Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[Colleen Thomas]

I have to admit I do find this fascinating. Not the difference of opinions and view. That's to be expected among any group of intelligent and literate people.

No, what I find interesting, is the intensity. Even though this is discussion only among friends, and even then among friends most of us really don't know, some writers are alreay taking this personally. They are becoming frustrated and defensive because their views are not always agreed with.

If a mere discussion on a forum board can evoke this kind of passion, what chance does real peace in the world have? How will people reasonably and intelligently discuss their differing views and opinions without passion and anger when they meet face to face, if it so difficult to do in this very simple manner.


By the way, on a totally irrelevant note; Coleen, weren't those your bunnies for Easter. I saved that AV to my hard Drive. What are you going to do for next holiday. Can't wait to see what will top that.

LOL,

Not sure. What is the next holiday anyway?

-Colly

 

[mcfbridge]

LOL,

Not sure. What is the next holiday anyway?

-Colly

Memorial Day I suppose, so something very memorable would be appropriate.

 

[Guest]

The next Lit holiday contest is for National Nude Day. Muahahahahahaha!!!

Colly, don't let us down.

Lou

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I can't wait to see Colly's 4th of July AV....I bet there's sparklers.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Not unless we can leave without there being a bloodbath. Clinton would have had a plan, for one thing, as he did in Bosnia. He would have gathered an international coalition, as he did in Bosnia, so that there wouldn't be an American "occupying army" to make people think we were there to take over.

If you recall, the gassing of the Kurds was in response to open rebellion encouraged by Bush I who promised to support them. Saving people and then leaving them worse off runs in the family.

Read the news about Afghanistan lately? Things aren't that great. Taliban is on the upsurge in some parts of the country, Red Cross says we've been abusing prisoners in Afghanistan from the beginning and once again their reports have been ignored, women's rights are still pretty much zero (they did get to take off the Bhurkas long enough for a few photo ops while we were still there to protect them, but that didn't last.)

We went into Iraq without any plan of action other than "winning." It's been the most incompetent circle-jerk of a war effort by any country in my memory, with the exception of our long nightmare in Vietnam.

The reason we turned-tail in Somalia is that Bush I went in without a plan, and left the next administration to clean up his mess.

Saddam was gassing people long before Desert Storm ever came along. He was gassing Kurds, Iraninans during their war, and anyone else that opposed him. To imply that the only time Saddam ever gassed an entire village was the time that you referenced is misleading at best. He's been gassing people for all of his time in power. Since you mention it though, was it okay for him to gas an entire village of Kurds and killing over 5,000 people because there was an uprising encouraged by Bush1? This was also during a time that he declared he had rid Iraq of WMDs'.

We went into Iraq with a great plan. We beat the snot out of them. From that point forward, I agree that there doesn't seem to be much of a plan. The military must be allowed to win if we are going to send them to war. As of now, they aren't being allowed to win. This thing could very easily turn into another Vietnam due to all the limitiations being put on our troops.

Regardless of what you say, we tucked tail and ran in Somalia because we got smacked in the mouth. When those Blackhawks went down and the bodies were dragged through the streets, we as a country lost our stomach. Public sentiment quickly changed, and we pulled out. That move on our part only emboldened Al Queda even more. They stood toe to toe with us in Somalia, and we left. You can't blame that on Bush 1. Whether he had a plan or not, Clinton could have made a plan and finished the job. He chose to pull out. Just like Reagan chose to pull out of Lebanon and Bush 1 chose to pull out of Desert Storm. We have been pulling out of military actions before they were finished since Vietnam. Terrorists have come to learn over the years that we don't have the stomach to stick with a fight. We have given them plenty examples of that over the last 30 years. Now we are paying the price for it.

 

[shereads]

Republicans continue to fall back on Clinton and Peckergate because it works. Six years ago the Dems were defending a liar, a proven purjurer even, now they are calling for the turth? It dosen't take a genius to see where the inate hypocracy in that is blatant.

I missed this one earlier. it's too good to pass up.

Yes, it evidently does take a genius to see blatant hypocrisy. Either that, or it takes someone who remembers that of the four Republican presidents who preceded Clinton, three were liars of the type whose lies harm innocent people: Nixon, who ran the Executive Branch like a private Mafia; Reagan and Bush I who turned hostage-taking into a highly profitable enterprise for Islamic terrorists, and whose memories failed when it was time to "come clean," as you say Clinton should have done. The other Republican president, Gerald Ford, pardoned his predecessor to save his party the embarrassment of having the first criminal president in the history books.

So again, I'd like to know what you think the Clintons should have come clean about regarding Whitewater. You did say that if he had come clean about the "possible criminal activity" that Starr learned didn't exist, he could have spared us the 6-year, $40 million investigation. If you'll recall, the adultery business didn't merit investigation until Starr ran out of leads on Whitewater; the first 2/3 of the investigation were devoted to these non-existent crimes of the Clintons, and turned up nothing.

You're right about one thing: Clinton could have prevented the investigation. He could simply have told his attorney general not to appoint a special investigator - or to find someone who might be friendly to the White House. Attorneys General are famously malleable to suggestions like that, as you might have noticed from the resounding silence regarding the outing of Ambassador Wilson's wife.

Yet you still maintain that the Clintons should have confessed to something regarding Whitewater. Should they have invented some bribes or something and thrown themselves on the mercy of the people who wanted so badly for them to be criminals? Is there a teensy bit of hypocrisy on your part when you ignore the fact that there wasn't a crime, and propose that Clinton should have confessed anyway?

If you're a historian, and you really believe that lying was unacceptable to the average Reagan Republican until Bill Clinton made it okay, then P.T. Barnum was right.

 

[shereads]

We went into Iraq with a great plan. We beat the snot out of them.

Right, Wild. "Them." The people of Iraq that we're supposed to have been saving. When you say "limitations being put on our troops, do you mean they were only allowed to eradicate a percentage of the people in Felujah, and should have taken the whole town out? What exactly are the limitations you object to?

You know what gave terrorists the best taste until now of how it feels to screw around with the United States? Reagan/Bush's ugly little secret, the one neither of them could remember. Trading illegal arms sales to Iran for hostages, and using the money to fund the contras. What more could a terrorist ask for, than to have the president of the United States lie to Congress and reward them on the sly. Want to read something that's guaranteed to turn you into a Democrat? "Taken On Faith," by Terry Waite. A hostage negotiator from Britain who lived in a hole for five years, and who had reason to believe he was set up by Oliver North because he was ignorantly getting in the way of Reagan's private arms deal.

Since you haven't said you'd read the well-researched article in Vanity Fair about the string of events that led us to this war, and which would turn your stomach, I'm going to assume you don't want to read that either. Nor do you want to think too deeply about what you said up above: "We beat the snot out of 'them.'" Yes, we don't even have a body count on the number of Iraqi civilians who've been permanently liberated, but what's important is that people who looked a lot like the Saudis who hijacked those planes, and who also had Arab names, got a taste of our revenge. It's their misfortune that they survived Saddam's brutality only to die at the hand of their liberators.

It servs machismo to know that "at least Bush took action," as I keep hearing from Republicans. It doesn't evidently matter that the action had nothing to do with 9/ll, allowed bin Laden to dig deeper into hiding, and victimized thousands of people who had already been victimized by their own leader. To hear conservative Republican males talk about what an exciting thing the war was back when we were beating the snot out of "them," one would think that their testicles were going to fall off if there had been a quiet, intelligent approoach to finding and eliminating Al Queda. Shock & Awe was some kind of fun, wasn't it?

 

[KarenAM]

Saddam was gassing people long before Desert Storm ever came along. He was gassing Kurds, Iraninans during their war, and anyone else that opposed him. To imply that the only time Saddam ever gassed an entire village was the time that you referenced is misleading at best. He's been gassing people for all of his time in power. Since you mention it though, was it okay for him to gas an entire village of Kurds and killing over 5,000 people because there was an uprising encouraged by Bush1? This was also during a time that he declared he had rid Iraq of WMDs'.

We went into Iraq with a great plan. We beat the snot out of them. From that point forward, I agree that there doesn't seem to be much of a plan. The military must be allowed to win if we are going to send them to war. As of now, they aren't being allowed to win. This thing could very easily turn into another Vietnam due to all the limitiations being put on our troops.

Regardless of what you say, we tucked tail and ran in Somalia because we got smacked in the mouth. When those Blackhawks went down and the bodies were dragged through the streets, we as a country lost our stomach. Public sentiment quickly changed, and we pulled out. That move on our part only emboldened Al Queda even more. They stood toe to toe with us in Somalia, and we left. You can't blame that on Bush 1. Whether he had a plan or not, Clinton could have made a plan and finished the job. He chose to pull out. Just like Reagan chose to pull out of Lebanon and Bush 1 chose to pull out of Desert Storm. We have been pulling out of military actions before they were finished since Vietnam. Terrorists have come to learn over the years that we don't have the stomach to stick with a fight. We have given them plenty examples of that over the last 30 years. Now we are paying the price for it.

You're quite right, Wildcard. Saddam was gassing people long before the first Gulf War. And while he was gassing them, he was openly recieving aid from the Reagan and Bush I administrations because he was also killing Iranians. Saddam could never have achieved the horrors he did if he hadn't been able to import lots of powerful weaponry from outside, and our government went along with it. Then, when we promised the people of Iraq that we would help them get rid of this butcher, we abandoned them and let him massacre who knows how many more.

Now Bush II has done the one thing that might be worse than the sanctions: he decided that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Iraqis were incapable of getting rid of Saddam in a fair fight, even though they came within a few days of doing so with a much smaller amount of American help in 1991. Iraq is like Vietnam in that it cannot be "won". Who will we "beat"? The unspecified forces of darkness? Just as in Vietnam, there is no enemy our military is designed to beat; they vanished with the dismembering of the Iraqi army. Instead, our young people are now both expected to keep order over there, convince tens of millions of Iraqis that we can be trusted when they've seen what happened in 1991 and more recently when we stood by and let several of their major cultural institutions be looted while we carefully protected the Oil Ministry, convince those same tens of millions of Iraqis that they should adopt our political and cultural institutions (which they don't even entirely understand and have no experience with), and do this without getting killed and without in most cases knowing even the language of the people they're supposed to be there to save. Our soldiers are the best in the world, but this isn't what they're trained to do, and it's not something the administration has any real idea how to do.

Is al-Qaeda emboldened by our failure in Iraq? I imagine so. We got rid of a secular dictator who they hated, we undid much of the international cooperation we achieved after 9-11 that had led to the destruction of their Taliban buddies, and we've exposed the limits of our military power and the incompotence of our upper leadership. I can't see them having much more reason to be emboldened, to be honest.

 

[shereads]

You're quite right, Wildcard. Saddam was gassing people long before the first Gulf War. And while he was gassing them, he was openly recieving aid from the Reagan and Bush I administrations because he was also killing Iranians. Saddam could never have achieved the horrors he did if he hadn't been able to import lots of powerful weaponry from outside, and our government went along with it. Then, when we promised the people of Iraq that we would help them get rid of this butcher, we abandoned them and let him massacre who knows how many more.

Now Bush II has done the one thing that might be worse than the sanctions: he decided that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Iraqis were incapable of getting rid of Saddam in a fair fight, even though they came within a few days of doing so with a much smaller amount of American help in 1991. Iraq is like Vietnam in that it cannot be "won". Who will we "beat"? The unspecified forces of darkness? Just as in Vietnam, there is no enemy our military is designed to beat; they vanished with the dismembering of the Iraqi army. Instead, our young people are now both expected to keep order over there, convince tens of millions of Iraqis that we can be trusted when they've seen what happened in 1991 and more recently when we stood by and let several of their major cultural institutions be looted while we carefully protected the Oil Ministry, convince those same tens of millions of Iraqis that they should adopt our political and cultural institutions (which they don't even entirely understand and have no experience with), and do this without getting killed and without in most cases knowing even the language of the people they're supposed to be there to save. Our soldiers are the best in the world, but this isn't what they're trained to do, and it's not something the administration has any real idea how to do.

Is al-Qaeda emboldened by our failure in Iraq? I imagine so. We got rid of a secular dictator who they hated, we undid much of the international cooperation we achieved after 9-11 that had led to the destruction of their Taliban buddies, and we've exposed the limits of our military power and the incompotence of our upper leadership. I can't see them having much more reason to be emboldened, to be honest.

Karen, I'm glad you still have the stomach to fight the good fight. But anybody who still doesn't understand that Bush went after the wrong enemy and made lots of new enemies for the U.S. in the process, is never going to acknowledge that what's wrong here is what was wrong in Vietnam: the goal of making Them more like Us was never winnable to begin with.

I worked with a man once who had a special phrase for times like this:

"This is like trying to stack oysters."

Or sometimes,

"This is like playing handball against a cushion."

Amen.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I missed this one earlier. it's too good to pass up.

Yes, it evidently does take a genius to see blatant hypocrisy. Either that, or it takes someone who remembers that of the four Republican presidents who preceded Clinton, three were liars of the type whose lies harm innocent people: Nixon, who ran the Executive Branch like a private Mafia; Reagan and Bush I who turned hostage-taking into a highly profitable enterprise for Islamic terrorists, and whose memories failed when it was time to "come clean," as you say Clinton should have done. The other Republican president, Gerald Ford, pardoned his predecessor to save his party the embarrassment of having the first criminal president in the history books.

So again, I'd like to know what you think the Clintons should have come clean about regarding Whitewater. You did say that if he had come clean about the "possible criminal activity" that Starr learned didn't exist, he could have spared us the 6-year, $40 million investigation. If you'll recall, the adultery business didn't merit investigation until Starr ran out of leads on Whitewater; the first 2/3 of the investigation were devoted to these non-existent crimes of the Clintons, and turned up nothing.

You're right about one thing: Clinton could have prevented the investigation. He could simply have told his attorney general not to appoint a special investigator - or to find someone who might be friendly to the White House. Attorneys General are famously malleable to suggestions like that, as you might have noticed from the resounding silence regarding the outing of Ambassador Wilson's wife.

Yet you still maintain that the Clintons should have confessed to something regarding Whitewater. Should they have invented some bribes or something and thrown themselves on the mercy of the people who wanted so badly for them to be criminals? Is there a teensy bit of hypocrisy on your part when you ignore the fact that there wasn't a crime, and propose that Clinton should have confessed anyway?

If you're a historian, and you really believe that lying was unacceptable to the average Reagan Republican until Bill Clinton made it okay, then P.T. Barnum was right.

Considering your known admiration for Bill Clinton, I have purposefully and consistantly kept my own opinion of him out of my replies, to your continuous question of why no one cares. It is a courtesy I extend to you, because I know speaking any ill of him is sure to set you off. While my opinion differs drasitically from yours, I am not so wedded to hearing it that I would cause you pain or anger by voicing it.

In your first Paragraph, you tell me all about Republican presidents who lied. I think I noted in one of my responses that Clinton wasn't the first, or the worst. I think I also noted if you wished to go back to playing the political expediency game and closing ranks you could look back at Iran Contra & see hypocracy & partisan politics in the actions of the GOP while Clinton was president.

Your take on, rememberace of and interpretation of the white water investigation & Ken Starr are very diferent from mine. I seem to remember a good deal of stonewalling, records turning up missing, people turning up with bad memories etc. Nothing was ever proven and thus I don't accuse Bill Clinton or Hilary for that matter of criminal miscounduct in connection to those charges. If however you go out of your way to hinder an investigation into something, you do give the perception of having done wrong. I think I alluded to Saddam's actions and the old axiom of where there is smoke there is usually fire and if you are working so hard to cover something up, people naturally wonder what you are trying to hide.

I never said the Clintons should have confessed to anything reguarding Whitewater. I said, and stand by the statement, that under oath Bill Clinton lied. I said and stand by the statement that Democrats defended the man and the lies. I said it is now, extremely easy to portray their calls for truth as partisan politics.

I am a historian. I never said Republican's weren't just as hypocritical. In fact, the whole point of my response was that they are. That calls for truth are percieved as politics as usual. That people percieve your party's calls today for the truth as nothing more than partisan politics. That was the point, in it's entierty. The answer to your oft bemoaned question of why no one cares and why Republicans bring up Clinton constantly.

You keep asking the question. Apparently my answer is simply not acceptable. So you will continue to look for a better answer. If you find one, let me know.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Pictures, as we keep hearing from the right, are dangerous because they stir emotions.

I wish this one would stir something among the fans of Shock & Awe:

 

[Pure]

Axiom of debate:

I cite facts; you play politics.

 

[shereads]

I never said the Clintons should have confessed to anything reguarding Whitewater.

You said said they should have "come clean" about Whitewater. The truth about Whitewater came out, to the extent that a long investigation with an open-ended budget and a staff of hundreds can reveal the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing about Whitewater for the Clintons to come clean about. Even if you think that questions about a long-dead real estate deal were asked for some good purpose.

As a historian, I'm sure you've read the former first lady's account of those eight years, or you will if you want to balance a bit of your history with a peek at what it was like to be the subject of all that heroic truth-seeking. You might then understand what should have been obvious: that documents "went missing" because many of the staff were still living and working out of hundreds of moving boxes when the demand for those documents was made. How Mrs. Clinton's heart sank when one of the long-missing documents turned up during the unpacking of an aide's office - and how she wished it had stayed missing permanently, because now she would be not only be accused of a coverup, but would be accused of changing her mind about the coverup. How it felt when a dear friend who suffered from depression committed suicide during "Travelgate" and Republicans implied that she had him murdered. How there was no mention in most of the press accounts of the note he left at the scene - saying that he was being hounded by people who wanted to bring harm to people he respected. What it was like during the year that Bill's mother and Hillary's father both died, to leave town for a few weeks to grieve in private - and find yourself accused of leaving town to dodge the investigaton. You'd learn how many hours that might have been spent on something useful, like governing, her husband spent in unasked-for consultations with lawyers and advisors who wanted to update him on Starr's "leak of the day," and how much time was spent debunking out-and-out lies that were never retracted by the other side. How it felt to have their friends persecuted and jailed, particularly Susan MacDougal who had Parkinson's Syndrome and whose major crime was refusing to "cooperate" with Starr. How badly they wanted to call these friends to say "we're sorry this is happening to you because of us," and how their lawyers kept reminding them that any contact with old friends from Arkansas would be construed as attempts to influence witnesses.

What your party did to those people's lives and to the process of government during the 6 years of the Starr chamber, was not only unconscionable, it was largely fueled by implicit coverups that never took place. People's lives were wrecked and government suffered because the hatred your party felt for the Clintons and anyone associated with them was stronger than any sense of duty to the country. What in hell were they protecting us from when they went after her over an ancient business association, and after him over his sex life? That you'd have happily seen the witch hunt result in a hanging or two, or having the president forced out of office by the impeachment committee, is all the evidence I need of how deeply you hated them. I've read her book and I'll bet I know more about both of the Clintons than you do, and I don't see anything so despicable about them that it was worth what your party put the country through in your thirst to humiliate them.

Your only problem with the Starr Report is that he didn't spend enough time or money to find out where all that "smoke" was coming from. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?

Unless Starr was blowing it out his ass.

In which case you fell for it, and we all suffered for it.

 

[cloudy]

You said said they should have "come clean" about Whitewater. The truth about Whitewater came out, to the extent that a long investigation with an open-ended budget and a staff of hundreds can reveal the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing about Whitewater for the Clintons to come clean about. Even if you think that questions about a long-dead real estate deal were asked for some good purpose.

As a historian, I'm sure you've read the former first lady's account of those eight years, or you will if you want to balance a bit of your history with a peek at what it was like to be the subject of all that heroic truth-seeking. You might then understand what should have been obvious: that documents "went missing" because many of the staff were still living and working out of hundreds of moving boxes when the demand for those documents was made. How Mrs. Clinton's heart sank when one of the long-missing documents turned up during the unpacking of an aide's office - and how she wished it had stayed missing permanently, because now she would be not only be accused of a coverup, but would be accused of changing her mind about the coverup. How it felt when a dear friend who suffered from depression committed suicide during "Travelgate" and Republicans implied that she had him murdered. How there was no mention in most of the press accounts of the note he left at the scene - saying that he was being hounded by people who wanted to bring harm to people he respected. What it was like during the year that Bill's mother and Hillary's father both died, to leave town for a few weeks to grieve in private - and find yourself accused of leaving town to dodge the investigaton. You'd learn how many hours that might have been spent on something useful, like governing, her husband spent in unasked-for consultations with lawyers and advisors who wanted to update him on Starr's "leak of the day," and how much time was spent debunking out-and-out lies that were never retracted by the other side. How it felt to have their friends persecuted and jailed, particularly Susan MacDougal who had Parkinson's Syndrome and whose major crime was refusing to "cooperate" with Starr. How badly they wanted to call these friends to say "we're sorry this is happening to you because of us," and how their lawyers kept reminding them that any contact with old friends from Arkansas would be construed as attempts to influence witnesses.

What your party did to those people's lives and to the process of government during the 6 years of the Starr chamber, was not only unconscionable, it was largely fueled by implicit coverups that never took place. People's lives were wrecked and government suffered because the hatred your party felt for the Clintons and anyone associated with them was stronger than any sense of duty to the country. What in hell were they protecting us from when they went after her over an ancient business association, and after him over his sex life? That you'd have happily seen the witch hunt result in a hanging or two, or having the president forced out of office by the impeachment committee, is all the evidence I need of how deeply you hated them. I've read her book and I'll bet I know more about both of the Clintons than you do, and I don't see anything so despicable about them that it was worth what your party put the country through in your thirst to humiliate them.

Your only problem with the Starr Report is that he didn't spend enough time or money to find out where all that "smoke" was coming from. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?

Unless Starr was blowing it out his ass.

In which case you fell for it, and we all suffered for it.

But, Hillary's book couldn't be biased at all could it?

 

[shereads]

But, Hillary's book couldn't be biased at all could it?

Read it and judge for yourself.

No?

I read the Starr Report, so I know both sides of this one. Hers is well documented, self-depracating in some ways that will surprise you, and quite credible as a result.

 

[cloudy]

Read it and judge for yourself.

No?

I read the Starr Report, so I know both sides of this one. Hers is well documented, self-depracating in some ways that will surprise you, and quite credible as a result.

Actually, my first thought was that it would be interesting to read.

That said, I'm not interested in a lot of "poor pitiful me" whining.

Even though I could be called a republican, I actually admired Bill Clinton some. I think it was stupid to lie like he did, but his sex life makes zero difference to me. Lying about it made him look foolish, in my eyes.

I may read it though, thanks.

 

[shereads]

Actually, my first thought was that it would be interesting to read.

That said, I'm not interested in a lot of "poor pitiful me" whining.

Even though I could be called a republican, I actually admired Bill Clinton some. I think it was stupid to lie like he did, but his sex life makes zero difference to me. Lying about it made him look foolish, in my eyes.

I may read it though, thanks.

You're welcome.

The whining is kept to a minimum, and there's a lot more to the book than Whitewater and Monicagate. There are global affairs, so to speak.



BTW, it's entirely acceptable to enjoy the chapters where she finally learns that he's a reprobate and a horn dog, and contemplates how to Make Him Pay.



I enjoyed it, and I'm a fan of his.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You said said they should have "come clean" about Whitewater. The truth about Whitewater came out, to the extent that a long investigation with an open-ended budget and a staff of hundreds can reveal the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing about Whitewater for the Clintons to come clean about. Even if you think that questions about a long-dead real estate deal were asked for some good purpose.

As a historian, I'm sure you've read the former first lady's account of those eight years, or you will if you want to balance a bit of your history with a peek at what it was like to be the subject of all that heroic truth-seeking. You might then understand what should have been obvious: that documents "went missing" because many of the staff were still living and working out of hundreds of moving boxes when the demand for those documents was made. How Mrs. Clinton's heart sank when one of the long-missing documents turned up during the unpacking of an aide's office - and how she wished it had stayed missing permanently, because now she would be not only be accused of a coverup, but would be accused of changing her mind about the coverup. How it felt when a dear friend who suffered from depression committed suicide during "Travelgate" and Republicans implied that she had him murdered. How there was no mention in most of the press accounts of the note he left at the scene - saying that he was being hounded by people who wanted to bring harm to people he respected. What it was like during the year that Bill's mother and Hillary's father both died, to leave town for a few weeks to grieve in private - and find yourself accused of leaving town to dodge the investigaton. You'd learn how many hours that might have been spent on something useful, like governing, her husband spent in unasked-for consultations with lawyers and advisors who wanted to update him on Starr's "leak of the day," and how much time was spent debunking out-and-out lies that were never retracted by the other side. How it felt to have their friends persecuted and jailed, particularly Susan MacDougal who had Parkinson's Syndrome and whose major crime was refusing to "cooperate" with Starr. How badly they wanted to call these friends to say "we're sorry this is happening to you because of us," and how their lawyers kept reminding them that any contact with old friends from Arkansas would be construed as attempts to influence witnesses.

What your party did to those people's lives and to the process of government during the 6 years of the Starr chamber, was not only unconscionable, it was largely fueled by implicit coverups that never took place. People's lives were wrecked and government suffered because the hatred your party felt for the Clintons and anyone associated with them was stronger than any sense of duty to the country. What in hell were they protecting us from when they went after her over an ancient business association, and after him over his sex life? That you'd have happily seen the witch hunt result in a hanging or two, or having the president forced out of office by the impeachment committee, is all the evidence I need of how deeply you hated them. I've read her book and I'll bet I know more about both of the Clintons than you do, and I don't see anything so despicable about them that it was worth what your party put the country through in your thirst to humiliate them.

Your only problem with the Starr Report is that he didn't spend enough time or money to find out where all that "smoke" was coming from. Where there's smoke, there's fire, right?

Unless Starr was blowing it out his ass.

In which case you fell for it, and we all suffered for it.

This thread got really hot & nasty. A lot of words were exchanged, things said and things phrased in ways that could be taken wrong. There is plenty of blame to go around for that and I'll step up front and center and take my share and it is considerable.

I came in here with a very set idea of what protestors were. Fangs & claws and placards & hate for those fighting to protect them. Nasty, vicious scum of the earth types. And I got mean and I got low down and I dug my heels in and prepared to root hog or die with them.

And when it was really getting nasty along comes Ken. He was a protestor. It's funny how I didn't notice any claw or fangs in his av. And then he says he sees my point, respects me for defending it. Damn. Talk about revalations. A protestor, greeting me not with hate, but with compassion & understanding and respect. Knocked my socks off.

Then comes Dirtman. He posts rarely, but when he does it's worth reading. And he sent me something. It was private, but it opened my eyes to a vet's perspective and frankly it damn near broke my heart. It's saved, in a folder on the hard drive and the next time I feel my angst getting the better of me me I am going to open it and read it again.

Then Karen, & Ms. Kat & others here said they understood. It doesn't mean they argee, but it does mean they heard what I said.

Then we have a Doc. A very strange bird indeed. Here's man who knows, knows as surely as the sun came up this morning that he didn't say anything wrong, but he steps up and apologises for it. I could have gotten all sappy about that. Went into a long post on how much I respect him for that, but I simply told him there was no need for it, that I was in the wrong, not he.

And I must not forget my two little guardian angels, Lucky & Mindy. Reminding me that I was letting my anger control me, that my posts didn't sound like me. Thanks girls.

A little compassion from a lot of people allowed me to see I was wrong. It dosen't mean I see protest a patriotic, but it does mean I see it as people who stand up for what they believe and while I may not believe as they do, I have to respect their standing for their beliefs, in the face of a lot of scorn and opposition.

This thread has more or less returned to what it should have been. A highly continetous and hotly debated, but more or less respectful debate. The only one still in full attack mode is you.

So instead of responding to natisness with nastiness I am going to try something a little different. What do you need to hear Sher? I needed desperatly to hear people understood where I was coming from. I heard it and it made a lot of difference. So what do you need to hear? What admission from the opposite side will let you calm down and feel better? I will make it if it is within my power. I won't compromise my principals, that wouldn't help anyway, but if it's something I can say I will.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

deleted

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You win. That was really good. I was trying to make a point but it's never going to be acknowledged, and I can't stack oysters. So i'm out of here.

I don't want to win. I just want to bury the hatchet and put an end to the nastiness.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

What I wanted up until a couple of weeks ago was to believe that we're a better, more mature country than we were thirty years ago, and that the deaths in Vietnam - on both sides - and the shootings at Kent State and the beatings and arrests and the revelations about the Enemies List, and the courage of the people who spoke out, weren't for nothing.

They were for nothing. We're exactly the same now as we were then. Nothing was learned, nothing was gained. We're still in the right as long as we're richer and better armed, and we still blame anyone in our midst who holds up a mirror, whether it's John Kerry or Ted Koppel.

We're the same. And that means we're in for a long, bloody war for nothing.

That's not your fault, and I'm sorry if I took it out on you. I was hoping for more from all of us. Such a high price was paid a long time ago for us to be repeating the same mistakes.

 

[shereads]

Wild, speaking of Nixon, he'd have been proud of what the Republicans in the Senate pulled on Kerry this week, changing just enough votes on the unemployment bill to make it look as if his absense made a difference. Remember what Nixon's staff used to call those stunts? "Dirty Tricks."

It's all too familiar, and it makes me heartsick.

My nephew will join the army in three years, as soon as he turns 18. He's a patriot and a true believer. He shook the president's hand at the White House last year, and he knows that this president is the most honest man ever to hold the office, because his dad told him so.

Before I concede how futile this is and bow out of the thread, I'll just ask you to remember the Dirty Tricks Committee and how proud they were to call themselves that. How amazed we were to find out that people so dishonorable lived and worked in the White House - people who used lives for personal and political gain. Examine how we got into this mess in Iraq, and question whether the people who did it can undo it more intelligently. Your vote will help determine whether my nephew and tens of thousands of other willing little patriots will be cannon fodder in Dick Cheney's war game.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Right, Wild. "Them." The people of Iraq that we're supposed to have been saving. When you say "limitations being put on our troops, do you mean they were only allowed to eradicate a percentage of the people in Felujah, and should have taken the whole town out? What exactly are the limitations you object to?

You know what gave terrorists the best taste until now of how it feels to screw around with the United States? Reagan/Bush's ugly little secret, the one neither of them could remember. Trading illegal arms sales to Iran for hostages, and using the money to fund the contras. What more could a terrorist ask for, than to have the president of the United States lie to Congress and reward them on the sly. Want to read something that's guaranteed to turn you into a Democrat? "Taken On Faith," by Terry Waite. A hostage negotiator from Britain who lived in a hole for five years, and who had reason to believe he was set up by Oliver North because he was ignorantly getting in the way of Reagan's private arms deal.

Since you haven't said you'd read the well-researched article in Vanity Fair about the string of events that led us to this war, and which would turn your stomach, I'm going to assume you don't want to read that either. Nor do you want to think too deeply about what you said up above: "We beat the snot out of 'them.'" Yes, we don't even have a body count on the number of Iraqi civilians who've been permanently liberated, but what's important is that people who looked a lot like the Saudis who hijacked those planes, and who also had Arab names, got a taste of our revenge. It's their misfortune that they survived Saddam's brutality only to die at the hand of their liberators.

It servs machismo to know that "at least Bush took action," as I keep hearing from Republicans. It doesn't evidently matter that the action had nothing to do with 9/ll, allowed bin Laden to dig deeper into hiding, and victimized thousands of people who had already been victimized by their own leader. To hear conservative Republican males talk about what an exciting thing the war was back when we were beating the snot out of "them," one would think that their testicles were going to fall off if there had been a quiet, intelligent approoach to finding and eliminating Al Queda. Shock & Awe was some kind of fun, wasn't it?

I define "them" as Saddam, his henchmen, their military, and their "police". In short, the regime. We beat the shit out of them from the day we launced the assault. We advanced, they retreated. Baghdad Bob was claiming that the US was losing as the tanks were rolling into Baghdad.

The limitations being put on the troops now consist of things like not being able to go into certain towns that are over run with the insurgents, terrorists, or what ever one wants to call them. The troops aren't allowed to touch a Mosque. If there is a Mosque with AK-47's and RPG's sticking out of every opening in the facade, our troops can't do anything about it. Sounds a whole lot like Vietnam to me. Politicians choosing targets while soldier are getting killed. You're griping about Vietnam in one sentence, then encouraging the actions that led to our failure in Vietnam in the next sentence. My stand is simple. Either let the soldiers do their job, or pull them out. Having them stand around with one had tied is the worst thing that can be done, but that's exactly what is happening.

I did read the Vanity Fair piece. What do you want me to say about it? Who has killed more Iraqi civilians in the last year? US or the terrorists? Who killed more Iraqi civilians, US or Saddams regime?

You keep mentioning the Saudi's. In your opinion, what should we do about the Saudis? Yes some of their people are terrorists. Should we invade? Overthrow the Government? Round up Saudi civilians in search of terrorists? Their government is an ally of ours. They are the victims of terrorist attacks all the time. You keep mentioning them, but you never say what should be done about it. I'm just curious to hear your view on how we handle terrorists coming from a nation with an ally government that is attacked by the same people.

Call me macho if you will. I've already explained my political views to you in detail. I can't seem to convince you that I'm not a right wing Bush lover, but you won't listen. Fact is fact. We DID beat the snot out of the regime when we went in. The soldiers were given orders to win, and they did it convincingly. How else would you describe completely overthrowing an entire regime that held one of the ten largest armies in the world in less than 60 days? Realists call it beating the snot out of them. Anyone that sees the military action of that time frame as anything other that a rout (which translates into beating the snot out of) is simply trying to find a way to justify their own bias.

 

[Couture]

I came in here with a very set idea of what protestors were. Fangs & claws and placards & hate for those fighting to protect them. Nasty, vicious scum of the earth types. And I got mean and I got low down and I dug my heels in and prepared to root hog or die with them.-Colly

My two cents is that there are all kinds of people protesting. I think you will find that a large majority of those protestors aren't fangs, claws, placards, and hate for those fighting to protect. The people I know are out there on the streets fighting to protect those people in harms way and bring them home.

I don't really have any Vietnam stories, as it was before my time. However, I did protest Nafta/Gatt/WTO in Florida. I am of the opinion that these policies haven't been good for the country, but it doesn't keep me awake at night, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, a few of my artsy friends were going and it was warm in Florida, so I said why not. Most of the people there were pretty cool. Some were a little strange for my taste. However, there were a few people that were trying to start a ruckus. I kept thinking, "Gosh, i wish someone would calm those folks down before they cause a problem."

Next thing I know, they did cause a problem and the police closed in on both sides. I got gassed and hit in the leg with one of those fake bullets.

I'm cussing these instigators who caused this to happen. Then I watch as these little shits who caused this mess run over to the police. Hurt and angry...I'm thinking, "Take 'em down hard. Teach the little fuckers a lesson."

Then I watched in desbelief as the police line parted and let them pass. The sons of bitches weren't on 'our' side at all. To make matters worse, I didn't even recognize the events that were shown on the news that night.

Well, I guess this post turned out much longer than I thought it would. My point in all of this was that when you watch the news, you are seeing the actions from one point of view. To think that protesters are a bunch of hippies shouting at murder and spitting on the troops is far from the truth. Most people protesting during Vietnam were protesting because they didn't want to be sent over there to die for no good reason or they didn't want someone they loved to be sent over for no good reason. Then you had a very small minority of the PETA folks...before there was a PETA. And lastly, I will bet money that there were people planted there by the FBI to instigate an armed response and to shift public opinion in favor of the people who wanted the continuence of war.

 

[KenJames]

The troops aren't allowed to touch a Mosque. If there is a Mosque with AK-47's and RPG's sticking out of every opening in the facade, our troops can't do anything about it.

Just a minor correction. The US rules of engagement do allow our troops to attack a mosque if it's used for hostile activities, and they have done so.