[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 7 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

I know this is the common thinking but I disagree.

I think the voters will be a huge number of Dems coming out to vote for their party and Reps wondering if their party are a bunch of doing nothing crooks who cannot even run a war. The one think Reps thought they could do better than Dems.

All the Reps have at this point are tax cutters and pro lifers.

I think you are underestimating the "fear" factor. There is a rather large body of souls who believe Hillary to be pure socialist - as shown, they claim, by her work on healthcare when first lady - and socialism to them is pure evil.

I think the vast "silent majority" would vote anti-Hillary, and the only win for her would be a landslide of cross-voting rebs women and independent women.

That's why I think there would be such a huge turnout - the silent majority would show up in mass.

[mike777]

We all hate socialism for the other guy,,, but give our poor poor families a break please Mr Big Government.

ok,,heck I have been wrong so far; now it seems a runaway for Mrs. Clinton for next Pres.

Now that I think about it, alot of my family and friends work for the government in one form or another, including my bridge partners.

Heck I think even Peter does in one form or another?

[Al_U_Card]

You all think that Hillary has a chance? Or rather that the establishment will take that chance? It would be nice if you guys were the pulse of the nation, but I believe that even if she wins the dem. nod (which I doubt) Rudy will use his superior skills to beat her in a not very close race.

I would still like to see Edwards vs anyone. The man has style, grace, intellect and commitment.....did someone say J?E (I don't know what his middle initial is...)

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 8 2007, 05:52 PM, said:

You all think that Hillary has a chance? Or rather that the establishment will take that chance? It would be nice if you guys were the pulse of the nation, but I believe that even if she wins the dem. nod (which I doubt) Rudy will use his superior skills to beat her in a not very close race.

Rudy wasn't able to beat Clinton in the New York Senate race.

Upstate New York used to be strong Republican territory before the party was taken over by the religious right. Rudy was mayor in NYC, the Democratic stronghold. He SHOULD have been able to easily dispose of a Democratic carpet bagger like Hillary.

He couldn't beat her then. I doubt that he can do so now.

As I mentioned, I have mixed feelings about Hillary in 2008. I don't think that she would be the Democrats strongest candidate, but I think that she would be very formidable.

Personally, I'm expecting the Republicans to lose the 2008 election convincingly.

[Winstonm]

Here's some breaking news to add to this thread - it seems now the inspector general of the Pentagon agrees that the Bush administration used known faulty intelligence to support the start of war.

Quote

Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted
'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War

By Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 9, 2007; A01



Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."

And so back to Mike's question: what will Congress do about it?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2007, 12:24 AM, said:

Here's some breaking news to add to this thread - it seems now the inspector general of the Pentagon agrees that the Bush administration used known faulty intelligence to support the start of war.

Quote

Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted
'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War

By Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 9, 2007; A01



Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."

And so back to Mike's question: what will Congress do about it?

1) Throw Bush out of office
2) Make Cheney President
3) Make sure that never, never again will the Congress go to war and have our kids die without a full and complete debate.

Ok...next question?

[Winstonm]

Quote

1) Throw Bush out of office
2) Make Cheney President
3) Make sure that never, never again will the Congress go to war and have our kids die without a full and complete debate.

Ok...next question?

1) Agree
2) Disagree - throw out both and make Pelosi president
3) Agree with this addition: make sure in all future conflicts that Congress must pass a declaration of war, as so stipulated in the constitution.

Next question - do you honestly believe any of these things will happen?

[pbleighton]

"And so back to Mike's question: what will Congress do about it"

In the short term, pass some sort of non-binding resolution. The money is already appropriated for this fiscal year. The Democrats will keep the pressure on the Republicans, who are terrified of 2008 being a repeat of 2006.

Come autumn, FY08 budget time, the surge will have failed, and the debate will intensify.

I could see the Repulican congressional leadership telling Bush "a lot of our guys are going to vote to cut off funds unless you come up with a withdrawal policy". It's uncertain what Bush would do then.

There is a critical number as to public support for the war. Right now it is unpopular by 2-1, but still only a relatively small minority want to leave RIGHT NOW.

When "RIGHT NOW" hits 51% (I don't know when this will be, but I think the escalation, pardon me I meant "surge", has made the date ealier than it would have been), Congress will do something meaningful.

And if Bush vetoes the legislation, we will have a constitutional crisis. And if Bush thinks his poll numbers are low now...

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

Come autumn, FY08 budget time, the surge will have failed, and the debate will intensify.

Yes, by then the debate will be "should we get out of Iran."

[pbleighton]

"Yes, by then the debate will be "should we get out of Iran.""

Bush.

Old dog.

New tricks.

Peter

[mike777]

If we withdraw, any votes for going back in?

Where are the people of this posts title?

[pbleighton]

"If we withdraw, any votes for going back in?"

One of the nastiest parts of the Iraq problem is that
while it is clear to me (and to an increasing number
of people) that we should get out now, it is also possible
(though very unlikely) that we may find ourselves back in there
in 5, 10, 15 years, asked in as part of a multinational force,
when the Iraqis have gotten tired of civil war, and decide
to ask for help.

It is far more likely that we would be asked to fund such an
effort. U.S. soldiers' presence in Iraq are politically toxic
now, which is why staying and "finishing the job" is
silly and unrealistic. This will continue to be true for decades.

The difficulty the U.S. is having now, where a large
majority is against the war and another large majority is
against leaving now, is IMO cultural rather than military:

We are a very optimistic country, and we hate to admit that
we have made an unfixable mess.

Peter

[mike777]

ok so we only go back in if asked as part of a multinat. force.

No more unilateral bombing/attacking some training sites out in the middle of the desert?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 10 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

ok so we only go back in if asked as part of a multinat. force.

No more unilateral bombing/attacking some training sites out in the middle of the desert?

If we know where these sites are and who is there (terrorists), what prevents us from going in on a quick surprise operation to arrest these criminals and bring them to justice?

Bombing leads to disasters such as our latest failure in Africa, where we missed our suspected targets and ended up killing a lot of innocent people. Was that war or murder?

[mike777]

I thought we are on trial in Italy and Germany for doing just this?

We can just kidnap people in another country?


How are we getting enough evidence to convict? We cannot even convict OJ?
Now you want to kidnap people, lose the trial and get sued for millions that could go to fight cancer or aids? Why not just leave them alone?

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2007, 09:24 PM, said:

Was that war or murder?

Depends on the number of victims.
1 is murder
100 is mass murder
10,000 is war
100,000 is collateral damage.

Mike777 said:

We can just kidnap people in another country?

Depends on the country. If it's not a major trade partner, I think it's safe.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Feb 10 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2007, 09:24 PM, said:

Was that war or murder?

Depends on the number of victims.
1 is murder
100 is mass murder
10,000 is war
100,000 is collateral damage.

Mike777 said:

We can just kidnap people in another country?

Depends on the country. If it's not a major trade partner, I think it's safe.

Heck we are not even talking about the 2 million men, women, boys and girls that were raped by Russians in Western Poland and Eastern Germany.

What about pillaging?

What about the millions forced to Eastern Russia in forced slavery?

Killing is just the tip of the iceberg, for some there was worse.

And yet the world stood by and did nothing to stop it. I guess it was legal.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 10 2007, 02:26 PM, said:

I thought we are on trial in Italy and Germany for doing just this?

We can just kidnap people in another country?

Kidnapping is criminal but bombing is OK?

I said "arrest", not kidnap. But to arrest they would have to be charged with a crime. I don't think "conspiracy to learn how to make bombs" is a chargeable offense. Nor do I believe "being pissed off at the U.S." is chargeable.

Now making a plan to blow up a bomb in Times Square - that is conspiracy to commit murder and that is chargeable.

However, it seems that the U.S. now believes that being born into a radical Islamic family is a capital offense with no trial needed so we can skip right to the execution - and let habeus corpus be damned.

"I'm proud to be an American, God bless the U.S.A."

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Feb 10 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2007, 09:24 PM, said:

Was that war or murder?

Depends on the number of victims.
1 is murder
100 is mass murder
10,000 is war
100,000 is collateral damage.

Mike777 said:

We can just kidnap people in another country?

Depends on the country. If it's not a major trade partner, I think it's safe.

ROFLMAO. Helene, you are the best.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 10 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 10 2007, 02:26 PM, said:

I thought we are on trial in Italy and Germany for doing just this?

We can just kidnap people in another country?

Kidnapping is criminal but bombing is OK?

I said "arrest", not kidnap. But to arrest they would have to be charged with a crime. I don't think "conspiracy to learn how to make bombs" is a chargeable offense. Nor do I believe "being pissed off at the U.S." is chargeable.

Now making a plan to blow up a bomb in Times Square - that is conspiracy to commit murder and that is chargeable.

However, it seems that the U.S. now believes that being born into a radical Islamic family is a capital offense with no trial needed so we can skip right to the execution - and let habeus corpus be damned.

"I'm proud to be an American, God bless the U.S.A."

So the steps are:
1) some crime committed
2) We find out who did it and name them
3) We get the evidence to arrest
4) We fly to country and arrest them in another country, that is kidnapping yes?
5) fly them back
6) get more evidence somehow
7) convict them or they win the trial and fly them back home.
8) send them to jail.

Ok why do I not see anyone running for President on this plan?