DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on July 09, 2008, 07:20:19 PM
-
I've been very up front in indicating any timetable for moderate to massive pullouts, needs to be made from the ground level in Iraq and not some arbitrary # from DC. Bush has been very consistent in his support about this, and it appears that the Iraqi government is quickly coming to that point, sooner rather than later. When they indicate that they're ready, and have requested we start moving out, then we indeed need to start moving out.......big time
If Bush is not supportive of this, then we're going to have a problem, since it would be seen by me as DC trying to pull the strings, and not the commanders on the ground and the Iraqi Government, which the original position has always been about. Am I wrong Ami? Bt? Pooch?
-
When they indicate that they're ready, and have requested we start moving out, then we indeed need to start moving out.......big time
The key is an orderly withdrawal. And that will happen on the next Presidents watch even if they asked us to pull out tomorrow.
-
So, how do we define orderly? Is Obama's rhetoric of taking 2 divisions a month for 16 months "orderly"? If so, he would have hit a political homerun, as he can claim he was going to end this war, even though the Bush plan & surge is what led to the nearing point of where we can start drawing troops down significantly.
How fortuitous for Obama
-
The key is an orderly withdrawal. And that will happen on the next Presidents watch even if they asked us to pull out tomorrow.
I think the quickest we could pull out would be like 6 months. More than likely, though, any type of orderly pullout would take 18 months or so.
-
So, how do we define orderly? Is Obama's rhetoric of taking 2 divisions a month for 16 months "orderly"? If so, he would have hit a political homerun, as he can claim he was going to end this war, even though the Bush plan & surge is what led to the nearing point of where we can start drawing troops down significantly.
How fortuitous for Obama
The other side of the coin is McCain has been advocating the surge since day one. And the surge is what will allow the draw down, so he scores points too.
If no matter who is elected two things could happen. An orderlywithdrawal allowing the Iraqi's to fill the vacuum or a civil war breaks out and we have a helicopters on the embassy scenario once again. No matter how much Mikey might wish this , Obama doesn't want that happening on his watch. My guess is he would be more cautious than McCain in withdrawing troops.
-
So......if Iraq has said they're ready, and would like to have us start moving our folks out, what justifiable reason would Bush and his administration have in not supporting such? That's the just of what I seem to be hearing of. Though I admit that's coming thru the prism of the MSM, so I have to take that with a grain of salt.
-
So......if Iraq has said they're ready, and would like to have us start moving our folks out, what justifiable reason would Bush and his administration have in not supporting such? That's the just of what I seem to be hearing of. Though I admit that's coming thru the prism of the MSM, so I have to take that with a grain of salt.
Has Iraq officially requested our withdrawal or is Maliki playing poker in negotiating the post UN Mandate security agreement?
A quick read shows dissent within his party and his inner circle.
-
So, how do we define orderly? Is Obama's rhetoric of taking 2 divisions a month for 16 months "orderly"? If so, he would have hit a political homerun, as he can claim he was going to end this war, even though the Bush plan & surge is what led to the nearing point of where we can start drawing troops down significantly. How fortuitous for Obama
The other side of the coin is McCain has been advocating the surge since day one. And the surge is what will allow the draw down, so he scores points too.
Yea....BUT....that won't be the MSM spin. If we call down troops to the point that we're largely out of there by the end of 16months, NO ONE will be referencing the surge, and all the efforts it took prior to that point, that made it possible. They will be singing the praises of Obama and his "promise to end this war"
If no matter who is elected two things could happen. An orderlywithdrawal allowing the Iraqi's to fill the vacuum or a civil war breaks out and we have a helicopters on the embassy scenario once again. No matter how much Mikey might wish this , Obama doesn't want that happening on his watch. My guess is he would be more cautious than McCain in withdrawing troops.
I actually don't doubt that. The worse thing for a President Obama, is for the literal blowing up of Iraq into an all out civil war, if he were to start pulling mass amount of troops prematurely. He'd be lucky to get 1 term
Has Iraq officially requested our withdrawal or is Maliki playing poker in negotiating the post UN Mandate security agreement? A quick read shows dissent within his party and his inner circle.
I've never referenced anything specific, as I've been saying all along here that the inferrence is that we're simply drawing closer to such a request, by way of the MSM's reports. My question still stands though, that if a request is offically made, what could possibly justify this adminstration's insistance that we defer/deflect said request?
-
My question still stands though, that if a request is offically made, what could possibly justify this adminstration's insistance that we defer/deflect said request?
If the folks on the scene say the Iraqi's aren't ready to take over then Bush would be consistent in thinking the mission was not complete and dragging his feet on withdrawal no matter the political pressure is the right thing to do.
Look.
The MSM is going to damn Bush either way. Obama is their guy. It's his election to lose. McCain will only win if the country's perception of Obama is that he is a wild card, an unknown and too big of a risk to elect. Then they will elect McCain as a placeholder.
-
Thanks for the feedback Bt, and Ami. Much appreciated
-
SIRS of course we will be drawing down.
Armies drawn down as the mission draws closer to completion.
Basically we have won. The surge worked.
General Petraeus, the guy Democrats last year were
insinuating was a liar and called "General BeTrayUs" is a hero.
Obviously there is still much work to be done, but we wont need 120K troops anymore.
In Iraq on July 4th, 1,215 U.S. servicemen and women re-enlisted in
the largest re-enlistment ceremony ever.
The Iraqi army we trained and said would be ready is getting stronger.
The Iraqi army is starting to take the lead in many operations.
Most of Iraq's provinces are now under the remit of an Iraqi-led command centre.
We just shipped 550 tons of Yellowcake nuclear bomb material out of Iraq.
Iraq's electricity production jumped more than 10 percent in roughly the first six months of 2008.
Other reconconstruction efforts will continue and increase as Iraq becomes more peaceful.
The United Arab Emirates just announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion
of debt owed by Baghdad -- an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state.
The first signs of the end of Iraqi isolation within the Arab world. The Emirates are planning
to send a new ambassador to Baghdad, a decision aimed at mitigating Iraqi diplomatic isolation
on the part of the Arab world.
Other positive signs are coming from the Arab community, including the upcoming visits
of King Abdullah of Jordan (the first Arab head of state to set foot again in Iraq after
the beginning of the war, in March of 2003) and of Turkish prime minister Erdogan.
Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have also been promising for some time to reestablish their
diplomatic representation.
No matter who was President we would be withdrawing a great number of troops over the next 4 years.
The difference is now we will be withdrawing as a winner!
Whoever the next President is, he will be lucky that President Bush after doing
most of the dirty work will be handing off a democratic Iraq well on the way to reaching it's potential.
(http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/Image/080709beelertoon_c.jpg)
-
It's real simple from where I stand. Iraq was given its sovereignty years ago. Prior to that time we were an invading and then occupying force, with the mission of toppling the last regime and setting up a democratic government to replace it. After that time we were in a support role, helping to establish and maintain stability and train the Iraqi forces to take up that role themselves. The first mission was easy. It was accomplished in short time with little cost. The second was the bear. It took several years and tons of treasure (not to mention thousands of American troops - many of who lost their lives). Assuming that the request from Iraq is real (and it would be tough not to at least acknowledge that the request is made) a third phase has commenced. This is the time to withdraw our forces, relinquish security responsibility to the Iraqi government, and negotiate (if appropriate) any residual presence in the country.
Assuming the Iraqi request is real, the time has come to recover or redeploy our forces in Iraq and allow history to take its course.
-
If the request is real...
-
If I remember right, Maliki was showing us the door before the so-called "surge" ever got news coverage.
-
It was one of the higher ups in the govt. I think this is just posturing.
-
It could just be politics, or posturing as BT has said. A large majority of Iraqi's (something like 70% IIRC) want the Americans out, and what better way for Maliki to strengthen his power than to acquiese to those demands, whether they're ready for American withdrawal or not?
On the flip side, it is their country to do with as they see fit. They do have a democratic government. For the US to ignore their wishes or demands and refuse to exit would have a hugely negative impact on American prestige. It would make us appear to be neoimperialists.
I think that Bush and whoever the next President will be will try to maintain a large force in Iraq. The only question in my mind is whether or not the Iraqi's or their government will allow it.
-
The assumptions that seem to be taken for granted in this discussion are mind-boggling. First, that Iraq is a democracy with a democratically elected government.
Iraq is NOT a democracy. It does not even have a legitimate constitution agreed to by a simple majority of its citizens, so it's not a democracy or a dictatorship or anything in between - - it is land occupied by the U.S. Army and its allied forces. Whatever Maliki and his fellow collaborators want to call themselves, and whatever posturing they now wish to strike (demanding the U.S. leave without doing a single God-damn thing to force them out, for example) they are NOT a government but a most a faction.
Another assumption - - that the U.S. forces are there to assure "stability" and "democracy" before leaving is similarly absurd. The U.S. has never supported real democracy in the region - - not for the West Bank, not for Gaza, not for Egypt, not for Jordan, not for Kuwait or any of the UAE states, and the list goes on. Why only in Iraq would the U.S. suddenly become so vitally interested in "democracy?"
The real question that is being debated is, "When will the U.S. find a bunch of puppets to govern their oppressed people the way WE want them to be governed?" and the answer to THAT question is, "Never."
-
Iraq is NOT a democracy. It does not even have a legitimate constitution agreed to by a simple majority of its citizens, so it's not a democracy or a dictatorship or anything in between - - it is land occupied by the U.S. Army and its allied forces.
The current Iraq Constitution was approved on October 15th, 2005. 78% of the voters voted "yes." That's not just a simple majority, it's a super majority in more ways than one (2/3 or 3/4).
-
But.....but.....Ami, they were coerced, if not forced to vote, at gunpoint no less. Kinda the opposite of what happened in Florida 2000
-
<<The current Iraq Constitution was approved on October 15th, 2005. 78% of the voters voted "yes." That's not just a simple majority, it's a super majority in more ways than one (2/3 or 3/4).>>
A vote under the guns of an occupying army? right. If that's not legitimate, what is? Most Iraqis did not vote and of those who did, which of them voted in the fraudulent "election" only because they did not want to wind up on anyone's shit list? Not while the torture chambers were still running full blast. Furthermore, ex-Ba'ath members were prohibited from campaigning, not that they would have been stupid enough to have done so. Funny how the former members of the only legitimate government couldn't even offer themselves to the people as candidates in this "democratic" election, isn't it?
The vote was illegitimate, the Constitution is illegitimate and the government "elected" to serve under it is illegitimate. Moreover, if it had ANY popular legitimacy it could organize its own army and security force and would not need the presence of 140,000 American troops to protect its sorry collective ass. They will all be dead in a matter of weeks if their American protectors and sponsors ever leave the country. Not that there's any chance of that happening at present. It is, however, an inevitable event. They are marked men.
-
If 78% voted for did 22% vote against?
What happened to that 22% and the 20% or so that did not vote?
Massive round up ?
Hardly , there was a lot of celebration at the most legitimate election the Iriquis had ever seen , it can get better , but it is already very good.
-
Most Iraqis did not vote and of those who did, which of them voted in the fraudulent "election" only because they did not want to wind up on anyone's shit list?
The voter turnout was 63%.
The UN certified the election.
-
plane: <<If 78% voted for did 22% vote against?
<<What happened to that 22% and the 20% or so that did not vote?
<<Massive round up ?>>
=========================================
We don't know what really happened to a lot of people in Iraq. A lot of people died in so-called "sectarian violence" where we don't know who got on who's shit-list or how they got there. It's conceivable to me that if some local sheikh had a deal with the Americans to turn out "his" people to vote in their fake election and some duuude failed to show up and vote, that in itself would be an excellent way in itself to get oneself inscribed forever in somebody's Book of Shit. With consequences one can well imagine. I would expect that many of those who DID participate in the fraud were very well cognizant of the unpleasant realities of life in Occupied Iraq and conducted themselves prudently and responsibly, meaning that they voted if they were told to vote and they voted HOW they were told to vote.
Since many of the bodies of the victims of "sectarian violence" did show "evidence of torture," I would say they very likely were "rounded up" prior to their execution, so "massive roundup" may be pretty close to the mark. Although "massive" probably isn't appropriate, since I can't imagine too many of them being stupid enough NOT to vote in the Americans' massively publicized "elections."
Ami: <<The voter turnout was 63%.>>
OK that makes 37 out of every 100 Iraqis who did NOT vote for the constitution.
Of the 63 who DID vote, 22% (plane's figures) or 14 voters did not vote for the constitution.
Total of each 100 Iraqis NOT supporting the constitution or the vote for the constitution = 37 + 14 = 51 voters or 51%. Considering that this "election" is held under foreign military occupation, this renders even the 49% pro-constitutional vote suspect. The "election" is, as I said it was, a total crock.
<<The UN certified the election.>>
I am so very impressed. This means any large country can invade a small country, occupy it, and hold valid elections there. Wow, that's good news, but even better news is that the right-wing fruitbats of the country are finally showing a new respect for the UN and its opinions, thus heralding a renaissance of the rule of law in international relations. Wonderful news.
The UN certified the election.
-
The Sunni's decided not to vote in the election, if memory serves.
Their choice in a democracy.
-
<<The Sunni's decided not to vote in the election, if memory serves.
<<Their choice in a democracy. >>
Yeah, or it WOULD have been their choice if it HAD been a democracy. As it happened, it was a military occupation, not a "democracy" and they chose not to participate in the occupier's fraudulent little game. Meaning they did not wish to play by American-made rules in their own country, and did not thereby lend any legitimacy to the Americans' fraud. Nor did the 22% of the "67%" who DID vote. Which, as it happens, makes the "elections" not merely a fraud, but a very obvious fraud.
-
They were invited to participate. Sunni's in mixed neighborhoods voted. Those in the ghettos didn't out of fear and not of the occupiers nor the majority.
-
If the Iraqi government represents the Iraqi people, and that same government wants a timetable, then how can the US refuse to present a timetable?
The US cannot reasonably invade, then refuse to leave when they are no longer wanted and claim that it is for the good of the Iraqis.
It is up to the Iraqis to decide what is best for them. There was no plebiscite of Iraqis favoring the invasion and the overthrow of Saddam, after all.
The WMDs that were supposed to justify this foolish adventure turn out to have never been a threat, and certainly are not a threat today.
-
If the Iraqi government represents the Iraqi people, and that same government wants a timetable, then how can the US refuse to present a timetable?
When the Iraqi govt officially asks us to leave, we'll talk about it. They haven't.
-
If the Iraqi government represents the Iraqi people, and that same government wants a timetable, then how can the US refuse to present a timetable?
I don't think we can refuse.
What is the demand specificly?
If we start to go would they change their mind and call us back?
-
<<Sunni's in mixed neighborhoods voted. Those in the ghettos didn't out of fear and not of the occupiers nor the majority. >>
Exactly. The Shi'a were in favour of voting and a Sunni in a mixed area was vulnerable to Shi'a threats and retaliation in a way that a Sunni in a Sunni ghetto was not. It's a no-brainer. The foreign invaders demand "elections" and the Shi'a majority favours them. The Sunni don't. They're both major elements in Iraqi society. There was no consensus to hold elections and the American solution (one man one vote, winner take all) is an American-made solution imposed at gunpoint on all Iraqis and thus having zero legitimacy. Even if it HAD the support of 51% of Iraqis, which it apparently did not. The "elections" are bullshit. The Iraqis will solve the problem of a government, but they will do it in their own way, not the American way, after the Americans have left or have been driven out.
-
OK that makes 37 out of every 100 Iraqis who did NOT vote for the constitution.
Of the 63 who DID vote, 22% (plane's figures) or 14 voters did not vote for the constitution.
Not voting is not the same thing as voting no. Matter of fact, you can consider it a positive vote - they didn't bother to vote because they knew it would pass.
Besides, in a democracy only those who vote have their voices heard. That's even the way it works in Canada, last I heard.
-
Even if it HAD the support of 51% of Iraqis, which it apparently did not. The "elections" are bullshit. The Iraqis will solve the problem of a government, but they will do it in their own way, not the American way, after the Americans have left or have been driven out.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to an election that had 100% voter turnout which was NOT done at the barrel of a gun.
After all, if we were forcing the Iraqi election at the barrel of a gun, as you claim, we could have easily forced a 100% voter turnout just to make sure that you couldn't make the claim that you're currently making.
-
<<Besides, in a democracy only those who vote have their voices heard. >>
That's true enough, but whatever gave you the idea that Iraq was a democracy? It was an occupied country in which the occupier decided that elections would be held on the occupier's terms.
<<Perhaps you can enlighten us as to an election that had 100% voter turnout which was NOT done at the barrel of a gun.>>
Nice try, but failure to produce a 100% turnout is NOT one of the issues in this thread.
<<After all, if we were forcing the Iraqi election at the barrel of a gun, as you claim, we could have easily forced a 100% voter turnout just to make sure that you couldn't make the claim that you're currently making.>>
Yeah, except (a) it would have looked bad, because in the U.S.A., 100% voter turnout is associated with Stalinism and (b) if they all turned out, you might not have gotten even a 50% majority (in fact, if my numbers are right, you wouldn't have) and THAT would have been embarrassing.
-
Iraq has been a country for maybe 6000 years.
The only time they have ever had elections for a winner-take-all American style pluralistic democracy is when Juniorbush et al imposed it on them.
There can be only Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems.
There are dozens of ways to interpret "fairness".
-
Yeah, except (a) it would have looked bad, because in the U.S.A., 100% voter turnout is associated with Stalinism and (b) if they all turned out, you might not have gotten even a 50% majority (in fact, if my numbers are right, you wouldn't have) and THAT would have been embarrassing.
Your numbers are far more likely to be wrong. Statistically, the votes among those who abstained would have been split around 38% for and 62% against (that was the average among Sunni voters that did turn out). So, you have 14 out of 100 who voted against, and around 23 of the 37 who did not vote would have voted against, yielding 14+23=37 out of 100 who would have voted no. You're assuming that 100% of the people who did not vote would have voted no; this is an incorrect assumption.
-
<<Your numbers are far more likely to be wrong. Statistically, the votes among those who abstained would have been split around 38% for and 62% against (that was the average among Sunni voters that did turn out). >>
There's no way to compare the split in the non-voters with the split among the Sunni voters. You can't assume that supporters and non-supporters of the "elections" were equally distributed in both the voting and the non-voting Sunni.
<<You're assuming that 100% of the people who did not vote would have voted no; this is an incorrect assumption.>>
It's an assumption and it's as likely to be true as any other assumption of why they stayed home. The fact is, we just don't know why all of them stayed home but their absence shows only that for whatever reason, they did not see fit to add their voice to the "election" that the Americans were forcing them to hold. So NONE of those voices can be counted in support of the elections. If they supported the elections, they would have gone and voted in them.
-
If they supported the elections, they would have gone and voted in them.
Unless they were afraid of getting killed by the thugs that threatened to kill people who voted.
You remember that, don't you?
It's an assumption and it's as likely to be true as any other assumption of why they stayed home.
No group of people will ever vote 100% in one way on this type of referendum. To make the assumption that they would is just asinine.
-
<<No group of people will ever vote 100% in one way on this type of referendum. To make the assumption that they would is just asinine.>>
What's asinine is to count any of them as supporters of the election. They stayed away, they can't be counted as supporting anything. You could assume some stayed home out of fear, some just couldn't get out and some stayed home out of indifference. To NONE of them was it important enough to risk their life over.
Over-arching all of this is the fact that the "election" was a process imposed upon them by force of arms. From which certain representatives were excluded by the Americans.
It's asinine indeed to consider that "election" as indicating the will of the Iraqi people.
-
<<No group of people will ever vote 100% in one way on this type of referendum. To make the assumption that they would is just asinine.>>
What's asinine is to count any of them as supporters of the election. They stayed away, they can't be counted as supporting anything. You could assume some stayed home out of fear, some just couldn't get out and some stayed home out of indifference. To NONE of them was it important enough to risk their life over.
Over-arching all of this is the fact that the "election" was a process imposed upon them by force of arms. From which certain representatives were excluded by the Americans.
It's asinine indeed to consider that "election" as indicating the will of the Iraqi people.
I think that asking them was the best availible means for finding out their will.
I am certian that Saddam Hussein did not represent the will of the people, he simply had the guns to produce his legitamacy.
-
What's asinine is to count any of them as supporters of the election.
I don't count then as supporters of the election - statistically, however, some percentage of them would support the new constitution. The number should be roughly proportional to the general numbers among the Sunni population who voted.
-
I think it's obvious that some of the Sunnis who stayed home probably would have supported whatever the Americans wanted and others would not. Since they stayed home, we can only make assumptions, which is OK because you could make assumptions of similar reliability or non-reliability based on polls. I think though, whether you're basing an assessment on polls or on other assumptions (and I think it's a particularly weak assumption that non-voting Sunnis would have split in the same proportion as voting Sunnis) it's important to note that the conclusion is based on either polling, or election results supplemented heavily by particular assumptions, but it is not based on the will of the people expressed through an election, simply because the nature of the "election" in question is far different from the kind of election we are used to. Their "election" was basically a PR exercise based on armed force and represented nothing more than the managed outcome of a process whose underlying ground rules were dictated by the occupying power. Those who benefit from such an "election" and their American supporters will obviously claim legitimacy but no one other than the direct beneficiaries and their American and other foreign supporters - - particularly no Iraqis - - will ever be able to accept the legitimacy of those "elections."
The bigger problem, however, rests on the assumption that an American-made solution (free and fair elections) would solve an Iraqi problem. The one-size-fits-all assumptions that Americans are prone to make have a built-in rationale that what works for America and similar societies will work for all societies. It's reinforced by an innate belief in American superiority over the rest of the world. It's further reinforced by the simplistic assumption that the only alternative to "democracy" is iron-fisted dictatorship, a la Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, etc. Two alternative models - - consensus models and class-based dictatorships (most famously, the dictatorship of the proletariat) are never discussed, and furthermore, a cartoonish, one-dimensional view of dictatorships such as (for example) the Saddam Hussein regime almost always fail to examine to what extent other interests (class or tribal) are accommodated within the so-called dictatorial system.
IMHO, American-style democracy (one person one vote, winner take all) is simply not workable in a tribalized society such as Iraq and it's a mistake to try to force this down their throats. The British did the same thing to them with a constitutional monarchy, which lasted for about twenty years. They bombed the living shit out of them back in the 1930s, and the leader of the air war against the Iraqi rebels then was Arthur ("Bomber") Harris, later the wartime commander of RAF Bomber Command. Didn't do any good - - in less than 20 years, the government was overthrown in a coup d'etat bringing the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party, and ultimately, Saddam Hussein, to power. It's hard to accept but this is an ancient society, much older than America, and they settle their own affairs their own way, not somebody else's way.
-
"IMHO, American-style democracy (one person one vote, winner take all) is simply not workable in a tribalized society such as Iraq and ..."
Why not?
If tribal leaders are very influential in elections , the result won't be any worse than tribal leaders without elections.
-
<<If tribal leaders are very influential in elections , the result won't be any worse than tribal leaders without elections.>>
What it boils down to is readiness to accept the results. These people have competing loyalties which are stronger than any comparable competing loyalties in the U.S., Canada or the U.K.
-
What's asinine is to count any of them as supporters of the election. They stayed away, they can't be counted as supporting anything. You could assume some stayed home out of fear, some just couldn't get out and some stayed home out of indifference. To NONE of them was it important enough to risk their life over.
So the Majority that did go to the polls can be counted as supporting the idea of a poll even if thir vote was no?
-
<<If tribal leaders are very influential in elections , the result won't be any worse than tribal leaders without elections.>>
What it boils down to is readiness to accept the results. These people have competing loyalties which are stronger than any comparable competing loyalties in the U.S., Canada or the U.K.
I have troubble accepting results sometimes myself.
Sometimes I really cant beleive that anyone is stupid enough to vote for someone like Bill Clinton, and it huirts that he won with less than half of the votes , darn technicalities!
But I feel honor bound to accept the results in the same grace I expect my opponents to accept their looseing, or the grace I wish they had anyway.
It should be understood that the looseing side will stand down peacefully why elese submit to elections? I know that my group would win in a gunfight , but avoiding frequent gunfighting is so worthwile it is worth submitting to being honor bound to the rules .
-
Sometimes I really cant beleive that anyone is stupid enough to vote for someone like Bill Clinton, and it huirts that he won with less than half of the votes , darn technicalities!
==================================================================
Fewer than half of the people - not even a majority- voted for Juniorbush and he was by far less intelligent, less competent, more stubborn and more hated by people both at home and abroad than Clinton, who was a rather competent president and a genius , when compared with Juniorbush, or Olebush, and certainly Bob Dole.
I do not think that porking a consenting adult like Monica was even one-thousandth as bad as the warmongering and incompetency of Juniorbush.
Even though Rush has somehow convinced you otherwise.
-
.001% less than half voted for GB the first time he was elected.
5% less than half voted for BC his first win , but I kept my whineing to a minimum , I am not a Democrat.
-
I am not a Democrat.
===================
No shit.
Really?
-
.001% less than half voted for GB the first time he was elected.
5% less than half voted for BC his first win , but I kept my whineing to a minimum , I am not a Democrat.
=======================================================================
Clinton's win was squarely inside the rules of the game. Bush Jr.'s was a blatant theft blatantly approved by a partisan Supreme Court in which the conservative "majority" instantly and inexplicably forsook their customary "Leave it all up to the states" attitudes and decided that this time a Federal Supreme Court should dictate to the states how to run their election process.
You don't need to be a Democrat to protest an obvious foul and a biased referee.
-
Clinton's win was squarely inside the rules of the game. Bush Jr.'s was a blatant theft blatantly approved by a partisan Supreme Court in which the conservative "majority" instantly and inexplicably forsook their customary "Leave it all up to the states" attitudes and decided that this time a Federal Supreme Court should dictate to the states how to run their election process.
You don't need to be a Democrat to protest an obvious foul and a biased referee.
The Supreme Court was stopping Florida from changing the rules after the election happened.
-
<<The Supreme Court was stopping Florida from changing the rules after the election happened.>>
The conservative bloc on the Supreme Court stopped the Florida courts from revising the Florida vote as they saw fit, making a 180 degree turn on the issue of whether it should be the individual states or the Federal courts which had the right and the duty to oversee elections held within the state by the state. The Florida courts were proposing their own remedy to fix the obvious flaws in the Florida vote, which all the SCOTUS judges had found had existed, were flaws, and needed to be fixed.
-
The Supreme Court does not have split chambers. They vote all at once.
Some vote for, some vote against.
Just like in regular elections except perhaps the SCOTUS voters are better informed.
-
<<The Supreme Court does not have split chambers. They vote all at once.
<<Some vote for, some vote against. >>
You are seriously misinformed. They and even their clerks discuss the issues amongst themselves and a lot of judge-on-judge lobbying can go on before final opinions are crafted.
-
You are seriously misinformed. They and even their clerks discuss the issues amongst themselves and a lot of judge-on-judge lobbying can go on before final opinions are crafted.
Not much different than congress or local governments or even general elections.
-
You better believe it takes place on a much higher intellectual plane.
-
You better believe it takes place on a much higher intellectual plane.
I did state that the SCOTUS was better informed.
But the process is the same.
-
<<The Supreme Court was stopping Florida from changing the rules after the election happened.>>
The conservative bloc on the Supreme Court stopped the Florida courts from revising the Florida vote as they saw fit, making a 180 degree turn on the issue of whether it should be the individual states or the Federal courts which had the right and the duty to oversee elections held within the state by the state. The Florida courts were proposing their own remedy to fix the obvious flaws in the Florida vote, which all the SCOTUS judges had found had existed, were flaws, and needed to be fixed.
"As a deeply divided Supreme Court issued 5-4 rulings the past few weeks bouncing from liberal to conservative interpretations of the law, something was woefully missing from the coverage: journalists apologizing to the nation for regularly insinuating that the Court's December 2000 decision concerning Bush v. Gore was politically based."
..............................................................................
"Hmmm. So, if conservative Roberts replaced the conservative Rehnquist, and conservative Alito replaced the moderate O'Connor, doesn't that make today's court slightly more conservative than the one that supposedly gave Bush the presidency for purely political reasons?"
.............................................................................................
"At the time, the clear liberals on the Court were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens. On the right were William Rehnquist, Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Somewhat in the center -- the swing voters -- were Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor.
Add it up, and the supposedly "conservative Supreme Court" in 2000 had four liberals, three conservatives, and two somewhat moderate swing voters. "
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/29/conservative-court-made-bush-president-now-balanced (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/29/conservative-court-made-bush-president-now-balanced)
In 2000 and 2001 the Court continued its shift toward states’ rights by ruling that states cannot be sued for violating a federal law barring age discrimination and by shielding states from certain employment-discrimination lawsuits based on the ADA. However, the Court also ruled that Congress has the authority to prohibit states from selling personal information on drivers’ licenses.
In 2000 the Court became embroiled in one of the closest and most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history. In the hours and days following Election Day, November 7, neither Democratic candidate Al Gore nor Republican candidate George W. Bush could claim victory due to an extremely close race in the state of Florida. In order to gain the 270 electoral votes necessary to capture the presidency, each candidate needed to win the Florida popular vote and thus the state’s 25 electoral votes. A mandated machine recount of Florida’s votes put Bush in the lead by only hundreds of votes out of about 6 million cast, and Gore requested hand recounts of ballots in four heavily Democratic counties. When some of these counties failed to complete their manual recounts by an election certification deadline, Gore filed an election contest to challenge the official certification of Bush as the winner. On December 8 the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes, or ballots on which machines failed to register a vote for president. Bush appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on December 9 the Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, halted these manual recounts while it considered the case.
On December 12 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida court’s decision, effectively sealing Bush’s victory. Seven of the nine justices found the court-ordered recount unconstitutional. They concluded that the use of different standards by different counties to determine a legal vote violates a voter’s right to equal protection—that is, the right for all voters to be treated equally. However, the Court split 5 to 4 on the issue of whether to permit further counting under more uniform standards, with the majority ruling that a recount could not be completed constitutionally before a December 12 deadline for the state to choose its electors. The dissenting justices argued that the Court was wrong to involve itself in a state election dispute and that its split decision risked the credibility of the Court.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_5/supreme_court_of_the_united_states.html (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_5/supreme_court_of_the_united_states.html)
-
The basic gist of this post has been submerged in stupidities once more.
The fact is that Clinton was vastly better as a president than the sorry-assed George Bush.
The Supremes did no one any favors by installing this incompetent Juniorbush in the White House.
Hillary could still conceivable be elected to office.
There is no hope that Jebbiebush, Laurabush or even the young MexiBush will ever even be considered for anything presidential because of the generally recognized failure of Juniorbush at everything.