Seriously. How can anyone vote (R) nowadays?

The OP is an extreme left-wing liberal? Never would have guessed.

C'mon, you can do better than C&P everything that requires you to have an informed opinion.

People still have plenty of reasons to vote republican. You don't. We all know that by now. You're not even factoring in local elections with your broad brush. There are plenty of bad things ALL politicians have done, but I'm not ignorant enough to paint them all with one broad brush.

You sound like the kind of guy who would vote for anyone with a specific letter beside their name regardless of their qualifications or ideas. I feel sorry for you and those like you.

It may seem like a contradiction coming from a libertarian, but I like what Guiliani did in NYC, or at least what made national news. The man clearly has some foreign relations experience running the biggest and most diverse city in the US. He also has crisis experience, so I can't believe much will rattle him. He knows how to work with both parties, and has a decent amount of liberal social ideas in him (which I can agree with). I'm off the McCain bandwagon, I think he would waiver whichever way the breeze was flowing. I'm already on record stating how I have distaste for Edwards. I'd rather drink my own urine (sterile!) than vote for Clinton, and the jury is still out on Obama. Chris Dodd seems to have a good head on his shoulders, but he'll never win the nomination.

So, I have Obama, Clinton, McCain or Guiliani (all the apparent front-runners). I'd take Guiliani in a heartbeat given what I know now about the canidates. Just because he has the same letter behind his name as the people who are in office right now doesn't matter to me. Because I learned to look at individual's characteristics somewhere in kindergarten. Maybe you could schedule a refresher course sometime?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']

So, I have Obama, Clinton, McCain or Guiliani (all the apparent front-runners). I'd take Guiliani in a heartbeat given what I know now about the canidates. Just because he has the same letter behind his name as the people who are in office right now doesn't matter to me. Because I learned to look at individual's characteristics somewhere in kindergarten. Maybe you could schedule a refresher course sometime?[/QUOTE]

Lifelong new yorker here, I'm a registered Democrat but I wouldn't hesitate to vote for Guiliani. Go Rudy!

I don't know that he could really get the nomination though considering how it seems the religious right owns the republican party now and he is pro gay rights and pro abortion. Unless he starts changing his stance on things to appeal to them the way McCain seems to be doing.
 
I don't know if you're talking to me, but I voted for local Republicans in the last election. So your stereotyping is misplaced.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I don't know if you're talking to me, but I voted for local Republicans in the last election. So your stereotyping is misplaced.[/QUOTE]

So you already know all the wonderful reasons to vote Republican then.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']People still have plenty of reasons to vote republican.[/quote]

Those reasons consist of mostly idiocy.

You don't.
Click to expand...

Because he is not an idiot?

Rudy is not as popular in NY as he once was, mostly because of his pimping of 9/11 for Bush, that coupled with him pissing off the Republican base (fundies) I would say he doesnt have much of a shot.
 
[quote name='dopa345']So you already know all the wonderful reasons to vote Republican then.[/QUOTE]


The local elections are much much different than the national. They are about community issues in your town, not key legislation. I was referring to the national level, though the title didn't say that.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']but democrats want abortions for all, and hate jesus[/QUOTE]

Kang: Abortions for all!
Crowd: Boo!
Kang: Abortions for none!
Crowd: Boo!
Kang: Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Crowd: Yaaaay!
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I'm sure you're loving Dubya's tax cuts, but I hope your children are excited to pay off his wreckless spending. These numbers don't even count the Iraq costs.

If you like to manage your own money, then I wouldn't look towards Republicans for answers.[/QUOTE]

I'll agree with your criticism of Bush's (and don't forget Congress's) budgets over the last few years, but I certainly wouldn't look to the classic "tax and spend" Democrats to make improvements on this score:

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070313-090316-5575r.htm
 
both parties are complete fucking idiots. It's unfortunate that Americans don't have the balls to stand up and vote for the other. At least a chance for another might prove to at least SOME people that the 2 parties are both the same exact shit, with just a tint of different flavor.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'll agree with your criticism of Bush's (and don't forget Congress's) budgets over the last few years, but I certainly wouldn't look to the classic "tax and spend" Democrats to make improvements on this score:

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070313-090316-5575r.htm[/QUOTE]

I'm well known as a liberal here, but for the sake of time, I really want to stay out of the quibble here. But, I really do want to point out that the notion of "tax and spend" Democrats is a false and draconian ideology.

Let's be clear: EVERYONE wants to spend the fuck out of taxpayer dollars. I mildly respect the Democrats more for genuinely trying to pay for what they spend, rather than buying into some false notion that tax cuts will spurn an economic growth that will repay our debt (a debt that was at $2 trillion 27 years ago, when Carter left office, and is now 500% larger in a lone quarter century - I can't imagine a single soul out there who can empirically support supply-side economic policies - yet, that's what Republicans continue to proffer, with boring and meaningless "I can spend my money better than Ted Kennedy can" phrases).

I'll hunt down the Congressional Budget Office table that shows our annual tax income, spending, and surplus/deficit from year to year. It isn't bothersome when you see that the only years of surplus were 1999 and 2000 (under Clinton, but also a Republican Senate); what is bothersome is when the annual deficit is larger than the entirety of the federal budget from just 35-40 years ago. I'll get it for you all later, but plain and simple, EVERY POLITICIAN IS TO BLAME FOR GROSS EXPENDITURES. *Every one*. We have tax and spend Democrats and borrow and spend Republicans - politicians who think that they can spend "your money better than you," and politicians who want your grandchildren to foot the bill for your largesses.

There's something about the adulation for Rudy Giuliani that I find immensely pleasing. Not that I like him; I don't think I'd ever vote for him. But, more important than that, it is showing a cultural shift away from George W. Bush and hateful, bigoted Republican policy; away from imposing religious doctrine; away from playing to the "Rush Limbaugh" crowd (the same people who can't stand Giuliani, or Romney, or any (R) candidate not named Gingrich). In short, if a person can be hated by Rush Limbaugh but still be a Republican, then that's perfectly fine with me. I don't hate Republicans (who are more often than not disillusioned Libertarians who disagree with strengthening the federal government but also see the futility in voting Libertarian), but I can't stand religious zealots, I can't stand people willing to start preemptive war, and I can't stand people who support economic philosophies which have placed us at the mercy of continuous foreign investors.
 
[quote name='AshesofWake']both parties are complete fucking idiots. It's unfortunate that Americans don't have the balls to stand up and vote for the other. At least a chance for another might prove to at least SOME people that the 2 parties are both the same exact shit, with just a tint of different flavor.[/QUOTE]

I am not saying the Democratic party is perfect however Bush and Republicans have a laundry list of problems that are very troubling, when one brings this up the party faithful start saying that Bill Clinton is a shape shifter and Hillary made their cow stop giving milk.

It really doesnt make one say a pox on both their houses.
 
Im sorry but all parties have scandals. The only reason you can get away with a thread like this is because we have a R president at the moment. Clinton is constantly brought up because hes the most recent D president and he had his scandals.

The two party system works as so.

1.One party is elected to power
2.That party tries not to fuck it up.
3.It fucks it up.
4.People vote other party.
5.Other party gets elected.

This process repeats time and time again. If it didnt then we would have a long line of either just R presidents or just D presidents.
 
[quote name='ttriber']The problem here is so many people have forgotten what has gotten us into so much trouble for example did Pres. Clinton kill Osama when he had a chance to, hell no he let him go. Pres.Clinton on the other hand was to worried about his ass getting impeached by the whole Monica Lewinsky trial. Pres. Bush has had to deal with 9/11 did Clinton deal with that? Hell no. Did Clinton deal with the whole Katrina Controversy? Hell no. Has he dealt with Al-qaeda hell no. Did he take away money from the armed forces to put into his sack of potatoes? hell yes .. Get the point clinton hasnt had to deal with so much crap he was to worried about his poll numbers and his impeachment. Hell lets talk about miss nancy pelosi she claimed that she was gonna keep the house together has that happend? Hell no.. Pelosi all she is the poster child of the left wing anti war protestors.She is there for her own gain. I havent seen one thing the democrats have done better then the republicans. I know what your gonna say " oh my look at Clinton's economy" Yea ill Look, mind you remember Ronald Reagan thats where the economy comes in . Clinton just had the good fortune of getting Reagan's financial numbers in his years of office.[/QUOTE]

Clinton had no legal reason to kill Bin Laden, at the time there was no evidence connecting him to any actual attack. To try and kill him would violate international law and airspace, and with Pakistan just becoming a Nuclear country, maybe not the wisest of ideas. To say that Clinton didn't kill Bin Laden is the same as saying Reagan didn't kill Bin Laden. He had plenty of opportunities, hell, he funded a lot of his allies. Why didn't Reagan kill him then? Hindsight is 20/20.

That said, Bill Clinton and his administration knew that terrorists were the main security concern of the US, he had weekly meetings on Al Queda specifically. Pre-9/11, Bush had one (1). Every national security advisor warned the incoming administration about the threat of international terrorism, all of which fell on deaf ears.

Clinton bombed Al Queda camps in an attempt to kill Bin Laden, missing him by 30 minutes, violating international airspace to do so, and catching a lot of flack.

While Clinton didn't have to deal with 9/11, he dealt with the first WTC bombing, Kobar Towers and Oklahoma City.

Are you trying to blame katrina on Clinton? He's done more since the hurricane privately then the current administration has done publicly. Add New Orleans to the pile of things lost under this administration. First president of the modern era to lose a major american city and so far, has done zilch about it.

Clinton sent the armed forces on more missions then any president for 20 years, and none of them lost their lives in battle, not a single one, all within his reduced spending. Clinton's army conquered Afghanistan in a month.

After the cold war, there was no need, and still is no need for us to be spending 15% of our GDP on defense (while only spending 2.25% on education). Throwing money at the military has done nothing to make us safer, it has only served to embolden the military industrial complex.

There was a president between Reagan and Clinton you know, one who ran a administration through a recession, Bush 41. So one could say that Bush 41 inherited the Reagan 'good fortune.' Clinton was four years removed and things didn't get better for another year into his administration.

On every point you make "did Clinton have to deal with this?" is irrelivant. GW has had a tough presidencey, no doubt, but he has also failed at nearly every opportunity.
 
To speak to the OP, I have no idea why anyone would go GOP next time 'round.

No matter how you slice it, the Republicans consolidated their power in the Congress and President and made it a one-horse-show. The "check" part of checks and balances was completely usurped by an executive that after years of free reign, has forgotten what it means to be checked. Hell, it's so out of focus that you can't even have a single investigation without people saying shit like:

[quote name='RollingSkull']Coincidentally, speaking of checks and balances, how do you feel about the president invoking Executive Privilege to stop what will inevitably be a series of show trials?[/QUOTE]

Any oversight now has to devolve into a circus. Logically therefore, what's the point of having oversight at all?

The president can and very well may attempt to invoke privilege. As Joe American, I would see it as a virtual act of war against the Congress. Were I Congress, I'd put his balls in a vice until he squeals. If you want to be combative with another branch, hey, more power to you. But don't be surprised when they pull out the big guns.

The unbearable part is having to hear the partisan water carriers whining about it. Trust me little sycophants, you'll understand why us non-partisans are against the behemoth gargantuan executive when Hillary wins and smashes you into a fine paste. The really insane part is that you all know it, too. You know she's going to be ruthless in a way that 'ole Dubya never was. That day, I get the feeling I'll get a whole new group of "weak executive" friends.

And you'll have no one but yourselves to blame.


[quote name='sallyballs']It remains to be seen if they will be able to carry that wave into '08. Right now you have Obama and Hillary take shots at each other whilst the Giuliani campaign is gaining steam. Every attempt to stall him hasn't had much affect and despite attempts from hardcore right-wingers to harp on his social liberalism, he is still ahead. Dems are going to have a hard time scapegoating him like they did Congressional candidates in '06.[/quote]

You're missing the big picture. A Guliani vs. Hillary/Obama is a win-win for Democrats.

If he carries New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (which he is favored to do) the Dems might as well pack it in. Assuming every other state votes the way they did in '04, where will the Dems pick up the 67 votes from?
Click to expand...

The world is so very different. Kerry was a horrendous campaigner and a worse team builder. Hillary and Obama are probably the two best campaigners (with Bill) of this generation. All of the best and brightest are on those two teams right now. The brain drain in the Republican party is killing their candidates. Except for the most liberal Republican candidate (and doesn't that speak volumes?), the Repubs have zero chance. None. Zip.
 
I love it when people spread the lies about the democrats raising taxes and spending to much, makes me laugh and cry at the same time. Anyone remember the bridge to nowhere the Rep wants to biuld? Waste 250 million dollars on a bridge that the people in the town didn't want!

And a 9 trillion dollars in the hole is all because of the democrats who didn't have any power?

And last I checked Bush wasn't able to kill Osama either when he had the chance.

Some people really need to get their heads out of their asses.
 
[quote name='Cheese'] To say that Clinton didn't kill Bin Laden is the same as saying Reagan didn't kill Bin Laden. He had plenty of opportunities, hell, he funded a lot of his allies. Why didn't Reagan kill him then? Hindsight is 20/20.[/QUOTE]

Probably because bin Laden started his crusade against us when we went into his homeland. Might want to check your dates there, even if you're going to be sarcastic. We bombed Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, and we didn't seem to take any crap over it. The same intellegencia that said there was WMD in Iraq stated that there were chemical weapons being made in Sudan.

Violate international law and airspace? Cruise missles don't count then? I'll have to remember that next time. As far as Clinton dealing with any of those issues, I don't remember much more than him going on TV and looking contrite. BTW, it's Khobar. Only thing that happened was a court indicted them in absentia. Whoopee. We tried McVeigh and Nichols. As Chris Rock said, we don't throw a party for doing stuff you're supposed to do. We tried the people we found for 1993. Again, Chris Rock. Unfortunately, they had been suspected of terrorism for two years and we didn't stop them from buying a shitload of chemicals to assemble their bomb right across the river (source: CNS). Kenya and Tanzania, cruise missles (IIRC). One of the suspects was released in 2004. If you think I'm blaming Clinton for much of anything, you have another thing coming. Intelligence cuts came back in the 1992 edition of Congress for that one. Not that I would have blamed them at the time, but as you said hindsight is 20/20 (or 20/15 in my case).

The real thing that bugs me about the war is not the reasons, but the execution. If we were really after Saddam (be it for the Hitler/Amin/Slobberin' Slobodan-style ethnic cleansins or revenge for daddy - take your pick), or to really find out where the WMD was, a handful of units of our boys in the silent service could have done the job with ease. Our choppers are much better than they were in 1980 you know. Seeing these guys up close and personal, I can only say, 'Holy shit.' Long and drawn out, jaw dropped style. It would have been a much better approach than, 'Hey, we think you have something you're not supposed to so we'll build up an army at your doorstep and not really know what you're doing for a month.' It was actually kind of funny and scary as hell getting woken up at 0-dark:thirty that morning and being told to 'get the fuck out of your bunks!!! We just went to war!!!!' I also found it humorous that we had to patrol southwest Oklahoma like we were going to get invaded by the Iraqis. Good times.

Back on point, getting Saddam would have been a little tougher with the Republican Guard. As I understand it, even Mossad couldn't get someone close to him and they had been trying for nearly 20 years. If Mossad can't do it, it don't get done people. Hell, I had someone try to convince me that they took down the WTC with a nail clipper and some floss. Throw in some jumper cables and some laundry detergent and I may have took him seriously.

Instead, we have this fuckup. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do, and even less we can do right. We come home, we fucked it up. We stay, we fucked it up. About the best we can do at this point is contain the fighting to Iraq and not let it go anywhere else. Even that is a shitty solution.

To speedracer: look up politics in the dictionary. It will say, 'see also, circus. It's inevitable no matter who is in office. Last get on page 3 had it absolutely right. No matter who is in office, they will screw up one way or the other, and the other party will go apeshit over it.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Hillary will get swept in the south if she gets the nod. You really don't understand the venom for her. Obama clearly has the best chance of winning, but Clinton is the revenue train. It will take a lot to derail her. I've done the polling, I've done the PS GIS maps, I've done the predictions. Obama gets the nomination, he'll most likely win election. Clinton wins, we're going to have another 2000 election because there are a vast majority in the South who will vote anyone but her, no matter what designation sits behind their name.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']

To speedracer: look up politics in the dictionary. It will say, 'see also, circus. It's inevitable no matter who is in office.[/quote]

Sure. I agree. But that fact is totally independent of the other fact we're dealing with here, the need for oversight. "It'll be a circus" is no reason not to have an investigation of anything pertinent.

And who gives a shit if it is? Reap what you sow, I say. When you tell the future head of the Senate Judiciary to go fuck himself, well, I think some humble pie is in order. Like I said before, if an admin want to get all hardcore that's fine, just don't be surprised when they beat you to a bloody pulp the first chance they get.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Hillary will get swept in the south if she gets the nod. You really don't understand the venom for her.
Click to expand...

Sure I do. I live in Texas.

Obama clearly has the best chance of winning, but Clinton is the revenue train. It will take a lot to derail her. I've done the polling, I've done the PS GIS maps, I've done the predictions. Obama gets the nomination, he'll most likely win election. Clinton wins, we're going to have another 2000 election because there are a vast majority in the South who will vote anyone but her, no matter what designation sits behind their name.
Click to expand...

Edwards is untouchable as a veep because of what a douche he was the last time around (and this wife thing is going to make him look like a 1st class ass). Who else is Hillary going to pick, were she to pick up the nomination? Sure, she'd still lose the redneck states, but Florida probably goes her way with Obama on the ticket. Penn, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada all definitely go her way with that ticket, in which case she wouldn't even need Florida. Hell, even Texas would be up for grabs in a Hillary/Obama vs. Guliani fight. They don't talk about it now but if Hillary whoops him out of the gate, Obama'll cozy up and it'll be a done deal for eight years.

The southern states reign of supremacy is over, and good riddance.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
Sure I do. I live in Texas.

[/QUOTE]

Check out the current slogan. Truer words have never been said.

I can't classify Texas OR Florida as southern. No true southerner can. Nothing against either state, but they just aren't in anything other than pure geographical terms.

IMO, Texas would only vote Clinton if Obama was on board. But that's just from looking at past history. It's been 32 years since Texas voted for a Democrat.

As for this attorney mess right now, I dunno. I want subpeonas, but there are more important things. Absolutely find out the truth, but make the priorities what they need to be. Take the opportunity to treat NK like your little brat brother (I love you to death, and I'll do everything to make you happy. But if you pull a stunt like that again I'll pound your face in). You're never going to make friends with Iran while the clerics are in power, so I guess stay the course. Better do something to help Pakistan before their government collapses.

As far as Hillary's running mate, I wouldn't be surprised to see Dodd. Most qualified of the field, IMO. Depends on how virulent the attack ads are toward Obama and vice versa in Iowa and elsewhere. Even that might raise my opinion...slightly. And for Guiliani, I have no idea who he would pick. I get the feeling that McCain wouldn't do it. Unfortunately, Romney might be the logical choice to get in favor with the far right. *Shudder*. If it's between Hillary/Dodd and Guiliani/Romney, I might tear up my voter card.
 
Guliani/Romney. Oy vey. My head asplodes at the thought of poor Christian Conservatives having to carry water for the pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate and his heathen veep. :D

I agree that there's more important things to be doing that settling scores. But there's always something more important than that, and this has been a long time comin. I have no love whatsoever for the Dems, but they got beat like red headed stepchildren daily for six years. If they want to roast the administration over something like power of the executive (which is what this is really going to end up about), I'm cool with that. If the Republicans were smart, they'd jump on board immediately and roast Bush and Cheney before a Dem gets seated as president and shows them the other face of consolidated executive power.

I can't even imagine how badly Hillary would stomp the Republican leadership if she had the current executive power + Dem controlled Congress. I'd almost feel sorry for them.

Oh and Dodd is too NE for a Hillary running mate, at least that's how I see it.

edit: Speak of the devil and she shall appear. Vilsack is preparing that seat at the table by endorsing Hillary and doing campaign runs with her in Iowa. Looks like the midwest just got a little tougher for Obama.
 
[quote name='speedracer']The unbearable part is having to hear the partisan water carriers whining about it. Trust me little sycophants, you'll understand why us non-partisans are against the behemoth gargantuan executive when Hillary wins and smashes you into a fine paste. The really insane part is that you all know it, too. You know she's going to be ruthless in a way that 'ole Dubya never was. That day, I get the feeling I'll get a whole new group of "weak executive" friends.

And you'll have no one but yourselves to blame.[/quote]

:lol:

Well written.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Probably because bin Laden started his crusade against us when we went into his homeland. Might want to check your dates there, even if you're going to be sarcastic. [/quote]

It's hyperbole.

We bombed Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, and we didn't seem to take any crap over it. The same intellegencia that said there was WMD in Iraq stated that there were chemical weapons being made in Sudan.

Violate international law and airspace? Cruise missles don't count then? I'll have to remember that next time. As far as Clinton dealing with any of those issues, I don't remember much more than him going on TV and looking contrite. BTW, it's Khobar. Only thing that happened was a court indicted them in absentia. Whoopee. We tried McVeigh and Nichols. As Chris Rock said, we don't throw a party for doing stuff you're supposed to do. We tried the people we found for 1993. Again, Chris Rock. Unfortunately, they had been suspected of terrorism for two years and we didn't stop them from buying a shitload of chemicals to assemble their bomb right across the river (source: CNS). Kenya and Tanzania, cruise missles (IIRC). One of the suspects was released in 2004. If you think I'm blaming Clinton for much of anything, you have another thing coming. Intelligence cuts came back in the 1992 edition of Congress for that one. Not that I would have blamed them at the time, but as you said hindsight is 20/20 (or 20/15 in my case).
Click to expand...

Clinton took flack for his unauthorized violation of Pakistan's airspace, so, yes.

The Khobar (you can't hold misspelling a foreign word against me) indictments came in June 2001, after Clinton had left office, same with the USS Cole.

Again, there is a difference between a suspect and a convict. Suspecting someone of plotting something and proving it are often two different things. This is the burden of living in a civilized society.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of the Soviet Union it didn't make sense to be spending so much on an intelligence agency whose main foe, the KGB, has been done away with.

My central point stays the same, saying, "Bloo, blah, bloo 9/11 is CLintoon's fault, haw, haw, dumm libs, bloo blah bloo." is contradictory to the evidence.
 
[quote name='Cheese']

The Khobar (you can't hold misspelling a foreign word against me) indictments came in June 2001, after Clinton had left office, same with the USS Cole.
[/QUOTE]

No flak, just pointing it out for future reference.

My central point stays the same, saying, "Bloo, blah, bloo 9/11 is CLintoon's fault, haw, haw, dumm libs, bloo blah bloo." is contradictory to the evidence.
Click to expand...

It was Clinton's fault in the respect that the intelligence wasn't in place to see things coming (as in, no budget push for more intel officers). But you have to primarily blame the 102nd and subsequent Congresses for saying, 'Hey, we might need some more money for HUMINT.' You can pretty much spread the blame equally across all parties. I can't blame Bush for that particular matter, because even if he had pushed for it with all his might at 1201 20/1/2001, the people wouldn't have had time to adequately assess the danger that it posed. As it was, the people who were there said 'eh.'

I checked with the CIA for CTO positions in 2000, but no positions were open. So at that point, I decided to focus on Foreign Service, but quickly became bored with the idea of working in the middle of nowhere, where most people start.
 
[quote name='Cheese']
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of the Soviet Union it didn't make sense to be spending so much on an intelligence agency whose main foe, the KGB, has been done away with.
[/QUOTE]

I complete disagree with this point. Yes, the CIA was developed in the era of the Cold War but if anything, intelligence is even more essential now that our main threats are terror organizations that cross national boundries rather than individual nations or blocs.
 
[quote name='speedracer']

You're missing the big picture. A Guliani vs. Hillary/Obama is a win-win for Democrats.



The world is so very different. Kerry was a horrendous campaigner and a worse team builder. Hillary and Obama are probably the two best campaigners (with Bill) of this generation. All of the best and brightest are on those two teams right now. The brain drain in the Republican party is killing their candidates. Except for the most liberal Republican candidate (and doesn't that speak volumes?), the Repubs have zero chance. None. Zip.[/QUOTE]

No chance? Giuliani is leading in every poll I've seen so far.

One other factor that MUST be considered: You are assuming that when push comes to shove and people enter the voting booths they are ready to elect a woman or an African-American as President (or both if on the same ticket). *I* believe it should have no bearing on who to vote for, but you cannot ignore hundreds of years of bias and stereotyping. Colin Powell was the one who might have changed that, but got crapped on too much to want to stay on. (Giuliani-Powell ticket? :drool: ). There are already Democratic pundits on record saying that e Clinton/Barack ticket would be the worst thing that could happen.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']It was Clinton's fault in the respect that the intelligence wasn't in place to see things coming (as in, no budget push for more intel officers). But you have to primarily blame the 102nd and subsequent Congresses for saying, 'Hey, we might need some more money for HUMINT.' You can pretty much spread the blame equally across all parties. I can't blame Bush for that particular matter, because even if he had pushed for it with all his might at 1201 20/1/2001, the people wouldn't have had time to adequately assess the danger that it posed. As it was, the people who were there said 'eh.'[/QUOTE]

But Richard Clark was there pushing hard for more Bush 43 to do something, anything about terrorism.

While the DoD budget may have been cut, under Attorney General Janet Reno the Justice Dept. counterterror budget increased nearly every year. Ashcroft on the other hand, cut it.
 
[quote name='dopa345']I complete disagree with this point. Yes, the CIA was developed in the era of the Cold War but if anything, intelligence is even more essential now that our main threats are terror organizations that cross national boundries rather than individual nations or blocs.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, now, but in 1992 most of the threats we face today either didn't exist or were considerably less influential. The agency no longer needed Russian speaking spooks and james bond types, spy planes and satalites, that's not the way information was going to be collected. Hence the budget got cut. When your biggest enemy calls it quits, it's supposed to allow you to redistribute your resources.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm well known as a liberal here, but for the sake of time, I really want to stay out of the quibble here. But, I really do want to point out that the notion of "tax and spend" Democrats is a false and draconian ideology.[/QUOTE]

I've cut the rest of what you typed because I agree with much of it.

"Tax and spend" Democrats are part of the party, much like religious right evangelicals are part of the Republican Party. There are a heck of a lot of Democrats that are not tax-and-spend, including all the Blue Dog Democrats and budget hawks such as Kent Conrad and John Spratt.

But all of this doesn't take away from the fact that in the most recent supplemental spending bill (passed today by 218-212 in the House) tacked on $25 billion to the president's request for mostly Iraq but also Afghanistan. As you can read in the editorial I posted the link to (it was just the first thing I found when searching that had some numbers), this pork added to the "emergency" spending bill includes farmer subsidies and the like out the wazoo. In other words, the whole fiasco amounts to Democrats doing what they often criticized Republicans for doing over the last 12 years, sadly.
 
[quote name='Cheese'] redistribute your resources.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. Except they weren't redistributed, they were cut. I can't speak for anything after 2002 because I didn't immerse myself into it once I joined the Army. But from 1993 to 2001, there was a significant cut in overall funds to the intelligence service. HUMINT also had funds transferred to SIGINT. Sure, it's nice to be able to look down on anywere in the world when we want to, but all we see is stuff. What are they thinking? What are they planning? How much do they want to kill us? We had pretty good knowledge of militant Islamic groups outside of the usual suspects training as early as 1992 IIRC. Sure, we can find the camps, but we didn't know that they were going to spend the next 15 years trying to kill all of us. When you're on top you expect some people to hate you, but I dare anyone in 1992 to tell me that we were going to see the first attack on US soil since 1941 and it would be by a terrorist group. It just wasn't part of the thought process, in either civilian or military circles.

You're right, the Cold War was over. Hooray. The people who warned of someone trying to occupy that power vaccuum were ignored, and anyone who could have even dreamed of the events to come would have been laughed all the way to a post in Bangkok. WTC. Somalia. Kenya/Tanzania. Yemen. It all should have been so clear. Only a few people saw it coming, and a few people only get so far. More people, better chance of something getting paid attention to on even the most simple of levels. We had the money to hire these people and fund the programs, Clinton's presidency had one of the best growth curves, especially in the second term. Once 2000 came around, it was far too late to get the right people in there to prevent anything.

Of course, it's all speculative. We still could have missed it even with all the right people. But it's a glaring mistake on the penny pinchers and I hope we learn from it. You can have one big enemy, or several little ones. Either way, the intelligence still needs to be there.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']

You're right, the Cold War was over. Hooray. The people who warned of someone trying to occupy that power vaccuum were ignored, and anyone who could have even dreamed of the events to come would have been laughed all the way to a post in Bangkok. WTC. Somalia. Kenya/Tanzania. Yemen. It all should have been so clear. Only a few people saw it coming, and a few people only get so far. More people, better chance of something getting paid attention to on even the most simple of levels. We had the money to hire these people and fund the programs, Clinton's presidency had one of the best growth curves, especially in the second term. Once 2000 came around, it was far too late to get the right people in there to prevent anything.[/QUOTE]


See I agree with you, but change it till 2001, and have it as the Bush Presidency that ignored everything and then its something i feel is accurate. They wanted to keep themselves as far away from the Clinton Administration as possible, including ignoring anyone left around in the intelligence field. They wanted things their way, and they ignored valuable information. Of course you probably never believe that so it doesnt really matter. You will keep up on the blame Bill Clinton for everything bandwagon. Thought you would have to give him credit for Afghanistan early victory, since Bush's budget didnt come into effect until after we sent people over there and it was Clinton's military and technology that made things go so smoothly over there back in 2001.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Except they weren't redistributed, they were cut[/QUOTE]

I don't think Cochese understands the distinction.

Once 2000 came around, it was far too late to get the right people in there to prevent anything.
Click to expand...

The people were there, Bush shit on them and otherwise ignored them.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever'] You will keep up on the blame Bill Clinton for everything bandwagon. [/QUOTE]

Your eyes betray you, as you clearly are trying to read into things that do not exist. I have stated my position on many varied a thing, and having to repeat them gets rather boring.


Msut: right people=new people. Additions, not replacements. It was a very small minority who spoke up in that first half year. We had too many old guard around, not enough people that got hired in the late nineties with a fresh perspective. Most of the people who stuck around viewed enemies as something you could point to on a map. Majority rules in every facet of government, no matter how stupid the line of reasoning is. The best way to change that is to change where the median point lies. Usually, you're bound by your own personal party affiliations on an employee level, and to campaign funds in turn on a politician level.

Do all Republicans agree with Mitt Romney and his group? Hell no. But will they pledge their support for him if he wins the nomination? You bet your ass. Same goes for Democrats and Clinton. Or name your politician and the greatest thing they have in common is the letter behind their names. The ties that bind, gentlemen.




I could take a page from others' on this board, and blame every single thing that happens in government on the CIC. In that case, it would be Clinton's fault.

However I do not, have not, and will never ascribe to that line of thinking. Blame gets placed on those who deserve it, not those up the line. To state that 'he hired him, then he hired him, then he hired the guy that screwed up...let's blame the first guy' is not only absurd, it shows a lack of understanding about how government and life in general work. The blame tree only branches up so far.

You'll see way too much party affiliation (read: money) for my liking, but that's what we're stuck with for now. You'll notice I have no affiliation with either major party. Technically I guess I'm libertarian, but even there I make some people wince. I prefer Independant myself. Unfortunately, most people with an 'I' behind their name get ignored when push comes to shove. I hold people accountable for what they deserve to be held accountable for. I blame people for what they deserve to be blamed for. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian or fucking Socialist. There are a select few people here who could do well to learn the same.

If anyone here is mistaken enough to believe I hate (Bill) Clinton, then that's a you problem.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']It was a very small minority who spoke up in that first half year.[/QUOTE]

So what is the magic number to hit before you would listen to an experts opinion?

This is perhaps the weakest justification I have seen to date, you are giving W a bigger benefit of a doubt than basically any sane person would give.
 
You're taking my words and using them to fit your benefit. It's not how many I would take. We're talking about experts disagreeing with experts. It's not as if the intelligence community is four guys named Bruce who have the same things in common. And we all know how well the CIA and FBI guys get along.

No justification here. Intel isn't a la carte (or at least shouldn't be). The minority got swept under the rug. That's not even to say that anyone higher than the DCI had anything to do with it. It happens. Again, I think you're trying to assess blame to people who may not deserve it.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']You're taking my words and using them to fit your benefit. It's not how many I would take. We're talking about experts disagreeing with experts.[/QUOTE]

No I am not, this is about Bush ignoring experts.

IIRC there was no terrorism expert going around telling W to ignore Bin Laden, he and his crew decided space lasers would be more fun.

If you are talking about conflicted experts were you referring to Iraq?

Either way even if you claim not love to Bush or hate Clinton you give W and incredible benefit of a doubt and Clinton none.
 
IIRC there was no terrorism expert going around and telling people planes would fly into buildings either. Having a close family member be involved in the intel community, I can tell you what I've said is at least 98% true (2% given to exaggeration) about the majority overruling the minority.

The people you see on TV have zero weight when it comes to policy decisions. It can even be as simple as your boss not liking you, and not taking your recommendations to the DDI or DCI. Sucks, but that's life.

It's not that I'm giving any president the benefit of the doubt. It's simply that we've had a lot more time to find out what happened in past administrations than a current one. As for this administration, I'm pretty fed up with it. But I'm sure I'll get accused of being a Bush fundraiser by you or someone else.

All this stuff about being given a benefit of a doubt means that half of all recommendations would actually reach a president. From what I know, try more like 10%, if that. And usually the DCI makes his own recommendations off of what he thinks.

Let's play a game. There is 1000 people in the CIA. Let's guess that 400 people think an attack is imminent. If 600 don't, and they are the same respect/experience level as those 400, then what's going to happen? They'll certainly look into it, but it will probably get a token investigation. And at best, the DCI will give it a throwaway comment to the CIC.

I know there were some very vocal intel guys warning that we would be set up for an attack. However, it was more in the USS Cole realm. I would love to sit here and tell you my family member was the voice of reason, but it didn't happen that way.

I found through my SGA experience that I love to debate points. Even if I truly don't believe in something, if I find a possibility, I might try to explore it further. I abhor smoking, but found myself defending it because of those I represented. I do laugh out loud when I post in a thread and get 'OMG!!!11 1t's teh 8u5h35!!!' when I try to explore possibilities.

I don't like this administration very much. Most of the things I voted for have been ignored or mangled so badly I don't recognize them. Happy?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']IIRC there was no terrorism expert going around and telling people planes would fly into buildings either. [/QUOTE]

Clarke actually talked about that possibility.

It can even be as simple as your boss not liking you, and not taking your recommendations to the DDI or DCI. Sucks, but that's life.
Click to expand...

You are certainly the expert of sucking concerning life.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
You are certainly the expert of sucking concerning life.[/quote]

Can a response in a political debate get any weaker than that? :roll:
 
[quote name='looploop']Can a response in a political debate get any weaker than that? :roll:[/QUOTE]

Considering that was not the only part of my response I would say STFU & GTFO.

BTW what he was referring to in such a fashion was the intelligence failures that led to 9/11.

Hang your head in shame.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Considering that was not the only part of my response I would say STFU & GTFO.

BTW what he was referring to in such a fashion was the intelligence failures that led to 9/11.

Hang your head in shame.[/quote]

Oh, you mean the other sentence that made up 50% of your brief reply? Even with that there such a childish response is uncalled for.
You should hang your head in shame until you grow up.:roll:
 
[quote name='looploop']OEven with that there such a childish response is uncalled for.[/QUOTE]

It was most definitely called for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top