Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
NYC to GOP: Drop Dead
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Sands: [QB] Sorry this post is coming so late relative to the replies you were all nice enough to write to my previous posts. Between a funeral, a wake, interviews for jobs, and applying to more jobs (yep, I�ve got one offer, I guess the economy is doing well!) I didn�t have time last week to respond to you all. TSN: a lot of those Iraqi troops might never have done anything to us, but I�d bet hard currency some of them had done stuff to Iraq�s people. Just in case we forget what we were ending by toppling Saddam, try [URL=http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/6086]this link[/URL] and watch the movies. On a note regarding a later post of yours, yes, the Newsweek poll wasn�t appropriately timed, so it�s sample was a bit off. But some polls released today and yesterday in some of the battleground states clearly show a measureable bounce from the convention. For a good daily update of this according to electoral college results (which is all that really matters anyway) go [URL=http://www.electoral-vote.com/]here[/URL]. Jay: on Iran, Bush made quite a bit of effort to stop their production of nuclear weapons. It seems he even let Europe take the lead. [URL=http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6192559]Fat lot of help that brand of multilateralism is doing us![/URL] Again Jay: regarding the either/or choice I posed, please refer back to the link I posted on September 3 for you and Cartman. Here's the link in full: http://www.techcentralstation.com/061604B.html. I affirmatively deny it is an either/or situation. It�s a both situation. And, yes, [URL=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005481]we are working on the socioeconomic side in one place[/URL]. As for presidents doing policy, I overspoke. What I was thinking was that you can still be an effective president without doing policy. I would say that Bush does as much policy as his dad, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Eisenhower. And I don�t think the comparison to Washington and Lincoln is very applicable. The executive did not have the same volume of work to do at their time. I remember reading that when Adams moved into the White House, the entire executive branch had 6 crates of documents to move. Today, the vast amounts of information that a president would have to assimilate to have the kind of involvement that a Washington would have would be sheer overload. (Have you ever tried reading the Federal Register? Because that�s what presidents 100 years ago could afford to do. Not so today.) I have yet to see a substantive critique involving data that demonstrates Bush�s style can�t work as well as Clinton�s. I think there are sufficient examples of presidents in similar [i]sui generic[/i] moments who do as much policy as Bush and succeeded along with presidents who are more involved in detail and who fail. However, in the spirit of compromise, could we all agree with Don Kettl who said, �This one will either end with huge success or spectacular failure.�? (Taken from [URL=http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/mar03/124065.asp]here[/URL].) As for disingenuous arguments, the issue is not what his motives were, the issue was whether there was adequate justification to go to Iraq. There were plenty: 1. End the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq transition to democratic self-rule 2. Find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 3. Collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists 4. End sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support 5. Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources These are all taken straight [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq]from wikipedia[/URL]. Pay close attention to who wanted to emphasize WMDs. Let me add a few more justifications I saw beforehand: 6. Prevent further assassination attempts against the leaders of our country 7. Enforce more than 10 UN resolutions condemning Iraq�s flouting of internationally dictated conduct after the first Gulf War 8. Prevent further assistance to terrorist groups (e.g., Abu Nidal) 9. Frighten wavering states into stopping support of terrorists and abandoning their WMD programs (e.g., Libya) All of these were good justifications. [URL=http://www.techcentralstation.com/100703B.html] His motives were irrelevant[/URL] and I have seen no evidence that he affirmatively avoided debate. He simply made up his mind and went with it. That he made up his mind faster than anyone doesn�t per se mean the decision was wrong or even ill-advised. This will be the last post on this thread I do. Since I have more interviews to do next week and applications to send, I know I am not going to be able to respond to any more replies. It [i]has[/i] been fun though! Thanks all for an invigorating exchange. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3