, with both Israel and Palestine being democracies living side-by-side, is the only solution. But there is one additional step, one that is probably even more difficult than the other two. And that is ending the Muslim schools' indoctrination of their youth with their curricula of hatred towards Israel and Western Civilization.

For this vision to come to fruition, it will require incredible patience and determination and unfortunately much sacrifice. A peaceful Middle East cannot be achieved overnight...in a few weeks or even months. In fact it will not come to fruition in a few years. This will take at least TWO GENERATIONS to achieve. That's because there is a mindset of hatred that must be overcome.

I think the problem is that Bush & Co. aren't literate. They don't understand their own language well enough to understand that "sensitive" is not just used to describe the kind of man who is prone to cry at schmaltzy movies.

Obviously, any Republican pol with enough skill to be elected to a high position doesn't believe what they say. It's purely for the consumption of their ignorant unthinking base. It's obvious on brief reflection that terrorism can never be "defeated". You can't win, or even wage, a "war" against a tactic. This kind of ignorance is why we're in Iraq. But the Republican base will never learn this lesson.

Concerened, you wrote: "People should think with their brains and know that peace is never ever achieved through war or bullying."

War should be the last resort. But in the case of these Islamic extremists the fact that they want to destroy Western Civilization in order to turn it into their own caliphate; AND are so dedicated that they are willing to commit suicide towards that goal, means no amount of diplomacy and negotiation will appease them. Even just converting to Islam will not appease them...look at how many Muslims these extremists have killed.

Anyone else getting really sick of the John Wayne re-runs this last 8 years?

JohnWayneMen - will NEVER ask for directions. OR listen unless the idea originated from them.

And they change their names because their original ones are 'feminine' (Marion)

This genepool is the weakest link moving into the 21st Century.

Along with the Retro Rat Pack...
"I did it myyyyyyyyyy waaaaayyyy"

Yeah, you sure did, "daddy-o", and look where we are today.

"Are YOU better off than you were 4 years ago?"

Back atcha....

Tokyo2nite, you wrote: "Bush began to trot out expressions like "crusade," with announcements of establishing facilities for extra-judicial internment without even a fig leaf of habeas corpus or Geneva Conventions."

You are ignoring two incredibly important items: 1) The U. S. Supreme Court RULED just after WWII that habeas corpus did NOT cover foreign captives held under American command outside the United States; 2) These Islamic extremists do NOT fit the Geneva Convention's definition of "prisoner of war."

You also wrote: "Terror isn't a nation or even a group ('them') you can fight, nor is it new; it's merely the tactic of 'asymmetric warfare' used by the powerless against the powerful."

The Islamic extremists are not just a few oppressed individuals in a struggle against their oppressor. The Islamic extremists (i.e., Abu Sayyaf, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, etc.) are ARMIES of well-trained individuals with a desire to turn the entire world into their own caliphate.

But no coach ever inspired a team to win by asking them to be sensitive. You go for broke to win and sort it out later.

Egret57
---------------------------------------
A president is NOT a coach, and leading a country is not a football game. Otherwise we could have chosen Brett Favres for Prez.

The president of the most powerful nation in the world does not gain anything by trying to be as radical as the extremism forces he wants to fight. No one thinks that spreading democracy around the world is wrong. But to many extents, the Bush-Cheney approach was wishful thinking. No one with a real understanding of the world would have every adopted such an approach. You really have to look down on the rest of the world to think that this could have worked.

There are more people around the world that hate America today than when the war in Irak started. So the question is what have we gain despite the thousands of lost lives as well as thousands of billions?

Jake,

The last three years have been some kind of MEA CULPA period for the American press.

The main stream media thought that following a Fox-News-style news coverage was the best way not to offend the American patriotism after 9/11. They closed they eyes as Bush and Cheney compounded mistakes after mistakes. Now there is not a single day that passes by without them criticizing a lame duck president and his vice president. Does anyone really care, now?

The best lesson American journalists should learn from this is that they should never surrender the Freedom of press to a political progangada wether it is waged by a competitor or not. Freedom is priceless, and that's what lot of people love about America. Not the Fox News propangada.