Clinton rips... (Page 3)

It is a political board, and I like it because I like talking current events. But that's just me. There are strong feelings here, but i think it reflects the strong feelings in the population as a whole. It's no secret that Bush isn't a popular president, any measure. And it's because he's such a polarizing figure. I think it was Don who said the mark of a good leader is one who stands by his convictions. If I have to say one good thing about the man, it's that he has done that.

But ironically, that's been his downfall. The problem is his convictions, by and large, don't reflect the convictions of the population as a whole. That's why he's alienated democrats and why, more and more, he's alienated those of his own party.

So because of that he gets bashed. It's probably too early to tell, and we're probably all to close to it and embroiled in it to make a subjective assessment. But time will tell if he's the most bashed president. Clinton, despite his popularity, was roundly bashed during his tenure.

And Mike, I know because you've posted this view before that bashing *any* president leaves a bad taste in your mouth because (not to put words in your mouth but I believe this is why--check me if I'm wrong) you see it disrespectful to a person in his postion. And I certainly respect that viewpoint. But lots of us see him as just a man. And because of that, he's open to criticism.

So I guess in summary, before you bash the bashers, ask yourself why exactly he's being bashed. I think it's a bit more than just us disaffected minority liberals whining about not having, as George Costanza would say, hand. He gets bashed because he's so single-minded in his views. He ran, as I said earlier, as a uniter. but he certainly hasn't lived up to that promise. In order to unite, you have to compromise. To consider alternate views. But he hasn't done that. He's had blinders on for 6 years. And while that make him a good leader, it doesn't make him popular.

Mike, I hope you decide to stick around. I find your posts very helpful in coming to a fuller understanding of our foreign policy.

One thing I really appreciate about BT, and a reason why I actually consider it part of my required "news" reading for the day, is that it contains a range of really smart people who have had real experience in the real world. And, for me, that includes people in the full spectrum of American political life.

So even though your opinion does seem to be in the minority on this board, for me it carries a lot of weight. It matters.

There are probably a lot of people who read these boards who never post. I bet a lot of them hold beliefs that are close to yours.

So, for me, these political debates, or rants as the case may be, have a lot of import. I'm a Democrat, who tends to vote more as an Independent. Given that I will never vote for a pro-choice candidate at the federal or state level, although not necessarily vote against them, I'm facing a tough decision with the upcoming senate vote here in Pennsylvania.

As you know, it features two Pro-Life candidates, Rick Santorum and Bob Casey Jr. Given that I believe that I can vote for either of them in good conscience, I'm paying particular attention to their position on the Middle-East. Not just Iraq, but the entire situation in the Middle-East which has been going on for a long time.

Part of my dilemma is that I have a lot of respect for Rick Santorum on a personal level. Through having met him and photographed him, he passes my gut check of someone who has principles that he puts ahead of his personal ambitions. When Rick says something, I listen closely. I think, in general, that he says what he believes and not what he thinks I want to hear.

At the same time, while I haven't met Bob Casey Jr., from folks that I know who've met him, I think he would also pass my gut check. I think he is a good and pricipled man. Plus, I think it's important that the Democrats run more Pro-Life candidates, so I need to give Casey special consideration.

So, for me, here in Pennsylvania I have the uncommon opportunity to vote for one of two candidates, both of whom I have respect for.

While there are other legitimate domestic issues that are relevant in this election, the most important one for me is foreign policy.

Anyway, long winded but, again, I greatly appreciate your particular conservative opinions. And it's opinions like yours that are helping me form a decision for November, regardless of who I vote for.

And I'm thankful for that, Jim. 

I think that you are the leaven that helps this board rise in the way it does.

(to mix a metaphor) you do some important pot stirring.  I really appreciate that. 

Well, who woulda thunk it...

a Souther white male evangelical Christian...

and a Northern ethnic Polish orthodox Roman Catholic...

can ya feel the love???

Hope not...

Drew, I've always really appreaciated your level headed posts, and also learn a lot from them.  Keep 'em coming. 

Just a thought and a question before I call it a night.

Thought:

I believe that working to end legal abortion is really a natural policy historically for the Democratic party. It's about protecting the most vulnerable among us. My father would not recognize the current Democratic party. I think our Democratic party has lost it's moral core and has become the party of personal-rights liberalism, rather than the party of classical liberalism which is so much a part of its history.

Question:

It seems that international intel believed there were WMDs in Iraq. I trust that the President was working from the same quality of intel that, for example, Tony Blair had.

But that aside, it seems to me that the more urgent rational for the administration was putting the neo-con policy of regime change into play. (and I use the term neo-con in it's very narrow meaning of defining people who call for regime change in the Middle-East)

I'm not sure that I can support a regime change policy, but I must say that I find the argument very compelling. I'm thinking here of a policy that would bring regime change to Iraq, Iran and Syria. A way to bring stability to the entire Middle-East Muslim world by helping to create democratic secular states.

What do you think of this regime change policy going forward?

I'm very concerned about what is happening in Iran. I don't see a way around our problems while the government of Iran remains as it is. Frankly, I don't have an answer to the problem.

What do you think?

Since this thread appears to be the place for southern white Christian Democrats to "come out," well here I am.  Though not technically southern, I live here now, and for 12 years in various cities I've done my best to live by the Bible as a student of Jesus, and I go to church and live with people who do the same.  And I'm a Democrat.

My thoughts on how to best confront abortion are too lengthy to put in a post I started past bedtime, especially with any coherence!    But suffice to say, I don't think either party's national leadership is barking up the right tree.  Google the 85/15 plan if you're curious, that's from a Catholic group but pretty much is the general direction I'd go, if I were Queen of the World and all of that. 

G'night all.  Peace.

Some would argue that the *most* vulnerable is the poor, unwed pregnant rape victim.

To me, the issue of abortion boils down to whether or not you believe an embryo is alive. By the strict scientific definition of life, an embryo isn't. But by the faith-based definition  it certainly is. So, if you're going to legislate against abortion rights, you're legislating by faith and that's a scary thing.

I personally think abortion is wrong. Fo me, personally. But, the fact that I'm a man who will never make a decision for an embryo inside of me makes my argument weak. Add to that the fact that my opinion is based on my faith, and because other citizens natuarally may not share my faith, I don't think the issue should be legislated.

It all boils down to the postulate that you can't legislate morality. I definitely subscribe to that.

<nice hijack, Don>

Re Harping on Bush:

To me, it serves a purpose. A couple of you have thrown around the axim that if you don't learn from history you repeat it. It's that tennent that alot of us keep bringing up the issues with Bush.

Here's a case in point. From the getgo, the Bush administration has been more closed-mouthed than, arguably, any other administration. And the American public, arguably by and large, doesn't like to be kept in the dark. When our questions aren't answered, it smacks of subterfuge; if you're not talking, we assume you have something to hide.

So when it was found that there were actually no WMD in Iraq, it gave credence to the theory the Bush lied as a means to go to Iraq. There were conspiracy theories that the war was an excuse to avenge Bush Sr.'s failure to get Sadaam, that the war was about access to oil, or that the war was about creating business for Haliburton. But the were just theories.

Fast forward to 2005. The Downing Street Memo is leaked and there was now pretty hard evidence that Bush's case for war was fabricated. Congress (both sides of the aisle) and the American public asked the administration for an explanation, but none was given. No administration official ever gave comment about it. So we assume that the information in the Memo is accurate, and that Bush did in fact lie about his case for war. ANd since his case for war was fabricated, we don't know why he really wanted to invade Iraq. So we have to guess.

And you know what they say: once a liar always a liar. So, whenever the President says something (or doesn't say something), we scream "Iraq" and "WMD"and call him a liar. It's a past example used to show that the man, in our eyes, has no credibility. Like the other poster said, there's a difference between bashing and ligitimate criticism. To me, this falls in the realm of the latter.

I completely agree, but I get a different conclusion. To me, it boils down to exactly when a blastocyst, embryo or fetus becomes a person. Is it conception? hard to prove. Is it viablity? Hard to prove? Is it senscence? Hard to prove.

And that's the crux of it. Until we can scientifically prove when a person becomes a person, it's incredibly difficult to legislate it. Because in doing so, all you can rely on is opinion or faith. And opinion and faith don't hold up when challenged in court.

It's a good roll!  

Thanks for that insight.  I've been wanting to read one of Friedman's books for a while. Just added From Beirut to Jerusalem to my amazon wish list.

I think that we all truly want to believe that any decision to go to war is right and just.  I can think of no weightier decision than to send our brightest and best in harm's way.

I do believe that President Bush thought the WMD threat was legitimate at the time he made his decision to go to Iraq.  However, I do fault him (ironically) for having "Dan Rather's Disease", i.e., he didn't try very hard to verify his sources.  He wanted to believe want he had been told, so he charged ahead.  So who's fault is that?  The buck still stops at the top.  Going to war, especially a pre-emptive war is too important a decision to be taken without knowing absolutely that you have good intelligence. 

But there's no chance for a "do over".  What's done is done.  We're there and now we have the obligation to stay until Iraq is in better condition than in which we found it.  To me that means building/rebuilding infrastructure; road & bridges, the power grid, water & sewer, schools, hospitals, etc.  However, I also believe that the form of government they establish is up to them.  Our vision of Jeffersonian democracy is not always the solution for everyone and we need to understand and accept that.

One thing that really bothers me is those who think you're not supporting the troops if you don't support the President.  I strongly disagree with that.  I was at AOCS (Aviation Officer Candidate School) in Pensacola during the  final stages of the Viet Nam war.  The frustration within the Naval Aviation community  then was not with the lack of public support for that war, but with the inept, politically-motivated strategy and tactics dictated from the White House (from both Johnson & Nixon), which served only to prolong that war and cost many additional American lives.  Our troops are smart enough to figure things out on their own.  They'll do their duty when asked. It's our responsibility as citizens is to make sure the politicians who send them off to war are doing their job.  If we don't think they are, then it's our right and duty to call them out on it.

The title of POTUS deserves all due respect, but does not confer infallibility.

Mark

(Moderate, Republican, Presbyterian, Pro-Choice, Left-handed, Slow Triathlete)

Even though I'm right handed, I think Mark's post captures my feelings on the current administration's handling of Iraq and the war on terror in general.

In the interested of not continuing my inadvertent hijack, I've got an answer for you here on gullah's thread .