now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.... after saddam's capture, dean was congratulatory and spoke of the benefits of a world with hussein, but then he went further and spoke the truth -- something the other dems seemed very afraid of -- and he said that america was no more safer than it was when saddam was hiding in his hole. he was lambasted from all sides, by mostly cowardly dems who didn't want to challenge bush in a moment of strength. but poll results published on the front page of today's nytimes signal that 60% of americans agree with him!

Thersis, thanks for getting back to the topic. I agree with you about your comments about Dean. He has always said this was the wrong war at the wrong time. He has always stayed the course on this as well, and of course always takes the heat for his stand.

Balls. He's against the war because Bush is for it. Anyone with a sense of history and morality and politics and power would realize we needed to do this. The world will be a better place for our actions. You guys are stuck in a tired paradigm (war=only bad).

So Howie wants to enjoy the satisfaction of having a tyrant out of power and in captivity, but he didn't want to be bothered with any of the grunt work that made such an outcome possible. A true profile in courage.

I suppose a President Howie would have just asked Saddam really, really nice-like to go hide out in a hole until US troops could grab him, or ask him really, really nice-like to come out - whatever our troops would be forced to do under a President Howie. Perhaps instead of overthrowing and capturing Saddam, Howie would have just built a nice bike path in Baghdad. Or even in the Soviet Union!

Sorry Tom, you are wrong again. Dean supported the cause in Afghanistan, home to Osama Bin Laden the true and greater threat, to America in my opinion, as do I, but sorry I don't feel anymore safer now because Saddam is caught. The situation in Iraq is one giant mess. Besides, I still feel the administration's justification for the war in Iraq was based on less than the truth, which you guys don't seem to mind. In fact if you want to look at the latest news, Husseins' capture has stirred up a hornets nest of attacks against America and the coalition. Once again, I am sure the right thought that roses would be thrown at the American troops after Saddam's capture. Certainly not so. I also still have lots of problems with the billions being thrown at Iraq at the expense of everything else here in the U.S. that could use this money. I don't know how the economy is where you live, but here in Washington State, the unemployment rate is 6.8%, and along with the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, much higher than the national average, yet we are told from the D.C. minions, that "recovery has begun".Oh but lets see the Republicans will blame the Governors of these states for our terrible economy, right?
The right continues to see the world in rose colored glasses.

[ December 17, 2003, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Let me echo puckman's comments - being against this war, no matter how bad a person Saddam Hussein was (and quite frankly he can't hold a candle for tyrannical rule or despotism to the leadership of either North Korea or Burma/Myanmar), is not the same as being against all war at all time.

Howard Dean completely and totally supported the war in Afghanistan, which is currently being ignored by this President. He was against this war because we DID IT WRONG, and has been proven correct in nearly every instance.

We don't seem to mind that you feel the administration's justification for the war in Iraq was based on less than the truth? No, I don't mind that at all. Think what you want.

But I can't imagine you are saying that we don't seem to mind that the war in Iraq was based on less than the truth, since that's your opinion, not an indisputable statement of fact, and thus you would basically be criticizing "us" for being complacent in some dishonest scheme that "we" don't believe exists. Sort of like you expressing outrage that "we" don't seem to have a problem with Burger King's food being disgusting. Some people like it.

Mmmmmmm...Burger King.

How do we know Howie was for the war in Afghanistan? Did he come out at the time and say so? (Silly me, at the time I wasn't really so much paying attention to the governor of Vermont's views on war, peace, apple pie, etc.) I'm just curious.

One of these things is not like the other (that'd be morality)...

To think Dean is some kind of pacifist is deranged. Every president has to bomb somebody -- we Americans think of our weapons as full of Red, White & Blue Cum.

What is Dean's stance on the problems in the Middle East? How does he plan to counter Islamic terrorism? What does he think America's role in the world should be in light of 9/11? What does he think Osama types want, and how does he plan to deal with them?

I suspect he's full of the same appeasement shit that gave us 9/11. Bush gets the neo-cons because he has a sense of right and wrong, good and evil and our way of life against something truly awful. The only way to deal with Osama types is to kill them all. And wipe out any government that coddles them. Osama doesn't have a beef with the U.S. over some land we stole or money we owe him. He's not railing at us because killed his people. He's just against everything we stand for. If what we stand for means anything, our only solution is to wipe him out first. War is effective. It sends a powerful message. War means peace in the long run. Doddering about from committee meeting to peace treaty is ineffective. Bush is a manager. He sees right through the stupid dance that France and the dumb UN and the rest of the world has been doing for the past 3 decades.

Dean, loveable man, doesn't get this. He surrounds himself with Clinton-leftovers and seeks the counsel of morons like Madeline Halfbright. We don't need that now. This isn't to say Bush is a brainiac--far from it. But he listens to the right people.

Meanwhile, chumps get hung up 'he gave us bogus reasons for going to war.' He could have given you any reason and you losers would still be out there, marching to keep Saddam in power. Bush did what he had to do, and he got what he wanted. He's a true leader.

You're some college kid, right?

Appeasement, yeah, America always does that. Perhaps if we hadn't graciously bullied the world (especially the non-Euro regions) for the last 58 years, we wouldn't have got the blowback. (Look it up.)

[ December 17, 2003, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Ummm...I don't think of our weapons that way. It's sort of gross, really.

Well, it may not be quite as piercing as "We Americans think of our weapons as full of Red, White & Blue Cum" ... . Real genius there. Not cliched in the least.

Riiight. We're responsible for 9/11. Osama is mad at us because of something that happened in Chile. That must explain it. Shouldn't you be out there marching to make sure Robert Mugabe stays in power?

[ December 17, 2003, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

William, you must have missed Dean stating he supported the war in Afghanistan. He has said this from the beginning, and its been on his website, and for any others who want to know Dean's stance. All one has to do it look at it. Very simple really.

Bush: Shock and awe.

Dean: Run and hide.

Bush: misleader
Dean: honest and forthright.

Not so honest and forthright about those locked up files, was he? Look, I'm sure he's a nice guy. A peaceable type. But we need something else right now. The current administration's foreign policy initiatives are too important for the long-term security of the world to turn over to the likes of Dr. Dean. The American people get this. They'll vote accordingly.

[ December 17, 2003, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

From the beginning of what? The war in Afghanistan or the campaign?

\"Suspect\" is the right word because you clearly don't know his positions on anything. He is NOT in favor of appeasement, in fact he is in favor of actually fighting the war on terrorism instead of using it as an excuse to wage illegal and unethical war against a soverign nation that was no threat to us, and DID NOTHING to sponsor terrorism.

Dean's entire position is that the war in Iraq makes us less safe 1) because it takes resources that could be used in the actual war on terrorism, and 2) because it inflames passions against us.

I am not one who believes we \"deserved\" 9/11, but we are idiots not to understand that we certainly caused a lot of the resentment that fueled that action. The terrorists may not care exactly what we did in Chile or how we did it, they simply care that we helped overthrow a popularly elected leader to put in a dummy regime that suited us. And they use those kinds of facts to justify their aggression and anger. We would be very smart not to hand them ammunition for it.

The same people that purposely misinterpreted the intelligence on Iraq to justify this war? Those are the right people to be listening to? You must be joking.

And Dean certainly has NOT surrounded himself with people from the Clinton camp - his inner core is largely the same as when he was governor. As for Madeline Allbright, she is regarded as one of the leading experts on foreign policy in this country.

Bush: Shock and awe.
(When he can give orders in the Oval Office)

Bush: Run and hide.
(When he could have actually participated in the fighting.)


Missing: Texas National Guard records for G.W. Bush, if found please return to Karl Rove.

Doesn't take much to be considered an "expert" then, does it?

Albright's an expert in foreign policy as much as a spoon's an expert in food.

William posted : from the beginning of what..time? Nevermind William. You guys just don't get it, and never will. C'est la vie.

Again, emotion overcoming judgment. Here's a link to Madeline Albright's biography. Now it's possible to disagree with Albright's views on foreign policy, but it's hard to question her qualifications for making such policy. (get it MIB? Here in our democracy, grown-ups have different views on policy questions, and disagreement does not equal lack of qualifications or stupidity).

I'll have to disagree with what Bill W said. TomFord couldn't be some collegekid. (at least not at Columbia) I mean... the students are a bit more fluent in politics than what he has shown so far.

to wit:
Dean is not surrounding himself with those from the Clinton camp. In fact, those inside the beltway know very well that the democratic party is locked in a struggle between the Clintonites (lead by Hillary, Billl and Terry McAuliffe) and the surging Howard Dean.

So to suggest that Dean is surrounded by Clinton cronies is like saying McCain's supporters have all become W.Bush devotees.

[ December 17, 2003, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

Tom, considering that the Clintons are doing everything they can to make sure Dean does NOT get the nomination, your statement makes no sense.

Perhaps by "Clinton leftovers" Tom meant Dean is getting the peripheral Clintonites who served no further purpose to Bill/Hill and therefore were cast off, leaving them available to the Dean camp as token "professionals."

somehow...... I doubt that.

Hey Tom - You seem to be about the second or third biggest war cheerleader on the board, whats your excuse for not signing up?

To much ear wax?
Lover, not a fighter?
"Other priorities?"

Thanks William. Actually I meant Albright and got carried away about the rest.

Raze: that would be a dream come true. I'd be such a good soldier! There was a time I thought it meant being a cannon fodder type, and I regret thinking that. Dumb.

I heard on CNN today Sen. Kerry ripping Dean a new one about his foreign policy speech on Monday. Apparently Dean stated the United States should have sought "permission" from the United Nations before acting against Iraq. I am currently a Dean supporter - having contributed to his campaign, driving around with the bumper sticker (thanks mdphl)- however, if this report is correct then this is the first chink in the Dean Armour for me - and may make me take another look at Kerry or Clark.

I've always believed the United States must not give any foreign political entity a "veto" over our foreign policy - and we should not seek "permission" from any foreign entity to act in our own national self-interest. If Howard Dean believes the United Nations charter takes precedence over our Constitution, then I will count myself as a former "supporter."

[ December 17, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

Does this surprise you? Permit me to scare you even more: Current members of our U.S. Supreme Court (Ginsburg, O'Connor, et. al.) believe we ought to turn to International Law and opinions of other nations' high courts when deciding some of our own legal issues!

This is frightening! This is not a liberal or conservative issue; it shouldn't be. Our U.S. Supreme Court--every federal court--takes an oath solely to the U.S. Constitution and must ultimately abide by its supremacy and nothing else. Hell, the Supremacy Clause even says this. We should never look to another nation's judicial decisions or laws to decide our own. To do so subjugates our Constitution, our very country, to another.

Where did you get this quote from? I don't think that's exactly what I said.

Number 1, I have no idea what Dean actually said, but given that Iraq was NOT a threat to the United States, and the United States has signed on with the United Nations as a body to regulate world affairs, yes it would have been better for us to have the UN behind the invasion of Iraq, as it was in 1991.

As for the conservative scare tactic that the Supreme Court is suddenly going to be using the Sudan's Constitution (assuming they even have one) instead of the US Constitution - that's bunk. What Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her speech, and was noted in the Lawrence decision, the Court is willing to look at what other nations are doing, but they are not ruling on points of law using either foreign legislation or interpretations.

Quite frankly, I am glad the Court is willing to see what other civilized nations are doing with their citizens - they are often ahead of the United States on a lot of matters.

Look up Ginsburg's latest comments on how she and others on the Court look to other nations' judicial opinions and laws as guidance.

I suggest that if you want our nation's judicial decisions to be based wholly or in part on "what other nations are doing" you lead a drive to amend the U.S. Constitution. If not, you and anyone else who wants to water it down and subordinate it to other countries can keep your hands off it!

The Left will stop at nothing to bastardize that precious document.

I approve of the SCOTUS looking to other countries for the results of their decisions and where international opinion goes. One fo the biggest arguments about the sodomy laws was the importance to moral fiber and to culture as a whole (read www.frc.org). The SCOTUS could then look to other countries that had struck down these laws and saw that these results did not occur. This is the type of social experiment that cannot be performed, so I think that the only way to rebut those arguments is to look to these other countries. But I guess it is a case by case subjective opinion.

I actually don't understand how your 2nd and third paragraphs follow. It seems that the right is the side that is currently trying to bastardize the document. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just not sure why saying that looking to other country's decisions is OK correlates to supporting amendments to the constitution.

I suggest that if you want our nation's judicial decisions not to be based in part on what other nations are doing, you're shit out of luck, because the Supreme Court has been doing it, where appropriate, since the time of Chief Justice Marshall. To accuse those who recognize this of wanting to subordinate the Constitution to that of other nations is to grossly mischaracterize what is being argued. There's room for debate, of course, on when reference to sources from other nations is appropriate, but to argue, as you seem to, that it never is, is flat out wrong, and flies in the face of 200 years of Constitutional theory and practice.

And to accuse "the left" of bastardizing the Constitution because you don't agree with their interpretations of it is simply infantile. Your tactics of argument, for one who has both a Ph.D. and a J.D., are beneath you.

[ December 18, 2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

If I recall correctly from 7th grade civics, our U.S. Constitution is based on another country's "judicial opinion and laws as guidance" -- Britain's Magna Carta. And Jefferson, amopng others, was inspired by the thinkers and events in France. So one might argue that the Founders' "original intent" was indeed to look at other countries.

Bush: Dumb and Dumber

Dean: Courage and Vision

Not according to some of his fellow liberals/Democrats.

I just got a really nice e-mail from the Dean camp, and I think it is truly a touch of class, but there are several ways we can let our troops know that we care, and we are thinking about them. Yes, even if we didn't support the incursion into Iraq, we can still let the brave men and women over there know we care. For example, we can donate our unused air miles, and he included several other links on how we can show them we care, including sending care packages etc. etc. I thought this was really classy, and I am going to follow through on this. Way to go Dean!

There is no question that Dean has fudged and misrepresented his past positions for political purposes. (That, along with his being a centrist, is why I am a Kucinich supporter. For now.)

There is also no question that for a Reagan or Dubya admirer to complain about it is a sick joke. Where would those two be without lies, fantasies, and fictional anecdotes?

Interesting article and comments about Dr.Dean. Thanks for the link William.
Obviously, the campaign is not over and the candidates are being evaluated on a continuing basis by the voters. Myself included.

I am still supporting Dean. But with a year to go before the election, my choice for pres certainly is not a done deal.

as to the other topic about the US seeking approval from int'l orgs..... I would say get used to it. as the world becomes an ever smaller place and inter-national trade and commerce becomes ever more entangled, the importance of NGOs and governmental orgs (like the WTO, UN, EU etc) will only increase. Not decrease.

Wanna see how an int'l org affects US domestic policy? Look no further than the W.Bush admin's decision to rescind steel tariffs. Why did they do it 1.5 years after promising a 3 year period? The EU's threat to tax US exports from key states. (i.e. Florida)

I'm certainly not saying the US should give up its sovreignty. But to insist that the US make decisions, both domestic and foreign, solely based on internal factors is to deny the obvious.

It didn't occur to you to show some gesture of gratitude to our troops until Howard Dean sent you an Email? Interesting...

[ December 18, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

another interesting read is today's the wash post editorial

I apologize if I offended anyone.

I can just hear oral arguments on this...

"But France does it that way, so should we."
"They do this in Germany; we should do it here."
"In Sweden their judges did that, so why can't we?"

Who gives a rat's ass what other countries do when it comes to our Supreme Court ruling on a U.S. Constitutional issue? When it comes to a case that makes its way through federal court, the court looks at it and decides if it violates either a specific U.S. code (law), if that is the assertion, or if it violates a specific part of the U.S. Constitution. If neither can be proven, we mustn't then turn to some foreign law or decision to then see if we should come to the same or similar conclusion.

If we do, then we should amend the Constitution to dispose of the Supremacy Clause, since it will have been rendered meaningless. THIS is but another example of how the Left, who really does not like that document unless they can twist it six ways to Sunday, continues to bastardize and diminish it.

Does this mean that our Constitution and our government and our laws are better than all other nations'? No, for that's a matter of personal opinion vis-a-vis patriotism. What I am saying is that our judicial decisions should never be based on anything but our Constitution.

And just where does this "moral fiber" issue come into play when a constitutional issue is at hand? I thought it was the Left who has ranted about not legislating morality?

Oh! The hypocrisy!

[ December 18, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

If U.S. policy should naturally be influenced by European/world opinion, why not give foreign countries some sort of voice direct voice in our House and Senate, and even in our presidential elections? If the U.S. government's actions will directly impact the citizens of France and Russia in this global economy, shouldn't they have some sort of say in shaping U.S. policy? Perhaps foreign nation's diplomats could hold seats in the House and Senate.

All this is doing is taking out the middleme- er, middlepersons (the Supreme Court) and allowing foreign nation's actual arguments for/against particular policies to be heard and included at the time specific laws are passed, rather than forcing the Supreme Court to clean up after Congress by accepting/rejecting U.S. law based on European/world opinion.

[ December 18, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Come on Tom, is that the best you can do?
The other chickenhawks came up with more interesting excuses than that.

OK raze, i'll join the army if you become one of those pansy ass human shields...

William,
It's not a matter of "IF" american policy is influenced by int'l forces. Fact is... US policy IS influenced by global pressures as I have noted in my steel tariffs example.

[ December 18, 2003, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: ung ]