Real question on foreign policy

[spence]

So for sure there's a lot we can do to help secure the country against terrorisim in the short-term. Although I'd add that we're not really doing most of it...

But long term, can someone explain why the GOP (and yes I'm blaming the GOP) won't let this country have a serious and open debate on how America should deal with the threat in the long term?

Our policy since 9/11 has been driven by radically liberal neoconservatives who have shown little regard for history or any ability for good judgement.

So why can't we have this debate? It seems to be Bush's way or the highway...but is this good for America?

-spence

[Skitterpop]

I`m sure many people do discuss it Spence. We are discussing it here on a fishing website.

From universities, think tanks, to NSA, CIA, FBI,The Pentagon, The Pentacle, Senate and Congressional Committees, etc. etc. ~~~~ people in power within this current regime and just everyday people as well.


The juiced stuff from those in power now is kept somewhat private or top secret so not to divulge what US future plans may be..... I think... maybe.... I don`t know.

[spence]

Oh it gets discussed, I'm not arguing that...

But there no real dialog at the right levels that induces compromise.

-spence

[Fishpart]

Unless you are in the circle you have no idea what goes on, but the debate is raging. You only get the sanitized tidbits that the press feeds the sheeple. Blam the President all you want, but rest assured Congress is involved somehow, they just won't take credit if they think their decisions bother their electors way because the ONLY thing they care about is staying in office.

[spence]

I don't think Congress is really all that in the loop to be honest.

They were an after the fact thought on Iraq, and didn't do their job because they are politicians after all and we were all freaked after 9/11.

They have been barely in the loop on all this spying stuff.

Any Dem who stands up and voices an opinion (good or bad) is instantly shot down and ridiculed across the well oiled right-wing mediasphere.

I see a lot of Bush clones blindly standing up for their man while they secretly forment inside...because they don't want to be branded a liberal for their dissent.

-spence

[Skitterpop]

1. Would you rather a sane and rational and peaceful world?

OR

2. what it is?

[Swimmer]

Liberal neoconservatives ..............you have either coined a new phrase worhty of CNN or thats an outrageous oxymoron.

[Swimmer]

Spreading neo-conservatism around liberally ............How can you question the long term in regard to terrorism when 9/11 only occured five years ago. Five years in the history of a country is an extremely short time.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

So for sure there's a lot we can do to help secure the country against terrorisim in the short-term. Although I'd add that we're not really doing most of it...

But long term, can someone explain why the GOP (and yes I'm blaming the GOP) won't let this country have a serious and open debate on how America should deal with the threat in the long term?

Our policy since 9/11 has been driven by radically liberal neoconservatives who have shown little regard for history or any ability for good judgement.

So why can't we have this debate? It seems to be Bush's way or the highway...but is this good for America?

-spence

Who on the Democratic side would you propose to enage in this debate? Democratic leadership like Howard Dean? In all seriousness who on the Democratic side will put aside partisanship long enough to conduct a debate that would lead to results that are actually good for America as a whole? If they are out there their voices have been drowned out by the far left types who thankfully to date do not have an influence on National Security.

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Who on the Democratic side would you propose to enage in this debate? Democratic leadership like Howard Dean? In all seriousness who on the Democratic side will put aside partisanship long enough to conduct a debate that would lead to results that are actually good for America as a whole? If they are out there their voices have been drowned out by the far left types who thankfully to date do not have an influence on National Security.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Who on the Democratic side would you propose to enage in this debate? Democratic leadership like Howard Dean? In all seriousness who on the Democratic side will put aside partisanship long enough to conduct a debate that would lead to results that are actually good for America as a whole? If they are out there their voices have been drowned out by the far left types who thankfully to date do not have an influence on National Security.

How about Joe Lieberman?

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

How about Joe Lieberman?

The one normal Dem gets thrown under the bus by his party, he wasn't liberal enough for them i guess He'll win running ad an independant though, i don't think most CT voters are as far left as the Lamont supporters are.

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

How about Joe Lieberman?

No good. He didn't hate Bush enough to be accepted by the New Democratic Party of America.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

In all seriousness who on the Democratic side will put aside partisanship long enough to conduct a debate that would lead to results that are actually good for America as a whole?

Who will put aside partisanship? Any of them...the issue isn't democratic partisanship...

The issue is that the Administration percieves things as they "want them to be" and not "as they are".

The freaking Vice President basically said a vote for Ned Lamont was a vote for alQeada. This isn't leadership...it's fearmongering.

The issue isn't about Dem vs Repub...it's about neoconservatives vs the rest of the country.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Who will put aside partisanship? Any of them...the issue isn't democratic partisanship...

The issue is that the Administration percieves things as they "want them to be" and not "as they are".

The freaking Vice President basically said a vote for Ned Lamont was a vote for alQeada. This isn't leadership...it's fearmongering.

The issue isn't about Dem vs Repub...it's about neoconservatives vs the rest of the country.

-spence

Your almost right. Partisanship will not be set aside by either party. But I dont think your statement: "it's about neoconservatives vs the rest of the country" isn't correct because if you think mainstream America is standing arm in arm with the far left, Moveon.org, 9/11 conspiracy whack jobs etc. etc, against Neo-Conservatives your very mistaken.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Your almost right. Partisanship will not be set aside by either party. But I dont think your statement: "it's about neoconservatives vs the rest of the country" isn't correct because if you think mainstream America is standing arm in arm with the far left, Moveon.org, 9/11 conspiracy whack jobs etc. etc, against Neo-Conservatives your very mistaken.

Partisanship among the Right is much deeper on terrorisim than it is on the left. Put simply, the Right is in power and using fear at every turn to push it's policy...

But the vast majority of the country doesn't stand with the "left" and they never have...middle America isn't all that liberal...but they also don't embrace the values of the neoconservative set they have put in power.

People think I'm liberal because of my views, which is absurd...if you think someone is liberal because their anti-Bush then you've been drinking the kool-aid.

In my observation they have been duped, and the Kerry did a pathetic job of presenting a viable option in the last election.

Yet, he still nearly won.

A great book on this topic is John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience". It baselines what "conservatisim" is and how far our current leadership has slipped...and why people should care.

-spence

[Maloney]

Who in the Democratic Party has the brass to stand for the values of most Americans? They pander to the far left. Letting Lieberman go down was a disgrace for that Party. And I am not a registered Democrat. For the Republicans, keep an eye on Hagel.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Maloney

Who in the Democratic Party has the brass to stand for the values of most Americans? They pander to the far left.

This is just right-wing rhetoric...

Who's standing up for the middle class, which represents the majority of Americans?

It sure as heck isn't the GOP...

I look at the Republican party today and I see a party out to divde America using fear, willing to compromise the US Constitution for executive privelage, that's using our Federal budget to redirect our tax revenues to corporate interests and is blindly supporting a long string of foreign policy blunders with zero congressional oversight.

And yet a democratic choice to oppose a Senator who's been aligned nearly 100% with the Administration is a "disgrace"?

As Thomas Jefferson said, when the government is broken the people will fix it.

-spence

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Your almost right. Partisanship will not be set aside by either party. But I dont think your statement: "it's about neoconservatives vs the rest of the country" isn't correct because if you think mainstream America is standing arm in arm with the far left, Moveon.org, 9/11 conspiracy whack jobs etc. etc, against Neo-Conservatives your very mistaken.

...hammer hits nail on head.

[Skitterpop]

There are strange things afoot that most people are afraid to admit to themselves because the reality is frightening.... and you know....its been that way for many a year.




Its the old adage adjusted: We cannot handle the truth.... the transfer from Religion to State has long been complete.


Welcome to the Matrix

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

This is just right-wing rhetoric...

Who's standing up for the middle class, which represents the majority of Americans?

It sure as heck isn't the GOP...

I look at the Republican party today and I see a party out to divde America using fear, willing to compromise the US Constitution for executive privelage, that's using our Federal budget to redirect our tax revenues to corporate interests and is blindly supporting a long string of foreign policy blunders with zero congressional oversight.

And yet a democratic choice to oppose a Senator who's been aligned nearly 100% with the Administration is a "disgrace"?

As Thomas Jefferson said, when the government is broken the people will fix it.

-spence

Spence, Look at Liebermans voting record and tell us he is aligned nearly 100% with the Bush Administration. The fact is he against 99% of all current policy with one exception and that is the war. You will be hard pressed to find a more liberal voting record than Joes. Bottom line, there is no room for any dissent from the far left (controlling faction) of the Democratic party. Did you notice who was standing behind Lamont when he gave his victory speech?

[Skitterpop]

Barney Frank?

[RIJIMMY]

This is reality, this is the enemy, from Jill Carroll's write up:

A cassette blared a recitation of the Koran and every few minutes the nervous men would mutter "Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar," as we drove through the darkness.

Then one of them said in Arabic, "What are you? What are you?"

A tiny voice next to me replied, "I'm a Mujahid," a holy warrior.

It was a boy -- I'd learn that his name was Ismael, and he was 5 years old. Just a child, already indoctrinated.

Spence, you go one an on about politcial motivation for terrorism. OUR enemies are motivated by religious zeal, not politics, not past mistakes by the west, not borders, not constitutions. no one yells long live socialism, long live Syria, long live Arab freedome, estc, when they blow up a bus, plane, buidling. It all about religion. As i sad last week, we could nto "compromise" with Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. That same fanaticism is what is driving these people.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

OUR enemies are motivated by religious zeal, not politics, not past mistakes by the west, not borders, not constitutions.

In my opinion you're completely wrong...and I'd argue that history is not on your side.

-spence

[slapshot]

We cannot compromise, let France and Switzerland compromise, again. This enemy is far worse than Hitler, and every bit as determined. Don't think for a second that if these animals had their hands on a nuclear device that they would not hesitate to use it.

I can't believe a thread like this is going only days after a plot to use 10 airliners against the United States was thwarted??

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by slapshot

We cannot compromise, let France and Switzerland compromise, again. This enemy is far worse than Hitler, and every bit as determined. Don't think for a second that if these animals had their hands on a nuclear device that they would not hesitate to use it.

I can't believe a thread like this is going only days after a plot to use 10 airliners against the United States was thwarted??

Well, you must not have heard....Cheney was in on this latest one

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

Well, you must not have heard....Cheney was in on this latest one

I guess I haven't heard. How was Cheney in on the latest Terror plot?