Presidential Race

Parent Cafe
281

<p>I’m not sure what Mini is quoting in his post. But, the Washington Post has a story today stating that the Bush administration changed its rule of engagement recently to allow US military to kill Iranian nationals in Iraq.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601050.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601050.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>To me, the escalation of rhetoric against Iran by the Bush administration is the most disturbing recent development. All veteran foreign policy experts suggest that we should be doing just the opposite. This is serious concern and the thing that most makes me worry that Bush may have literally “lost it”. There are a number of Senators, on both sides of the aisle, who are extremely concerned by the surging administration belligerence towards Iran.</p>

282

<p>I think if one side authorizes the other to kill the other’s nationals then it is absolutely fine if they respond by killing or arresting the othersides nationsal</p>

283

<p>wow, so I guess lying while not under oath is okay? seems to be acceptable to some</p>

<p>are some still talking about Clinton’s weenie…and that has to do with Iraq HOW/</p>

<p>so FF and Zoosermom, when are you sending your kids over there to create the 20,000 man/woman force needed…</p>

<p>I am sooo sick of people saying yes we must do what this president wants and don’t back it up</p>

284

<p>“I think if one side authorizes the other to kill the other’s nationals then it is absolutely fine if they respond by killing or arresting the othersides nationsal”</p>

<p>Don’t believe everything you read in “the media” - someone might pull another “judith miller” on you. ;)</p>

285

<p>

</p>

<p>Bush changed the policy to allow the killing of Iranian nationals last fall. It almost seems that he is trying to provoke a fight…kind of real world “make my day”.</p>

<p>There are Senators who interpret Bush’s recent actions and words as a signal of an intention to attack Iran. There was a heated exchange between Biden and Condi Rice last week about the constitutional grounds for such an attack. The saber rattling has people very concerned because our military is already stretched to the breaking point. Bush’s stubbornness is scaring people.</p>

286

<p>Please zoosermom, that is sooooo old and he lied about SEX!!! egad…guess that is more important to you then putting us in an unwinnable war…your priorities are about sex and mine are about saving peoples lives</p>

<p>I get he didn’t tell the truth UNDER OATH as you keep repeating, but Bush hasn’t told the truth, even in the state of the union addres, but so long as he didn’t promise on the bible, his lies are okay to some people</p>

287

<p>“You imposed a group of terrorists … on the region,” Ahmadinejad said, addressing the U.S. and its allies. “It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals… This is an ultimatum. Don’t complain tomorrow.”</p>

<p>“Nations will take revenge,” he told a crowd of thousands gathered at a pro-Palestinian rally in the capital Tehran.</p>

<p>Ahmadinejad said Israel no longer had any reason to exist and would soon disappear.</p>

<p>“This regime, thanks to God, has lost the reason for its existence,” he said.</p>

<p>“Efforts to stabilize this fake (Israeli) regime, by the grace of God, have completely failed… You should believe that this regime is disappearing,” he said.</p>

<p>TALK ABOUT SABRE RATTLIG</p>

288

<p>“Please zoosermom, that is sooooo old and he lied about SEX!!! egad…guess that is more important to you then putting us in an unwinnable war…your priorities are about sex and mine are about saving peoples lives”</p>

<p>Why are you linking two unrelated things, and I’ve asked you repeatedly in the past not to put words into my keyboard or ascribe to me thoughts/emotions/things that I never stated. I’m asking you again to stop that.</p>

289

<p>Kluge, why do you think Clinton didn’t fight the contempt charge?</p>

290

<p>That’s the problem with Bush’s sabre-rattling.</p>

<p>Large segments of the Iranian population, including the ruling theocracy, understand that Ahmadinejad is a nutcase. Why Bush is empowering this guy is beyond my comprehension. We should be looking to reduce his influence by ratcheting down the rhetoric and sabre rattling, while looking for opportunities to seek common interests throughout the region.</p>

<p>There is motivation for Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and others in the region to stabilize Iraq. They are all staring down the grim reality of 1 million Iraqi refugees crossing their borders.</p>

291

<p>Zoosermom, you keep trying to change the subject. I took exception to this:

  • which you wrote. When I wrote that “The Paula Jones case wasn’t about a “private citizen” who had a “triable cause of action” - it was entirely a political act, pushed by political hacks, with no purpose but to score political points.” you responded with

Both of the things you wrote were dead wrong. I understand why you want to talk about something else now, and I’m happy to let you preach to whatever choir you like. But the statements you wrote which I objected to were untenable.</p>

<p>Dstark - I actually don’t know much about that aspect of the case. Contempt law is fairly arcane and tends to be locally-specific (I’ve never seen a contempt citation issued or litigated in 33 years of practice.) I do know that the whole situation was lose-lose for Clinton as long as the right wing could get Americans to obsess over his sex life instead of anything of actual significance to the nation. Do you think Zoosermom is as offended by the 50% increase in the national debt since 2000 as she evidently is about Clinton lying about his sex life? What does that tell you about Americans, the media, and the power of the right wing propaganda machine.?</p>

292

<p>The problem is cause & effect. Bush did not start sabre rattling the Iranians until after they called for the destruction of america’s allies, until after they exported terror onto America and its allies, and until after they started building nukes.</p>

293

<p>And why is it that everyone condemns any little statemnt made by Bush on the Iranians, but not the statements made by Ahmedinijad.</p>

<p>Imagne the US called for the destruction of Iran…not a regime change, mind you, but the destruction.</p>

294

<p>Kluge Posted: “Zoosermom, you keep trying to change the subject.”
ZM responds: Not changing the subject at all. I suspect we are posting about two different things here, so I’m not going to get angry or assume that you are attacking. </p>

<p>Kluge posted: "I took exception to this
Quote:
“THe lawsuit had nothing to do with the government. An American citizen had a triable cause of action against Mr. Clinton…” </p>

<p>ZM responds: What I meant by that statement (and I concede that it was poorly written) was that the action wasn’t brought by a governmental entity against Mr. Clinton, which statement was in response to another poster. I stand by the statement that the government didn’t bring action against him.</p>

<p>Kluge posted: "- which you wrote. When I wrote that “The Paula Jones case wasn’t about a “private citizen” who had a “triable cause of action” - it was entirely a political act, pushed by political hacks, with no purpose but to score political points.” you responded with "</p>

<p>Quote:
That is YOUR opinion but it was NOT the judge’s. "</p>

<p>ZM responds: This is another example of two things being true at once. It is absolutely true that the lawsuit was politically motivated, without question, but it is ALSO true that lawsuit was pending in a court of law, which is exactly what I meant. It had not yet been resolved, ended, or otherwise sent away.</p>

<p>Again, I think we are “arguing” two different things and not quite on the same wavelength.</p>

<p>Kluge posts: “Both of the things you wrote were dead wrong. I understand why you want to talk about something else now, and I’m happy to let you preach to whatever choir you like. But the statements you wrote which I objected to were untenable.”</p>

<p>ZM responds: was that tone really necessary? I’ve been nothing but polite to you and I’m not sure why you feel the need to attack and be so vicious all the time simply because we don’t share the same point of view.</p>

295

<p>ID, am I missing something here? Bush authorizes the arrest or shooting of those trying to kill American soldiers and he’s the one guilty of sabre rattling? Do you really expect us to just let it go? I must be missing something because I can’t imagine anyone, no matter how anti-war they may be, to suggest that the US should not take measures to protect our troops. I’m surprised that this is even in the news - I would figure that it is a given that if you shoot at or help others shoot at our troops you are going to be history.</p>

296

<p>You might do well to read what the authorization (purportedly) said before commenting.</p>

<p>And, to cite the Administration:</p>

<p>“There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.”</p>

<p>You ought to peruse the other media story.</p>

297

<p>

</p>

<p>Nobody knowledgeable of the situation on the ground believes that the Iranians have been killing US soldiers in Iraq. Until fairly recently, the Iranians were viewed as being relatively restrained in their actions in Iraq. </p>

<p>Were they funding and supporting Shia factions? Absolutely. Just like Saudi Arabia is funding and supporting Sunni factions.</p>

<p>Most of the attacks on US personnel have been conducted by a marriage of convenience between the Baathist insurgency and Al Queda funded foreign operatives.</p>

298

<p>“Until fairly recently, the Iranians were viewed as being relatively restrained in their actions in Iraq.”</p>

<p>why would they need to be other than restrained when they can so easily pay/arm others to do the actual work for them?</p>

299

<p>You bet! And if there were 200,000 hostile and aggressive troops on U.S. borders, from a power under whose auspices chemical weapons had been used against the U.S., you can bet the U.S. would do the same.</p>

<p>(The fact that there is no evidence for it shouldn’t deter you.)</p>

300

<p>mini, you would do well to read the next sentence:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Anyone who helps people kill Americans should be targeted plain and simple. To follow any other policy than that is truly amazing.</p>