No one here needs to be reminded of the consequences of war. No one here should have to be admonished about politicizing the debate about war. But Mr. President, increasingly, over the course of the last several weeks, reports have surfaced which have led me to believe that indeed there are those who would politicize this war.

... I listen to reports of the vice president, the vice president comes to fund-raisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to that fund-raiser was, "Cheney Talks About War: Electing Taft Would Aid War effort."

And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park, a computer diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy meeting in the White House and the White House. — Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote in the disk was "focus on war."

I guess right from the beginning, I felt, well, first it was pollsters, then it was White House staff, and then it was the vice president, and all along I was asked, are you concerned about whether or not this war is politicized, and my answer on every occasion was yes. And then the follow-up question is, is the White House politicizing the war? And I said without question, I can't bring myself to believe that it is. I can't believe any president or any administration would politicize the war.

But then I read in the paper this morning. Now, even the president. The president is quoted in The Washington Post this morning as saying that Democratic -- the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people. Not interested in the security of the American people? You tell Senator Inouye he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War Two they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous, outrageous.

The president ought to apologize to Senator Inouye and every veteran who fought in every war who is a Democrat in the United States Senate. He ought to apologize to the American people. That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war in life and death.

I was in Normandy just last year. I've been in national cemeteries all over this country, and I have never seen anything but stars, the Star of David, and crosses on those markers. I have never seen Republican and Democrat.

This has got to end, Mr. President. We've got get on with the business of our country. We've got to rise to a higher level. Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We've got to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now.

So, Mr. President, it's not too late it end this politicization. It's not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fund-raisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are, and let's get this job done right, let's rise to the occasion. That's what American people are expecting. And we ought to give them no less. _________________________________________________________

At last, real impassioned truth in contrast to smarmy, smirky innuendo. And on the same day, it's announced that real middle-class income is down and poverty is up for the first time in 11 years.

The Democrats, not the Republicans, are politicizing the Home Security Bill.

DougR

I am a voting, card carrying Republican. I used to be proud to say that but not now. The President is leading us into an unwanted and unwarrented war with a country just because his father couldn't do it. The rest of the world thinks we are crazy. They think that we are big bullies and now I have to agree that we are. I have written to both my Senators and my Congressman and asked them to do what they can to stop this "war." It has nothing to do with Homeland Security and everything to do with politics.

Amy

But I'm glad that Junior is taking a few shots. He's the entire nation in the corner, pounding away for 13 months now, with his "my way or the highway/ you're either with us or against us" crap and... hey, he don't happen to have the market captured on patriotism!

I hope that stanglehold is broken now and the country can go back to disagreeing with Junior without being branded a demon or traitor. This has been a sad 13 months of American history and absolutely disgracefull. Hey, I may be Greenie, but good for Tom Daschle. Now maybe some of the others will come out from underneath their beds and face tomorrow as a day of possibilities rather than another day to be browbeaten by a thief.

Bobert

Just Amy...Thanks for letting these guys know what you think. It will surely carry more weight (unfortunately) coming from a R than a D.

And I think Daschle's last point that graves are not marked by political affiliation is important, and stands on it's own.

You, who champion the right of free expression so eloquently are telling me to shut up?

Isn't the right to debate and question, what you and those who share your belief are criticizing the President for?

If this forum is to become a haven only for those of you who believe you are always right, and those that believe the way I do are always wrong, why don't you all petition Max to ban posts for the like of me? That way you could all just support each other, because there would be no one around to challenge you! That would be a comfortable position to be in I suppose, but I rather enjoy hearing your sides point of view, and would miss it if I could not participate. Nevertheless, were Max to tell me I'm no longer welcome, and that my POV is not welcome. I'd leave. But as long as I am here, I will post when I want to whatever thread I want. I'm a bit surprised by your post, but mostly disappointed.

DougR

Mick wasn't tellin' you to shut up but he was telling you that we're tired of being told to shut up. Get it? Can't you just for one moment of your life look at how folks on the other side might feel after 13 months of being told to shut up?

Hey, you're my friend and it is so difficult to say these things to you because I like arguing with you, but I don't ever want you to be personally offended and believe me, no personal offense was intended.

Bobert

But there have been several posts from folks who happen to think that Bush is doing this great job that have eluded to America showing to be soft during Clinton's term and that was part of the cause of 9-11. This perception has been thrown around on several occasions by folks whose memories are as sharp as their intent on making Bush look good.

What I'm leading up to here is Beruit, April 18th, 1983 under Reagan's watch when the US embassey was bombed and 63 people were killed and, if that didn't send a message, Beruit, October 23rd the same year when a Marine barracks was bombed killing 242 Marines.

I don't know why this feels like the right time to bring these things up but it's been in my mind and it just never seemed patriotic to bring these very sad events up without over politicizing my arguements.

I would hope that we don't have to listen to the "Democrats are soft on terrorism" crap anymore and you folks know who I am speaking to on this one...

No matter, I'm still a Greenie. Just like level playing fields.

Bobert

Art reported the quote correctly. Bush did not say "The democratically controlled senate" and he was not talking about the war with Iraq. The Democrats are scared to death they are going to lose their majority in the senate. I don't blame them. I hope they do! But I think when they point the finger at the republicans and cry fowl and accuse them of politicizing the war, it's the pot calling the kettle black. If they were truly interested in Homeland Security, why wouldn't Daschle allow the Graham/Miller amendment to the Homeland Security Bill, which has the approval of the White House, come to a vote? The only amendment he will allow to come to a vote is one that was drafted by members of his own party.

It's not that I mind getting dumped on Bobert, I'm use to that. I do think the forum would be less interesting, however, if only one point of view was presented. Just my opinion of course.

DougR

If elderly memory serves me correctly, I have seen relatively little criticism of Republicans per se, but rather criticism of the illiterati who now compose the administration. Colin Powell, the only man of conscience and wisdon in this cabal has long been strung up by the puppeteers.

This administration is totally bereft of any shred of humanity -- Tom

DougR

DougR

troll

Let's keep talking, not shouting.

Peace, Blues

No, there's no stifling of debate here in these United States that I can see!?!?

Art Thieme

so, Saddam is doing everything in his power to get us to fire the first shots?

or, Bush is doing everything in his power to get the Democrats to fire the first shot?

I don't get the connection.

I think that the debate has shifted over the last 24 hours more toward a slower approach. Tom Daschle, though, has boxed himself into a corner with his dsire to get the resolution thru Congress quickly si the Bush won't have have it become the center piece of the election. Bad move on Dsacle's part but given his recent speech on patiotism, I'm looking for him to do an about face over the course of the next two or three days and say something to the effect of: " We have to let democracy work here, and my constituants are telling me that we're moving too fast."

No matter, there is no doubt that the Bush war wagon just hit a speed bump. And there's now doubt there are a few more out there looking to be hit...

Bobert

Those people on the other side seem to do a great deal of praying. Let us pray that their god will show them the error of their ways so that, pending that time, we can get them out in the open where they may serve as proper targets.

Exactly so, Doug! I would not presume to speak for Big Mick (nor for that matter does he necessarily speak for me), but perhaps in the heat of the moment he did not chose his words as carefully as he might have.

I feel that the purpose of debate is to hear and consider other viewpoints and to stimulate thought. Please don't "lay off." In the words of the not-so-immortal MacBeth, "Lay ON. . . !

Don Firth

With that said, your generalizations about people and their motives, I hold a different opinion. The world is not all black and white, good and evil. I don't think it is fair to say that the "aim of the Palestinians is to erase Isreal" because there is an implication that *all* Palestinians want to erase Isreal and this is not true. Most Palestinians are moderate in their beliefs and interpret jahad as man's "struggle" to to be good people in the eyes of Allah, just as their counterparts in the Christain world work on becoming good people thru confession, forgiveness and the Bible's instructions to "sin no more".

I partially agree with you that fundamentalists on both sides of the divide would like to have all conflict blamed on religious differences. But this dog don't hunt either. There are economic differences. There a foriegn policy differences. There are cultural difference. Educational differences and lots of other differences that can't be blamed on religion.

Bobert

So, yes, until we develop inclusionary foriegn and econmic policies towards the rest of the world, we will continue to have more Saddam's and Bin Ladens, both of whom used to be our buddies before we closed the doors on them.

Bobert

Iraq is governed by a secular government. Most of the "opposition" forces in Iraq ARE Islamic fundamentalists. Saddam can't stand the fundamentalists and they can't stand him.

You may want Saddam to take a long walk off a short plank, but you can't pin that one on him.

I would agree, except for one thing. Weapons of mass destruction.

In the "old" days weapons that would cause the large number of deaths in a population were not as readily available as they are today.

If Iraq has WMDs, and we are all aware that Saddam did not hesitate, in the past, to use them as he did with his own people and the Iranians, then we would have to be prepared to lose thousands of lives, possibly, before we could respond. I hate the idea of our attacking first. But it is a very close call, in my opinion. These times, they are not only a-changing, they have already changed beyond anything we might have imagined even ten years ago. If the president determines through intelligence sources that Saddam has the bomb, or the means to even deliver Anthrax, Smallpox, or any other dread disease that might kill thousands of Americans or ANY of our allies, then I think we may have to go after him first.

Ideally, the weapons inspectors will be allowed back in under very stringent rules that Saddam cannot tamper with, and the answer to the question of whether or not Iraq has WMD might be answered. If they can be located and destroyed, the question of our invading Iraq is a moot point.

Don thanks for the kind words.

DougR

And Dougie is coming 'round nicely, I'd say. A few more months and we'll have him marchin' on the front lines for peace.

And Thomas, bless his heart, is still trying to rhyme his way thru the labrinth.

But, Nicole? Now that's a different story. I'm glad I appointed her Secretary of Peace because she's up to the task of hangin' with the big dogs when it comes to the real deal, you know, ahhh... the facts.

Speaking of which, anyone else feelin' like since Daschle stepped out on the limb, Junior's chain saw just got real dull...

Or is it my imagination?

Yeah, I listend to an hour of C-SPAN tonoght on the way home from work and it seemed like the Democrats (yeah, I know, who would have thunk it?...)were laying some wood to Powell and asking some real tough questions, many of which Powell didn't quite have answers for. Especially, the one about waht the US plans on doing in Iraq after they boot Saddam.... Hmmmmmmmmm? Make room for one more star on the flag, boys... Jus funnin'. Kinda...

What is the plan?

Bobert

Bobert

If he were cozy with a bunch of fundamentalists, who by and large are a lot more suicidal than the rest of us, I'd be concerned. Truth is, Saddam doesn't want the fundamentalists getting their hands on his stash of weapons, of MD or just conventional ones, because they're far more likely to turn them against him than the US.

Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment --

Hypothetically speaking, if we kicked out Saddam, do you REALLY think all those biological weapons and such he is supposed to have would ALL get destroyed? Hell no. Any one of the opposition groups, and probably several of them, would try and get their paws on them and stash them away.

Opposition groups which have shown themselves to be a lot less interested in protecting their own rear's than Saddam is.

Opposition groups which not only disagree with the basics of American democracy (that we are theoretically defending), but agree a lot with folks that are very unfriendly to us.

So 5 years from now, we not only don't have the relatively stable and self-interested Saddam, instead we have in power a set of warlords whoare a lot less stable. Who also have WMD.

Who also have ties to groups that are likely to want to use them against us.

Can you think of a scenario more likely to make the US LESS safe?

{hypothetical scenario off}

So now Rumsfeld is trotting the al Qaeda card. Ummm... you know, it's awfully convenient to "find" evidence now when your attack plans aren't going so well. Watch the bouncing birdie -- he's very careful not to lie when he says this.

From Reuters: ""We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities," Rumsfeld told reporters."

Very convenient. So convenient, in fact, that I can't bring myself to believe a word of it. Didn't I just say two days ago that if the administration was hell-bent on war they'd be willing to lie about an Iraq connection to 9/11? (And two days ago I gave them the benefit of the doubt about their motives because they hadn't. Damn optimism.)

Meanwhile, Bush was at yet another Republican fundraiser. Flitting around the country going to high priced dinners is not exactly convincing me than we're in imminent danger of attack.

Bobert: I don't have to hug Mick (not that I wouldn't). He knows I respect, and like him. We just view political things from opposite directions. I know as a dedicated Democrat he feels as keenly about his political positions as I do mine.

Mick: I would not have objected to Senator Daschle's remarks had he quoted President Bush correctly. Bush NEVER said the Democrats were less patriotic than Republicans. Yet even today he is being quoted in the main stream press as having said it. Even responsible Democrats are STILL quoting him as having said it. Quoting a lie, over and over does not make it true.

I listend to the Diane Rhemes show on PNR this morning. At the close of her first hour she announced that her program's guests (and her) would discuss the president's statement that Democrats were not patriotic on her Monday show. See what I mean? One could conclude that the Democrats are not interested in setting the record straight. Were I cynic, I might even think so. :>)

As to following my party's line, it is conceivable that I might feel that you are doing the same. Perhaps both of us believe as we do, without concern about what our parties preach.

DougR

DougR

Nicole: I think Bush moving around the country like he is is the smart thing to do. That makes him a moving target. Anyway, his quest is in the best interest of the country. He's trying to get more Republicans elected. :>)

DougR

And I've asked here before for someone to define WMD. This term gets thrown around as if everyone thinks that everyone else knows what they are, but when I ask, no one, especially those who want to go to war over them, ahhhh, actually know what they are. (How about a big hmmmmmm, here, Bobert.) Okay, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

And how about Kennedy's speech today, folks? Now I'm not a Repubocrat but I'm real glad to see a little resistence by anyone willing to be branded a demon or unpatriotic that's willing to ask the tough questions. That's what democracy used to be all about. Heck, the Repubs fired away at Clinton for 8 years on just about any issue they wanted but now that Bush is in the White House (by dubious means) you all are sueeling like stuck pigs if the other side just tries to exercise its duty to democracy by asking questions. Hmmmmmmmm? Looks to me like a big ol' case of hypocracy. And I don't like Dems much more than Repubs. Just an observation.

Bobert

I think there would be no confusion if one were to stick with what he said, rather than trying to serve as an interpreter.

DougR

Now I go out and rent a Ryder truck and fill it with cow maure and kerosene and blow up a building killing, oh, 200 people, well, and that's not a WMD. Right. Or what if I take a conventional bomb. like every country in the universe has at least one of and drop it on the Super Bowl. Is that a WMD? Hmmmmmmmm? Now I wouldn't do any of that stuff because I'm a peacefull kind a feller, but someone might....

I'm still a little fuzzy on this thing. Smallpox, though I may not have the abilitiy to infect many folks with an AG Plane is a WMD but aVolkswagen filled with gasoline cans and lit on fire in the Holland Tunnel ain't. Right?

Hmmmmmmmm? Think this is gonna take a few evenings with the Wes Ginny slide rule.... Danged...

Bobert

You could also build a nuke and it not expolode on impact -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them very, very seriously.

Think about what I'm saying in context to those folks Hell bent on war and the excuses they will be using over the coming months to justify their thirst for blood.

This is not a fluke question but a real one that needs to be discussed. I mean, if we go into Iraq and destroy every thing with a barrel then it's like taking one's outdoor cat to the vet to have it's claws removed.

Bobert

The dramatization was chillingly authentic and they kept placing disclaimers at each comercial break.

The city was not mentioned, but it was one with a major transit system (Boston? Baltimore?) A glass jar containing anthrax spores was thrown under the tracks of a subway train at rush hour. The idea was that a great many people would be infected right away by breathing in these spores. These people would spread spores to their workplaces. Those people who were travelling by plane would spread spores in the airport, to workers, flight attendants and other passengers bound for any number of destinations.

Within the city itself, massive catastrophic illness strains the capabilities of hospitals within a matter of days. Antibiotics supplies are exhausted very quickly and rioting breaks out at hopsitals when people cannot obtain them. The local news affiliates have surprisingly little information brought down from the federal level although the city is declared a disaster area. Rumors run rampant in the media about outbreaks in other areas and smaller populations being affected. Still the federal government has not confirmed that this was an intentional terrorist effort.

As more and more people die, shopfronts stay closed and the infrastructure breaks down. Massive hoarding of food and supolies occurs, followed soon after by looting. Martial law takes over, you better believe it. Public utilities go unrepaired. Corpses pile up in the hospital and morge because there are not enough people to dispose of them in the usual manner. Mass graves are dug and bodies are tossed into pits to avoid yet another public health threat from exposure to rotting human corpses.

Roughly 80% of this city's population is dead within ten days. The communicability of this particular form of anthrax insures that similar mortality will affect other urban areas, as it is only a matter of time. Perhaps this goes without saying but there is no vaccine (at least not available to the general public) and the public health workers and doctors are among the first to die...

It is communicability that is a major factor here; spores which can travel through the air and be transmitted from person to person through inhalation...spores which can survive in the air for more than a few hours...and of course, if the bacilli from other highly-communicable diseases were released in this manner (tuberculosis, bubonic plague, smallpox, measles) at the very least a great portion of the population (those at risk with compromised immune systems) would be decimated...

Yes, the bubonic plague is back; it has been discovered among several homeless populations in major cities in the last few years...cases of tuberculosis are also on the rise among these populations (albeit this one generally can be cured if the person was relatively healthy to begin with). Both are highly communicable.

It is only a matter of time.

Some of us read Stephen King's novel The Stand a few years ago and dismissed it as scary but implausible science fiction. I fear it is no longer just a story.

We CAN cure bubonic plague if you catch in the first couple of days, but if you failed to pay attention in history class, you don't know what they are.

A bunch of people are crammed into a telephone booth. Two of these people hate each other. One attacks the other with a hand grenade.

Don Firth

And ya' know what, with all the expertise and intellegence here, I'm still not sure. How about tear gas and pepper spray. How about mortars and granades. How about machine guns.

Bobert