<p>I see that TD has posted the Army Times editorial as evidence of how in touch he is with what our military men and women are thinking. Take it with a large grain of salt.
<a href=“TIME | Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates”>TIME | Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates
</p>
<p>The recycling of the Republican cash hoard is good for the depressed Advertising/Media Industry and ultimately the economy. Thankyou for the windfall.</p>
<p>I would imagine that those parents whose children are dying would like to have more faith in the mission. I know some do, but apparently many don’t. And the more I read from soliders who have finished their tours and are home, the more it seems that they are unsure of the purpose of their mission too…not to mention the physical and emotional scars. I am sure you read the three or four part series in this regard that was in the Boston Globe this week, right SJ (since you love our home town paper;)).</p>
<p>I read part of the series, AM, but felt that it presented a very biased point of view (as usual!)</p>
<p>“This is assuming that the same crowds are following American elections, too. Big if…”</p>
<p>"You must be joking (as Bond once said to Goldfinger)</p>
<p>Al Jezeera for one is not going to ignore it</p>
<p>So in order to protect democracy, we need to have a one-party system?</p>
<p>I don’t recall saying anything about people not having the right to vote. The Dems might have a bit more credibility on Iraq if they had not been simultaneously for several years undercutting nearly every anti-terrorist government program since 911 - including shutting down or severely modifying The Patriot Act, shutting down (the now provably lawful) government intercepts of TERRORISTS inbound calls to America, and 12 or 13 other major programs</p>
<p>Ms Pelosi’s strategy might in fact work in terms of getting her to the Speakership: on the war on terror, endlessly trash everything Bush does related to the war on terror no matter how much it hurts U.S. National Security, and on Iraq - say your against it while offering no viable substitute program beyond de facto abandonment</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. But Al Jazeera’s a pretty interesting network. Besides, they’ll probably come up with ways to make the Dems look like monsters anyway. Good for profit margins and all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you’re not thinking politically here. One of the big problems with understanding motives in politics is that you can never remove the variable of elections. It’s not possible to completely divorce any analysis of political motive from the possibility that Democrats did it solely for political reasons. Call it crass or unpatriotic or whatever you want, but it’s entirely possible that the Dems either: wanted to vote down PATRIOT since it was incredibly unpopular with a good segment of the population (gotta get those votes on the margin, after all!), or that they wanted to stop the GOP from putting in place legislation that they’d rather put in place themselves.</p>
<p>And before you say, “oh, but the GOP never does that!” check out THOMAS and look at all the cases where an almost identical bill will get turned down by one party then later turned down by the SAME party that initially drafted it when they aren’t in power!</p>
<p>Keep in mind that party cohesion is very weak in the US (relative to other countries), and that Congressmen are largely beholden to their constituencies. Let’s say you’re a legislator from, oh I dunno, New York. You know for a fact that voting “yea” on PATRIOT could jeopardize your next election. What are you gonna do, even if you think it’s a good thing?</p>
<p>The rational politician says…::spin the See-and-obfuscate:: “naaaaayyyyy”</p>
<p>Interesting thread title. Tell me more…</p>
<p>:p:p:p:p:p</p>
<p>What a strange, strange trip it’s been.</p>
<p>See post #1 :)</p>
<p>Oh ye predictors…thou were wrong</p>
<p>A catchy title (got you to read didn’t it? :)) is not a prediction.</p>
<p>A lot of what is hyped as “anti-terrorist” is simpy b.s. as a smokescreen for a power grab by the executive branch.</p>
<p>However…Ari, just let them keep on keeeping on. We’ve got another three Acts to this play and it’s better for us if they Just Don’t Get It right up to the very end, just as with yesterday.</p>
<p>WRONG!!! And now the best news ever, Rumsfeld is GONE! Bush has to go too…Things are definitely looking up today!</p>
<p>A bittersweet outcome for this Democrat. It’ll take years to undo the damage done to this society by the Bushies. And Democrats will get the blame when, in 2 years, things are still a mess, which they still will be. And they’ll of course get the blame for Iraq, because that’s SUCH a mess, no one can do anything about it without looking like a disgraced bungling fool. Still, sweet to see Rumsfeld go. Now if only Condoleeza followed suit.</p>
<p>A bittersweet outcome for this Democrat. It’ll take years to undo the damage done to this society by the Bushies. And Democrats will get the blame when, in 2 years, things are still a mess, which they still will be. And they’ll of course get the blame for Iraq, because that’s SUCH a mess, no one can do anything about it without looking like a disgraced bungling fool. Still, sweet to see Rumsfeld go. Now if only Condoleeza followed suit.</p>
<p>KM, don’t believe it. The Democrats are going to force lots of votes that will give Bush and the Republicans pain. Bush may be able to stay his course via the powers of the executive but it will be clear who is responsible for the gridlock and the continuation of the country going a direction with which most people disagree.</p>
<p>Two interesting numbers for 2008: 12 and 21. The number of Democratic and Republican Senate seats up for election. Democrats expand their control. I’ll make book on it now.</p>
<p>The Democrats took the house, by a pretty respectable margin. It would have been even bigger had it not been for the Kerry comment and the conveniently-timed Saddam verdict.</p>
<p>The Senate will most likely be Dem with a 51-49 (or 49-2-49) majority, though it won’t be official for a couple of weeks.</p>