What is Bush trying to accomplish with this new stimulus package. I think hes doing it to to save face. He is going down as a not so good president. I guess he doesn't want to go out when the country is in a rescission. I can't blame him. I still think hes a Idiot.

 

Um... ok.

Look madkow, you were the one who asserted that abortion wasn't a Democratic/Republican issue. I just pointed out that the two parties have definitely drawn different conclusions about the issue. I know you're young & probably don't remember that the "founding father" of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was pro-choice. It wasn't until the '80s, when the Republican party decided to court the religious-right vote, that the party officially adopted their right-to-life stance.

It's proving to be a conundrum for the Republicans right now. While Giuliani is leading in the polls, there's a core group of conservatives who absolutely refuse to support him even if he gets the nomination, simply because he is pro-choice. I can show you, if you like, what these people are saying about him (it's pretty harsh & sometimes disgusting, but these people are the "base" of the party.) They seem to love Thompson because he says he's against abortion (despite your new assertion.) In any case, the Republicans are losing the young vote, in large part because of their socially regressive platform. Their 18-24 year-old membership has dropped to just 17% of the party, down from 25% just a few years ago.

I agree with you that there are party members on both sides who disagree with the official party platforms. But look how the Democrats treat their dissenters vs. how the Republicans are treated. Look at what Christie Todd Whitman had to say about her party & her treatment as a pro-choice Republican. I just don't see what you're claiming, that abortion isn't a party issue. I remember what it was like in this country before 1972, so maybe that explains our differences.

hey lets save the newborn and kill the criminal.......ain't that pro life?

All right, I'm not only naive, I'm an idiot!  All Republicans are "pro-life".  All Democrats are "pro-choice".  What a fool I am for thinking that some people don't think in party lines!  How very naive of me to believe that some people actually think for themselves but have the need to lump themselves into a party that they mostly agree with in order to get elected.

(Forget about pro-choice Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Condoleezza Rice, Sen Specter (PA), and Fred Thompson to name a few; and some pro-life Democrats:  Representatives Altmire (PA), Bordallo (GU), Boren (OK), Costello (IL), Lincoln Davis (TN), Donnelly (IN), Ellsworth (IN), Holden (PA), Kanjorski (PA), Kaptur (OH), Kildee (MI), Lipinski (IL), Marshall (GA), McIntyre (NC), Melancon (LA), Mollohan (WV), Murtha (PA), Oberstar (MN), Peterson (MN), Rahall (WV), Shuler (NC), Skelton (MO), Stupak (MI), Taylor (MS), Wilson (OH).)

From what you say I can only logically assume you are a Democrat.  So, take a guess:  What party am I?  Hahaha...

Sorry m'dear, but you're misguided in believing "abortion transcends party lines." When one party has a "right to life" plank & the other recognizes a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body, there are definite party lines drawn. To think otherwise is naive, at best.

There is a separate blog discussing abortion right now and in that I have stated my views on abortion in regards to personal versus legal beliefs.  My beliefs on abortion have no religious leanings. 

What I was talking about here was that a politician who supports abortion when it runs contrary to his religious beliefs is hypocritical- and I would never trust such hypocrisy.  Of course we all recognize a woman's right to obtain an abortion because the Supreme Court said that women do have that right (based on an implied right to privacy).  Being Republican has nothing to do with it- abortion transcends party lines.  Any politician who goes against their religious beliefs for the sake of being elected to office is vile.  If they really believe that abortion is wrong, they should fight against it, not accept it as inevitable.  But, please, don't get stuck on the abortion issue.  There is a more appropriate forum for that right now.

Actually, I think the only way to support our legal right to abortion, if you are opposed to it personally, is to note that abortion may be permitted in this country legally but to also state your personal right not to have one. They also have the right to counsel their female relatives in alternatives to abortion.

Sounds to me like you think if a politician is against abortion but recognizes the legal right of a woman to get one, that politician is being dishonest. I think they've found a way to stay true to their moral convictions, but also support the US Constitution. Do you really think all pro-choice Republicans are vile?

If we get into a conversation of spin versus truth, we'll be here for a long long time :)  Every document/speech/etc coming from a government office that is meant for public ears is going to contain some amount of spin.  The reports coming out of Congress are no exception.  And I was happy to respond to your points- I wouldn't accuse someone as being too liberal, because being liberal or conservative is just a matter of opinion.  I am only annoyed when people are too near-sighted, close-minded, or emotional to the point that they are blind to logic.

I agree that pouring our soldiers into a bad situation isn't going to solve anything.  As I've said several times before, I don't agree with the way that the war is being handled.  I'm very glad you submitted a plan of action, and I put to question some of the points of that plan, because some of the points (the Arab-Israeli one in particular) were wholly unrealistic or ill-advised.

I'm still researching JFK, but what I have read so far, I know that he fully agreed with a separation of church and state.  He of course had to make that quite clear to be elected as a Catholic, underscoring some of the prejudice that Catholics have faced over the times.  But it would be easy to make the argument that by separating his religious beliefs from his political beliefs, he was being a bad Catholic.  Most religious people cannot make that separation and we elect people every election that do not make that separation- and I would be wary of a person that did easily separate them.  I think it is vile for a person to be against abortion personally but support it in public- that is two-faced and they are not trustworthy.  A true believer does not make the distinction between what they believe and what the public thinks they believe.

I'm quite aware of the spin already being applied by the White House, madkow. Sounds as if you accept it as truth. Let me know if you ever change your mind when you read the GAO report.

Thanks for reading my links, BTW. I'm glad you actually responded to some of the points raised, since just trashing the messenger(s) as being too liberal really weakens your own case.

You asked what should be done instead of just supporting the surge; you wondered what our options were. I gave my response, & even showed you that there are alternative, well-thought out plans for redeployment. Throwing good soldiers into a situation that can't be fixed by security alone is insane. One commonly quoted definition of insane is: repeating the same action & expecting a different outcome. That's what I see us doing in Iraq.

Here's one last comment for you, madkow. You should read what JFK said about his personal religious beliefs regarding his performance as President. Remember, one of the chief complaints about his candidacy was his (supposed) allegiance to the Pope. How's that for an American politician separating his religious convictions from his political decisions? BTW, there's plenty of Catholic politicians who are pro-choice politically, but personally (& religiously) are opposed to abortion. Those are just some examples just off the top of my head. I'm sure I could find plenty of others, if you still insist American political leaders are just as swayed by religion as their Iraqi counterparts.

 

I believe plutocracy falls under the category of oligarchy- and I read that the US has been accused of this (internally and externally).  Thus the corruption that most Americans feel is pervasive throughout all levels of government.  And thus why I argue for a smaller federal government and stronger state and local governments to increase our effectiveness at holding politicians accountable... but we've already discussed that.

Or are you arguing Plutocracy in Iraq?  I don't know how valid that argument is- I don't know whether the wealthy rule there or not.

You forgot one whose elements transcend most of those listed above:

Plutocracy - rule by the rich

Well, if you want to be technical about it, the US is not a democracy-- it is a Democratic Republic.  The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy and it functions wonderfully.  Germany is a Federal Republic.  I think the main goal is that Iraq's government be based on a fair constitution that guarantees rights to every Iraqi; thus the first benchmark being "Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review" (rated satisfactory- by the White House review).  I'm not certain the review even mentioned a preferred form of government.

This is an interesting way to breakdown forms of governments:
Anarchy- rule by no one
Democracy- rule by majority
Republic- rule by law
Oligarchy- rule by minority
Autocracy- rule by one

Here I admit a flaw in my argument that democracy and theocracy can co-exist.  I was defining theocracy as a form of government having a state religion that influences the government and laws.  The actual definition of theocracy is either a government by divine guidance or, more commonly, a government by or subject to religious institutions and leaders.  Furthermore, theocracies are either oligarchies or autocracies. 

The elimination of the people's power, putting it into the hands of a minority or one individual, is frightening to me.  Maybe it isn't to other people.  But in a country where genocide has occurred to the minority, I would want the minority to have full rights, including the right to live.

Honestly, I don't trust either the White House or Congress for delivering an accurate report- they both have their own agendas.  Likewise with the media (Reuters is well known to be liberal-biased, like many other media outlets [not that I would trust a conservative-biased outlet either]).  I don't trust the news stories unless I can read the document they are reporting on.  The reason I was going by the White House report is that I couldn't find the GAO report.  But, ah, then I looked over your article again and it said that the report hasn't been released yet- it is being released on Tuesday.  I withhold my conclusions until I can read the actual document.  If you can find a copy of the report, I would love to read it.

BTW, your news article stated :"We have provided the GAO with information which we believe will lead them to conclude that a few of the benchmark grades should be upgraded from 'not met' to 'met'," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.  And this was a quote from Tony Snow: "If you're trying to do an overall judgment on what's going on in Iraq, the idea that somehow your standard is everything completed or nothing completed seems to me to be a pretty high standard to meet."  As you can see from the White House version, several of the benchmarks have benchmarks within them, and though some were deemed satisfactory, if there were any that were unsatisfactory they were marked as unsatisfactory overall.

I read the article by Common Dreams.org.  Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community.  The article was originally from the LA Times (gee, that's not biased...)  And it includes as it's main source the Center for American Progress... have you looked at their website?  Could you find a more biased article?  I include specific quotes: 

First, accompany a U.S. troop drawdown with strong support for a robust U.N. presence in Iraq, a move that even Shiite militia leader Muqtada Sadr has indicated he would welcome.  Yes, Muqtada al-Sadr, a man accused of murder and genocide... who wants to establish a Shi'a government much like Iran's...  sounds fascinating to work with.  And I haven't heard- does the UN even want to go into Iraq?

Then, get serious about engaging Iran, Syria and other regional powers in stabilizing Iraq. All have plenty to lose if Iraq falls apart entirely.  According to (your much hated) White House report, 80% of suicide bombers are foreign-born... and guess where they're coming from and how they're getting there.  What do they stand to lose if Iraq falls apart?  Perhaps that war and in-fighting would embroil the entire region?

Next, recognize that Iraq’s fate — and the continued rise of Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism — is linked to ongoing Arab-Israeli tensions, and redouble efforts to resolve that long-running conflict.  I'd like to see someone try and solve this one.  It's not going to happen anytime soon.  Arab-Israeli tensions exist due to the fact that Israel exists.  Or should we just take Israel away and kick the Jews out?  That would help, no?  (Don't bother with the "silly" argument this time... I'm being sarcastic.)

To it's credit, the report did mention allowing more Iraqis to enter the United States, which I 100% agree with as long as the proper security checks are followed.  But, question of questions, why would Iraqis want to come here??  I thought they all hated us and don't want to live in a democratic nation with a separation of church and state.

Sorry this is so long, but I have to address the final point of Muslim clerics and their involvement in government.  It has been my understanding that Muslim clerics do not directly participate in government, which is why Muqtada al-Sadr did not run for office during the elections (according to polls, he would have gotten 2% of the vote anyway).  And, really, is it so bad for government officials to involve religion in their official duties?  They are all Muslim (except the tiny, and decreasing, number of Christians).  Like you have said, a theocracy can be successful-- as long as they take human rights into consideration.  And, as a quest, find me one truly religious American politician that doesn't take their religion into account when making their political decisions.  We may have separation of church and state, but we do not have separation of church and soul.

Who are we to say that democracy is the best form of government for everyone? Maybe it simply can't work in Iraq because, as oohchild said, they have a much more theocracy based view of how the country should be run.