The Danes also went along with it. But just before the last election, when the Prime Minister - Anders Fogh Rasmussen - realised he was behind in the polls, he pulled the Danish troops out.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

What an original thought! And let's not forget all the fresh water they pipe in from Canada.

Well I did think that they would preserve Alaska's oil supplies first by draining the middle east. lol

Quoted from Bobber

Don't know if we watched the same.    My main thing is that in order to go to war, lies were collected and presented as the truth. It is proven that Bush and Blair went to war (and other countries as well because 'if you are not with us, you are against us') based on lies. The complete statement Colin Powell made in the UN meeting was a big lie. He might not have known that himself, but probably he was used. To me, it is still unbelievable that George W Bush is the American president and one of the most powerful men on Earth to this very day. And our own administration over here still has some of the same people on high posts, who were involved in getting along with these lies. They have never been called to justice. In the documentary it was proven that the press and the public were manipulated by the militairy and so administrations of the US and (in a lesser degree) the UK. In the first days of the Iraq War they were told nothing but a few positive points in order to make us believe that it would all soon be over without much loss of lives. And once again, the lie has been proven a lie. Now, how can I be convinced of the credibility and integrity of ANY politician anywhere on this planet? It looks like a complete set up. The Dutch administration went along with Bush and a short time later, the Dutch minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (then of Foreign Affairs) became the new secretary general of the NATO. It is all planned, they all shake hands and have a few laughs together. There might be some politicians who are truely working on the people's case, but even in my own village, it's mostly for their own good that they base their decisions on.

I agree Bobber....it sounds like my local council......Corruption at every level and those in power only care about career/wage enhancement.

Quoted Text

To me, it is still unbelievable that George W Bush is the American president

Yes, our Congress has no backbone. They should have impeached the creep.

I do think there are fair-minded people who get into politics. I think it's easy to be corrupted, but I do think a lot of people are sincere and community minded when they start.

As for Wright, I watched one news clip from Fox with his supposed "anti-American" comments, and he was saying things like, "We were lied to about weapons of mass destruction" (does anyone doubt this now?) and "America is controlled by rich white people" (does anyone doubt _that_ either)? To me, this is the kind of passionate preaching that goes on in these types of churches, intended to fire up the congregation. I don't know. I only watched it once, but I suppose I'm missing what it is that has everyone in an uproar. (For what it's worth, I never understood the wild enthusiasm over the Da Vinci Code, either. I read the book and said, "Um, was this the bit that had everyone worked up?")

Hilary
but I can't vote so oh well

Warning: USA-centric post to follow, no offense intended to all the wonderful people on this forum that hail from elsewhere ...

Either one is fine (Hillary or Obama), as long as they win in November!

If I knew for sure that Obama had the cojones to be tough when needed, he'd have my full support, for what it's worth. He has more upside potential than Hillary in my opinion, with the possibility that politics can truly be changed, maybe to a noble calling (think JFK and Peace Corps, motivating a generation of Americans to give to their country). But the downside is higher too ... will he be able to be get things done when his opponents spit in the hand he extends in partnership?

Hillary is tough and competent, nothing to be taken for granted after the last 8 years of hell. If I knew for sure that as President she wouldn't be so polarizing to her opponents that there would be NO chance of breaking the gridlock in D.C. strangling the entire nation, SHE'd have my full support. But heaven forbid, what if she is the ONLY thing that could mobilize the radical rabid repulsive right to get over their self-pity and off their couches to vote in the election?!!!

I don't know any of those things for sure, so I'm not really sure who of the two would be the best president. All I know is that it CAN'T be a Republican. That would be like giving the OK for the Republicans (and their empowering cla$$) to twist the knife that Bush has already stabbed into the heart of our fine country (and soul, if that is possible). (Sorry for the sad meta4, harihead feel free to edit...)

FWIW, when I voted in the Democratic primaries (TX), I voted for Hillary. I suppose that was an "old person's vote" for the known with less upside, over the unknown with more upside but more also downside.

Quoted from alexis

He has more upside potential than Hillary in my opinion, with the possibility that politics can truly be changed, maybe to a noble calling (think JFK and Peace Corps, motivating a generation of Americans to give to their country). But the downside is higher too ...

Obama's real problem is that he is raising expectations that aren't going to be met. "New" politics always becomes "old" as soon as it clashes with the simple reality of having to get something done, and Obama's task is going to be managing that transition. In other words, either before the election or some time soon after (assuming that he is the nominee and wins), he is going to need a second act. He is a marvelously gifted rhetorician, but he cannot simply keep going on about "change." He is going to need specific goals, and a realistic political strategy for achieving them.

If Hilary learnt from Bill, then she learnt that you postpone all decision making to the end of your term and what was that flouride water thing he passed?....Obama all the way....strengthened by Hilary's assaults hopefully! lol

Quoted from An Apple Beatle

....Obama all the way....strengthened by Hilary's assaults hopefully! lol

Some commentators over here have been saying the same thing: that Obama's biggest test is surviving the Clintons' Lee Atwater style brick-to-the-head tactics. John McCain and the congressional Republicans are small potatoes by comparison. There's an old joke about lawyers that also suits the Clintons:

Three reasons why scientists would rather use lawyers instead of rats in their lab experiments:
1) There are more of them.
2) You don't have to worry about your lab assistants becoming attached to them.
3) There are some things that rats will just refuse to do as a matter of principle.

Thanks, Geoff, you made my morning.

Agree with  An Apple Beatle that Bill Clinton postponed his vital legislation until the very end of his term-- that way he wouldn't upset his corporate buddies. He could say to his base, "I tried" and say to his funders, "You'll only have to put up with this for 6 months, then the next guy will repeal everything" (which Bush did).

We have _got_ to get private interest money out of our government.

I see Hillary as "old school, more of the same". I wanted to get behind her, but she has completely lost my respect. If she wins the election, I might actually have to sit out, as I can vote for neither "Forever War" McCain or Clinton. And I have never missed an election.

Re: Obama:

Quoted Text

He is going to need specific goals, and a realistic political strategy for achieving them.

Everyone says this, but I have to ask, when did Bush have the same? Did he ever have a specific plan? I know he's a dope, but he's also our president and as far as I can tell, he doesn't have plans for anything. Upon entering office, he hadn't any plans except "How the heck can we get our hands on more MidEast oil?" which never went anywhere until after 9/11, and then the world gave him a pass. His only "plan" since then has been "stay the course", even when the course has been proven disastrous, and the mass murderer who started it, Bin Laden, walks free. Did you ever see a more incompetent attempt at follow-up than the United States' arthritic response to Afghanistan? Except Katrina; we couldn't handle Katrina either and it was right here.

I can't believe people still want more of the same, but that's what you'll be getting with McCain. At least Clinton will do some things I approve of, but her liplock with big business will mean America will continue to go down the tubes.

Quoted from harihead

Everyone says this, but I have to ask, when did Bush have the same? Did he ever have a specific plan?  

I think you can see what Bush was essentially about in some of his pre-911 agenda items, especially his tax cuts. He's really the most ploddingly conventional of Republican politicians: reduce high-end tax rates; investment and growth follow; everybody's better off. There is probably a grain of truth in this, and anyway if you leave your tax rates comparatively high the money just goes offshore, but I'd prefer tax cuts to go to the middle classes myself. They're most likely to invest in homes, spend the cash on consumer goods, or invest it in the form of education for themselves or their kids. This is all to the good. Tom Daschle and the Senate Democrats insisted on this during the fight over the 2001 round of tax cuts, and I think they were right.

Politically, he was utterly ordinary, too: his electoral strategy simply consisted of rounding up the Republican base with post-1980 boilerplate, and offering a few goodies to sway suburban voters in swing states like Ohio and Florida. ("No Child Left Behind," etc.) Karl Rove is considered a masterful political tactitian, but that strategy is in fact the simplest and most obvious one to use if your base is the numerically larger one.

But please go vote: whatever I think of Hillary Clinton's miserable tactics (and noticeably self-dramatizing posturing), I'll still go vote for her (nose definitely held if not held high) because she could well achieve some things. Another Clinton presidency probably won't be any more edifying than the first, but she's intelligent and capable- even likable, according to some, when she isn't performing for the cameras.

Thanks, Geoff. Perhaps I didn't see Bush spell out his platform because he didn't need to; everyone already knew what he wanted to do. Thank you for the great summary.

Yes, I will vote for whatever candidate the Dems put forward. I like your phrase: nose definitely held if not held high. I'll be thinking that when I cast my ballot (of course, never knowing if that vote will count, the way the voting machines are rigged).

Oh, Thomas Jefferson. If you could see us now...

Quoted from harihead

  
   ...   We have _got_ to get private interest money out of our government...

I know you were just abbreviating, it's really not that simple of course. We all agree that one of the major flaws of the political system is the apparently unfettered and exclusive access that big donors (corporations and the like) have to Congress and the President, indeed to government at all levels.

But each of us are citizens, each with our own "private" interests. What if my uncle wants to keep a proposed highway from running through his  farm, one that has been in the family for generations? The highway happens to be $trongly $ponsored by the consortium of small oil refiners in the southern part of the state looking to reduce their transportation costs. They don't give a hoot what properties the highway goes through, or the damage to the way of life building the highway will cause - it's just a simple dollars and cents issue to them.

As it turns out, one of the candidates on the election ballot is also strongly against the higway, so my uncle contributes to his campaign, and actually organizes many other like-minded property owners to contribute as well. Then when the candidate is elected (yipee!), my uncle's group hires someone with experience in government to work to get on the legislator's schedule and convince him to make it a priority to block the legislation funding the highway. This person my uncle's group has hired, yes a lobbyist   , even buys ads on local TV and radio in the legislator's district, to sway people against the highway. My uncle invites the legislator to his farm, (transportation at my uncle's expense), shows him around and takes him hunting, to show him a way of life that would be lost if the proposed highway is not blocked.

My hypothetical uncle is a "special", or "private", interest, as are his partners in that effort, as we all are. So, yes, we all agree buying legislators' votes by corporations is wrong and immoral.  But we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of allowing democracy to work as intended - citizens having access to legislators, and legislators voting to reflect the will of the people. Likewise, not all money spent in the process is inherently evil, as maybe the examples above show.

It seems to me that "special interest" has come to mean nothing more than a derogatory term to be applied to a group of people whose political views we disagree with  (the unsaid to follow of course is: "burn her"!). Where I work, the majority of the people (or at least the loudest) are radical right Republicans, and so Fox News is on in the lunch room. I hear the bubbleheads there talk about money that the "Environmental Special Interests" or "Anti-War Special Interests" spend, with the same disdain/hatred we may talk about "Big Oil" or the NRA.  It's too simple to tar everyone we don't agree with with the same brush, calling them a "special interest" . All the candidates, Obama and Clinton included, are guilty of this type of pandering, apparently having low expectations of their supporters ("Let's toss them red meat here, they'll cheer loudly at this point of the speech").

The hard part is precisely defining at what point the process moves from reasonable into sleazy. The candidates don't seem to address that very often, and as long as their constituents don't hold them to task, they never will. Our responsibility as citizens is to make our government better (like life in general, complaining about it while doing otherwise doesn't carry much weight). Voting for the candidate who comes closest to the ideal, and then working with them and the process from there, seems a good place to start.

Quoted from harihead

(of course, never knowing if that vote will count, the way the voting machines are rigged).

You'll be fine if you're not in Florida!

By the way, have a look at Maureen Dowd's Bushworld: Enter At Your Own Risk. It's culled from her NYT columns. Not the last word on W's presidency, of course, but better than most and definitely readable (sez the shamelessly partisan Democrat).

Quoted from alexis

It seems to me that "special interest" has come to mean nothing more than a derogatory term to be applied to a group of people whose political views we disagree with  

I agree, which is why I tried (and failed!) to use a different term. I enjoyed your example of citizen involvement in government. I tried (along with the rest of the neighborhood) to get a highway rerouted from going in back of my house. No luck. We all showed up-- all of us-- and it was, "Sign this piece of paper to say you're protesting, but the deal is done and you're getting this road whether you like it or not." Most of us sold and got out before the highway went in. It just ruined the town, cutting it in two. So it's a double-edged sword; you have to have enough people to make your protest meaningful, but you get too many and suddenly you're a "special interest" and not representing the citizen population anymore. Tough call!

Geoff, thanks for the reference to Maureen Dowd's Bushworld. I'll give that a look.