Bush: 'I owe an explanation'

"The ultimate accountability ... rests with me," Bush said in an East Room news conference--his second in a month, a rarity of its own. "It's what the 2004 campaign was about. ... If people are unhappy about it, look right to the president."

And then vote all of them out!

The word "democracy" has been dropped from the definition of "success" in Iraq.

Some interesting figures here. The Iraq war now stands among the middle ranks of American wars as far as casualties are concerned.

Source link;
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

American Revolution (1775–1783)
Total servicemembers 217,000
Battle deaths 4,435
Nonmortal woundings 6,188

War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Total servicemembers 286,730
Battle deaths 2,260
Nonmortal woundings 4,505

Indian Wars (approx. 1817–1898)
Total servicemembers 106,000
Battle deaths 1,0001

Mexican War (1846–1848)
Total servicemembers 78,718
Battle deaths 1,733
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 11,550
Nonmortal woundings 4,152

Civil War (1861–1865)
Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union) 140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881
Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,297
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown

Spanish-American War (1898–1902)
Total servicemembers 306,760
Battle deaths 385
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061
Nonmortal woundings 1,662

World War I (1917–1918)3
Total servicemembers 4,734,991
Battle deaths 53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114
Nonmortal woundings 204,002
Living veterans fewer than 500

World War II (1940–1945)3
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846
Living veterans 4,762,000

Korean War (1950–1953)
Total servicemembers 5,720,000
Serving in-theater 1,789,000
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,730
Nonmortal woundings 103,284
Living veterans 3,734,000

Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Total servicemembers 8,744,000
Serving in-theater 3,403,000
Battle deaths 47,410
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000
Nonmortal woundings 153,303
Living veterans 8,295,000

Gulf War (1990–1991)
Total servicemembers 2,225,000
Serving in-theater 665,476
Battle deaths 147
Other deaths in service (theater) 382
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565
Nonmortal woundings 467
Living veterans 1,852,000

America's Wars Total
Military service during war 42,348,460
Battle deaths 651,008
Other deaths in service (theater) 13,998
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,256
Nonmortal woundings 1,431,290
Living war veterans 17,578,500
Living veterans 25,038,459

to most of those posting these end-zone dances with the in your face attitudes, I must express my less enthusiastic reaction ;

I truly respect your right to express your short-sighted opinions. I also respect your way with words and your candor. I don't doubt that most of you are motivated towards making your nation a better nation. I understand your frustration with the hypocrites in the non-democrat majority party -- you are correct, there are many hypocrites among them (and I do not belong to their party). However, adopting the most negative of their tactics does not strengthen the credibility of your arguments and the minority party has so far done nothing more than exactly that.

Let's face it - there are many political issues on which it will be difficult for Americans to find common ground. But there is so much more business about running a country upon which there should be no difficulty finding common ground. The current climate exacerbated by the media focuses on the former and ignores the latter to the detriment of us all. It seems to me the only three things the leadership of both parties agree upon is 1) do anything to get elected (including deliberately mislead the American people without hesitation) and 2) take money from anyone who can help you achieve number one and 3) two wrongs make a right. Those attitudes can probably best be attacked from within the parties. Since I do not belong to a political party and am too disgusted with either to consider doing so, I have to appeal to intelligent persons like yourself to think about the long-term greater good.

The main reason I might appear to be attacking democrats (when really I am attacking both parties), is that I became so disgusted with the current direction of the country (primarily but not entirely under the leadership of republicans) that I desperately wanted to believe we had a more positive choice. I am saddened to discover after seeing the democrats use tactics that are at least as low as the republicans that they do no represent a better choice. I was truly hoping to find otherwise. I am not the only independent who wishes your party would stop idolizing the likes of Dean and Clinton so that your party can become part of the solution to gridlock instead of simply one of two existing parties that feeds and thrives on gridlock, fear, misinformation, distortion, special interests, pandering and division just as you claim (all too often correctly) that the republicans do.

In case any of you have forgotten, two wrongs equals two wrongs.

little t - tom

Bush doesn't owe us,the states that voted him owe us an apology.

Bush, the Prince of Lies, has said many times that he ultimately takes responsibility for his decisions and for what his administration does. He's SAID that. It sounded good, and he said it. It made him sound strong and responsible. Kind of -- manly. Then, of course, he was hampered by all the things Clinton had done, blocked by the defeatists, held back by the weak-on-terrorist Democrats, the victim of oh so many things that were absolutely beyond his control. So much for the words.

He said he owes an explanation. I'd say he owed us an explanation two years ago, maybe more. With interest, that explanation has now totalled up to abject apology with a healthy side-dish of grovelling and weeping.

So, Mr. President. Save me the words, as I know exactly how much they really mean to you. Just do your d*** job and stop screwing up our country.

I am nervous.
I am nervous because I do not like the current leaders.
I am nervous because I do not like the messages (or certainly lack thereof) coming from Dems, hello anyone with a positive message?

I would like to see change but would like to feel more optimistic it will be positive change.

What I am most nervous about is that Uncle Karl Rove is not nervous. He's havin breakfast, workin on his laptop with his massive database, hes calling the footsoldiers in for duty and lookin for wedge issues to bring out those conservatives who wouldnt normally vote. Gays everywhere! Tax rollbacks! Cut and Runners in the streets wearing Nancy Pelosi buttons!

So I for one am not even remotely dancing in the streets. I am imploring people who do not like the direction the country is heading to vote.

But I'm no Rove, he has earned grudging respect for his election tactics, however clean or unclean they may be.
This makes me nervous.

Vote people. Bring a friend. Vote your conscience not a slogan. Vote.

tom (he of the little t) -- Hear, Hear! I think you'll find several posters at the Swamp who at least try to be independent, and who are equally disgusted with both "parties". I've long argued that we really only have one party, the Republicrats, since one is hard-pressed to find substantive differences between most of their elected members.

Juanito -- "Democracy" was never offered as a justification for our invasion, though many ideologues saw it as justification. Nonetheless, it was always pointed to by this administration as one of its goals. I've noticed the same thing as you have -- very recently they only talk about "security" and "stability". Well, gosh, Iraq was pretty secure and stable under Saddam, wasn't it?!?

What say you guys, tom and Juanito, since we seem to have things in common, let's get together and form a new party. I'll bring the smoking implements, Juanito bring the silly hats, and tom bring the placards. Why not? We can't do much worse!

I love the part about "overestimating the ability of Iraqis to maintain essential services afterward". Blame it on the Iraqis and ignore the fact that we bombed their "essential services" for several weeks during the invasion and failed to provide security and prevent insurgents from blowing up essential services or killing maintenance workers after we took over.

"Accountability rests with me." Yeah, right. Unless he can blame somebody else like the Iraqis or the Democrats.

"If people are unhappy about it, look right to the president."

It is to bad we do not have the ability to vote him out. I wonder if Georgie would still be saying this if the American people could give him a "vote of non-confidence" in order to remove him from office.

In my opinion Bush is getting scared because if the Democrats take control of both houses an impeachment vote is likely.

When Democrats talked about timelines and deadlines months ago they were called defeatists, Defeatacrats, Hezbocrats, etc.

little t - tom, well said !

However, this is the best of all available solutions. Two-party political system is far, far better than multi-party which get bogged-down in coalitions. Examples are the many coalition govts in other countries that are always gridlocked.

This is not a weakness of other countries, it's just human nature. Politics will always have a dirty element. The key question is what the elected party does with the power it has attained after playing the politics (dirty or otherwise). In the case of Republicans they have historically served themselves, whereas the Democrats have historically tried to do the right thing for all, rich or poor.

Our govt is supposed to be "govt of the people", not just for the few.

Tom,

You have two choices this November. You can vote for one-party rule (by your party apparently, though you also refer to yourself as an independent later in your post), or you can vote for bipartisanship. What Democrats are saying is that they will work with the other party to find solutions to the nation's problems. Yes there will be investigations, but that is Congress' JOB, abdicated since the Republican takeover in 2000 but lustily engaged in during the Clinton era. Instead of ramming an agenda down their throats, Democrats intend to work toward real solutions. Or you can vote for the Republicans, who have showed time and time and time again that what is most important to them is not fighting terrorism or solving the nation's economic problems: it is fighting Democrats and treating them as traitors.
I respect pleas to change the tone in Washington. But lets not pretend that it is even primarily Democrats who have gotten us here. At this point in the Clinton presidency, with his approval rating at over 60%, the Republicans crescendoed their $147 million worth of investigations (Whitewater, the Treasury secretary, Vince Foster...) into the final onslaught against Constitutional Democracy by intitiating the impeachment. Washington wasn't always wine and roses, but this was a new low, and it portended the future erosion of civility.
I apologize for going off there for a moment, but the choice is clear: you can vote for extreme right government, or you can vote for the center. If you believe all you hear on right-wing radio they will convince you that Nancy Pelosi is somehow the spawn of Satan, but the reality is that these Republicans represent the ultra-loony far right, where Democrats are the party of moderation. I won't dance in the end-zone quite yet, but there is reason to believe that the era of the rankest partisanship in memory is nearly over.

"I owe an explanation to the American people." A more true statement has never issued forth from the lips of George Walker Bush!!! He owed the American people an explanation when WMDs could not be found ANYWERE in the entire nation of Iraq. He owed the American people an explanation for why there was no plan in place for a competent Iraqi government after invading. He still owes the American people an explanation as to why so little real progress has been made to UNIFY Iraq. He has no valid explanations!!! He is hoping to slough his way through to January 2009 when he can walk away from this enormous mess - scott free, and do so with a Republican heavy congress that will bow and scrape to his demented decisions to the bloody end. Yes President Bush - YOU OWE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AN EXPLANATION!!!

It's to late for W.and the GOP.

They should have tried telling the truth from the begining,but then again,if they did we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

Nov.7,2006 Show your displeasure with them

As one of the more partisan bloggers on the Swamp, it may surprise some of you to know that I strongly agree with the need for a new political party and, depending on its nature, I might be one of the first to join a viable and competitive alternative. The extreme degree of my support for the Republican Party is driven more by the on-going disintegration of the Democratic Party than it is my basic conservative outlook. (The Libertarian Party used to have a website that asked questions about key issues and you selected answers based on the official party platforms of the various parties – according to that quiz, I border on being Libertarian and I even once picked an answer from the Green Party as closest to my opinions!)

It has been a long time since the Dems have had anything worth supporting – and that’s not just me talking, that’s them ("Doug Hattaway, a Democratic communications consultant who worked for Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, recalled a moment of epiphany during a focus group of Democratic operatives and marketing professionals he attended last year. The participants were asked to say what Democratic accomplishments they were most proud of. Their responses filled several pages on a flip chart set up in the focus group facility. "We all realized there was nothing there within the past 30 years," Hattaway said." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001350.html ).

When someone like Roger B. makes a statement like “In the case of Republicans they have historically served themselves, whereas the Democrats have historically tried to do the right thing for all, rich or poor” I cannot help but laugh. The party that brought us Jim Crow laws, the Viet Nam War, (and the conscription that went with it), 90% income tax rates, and the welfare state of the 70’s and 80’s has been out of tune with what is right for this country for a long time. The Democratic Party of FDR and Truman faded with the end of their leadership - JFK might have righted the ship had he lived but its been 40+ years since he died and that void has not been filled yet.

If an alternative party – that actually comes up with new solutions to new problems without fouling up national defense and raising taxes – evolves, they may very well get my votes and my checks. Elizabeth, Jaunito, tom, et al, find me a silly hat and I just might wear it.

RRD

PS to Ms Bennet, as always, I enjoy your participation in these debates. However, I must point out one small error “"Democracy" was never offered as a justification for our invasion” Actually, it was (although admittedly one of 20+ points offered). From the Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq: “Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;” I think that was pretty clearly stated at the start.

PPS to Bryan - Your post is as laughable as Roger B's for all the same reasons but I have to add this. If you start having sex on the job with a subordinate employee, how long do you think you will keep your job? Impeaching Clinton was not a new low, keeping him in office was a new peak in hypocrisy - the party that supposedly speaks for the common man found a new level of priveledge for the powerful.

Just a quick thought in this admirable show of accepting responsibility. Is this real or for show?
Why not accept responsibility for the handling of Katrina as well?
Why after the criticism of that debacle was our ever-determined president so quick to "cut&run on Michael Brown"...."you're doin' a heckuva job here Brownie!"

Why are the criticisms of Rumsfeld so different? and why didn't he stand tough for FEMA and Brownie the way he does for Rummy?

Karl, he MAY have escaped acceptance of responsibility on Katrina because he truly doesn't have any control over the weather. I don't blame Bush for Katrina having happened (the hurricane, not the response thereto).

Interesting thought on Katrina. If Katrina had not been a hurricane but an atomic blast, I think we have a good picture of how this administration would handle a terrorist attack should it ever happen again. Just something to think about.

RRD,
As much as the religious right would like it to be, having sex in an extra-marital affair is not an impeachable offense.

RRD,

I voted for Bush twice

I would vote for him again if I could

Please forgive me

I'm an idiot

RRD, we can certainly pick at the negatives in both parties and draw the picture that suits us. Neither party is perfect, but Republicans are definitely the "mean" ones. You're still hung-up on Clinton and Monica, while the death of so many under the current president doesn't seem to bother you. Why is death okay and sex is not? Which deserves more outrage?

RRD,

Interesting selections of Democratic achievements. Since you mentioned Jim Crow laws, it might be worth noting that the Dixiecrats of that era now represent the base of the Republican party, whereas the Democrats of the 60's, 70's and on took the highly honorable (and electorally painful) step of denouncing racism and working for a more free and just society. This was certainly not the politically expedient thing to do, but it was the RIGHT thing to do, and it has damaged their standing in the South ever since.
Now, as for 90% tax rates and the like: what era are you living in? I know its convenient to ignore the economic success of the years 1992-2000, but allow me to remind you. The Democrats raised taxes on the rich and cut them for the poor, thus ushering in the longest and BROADEST period of economic growth in history. He also worked with Congress on Welfare Reform which most people consider to have been pretty effective. Bill Clinton working with a moderate Republican Congress was able to make this country and this world a better place. If you asked anyone if they would choose which was a better time, 1996 or 2006, I think you know what the answer would be.
Finally, though I am and always have been a Democrat (though supply-side economic policy would benefit me personally in the short term), what I want out of Washington is BI-PARTISANSHIP. This has been absolutely dead as the dodo since Bush took office, and the only way to restore it is to get rid of the corrupt and inept Republican Congress. It appears that divided government works best, where issues have to be hashed out and agreed upon by people of unlike ideologies. The Framers designed the Constitution with checks and balances, and these have not been used in 6 years. Its about time.

Nothing has changed here. Military Families want the truth not political spin. Tell you right wingers here if you support this war why are you not in the service there. Stop the bull those of us who have family there are tired of your spin/ Join up and go fight. If you don't stop spinning the truth

RRD -- delighted you'll join us. And, boy, do I have the hat for you!http://www.worldbeardchampionships.com/redhat.html

But, really, I note your correction. I was speaking more about the public relations justification of the war. With the exception of a few isolated idealogues (Christopher Hitchens comes to mind), no one really promoted that we should "liberate" Iraq. That reason was always listed last, almost as an afterthought, a distant third-place behind WMDs and 9/11. But your point is taken.

Now, on to more important things. We need a name for the new Party, a convention song, and a symbol. I was thinking of a stout bird of some kind (sorry -- a** and Dumbo are taken). You know, just as a change of pace. The fine midwestern crow, maybe? The peregrine falcon, perhaps, as they're supposed to help rid us of pigeons and other unhealthy urban clutter? I'm open to suggestions...

To Bryan -- you are right. You caught me. I do switch channels on the radio. I admit and confess that I have listened to Rush and Hannity up to 5-6 minutes on my lunch break (if I get one) -- during the Jim Rome commercials (unless I have a good audiobook or a Motown CD). When stuck in traffic, I've even listened to Laura Ingram and Micheal Savage (but to a much lesser degree).

The funny part is that I listen to Air America and NPR 10 times more than I do all of the others combined. Plus I read the news and am a student of history. I watched many of the most important political debates and moments of my generation --live.

Another thing you are right about is that we do pretty much have to choose between two parties every other fall.

As much as I agree with your insightfulness, I gotta tell you -- even though , I appreciate your point of view, guys like you really scare me. You seem unable to accept the fact that there are independents out there who think both parties have some strengths and to a larger degree both parties have weaknesses. It scares me that so many in both parties seem to think that if you don't agree in complete lock step with everything one party says, then you automatically must be one of those "extremist" in the other party. To be honest with you my die-hard conservative friends act much more tolerant of my "centrist" views than you seem to be and much more tolerant than a lot of my more liberal friends seem to be.

I am , in fact, registered as an independent and I have , in fact voted both ways. I've even abstained from voting a few times.

What I don't understand about your point of view is whether or not you really believe the democrats are the "centrist" party that will usher in an era of "bipartisanship" as soon as they are elected or if you're just saying that to turn a few of us who perpetually ride the fence to vote for your team on Nov. 7th. If it's the former, you are delusional or woefully misinformed or brain-washed or all three. If it's the latter, then you are just another of those who willfully lie for political reasons.

I remember all of the events you cite quite well. I also remember the Bork hearings, the Clarence Thomas hearings, the Clinton pardons, the Randy Weaver hearings, the travelgate hearings (I don't need Monica L. or Whitewater crap or Vince Foster BS to tell me what kind of president Clinton was) and I've watched in amazement at how the democrats have treated Senator Lieberman -- who received more votes for vice-president than any democrat ever. I was on active duty during Somalia and WTC part one. Since leaving the military , I've been devoted to raising three kids as a single dad and working hard for a living.

The truth is -- it's people like you that give credibility to people like Ann Coulter. Democrats are not always right -- neither does their current leadership want more power for the sake of doing more good. The democratic leadership wants more power for the sake of having more power.

Bryan, I can agree more completely with Roger B. who is obviously voting democrat but not because he believes they are going to once and for all rid the world of the greatest blight in the history of mankind -- the conservative Christian republicans as you seem to think.

Hate to break it to you Bryan but some of those conservative Christians out there are right sometimes and even when they aren't their viewpoint deserves respect and their hearts can be in the right place. They are rarely, if ever , the great threat to world peace that you seem to fear.

And lastly to Bryan, I don't think I've ever even mentioned Nancy Pelosi about anything.

TO ELIZABETH, I'M IN --LET'S START A THIRD PARTY -- I'D LIKE TO CALL IT THE JEFFERSONIAN PARTY -- OUR TWO PLATFORM ISSUES WILL BE THE TWO GREATEST AND MOST ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF JEFFERSON -- 1) SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 2) GOVERNMENT THAT GOVERNS THE LEAST GOVERNS BEST

FIRST WE KILL "ALL THE LAWYERS" , THEN WE FREE ALL OF THE PAGES AND INTERNS , THEN WE LEGALIZE MJ FOR THE INAUGURATION , WE PARTIALLY REVOKE NAFTA AND REFUSE TO BUY ANYTHING FROM CHINA BUT TEA, FIREWORKS AND SILK (AND OF COURSE, "CHINA" -- DID YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T EVEN BUY A FREAKING BASEBALL THESE DAYS THAT ISN'T MADE IN CHINA ???), THEN WE REDUCE TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS (MEANING PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE THAT ACTUALLY WORKS FOR A LIVING) , and ........... FOR THE REST OF OUR DOMINION, WE DEVOTE 100% OF THE GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TO PROTECTING THE BORDERS, OUR CITIZENS, AND OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS

our motto -- "pluralism forever"

OH WELL, BACK TO WORK

LET ME BE THE FIRST TO WISH EVERYONE A GREAT WEEKEND AND HAPPY HALLOWEEN -- SET YOUR CLOCKS BACK

LITTLE t --tom

Oie veh, RRD, that was a glorious diatribe. Did I miss the part in my post where I mentioned absolutely anything about the Christian right. Did I say that your viewpoint was senseless or that you are a traitor? I'm trying to find the part where I disrespected someone's viewpoint. Could you please point that out to me?

I would like to be clear about something, maybe you could help me: where did I say that Republicans are the biggest threat to mankind. You've essentially done an Ann Coulter on what I've said, setting up a ludicrous straw man in place of reasoned debate. And of course, you don't see the irony in this at all.

Do me a favor, read my post just one more time and tell me where I disrespected your opinion. Show me how I have squelched debate and suggested that only my side is right. It is a shame that it is essentially impossible to have a reasonable dialogue here because of people like you who deal exclusively with the straw men of their own choosing.

Finally, are you serious about doing away with the two-party system? Earlier posts have noted how this would lead to a more fractured body politic as more disparate groups vie for special interests. What we've had for 200+ years is likely to be around for awhile, so the only choice we have on hand is to vote for divided government. Debate is not a bad thing, it is time to have more of it.

Ms Liz B. says:

"RRD -- delighted you'll join us. And, boy, do I have the hat for you!"

Hey RRD, this is pretty funny. I'm still laughing.
You are such an obviously serious words smith, then this pic.
Hope you appr. it.

Still chuckling.

RRD,I'm sorry,I've had some hearing loss,how many times did Reagan and Bush 1 raise taxes?

RRD,

Great post. I'm not the least bit surprised to learn that you'd welcome an viable alternate party.

Just posted 3:30pm Rumsfeld Press conference

"You ought to just back off, take a look at it, relax, understand that it's complicated, it's difficult," Rumsfeld said regarding deadlines. "Honorable people are working on these things together. There isn't any daylight between them."

My relatives serving should be thrilled to hear this.
"You're doin' a heckuva job here Rummy"

This isn't "stay the course" by any chance?

Karl,

So glad you posted that. As I was getting out of my car I just heard Rummy utter that phrase and it would have made me laugh had it not been so pathetic. The basic ghist of his argument is: "trust us." Well, we the people don't really consider you and your ilk to be "honorable" anymore, if ever, and "trust us" doesn't work when absolutely every prediction you have made about the war has been wrong. Change is coming, it is only Diebold that can stop the inevitable.

Bryan – the Republican Party voted in favor of the great civil rights acts of the 50’s and 60’s in far greater proportion than Democrats and the Dixiecrats of that era are largely dead – not Republicans. The South left the Democratic Party when the Democratic Party went soft on defense, not when it corrected itself on segregation.

Regarding “what era are you living in?” – well, please note that I was addressing Roger B’s statement “In the case of Republicans they have HISTORICALLY served themselves, whereas the Democrats have HISTORICALLY tried to do the right thing for all, rich or poor” (emphasis mine). Given the context, I could have gone all the way back to the Copperheads and still have been on point. Besides, how can one point to anything significant in the past three decades when Democratic operatives admit “We all realized there was nothing there within the past 30 years” (see my post above).

Finally, what moderate Republicans are you referring to from the mid-90’s? Not the ones who led “the final onslaught against Constitutional Democracy by intitiating the impeachment” that “portended the future erosion of civility.” No, the balanced budgets and welfare reform of that era were forced on the Democratic Party by the same rabid Republicans (see the thread under 'Crazy to vote for a Republican' that started on Oct 23 for a reminder of the fiscal and partisan nature of a time when “balanced” government was in action).

As for you, jethro and Roger B, regarding Monicagate, its not the extramarital issue, it’s the employment issue and Bubba himself signed the legislation that made his impeachment possible. I am still waiting for your answer to this question - “If you start having sex on the job with a subordinate employee, how long do you think you will keep your job?” but I will add a few more. How would you react if your 22 year old daughter got an internship with a major corporation and she ended up spending her days performing fellatio on the CEO? What would you do if the CEO lied under oath to try to evade any ramifications from this? Do you think Congressman Foley should have remained in office? (After all, he only tried to have sex with a former subordinate – while Clinton actually had sex with a current employee).

Now, especially for you Roger B, I tell you what I am outraged about. Since we liberated Iraq, there have been (according to reliable sources like Iraq) around 50,000 deaths (Iraqi and coalition) related to our invasion and occupation. Human Rights Watch tells us that Saddam killed 100,000 Kurds in 1993 alone, the U.N. holds him responsible for as many as 500,000 children dead because of his failure to distribute food and medicine during the period when he brought international sanctions down on his nation, and other purges and general abuses during his reign are estimated to have killed several hundred thousand more. No one has an exact count but we know the numbers were enormous and they were getting larger the longer he stayed in power. I am outraged that some Americans are so self-centered and selfish that they think we should have left the Iraqis with leadership that was a danger to them, the region, and the world. I am outraged that the “body count” websites do not have the ethical strength to post a notice that says “Under Saddam, 2, 3, maybe 5 times more Iraqis would have died in the same period .“ I am outraged that some people in this country are willing to pull out of Iraq knowing full well it will lead to a massive increase in internal strife there, expand international terorism, and probably bring us back in a few years from now for more and greater loss of American troops (and I am outraged that some people do not see that this is the likely outcome of withdrawal).

I am outraged that people like you think that a country can govern and protect without the loss of life among its security forces and cannot see that these sacrifices can save hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run. I think it is the Democratic Party that is callous about the loss of life and I happen to think it is tinged with racism (Muslims from European Yugoslavia we should rescue from genocide but Rwandans and Arabs and Persians …?)

Moving on to other subjects, I want to know who spilled the beans to Ms Bennet about my hair style – surely, she has somehow found my picture and photoshopped it under that hat! (By the way, since Bull Moose has already been used and you seem to be fond of flying symbols, how about a pterodactyl? It doesn’t really stand for anything but it would look impressive and we would have all the kids in their formative years paying attention to us.)

John D – given the circumstances, I would repeat both my votes for Bush as well. In the future, I would like to see better candidates – especially at the congressional level – and I think the fading of the Democratic party (a la the Whigs in the early 19th Century) and the birth of a new, energetic option would lead to improvements all the way around.

Bryan – wrong diatribe – I have lots of them posted on the Swamp but none having to do with you and the Religious Right.

Raving Loon – your post is apropos of nothing (to quote Sheryl Crow I think) but with Democratic control of the House throughout both of those administrations and Dem control of the Senate during some of those years, yes, there were tax increases signed as a part of the overall budget negotiations. In Reagan’s case the increases were overwhelming offset by his tax rate cuts and we had a booming economy. In Bush 1’s case, there were no corresponding rate cuts (or spending cuts as promised by Dem leaders) and we went into a recession. So your point is…

Juanito and C Morris – let’s party with Ms Bennet and little t tom regardless of political affiliation.

RRD

Bryan -- take a deep breath , you are confusing yourself faster than you are confusing everyone else (and that's pretty darn fast) -- you wrote in a response to me ;

"Tom, You have two choices this November. You can vote for one-party rule (by your party apparently, though you also refer to yourself as an independent later in your post), or you can vote for bipartisanship...........
............If you believe all you hear on right-wing radio they will convince you that Nancy Pelosi is somehow the spawn of Satan, but the reality is that these Republicans represent the ultra-loony far right, where Democrats are the party of moderation."

You wrote the above though I have said nothing positive about republicans and even though I had never mentioned anything on the radio or anything about Nancy Pelosi at all. What is funniest about your ramblings is the idea that voting for the democrats is voting for "bipartisanship".

Bryan you also wrote to RRD;
"RRD, ....... Since you mentioned Jim Crow laws, it might be worth noting that the Dixiecrats of that era now represent the base of the Republican party, whereas the Democrats of the 60's, 70's and on took the highly honorable (and electorally painful) step of denouncing racism and working for a more free and just society. This was certainly not the politically expedient thing to do, but it was the RIGHT thing to do, and it has damaged their standing in the South ever since."

Dose of reality to Bryan, dixiecrats came out in large numbers for Jimmy Carter in 1976 who won the election and most of the South. I remember George C. Wallace giving his support to Carter -- do you know who he was , Bryan ? I actually met the guy. He was king of the dixiecrats (he ran as an independent in 68 against Nixon then returned to the democratic party and was shot in 72 while front-runner for the democratic nomination -- he was shot by a man opposed to his racist views). Many of the prominent figures in the civil rights movement were Republicans including Jackie Robinson -- do you know who he was ? Yes, it did take courage for LBJ to fight his dixiecrat brethren in the civil rights movement but a decade year later the dixiecrats still supported the democrats. The South turned away from the democrats primarily in two waves -- in 1980 -- because of the foreign policies of the Carter administration and in 1994 because of the economic policies of the democratically controlled house (that controls the spending) and were made worse not better by Clinton. The budget balancing that Clinton loves to take credit for did not occur until after the house was taken over by the Republicans for the first time in over 30 YEARS. The economic recovery that is exaggerated by both parties (depending on who is in charge) did not kick in until after Hilary's deal-breaking death sentence to the economy was defeated (her health care plan that would have devastated small and large businesses and increased the deficits and tax burdens by everyone's computations but hers and Bill's)

You also wrote to RRD ;
..........."Bill Clinton working with a moderate Republican Congress was able to make this country and this world a better place. If you asked anyone if they would choose which was a better time, 1996 or 2006, I think you know what the answer would be."

Yes times were better before CLINTON and his successors let their guard down so we could be bombed on our own soil .... things are worse now .... but in part because of the lousy job Clinton did. Clinton (who accepted the label of "neo-conservative" when he ran for the nomination in 1992) only worked with the "moderate" republicans because the nation voted his party out of control of congress in 1994 - not because he wanted to -- and Bill couldn't get government spending under control until Bill's own democrats were voted out of office (and you're the first democrat I've ever heard of who referred to Newt Gingrich as moderate -- though he was by many standards).

then you wrote to RRD (but I think you meant some of it for me and some of it for a non-existent person) ..... "Oie veh, RRD, that was a glorious diatribe. Did I miss the part in my post where I mentioned absolutely anything about the Christian right. Did I say that your viewpoint was senseless or that you are a traitor? I'm trying to find the part where I disrespected someone's viewpoint. Could you please point that out to me? I would like to be clear about something, maybe you could help me: where did I say that Republicans are the biggest threat to mankind. You've essentially done an Ann Coulter on what I've said, setting up a ludicrous straw man in place of reasoned debate. And of course, you don't see the irony in this at all."

Perhaps you meant me when you said the part about the Christian right -- I admit that I brought the issue up without a direct reference from you about the religious right but since the religious/Christian right are typically among the republicans you label as the "ultra-looney far right", I felt it was fair for me to defend them.

The rest of what you write makes little sense to me at all.

maybe you are a lot smarter than me

one last thought --

have any of the Clinton lovers out there read George Stephanopolous's and Colin Powell's biographies ??

just curious

tom -- little t -- the MD

tom

Great Post!

Perhaps Bryan would recognize George Wallace if he could see him blocking the entrance to the University of Alabama ("In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.")

By the way, the reliable source I meant to refer to is Iraq Body Count (not Iraq).
RRD

RRD,my point is that I'm giving up the name,"Raving Loon",you deserve it much more than I ever will!!!

So,by your twisted diatribe,Dems get the blame for Reagan tax increases,but Reagan gets credit for ending the cold war by out-spending the Russians with money from the Dem Congress.

And Bush 1 got double crossed by the Dems,so they were at fault.And the trillions of debt during the Reagan-Bush terms must be their fault also!

And the great economy during the Clinton years,the credit goes to the Pubs?

And who gets credit for the Bush 2 fiasco?

tom (you little t, you) and RRD -- let's take a deep breath. How can we have fun in our new party if I have to worry about food fights breaking out?

What with my party symbol and silly hat, I was trying to inject a little levity here. This war and our pinheaded foreign policy are both so depressing that I have to do that sometimes. But now I will be calm and marginally serious --

Well, OK, VERY serious. From your comments I can tell that I lean to the left of both of you (if "right" and "left" even mean anything any more). For instance, my problem with Clinton was never that he broke his marital vows, however sleazy I might personally find that to be. My problem was that he shifted with the political wind and turned "right" when the polls told him to. I am all for national health. I'm not all for don't-ask-don't-tell or the euphemistically labelled welfare "reform". Clinton betrayed the leftist platform he ran on in '92 and that's my problem with him.

That said, I still think we (and by "we" I mean those of us who aren't simply party idealogues but who do have some measurable level neural activity between our ears) have a good deal in common. We recognize that ditching Iraq too quickly would be disastrous for the whole region, even if we disagree on the necessity of invading to begin with. We recognize that this administration has made some big, serious mistakes both domestically and internationally. No doubt we could quibble for days about solutions.

What I don't think we would quibble about, what we have in common, is a respect for the promise of America. It's a great idea for a country, no? I read Jefferson or Madison or (my personal favorite) Franklin, and I just want to cry for what COULD be. What I loathe about the knuckleheads in both parties in these last few years is that they're stripping from me my respect for the promise that is America, my hope that we might really get there one day.

So I'm dead serious when I say I want new parties. I want to realize Langston Hughes' words, "Let America be America, it never was for me..."

Can we do that? Can thinking people do that?

I apologize, RRD, you are correct, the aforementioned diatribe was indeed Tom's. My mistake.

Alas, I was a bit young to have met George Wallace in 1976 having not been born for a few more years. But are you saying that the Civil Rights movement was primarily a Republican agenda? Are you also arguing that Democrats support of civil rights had NOTHING to do with the rearrangement of the entire Southern body politic? That is profoundly naive, and if you don't think racism has been a lasting legacy, just take a look at the Tennessee Senate race and the barely subtle racial innuendo used against Harold Ford (D) therein.

Are you saying that Reagan gets credit for the expansion of the 80's because he was President, but that the Republican Congress can take credit for the broader expansion in the 90's while Clinton was President? Or do Republicans just get to take credit for everything good and blame Dems for everything bad? The 90's proved that progressive taxation creates a system that provides the most benefit to the most people, if not, the upper-class tax increases of 1993 (with a Democratic President and Congress)would have ushered in the 2nd Great Depression.

As for the Pelosi comment, I did not attribute that comment to you. I'm just trying to figure out what, besides "Democrats are Scarier than Terrorists," would be your rationale for continuing to support the government. Keep in mind that the specter of a Democratic Congress appears to be the only surviving rationale for keeping these Republicans in power. You can view this post for reference: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2b979ba6-6469-11db-ab21-0000779e2340.html .

As for Jackie Robinson, he clearly was a nuanced thinker and someone who I consider well above reproach. Here is a clip from his biography http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/97/0915/0915-robinson.html . A short excerpt:

"In his heart, Rampersad writes, Robinson was a liberal Republican; he would find an ideological soulmate in N.Y. Governor Nelson Rockefeller and serve as his special assistant. But Robinson felt strongly, as some black political thinkers do today, that blacks could not afford to cast their fortunes with one political party. He was deeply disturbed by the rise of innercity crime and violence. And he had no use for separatists of his own race who expressed hatred for whites and especially Jews, who had accepted Jackie and Rachel Robinson when they first settled in Brooklyn."

This is similar to homosexuals who are still in the Republican party. I have heard many explanations, but I admit I do not find them convincing. How can you belong to a party that not only considers your lifestyle deplorable, but goes out of its way every other year (election time) to come up with new ways to make your life less comfortable and treat you as scapegoats for all of the ills of the world? How dare Dick Cheney trot his lesbian daughter out as an example of his compassion, but still support this ongoing effort to castigate homosexuals in general?

If there were a party in American politics that came out squarely against Jews and decided that since Jews are "the cause of all wars" they should be treated as lesser citizens, I could not possibly support that party (being Jewish) even if their other views were somewhat in line with mine. That is simply my personal feeling.

Monicagate: Is there a law that I'm unaware of that says it is illegal to have consensual sex with a subordinate over 18? This would not constitute sexual harassment unless there was coercion involved.

The bigger issue is the utter triviality of the whole affair. Monicagate, after all, came out of the endless Whitewater Investigation, of which no wrongdoing was found. It cost $70 million and was riddled with politically based leaks. I argue that this was a phenomenal waste of time and money, and had Clinton not been impeached, he would have at least had the chance to take a meaningful strike against Bin Laden in 1998 without Republican heroes like John Ashcroft denouncing the attack as a "wag the dog" distraction from the real issues facing the country: DID THE PRESIDENT HAVE SEX WITH AN INTERN!!??!?!!. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/

If you want to see where priorities are, follow the money. Whitewater cost $70 million and resulted in no direct indictments. The 9/11 Commission cost $11 million, after being allocated an initial sum of $3 million. So, does that mean that uncovering a purported sex act is more important than investigating the deaths on American soils of 3,000 Americans?

I am anxiously awaiting how you are going to spin this. You call yourself an independent but you appear to direct the entirety of your vitriol against Democrats. All Americans deserve to know the truth about 9/11, and all Americans want Bin Laden caught (well, accept maybe the Republicans who keep invoking them in their ads).

I will circle back to where this started with a plea: Americans want a government that can work together to solve the real problems facing Americans (health care costs, terrorism, falling quality of living for the bottom 80%, the Iraq debacle, etc. as opposed to phony issues like flag-burning, gay marriage, banning horse meat...). Since the Republicans have shown beyond absolutely any shadow of the doubt that they are both uninterested and incapable of coming up with moderate policies, the only choice right now are the Democrats.

Now, back to the World Series...

OK – tom can take care of himself, and I don’t want Elizabeth to take back her invitation to the party, so I’ll try to be polite.

Bryan –. In 1964, the senate (67 D/33 R), after 5 months of debate, could not bring the Civil rights Act to a vote without overwhelming Rep support. It passed with 82% of Reps and 65% of Dems voting in favor after Minority Leader Ev Dirksen made cloture possible. Who deserves more credit?

This part applies to Loon too – regarding the credit for economic situations: If, at the time a decision is made that works, you argued in favor of those ideas, then you get credit for it. If you argued against it, you don’t get credit for it. So, Reagan fights for and gets huge tax rate cuts (because he believes it will grow the economy and increase federal revenue) Dems fight against it, Reagan gets the credit when the economy and revenues soar. Similarly, when Clinton campaigns in 1996 for a seven year plan to balance the budget and Republicans make the case that it can happen sooner, when the budget balances in 1998, the Reps get the credit.

Monicagate – on the job sex, even if it does not involve subordinates and even if it is consensual can create a hostile environment and is therefore subject to investigation. Lying under oath in response to a legitimate investigation is not acceptable under any circumstance. As for the excuse that Monicagate kept him from taking out bin Laden, any President worthy of the office would have done the right thing regardless of the political heat. Money as the measure of priority – hmmm, water is practically free, as is oxygen, and diamonds are really, really expensive. Which of these is a greater priority? Sorry, another invalid argument.

Finally, and this is where I point to Elizabeth’s well thought out post above, future elections have to do with the promise of America. That means doing the RIGHT thing, not the moderate, liberal, or even conservative thing. One party in this country has clear stances, regardless of the polls and gets some things (a lot of thing) right. The other party has completely lost its identity and tries to triangulate everything, ending up getting almost nothing right. Given limited options, the choice for 06 is obvious.

Elizabeth – I will answer your post in greater detail tomorrow but rest assured that despite our right/left differences, it could be a great party. My problem with Clinton is not that he was liberal or conservative and not just that he blew with the wind. It was why he blew with the wind (and the reason Monicagate does matter) – he has no character, no vision, no moral compass. I differ with Barack Obama on many issues but if he runs against someone other than McCain or Giuliani, he would probably get my vote – why, because I suspect he possesses all these things in great measure. It isn’t the only thing I look for (Jimmy Carter has great character but limited talents and bad ideas) but it is the first.
RRD

Bush: 'I owe an explanation'

Bush, you owe a hell of a lot more than an explanation. You owe to the families of more than 2000 dead and countless maimed servicemen and women and the hundreds of thousands of other dead, their lives. But you say their sacrifice is justified.

The way I see it is that the only lives sacrificed that would be justified are those who lied through their teeth to convince themselves that their jaunt into Iraq was a good idea.

You owe it to the American people and the world to fade away into the mist never to be seen or heard of again.

A few bullet points:

- Are there any Dixicrats even still alive?

- Ms Bennet, you still miss RRD's point about the First Feletio: the gravity of it is not so much in that it was extramarital; you or I or anybody else posting here would be summarily fired for HAVING SEX ON THE JOB, WITH A SUBORDINATE.

And Bryan, "...it’s the EMPLOYMENT ISSUE and Bubba himself signed the legislation that made his impeachment possible." -RRD (emphasis mine) In any case, impeachment standards are vague and INTENTIONALLY written that way. The founders wanted us to be able to get rid of bad presidents expeditiously.

- I don't get the claim I've heard so many times that Clinton betrayed the Leftist platform he ran on. His whole shtick was being a "New Democrat", which of course means a Republicrat. He was electable because he was not too Leftist.

- Was God in a fit of pique or just playing a practical joke on us when he combined a stunning IQ with a reptilian ethos in the person of Bill Clinton?

- Black, Jewish and Gay Republicans are understandable phenomena when you first understand that the Republicans are not defined solely by the (now discredited and soon to be ousted) Right Wing of the party. What appeals to them are the principals of classic Conservatism -- limited government; fiscal restraint; the fundamental dignity, rights and commensurate responsibilities of the individual. In that case, what's not to understand?

- RRD, I'm all for partying with me, you, Ms Bennet, tom and C.Morris!

- RRD -- ALL of Raving Loon's posts are apropos of nothing.

- In spite of the light tone, Ms Bennet, I had assumed that you, I, tom and RRD (and others in the past) were deadly serious about the need for a new party. The entrenched Republicrats depend upon us not wanting to waste our votes on a third (oh, God forbid fourth or fifth!) party. We need be multiple parties with runoff elections. Franklin and Jefferson would agree.

- The word "democracy" has been dropped from the definition of "success" in Iraq.
Posted by: Juanito | Oct 26, 2006 7:51:28 AM

When I initially posted this I was NOT gloating!

- To all who question my or RRD's or tom's and other's motives when we claim independance while attacking the Democrats -- in part we do it very simply because there is just so much to attack. We attack their flabbiness, their lack of purpose. Unlike the Republicans who espouse a core principles that you may agree or disagree with, they just don't. The Democrats are not a viable alternative, and a democracy needs AT LEAST one.

The Republicans are on the cusp of becoming the minority party, and that in and of itself is a good thing... except that the Democrats are clearly unsuited to cope with the urgent issues outlined by Bryan above, "...health care costs, terrorism, falling quality of living for the bottom 80%, the Iraq debacle" etc.

More than once in this blog the Democrats have been compared to the 19th century Whigs; they're moribund; government is nothing more than their employment agency. The Whigs shriveled and died to be replaced by a new party, the Republicans. Now it's time to replace the Democrats.

To Elizabeth, RRD, Bryan and Clinton supporters,

To Elizabeth first -- I might not be as "conservative" as you think -- just because I did not approve of Hilary's health plan does not mean I do not believe we need reform. Also -- I think we should wear wizard hats for part of our 3rd party uniform (not hoods - hats with stars as in Dumbledore not faces covered as in "imperial" wizard) -- that doesn't sound too conservative does it ?? As an MD, I could talk lots of boring details on and on about health care reform but it's Friday. I think I'll read up on James Madison this weekend after your endorsement. (And I agree with you that Clinton's biggest fault was his waffling -- according to one source, he took more polls each month than Bush the elder did in four years).

To RRD, I appreciate you adding to the history here -- I saw much of what you saw first hand (yes both of my remaining hairs are gray)

and to young Bryan (where do I begin ?) -- let's start with answering some of your questions ;

here's one (quoting you);

"Is there a law that I'm unaware of that says it is illegal to have consensual sex with a subordinate over 18? This would not constitute sexual harassment unless there was coercion involved."

the answer is YES, there are federal laws that you are unaware of and principles of professionalism that apply as well -- you are confusing the terms consent and coercion a little -- but the main point is that consent of a subordinate party to sex does not legally speaking rule out a criminal and/or civil case for harrassment by any means -- you can read the federal case laws yourself but trust me the laws and regulations are there AND in the world of professionals such as doctors , lawyers , etc etc -- you can easily lose your job/license for not saying "no" to a direct come-on from an adult -- sure people do it -- right up until they get caught ! Then they get in a lot of trouble and if they lie about it and a DNA test proves they are lying -- there is simply no defense for that.

here's your responses to me (followed by what I actually wrote);

here's Bryan -- "But are you saying that the Civil Rights movement was primarily a Republican agenda?"

here's what I had written;

"Many of the prominent figures in the civil rights movement were Republicans including Jackie Robinson -- do you know who he was ? Yes, it did take courage for LBJ to fight his dixiecrat brethren in the civil rights movement but a decade year later the dixiecrats still supported the democrats."

So I answered your question before you asked it -- it was a bipartisan movement. (I know you are young but LBJ was a democrat).

another of your questions to me ;

"what, besides "Democrats are Scarier than Terrorists," would be your rationale for continuing to support the government."

by "government" I presume you mean the Bush/Cheney/Hastert administration -- here's what I had already said;

"I understand your frustration with the hypocrites in the non-democrat majority party -- you are correct, there are many hypocrites among them (and I do not belong to their party).............It seems to me the only three things the leadership of both parties agree upon is 1) do anything to get elected (including deliberately mislead the American people without hesitation) and 2) take money from anyone who can help you achieve number one and 3) two wrongs make a right. Those attitudes can probably best be attacked from within the parties. Since I do not belong to a political party and am too disgusted with either to consider doing so, I have to appeal to intelligent persons like yourself to think about the long-term greater good ...........The main reason I might appear to be attacking democrats (when really I am attacking both parties), is that I became so disgusted with the current direction of the country (primarily but not entirely under the leadership of republicans) that I desperately wanted to believe we had a more positive choice."

Bryan -- please tell me how that is in any way "continuing to support the government" ???

talk about setting up a straw man !!!!!!!!!!!!!

you may not realize this but with your comments about Jackie Robinson and the republican homosexual comparison -- you are basically calling Robinson an "Uncle Tom" -- have you no idea what Robinson went through ??

this is not surprising -- in your earlier comments about the dixiecrats, you basically tried to argue that most every southerner who voted for Reagan or either of the Bushes was/is a racist

lots of southerners turned their backs on the democrats in a direct response to watching one of their own -- Jimmy Carter -- who was an intelligent and well meaning person that nonetheless nearly handed the cold war to the other side on a silver platter (including our hemisphere) while making as many other mistakes in the mideast and other foreign policies in 4 years as Bush/Clinton have done in 14 years and that's a helluva lot !!!

but keep reading and learning and you'll find the truth / "center" --you are smart and have a good way with words (other than the straw man thing) -- you are fairly logical but you've been hearing too much of one side to know that you there is propoganda on both sides -- but the force is strong in you -- you'll make a difference for our country one day as long as you don't sell out for money like the two major parties have

lastly, those Clinton supporters out there who are bashing Bush for the treatment of prisoners at GITMO etc (and in many cases rightfully so) -- you need to read the book "My Country Versus Me" by Wen Ho Lee who was held without bail and without evidence by the Reno/Clinton administration as a threat to the national interests basically because he was "profiled" as a Chinese-American scientist.

peace - brothers -- set your clocks back -- happy halloween -- TGIF

also to bryan, forgot to ask are you for Cards or Tigers ?? -- I'm rooting for tigers but gotta admit the cards are playing some great ball -- two of the greatest managers ever

and once more (just for the record) -- I think Clinton was a man who squandered his brilliance and sold out his party and waffled too much to be the effective leader he could have been and then whines about the political tricks he sometimes uses himself -- this has nothing to do with whitewater or monica at all -- but he showed the character flaws that caused him to squander his brilliance by both his actions with her and to cover that up -- like ALL presidents (including bushes and reagan, he takes/gets too much credit/blame for the economic positives/negatives that happened while he was in office and dodges rightful blame for some of the foreign policy screw ups that happened when he was in office)

Tom,

In general, when I don't have a horse in any particular race (and though I'm a Chicagoan I cannot get it up for hating the Cards, they have been too classy for too long), what I want is 7 final games of great baseball. In the end, I'd probably back the Tigers as I have more friends from Detroit than St. Louis.

A couple of points and then I would like to ask you a very serious question. When I refer to "the government," that refers specifically to this combination of the Congress, Presidency and Judiciary being run by the same party. Any other divided government would not act as one single unit, which this government for the last 5 years has.

In terms of Jackie Robinson, you completely ignored my point. I respect his viewpoint because I know he came at it from a thoughtful position. As a modern day example, I respect what Andrew Sullivan has to say but don't agree necessarily agree with his premise. I, however, for the reasons I mentioned, have absolutely never understood how anyone can consider themselves part of a political party that works aggressively against their interests. This is my personal position, I apply it to gays Republicans as well, and interestingly enough, the next paragraph of the Jackie Robinson passage refers to him as being an Uncle Tom as you alluded to. As I said, if the future Democratic/ Progressive platform becomes ousting Jews from our midst as the solution (scapegoat) for all of the real problems, you can bet that I won't be voting Democratic anymore. Its my opinion; it carries certainly less weight than that of the specific individual. Again, I have never in any way tried to deny someone a forum to speak.

Tom, and indeed any other conservative posters, I am unable to change your minds about anything, so maybe you can help change mine. I ask this question:

When history looks back on the 8 years of the Bush presidency 10,20,50 years from now, what will people say are the major positive accomplishments of this political unit? What problems will they be credited with having solved or mitigated?

I ask this with all sincerity, because I am racking my brain and can't come up with one. I will admit, to all, caveat empor, I am an unapologetic Progressive. I want a progressive economic system based on providing the greatest opportunity to the greatest number of people, respect for the environment (is that a value?), strong national defense, and a more just society.

I hope to hear back from you before the weekend, Tom, but it is Friday afternoon so its pretty much vacation time for all of us.

Tom,

Quick request: can you provide a quick link that sites where it is illegal (not unethical) to have consensual sex with a subordinate adult?

Listen to partisan hack RRD,Clinton has no moral compass,but McCain and Giuliani do!

RRD,who you crappin!!!

RRD,

"Money as the measure of priority – hmmm, water is practically free, as is oxygen, and diamonds are really, really expensive. Which of these is a greater priority? Sorry, another invalid argument."

Is that the best you've got? What is the answer I'm supposed to arrive at as to which of the 3 aforementioned items is a higher priority in your hypothetical hierarchy? Are you saying that since diamonds are very very expensive they are a higher priority? I don't think there are many people out there who think that diamonds are a higher priority than water or oxygen, but their VALUE is irrelevant.

I know this is a tough one for you, but try hard:

If the government spent more money protecting diamonds than they do air and water (which they very well might do), you have absolutely proven my point. By doing so they have proven that the money flows to the highest priority. It would be unfortunate if the diamonds were more important, but if anything that is a metaphorical condemnation of your glorious GOP who worships the almighty dollar at the expense of such important things as clean air and water.

FOLLOW THE MONEY TO SEE WHERE THE PRIORITES ARE. Are you really and truly denying that this is true? Come on.

You argument would have been more sensible (but still not logical) had you used "oil" instead of "diamonds" and we could have a real debate about the nation's priorities.

hey Bryan sorry I didn't have time to give you a decent response before weekend -- my bad -- I share your hope for a game 7 but doubt we will get one -- a quick google search on harrassment in workplace let's me know that with more time you can confirm what I've been talking about -- the laws are written so that you don't even have to have sex to break the law, you just have to imply that you want sex from a subordinate in a manner that creates a hostile work environment for others OR fail to act if you are a supervisor that is aware of such activity between peers -- this applies to pretty much any workplace with more than 15 employees -- it's a little scary -- in my layman's opinion , it is much easier for a supervisor to get in serious legal trouble for having consensual relations with a subordinate than it is for someone to get in trouble for perjury (but that's only because one situation is defined broadly and the other narrowly in legalese)

anyway I'm not trying to convert anyone to conservatism because I believe it is a meaningless term these days

all I ask from our government is honesty and fairness and protection of our constitutional rights and the borders

if asking no more than that and demanding no less than that makes me a conservative or a liberal by somebody's definition , I really don't care -- all of those labels are used as the most common set-up for straw man arguments in my view by both sides -- here's how it works -- I label you as a liberal/conservative, then I define either liberal or conservative as something really really bad, then I criticize you for being that really really bad thing -- as ridiculous as it sounds BOTH sides do this in the media every day

have a great weekend

with love & respect, little t ---- tom

Bryan, I am inclined to agree with tom – you are bright but misguided. However, if your posts continue at the level as the last few, I am going to have to re-evaluate. I am starting to think you are being deliberately obtuse. Nonetheless, some responses:
Here is a link that explains how consensual on-the-job sex with a subordinate can (and does) lead to legal action http://www.de2.psu.edu/harassment/legal/ However, they are not going to explain as bluntly as I will and you would have to get into case law and precedents to find specific matches to the Clinton circumstance. (If you have LexisNexis access, have at it; I do not have the access or the time to track down cases).
The Lewinsky case would qualify as “hostile environment third-party sexual harassment.” By granting sexual favors, Lewinsky secured preferential treatment, including and especially access to the POTUS (that was more than the Director of the CIA had during much of his term and complaints about her disproportionate amount of time with Bubba are specifically why she was transferred to the Pentagon). Later she obtained a cushy job at Revlon- arranged by Vernon Jordan after word of the affair began to leak and after she obliquely threatened to talk about the affair.
This creates an environment where a reasonable woman may come to believe that the only way to succeed is to also grant sexual favors. Creating a sexual hostile environment may or may not be enough to impeach a President (I think it is but I am a Republican and not a lawyer) but it is reasonable to investigate the depth of the problem. Lying under oath to this investigation, compounded with the actual harassment, was more than enough to impeach him. (And way more than is needed to fire a major CEO – look up Harry Stonecipher of Boeing)
Regarding Jackie Robinson, YOU missed the whole point – you say you “have absolutely never understood how anyone can consider themselves part of a political party that works aggressively against their interests” The historical fact is that the Republican Party never did this – if you do not believe the history tom and I have offered to you, go read something about the civil rights movement and specifically read the voting patterns of Dems vs. Reps during that era. If anything, your statement applied to Democrats back then. (By the way, I think your comments on homosexuals in the party have a nuanced validity – if you will recall, I mentioned my potential support for a valid third party about a mile up in this thread and this is one reason).
As for the “priorities” matter, this is where I suspect you of deliberate obtuseness but I will answer you anyway. When I use the examples of water, air, and diamonds, I am not talking about government policy; I am talking about real life. The price tag of something is not at all relevant to its priority or its intrinsic value. Go to Las Vegas and acquire some diamonds and some fresh water. You will pay substantially for the diamonds and people will give you the water. Then drive out into the desert on a remote road until you run out of gas. Now start walking back. What is the higher priority - the expensive diamonds or the free water?
Now do you get it? Your assumption that the cost of the Whitewater investigation has any relevance to the cost of the 9/11 investigation is hollow. Things cost what they cost for a thousand reasons but their intrinsic value is not one of them. (Let’s not forget that often the cost of government projects is proof of the lack of value – take the Big Dig for example.)
One guess on my part about what history will say about Bush 2 (if we do not screw it up in the next two years) will be that he led to the development of a nation somewhat like Turkey ( a fairly democratic, western leaning, Muslim nation) in Iraq, ending a murderous dictatorship. They will point out that he also oversaw an economic recovery from some of the most extreme and uncontrollable conditions in our nation’s history. I think that will be enough. (If it makes you feel any better, I also think they will continue to make fun of his syntax – justifiably).
RRD

RRD,

You're inclined to side with tom? I'm shocked, SHOCKED. We can agree to disagree about the Lewinsky scandal, I think it was a fantastic waste of time, money and energy and was a completely partisan effort to take down a popular leader(read: far more popular than the current White House occupant was at any time accept in the immediate aftermath of 9/11) and I would not consider the concept of sex with a consensual adult to be the kind of "High Crime or Misdeameanor" that the Founders had in mind to impeach a sitting president.

Now, to the diamonds:

This is not a partisan issue. I realize you must fight for the sanctity of every position that contradicts my super-scary progressive one, but this is important because it is not partisan.

We are talking about government, or business priorities. Your analogy about Vegas and all continues to support my proposition. I understand what you are trying to say about the diamonds and running out of gas and all of those things, but you are talking about an individual consumer and the per unit value of an item and confusing that with the priorities put in place to protect either one.

I will have to reiterate one more time: if the government spends more money protecting diamonds than it does air or water (I refer to these in the total sense of their existence, not as you "obtusely" keep saying, their individual unit value), than that would leave a strong implication that the government values the totality of the diamonds more than the air or water (again, completely irrelevant what the per unit cost of said items are).

I'm trying to understand why you are arguing this point. I mean, you are a Republican right? You should theoretically know a thing or two about economics (or at least your party's view of economics). I suspect the only reason you are fighting to the death over this amazingly silly concept (if money is not the strongest indicator of priorities, what is?) is that it is the only way that you can rebut that far more time, energy and money was put into the Whitewater investigation than the 9/11 Commission. Just ask David Kuo (Tempting Faith) who seems to be an honorable man genuinely concerned about the plight of the poor, how he thinks this government's priorities/monies were allocated concerning faith-based intitiatives despite their lip-service to the contrary.

I can't believe that I have to write this one more time, but I stand by my not-terribly-controversial statement:

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE PRIORITIES ARE, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

It shows how extremely partisan you are to somehow argue this simple fact.