Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Your solution to that is to agree with the anti-war political faction and call for a pullout.

---

Hello again, El:

Nope, it wizzed right over your head. Didn't you hear it? It went wooooshhhh as it zipped by.

I'm not anti war - I'm anti going to war and NOT winning it!

That's what we did in Vietnam, and that's what were doing in Iraq. In fact, I WAS for kicking a$$ in Vietnam. But we didn't try to win. We held back. We didn't LET our soldiers do the job. Therefore, in my view, ALL 58,000 dead Americans lives were wasted.

I wasn't for going to Iraq. But, I certainly WAS for kicking a$$ once we got there. But, we're doing the same thing in Iraq. We held back. We sent in a minimal force. We didn't LET our soldiers do the job of TAKING and SECURING the country. They could have done it. Therefore in my view, ALL the dead Americans lives have been wasted.

Do I believe that he's really trying to win now?? Not for a minute.

So, I'm not for pulling out because I'm a . I'm for pulling out because BUSH is a .

excon

Elliot has a very good point. But the differences are a little more between the lines when we try to compare Viet Nam with Iraq.

When the US entered the conflict in south east Asia, it was primarily for "humanitarian" reasons. We perceived someone was being oppressed and we were attempting to stem the flow of Communism. But the American public didn't agree that the battle belonged to us on humanitarian grounds and it was more political: Democracy vs. Communism. The difference is now, in the south central Asia, Iraq, the concern has a global ramification: jihad. "They" will follow us here. And they've proven they want to.

The outcome of this and our presence there is far more important now than in Viet Nam.

Why isn't this obvious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

bases closing in Germany it's Dubya's idea to move us permanently into the Mid-East region.

---

Many base closing aren't decided today or yesterday. The BRAC has guidlelines that go way back.

Quote:

---

The other concern is the Iraqi's loyalty to us in the Western hemisphere. Besides the ulterior motives like when we sold them weapons to their govt (including to their ruthless dictator), or having to remove that dictator, their track record has never proved as long lasting favorable for us.

---

Yes, we gave them weapons. But if you give a child something, and he does wrong, you'll correct him and punish him, right?

No doubt, we've forever had to keep a careful eye on ALL our allies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

Why isn't this obvious?

---

Hello again, Captain:

We're back to square one. Why wasn't it obvious to BUSH? Why didn't he TRY to win?? Why didn't he send in a half a million men? Why aren't they lined up on the Iranian border? Why is Bin Laden still free?

The danger IS obvious to me - always has been. But, talking about the danger, and DOING something about it are two different things. Bush tried to do something about a SIGNIFICANT danger, ON THE CHEAP. It didn't work. It had NO CHANCE to work. In my view, if you're not going to DO something about it, and we have not, it's better to stand aside.

This surge is too little and much too late.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Do I believe that he's really trying to win now??? Not for a minute.

So, I'm not for pulling out because I'm a . I'm for pulling out because BUSH is a

---

We didn't commit in Viet Nam and we're not committed enough in Iraq.

But to hang it ALL on any one politician is really absurd. Their hands are tied by public opinion and the chance of future elections.

excon
We were kicking butt in Vietnam up until the time Congress decided to defund the effort. We were doing it with counter -insurgency also .

The military learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam. They came up with what has been called the Powell Doctrine. They decided they would not occupy the space they captured ;they would go in with massive force ;achieve a limited objective ,have an exit strategy before you even go in. They stopped training for counter-insurgency for the most part .

This doctrine actually served well in the limited nature of Operation Desert Storm . But again the objective was limited ;push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait but in the end leave the enemy standing .

The problem is that our enemies went to school and studied the lessons of Desert Storm. They correctly determined that they could never defeat us in a conventional war. Therefore they were not going to fight us in one. They opted instead to create an asymmetrical battle field .

The military planned for this war as a modified version of Desert Storm and was unprepared for counter-insurgency operations . Blame whoever you wish for that . It was a decision they made 25 years ago. It took time to realize the battle plan was not working and needed revising . It also took time to find the General who was up to the task.

This is not unusual either . Lincoln went through many Generals and many battle plans before he chose Grant and Sherman. The Civil War was lost almost until the fall of 1864 .But in the end it was won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Really now? I asked "Do we need any more evidence that the Democrats have no intention of even giving Petraeus' report a fair hearing?" You answered:

Seems like you avoided my question first. It would be difficult for Bush's successor to continue the current war campaign for another 10 years. Secondly, the more pertinent question is what will Iraq look like if we leave now, next month or next spring? That would most certainly have disastrous consequences for both the Iraqi people and the entire free world. We could just rename Iraq Jihadistan and get our burqas and falafel ready.

---

I do think they need to listen to all reports, laughable or not. Will they? My guess is "yes." Single out some Democratic congressmen and write to them.



Now follow the string; you chose to ask me personally:

"Bobby, how so? Voinovich, Lugar, Alexander, Domenici, maybe a few others? And what exactly do they mean by "change," surrender? I don't think so."



I answered: George Bush needs to surrender his ideology. Let's say for discussion that Bush's elected replacement is a Republican and carries on this war campaign on the current course for another ten years. Tell me Steve, what do you think Iraq will be like five years after we eventually leave?

Steve, that's OK, and I don't take it personal. Elliot replied and we had that discussion already. My question from yesterday still stands for conservative Christian Republicans that voted for Bush the past two elections... if you want to take a crack at it today?



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

We didn't commit in Viet Nam and we're not committed enough in Iraq.

But to hang it ALL on any one politician is really absurd. Their hands are tied by public opinion and the chance of future elections.

---

Isn't Democracy just awful, just think what America could accomplish if it were a Fascist Nationalist Government, and public opinion didn't matter.

And in south central Asia, we're confronted with an enemy that has many faces and many nationalities: they don't wear uniforms; they have no discernable military assets, only militants that are brainwashed or "kidnapped" into believing their death by any means serves a higher purpose. And they realize, this war doesn't have the public intestinal fortitude to obtain what is necessary to declare victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I wasn't for going to Iraq. But, I certainly WAS for kicking a$$ once we got there. But, we're doing the same thing in Iraq. We held back. We sent in a minimal force. We didn't LET our soldiers do the job of TAKING and SECURING the country. They could have done it. Therefore in my view, ALL the dead Americans lives have been wasted.

---

By all reports, we're not doing that anymore.

Quote:

---

Do I believe that he’s really trying to win now?? Not for a minute.

So, I'm not for pulling out because I'm a . I'm for pulling out because BUSH is a .

---

I never said you were a , Excon. That wasn't my point. My point is that you experienced Vietnam, and that experience is leading you top believe that that is how the USA fights all wars. It's not that you don't want t win, it's that you don't think the government wants us to win. This isn't an issue of you being a coward, it is an issue of your experience dictating your position. Which is fine. We all make decisions based on our experience.

My experience has just been different from yours. My experience includes Granada, Nicaragua, and the Gulf War. I believe that if the people and the government are behind the military operation, we CAN win and we WILL win. In your experience, the people and the government simply CAN'T get behind the military, and therefore we will lose. I disagree. I think they can get behind the war, and the war is therefore, winable. And given the trend-shift over the past 6 months in the polls with regard to support of the war in Iraq and support for pulling out of Iraq, I'd say that things are beginning to shift back towards support of the war. People like the results they are seeing from the surge. They are making that fact known. And as a result, some of those who supported a pullout are now backtracking from their statements. For the first time, the pressure is shifting toward THEM to stay the course, not on Bush to change it.

Clearly the support for operations (for kicking a$$) will be there is the plan is effective and is working. So far, the surge is working. Ergo, the support is growing.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

Many base closing aren't decided today or yesterday. The BRAC has guidlelines that go way back.

---

We know the bases were already closing. The point is where some of these people may end up. My brother is located (stationed) in Germany, but currently is in his third mission in Iraq under the current President. His base will close I think 2008, and his MOS personnel will be coming back to the States. But this doesn't mean that others will not be going abroad, nor that that the future plans don't call for this eventually. Personally I do hope we give more attention to detail at home. Thankfully Bush can't be elected three times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

Yes, we gave them weapons. But if you give a child something, and he does wrong, you'll correct him and punish him, right?

No doubt, we've forever had to keep a careful eye on ALL our allies.

---

Yes. But Saddam was not a child, he was the leader of a country that we did business with and we were willing to comply.


Bobby

No, Sadam wasn't a child.

We had to correct our own wrong, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

No, Sadam wasn't a child.

We had to correct our own wrong, correct?

---

Yes. It's how we are trying to correct this misjudgment. I was for bombing their govt back to the stone ages. But Bush chose his way and I think excon makes an excellent point.



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

I do think they need to listen to all reports, laughable or not. Will they? My guess is "yes." Single out some Democratic congressmen and write to them.

---

We at least agree the reports shouldn't be dismissed, and presumably the battle lines drawn beforehand as Kerry and co. are doing.

Quote:

---

Now follow the string; you chose to ask me personally...

---

Bobby, forgive me, but when someone makes a statement like "George Bush needs to surrender his ideology" I think that's a candidate for further clarification before continuing the discussion... especially since this was my post to begin with :cool:

Quote:

---

Steve, that's OK, and I don't take it personal. Elliot replied and we had that discussion already.

---

And Elliot discussed the point I questioned you on, who says we'll be leaving Iraq? I don't believe either side intends to leave Iraq any time soon, they both know what's at stake. I don't believe it will take another 10 years unless our course changes from killing the Jihadists to standing back and watching them take over. I see no reason why, if the critics would stop their Jihad against Bush and get behind the war on terror, that success can't be achieved in Iraq and it can flourish as a free and prosperous society and committed ally.

Quote:

---

My question from yesterday still stands for conservative Christian Republicans that voted for Bush the past two elections... if you want to take a crack at it today?

---

Bobby, I don't patrol these posts that carefully. I had not seen your follow up and had no idea what "second post in consective days" I had allegedly avoided until now. Cut a guy some slack there will you? I will most certainly take a crack at it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

...But Bush chose his way...Bobby

---

Bush had his hands tied by lack of public and congressional support.

They're more concerned with opnion polls and their prospects of re-election than getting this important task completed without unnecessary losses.

I just don't not believe he would drag this out, costing more lives on any front, if given the ultimate choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Youtube? Crooksandliars? The internet is FULL of people exposing the lies. I agree that there are plenty of deluded people.

---

That's a big help there NK, it only strengthens our point. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And Elliot discussed the point I questioned you on, who says we'll be leaving Iraq? I don't believe either side intends to leave Iraq any time soon, they both know what's at stake. I don't believe it will take another 10 years unless our course changes from killing the Jihadists to standing back and watching them take over. I see no reason why, if the critics would stop their Jihad against Bush and get behind the war on terror, that success can't be achieved in Iraq and it can flourish as a free and prosperous society and committed ally.

---

Steve, as you know, I'm originally from Texas and love you like a Dallas Cowboy brother. Elliot and I have disagreed, respectfully, on how the Iraqi war campaign has been executed for years now. I don't know that we would be leaving Iraq anytime soon. In fact, I never said that we would. Kerry may have ideas otherwise and sure he may be trying to represent the Democrats publicly, but to be quite honest with you, since Kerry is not running for election I don't pay much attention to his personal agendas. To the mans credit though, I do think last election he got a bad rap concerning his Vietnam service compared to Bush, that did less. But overall, I see Kerry as another very wealthy politician with lips moving to fan a breeze. Most of the Democrat hopefuls are for immediate re-deployment in phases, not immediate full pull-out. The Republicans, with exception of a few, want to gradually cede the govt control over the Iraqis than eventually leave. I would think, and I'm guessing, that the majority of plans, either way would call for leaving some bases in place.

To suggest that the critics are wrong for not supporting Bush's view is a misconception. Many of these people are just as patriotic and privileged to disagree with the President, as I. Of course there are always a few that lose the respect for the Presidents position of authority, but not all critics disagree with the President for the same reasons. The Jihads challenge is perplexing and one that I've put much thought into since it goes beyond a few countries. We still have not found Bin Laden and we can't be everywhere. I do want to step up our home front efforts though and that's an issue I want to see addressed by all political candidates; all parties.



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

I just don't not believe he would drag this out, costing more lives on any front, if given the ultimate choice.

---

I would agree with this part except for one rather large detail: Bush is the head honcho. He could start anytime now with re-deployment and that's his choice.



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

I would agree with this part except for one rather large detail: Bush is the head honcho. He could start anytime now with re-deployment and that's his choice.



Bobby

---

The good thing about that is whatever devilish thing he can start, Congress can stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

The good thing about that is whatever devilish thing he can start, Congress can stop.

---

That's another good issue. One that excon brought up awhile back. I don't recall the exact wording but to paraphrase: How much has the President, since being in office, changed the power structure of decisions to fit his own agenda, or likewise Congress, for that matter?



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

I would agree with this part except for one rather large detail: Bush is the head honcho. He could start anytime now with re-deployment and that's his choice.



Bobby

---

You make it sound like he's in a military or dictatorial state. He's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

That's another good issue. One that Excon brought up awhile back. I don't recall the exact wording but to paraphrase: How much has the President, since being in office, changed the power structure of decisions to fit his own agenda, or likewise Congress, for that matter?!



Bobby

---

Thank your lucky stars we will have a new government soon, but built on the foundations that our democracy was designed with the assumption that all men were out for themselves. I don’t see anything that Bush has done that jeopardizes those foundations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

You make it sound like he's in a military or dictatorial state. He's not.

---

My friend, then you better mention that to every candidate that's vying for the highest office in our land. Each individual: Republican, Democrat, and Independents, thinks they can either change the current war campaign with redeployment phases, gradually cede the government back to the Iraqis, or have the power to stay the course. Personally, I think our President means well, but is in a state of confusion.



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

My friend, then you better mention that to every candidate that's vying for the highest office in our land. Each individual: Republican, Democrat, and Independents, thinks they can either change the current war campaign with redeployment phases, gradually cede the government back to the Iraqis, or have the power to stay the course. Personally, I think our President means well, but is in a state of confusion.



Bobby

---

They talk a good game, but once they're inside the circle, it's a different picture.
Mighty bold claims until they know the facts that are the reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Thank your lucky stars we will have a new government soon, but built on the foundations that our democracy was designed with the assumption that all men were out for themselves. I don't see anything that Bush has done that jeopardizes those foundations.

---

No! There's nothing new on the horizon. Brand "A" and Brand "B" have been out for themselves and/or to tow the party line for decades now. That's why I have a problem with most politicians and why I have no problem voting Independent. Our nation refers to it as, "Politics as Usual." But even though they are aware of the fact, they are still the same sheep being led to the voting booth with the same results, although different poisens.



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

They talk a good game, but once they're inside the circle, it's a different picture.
Mighty bold claims until they know the facts that are the reality.

---

Oh most of them know the rules. But I've often said the President runs 49 States. Nevada has our own separate red hot-line phone in the White House and when it rings the President runs to answer, "Hi Big Money, Can I help you." :)




Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

No! There's nothing new on the horizon. Brand "A" and Brand "B" have been out for themselves and/or to tow the party line for decades now. That's why I have a problem with most politicians and why I have no problem voting Independent. Our nation refers to it as, "Politics as Usual." But even though they are aware of the fact, they are still the same sheep being led to the voting booth with the same results, although different poisens.



Bobby

---

It has been said that there were times when the choice of the voters on Election Day was between Tweedledum and Tweedledee; however, do you believe it is always that way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

It has been said that there were times when the choice of the voters on Election Day was between Tweedledum and Tweedledee; however, do you believe it is always that way?

---

No. For example: if we base our votes solely on the Iraqi issue, our current international relations and home security, I do think that this election will provide the mass choices of varying views. But this is the exception to the rule since we have a war campaign continuing during an election year. Of course there are a many other issues that bring mostly failed promises. However, outside of that until we get more voices into the public fray and part of the National debates, for many people it will be "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" or the lesser of two evils again.


Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

No. For example: if we base our votes solely on the Iraqi issue, our current international relations and home security, I do think that this election will provide the mass choices of varying views. But this is the exception to the rule since we have a war campaign continuing during an election year. Of course there are a many other issues that bring mostly failed promises. However, outside of that until we get more voices into the public fray and part of the National debates, for many people it will be "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" or the lesser of two evils again.


Bobby

---

I think that each party is quite in agreement about the fundamental ideas set forth in the constitution and federalist papers. But it seems one big riff began with the New Deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Thank your lucky stars we will have a new government soon, but built on the foundations that our democracy was designed with the assumption that all men were out for themselves. I don’t see anything that Bush has done that jeopardizes those foundations.

---

The foundations he has undermined are the constitutional guarantees that the government may not deprive anyone of life or liberty without due process of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

The foundations he has undermined are the constitutional guarantees that the government may not deprive anyone of life or liberty without due process of law.

---

Good point and interesting subject. I found this article:

"Congress, Bush and The Real Constitutional Crisis

Created by glenn_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 01:09 PM

America is in the midst of an authentic constitutional crisis as the Bush Administration moves to reduce Congress to little more than an irrelevant focus group and achieve what no U.S. President has ever achieved: a true above-the-law presidency.

These are the stakes: Will the United States save what is left of its constitutional democracy by restoring checks and balances among the three branches of government?

When the U.S. Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush to the White House by calling off the Florida recount in 2000, many pundits applauded the action because it allegedly headed off a constitutional crisis. That was a phony rationalization that disguised what is now apparent: the real post-Florida 2000 constitutional crisis is the Bush Administration's unprecedented, Constitution-destroying lust for power.

The fight should not be measured against partisan positioning for the 2008 elections. Democratic and Republican political consultants will view the crisis that way because that is their job. Consultants are hired to win elections, not save the Constitution. Congressional Democrats must look past the powerpoints of their consultants. So should Republicans, who are struggling to distance themselves from Bush's negatives without asking the White House for a divorce.

But, there is now no other choice. Bush's drive to place permanent barriers between the people and their government, to lift the presidency above all laws, must be stopped.

Earlier this week I wrote about the dangerous cultural narrative that frames Congress as an inept community. Our hero myths often include an inept community that must be saved by the lone hero. This cultural narrative has led to a broadly held view that Congress is just such a community.

For those Democrats and Republicans in Congress who remain captive to consultant myopia, I offer this observation. Political experts criticize Senator John Kerry for failing to adequately counter-attack the Swift Boaters. Kerry's mistake, however, was that his campaign behavior undermined his own mythic narrative, the narrative of a courageous Vietnam war hero. Voters who rejected Kerry did so not because they believed the Swift Boaters and were suspicious of his Vietnam valor, but because of the apparent lack of valor that was happening right before their eyes.

Congress is now being Swift Boated by the Bush Administration. Americans will judge the valor of Congress, not as presented in ads in 2008, but as witnessed in real time, right now. Polls are no doubt suggesting that voters want Congress to address health care reform and the deteriorating economy. A political fight with Bush over the constitutional balance of power will look like a distraction, like politics as usual, like so much partisan squabbling. Today, it seems that Congress is overcoming that fear and preparing for the fight. They are moving in the right direction with the subpoena of Karl Rove and the opening of a perjury investigation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. We should applaud these actions, and pray for more.

The Bush gambit is to permanently derail progressive policy goals by building an impenetrable wall between the people and their government and by asserting ultimate and absolute presidential authority. These ambitions are made obvious by the Administration's actions: Bush's unprecedented veto threats; the obvious "we-don't-really-care-what-you-think" attitude of Gonzales during his committee testimony; the Administration's questioning Senator Hillary Clinton's patriotism when she asked for details of Bush's Iraq plans; the refusal to disclose details of the Administration's emergency government plan.

Even a temporary eviction from the White House beginning in 2009 would not deter the neoconservatives and their anti-democratic allies. A Democratic president will have her/his hands full cleaning up the Bush garbage. While a Democratic president would probably resist further steps along the above-the-law path, it's unlikely a president will willingly give up any power that has accrued to the presidency during the Bush reign. So, the right wing reasons, we'll just pick up in 2012 where we left off in 2008.

The federal courts, packed with conservative appointments, will also do what they can to establish permanent barriers between the American people and their government.

Congress has no choice but to destroy those barriers now. The crisis cannot be reduced to a messy or selfish partisan confrontation. Truth is, many Republicans are as interested as Democrats in saving our constitutional democracy. The further truth is, the stakes matter much, much more than any potential partisan consequences for either major party.

In the end, the battle for the future of America may make necessary the impeachment of a president who is very publicly moving to destroy our constitutional form of government. It may not seem the politically prudent thing to do. But this is a president who lied us into a war, who uses his pen to make laws (constitutionally reserved for Congress) through signing statements, who commutes the sentence of a convicted criminal to protect himself from scrutiny, who believes he has the right to declare anyone he wants an enemy combatant and then "disappear" that person the way we taught our tyrannical and thuggish client-state dictators to do during the Cold War. If these are not sufficient to justify a legal and constitutional challenge to the legitimacy of the Bush presidency, exactly what would a president have to do before we would impeach him?

Republicans and Democrats in Congress can look at our predicament and decide to save their own asses; Democrats running against Bush; Republicans running from Bush. That would be politics as usual.

Or, they can act fearlessly to save the country, and, despite what today's polls might tell them, earn the gratitude of voters who today might be wishing the nightmare will just come to an end. But the best way to end a nightmare is to wake up.

Congress can interrupt the narrative of its own ineptitude and restore the dignity and power of a people who are willing to govern themselves. But to do so, we must be awake to the real constitutional crisis that is at hand."


_____________________________________________


Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Personally, I think our President means well, but is in a state of confusion.

---

Well, that's a right charitable way to put it, Bobby. Personally, I think he's a party boy who got in WAY over his head, let himself be bamboozled by a bunch of swaggering "big thinkers" into doing a series of very stupid things, and is now in a state of deep denial, trying to run out the clock so he can eventually blame his successor for the messes he's made. It's always worked for him before, maybe it will again.

Quote:

---

I do want to step up our home front efforts though and that's an issue I want to see addressed by all political candidates; all parties.

---

Bobby

There are few who would disagree with that. However ,the homefront is not a military matter. Returning the troops home to defend the homefront is a strawman . There was a long thread about domestic use of troops and most agreed that even when they had a role their usage should be to a limited degree.

We can defend the borders and I think the national will is there to do so . I think the elected officials for the most part have ignored or misread the national will in this regard .

Quote:

---

I think that each party is quite in agreement about the fundamental ideas set forth in the constitution and federalist papers. But it seems one big riff began with the New Deal.

---

DC

This will serve as a part of a response to your follow-up posting about the political parties

Yes, the New Deal was a tipping point in the last century ,but I think the current and historically the differences in American political parties traces back to the debates of and about federalism the founders had . To correct the biggest misconception in American history ; the founders were not this monolithic group of like minded men . There was the Federalist Papers published by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay ,and there was also the lesser quoted anti-Federalist essays written by founders like Patrick Henry ,George Clinton ,and a few others like Richard Henry Lee . The Constitution was very much a compromise between the competing views of what the government should look like and even then ratification was not a sure thing . The bicameral nature of the Congress as an example was a direct result of the behind doors negotiations that went on at the Constitutional Convention. A government without political parties did not last past the 1st George Washington Administration.

Conflicts between the founders were quite nasty whether they were hitting below the belt using pseudonyms in the( then equivalent of the internet) press ;or in some cases where it came to blows and duels. The political debate today is civil by comparison.

Bobby

The article you posted starts will a big fallacy that needs correction . I will comment on the rest of it later .

The Supreme Court did not appoint President Bush . He was elected . The Florida electors gave him a majority of the electoral college vote in 2000 . That is the constitutional system we have.

I disagreed with both Al Gore getting the Fla. Supreme Court involved in the election process and in the SCOTUS ruling on the case. I have no desire to rehash the many times in previous postings I showed that Bush would've won even if the endless recounts were allowed to continue .Suffice it to say that an independent group of news outlets did recounts of their own and their conclusion was that Bush had more votes then the final tally at the time that Fla. Sec State Harris ;using her proper role in the Fla. election system ,called off the recounts.

All both courts accomplished in their improper and unconstitutional role of arbitration was guarantee that any future national election will be bogged down by endless court challenges. We have seen that damage and delay the results of a few state elections already. The 2004 election almost had a similar situation in the Ohio count . The courts have guaranteed a big pay day for lawyers hired by the political parties but they have undermined our electoral system almost beyond repair . Bottom line... the courts have NO role in the electoral process .The founders were very clear that the States controlled the process.

For anyone wondering why I have contempt for the courts the above is a classic case . Also ;in case anyone is wondering... in 2000 I cast my vote for Ralph Nader [I live in NY so my vote was not really going to make a difference. I am still registered independent ]. I did not become a big Bush supported until I saw him in action .

Edit . I will not comment on the rest .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

To correct the biggest misconception in American history ; the founders were not this monolithic group of like minded men... The Constitution was very much a compromise between the competing views of what the government should look like and even then ratification was not a sure thing . The bicameral nature of the Congress as an example was a direct result of the behind doors negotiations that went on at the Constitutional Convention. A government without political parties did not last past the 1st George Washington Administration.

Conflicts between the founders were quite nasty whether they were hitting below the belt using pseudonyms in the( then equivalent of the internet) press ;or in some cases where it came to blows and duels. The political debate today is civil by comparison.

---

Yes, it's good to be reminded of this. Politics has always been and always will be a rough and tumble undertaking by people who are utterly convinced that they're 100% RIGHT, but still usually manage to find a compromise that avoids bloodshed. When they fail to do so (as in, say, Iraq today) there is bloodshed, aka civil war.

Quote:

---

I did not become a big Bush supported until I saw him in action .

---

I am completely nonplussed by this.

I guess it comes as a complete surprise ,but I am not alone . There are many of us who became Bush supporters after we saw his tremendous leadership following 9-11. I can point to someone like Christopher Hitchins as an example of someone who was a convert . Comedian Dennis Miller is anther prominent example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Well, that's a right charitable way to put it, Bobby. Personally, I think he's a party boy who got in WAY over his head, let himself be bamboozled by a bunch of swaggering "big thinkers" into doing a series of very stupid things, and is now in a state of deep denial, trying to run out the clock so he can eventually blame his successor for the messes he's made. It's always worked for him before, maybe it will again.

---

Wow, I am always amazed that Bush can be smart clever, tenacious and sneaky enough to steal elections, rewrite the constitution in his favor, undermine our rights and have a stranglehold on congress while at the same time being an incompetent boob that couldn't find his a$$ without Karl Rove's help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Wow, I am always amazed that Bush can be smart clever, tenacious and sneaky enough to steal elections, rewrite the constitution in his favor, undermine our rights and have a stranglehold on congress while at the same time being an incompetent boob that couldn't find his a$$ without Karl Rove's help.

---

I agree with your list of accomplishments, but of course, they weren't his alone. Presidents never seem to lack for help, however misguided their policies may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

I agree with your list of accomplishments, but of course, they weren't his alone. Presidents never seem to lack for help, however misguided their policies may be.

---

What would it have been like if Al Gore had won the Presidency? Can you imagine it?