Thank You Ralph Nader!

[jarhead]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I don't recall where the above quote comes from (Native American, perhaps), but it seems to fit the situation here.

This country even cozied up with Joe Stalin as ally against Hitler, who was the greater evil. That did not make Stalin a "nice guy"

 

[secks]

Again you "spin" events to suit your side of the storytelling. If the Supreme Court was interested in a fair procedure for recounting the Florida votes, it could easily have ordered a state-wide recount which it said would be legitimate. Instead it voted five to four to decide the election, thus depriving the people of their franchise and forever casting a shadow on the legitimacy of the election and the current President. That reality does not change regardless of whether you supported Bush or Gore.

Additionally, other courts in Florida, headed by judges of Republican persuasion, allowed the counting of thousands of absentee ballots that did not comply with Florida election law. Had those illegal votes been outcast, the election may have had a different outcome. We don't know.

No, he's not spinning. Here are the facts:

1) The original margin was about 1700 votes out of 6 million.

2) Under Florida state law, a machine recount was required. The gap narrowed to around 300 votes. The thousands of overseas absentee votes were NOT counted at this time.

3) The Gore campaign lawyers petitioned to have manual recounts in four heavily democratic counties. The Flordia courts erroneously permitted this to occur, as the state law only allows manual recounts in cases where vote tabulation was in error. Voters are not tabulators. Machines are tabulators, and the machines we're defective. Enter the hanging chad.

4) On Dec. 8, the Florida SC then ruled that a manual, state-wide hand recount would be conducted. Again, this is not consistent with Florida law. Furthermore, it introduces subjectivity into the vote tallying process.

5) The SCOTUS stopped the manual recount and declared Bush the victor.

 

[GogglesPisano]

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I don't recall where the above quote comes from (Native American, perhaps), but it seems to fit the situation here.

This country even cozied up with Joe Stalin as ally against Hitler, who was the greater evil. That did not make Stalin a "nice guy"

Actually it comes from "Wrath of Khan," when Khan (aptly portrayed by Ricardo Montalban complete with a plastic chest) ... no wait, that was about revenge being a dish best served cold. Nevermind!

 

[jarhead]

If Khan said that in the movie, he had borrowed it from centuries before. I have known of that quote way before the movie you mention was ever produced. It may have come from the orient however. Japan or China history....or maybe Native American. I'll have to do a search on that now to see where in antiquity it comes from.

 

[mar]

I'd bet five bucks...

...it came from The Art of War. And I can't remember the author.

Go Nader.

I heard him interviewed last night by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. He said he would support a movement to impeach Bush on abuse of office (you know, things like an unconstitutional war, etc.).

Goodman followed up by suggesting that may be unsuccessful due to the republican controlled congress and besides the electorate themselves can just vote Bush out of office if they like.

Nader's response: Impeachment is not a conviction it just gets the ball rolling and besides if this isn't the time to use it then when is?

I say, get the ball rolling. I'm sick of the Federal Government playing fast and loose with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

To hell with Bush.
Thank you for your attention.

 

[jarhead]

The Art of War is an ancient Chinese book written by a Chinese general over a thousand years ago. The book still requied reading at West Point and other Army war colleges.

I believe the quote in the movie "The Wrath of Khan" about "Vengence is a dish best served cold" comes from Herman Melville's "Moby Dick"

I have also seen the interviews with Nader on several programs. I like a lot of what he says. I believe he will take more votes away from Bush than he would from the Democratic nominee. Many conservatives are very unhappy with GWB, and I am one of them.

 

[jarhead]

SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR
THE OLDEST MILITARY TREATISE IN THE WORLD

Sun-Tzu is the Chinese general who wrote "The Art of War" over 2400 years ago. Good stuff on the internet about it.

 

[prodigal]

Run Ralph run!

Now if only Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would run as independents as well.
Serious though, Jarhead, I'm a life-long Republican as well (but with a strong Libertarian streak) and am also somewhat disappointed by Bush, mostly on spending; however, when it comes to national security and the war on terror, he is the real deal. And I would submit that these are still the issues most important to America right now, way above the economy. The economy is getting so much attention from the dems and the media precisely because the Presidents actions in the terror war have so far been so successful. And really I don't understand this because the economy is in pretty good shape and improving.
Moreover, there is absolutely NO doubt Bush is head and shoulders superior to any candidate the dems can come up with. As far as Nader is concerned, totally aside from issues, he is simply not electable. That is the same reason I will not waste my vote on a Libertarian.
Respectfully, I urge you to reconsider.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Run Ralph run!

Serious though, Jarhead, I'm a life-long Republican as well (but with a strong Libertarian streak) and am also somewhat disappointed by Bush, mostly on spending; however, when it comes to national security and the war on terror, he is the real deal. >>>>> Moreover, there is absolutely NO doubt Bush is head and shoulders superior to any candidate the dems can come up with.

I'm curious .... What is it that you see as being "the real deal" about Bush a) with respect to national security and b) with respect to the war on terror?

For example, we were attacked on 9/11. As a result, Mr Bush ordered our military into Afghanisan in pursuit of the perpetraors. That's good. Given the same circumstance, do you actually think that any sitting American President would not have done the same thing?

What, precisely, about Mr. Bush do you see as being "head and shoulders above any candidate" the opposition could come up with?

Please don't tell me what's bad about Kerry or Edwards or the others, just tell me what is "special" about GWB as you see it.

 

[Dubya]

I'll take a crack at that.

There is good and bad with any president and this one is no different. What stands out with GWB is he has done what he said he would do. No wavering, no excuses. He said we would go to war against terrorism in their front yard, not ours....and thats where we are. He said the price would be paid by our military...servicemen and women will be killed in service...and they are paying the price. He said tax cuts would stimulate the economy...and they did. Say what you will....he doesn't let the polls and the media dictate his policy. He has made tough decisions and followed through. I don't necessarily agree with everything he has done....but he is a leader.

A reminder....the previous administration was faced with terrorist attacks....and the response was?

After the USS Cole attack...Clinton quote "We will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes..."

Clinton said of the victims that "All these very different Americans, all with their different stories, their lifelines and their love ties, answered the same call of service and found themselves on the USS Cole headed for the Persian Gulf '........our forces are working to keep peace and stability in a region that could explode and disrupt the entire world."

"To those who attacked them, we say: you will not find a safe harbor. We will find you, and justice will prevail. America will not stop standing guard for peace or freedom or stability in the Middle East and around the world. "

Each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack-the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole-Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

So you say that any sitting president would have acted similarly....the facts prove you wrong. I wager that had GWB been in office the first time the WTC was attacked, the rest would never have happened. The difference is one is a leader...the other is not.

First you get the facts...then you argue.

W

 

[prodigal]

Re: Re: Run Ralph run!

For example, we were attacked on 9/11. As a result, Mr Bush ordered our military into Afghanisan in pursuit of the perpetraors. That's good. Given the same circumstance, do you actually think that any sitting American President would not have done the same thing?
QUOTE]

Well, what did Clinton do after they hit the WTC the first time (plus all the other episodes mentioned above by Dubya)? So, it's not just that I SUSPECT a dem might not get serious about the war on terror; they have a track record to prove that. And aside from just one mans failures (Clinton) the dems have a decades old reputation as weak on defense.
Granted, Bush may not be perfect but it's my opinion that he is a man of principle and is willing to lead. Not to have taken the actions he has would have been far riskier to the country than the symbolic pin pricks taken by his predecessor. Isn't it better to be fighting the enemy over there than in our our own streets?
Thanks Dubya, well said, you beat me to it.

 

[rettofly]

There was a problem, in the view of the US Supreme Court, with a recount by "selected counties." However, that was not an error of the Florida Supreme Court, it was an error on the part of legal counsel for Gore. The Florida court did not come up with the "cherry pick" concept. It was the lawyer's idea to request a recount limited to specific counties as opposed to state wide, not the Florida courts. You can state the facts without attempts to mislead.

If the Gore forces couldn't overturn the election in the counties they cherry-picked for Democrat predominance, how would the result have been different if the entire state had been recounted?

I can't believe that this issue is still alive!

 

[Dubya]

For you libs......

who run at the first sign of a factual discussion rather than name calling.



BUMP

W

 

[surplus1]

If the Gore forces couldn't overturn the election in the counties they cherry-picked for Democrat predominance, how would the result have been different if the entire state had been recounted?

I can't believe that this issue is still alive!

The result may very well have been exactly the same. My problem is not that Bush was chosen as the winner. My problem is that I feel the final result, whatever it was, should have been determined by counting the votes and not by a directive of any court, Supreme or otherwise.

Unfortunately it will always be alive. Perhaps the most important "freedom" that we have as Americans is the right to chose our leaders by our individual votes. Anything that calls that choice into question, is, and should be a problem for all of us.

From my perspective this is not about "political party", it's about our right to vote and to have that vote counted regardless of who it's for. As I see it, this is not a partisan issue. I would not feel any different if Mr. Gore had emergerd the "appointed winner".

 

[surplus1]

Re: I'll take a crack at that.

Thanks for you candid reply. I appreciate and respect your point of view.

I agree that Mr. Bush started out with a gustified and adequate response to the 9/11 attacks. Our goverment did what it needed to do in Afghanistan and the entire world supported us. I find it somewhat unfortunate that we don't seem to have folled up on what we did. That country remains in total chaos and continues to harbor bands of terrorists. Unless we plan to occupy it indefinetly, there will be a resurgence of the bad guys, the instant that we leave. That bothers me. I believe we cannot win the war, if we cannot win the peace. Military power alone is only a temporary solution to any problem.

I do not question the performance of our military which has always been exemplary. I do question our political leaders. Sometimes we do have to drop bombs, but bomb dropping will not eliminate terrorism. There has to be something more.

I certainly don' have the answers, but I don't think Bush does either. This is no "simple" problem for any President, but in our system, that's where the buck stops.

A reminder....the previous administration was faced with terrorist attacks....and the response was?

After the USS Cole attack...Clinton quote "We will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes..."

That is interesting. To help me understand you thinking more, I ask this question.... Should the United States have invaded and occupied Yemen after the attack on the USS Cole? What should our response have been?

Each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack-the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,

All significant events. You seem to be dissatisfied with our response and I assume you list these events for comparison with the actions of Mr. Bush. That brings me to ask these questions.

1. What country do you believe the United States should have attacked and invaded in response to the first WTC bombing?

2. Should the United States have invaded Kenya and Tanzania after the attacks on our embassies there? If not, what country should we have attacked in response?

3. After the attack on the Kohabar Towers, should the United States have bombed, invaded or occupied the countriy's of the perpetrators? If you answer is yes, should it have been Saudi Arabia or Iran or both?

4. Going back a little further, when the terrorists blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon killing hundreds of our young Marines, should President Regan have order the invasion of Lebanon, Syria or the entire Middle East? Or was it enough to just lob a few shells from a battleship into the hillsides of Lebanon?

In my opinion, the issue is what should the foreign policy of he United States be? From my perspective this should not be about which President can drop more bombs, fire more missiles or invade more countries.

Whether we like it or not, the truth is that the United States cannot occupy the rest of the world and convert it to our style of democracy. Even our vastly superior military power cannot accomplish that.

I don't really care which individual sits in the White House, but I do care what the foreign policy of my country is. Rambo tactics by George Bush, preoccupation (our claim) by Bill Clinton, not going far enough by Bush the First, lackluster response by Ronald Regan, or military faux pas under Carter, are obviously not the answer. All have failed, terrorism is alive and growing in spite of our varied responses under different administrations.

Should we invade and occupy the entire Middle East? Should we attack and occupy North Korea? Sould we take over Pakistan to route out al Queda? Should we bomb Malaysia or Indonesia?

Who are we at "war" with? Is it Islam? Is it Buddhism? Is it both?

It seems to me like the foreign policy of the United States is flawed, regardless of who has occupied the Oval Office or his political party affiliation.

Maybe you're getting the answers that you want from this President, but I'm not. I didn't get them from his predecessors either. Something is wrong, very wrong, and the future of our way of life is in jeopardy. Who sits in the White House from time to time is obviously not the problem nor is it the solution. Photo ops of carrier landings and turkey dinners in the desert are no more effective than invasions of Grenada or Panama, aerial collisions in Iran, missile launches in Somalia, wars of "liberation" in Kuwait or Iraq, failed attempts to "get Kahdafi", burning helicopeters in Iran, support for Saddam Hussein, removal of Saddam Hussein or any of the other measures. None of them have removed the cause of terrorism or prevented it's recurrence.

As Americans, we need to recognize that this "problem" whatever it is, is much bigger than George W. Bush. There is something wrong with our foreign policy. Until we fix it, the problem will continue. I don't have a clue as to how that should be done, but that's ok. What worries me is that neither does our government, and that is their job, not mine.

So you say that any sitting president would have acted similarly....the facts prove you wrong. I wager that had GWB been in office the first time the WTC was attacked, the rest would never have happened. The difference is one is a leader...the other is not.

Yes, I did say that any sitting President would have acted similarly and history seems to confrim that. All have responded with different levels of military activity. Our government's response to problems appears to center around bigger and better military capability. We appear to be at a loss as to how we can make peace, so we embrace one form or another of war as the answer.

I'm not smart enough to understand how or what that has improved. The answer appears to be nothing. Maybe someone can come up with "Plan B". I sure hope so, for the sabre rattling ain't working.