If Obama is President Is this what we'll get?

The same can and will be said about McCain.. We don't have a decent choice this election...

There is no silver lining... The American people have been stuck with politics as always for a long time and until we wake up will be stuck again and again and again...

 

...none of which remotely justify a preemptive war. He was not in the midst of invading anyone, let alone an American ally. He was not actively threatening America with biological weapons. And he was nowhere close to having nukes.

 

Actually, we had been at war with him throughout both Clinton administrations, bombing one target or another on a daily basis, and getting shot at my their missiles. I wonder what happened to everyone's memories--Bush II and his people were talking regime change from the get-go. We believed what every intelligence service in the world believed, which is, that he had an ongoing WMD program. The reason we believed that was because of the constant intercepted chatter about it among Iraqi leaders. So, either the WMD were evacuated to Saddam's fellow Ba'ath friends in Syria, or the WMD did not really exist, but that his own people were telling him the program was ongoing to keep from being tortured to death, as he was in the habit of having done.

Taking out Saddam was no mistake. Staying to nation buildi was. We should not have disbanded the Iraqi army, but should have found a general that was not too bad, gave him the keys, and re-deployed to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Since JFK, we have had this vision of nation building, because his generation was able to do that in Germany and Japan. So far, it seems as if that experiment has worked, but the circumstances were drastically different from Iraq or any other nation-building building effort we have tried.

The simple fact is that a Western-style democracy, (including protections for minorities and NOT including an Islamic theocracy) does not exist in the Islamic world, has not existed in the Islamic world, and is unlikely to ever exist in the Islamic world. Victory in Iraq will be when the Iraqis achieve some modicum of political practicality and they tell us they are ready to deal with the insurgency. Note, nearly every Muslim nation has at least one insurgent group and an ongoing campaign of violence.

 

Except that an ongoing WMD program isn't nearly enough justification for a preemptive war, even if it did exist. And intercepted chatter isn't nearly enough evidence to conclude that it did.

 

That, of course was not the only source. All of the allied intelligence agencies, even the French, agreed that the WMD were there, and we were operating under UN auspices. Saddam, by treaty and UN resolution, had agreed to not have a WMD program.

There were doubters about the intel--but there always are! And, there was the typical "spook talk" which left enough caveats on the table that the intel types could claim they were right, whatever the case. I have sat through more intel briefings than I care to think about, and the spook doing the briefing was always hedging, hemming, and hawing.

 

I don't disagree that all of the intelligence agencies agreed. I do fundamentally disagree with their conclusions based upon the evidence that has come to light and believe that they did an extremely poor job of evaluating that evidence, particularly given concerns about some of its validity that were dusted away to grease the war the Bush administration was yearning for from Day 1 (as you pointed out and I entirely agree with).

The second Gulf War, however, was in no way carried out under UN auspices, though Bush claimed authorization based upon a previous security council resolution. That, however, was not intended by the members to support such a military action, and at the time of the attack Bush failed to get the supporting resolution he worked so hard for. If the matter had been brought to a vote, he would have lost, so he claimed he already had previous authorization.

 

I believe we are talking about murders in American cities (see OP). I do know that NYC is run by a Republican mayer (Bloomsberg). Do you think Harlem or the South Bronx is a great example for a safe family environment?

 

They seldom elect historians to higher office. For one thing, it is darn-near impossible to get us out of the classroom. For another, we know too much.

 

Bloomberg was never much of a Republican, and I do believe that he is officially an Independent now. He seriously considered a third party run for president, which he could have self-funded out of his egg money, but decided not to do it.

 

There is going to be a depression but it will be the George Bush depression. It doesn't matter which candidate wins in 2008 it will happen because of George Bush's disastrous policies. GW Bush - the WORST President in American history.

 

That's what they said about Harry Truman, whose approvals were much lower than Bush. There will only be a depression if Obama passes his tax increase.

 

And Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law that encouraged banks to lend to minorities even if they couldn't pay for them. And Obama was active in ACORN which insisted that banks give those mortgages or be called racist. The history of it was all just on FNC this evening.

 

Well, let's see. Detroit's mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is a Democrat and was recently convicted of a felony.

Didn't check yet on Baltimore.

We all know the NO mayor is the Democrat who was the buffoon during Katrina.

Didn't check yet on Newark or St. Louis. But 2 out of the top 3 highest murder rates have Democratic mayors.....

 

Evidence? I don't think Bush helped much, but I'd put Clinton and Greenspan way ahead of Bush in the blame department here.

Ah yes, the bastion of truth that is FNC.

Actually, the bill Jimmy Carter signed is the Community Reinvestment Act that I mentioned earlier. While its success in its original form can be debated, there's no doubt that we wouldn't have the crisis we have today had the bill remained unamended. Changes by Bush Sr. hurt, but the big blow was actually done by Clinton in 1995 when he re-wrote it, essentially requiring banks to offer high-risk loans.

Folks, this is getting silly. Unless you know the difference between correlation and causation...

 

Correction, I am the one who keeps saying the Republican's can just amend the constitution if they are serious about being pro-life. You are correct in saying I don't see Roe vs Wade being overturned but there are many other alternatives.

Now we have a fresh politician who is trying to do something about defenseless people being murdered. Talk about being inconsistent, you advocate one form of murder but turn your head at another. I see someone doing something about A form of murder and I want to assist and encourage his cause. If I saw a politician serious about doing something po-life I would assist and encourage them also. I stopped falling for campaign positions and bumper stickers a long time ago.

So who is it that's inconsistent?

 

What a scary thought, I don't want to see that guy with the button... He does too many hail mary, spur of the moment things.

 

What does you rant have to do with my question?

 

My post is clear.

 

Go spend some time in Chicago and you'll understand. Houston has some problems but it's nothing like Chicago.

 

Well, my post was clearer which isn't hard since your post was clear as mud.