When political polarization goes too far

[John Reynolds]

So am I. When I see people demanding pay stubs for Christ's sake of their president, it's quite nauseating. I'm rather upset at Bush for even acknowledging the request, as if it's a valid one.

And the Ken Starr circus wasn't just as ridiculous? Bush's service record has been such a hot topic because whether he served or not he received preferential treatment because of his father's political connections when he was admitted in the TX guard unit as a pilot (his test score was one point from failure?), and yet now as president he's set a historical precedent by attacking and overthrowing a foreign government that posed no immediate threat to our nation. The fact that it might've been done all based on erroneous intelligence, which IMO puts a helluva lot of mud on this administration's face, particularly when combined with the OSP's efforts to 'spin' the intelligence to what the neocons wanted to hear, doesn't help the situation. And he is surrounded by people who can be described as chickenhawks who almost all also failed to serve their country during their generation's conflict. It's distasteful, and those who view him as a political enemy will use it.

Um...as opposed to viciously libeling the President? (What libel are talking abot here, anyway). What does being a "decorated vet" have to do with anything? Vets are to honored for their service. This does not make them immune to criticism for their subsequent actions.

And this applies to the false points Coulter raised on Cleland how? No one said Cleland can't or shouldn't be criticized because he's a war vet, only that it's disgusting to falsely libel his service record and the circumstances of his injury for political attack reasons.

 

[Stvn]

If it comes down to it, don't bet against Karl Rove pushing the ouster of Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld, i.e. the major neocon forces in the administration. It would be pretty easy to place the political blame on them and deflect it from the president.

That would leave the door open for who else? Vice President Rudy Guiliani. I think the democrats would have to kiss their chances goodbye. To be honest, I don't know if I'd necessary have a problem wtih a second bush term if the neocons were out. They were the ones pushing for this Iraq mess in the first place since the PNAC was formed.

 

[John Reynolds]

That would leave the door open for who else? Vice President Rudy Guiliani. I think the democrats would have to kiss their chances goodbye. To be honest, I don't know if I'd necessary have a problem wtih a second bush term if the neocons were out. They were the ones pushing for this Iraq mess in the first place since the PNAC was formed.

I'd rather see a 2nd Bush term if the neocons were out than Kerry in the White House.

 

[Stvn]

That would leave the door open for who else? Vice President Rudy Guiliani. I think the democrats would have to kiss their chances goodbye. To be honest, I don't know if I'd necessary have a problem wtih a second bush term if the neocons were out. They were the ones pushing for this Iraq mess in the first place since the PNAC was formed.

I'd rather see a 2nd Bush term if the neocons were out than Kerry in the White House.

I'd agree. Myself i'm prtty jaded on the political process. But this edwards guy seems promising. Though it doesn't seem as if he'll win the nomination.

 

[StefanS]

I'd agree. Myself i'm prtty jaded on the political process. But this edwards guy seems promising. Though it doesn't seem as if he'll win the nomination.

We'll see next Tuesday

 

[Natoma]

Edwards is losing by 40points in new york and california. i just don't see how he pulls it out. I've been a fan of his for a while now. It's really unfortunate that the primary season has been so compressed this year thank-you-very-much-terry-mcaullife, or Edwards would have a great chance at winning the nomination.

All the current system does is encourage herd voting.

 

[Sazar]

a kerry/edwards ticket might be attractive purely because of edwards...

I dun wanna see dean within a continent of the white house... that mans scares the crap out of me...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I will give you 10,000 dinars if you can prove conclusively that Natoma ever supported Kerry.

Well, I never said or implied Natoma ever supported Kerry...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And the Ken Starr circus wasn't just as ridiculous?

Um, did I say it wasn't? Who is the one here bashing Bush, while saying criticizing someone like Kerry is "wrong?"

And this applies to the false points Coulter raised on Cleland how?

What false points?

No one said Cleland can't or shouldn't be criticized because he's a war vet, only that it's disgusting to falsely libel his service record and the circumstances of his injury for political attack reasons.

Right.....like they're trying to do with Bush...

 

[John Reynolds]

And this applies to the false points Coulter raised on Cleland how?

What false points?

Drinking, fumbling buffoon who dropped the grenade himself description. Could we trivialize worse the circumstances of actually being in a foreign war zone serving your country by saying this could've happened at an Army base here in the States?

Right.....like they're trying to do with Bush...

Swish, the sound of a another patented DeFuria dodge by ignoring my prior paragraph on the chickenhawks who dodged service and then went war mongering on assumedly erroneous intelligence (cough, OSP, cough).

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-18-veterans-edit_x.htm

Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.

At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries.

A war president who himself refused to go to war. And you're drawing analogies with Cleland's wounds being trivialized and the circumstances in which he received them falsely reported. Real, real nice there, Joe.

Interestingly enough, Cleland was slandered during his '02 Senator race, which he lost, by his opponent, because of his post-9/11 voting record supposedly being unpatriotic. Of course these days not being patriotic means being unwilling to urinate on the Bill of Rights.

 

[RussSchultz]

Enough of the chicken hawk accusations. Powell, and Rumsfield both served in combat.

Bush did his air national guard stint.

Cheney was too young for Korea, and too old for Vietnam.
Same with Wolfowitz.
Rice couldn't have served in combat.

But ignoring that, you have the same sort of thing in the last administration. You've got a mix of "soldiers" and non-soldiers.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Drinking, fumbling buffoon who dropped the grenade himself description. Could we trivialize worse the circumstance...

Yes, you could accuse him of being AWOL.

Swish, the sound of a another patented DeFuria dodge by ignoring my prior paragraph on the chickenhawks who dodged service and then went war mongering on assumedly erroneous intelligence (cough, OSP, cough).

Problem is, John, these are completely separate and irrelevant issues. Whether or not Bush is or isn't a "chickenhawk" has no bearing on the evaluation of his actions with respect to the Iraq war. Get it now?

*Swish*

Oh, and thanks for quoting another opinion piece, like it has any relevance? Do I need to start pulling opinion pieces from conservative mouthpieces? What's the point?

Interestingly enough, Cleland was slandered during his '02 Senator race, which he lost, by his opponent, because of his post-9/11 voting record supposedly being unpatriotic.

As opposed to conservatives losing races who are slanderd with accusations of "forcing seniors to choose between food and drugs", "starving children", and "running over gay couples with cars?" (That last one should ring a bell.)

Give me a break John. Your hypocricy is laughable. It's one thing to point out the typical bullshit partisan rhetoric. It's something else to only accuse one side of being "guilty" of it...and It's yet quite another to not realize you're doing the same thing yourself.

 

[John Reynolds]

Yes, you could accuse him of being AWOL.

Nah, draft dodger is good enough.

Problem is, John, these are completely separate and irrelevant issues. Whether or not Bush is or isn't a "chickenhawk" has no bearing on the evaluation of his actions with respect to the Iraq war. Get it now?

Not IMO. I have little respect for a "war president" who didn't have the guts to serve his country himself, sending those into danger who lack an affluent father to get them out of their service.

Oh, and thanks for quoting another opinion piece, like it has any relevance? Do I need to start pulling opinion pieces from conservative mouthpieces? What's the point?

Like www.whitehouse.gov is an impartial link? I don't see you refutting the opinions from the former secretary of the navy either. Swish.

As opposed to conservatives losing races who are slanderd with accusations of "forcing seniors to choose between food and drugs", "starving children", and "running over gay couples with cars?" (That last one should ring a bell.)

Until I hear a solid, logical reason that lacks Judeo-Christian phobia why gays can't marry, I'll assume it's rooted in bigotry. A safe assumption, too.

Give me a break John. Your hypocricy is laughable. It's one thing to point out the typical bullshit partisan rhetoric. It's something else to only accuse one side of being "guilty" of it...and It's yet quite another to not realize you're doing the same thing yourself.

Your narrow-minded, partisan knee-jerk defenses of the Bush administration are sad. But that's ok, I still love you Joe. We just need to agree to disagree when it comes to the Bush administration.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Nah, draft dodger is good enough.

I rest my case. More rhetoric.

Not IMO. I have little respect for a "war president" who didn't have the guts to serve his country himself, sending those into danger who lack an affluent father to get them out of their service.

And I have little respect for someone criticizing the President's job who's father isn't one, and who he himself hasn't been put in his shoes. Sound fair?

It's not enough that when Bush does send our troops to fight, that he

1) Doesn't micromanage the execution of the war based on politics, but lets leaves execution of the war to those who ARE in the business of fighting war

2) What he can do...offer up funding, to execute the war, he does without reservation.

Like www.whitehouse.gov is an impartial link?

Um, john...you pointed to an EDITORIAL PAGE. I can't go to the whitehouse for actual, statistics?

Until I hear a solid, logical reason that lacks Judeo-Christian phobia why gays can't marry, I'll assume it's rooted in bigotry. A safe assumption, too.

Again, I rest my case.

Your narrow-minded, partisan knee-jerk defenses of the Bush administration are sad.

Really? As if I midlessly defend everything that Bush does? I defend the Administration when I see fit. I criticize it when I see fit.

What I don't do, is levy patisan, bullshit rhetoric toward the administration when I criticize it. But then, I'm a conservative so I guess you would expect that.

On the other hand, you call yourself a "moderate"...so why are you doing it?

You're acting like the partisan hack that you are criticizing others for being. I don't know if you have an issue with that label in general...or only when it applies to yourself.

 

[Natoma]

a kerry/edwards ticket might be attractive purely because of edwards...

I dun wanna see dean within a continent of the white house... that mans scares the crap out of me...

Even if Edwards was VP, I don't think I could vote for it, simply because Kerry would be President. Unlike Bush, Kerry would actually be a president, and not a puppet of his VP, Dick Cheney.

Seriously though, I voted for the lesser of two evils in 2000, and it didn't matter anyway. I just don't know if I have the strength to do it again if Kerry wins the democratic nomination. Ugh.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Kerry would actually be a president, and not a puppet....

Nah...Kerry would be a puppet, to the polls, of course.

 

[epicstruggle]

We impeached a former president over cum stains on a blue dress

No, not because of stains. but because he bold faced lied aobut it ("I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" -pointing a finger at the camera). Of course if we impeached every politician who lied then.......

S_O, why expect people to get the reasons for the impechement straight. Those on the far left will obviously spin/distort the truth to suit their own needs.

Natoma, exactly where has the president lied about the wmd's. Its not like he is the one who sifts through all the data, he's not the one that goes undercover to iraq to see whats there (or not there). He dependeds on what others give him. I very much doubt that he would have PURPOSELY lied and then expected people to forget about the reasons once the war was done. BECAUSE he would have added more to his reasons last year. Instead of just using wmd's he would have added all the other crap that their talking about now. I hope that makes sense.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

There's more than enough evidence to make a charge of misconduct in office wrt the Iraq war in both the lead up and prosecution of such war. The point is, Kenneth Starr and his backers were pushing toward impeachment hearings even before clinton officially said "I did have sex with that woman."

Impeachment is nothing but a trial of the official, not actual removal from office.

 

[John Reynolds]

Nah, draft dodger is good enough.

I rest my case. More rhetoric.

No, accurate label. Bush was a draft dodger, whether you like it or not. So was Clinton. A spade is a spade. Clelan, on the other hand, despite your effort to turn this into a "she has the right to criticize his post-war actions" which had nothing whatsoever to do with the thread, did not lose his limbs while being a drunken buffoon.

It's not enough that when Bush does send our troops to fight, that he

1) Doesn't micromanage the execution of the war based on politics, but lets leaves execution of the war to those who ARE in the business of fighting war

2) What he can do...offer up funding, to execute the war, he does without reservation.

We truly live in fictitious times. I'm still expecting to hear a Clueless movie "Oops, our bad" when it comes to our justification for invading Iraq. I'm more concerned that our presidents don't alienate former long-standing allies in the neocon quest to establish a client state in the middle east using erroneous evidence as justification for attacking other sovereign nations.

Um, john...you pointed to an EDITORIAL PAGE. I can't go to the whitehouse for actual, statistics?

And statistics are never abused, are they? Why don't I link to the offical Dem party webpage for statistics too, since I'm sure those are also free of partisan taint.

Until I hear a solid, logical reason that lacks Judeo-Christian phobia why gays can't marry, I'll assume it's rooted in bigotry. A safe assumption, too.

Again, I rest my case.

Nice rebuttal. Typical, though, since there isn't a single, rational reason to deny gays this right other than bigotry. I assume you rest your case upon your own prejudices then.

Your narrow-minded, partisan knee-jerk defenses of the Bush administration are sad.

You're acting like the partisan hack that you are criticizing others for being. I don't know if you have an issue with that label in general...or only when it applies to yourself.

Yeah, but in your mind when I make a sarcatic comment in protest to a gay marriage ban amendment that Bush is going to run a few gays over, I get the "you're a bleeding left wing liberal, he'll do it with Iraqi oil" responses. When I call him a draft dodger, I get the knee-jerk denial of that it's rhetoric. When I criticize his decision for attacking Iraq, I get a myriad host of excuses for why it was justified, why it was right, etc. The fact that the man is a fundamentalist, right wing Christian who wants to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that exists only to specifically limit the rights of a minority of US citizens, I'm questioned why I'd suspect his reasons for doing so might be based upon his religious beliefs.

Michael Moore was right, we live in fictitious times.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, accurate label. Bush was a draft dodger,

Nice label. I'll be sure to let everyone else in the national guard know your feelings toward them.

We truly live in fictitious times.

Yeah, who would've thought someone with a box cutter would take down the WTC?

I'm still expecting to hear a Clueless movie "Oops, our bad" when it comes to our justification for invading Iraq.

That's beacause you won't.

And statistics are never abused, are they?

Show me where I posted "abused" statistics. Go on.

Nice rebuttal. Typical, though, since there isn't a single, rational reason to deny gays this right other than bigotry.

Other than the law, you mean.

Yeah, but in your mind when I make a sarcatic comment in protest to a gay marriage ban amendment that Bush is going to run a few gays over, I get the "you're a bleeding left wing liberal, he'll do it with Iraqi oil" responses. When I call him a draft dodger, I get the knee-jerk denial of that it's rhetoric.

Yes...and they're both partisan rhetoric hack responses. Point?