[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 20:47, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

*snip*

> I thought that the Roe v. Wade was more a decision about privacy and didn't
> explicity rule about abortion. I could have that wrong; I'm going on memory
> and it's been a long day. 

I think it was partially about privacy, but not entirely. You can find
the decision here -- it's been too long a day to wade through legalese. 

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/#rop
 
> > I'd also point out that even the justices on the court were not
> > unanimous -- it was five to four in the decision that there was not a
> > way that the recount could take place in time. But for one swing vote,
> > we might have someone else in the Oval Office. 
> 
> I doubt it. Even if that swing vote did happen, I have not seen one single
> recount that came up with Gore as the winner of Florida. There were a few
> independently conducted recounts, IIRC.

I seem to recall seeing studies that indicated that Gore would have won,
but perhaps they were biased. At any rate, I'd feel a lot better about
the situation if they'd allowed the recount. 

> <snip>
>   
> Also:
> While you may not be one of those that are, I have to believe that there is
> at least a critical mass of anti-war folks who are so vehement about this
> war because the sitting prez is a Republican...and that it's even more
> frenzied than usual because they believe he is illegitimate. 

I'm not one of them -- I'd be just as pissed if it were Clinton or Gore
or anyone else. 

> I have to say I was shocked when I read that you don't think he's YOUR
> president. I'd have to agree with Randy that this does come off as immature,
> and not because you are disagreeing with me...I didn't vote for the guy,
> either - I voted Libertarian, but I consider Bush "my" president.

To each their own. 

> Another point: where were the comments about "weapons of mass distraction"
> during Bosnia? Where was it during the cruise missile into Iraq circa the
> Lewinsky affair? Someone on here (forget who) said that Iraq and Bosnia were
> entirely different situations, and I fail to be convinced of that. 

Well, I wasn't on the CLUE list -- if there was one -- during the
Lewinsky thing. Obviously there wouldn't be WMD comments since that
wasn't a big thing at the time, my first thought when Clinton lobbed
missles at Iraq (well, had them lobbed...) was "Wag the Dog." 

> I cannot help but think that no matter what a Republican president does, it
> will be lambasted by some members of the left...take, for example, folks
> that think this economy is somehow the fault of the Bush administration -
> they complain that they brought us the "Bush economy" (in the face of all
> evidence to the contrary - for example, anyone paying attention knows that
> the stock market started a slide in early 2000) and THEN turn around and
> whine* about proposed boosts to the economy like tax cuts. 

And by the same token, anything a Democratic president does will be
lambasted by members of the right. I fully believe that if it were Gore
doing the same thing that Bush was doing, we'd be hearing Rush and the
right-wing pundits having fits about it. They'd be bellowing for proof
of WMD and so on. We'd hear detailed cost analysis of the spending for
the war and how "liberation" isn't justified and how it's somehow an
example of "tax and spend" policies. 

In short -- they'd likely be arguing all the points that anti-war folks
are arguing now, plus the spending angle. I'm sure some folks on the
right would support it either way, and I'm sure that some anti-war folks
would protest any military action for any reason. 

> And I think a great deal of the dissent falls into this category: he's a
> Republican, so War is Bad (tm).  When it's a Democrat in office, the
> anti-war sentiment seems to disappear, even when the circumstances aren't
> any different. I realize there are principled folks on the left that will
> apply the same standard to both parties, but we don't hear from them very
> much when it's a Democrat waging war.

If you go back through the archives, you'll find that I'm not one of the
people who argue that all "War is Bad(TM)" -- I disagree with this war,
but I do believe there are times when war is the only solution, or at
least the only reasonable solution. 

I voted for Clinton -- but I also questioned a lot of his policies.
Probably different ones than some of his other critics, but I don't
believe that a Republican can do no right and a Democrat can do no
wrong. I've also had a number of arguments with my younger brother David
about bombing Afghanistan and invading Afghanistan. 

I felt that, if anything, Bush screwed up by not taking military action
against Afghanistan *sooner* -- I don't think we've done a good job of
follow-up there, but I believe we were fully justified in military
action against the Taliban and in asserting our right to go into
Afghanistan looking for bin Laden.

In short, I'm happy to blast a Democrat when I think they're screwing up
and I'm equally willing to admit that the Bush administration has done a
few things that I think were sound policy -- but Gulf War II isn't one
of them. 

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net