Talk Elections

The Democrats have, since 2000, been getting angrier and angrier at the GOP and later independents. It all started with the Recount. Not the impeachment- that was added onto the list later my demagogic revisionists.

Then there was the 11th, when the most liberal Dem watched Bush with respect and admiration grab that bullhorn. "I can hear you! The whole world can hear you! And the people who knocked those towers down will be hearing from us real soon." The nation cheered the Patriot Act, the whole country listened with approval as Bush announced that rogue states were terrorists as much as the terrorists themselves.

We went to war with the Taliban. RW Apple's first quagmirish piece came out. Everyone still supported the president officially. But the very lefty among us began to feel uncomfortable. They couldn't oppose the war, but the brief surge of patriotism was draining from them adn they were revolted by their own proud American feelings, the sort that has marginalized partisanship in WW2.

After the war they began to vent. The war was strategically brilliant and morally praiseworthy, but we had failed to secure the peace. The nation was rampant with guerillas. This was true, and nobody really noticed that anything was too amiss.

But Vietnam syndrome cannot be cured as simply as Lost Generation syndrome was cured by Pearl Harbor. It was too deep and too fundamentally anti-American. By the time, an entire year later, Bush wanted to take on the next rogue terror mastermind, Saddam Hussein, liberals were remembering that Bush has "stolen" the election.The majority of lefty politicians tepidly supported the war. But their oen support was decaying. Eventually straddling the divide was the worst choice of all. Lefty idealogues that Dems had betrayed them with their pseudo-patriotism, And the GOP and moderate independents realized the Dems had dumped the idea of bipartisan pro-Americanship against our common enemy. So, in 2002, we dumped them.

Now, the presidential election was heating up. Daschle and increasingly Kerry sounded anti-American, pro-France, and at least sympathetic to Baathism, PLO, etc. They made up the ridiculous idea we were not at war with terror sponsors, or even terrorism itself persay, but merely with Al-Qaeda.

Then came a horrid shock to all lib idealogues. We finally went to war with Iraq and 3/4 Americans felt it was the right thing to do. Now, in case any of you haven't figured it out yet, WMD was just an unsuccessful ploy to get France to go along with us. It was outweiged by France's Iraqi debt, oil contracts, personal involvement with Saddam's WMD, etc. We went to wwar with Saddam because of 9/11. No, Saddam didn't plan. He may have given them operational support through Prague embassy, but that really wasn't the point. We went after Saddam because he was a.) a terror sponsor, and b.) a brutal dictator, whose removal wouyld spark a domino effect in the Mideast. (BTW, it has- see Bahrein, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, UAE, Morocco, Egypt, even Saudi steps toward democracy. Also Israel's improving relations w/ many Arab states.)

So post war the dems were mad as hell and they wanted no more of it. Bush was a liar, we went to war for noreason, or oil, or to gain a colony (huh?), or as parrt of an evil Zionist conspiracy, or cause they just liked war, or because Bush was really stupid, or even all of the above.

All this without our little friend Howie, the darling of the media and academia (whose views he shares completely). So where's he come from? Lurch's pride.

Yes, Lurch. (Althought to me he more closely resembles Sam the Eagle.) Little Howard Dean, an angry yippie and an absolute nobody, started attacking Kerry. Kerry, he claimed, supported war with Iraq and then turned around and opposed it. He, Dean, had always opposed it. This was nectar and ambrosia to dogmatic Dems. But they wouldn't have heard a bit of it. After all, Graham had a similar campaign that never caught on, and he was a sitting senator from an important state.

Suddenly, Senator Kerry takes off the gloves, saying furiously that he has an impressize war resume and a proud record of public service, so bug off, you little twit. Suddenly people saw Dean. And more and more of 'em liked what they saw.

So Dean moves further and further to the left, and rich yippies are giving him millions. Kerry just swerves left in a vain attempt to catch up with him. Everyone else also moves leftand gets angrier. So now it looks like the choice for Dems is Dean or Dean clones. Around this time Vilsack announces Dean is part of a top tier. Time Magazine picks this up and suddenly everyone knows Dean's name.

Now, Joe isn't taken in. The media can't stand him. He had a few brownie points for being Gore's running mate and nobly waiting to see if Gore would run for pres (which of course he wouldn't, knowing he would lose clearly this time.) Joe gets a few good punches in defending Israel. The media barely mentions this. When they do, the spin is that Lieberman is the negative one for bashing Dean for bashing Bush, and suddenly Joe's candidacy disappears.

Clinton, Hillary, Gore, and McAuliffe are getting more and more worried. The coalition Clinton had brought together and made the strongest political power in the nation was fracturing. it was spinning off to the left, and Bill knew he had to avert disaster, by any means necessary.

Enter Wesley Clark. The general, a lifelong Republican who never got along at all with Clinton, let the Russkis take Pristina airport (which they still hold), and can't make up his mind on a single issue, suddenly gets a lot of media buzz. Why? He's swarming with Clintonites. And he goes... nowhere. Ouch. Every speech he makes has a new wacky foreign policy idea, and all the while he says presidential candidates shouldn't make foreign policy decisions. He's not even a good speaker. So he sinks like a stone.

Some effort now gets pumped into Edwards campaign, which was on life support. A formerly working class Southron with, uh, "great" hair, he briefly had a lot of media buzz several months back. Then people figured out he was a broken record with a single line: "My father used to work in a sawmill with lint in his hair and grease in his face." This was his answer to every question from, "why not wait till 2008?", to, "how would you deal with North Korea?" Where that'll go, we have yet to see. But it doen't look too encouraging.

Then we have Dick Gephardt. Oh, boy. The man who kept getting a few more seats in the House and a few more and then... 2002 disaster. The darling of organized labor, whose components are going Dean. The caucus is going to be on a below zero January evening. Who would motivate you to go out and "chill" with your fellow partisans, and nominate your candidate? The entertaining little doctor, with his strongly held radical positions and his fury? Or Richard Gephardt, who was serious concerns about the poposed FTAA? Um, yeah...

Well, at this point I'd call Howie unstoppable. Thoughts?

Look... either you f*** off back to "Free" Republic or some other hell-hole, or you engage in serious discussion and stop clogging the board up with your partizan stupidity.

Thank you

you can politicize 9/11 all you want, it is the gift that keeps giving for republicans.

I think America is starting to tire of the fear mongering. The approval rating is somewhere between 48-53, the unnamed Dem is breathing down Dubya's neck.

It won't be Dean. Our party has made a ton of mistakes over the past 3 years, walked through alot of Rove minefields. But we're not dumb enough to run Howard Dean.

Could you please give me specific places you disagree so I can debate it with you. It's a little difficult to reasonably debate a personal insult.

I mean this post for serious discussion. These are my ideas, and I'm interested in hearing other viewpoints.

I don't deny you the right to your ideas. I may not agree with them, but you are absolutely welcome to discuss them here or anywhere else.

you talk big. Almost as if Bush is still polling at 70%!!! lol

The Democratic field is strong, and every candidate can compete with Bush (except Dean, but even he's at 39-40%) The key here is to take the attention off the bumbling fool in the white house and launch and all out smear campaign against the candidates. Lucky we have so many otherwise it would be even more concentrated. But many are still more qualified to be President than Bush, even after 4 years in office (or make that 2 years in office and 2 in crawford)

Are Dems angry? you bet. But with Gephardt we have the best of both worlds, we have the anger, and somebody who can appeal to the Deanie liberals.....if they give him a chance. He's a well rounded candidate.

Gad, that hurts, the politicizing 9/11 charge. Did FDR politicize Pearl Harbor by calling it a day of infamy and going to war?

But you're right, Dean is a Rove trap for the Dems. And it looks like you're going to walk blingly into it.

The GOP's best move here is to play absolutely Machiavellian, and allow the Dems to make fools of themselve.

As stated before, I like Joe Lieberman. I also like John McCain and Rudi and Arnold. I'm a social liberal, lean to wards conservative on economics, and a Wilsonian on foreign policy. When I debate political opponents, they give me their take on prescription drugs, and I may disagree but I understand their views, but annyone who mimics Chamberlain today is worse than he is because they have him as an example.

I keep being one post behind! Yeah, Gephardt would be a fairly strong candidate. If you can nominate him.

D majority, thank you for being civil and not personally insulting me.

Hey, I have nothing against the war(or conflict or whatever you want to call it) in Afghanistan. I would have rather sent more troops and resources there to finish the job. Of course we can't now with the war in iraq spreading us thin.

I do believe (and I won't admit it to my lib friends) that Saddam had some trace amounts of WMD, not sufficient to go to war with him but something at least. We couldn't sell the war with mass graves because the american people don't care....the only way was with WMD.

9/11 and WW2, no comparison at all. We were not attacked by an army, but by an ideology. The Taliban wasn't exactly preparing to storm the jersey shore if you know what I mean....

winning the war on terror with few allies will prove to be difficult. Israel is a crucial ally, and the rising tide of anti semitism in Europe is very troubling.

I agree with everything you said, except that, in my view, the most important aspect of WW2 was as a battle of ideologies, a battle between freedom and fear like the present as opposed to a battle for land.

You have the perfect right to disagree with me. I admit I may be wrong. I just take offense to the idea that I'm just spouting partisan crap and should remove myself from the forum. Shame on you, Realpolitik!

Maybe we should have a recall election, to see if you should stay in the forum...

You may not agree with some of my ideas, and that's fine. But I have the right to express them.

Voltaire: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death!

Demrepdan, that's a good one! You should post it in the humor forum.

M-

You have been cloging the board with rants.  You can express your views-but the last few posts I have read from you have been unreadable.

Nice user name, by the way.

I honestly swear this wasn't meant as a rant, but rereading it I see how it may have been taken that way. Partly because it's so long; once I start up I don't kno where to stop. I'm sorry I gave that impression.

Actually, I would be interested in debating any of the points brought up in this article if anyone will challenge me specifically.

M -

I agree with most of what you said.  It was expressed pretty strongly, but it's hard to find too much fault with the facts you laid out.

It seems that some of the Democrats have a reflexive anti-Americanism that seems to fill some emotional need.  I haven't heard Mr. Dean say a word about how he would protect us from further attacks, which could be much worse than the Sept. 11 attacks if a dirty bomb or chemical weapons are used.

The Democrats seem to have a continuing Vietnam complex.  They think we have chosen this war, and can quit it at our leisure without dangerous consequences to ourselves.  This mentality strikes me as so childish, and a transparent psychological dodge of reality.

Joe Lieberman is the only one who has not run away from his support of the Iraq War.  It's just pitiful.

Daz, thanks for your vote of confidence! It was pretty strongly worded, but it contained no personal attacks or deliberate falsehoods.

There if realpolitik would like to discuss a specific issue, such as the nature of the war or a certain candidate's strenght and weaknesse, then I would like to do so.

I'm still perplexed by Dean's growing popularity.  I expected Gephart, Kerry or even Clarke to be leading the field by now.  I read a lot of other blogs and most of Dean's supporters are highly committed.  Some are even moving to Iowa or NH for a few months to help w/ GOTV operations!
Perhaps he really encapsulates the persona of the Democrat party today? Some are seeing this election like 1964 was for the GOP - the true believers will seize the party, resulting in short term losses but long term gains.

Well I think Dean was very brave to challenge the war as wrong, because the reason for it even to this day remains unclear, and it is a very deep testament to the problems in American society that most Americans don't seem troubled by this. However, a Republican landslide like the Democrat 1964 landslide would be very terrible and I feel as if Dean is going to be a huge problem for the Democrats, not only next year, but for the next five years if he loses the next year's election.

M, I must very strongly disagree with you. In my view, your post represents a very common problem in many Americans' thinking. They fail to distinguish between the anti-war left and the anti-American left. Who are the latter? The vast majority are foreigners and a small minority are radicals.

Who are the former? The former are mostly Americans who, believe it or not, do not actually hate themselves, or the country they live in. We see that there is something very fundamentally wrong in the way our country is going. For one thing, the level of public debate and dialogue has reached a nadir not seen since the mudslinging campaigns of the late 19th century. Maybe some of us were disturbed when a woman who suggested killing all muslim leaders and converting them to Christianity, and that liberals have been wrong about everything in the past 50 years (hmm, that would include civil rights too, wouldn't it?), goes to #1 on the NY Times list and becomes a respectable commentator. Maybe some were even more disturbed when we realized that political commentary had become little more than a 4-minute shouting match for entertainment purposes, but that these 4-minute spectacles were now shaping public opinion. Maybe some of us were a little disturbed when our President and his entire administration hammered home in a very serious manner their very serious fear that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to us, that he had WMD, and that he nuclear weapons, and, although we knew nothing about Iraq in the summer of 2002 that we did not know in October 2001 or 2000 or 1999, and although there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11, he used it to justify the first completely unprovoked offensive ground invasion in our proud nation's history. Maybe some people were a little disturbed when, after it became apparent that no WMD were to be found, the administration blew the matter off, admitting they may never be found, but did not care.

Maybe we were a little disturbed that, at a time of a global war on terror, Bush showed no regard for, and led a rift between, members of the civilized world. It was Lincoln who said, "A house divided cannot stand." He was talking about our country, but today the house is the civilized world, as opposed to the forces of terror and a few "rogue" states.

Maybe we were a little disturbed at domestic issues. Bush came in after a very close election in which he ran as a "compassionate conservative" and said "I am a uniter, not a divider". Instead, he seems to have tried to steamroller the majority of Americans who did not vote for him, and not just after 9/11. Most Americans support strong environmental regulations; Bush opposed them and pulled out of the Kyoto treaty. Most Americans saw Europe and Russia in a positive light; Bush scrapped the ABM treaty in a naked display of indifference that undermined 20 years of arms control efforts. After 9/11 he opposed a Department of Homeland security until revelations of intelligence lapses began to recieve signifcant news coverage; then he tried to take credit for it. After the collapse of Enron and Worldcom, the Bush SEC barely pursued those involved, resulting in a significant dearth of actual punishments. Bush has pushed through three huge tax cuts in three years and demoted America's budget position by some $650 billion. The majority of this money goes towards a very small minority of top income earners in the U.S. He has awarded companies connected to Vice President Cheney 'non-competitive' contracts in Iraq. He has supported massive media consolidation, despite being opposed by the public 50%-7%. Now the Republican Congress has just pushed through a Christmas list for special interests in health care, and plans to do so for energy next year and undoubtedly social security in the future.

The political situation is more polarized than ever and the power of the executive has grown more disproportionately since Nixon's imperial presidency, if even that. The American people have been led into a war of very questionable integrity. That is not a reason to vote for an anti-American. You would be hard pressed to find one in the field of candidates. But it is a reason to vote for a candidate who at least questioned the war, and who will truly be a uniter.

As for your screen name, M...being a huge fan of New Wave music, I can't see your posts without thinking of the song "Pop Muzik".....

I really do not intend to come across as some foaming at the mouth radical, and I want to smokum peace pipe with y'all. Ok, Beet, I see what you are saying about many of your points. It is true that we do need more debate in this country. Personally I feel GWB made a mistake even making the issue be WMD, which was not the point at all- the point was fighting terror and the expansion of worldwide democracy.

I agree the split is a tragedy, but I believe this is the fault of the current French government, which has dirty interests in the Arab World, is notoriously anti-American and anti-Semitic (not just anti-Israeli), and currently leading a drive for an EU constitution that would decrease its responsiveness to democracy.

And, unlike Ms. Coulter, I do not pardon every Republican in history or villify every Democrat. As a matter of fact, I think LBJ was a greater leader than Ike or Nixon, although most people of both parties hate him.

So, while I disagree with you on several points, I agree that they are just differences of opinion and not fundamentally anti-American. The reference to anti-Americanness in my article referred to "Vietnam-syndrome". By this I meant the people who oppose all wars involving the USA out of hand and who always seem to support the USA's enemies in wars. These likely are often a small minority, but they are very powerful. I do think that either Dean is one of these or he is strongly influenced by them. Many of his supporters are.

This article was, in fact, my attempt to chronicle the rise of Howie and not to villify him specifically. In fact, what worries me most about Dean is that, as a Zionist, I am very uncomfortable with his feeling that the MidEast's only democracy somehow deserves the same level of respect and consideration as a terrorist organization (the PLO). This, I think, is also part of the same idea of all nations being equal morally, the idea behind the UN.

Your idea of the civilized (by which I take it you mean democratic) world as a single house I find fascinating. I think it is an ideal that is not yet fully realized, but, b"h, it'll happen before too long. Our most significant conflicts with nations like France are generally over how to treat the remaining world dictatorships. I believe that once all world nations are free, there will, in fact, be no more war. This is the biggest reason I support any war to remove a tyrant like Milosevic or Saddam.

My feelings are similar to those of our good ally Tony Blair, who said (not exact words): "Why are we only going after Saddam? Why not Mugabe, or the Burmese lot. You can't always get 'em, but when you can, you should.

See what I mean? You just claim things without really backing them up. I'm sorry, but calling the government of another free world country 'anti-American and anti-Semitic' is a pretty harsh thing to say.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that France's motives on Iraq or the EU constitution are altruistic in some way. Heck, I'm not that naive. But you're simply using extremes to prove a point.

And that's generally one problem I have with the neocons: you oversimplify complex geopolitical situations. You regard anyone who disagrees with Bush is anti-American. You regard anyone who disagrees with Ariel Sharon as anti-Semitic. Objectivity doesn't seem to enter the equation there.

Of course you can feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm yet to be convinced that you can distinguish between patriotism and nationalism.

Anyway, have a nice day. Happy Thanksgiving!

Damn, it's amazing---

Being anti-war in America today and being label anti-American.  Where's Phil Ochs when you need him....

Look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun, tell me if it's worth it all.

These primaries were designed to bring the presidential nomination process more"democracy".  They were also "front loaded" to produce a quick winner.  If Dean captures the prize by early March then Democrats should be happy-the system worked the way it was designed.  So what will "anti-Dean" Democrats do then? Support someone who could drag down the party in other down ballot races? Or try to deny him the nomination?  

Ok, I can prove France is antisemitic! Easy as pie. Let me just search the web and find a suitable article. Ah! Here we go:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031122/325/eenkd.html

And yes, nearly all who oppose official Israeli policy without even mentioning the fact that the other side is ten times worse in any category (Syrian tyranny, Arafat terror, etc.) is clearly an anti-Semite. I, for example, do not like the security fence, or the demolition of the homes of terrorists. But I do know that the Arab despotisms are far worse. Those who leave that part out (UN, EU, Media, Academia) are indeed exhibiting antisemitism.

On the EU, I have no problem with the idea, even if the resulting Union because the most powerful nation on Earth. I do have a problem with the fact that the proposed constitution weakens the elected European parliament and strengthens an unelected commission.

As for anti-Americansim, Chirac constantly refers to the EU as a counterweight to the unilateralist USA publicly. He also seems to be courting a Franco-Russo-Sino-Arab alliance. However, only the particularly nasty Moslem regimes (especially Iran and Syria) seem interested. Schroeder sided with Chirac to win an election, now his popularity is down the drain (partly on economy, but also because he weakenedrtant relationship without any apparent gain for Germany. The only nation that truly sided with France is the same Belgian government that attempted to try Bush, Blair, and Sharon for war crimes.

You'll be interested to know that I do, in fact, do view France as an American ally, and I think our relations will pick up again. One will also notice that a significant pro-American movement has arisen at home inFrance. One of its leaders is the famous French philosopher Henri-Bernard Levy. But is absurd for the stance of the Champs d'Elysee to dictate American policy.

The difference between nationalism and patriotism is a subtle one, and it's been debated by scholars for a long time. Bu a patriot supports his nation because of the ideal of the nation, not its racial/cultural character. A patriot is in many ways an ideologue.

A proud American nationalist would say, "We are the nation of American English speakind cultural Yankees! In the name of the glory of our people, we must unite all who are culturally Anglo and spread our culture around the world!" We get accused of this a lot, but you rarely run into anyone advocating this platform!

A proud American patriot says, "America is the land of freedom. It is our duty to spread the ideal of freedom around the world. Anyone can be an American, they merely must believe in the fundamental rightness of freedom." In this sense, a Soviet communist ideaogue might be closer to a patriot then a nationalist.

OK, what have we won with the sabre an the gun? You'd be surprised:

American revolution: The birth of the Republic, which was to make freedom the dominant force on Earth. The beginning of the fall of monarchy.

French Revolution/Age of Napoleon/1848: For all of its failures, horrors, and dictatorship, at last the idea of democracy and self-governmnt spread in Europe, to Monarchy's detriment.

Civil War: the end of slavery, the federalisation of the nation we would need to face the monstrosities the next hundred years would bring.

WWI: The fall of imperialism and divine right of kings as dominant political movements.

WWII: The single most important and justified war of all time, and the reason that I think anyone who question all war out of hand must be some kind of sicko. The defeat of Nazism, fascism, and Japanese Imperialism.

Cold War, including Korea and, yes, Viet Nam: The defeat of communism. The Soviet Union was, in fact, an evil empire, one of the most monstrous regimes of all time.

War on terror: B"h, the defeat of Baathism, radical Wahhabism, and radical Shi'ism, and the subsequent decay of the power of nasty despots across the mideast.

Was the world necessarily better off because all of these wars happened? Not necessarily. But you cannot deny that there are wars that are morally right. Anyone who rejects war out of hand, I refer to Thicydides: "War is an evil thing, but to submit to the dictation of other states is worse...
Freedom, if we hold fast to it, will ultimately restore our losses, but submission
will mean permanent loss of all that we value... To you who call yourselves men of peace,
I say: You are not safe unless you have men of action on your side."

Realpolitik, I must say I'm shocked at the above post. Quite frankly I would have expected more of you; that was quite beneath your level. :(   I can only hope you were having a particularly bad day and this was an exception to the rule.

I don't want to be holier than thou. I myself have said far worse though not recently and never in this forum. I think I'm better than that now and this is a better forum with higher standards than most. I'd also like to think that we are all decent and intelligent human beings here and can work out differences like reasonable people.

Regarding partisanship, if there is anyone here who can confidently say "not a single one of my posts have a hint of partisanship in them or are anything but neutral", let him cast the first stone. :)
All of us have our strongly held views and we have expressed them in forms that are likely to have at the very least irritated others. Realpolitik (and I trust this doesnt provoke another string of invective) you aren't blameless either. You will have read some good natured ribbing from me when I felt you werent being too neutral and if you are as smart as I think you are, you will in hindsight have seen that there is a grain of truth in each. ;)

I have read M's post and while it was of course strongly stated I found nothing in it to provoke that reaction. That it would have irritated you ;certainly it would!! It did not irritate me. I found MORE than a little truth in it no matter how strongly stated.
Lets put the shoe on the other foot. Our friends, Migrendel and Bandit; you want to tell me that every post of theirs is a perfectly reasonable and neutral evaluation?? You probably dont. :) If you are so committed to a neutral forum how come you never said a word to either?? Could it be because (like M), they never said anything WAY over the top and more importantly you agreed with a lot of what they had to say though it may have been a little strongly stated for your taste??

Well I obviously do not agree with most of what they say, as do not most republicans on this forum. How do I deal with it? On days when I am in a bad mood I simply do not read their posts. I read them later (though with a pinch of salt ;)) because I want to be open to all ideas and learn about how very different people view things. Today I was happy to find an issue on which I totally agreed with Migrendel.
If on the other hand you feel you have nothing to gain from M's posts, here's an idea; dont read them!!
Or if you cant avoid that do what the forum rules state and report the message to moderator and let him decide. I trust Dave's judgment, dont you??

Anyways I've gone on for a long time on this but I felt it needed to be said. :) :)

The WMD could have been an issue only if there was proof that Saddam was actively trying to transfer WMD to terrorist groups. But that could be an issue with any country. Frankly neither of us knows why Bush started the war, but if it was for "liberation" and it would somehow help the Middle East, he could have come right out and said it; he did not.


Some European governments support the Palestinians in the U.N. and rhetorically in a lopsided manner, but the U.S. isn't innocent here. We support only one party in a much more important manner-- by supplying one side with significant arms grants. Israel does not even need any more arms. That is not even their problem. I don't think the major rift between France and the U.S. really opened until the end of 2002 when Bush really wanted to go to war over this WMD issue. The French said no, because there really was no reason to go to war that wasn't already known on Sept. 12, 2001, even if you want to connect the 9/11 attacks to Iraq.


It's nice to know that you are not totally partisan. Morality is not totally partisan, but unfortunately the most politically active people are.


There are some people like that but again I think that in the U.S., they are not really as many as you think. There were large protests in the Iraq war-- and justifiably so-- but not against the Afghanistan war, which some 90% supported. If you asked Mr. Dean or took a poll of his active supporters, the vast majority would say they supported the Afghanistan action. Beyond that the only war the U.S. has been involved in recently was Kosovo, which was again relatively unprovoked, but to the extent that ethnic cleansing was going on/about to happen, I don't remember any protests against intervening.


I think that both sides are morally culpable on this issue. The fact that Israel is a democracy makes it more credible in some ways than Yasser Arafat certainly. But viewed strictly from the prism of the Arab-Israeli conflict, about 3 times as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed. Furthermore Israel continues to expand settlements and did so throughout the 1990's... not an indication that it wants peace. All I'm trying to say that both sides can be criticized and could have handled the situation better. In that sense, they are equal.


Yeah, the more dictators are removed, the better. "When you can you should," as Tony Blair said, I can agree with. The controversy surrounding the war in Iraq is not due to disagreement on that question but rather what Bush told the American people and the world, as well as what really distinguishes Iraq from another country, and whether it will really help anything from America's perspective. Going the dictator question alone, we should have invaded Cuba, because it is 90 miles away from our shores and would probably be even easier to overthrow than Iraq, even given what we know about how easy that was. It would probably be much much easier to occupy.

I never condemned demonstations, people of any political persuasion to have a right to campaign for what they believe in. By this I of course mean nonviolent demonstrations, which the anti-Iraq demonstations were. I do think the demonstrators were wrong, but not illegal.

I have a problem to some degree with the settlements too, especialy the ones that are practically uninhabited or deep w/in the W. Bank. I do think eventually there will be boundary revisions before a Palestinian state is formed.

The reason there is no moral equality apart from the Arafat is a tyrannical thug issue, is that the PLO goes straight for civilians and the Israelis try to uproot terrorists. Unavoidable civilian casualties is not the same as genocide.

As to the question why Iraq and not another nation if the big issue was democracy, there are several reasons I can think of:

A possible domino effect, spreading reform across the region.

Iraq was a pariah with seventeen UN resolutions like a sword of Damocles over its head. It was thought this would make it easy to garner international support.

An easy one to take out, weakened by years of sanctions.

Iraq, more than, ecp. Cuba, posed a direct threat to some of our allies: the Kurds, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel (to an extent).

Also, Cuba has strong domestic reform movements led by Oswaldo Paya, and will likely become a democracy after Castro's death, a la Spain. No such viable movements were present inside of Iraq.

Also, thank you Ryan for sticking up for me! I never intended the post to be nonpartisan, if I did you might have a solid beef with me. There was a bit of my own wry sense of humor in there, coupled with my somewhat biased take on historical events. Nevertheless, It was not a personal attack against anyone, including herr realpolitik, nor did it contain any intentional falsehoods.

Another example of French anti-Semitism: after Mohammed Mahathir's despicable rant, Italy, as rotating head of the EU, intended to condemn the speech. Chirac vetoed that, too.

I had had a long day and he was beginning to annoy me.
The title of this thread flipped it.

The title is "over the top" but let's get back to discussing why Dean is the front runner.  Are people attracted to his policies, his persona, or is it the anti-war stance?  The other Democrat candidates don't differ much on policies and most of them are "angry" so I'm guessing it's his persona-the way he rolls up his sleeves and makes off the cuff barbs.  He's not tentative or cautious in advocating himself.  Is this what Democrats find attractive in 2004?

He is leading because he hates Bush the most.  The faithful love that.  I love it too.  Go Dean.  Dean could win the general election too if just wasn't for all those Republicans and pesky swing voters.

Dean is doing well because he is providing the best contrast between himself and Bush. Democrats did not provide enough contrast with Bush in 2002. More contrast, however, does not mean more liberal. Dean is not on the balance any more liberal than most of the other Dem contenders. However, he is emphasizing clear differences with Bush and that is what Democrats must do to win. We can't win by being conservative, because the  Republicans are a lot better than we are at being conservative. Democrats have to be themselves, and stand up for their beliefs. Again, this does not mean becoming more liberal, you can be moderate and still have strong convictions and still emphasize the differences, this is what Clinton did very successfully. Dean right now is doing the best job of emphasizing key differences and standing up for his convictions.

I think reason why Dean is doing well in the primaries is that he is exciting the ultra-liberals that vote in the primaries.

No probs, I'd stick up for any member of the forum when the assault is undeserved, including Realpolitik :D

Just for the record I like your posts. ;) They are pretty funny and very well written (as to use of language and expression)
As you say you dont make any attempts to be non-partisan  as most of us TRY to do and as you also have noted your language isnt the gentlest possible.
Given that this is a non-partisan forum maybe you could work on that without losing the essence of your input. Any posts which are solidly partisan you might want to put in General discussion where I have set up a thread precisely for people to do just that. (Democrats and Republicans-A broad Discussion. )- for specific topics you can set up separate threads which people dont have to open is they dont want to.

Still I can affirm that you have not broken any rules of common decency like using invective or swear words.

Nothing you have said nor the tone is unprecedented on this forum. Several others - (majority liberal-democrat) have done the same without exciting many heated replies from Reps and not a single reprimand from fellow lib Dems ;)

Anyways I personally welcome all points of view and ideologies; gives me something more to learn ;D

Ok, just becaue you can think of them it doesn't mean that's the story Bush told, or why he decided to lead the country into it.

Bush: "Overthrowing the Saddam regime will also have a domino effect, leading to the fall of the Syrian, Iranian, and hopefully Jordanian and Saudi governments."

Nope, he didn't say that. Nor is he particularly putting much pressure on the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, or the Pakistanis.


Bush: "I picked Iraq to invade because that's what the rest of the Security Council wanted."

Nope.


Bush: "Iraq is the easiest country in the world to attack."

Nope.


Bush: "Iraq poses a threat to a lot of our allies in the Middle East."

Now here's something he did try to say. However it wasn't true. It certainly wasn't any more true in the summer of 2002 than it was in the fall of 2001 or earlier.


Bush: "I have examined all of the world's dictatorships and concluded that Iraq's is the only one that will not fall when the dictator dies. And since Mr. Paya wants us to lift sanctions on Cuba, we will."

Nope again.

Thanks, all. Especially realpolitik, that was very decent of you to explain yourself. I for one will make a good faith effort to avoid being quite so upsetting to you again. (I won't switch parties though!)

Hmm... beet, you're a funny guy! But I think if you want the main reason Bush picked Iraq, if you accept at least for the sake of argument that Bush was mostly trying for a "when you can, you should", is that Iraq is in the MidEast, a region that definitely needs change. While we differ greatly on the methods for change, I think nearly every American would agree that the current situation is unstable, dangerous, and just plain untenable.

LOL not to mention he likes Margaret Thatcher. ;)I saw that thread just after I posted and said "Ah! this is whats got me ole pal Realpolitik all het up" :D

Anyways, alls well that ends well, look forward to this discussion progressing :)