Romney Suspends Presidential Campaign

Yeah, you beat the AP by a good 20 minutes, OK.

Uhm, well, as a Paul supporter, that statement isn't inaccurate. Sure, it isn't officially over, but it pretty much is. McCain has 714 delegates, and Huckabee only has 181. That is a huge deficit to overcome, and one Huckabee almost certainly won't.

Thats better. They changed the headline.

Good job girls!

Kyle,

This is GREAT news for Ron Paul.

Read this..."How Romney's departure equals Victory for Ron Paul"

@phree

Today Mitt Romney dropped out of the race. Remember what just happened in West Virginia? John McCain delegates threw their support to Huckabee to knock Romney out of contention. Eliminating Romney from the race was part of the West Virginia strategy to win delegates. Romney lost WV and went on to lose many other Conservative votes to Mike Huckabee throughout the country on Super Tuesday.

I hope you don't mind, but I edited your linked article for correctness sake.

States Huckabee "won" (percentage vote, not delegate count) compared to Romney and Paul:
Alabama: Romney = 18%, Paul = 3%
Arkansas: Romney = 14%, Paul = 5%
Georgia: Romney = 30%, Paul = 3%
Iowa: Romney = 25%, Paul = 10%
Tennessee: Romney = 24%, Paul = 6%
West Virginia: Romney = 47%, Paul = 0% (oh, but Paul's supporters willingly threw the race so Romney wouldn't get the delegate and started a veritable tidal wave of Huckabee wins that forced Romney out of the race because they knew that would happen ... okay)

Well, those are evangelical-heavy states. What about states where Romney won, that are theoretically up for grabs (they're not, but let's go with that assumption):
Alaska: Paul = 17% (3rd)
Colorado: Paul = 8% (4th)
Maine: Paul = 19% (3rd)
Massachusetts: Paul = 3% (4th)
Michigan: Paul = 6% (4th)
Minnesota: Paul = 16% (4th)
Montana: Paul = 25% (2nd)
Nevada: Paul = 14% (2nd)
North Dakota: Paul = 21% (3rd)
Utah: Paul = 3% (3rd)

So, states with libertarian bends (Alaska, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota), Paul did well in. No shock there. Nevada's a bit odd, but it still fits the pattern. Let's just say that Paul pulls all of the delegates from where Romney won; he's still in third place like Romney is right now.

I agree. There goes the last hope of the Republican nominee not being an ideologue. Ok, so he was the only hope, but still. Democrats still have their hope alive.

McCain? I'm all for finding a way to stop the "Straight Talk Express"

Yeah, Romney just went up in my book a whole bunch. This is really going to allow the Republicans the time to hopefully quell their disagreements with McCain, and get together a strong campaign for the fall. We're going to need it.

Very magnanimous move to unify the party on Mitt's part. Now if only Huckleberry would do the same so we can unite to face the common enemy this fall.

Absolutely, Mitt's regained my respect for putting the party and the future of America (in the war against radical Islam) ahead of his own ambitions. I sincerely hope the rest of the Conservative elites can learn from his noble example and put aside their personal gripes against McCain and focus on winning this extremely important election.

Good man -that Mitt.

Common enemy? Nice try......the republicans are the enemy. Why do you think the democratic turnout at the primaries has outnumbered that of the republicans by 71%. Time to take the white trash out of the White House.

Time to take the white trash out of the White House.

Excuse me? You want to end discrimination in the country, but you proudly put your own on display.

Way to go!

Who the hell is that dumbass? The Democrats would completely screw up our economy, and compromise our defense. Who would you pick, Ron? Obama, who hasn't done squat since he got in, or McCain, who is a dedicated war-hero and honest guy?

Good job Mitt, you gave the GOP some time to reunite.

The Democrats would completely screw up our economy Riiiigghhht. Because the Republicans have done such a great job with the economy.

Obama, who hasn't done squat since he got in, or McCain, who is a dedicated war-hero and honest guy? Aw, more nuggets of wisdom! Here's what worries me about McCain (in a way that I am not worried about Obama), McCain has demonstrated that he will compromise his principles in order to win an election

"I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary. So I chose to compromise my principles."

That was his take on his flip-flopping over the Confederate flag during the 2004 race. If you look at his other flip-flopping on issues of abortion, gun rights, et cetera, it is difficult to tell whether he's a conservative appealing to moderates with moderate talk, or a moderate appealing to conservatives by talking tough.

I used to respect McCain, but it seems as he gets older he becomes increasingly desperate to become President. And the last person I want as President is someone who is desperate to become President. And since so many Republicans appear to want him in, automatically I think his ability to govern has to be somewhat suspect. Look at the @!$%# you folks have kept in office for the last two terms. Face it, you folks haven't exactly fielded the cream of the political crop, have you?

So between Obama and McCain (without any bull@!$%# framing adjectives), I'll take Obama.

The Democrats would completely screw up our economy

Wow, The economy is going, just as it always does under the Republicans, to the dogs,

and compromise our defense.

We are so better defended, and safer under The Republicans. Look at the date "9/11/2001". It didn't even take a year before the Republicans got us hit with the sucker punch of the century.

We are so better defended, and safer under The Republicans. Look at the date "9/11/2001". It didn't even take a year before the Republicans got us hit with the sucker punch of the century.

It cracks me up when DEMs blame Bush for 9/11. Let's see. How long were they planning this? Since 1996!

9/11 happened 9 months after Bush was put into office? Clinton had cut the military by 30%. He had cut intelligence by 25%. He had put trade sanctions on Iraq that were so strict that over 1 million men, women, and children died.

Here is a quote from the UNICEF report and a link from 9/99 when the UN had begged Clinton to remove the sanctions and he outright refused to do so:

* Iraq claims that from August 6, 1990, when UN sanctions were first imposed in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to late August of this year, 1,187,486 Iraqis died from sanctions-related causes. The United Nations estimates that 1 million have died, mostly children. * Iraq's economy has been shattered by sanctions and US-led bombings. Industry, irrigation, sanitation, the supply of clean water, healthcare and education have virtually collapsed. Baghdad claims the country's Gross Domestic Product is presently one-third of its pre-1991 level. * Studies have shown a drastic increase in the rate of birth defects and cancer as a result of environmental poisoning from depleted uranium weapons. * Jutta Burghardt, the head of the UN's World Food Program in Iraq, told a delegation of US congressional staffers earlier this month that Iraqi families spend approximately 70 percent of their total income for food. Burghardt said that by world and UN standards, that figure indicates "imminent famine." * Denis Halliday, the former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, who resigned in protest over the continuation of sanctions, claims the embargo is responsible for the death of 6,000 Iraqis every month.

So, ya, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Because Clinton had been inhumane, had cultured the hatred of America, had weakened our military, and, most importantly perhaps, had weakened our intelligence.

But yay! We all had money and homes and everything was sweet... in America. And we didn't have to watch the deaths of children being broadcast by the media because apparently, the media didn't care back then.

9/11 happened far enough into the Bush's presidency that he felt the need to be on vacation prior to it.

Clinton's admin warned Bush of the potential threat. Bush received memos on the possibility and ignored them. I thought your party was the one of personal responsibility, Megan?

And you can't have it both ways--it was Clinton's army, for all intents and purposes that worked quickly in Baghdad and that you Repubs praised so.

No matter how you try to spin it, 9/11 is on Bush's watch, Bush is the one who ignored warnings. Oh and Rudy is the idiot who located the NYC Response Center IN THE WTC complex...yeah, locating a crisis response unit in one of the city's biggest targets was such a wise choice.

YAH, cracked up...

9/11 happened 9 months after Bush was put into office? Clinton had cut the military by 30%. He had cut intelligence by 25%.

And warned Bush that bin Laden planing an attack and even gave Bush the details as did the CIA, and Bush IGNORED IT! Just like he ignored the progress Clinton made in N. Korea, nearly causing another war, before he ended up doing EXACTLY what he criticized Clinton for doing.

JC and Dan,

Yes, Bush has responsibility. But so does Clinton. My point is, if looked at objectively, there is plenty of blame to go around. It was not just Bush's fault, it had been brewing for years. And the biggest reason it was allowed to happen was mistakes made by intellingece, which had been hatcheted by... you guessed it... Clinton.

"The recent publication of some once-censored parts of the 9/11 Commission report reveals that, in 1998, federal intelligence sources had shared their concern that al-Qaeda could be planning to use passenger airplanes as missiles on suicide raids against prominent targets in the United States. This is the first time we've heard that that the possibility of such a suicide mission was raised at the federal level during the Clinton years.

But the entire thrust of the administration's attitude toward air safety and security was based on the happy assumption that no terrorist would ever engage in a suicide bombing using airplanes. Now the question arises: Why did not the Clinton administration re-evaluate its air safety measures in light of the 1998 warning?

After the crash of TWA flight 800 and the bombing of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, both of which were thought at the time to possibly be connected to international terrorists, President Clinton assigned Vice President Al Gore to head a commission on air safety to counter the possible terrorist threat. With his usual technical thoroughness but cerebral obtuseness, Gore conducted a wide-ranging review of air-safety measures and set up a system to predict who would hijack a passenger airplane. The system, called CAPPS (Civil Aviation Passenger Protection System) was based in an algorithm that evaluated risk factors to spot hijackers.

And CAPPS worked brilliantly on 9/11 — picking out 11 of the 19 hijackers for special scrutiny as possible terrorists.

But…

Gore's work was entirely based on the belief that nobody would commit suicide while hijacking a plane. So the only purpose of CAPPS was to assure that these passengers boarded the airplane with their checked baggage — since the feds assumed that the checked bags couldn't have a bomb in if the terrorist was on the plane himself. As naive and shortsighted as this assumption was — and as disastrous as it turned out to be — until now we have only been able to chalk it up to Al Gore's particular brand of myopia. But now we have evidence that one year after his report was issued, the White House received a warning that a suicide mission was a distinct possibility.

Why did Gore or Clinton not spring into action and undertake a review of the 1997 Commission report to adjust its conclusions to take account of this new possibility?

This oversight led to the horrendous lack of preparedness on 9/11.

To be sure, the intelligence finding was cloaked in ambiguity with disclaimers that suggested that al-Qaeda would only use a suicide attack as a last resort and indicated that it did not feel such a tactic was likely. But the finding spelled out in black and white exactly what happened: Terrorists would hijack passenger planes in the United States and use them to destroy prominent public buildings.

Had Gore and Clinton acted as they should have, all kinds of changes might have been made that could have forestalled 9/11. Boxcutters and small knives could have been barred from planes (after being specifically permitted in a change in FAA rules early in the Clinton years). Passengers identified by the CAPPS system could be investigated and barred from planes without special pat downs and screening. The entire system could have been refocused to take account of the suicide option in a way that it never was before 9/11.

The blame, of course, should fall not only on a Clinton administration distracted by impeachment and fighting for its political life, but also on the Bush administration — which is why the paragraph was initially redacted from the published version of the 9/11 report. "

I'm not exhonorating Bush, but it's just ridiculous how the Democrats refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions.

And did you even know about the sanctions? C'mon, tell me that you, who are so convinced that the Democrats are right and the Republicans are evil, knew about the million or more dead children under the age of five that Clinton, your hero, is directly responsible for.

In short, Clinton had 2 years to act on the information, Bush had 9 months.

Well, if you're actually trying to be honest, then that really should read

Clinton had 2 years to act on the information, faced by a Republican Congress which felt his views on Bin Laden were nothing more than an attempt to distract the public from Oval Office blowjobs. Bush had 9 months, faced with various of his own advisors who begged him to pay attention to the threat.

That's a little more in line with the truth, isn't it?

Well, you're certainly consistent. Sounds like spin to me. Still refusing to give Clinton any responsibility? Not much more I can do then. Still haven't responded to the starving of over a million Iraqi children. I suppose that there is no convincing you that the Democrats are partly responsible for the state of our country - even when I admit the Bush administration's culpability?

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

BTW, I greatly admire your comments on the DNA thread.

Sounds like spin to me.

Pot, kettle on line 1.

Still haven't responded to the starving of over a million Iraqi children. How do you think it should have been handled? Seriously. And while you're at it, please clarify the timeline for me. Your link says--

Iraq claims that from August 6, 1990, when UN sanctions were first imposed in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to late August of this year, 1,187,486 Iraqis died from sanctions-related causes.

Near as I can tell, August 6 1990 fell in the middle of George Bush Sr's presidency. This isn't a case where you can just point at Clinton and say "Clinton's sanctions," Megan. Yes, Clinton maintained sanctions put in place by a Republican president. It's also pretty clear from the historical record that a Republican Congress jeered at Clinton's suggestion that Osama bin Laden and his ilk were a serious problem. There's lots of reasons to dislike Bill Clinton. Ignoring Osama Bin Laden is not one of them.

I suppose that there is no convincing you that the Democrats are partly responsible for the state of our country - even when I admit the Bush administration's culpability? Whether or not you "admit" someone's culpability in anything doesn't have any bearing on how I judge the political parties. And you're barking up the wrong tree if you think that I think the Democrats are free of any responsibility-- even in the things for which I blame the Bush administration. Who hasn't stood up to Bush's notion that signing statements allow him to rise above the law? Who hasn't stood up to Bush's notion that his newfound "unitary executive" powers are granted by the Constitution? Who has looked the other way on torture, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeus corpus, the creation of all sorts of legal fictions such as "enemy combatant" status, ad nauseam?

The thing is, if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, he might not have focused on Bin Laden, either. And if that had been the case, I'd be blaming him for 9/11 just as much as I blame Bush. But Bush was put in office, and he chose to simply ignore his own advisors, because he didn't consider terrorism any sort of threat, at all. Whatever the course of events prior to his coming into office, however much blame you want to lay at Clinton's feet, the simple fact remains that Bush dismissed the fears of terrorism as unrealistic.

And ever since, we've been paying for his over-reaction to his own former ignorance.

BTW, I greatly admire your comments on the DNA thread. Thanks, although I'm pretty much done over there. Pamela sure isn't interested in dialogue, and I think that's been adequately demonstrated. And I also think the point has been adequately made that the real issues on GMO don't involve genetic transfer techniques, but safety testing and economics.

How do you think it should have been handled? Seriously.

I think that Clinton should have lifted the sanctions in 1999 when he was begged to by many other countries and after he realized that for the last 6 or so years of his Presidency during which he had strengthened and upheld them and could see that they were not working to do much except to kill innocent children. You see, Iraq had been a problem for some time.

And while you're at it, please clarify the timeline for me. Your link says--

Here is the title, date, and first paragraph of the actual link. You may want to visit it. It is very interesting.

Clinton administration blocks easing of sanctions against Iraq
By Barry Grey
28 September 1999

After two weeks of intensive negotiations within the United Nations Security Council, the United States has blocked efforts by France, Russia and China to lift sanctions against Iraq. Washington has thereby ensured the continuation of a policy which must rank as one of the great crimes against humanity of the twentieth century.

I gave this link because it so clearly showed Clinton's responsibility in pushing those sanctions so far. And although Bush Sr. instigated those sanctions, it was Clinton who refused to lift them as I described above. Clinton was the one responsible to lift those sanctions when they weren't working and take some other kind of action, but instead he chose to continue to kill innocents as opposed to risking his political career by coming up with or suggesting something else. But I suppose it's the Rep congress' fault as was his unavailability to catch Bin Laden when he had the opportunity. Do you know that Bin Laden was his basic fall-back excuse for bombing poor countries and even our allies when he felt he needed to display some power or to distract the press from his own personal choices, like Monica's dress? I have to wonder if part of the reason Bush ignored the warnings was because he was so familiar with what Clinton had done. I don't know.

Who hasn't stood up to Bush's notion that signing statements allow him to rise above the law? Who hasn't stood up to Bush's notion that his newfound "unitary executive" powers are granted by the Constitution? Who has looked the other way on torture, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeus corpus, the creation of all sorts of legal fictions such as "enemy combatant" status, ad nauseam?

Um. Everyone? Except for some press (where were they with Clinton? don't know) and some general uproar - he has been allowed to go on. And Bush is getting slammed for taking the kinds of actions that Clinton refused to take because he could just kill millions of innocents without risking his political career. Please read the above link before responding because much of what I am saying is explained there.

however much blame you want to lay at Clinton's feet, the simple fact remains that Bush dismissed the fears of terrorism as unrealistic.

And ever since, we've been paying for his over-reaction to his own former ignorance.

As I said near the beginning of this debate, I don't blame Clinton, but I also don't blame Bush. I just think there is enough blame to go around. Which was my original point and was originally a response to this:

We are so better defended, and safer under The Republicans. Look at the date "9/11/2001". It didn't even take a year before the Republicans got us hit with the sucker punch of the century.

as well as comments 7.11 and 7.12. I think I have sufficiently defended my original comment in 7.10.

Plus, Bush is held responsible (almost solely responsible by most Dems) for 9/11 because he didn't act on the warnings. And now that he is acting on the warnings, he is over-reacting. Because we aren't being attacked, that is proof that he is just paranoid and we are at war unnecessarily, but if we were to be attacked, it would be his fault for not being strong enough to stand up to the American people and protect our country at the detriment to his political career.

I hope that a Democrat does get into office, now that my candidate has dropped out, and then they can deal with things. Then we'll see who is willing to do what and is it for the love of the media and their political legacy or is it for the love of their country.

And I agree, Pamela isn't interested in any exchanges.

I think that Clinton should have lifted the sanctions in 1999 when he was begged to by many other countries and after he realized that for the last 6 or so years of his Presidency during which he had strengthened and upheld them and could see that they were not working to do much except to kill innocent children. That's certainly one assumption. But what was the purpose of the sanctions, really? The way I see it, they were twofold-- prevention of the reconstitution of Iraq's military arsenal, and the removal of Saddam Hussein. The latter wouldn't have been necessary if Bush Sr had done the job, and the former was accomplished, as shown by our own inspections subsequent to Bush Jr's invasion. At any time in the intervening dozen years, Iraq's situation could have ben dramatically improved by Saddam Hussein's fulfillment of his obligations, incurred by his defeat in 1991. I'm simply amazed that you'd try to lay the deaths of those children at Clinton's feet, without reference to Bush SR, who imposed the sanctions, or Saddam, who refused to make them unnecessary.

Further, I think this

Clinton was the one responsible to lift those sanctions when they weren't working and take some other kind of action, but instead he chose to continue to kill innocents as opposed to risking his political career by coming up with or suggesting something else.

simply ignores the political realities of Clinton's terms as President. I can imagine the state of current opinion about Clinton had he, at any time during his Presidency, done anything which the current administration could have pointed to as "strengthening Iraq." He was blasted for having failed by keeping the sanctions in place, and for allowing the oil for food program. You note it yourself-- as opposed to risking his political career. How would it have been "risked" if the Republican controlled Congress hadn't been pushing for the continuation of these sanctions? It's turning history on its head to lay the finger of blame on Clinton for that, without reference to context.

Further, Congress was so concerned about overthrowing Saddam that they earmarked a whole $97 million to go to Iraqi Democratic institutions for that purpose.

As far as the link you posted, it sure doesn't look as though that guy has an axe to grind, does it? You've made claims that Bin Laden was successful because Clinton "hatcheted" the intelligence budget, when quite the reverse seems to be true. To quote a bit from this

• In his 1995 State of the Union address, Clinton proposed "comprehensive legislation to strengthen our hand in combating terrorists, whether they strike at home or abroad."
• He sent legislation to Congress to extend federal criminal jurisdiction, make it easier to deport terrorists, and act against terrorist fund-raising.
• Following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Clinton amended that legislation to increase wiretap and electronic surveillance authority for the FBI, require explosives to be equipped with traceable taggants, and appropriate more funds to the FBI, CIA, and local police.
• In June 1995, Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 39, which stated that the United States "should deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens." Furthermore, it called terrorism both a "matter of national security" and a crime. The implementation of his proposals led to a substantial increase in counter-terrorism funds for the FBI and CIA.
• In 1996, the CIA established a special unit of officers to analyze intelligence received about bin Laden and plan operations against him, coined the "Bin Ladin unit."
• The CIA's counter-terrorism division quickly began drafting plans to capture and remove bin Laden from [Afghanistan].

On its face, the claim that Bin Laden was a problem born of Clinton's reduction of American intelligence capabilities seems ludicrous, at best.

Further, Clinton's administration passed on comprehensive analyses of Al Qaeda's capabilities, and warned the Bush administration that Bin Laden was bound to strike, and constituted a serious threat. The Bush administration ignored Clinton's recommendations, choosing instead to conduct their own "analyses." These had not yet gotten off the ground as of September 11th, 2001.

So, yeah, I think your judgment of Clinton's actions with respect to Bin Laden and Bush are skewed, at best.

Bush is rightfully slammed for failing to take action when he should have, and for taking the wrong actions when he finally chose to act. His invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and has, if anything, placed America at worse risk than it was in before. And that has nothing to do with Clinton. He has embroiled us in a war that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and made a mockery of the Constitution by claiming "presidential powers" nowhere granted therein. 9/11 wasn't a failure of intelligence gathering, it was a failure of imagination-- primarily Bush's imagination, which seems in short supply except inasmuch as he has great imagination in seeing "Constitutional" executive powers where none exist.

I have to ask, how much safer or less safe do you think we would be if the trillion or so dollars that Bush has spent to little effect in Iraq had been spent, instead, on actively pursuing Al Qaeda, securing our borders, instituting the changes recommended by the 9/11 commission, et cetera? My personal take is that we would be substantially safer.

Of course, I am in the minority in America, because I said shortly after 9/11 that it would be more proper to respond by seriously beefing up our law enforcement efforts to go after Bin Laden, rather than legitimizing his cause by pretending we could fight a war against a tactic, and by significantly enhancing the security of our domestic infrastructure. I still believe that to have been the case, although the horse has long fled the barn. I, too, hope a Democrat gets into office. Sadly, whomever that Democrat turns out to be, their efforts will largely have been hampered preemptively by a Bush administration that was long on ideology and short on anything of practical value in terms of making America safer. That's sad, but unfortunately the reality that we have to live with.

The truth is that America was always vulnerable to terrorism. We will continue to be vulnerable to terrorism. But our efforts in Iraq aren't making us any safer, nor will they.

How would it have been "risked" if the Republican controlled Congress hadn't been pushing for the continuation of these sanctions? It's turning history on its head to lay the finger of blame on Clinton for that, without reference to context.

You lose credibility big time when you blame every bad decision of Clinton's on the 'Republican Congress'. I suppose that if Bush did anything positive, it is the result of the Democratic Congress and every bad choice has been his sole responsibility. Blind partisanship.

On its face, the claim that Bin Laden was a problem born of Clinton's reduction of American intelligence capabilities seems ludicrous, at best.

Never claimed that. Claimed that Clinton also had some responsibility for 9/11, partly because of his intelligence cuts - which did happen. Also due to his policies in Iraq and the middle east in general (because there is much more - read the link in the last comment) exacerbating the political climate.

Further, Clinton's administration passed on comprehensive analyses of Al Qaeda's capabilities, and warned the Bush administration that Bin Laden was bound to strike, and constituted a serious threat. The Bush administration ignored Clinton's recommendations, choosing instead to conduct their own "analyses." These had not yet gotten off the ground as of September 11th, 2001.

A threat that Clinton himself consistently ignored. And comprehensive analyses is overstating, not to mention the fact that Clinton lost credibility over Bin Laden big time when he 1) Tried to kill him with bombs - which he knew wouldn't work, using iffy intelligence at best, and ending up bombing a medicine factory and killing hundreds of civilians while not getting close to Bin Laden who was nowhere near there, and 2) When he finally had the chance to capture Bin Laden, Clinton was MIA. When they finally found him he took over 3 hours consulting and by then, Bin Laden had moved on. 3 hours consulting over whether or not to go after a guy he bombed innocent people to kill. Clinton was and is not the untouchable hero that people seem to think he is.

And if you think my views are skewed, just think of this: You didn't even know about the sanctions and the millions of innocents killed before you began this conversation. Do you really know who and what you are defending? And do you think it more moral or humane to kill over a million children in an attempt to bend Saddam to our will? Or to go in with an army and take him down, risking American and Iraqi lives? Which would you like to have on your conscience? I would prefer to use the trained army and to have the latter.

On the other hand, I am fully aware of every misstep that Bush has taken, because it's all over the news. And everyone jumps on that bandwagon - most having no idea what Bush came into or giving him any credit at all for another event like 9/11 not happening since. But of course, nothing has happened since because suddenly now the terrorist threat is overstated. We are just paying for Bush's over-compensation, right? It's just fear mongering now. Proof: Nothing has happened since 9/11. And if something had happened? Well, of course it would be Bush's fault because it happened on his watch. What does this sound like to you? I mean, if you step back and look at it objectively. Doesn't that sound just a little bit like partisan spin?

I know that one of your main issues is that the Reps are fear mongering to win an election. That is what Romney is accused of when he fears that pulling out of Iraq would lead to attacks on American soil, and that because the Dems are intent on pulling out of Iraq before they are stabilized, we need to get someone in the white house who can see the dangers of that move. I understand how that sounds like partisan spin to you. And maybe it is a bit, but don't think that the Republican leaders don't actually believe it. Romney's read all the books and has been to all the countries. He formed his own opinion on the subject and is much more informed about it than you or I. And from what I've learned through my research, I think that he's right. I think we're in for a scary time and I suspect, though I'm not yet fully convinced - I'm still listening to people and reading up - that pulling out would be a monumentally bad idea, to put it mildly. Either way, Romney is convinced of this. And so are many of the Republican leaders (not all, I mean, look at Ron Paul).

Assume that Bush did his best with the intelligence that he had and has. Assume that Bush knows more than we, as the general public, are privy to. Assume that Bush even knows more than the Senate or Congress since the 'top secret' documents that he has in his possession are not released to the House or the Senate. Those are reasonable assumptions, don't you think? Now, barring the botching up of the 4 years of Iraq following the capture of Saddam, do you think it possible that Bush is a guy doing the best he can with what he has in the face of incredible hatred, disrespect, and constant accusations from his fellow countrymen? And knowing what you now know about Clinton, and still admiring him (after all, the press never told us to hate him), can you not find the smallest amount of admiration for Bush? I will assume not since Bush is 1) a Republican, 2) extremely unpopular 3) 9/11 happened on 'his watch' (which I'm sure just kills him), and 4) has led the country into a recession which could probably have been avoided (these things are cyclical but if he were a real genius he probably could have avoided it) - that's right, I don't deny it. Still, I admire that he has done what he felt he had to do in order to keep us safe, despite the fact that most Americans seem to loathe him and would rather see him hanged for crimes against humanity than to thank him for being our leader, imperfect as he may be, and for doing all he could to keep us safe and to lesson the threat of terrorism.

People really need to put partisan politics aside once in a while and look at the bigger picture, especially during election time. We are the United States of America, not the Rep vs. Dem states of America, although that is how election years and the year or so leading up to it feel - when partisan spin is the goal of the day and what party is in power is the big question.

But our efforts in Iraq aren't making us any safer, nor will they.

That is quite a claim. Do you have any information for me to help me to understand why you feel that way?

Clinton starved over a million children to bend Saddam to our will and to secure Iraq. Assuming you agree with his policies as you have stated, how is stabilizing Iraq not making us safer? And if there is no reason to be there, why did Clinton starve all those children? He didn't do it to take down Saddam, he did it to secure Iraq when he thought that Saddam would eventually comply. That is the same goal we have now. How would that be worth starving over a million children under the age of 5, which you defend, but not worth us seeing things through in Iraq after so much has been sacrificed to do so. Shouldn't we just end it now? If we pull out now, our history of policies and battles there (spanning decades) indicate that we do so just to fight a stronger enemy another day.

Clinton starved over a million children to bend Saddam to our will and to secure Iraq.

Can you back this up instead of ranting? Food for oil didn't mean they ate the oil.

Oil-for-Food Programme,....The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War.

Wasn't that Bush Senior that imposed the sanctions in the first place? Didn't little Ronney impose more? Rhetorical questions, both...Clinton was not the cause of the starving children in Iraq, he was the cure.

As I recall, there was much opposition to ending the sanctions against Iraq during the Clinton administration. I am certain that if Clinton had ended the sanctions it would have been portrayed as "weak on defense" and all that other stuff that the Dems are usually branded with. Conservatives would have been positively up in arms if we had removed those sanctions. Are we guilty of revisionist history now in saying that Clinton should have pushed to end the sanctions?

You lose credibility big time when you blame every bad decision of Clinton's on the 'Republican Congress' I don't think I've done that. I think I've blamed Clinton's Republican Congress for things which they were largely responsible for. Please point out where you think I've blamed them for everything bad about Clinton.

Never claimed that. Claimed that Clinton also had some responsibility for 9/11, partly because of his intelligence cuts - which did happen. Allow me to quote

9/11 happened 9 months after Bush was put into office? Clinton ...had cut intelligence by 25%. ...the biggest reason it was allowed to happen was mistakes made by intellingece, which had been hatcheted by... you guessed it... Clinton.

But in point of fact, Clinton not only spent a lot of time increasing our intelligence capabilities especially as they related to terrorism, but had also put together a group which had the primary task of locating Bin Laden and handicapping Al Qaeda. For you to conclude that 9/11 happened because of Clinton is what would be a clear indication of blind partisanship, in my opinion.

A threat that Clinton himself consistently ignored. You can't have it both ways, dear. People who eat their cake can't also have it. Either he "consistently ignored" Bin Laden or he went after him. Which is it? Either you act on "iffy intelligence" or you "take 3 hours consulting." Which is it? Or should he have consulted Sylvia Browne beforehand as to which set of conditions applied? "Well, we've got plenty of time to consult and make sure this intelligence is iffy" on one day, and "OMG, we should act on this iffy intelligence, right now!" on the next day. Megan To Pagan's future judgment of your Presidency hinges on the difference.

And if you think my views are skewed, just think of this: You didn't even know about the sanctions and the millions of innocents killed before you began this conversation. I think your views are skewed, and you seem pretty sure of yourself as to what I do or don't know about the sanctions or anything else. Why would you even conclude that? Because no one who disagrees with you could have known of that prior to your deigning to grace us with a link? Think about this: I did know, probably long before you left high school, and while I find the loss of life deplorable, I lay the responsibility at the feet of Saddam.

Do you really know who and what you are defending? Do you?

Which would you like to have on your conscience? I would prefer to use the trained army and to have the latter. Undoubtedly. That's obvious. But let me ask you a question-- are we, as citizens of the world, responsible for "adjusting" other people's governments when we disagree with the way they allow their country to be run? Is it "more moral" to bomb half a million Iraqis, or to starve them? If forcing "regime change" on a country at the barrel of a gun is any country's right, then it should be perfectly "moral" for China to decide the American government should be changed, and bomb accordingly, right? I'm assuming you have no problem with that, since you apparently think invading in the name of a good cause is a-ok.

most having no idea what Bush came into or giving him any credit at all for another event like 9/11 not happening since. Right, because Bush hasn't taken every opportunity to trot the slightest domestic "terrorist" in front of the news, from guys who kinda sorta might have once spoken to an Al Qaeda rep and dreamed about exploding a dirty bomb (not that we have the evidence to charge him in court) to the least group of yahoos who text message among themselves that the US sucks. Conveniently, these displays often happen right before consideration of some piece of @!$%# legislation designed to further erode limits on Bush's "constitutional" power, but hey-- it's really all about Clinton, isn't it, Megan?

Let's ignore the realities of today, because Bill Clinton was such an @!$%#.

It never occurs to you that just maybe any putative terrorist attacks would have been stopped, anyway. I mean, there's so much evidence that Bush's newfound powers have prevented the destruction of America, right? Feh.

the Dems are intent on pulling out of Iraq before they are stabilized, we need to get someone in the white house who can see the dangers of that move. I'd applaud that move, since I don't think Iraq will ever be stabilized. The republicans can't even define what they mean when they say "stabilized." This has been our common mode of operation for decades-- go into a country by force, screw with their government to achieve something we think benefits us, install a nominally "democratic" government, leave, then express surprise when it blows up. Or worse yet, get dragged into the attempt to do those things, then spend hundreds of billions of dollars and untold lives on a fantasy that doesn't come to fruition because the politicians don't understand that what they wanted to have happen just wasn't possible.

Democracy took a long time to grow, Megan, and America's democratic birth required a certain environment to actually flourish. An environment which is dissimilar in most important ways from that of Iraq.

Does what you're saying sound like partisan spin? Sure, coupled with a healthy dose of naivety and a foggy notion of history.

Those are reasonable assumptions, don't you think? Not particularly.

do you think it possible that Bush is a guy doing the best he can with what he has in the face of incredible hatred, disrespect, and constant accusations from his fellow countrymen? OK, THAT I agree with, but you missed the really important question-- doing his best to do what? I've got news for you, the answer isn't "create a shining democracy in Iraq."

can you not find the smallest amount of admiration for Bush? I can admire his unrestrained chutzpah. I think it's really bad for the country, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that this jackass has a gigantic set of balls. As far as the rest, let me set you straight. I don't dislike Bush because he's Republican (there are actual conservative whom I respect), unpopular (popularity means jack @!$%#, as far as I'm concerned), because 9/11 happened on his watch (anyone can catch a bad break), or because he has led the country into a reces... No, strike that last one. I actually DO blame the recession on his retarded adoption of Reagan's "trickle down" economics, coupled with his mismanagement of Iraq. I dislike Bush because he's a smirking @!$%# who seeks to undercut the separation of Church and State. I dislike Bush because he invents presidential powers evident nowhere in the document. I dislike Bush because he's unconcerned about achieving anything of any importance in Iraq beyond the enrichment of his friends and colleagues (and if you doubt that, ask yourself why the administration did absolutely no planning regarding the post-combat phase of our invasion). I dislike Bush because he has made America less safe against terrorism in the wake of 9/11, rather than actually doing anything constructive. I've got a lot of reasons to think that Bush is reprehensible, and none of them revolve around the fact that he's "unpopular" or a "Republican." I dislike him because of his feckless idiocy. I don't think he's "done all he could" to keep America safe, and I don't think he has lessened the threat of terrorism (if anything, he's increased it).

And none of that has jack @!$%# to do with my feelings on the shortcomings or admirable nature of Bill Clinton.

People really need to put partisan politics aside once in a while and look at the bigger picture, especially during election time. We are the United States of America, not the Rep vs. Dem states of America You can thank your Great Uniter.

That is quite a claim. Do you have any information for me to help me to understand why you feel that way? Are you kidding me? We're overextended both militarily and monetarily. World opinion about our country has taken a nosedive, after being at its highest, shortly after 9/11. We've provided an active training ground for new terrorist recruits, and provided motivation for further hatred of America among Muslims. We've actually managed to increase the size of the population ascribing to militant Islamic beliefs. In the meantime, we've screwed up our own economy, and done little to reform the vulnerabilities which allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. We've essentially crippled our ability to act both globally and domestically. And you ask "why do you think we're less safe?"

how is stabilizing Iraq not making us safer? How is Iraq "stablilized"? Seriously. There's a cost to the relative calmness that prevails now (and by "relative calmness" I mean somewhat reduced violence), how long are we going to pay that cost, and what happens when we stop? Saddam Hussein was the reason why there wasn't a civil war in Iraq sooner, and we knew it when we were selling him weapons of mass destruction, back when we as a country liked him. You have three factions in Iraq (which, by the way, was a country invented by the British), which largely dislike each other, and seek their own autonomy. Let's assume at some mythical future date, violence stops in Iraq, and in 2058, America pulls out of Iraq. Suppose further that in 2059, Iraq erupts into a civil war. Will that be our fault? Will we be responsible? Will we have to re-invade to establish "stabilization"?

A stable Iraq is the responsibility of the people of Iraq, not our responsibility. Refraining from civil war in Iraq is the responsibility of the people of Iraq, not our responsibility. If they start killing each other the moment we leave, that's their fault and their responsibility, not ours.

You can't show that we've stabilized a goddamned thing.

Dan,

Clinton starved over a million children to bend Saddam to our will and to secure Iraq.
Can you back this up instead of ranting? Food for oil didn't mean they ate the oil.

Oil-for-Food Programme,....The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War.

Wasn't that Bush Senior that imposed the sanctions in the first place? Didn't little Ronney impose more? Rhetorical questions, both...Clinton was not the cause of the starving children in Iraq, he was the cure.

Please read #7.10, the link, and @7.19 before accusing me of ranting and not providing proof. And be sure to check the dates!

You will see that your comment about Clinton 'curing' the cause is not just inaccurate, it's laughable!

Either he "consistently ignored" Bin Laden or he went after him. Which is it? Either you act on "iffy intelligence" or you "take 3 hours consulting." Which is it? Or should he have consulted Sylvia Browne beforehand as to which set of conditions applied? "Well, we've got plenty of time to consult and make sure this intelligence is iffy" on one day, and "OMG, we should act on this iffy intelligence, right now!" on the next day.

Exactly. Thank you for arguing my point so well. This stuff is fact, not my opinion. FACT: Clinton bombed a medical factory and killed hundreds of civilians with the excuse that he was trying to kill Bin Laden. Bin Laden was nowhere near it. Sound like good intel to you? FACT: They had Bin Laden and couldn't find Clinton. When they finally found Clinton, he didn't go after him. (Maybe he didn't have the chutzpa to act when it was time to act.) He could have gone in and killed him. He didn't have to bomb, they knew his location and there were men on the ground.

And if you knew about the sanctions killing so many dhildren, why did you questioned me on it? Then you blamed Bush Sr. (which came directly from the quote I gave you). You even asked me to provide the timeline. And I quote:

Seriously. And while you're at it, please clarify the timeline for me. Your link says--

Iraq claims that from August 6, 1990, when UN sanctions were first imposed in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to late August of this year, 1,187,486 Iraqis died from sanctions-related causes. Near as I can tell, August 6 1990 fell in the middle of George Bush Sr's presidency. This isn't a case where you can just point at Clinton and say "Clinton's sanctions," Megan.

Does that sound like you knew all about the sanctions? So sorry if I misinterpreted. I just assumed, based on your posts and questions and demonstrated lack of knowledge of the timeline, that either you didn't know about those deaths before, and you did some quick research, or you did know about the situation, but not as much as you thought you did.

Please point out where you think I've blamed them for everything bad about Clinton.

Because you have referred to the Republican Congress as responsible for the two things I have accused Clinton of: starving the children with the sanctions and holding some responsibility for 9/11. I haven't accused him of anything else. Let me quote:

How would it have been "risked" if the Republican controlled Congress hadn't been pushing for the continuation of these sanctions? It's turning history on its head to lay the finger of blame on Clinton for that, without reference to context.

and

Yes, Clinton maintained sanctions put in place by a Republican president. It's also pretty clear from the historical record that a Republican Congress jeered at Clinton's suggestion that Osama bin Laden and his ilk were a serious problem.

Could you share that 'historical record' with me? Because all I have seen is the time that he bombed innocent people with no hope of capturing Bin Laden in order to distract the headlines from 'the dress'. And, ya, the congress probably wasn't too convinced about his reasoning at that time.

And that Republican President put the sanctions in place for good reason, as you defend, but for only 2 years. It was Clinton who kept it up for over 6 more years, refusing to lift them even when begged to do so by Russia, France, and China and UNICEF for humanitarian reasons 4 years after he put the oil for food program in place. So you want to blame Bush Sr., the Republican Congress, and Saddam for those deaths? Well, you're obviously not interested in seeing it any differently so, whatever floats your boat.

and

Clinton had 2 years to act on the information, faced by a Republican Congress which felt his views on Bin Laden were nothing more than an attempt to distract the public from Oval Office blowjobs. Bush had 9 months, faced with various of his own advisors who begged him to pay attention to the threat.

Actually, that was when Clinton bombed the medical factory with no chance of hitting Bin Laden. And there are many who have suggested that it was probably as an excuse to pull the heat off of himself!

You can thank your Great Uniter.

OK, we'll place everything that has been boiling up for decades at the feet of one man! So useful for an election year too!

How is Iraq "stablilized"?

Didn't say it was. I said it was important to do it, not that it was done!

Never claimed that. Claimed that Clinton also had some responsibility for 9/11, partly because of his intelligence cuts - which did happen. Allow me to quote

9/11 happened 9 months after Bush was put into office? Clinton ...had cut intelligence by 25%. ...the biggest reason it was allowed to happen was mistakes made by intellingece, which had been hatcheted by... you guessed it... Clinton.

Allow me to quote myself:

The blame, of course, should fall not only on a Clinton administration distracted by impeachment and fighting for its political life, but also on the Bush administration — which is why the paragraph was initially redacted from the published version of the 9/11 report. "

I'm not exonorating Bush, but it's just ridiculous how the Democrats refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions.

and

As I said near the beginning of this debate, I don't blame Clinton, but I also don't blame Bush. I just think there is enough blame to go around.

So goody for you for finding the one quote that could be made to sound like I completely blame Clinton when I clearly don't. And way to argue with me about what my own opinion is. You'd make a great speech writer for McCain.

Sorry my blockquotes got so screwed up.

FACT: Clinton bombed a medical factory and killed hundreds of civilians with the excuse that he was trying to kill Bin Laden. Bin Laden was nowhere near it. Sound like good intel to you? FACT: They had Bin Laden and couldn't find Clinton. When they finally found Clinton, he didn't go after him. (Maybe he didn't have the chutzpa to act when it was time to act.) He could have gone in and killed him. He didn't have to bomb, they knew his location and there were men on the ground. That's a fairly bold claim, and far from being "FACT" (as far as I can see) seems simply to be un ungrounded assertion. Sources, please. I'd like to see the evidence, and judge for myself.

And if you knew about the sanctions killing so many dhildren, why did you questioned me on it? I didn't see a question in there except with respect to the timeline of sanctions, which were enacted before Clinton ever got into office. To quote my own posts (which I'm assuming you must have skimmed, given that my point apparently didn't connect)

This isn't a case where you can just point at Clinton and say "Clinton's sanctions," Megan. Yes, Clinton maintained sanctions put in place by a Republican president.

...what was the purpose of the sanctions, really? The way I see it, they were twofold-- b>b> The latter wouldn't have been necessary if Bush Sr had done the job, and the former was accomplished...

...I'm simply amazed that you'd try to lay the deaths of those children at Clinton's feet, without reference to Bush SR, who imposed the sanctions, or Saddam, who refused to make them unnecessary.

I could go on, but I think you see the point (or at least I hope you do).

So sorry if I misinterpreted. I just assumed, based on your posts and questions and demonstrated lack of knowledge of the timeline, that either you didn't know about those deaths before, and you did some quick research, or you did know about the situation, but not as much as you thought you did. No problem, and I probably should have been more clear. I meant the question about the timeline to be answered more for your benefit than for my own. It goes back to my point that you seem to blame Clinton for the deaths of Iraqi children without reference to when and by whom the sanctions were put into place, or to who was ultimately responsible for ending them.

Could you share that 'historical record' with me? The Wikipedia link I provided has quite a bit of information, but if that isn't enough, here's some more. If you need more, consider

• Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action... Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, ...called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue." July 30th, 1996.
• Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism... The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. April 18th, 1996
• The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities. April 16th, 1996.
• Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden's Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.

And that Republican President put the sanctions in place for good reason, as you defend, but for only 2 years. And what? Those reasons just suddenly went away after two years? this is the part I don't get, Megan. Sanctions from Bush I were A-ok. Sanctions from Clinton were vile and reprehensible. Bush II invading and killing tons of civilians, though, is back to being A-ok. I don't understand how that mindset works. Bush I gets a pass, Bush II gets a pass, Saddam gets a pass, but that damn Clinton!!! He killed (purportedly) a million Iraqi children!!!

That's either naivety or political disingenuousness, and I'm not sure which. At any rate, either is misguided.

OK, we'll place everything that has been boiling up for decades at the feet of one man! Do you even read the links I provide? I place 9/11 at the feet of George Bush because he actively dismissed the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden. He didn't take it seriously. He ignored the problem. He couldn't be bothered with it. It didn't mean anything to him. Despite having been briefed on it, having received reports as to its importance, and having people on his own staff suggest that it was an issue, he fiddle-farted around for nine months. He even took a vacation during this time. And ever since, he has disingenuously used 9/11 as an excuse to drum up support for whatever completely dunderheaded action he can think of. Like the Iraq war, as perhaps the most glaringly obvious-- a war that he intended to start before he ever took office.

I said it was important to [stabilize Iraq], not that it was done! I understood that. I'll repeat myself-- You have three factions in Iraq (which, by the way, was a country invented by the British), which largely dislike each other, and seek their own autonomy. Let's assume at some mythical future date, violence stops in Iraq, and in 2058, America pulls out of Iraq. Suppose further that in 2059, Iraq erupts into a civil war. Will that be our fault? Will we be responsible? Will we have to re-invade to establish "stabilization"?

A stable Iraq is the responsibility of the people of Iraq, not our responsibility. Refraining from civil war in Iraq is the responsibility of the people of Iraq, not our responsibility. If they start killing each other the moment we leave, that's their fault and their responsibility, not ours.

We haven't bought a shiny new democracy in Iraq, and it's highly unlikely that such a democracy will ever come about in that country, no matter how long we stay there.

I'm not exonorating Bush, but it's just ridiculous how the Democrats refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions. Again, I don't think your grasp of Clinton's efforts to combat terrorism is very good. As a result, maintaining that "there's enough blame to go around" for 9/11 does a serious disservice to Clinton, while at the same time serving to deflect a significant portion of blame that should lay directly at George Bush's feet.

way to argue with me about what my own opinion is. Feel free to point out where I did this.

FACT: Clinton bombed a medical factory and killed hundreds of civilians with the excuse that he was trying to kill Bin Laden. Bin Laden was nowhere near it. Sound like good intel to you? FACT: They had Bin Laden and couldn't find Clinton. When they finally found Clinton, he didn't go after him. (Maybe he didn't have the chutzpa to act when it was time to act.) He could have gone in and killed him. He didn't have to bomb, they knew his location and there were men on the ground. That's a fairly bold claim, and far from being "FACT" (as far as I can see) seems simply to be un ungrounded assertion. Sources, please. I'd like to see the evidence, and judge for myself.

OK

U.S. OKs payout for Sudan bombing 'mistake' The Clinton administration will not challenge a lawsuit filed by a Saudi businessman who said the bombing last year of his pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was a "mistake" based on faulty intelligence data.

The administration also agreed to release $24 million in assets that the businessman, Saleh Idris, had deposited in U.S. banks.

The Aug. 20, 1998, cruise missile attack, which the White House claimed was in retaliation for terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, came three days after President Clinton's appearance before a federal grand jury investigating his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

The al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory produced more than fifty percent of all medicines used by the people of Sudan. According to Sudanese doctors and health officials, the factory's destruction could lead to severe drug shortages endangering the lives of thousands of Sudanese... Even the Clinton administration officials eventually acknowledged that the factory did produce pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Department of State has acknowledged that the United States had approved the sale of medicines produced by al-Shifa.

Washington blames bin Laden for orchestrating the bombings at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The other U.S. justification for the racist attack on the Sudan was that bin Laden financed the plant.

Secretary of Defense William Cohen made that claim shortly after the attack. Now, some U.S. officials admit bin Laden did not finance the pharmaceutical plant.

No wonder there have been worldwide protests at U.S. embassies and throughout the United States, and an official statement by the Arab League condemning the attack. China criticized the attack, saying it opposes all forms of terrorism.

Now the question is how many Sudanese will die as a result of not having enough medicine? Is this just a way of tightening the U.S. sanctions on Sudan's people?

And, for the second fact:

The nearest the CIA came to killing Bin Laden was on the hunting trip in February 1999, just a few months before the Predator incident. The site was a camp in the desert south of Kandahar where Bin Laden had gone with wealthy visitors from the United Arab Emirates.

Afghan agents reported the trip to a CIA station. Tracking teams were immediately dispatched and by February 9 they had located the isolated camp, close to a large airstrip.
'''
As the White House dithered, the hunting party moved on. "All that was left was a pile of burning garbage in the desert," said Scheuer this weekend. He claimed that the group had left after Clarke called a senior figure in the Emirates royal family. "It's hardly surprising that they pulled out so quickly and that we lost our chance to kill Bin Laden," said Scheuer.

...
The Al-Jazeera series, together with Scheuer's disclosures, add to growing pressure on the American authorities over their performance in the run-up to September 11. In an unpublished report to Congress last week John Helgerson, the US government's inspector-general, delivered a scathing attack on George Tenet, CIA director at the time of September 11, and a score of other agency personnel for their failure to develop a strategy against Al-Qaeda.

The report recommends a public reprimand against Tenet, James Pavitt, former deputy director of operations, and Cofer Black, former head of the counter-terrorism centre.

FYI, Tenet, Pavitt, and Cofer were all appointed by Clinton. Not that it matters much, Bush kept them on.

Enough for that?

I meant the question about the timeline to be answered more for your benefit than for my own. It goes back to my point that you seem to blame Clinton for the deaths of Iraqi children without reference to when and by whom the sanctions were put into place, or to who was ultimately responsible for ending them.

I did reference all of them when I explained the sanctions. You pulled Bush Sr. directly from my blockquote. But I don't blame him for the continuation of sanctions, which is what did the killing. Here's some links:

More importantly, the entire Oil-for-Food program is fundamentally flawed. It forces Baghdad to purchase all of its goods outside of Iraq, thus doing nothing to rebuild and "develop" its shattered economy and infrastructure. As a result, despite more Oil-for-Food goods entering the country than ever before, massive unemployment and poverty persist. Couple this with the fact that Iraq gets zero investment to repair infrastructure, and you have all the ingredients for an indefinite, manufactured humanitarian crisis. Over 20% of children remain chronically malnourished. And epidemics of water-borne diseases continue.

Blaming it all on Saddam is convenient, especially when speaking to American audiences, but the facts demonstrate otherwise. Facts that are not lost on the Iraqi people, nor the international community. America's ongoing war against the people of Iraq (not Saddam) is doing more to isolate the U.S. in the eyes of the world than any other foreign policy of the Clinton era.

There is a place for sanctions in foreign policy, but Clinton took it too far.

And that Republican President put the sanctions in place for good reason, as you defend, but for only 2 years. And what? Those reasons just suddenly went away after two years? this is the part I don't get, Megan.

I'm sorry you are struggling to understand this. It's a simple concept, really. Sanctions have a place. But Clinton took them too far. I would say that the reasons for the sanctions didn't 'go away' but that the sacrifice of lives being made in order to keep them began to outweigh the reasons. So much so that the Clinton administration was begged to stop them. And it was Clinton (read the link above and you will see the interview where he defends them as well as the rebuttal) who refused to lift them 8 years later. If something's not working, it's not working. Maybe this link will help you to understand.

This paper concludes that, because it targets civilians, the blockade/sanctions regime was illegal from its inception under the Geneva Protocol. It also concludes that the proved effects of the blockade/sanctions regime on the civilian population are such that it is now manifestly criminal both as a war crime and as a breach of the Genocide Convention. The final conclusion drawn is that, by application of the Nuremberg Principles, all individual persons knowingly assisting with the enforcement of the blockade/sanctions regime are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In other words, this paper claims that it was illegal to begin with, but that after the proved effects on civilian population (which were proven during Clinton's run) became known, that the illegality became a war crime (just so we're clear, this paper was written in 2000, when Clinton still hadn't lifted the sanctions).

OK, we'll place everything that has been boiling up for decades at the feet of one man! Do you even read the links I provide?

You've taken this quote out of context. Here is what I was responding to:

People really need to put partisan politics aside once in a while and look at the bigger picture, especially during election time. We are the United States of America, not the Rep vs. Dem states of America You can thank your Great Uniter.

And here is what I said in reply:

You can thank your Great Uniter.

OK, we'll place everything that has been boiling up for decades at the feet of one man! So useful for an election year too!

So, as you can see, I was referring to your allegation that the divide between the Dems and the Reps was Bush's sole responsibility. See how that was misinterpreted? I should have quoted more of the exchange.

I place 9/11 at the feet of George Bush because he actively dismissed the threat posed by Osama Bin Laden. He didn't take it seriously. He ignored the problem. He couldn't be bothered with it. It didn't mean anything to him. Despite having been briefed on it, having received reports as to its importance, and having people on his own staff suggest that it was an issue, he fiddle-farted around for nine months.

Would you be interested in reading the actual memo that he received a few weeks before 9/11? It is here. Here's a quote:

"We have not been able to corraborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that... saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hi-jack a US aircraft to gain the release of ... US held extremists."

The most telling paragraph of your 'detailed briefing of warning' is:

"FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consisten with preparations of hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveilence of federal buildings in New York."

That's as detailed as it gets. No references as to when, how, or what. Otherwise it briefs the President about 70 full field operations that the FBI was currently pursuing that were bin Laden related and more of the history of how Al-Queda worked in and out of the US. So Bush was already doing something. There were 70 full-field FBI investigations in process. And no one guessed that they would commit suicide to accomplish their attacks. Just look back at #7.13 for a reminder of the general assumptions made by both administrations to see where this broke down. What exactly would you have done with that memo? And please remember the history when considering this. Probably, you would have had the gut feeling that Clinton, Gore, and Bush were not lucky enough to have and would have realized that Al-Quada was going to board the planes with the bombs they checked and commit suicidal attacks? Again, see comment #7.13 for information on the identification process that Gore had put in place, how Bush kept it in place (probably thinking it was a good safegaurd), how it actually did identify 11 of the 19 9/11 attackers, but how it let them board anyway because they got on board with their checked luggage and that was all they were looking for (didn't take into account the possibility of a suicide attack).

A stable Iraq is the responsibility of the people of Iraq, not our responsibility. Refraining from civil war in Iraq is the responsibility of the people of Iraq, not our responsibility. If they start killing each other the moment we leave, that's their fault and their responsibility, not ours.

I think that some sources could answer this better than I could:

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications.

Still, as I said before, I'm not sure of my own stance on this yet, I just know that I'm not convinced that pulling out now is the safest answer.

The mess that has been made there has US responsibility written all over it. BTW, the US helped to draw the border lines after WWII (not just the UK) which has caused serious problems. And the mess that is there is largely the Bush admin's fault, but it has been brewing for decades. We've been there, then pulled out, then imposed sanctions, then invaded again. We created Saddam Hussein to begin with by aiding his rise to power and providing him with funds and weapon systems to use against Iran that he later used against his own people. And yes, I know who did it. But like I've said from the beginning, there is enough blame to go around.

way to argue with me about what my own opinion is.

Feel free to point out where I did this.

Your original accusation:

On its face, the claim that Bin Laden was a problem born of Clinton's reduction of American intelligence capabilities seems ludicrous, at best.

My response:

On its face, the claim that Bin Laden was a problem born of Clinton's reduction of American intelligence capabilities seems ludicrous, at best.
Never claimed that. Claimed that Clinton also had some responsibility for 9/11, partly because of his intelligence cuts - which did happen. Also due to his policies in Iraq and the middle east in general (because there is much more - read the link in the last comment) exacerbating the political climate.

Your response:

Never claimed that. Claimed that Clinton also had some responsibility for 9/11, partly because of his intelligence cuts - which did happen. Allow me to quote

9/11 happened 9 months after Bush was put into office? Clinton ...had cut intelligence by 25%. ...the biggest reason it was allowed to happen was mistakes made by intellingece, which had been hatcheted by... you guessed it... Clinton.

My response:

/11 happened 9 months after Bush was put into office? Clinton ...had cut intelligence by 25%. ...the biggest reason it was allowed to happen was mistakes made by intellingece, which had been hatcheted by... you guessed it... Clinton.

Allow me to quote myself:
The blame, of course, should fall not only on a Clinton administration distracted by impeachment and fighting for its political life, but also on the Bush administration — which is why the paragraph was initially redacted from the published version of the 9/11 report. "

I'm not exonorating Bush, but it's just ridiculous how the Democrats refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions.

and
As I said near the beginning of this debate, I don't blame Clinton, but I also don't blame Bush. I just think there is enough blame to go around.

So goody for you for finding the one quote that could be made to sound like I completely blame Clinton when I clearly don't. And way to argue with me about what my own opinion is. You'd make a great speech writer for McCain.

Does that help?

Again, I don't think your grasp of Clinton's efforts to combat terrorism is very good. As a result, maintaining that "there's enough blame to go around" for 9/11 does a serious disservice to Clinton, while at the same time serving to deflect a significant portion of blame that should lay directly at George Bush's feet.

I don't know how to reply to this. I have provided significant arguments, links, and data to support my assertations. Without rewriting all the posts, I don't know what to tell you. There is enough blame to go around, Clinton has a good share of it having been President for 8 years and having that long to stir the pot in the middle east (the sanctions are just a part of it - one of the links I gave you explains more) and having put a freeze on hiring intelligence and then cutting intelligence personnel by 24%, which was twice as much as the Democratic Congress had pushed him to do when they first made the recomendation. He may have done some things 1996 to try to make up for it (6 years into his Presidency), but it didn't make up for what he took away. I agree that he did a lot for terrorism defense in the last few years, but the facts remain that 1) Clinton had 3 opportunities (more by some accounts) to get bin Laden, and his bombing of the medical factory was not one of them. 2) Clinton cut military and intelligence back to 1977 staff sizes by 1996. And 3) Clinton enforced inhumane sanctions as opposed to taking out Saddam with a military effort due to the political climate.

As far as the military cuts and the accusations that Clinton didn't give even a cost of living increase in 8 years, nor did he upgrade any equipment, my sources for that information come from the Airforce Colonel who lived through it (my husband's superior officer) and my Army brother-in-law who served 18 months in Saudi and his Army friends and superior officers who also lived through it. I'm sorry I don't have links. It is general knowledge in the military, obviously.

Some corrections I've discovered and should make:

First, to be clear, Clinton's intelligence cuts were pushed by the Democratic Congress, however Clinton outdid himself. When the Republican Congress was in power, Clinton increased funding by 1 billion across the board. However, he had cut it by as much as 7.4 billion - by some reports, although I suspect those were based more on his original statement of intent and that the actual figure was more like around 4 billion - I'm sorry I don't have a link on this one. It is an assumption I've got in my head after reading a bunch of different sources when I was first becoming interested in this. I admit I don't know that actual figure. But after cutting personnel by 24% - not 25%(this is a documented figure, though I can't remember the source - I'm sorry - it's been a while - you can google it but I'm too tired to do so right now) I'm sure that 4 bil wouldn't be too much of an overestimation.

Second, the number of people who died in the medical factory debauchel was less than I thought. It was more like 20, and there was no information released about the number of deaths from the other bombings.

Well, we may just have to agree to disagree. I've learned a lot from this discussion though. And I've racked up some great links, including yours. :) When I get the time, I hope to further check out the article you wrote and linked to below.

Bottom line is that we may just have to agree to disagree.

Division by Zero,

I am certain that if Clinton had ended the sanctions it would have been portrayed as "weak on defense" ... Are we guilty of revisionist history now in saying that Clinton should have pushed to end the sanctions?

Not at all. It was Clinton who made the choice. It was his administration. The Democratic Congress that was in power when Clinton came into the white house did as little to protest it as the Republican Congress did. However, the Republican Congress favored a more miliatry approach.

Here's a great interview of the guy who worked at the UN and who worked very hard to stop the sanctions. Here's a quote:

Who, in your view, is primarily responsible for the deaths of those 500,000 children under five? "All the members of the Permanent Security Council, when they passed 1284, reconfirmed that economic sanctions had to be sustained, knowing the consequences. That constitutes 'intent to kill', because we know that sanctions are killing several thousand per month. Now, of the five permanent members, three abstained; but an abstention is no better than a vote for, in a sense. Britain and America of course voted for this continuation. The rest of them don't count because they're lackeys, or they're paid off. The only country that stood up was Malaysia, and they also abstained. But you know, by abstaining instead of using your veto, when you are a permanent member you're guilty because you're continuing something that has this deadly impact.

***However, I would normally point the finger at London and Washington, because they are the most active in sustaining sanctions: they are the ones who will not compromise. All the other members would back down if London and Washington would change their position. I think that's quite clear. But unfortunately Blair and Clinton have an almost personal investment in demonising Saddam Hussein. ***

That's very hard to get out of, they have my sympathy, but they created their own problem. Once you've demonised somebody, it's awfully difficult to turn around and say, 'Well actually he's not such a bad guy, he likes kids'. Under the Baath Party regime, they ran a social welfare system in Iraq that was so intense it was almost claustrophobic, and they made damn sure that the average Iraqi was well taken care of, and they did it deliberately to divert them from any political activity and to maintain stability and allow them (Baath Party) to run the country. [US Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright has also fallen into the demonisation hole: her whole career is linked to maintaining this policy, although she didn't start it."

Woops, here's the link... it's late.

Again, I don't think your grasp of Clinton's efforts to combat terrorism is very good. As a result, maintaining that "there's enough blame to go around" for 9/11 does a serious disservice to Clinton, while at the same time serving to deflect a significant portion of blame that should lay directly at George Bush's feet.

#$%#!!, ^%$#!!, #%$@!!

After reviewing several more links and searches, I have to concede that Clinton was trying to do more for anti-terrorism than I had previously been aware of.

#%@#$@!!!!!

I also found that the Repbulican Congress did try to water down one anti-terrorist bill and acheived to remove the phone tappings from it.

%$@#@#^^$@&*$@^&*($@&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also found that the FBI had a serious backlog of information that needed to be translated and that could have contributed greatly to preventing 9/11. Although the staffing cutbacks were originally made by Clinton, Bush did not heed the requests to increase their personnel or budget before 9/11.

I have to admit that you were right, I didn't have a very good grasp of Clinton's efforts to combat terrorism.

%$@#^@%~!!!! I hate being wrong!!!!!

I still disagree with Clinton's use of sanctions in the face of innocent deaths as well as his cutbacks in the military and intelligence. I also hate how he treated the military. And I still beleive that his bombing of the medicine plant was immoral and done for his own political career. And it still ticks me off that he lied under oath. I don't have a huge amount of respect for Clinton, but I have to admit that Republicans have bungled the war in Iraq and that I've learned here that we don't have a monopoly on keeping America safe.

Grrrrrrr!

I guess I should thank you, iarnuocon, for keeping at me so I could learn more. So, thank you. Just please don't call me an idiot for not being fully informed... I'm sure I've still much to learn.

S'allright. I actually just sort of gave up and figured if you got around to reading the links, great; and if not, that was okay, too.

We agree on quite a bit, actually. I think the bombing of the plant in Sudan was quite a bit of wagging the dog, even if the administration attempted (lamely, in my opinion) to justify it by a putatively "contaminated" soil sample. And it angers me that he lied (although, frankly, I would have told the questioner to jam the question up his @ss. The whole sex-scandal was a witch-hunt which had nothing to do with Whitewater or the business of the country).

As far as the sanctions are concerned, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I think there were legitimate reasons to keep them in place, I think the characterization that they amounted to war crimes is ludicrous (as the whole intent of them was not to kill people, but to gain compliance from Saddam and prevent re-armament), and I think the prime person responsible for those deaths was Saddam Hussein himself. But I recognize that there are other interpretations. At any rate, the loss of life was surely regrettable by anyone's measure.

Finally, thank you for acknowledging my points. I truly appreciate that. It's not often that you find someone willing to admit they were wrong, and rarer still to find such a person posting that admission online.

Yes, well, thanks. I have a quote on my computer by one of my church leaders that says: "Would you rather rationalize or repent?" and it reminds me that rationalization is just a prolongment of pain, where repentence is like ripping off a bandaid - painful but over quickly. :) Plus, I really am here to learn and exchange ideas, not just argue.

It was hard to give up my opinions about 9/11. I'm going to read the new book The Commission written by Philip Shenon. It has all of the things that were censored out of the original report. That should help as well.

Again, thanks. And hopefully we can be friends. You seem to be very knowledgable and heaven knows you've showed some patience.

As for the sanctions, I would take another look at that food for oil plan. You may be suprised at how unhelpful it really was.

rationalize, is the word used for lying to yourself. How you come to rationalize a wrong to justify it to yourself.

Again, thanks. And hopefully we can be friends. You seem to be very knowledgable and heaven knows you've showed some patience.

I don't see why not. I don't know about "knowledgeable" or "patient," though. I guess either or neither, depending on the day and the subject.

rationalize, is the word used for lying to yourself. How you come to rationalize a wrong to justify it to yourself.

Yep. Once I realized I was wrong about my knowledge of Clinton, I could either rationalize - or figure out how to maintain my argument, which would require lying to myself, to avoid being wrong and having my pride injured - or repent - concede the point and thank iarnuocon for the help. It hurts my pride a bit, but at least I am being honest and can claim honesty with sincerity.

You are a very smart and honorable person. No one carries more respect, then one who can admit to being mistaken and then makes changes to correct it. This is all too rare to see these days. But I could be wrong. :)

Wow. That's quite a complement. Not sure I deserve it, but thanks.

OK. I take it all back. :)

I've noticed Dan has this knack for noticing and complementing people who are kind, open minded, and genuine contributors. I'm glad he's a friend.

Why would someone who is dropping out of the race need to use a "slick rhetorical trick"? You must be a very angry Democrat. So sorry that you are hurt by today's events :)

What, you're new to politics? Why would he need to use a slick rhetorical trick? He admits it up front... If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. Can't have that, so any rhetorical tricks we can pull between now and November are for the good of the nation party.

It's evidence that Romney, at least, thinks that the Republicans should carry on with the failed policies of the current administration-- perpetual war for perpetual peace. Oddly enough, a platform that McCain is right in line with.

Pretty much every Republican I know thinks that McCain will split the Republican party in the exact same way that Clinton will split the Democrats. So feel free to keep dismissing "angry Democrats." You're likely to unify them. Even if they have to vote for Hillary just to keep McCain out.

This is great news all around. McCain can rest up and pile up dough while building cred with the base while Evita and the Nazarene eat each other alive in what could be a rerun of 1968.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,"

I am sickened by this statement on several levels.

He's vowing not to surrender, by surrendering his entire campaign. There's an important discourse that needed to happen in the Republican Party this year, to define its true purpose and agenda in the face of the events of the past seven years, and if he chooses to end that discourse and get on to the home stretch already, half of the country didn't engage in it. Being in Rhode Island, where we vote on March 5, I'm extremely disappointed that all of this surrendering will leave many to vote for defaults, vote for the better of two or three evils, or not vote at all. Some democracy.

Realists here appreciate the overt political calculation being made. My disdain for it is just as real.

That's why I think all primaries should be on one day, so certain states don't hold more weight than others. Here in Alabama we get to vote on Super Tuesday, but by then you already have people dropping. I can't imagine what it must feel like for you guys who essentially, don't even get a proper vote.

Realists here appreciate the overt political calculation being made. My disdain for it is just as real.

What an unusual reaction! Imagine if Hillary or Obama took one for the team rather than totally draining each others war chests when the battle comes to taking on the Republicans??

I fully expect Hillary will fight this out until she has mortgaged the doghouse should the momentum continue to build for Obama. Maybe I'm too cynical but with all that seems at stake I can't imagine either candidate bowing out for many months to come. Whether for the good of their party or not... not even worth considering.

It's evidence that Romney, at least, thinks that the Republicans should carry on with the failed policies of the current administration-- perpetual war for perpetual peace. Oddly enough, a platform that McCain is right in line with.

Romney was very clear about the differences he still has with McCain and that he would still fight for those things.

He was also clear about why he felt it was important, not to have a Republican in the whitehouse, but to have someone who wouldn't pull out of the war, which is what both Hillary and Obama have openly announced that they would do. It's not about partisan politics, it's about one important issue. And in a time of war, and with all that is at stake, that one issue is all he needs to justify what he is doing. It's too bad because he would have handled the war better than McCain, he would have handled the economy better than any of them, and he had hands down the best plan for healthcare.

I've been a Mitt supporter from day one and I think he did the right thing. I was so sad that he was going to suspend his candidacy, but after his great speech, I was actually more proud of him. I hope he runs again either in 2012 or in 2016 - depending on who gets the whitehouse this year and how much of a mess they make of it.

With the issue of war on the table, McCain will win the race...hands down.

How do you reach this conclusion? Granted, I've done no surveys myself, but I see, both here on NV and in the real world, Republicans bitterly divided on McCain, to the point that some of them suggest they will support a Democratic candidate. Do you feel that these are far fewer than they appear, or that they are bluffing?

If the Republicans have a choice between McCain and a Democratic candidate, by the end of the race, they statistically come back to their roots. That and the issues of the war and the economy mean the above.

Natasha, you are ignoring the numerous polls that say the public overwhelmingly trusts the Democrats with the war on terror and security more than the Republicans.

This pretty-much seals the deal on putting a Republican in the White House and that was the point of the "suspension" of the Romney campaign. With the issue of war on the table, McCain will win the race...hands down.

And you are ignoring the exit polling that said the war came after the Economy and Shared Values on what's more important to the voters. I think you are thinking about the '04 election. Get with the times.

The only question is, how can the public be so ignorant? What is working in Iraq right now? that's right, the surge! And who thought of that originally? McCain! What did the Democrats do? They supported the war until in became unpopular, and then turned on it as an easy way to boost their party. If we pulled out of Iraq in a year, which is what many Democrats want to do, then Iraq would fall and become a haven for Islamic Extremists, as Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Now do you want that? If you're a good American, you wouldn't. Thus, McCain has the war down, plus McCain actually served, so he knows what it's like to be a soldier. And the economy? I'm not even going to get into that.
I wholeheartedly agree with NatashaCall.

What is working in Iraq right now? that's right, the surge! Allow me to retort:

how can the public be so ignorant?

Is a good American like a "good German?"

Butterball, you might want to look at Iraq, it has become a terrorist playground.

McCain beats Hillary in most polls and beats Obama too in some of them. Long way to go between now and November.

Ahhh the dream!

It' still a big longshot. But it's possible given the animosity that's been building between the Clinton and Obama camps and Obama will have a more difficult time getting away with his flowery rhetoric masking conventional statist liberalism in a head to head general election campaign.

...knock me over with a feather!

just when I was starting to warm up a bit to Romney as my backup. Oh well. Go Huckabee!

Huck the vote!

Whaddya talkin' about? Romney's the son of Mexican immigrants.

Whaddya talkin' about? Romney's the son of Mexican immigrants.

I didn't say he is a blueblood. I said he has a persona as a business class elitist, and of course I stand by that.

Romney is not of Mexican heritage, although his grandparents lived there in order to avoid US government interference with their Mormon beliefs.

Lighten up dude. My tongue was planted firnly in cheek on that one.

I don't know you, or your sense of humor. Now I'll keep that in mind.

The polls are pretty unanimous in the sentiment of the public trusting Dems more than the GOP on pretty much every last issue. Bush's terrible presidency has come to haunt the GOP.

The Grand Old Party has had her time, let her die in peace. It is such a shame to see her suffer as she does. She babbles and has become incoherent, forgetting simple definitions of words, she makes up her own. She can't take care of the house like she used to and has wasted away all the families fortune putting them in debt for generations. She's nearsighted and myopic in one eye, and can't see out of the other. She's already lost her ability to comprehend the world around her. Her neighbors hate her now, and think she's an evil old witch. Now she can barely recognize her own children, and has alienated her entire family.

If the same logic that Romney used to exit were "faithfully" applied, then both Huckabee and McCain should quit.

No, it wouldn't. Believe it or not, despite your hatred of Republicans, ideology is not a matter of mathematical certainty, but of opinion.

Heck, as a Democrat, I thought you'd know that.

Well, I guess the magic Mormon underwear didn't do the trick. Not praying hard enough? To the wrong god, perhaps? Please. explain this one. How could Mitt possibly lose if god were on his side?

FYI, that statement is very offensive to mormons. And there is no reason to demean other religions to make a point. If you want to debate doctrine, that's one thing (though not what this thread is about). But if you want to rudely make fun of a group of people, you're on the wrong site because on NV, it's against the CofH.

As for your 'question', God doesn't control what men do. We believe in freedom of will, so not even Mitt would pray for God to intercede and make him win. God doesn't take sides in politics, he'll let mankind run themselves into the ground if that is what they want. Hope this answers your question and puts an end to your deprecation of things held sacred by a group of people that you obviously feel don't deserve your respect or consideration.

Just curious, Megan, but how can you say with certainty how God thinks and acts?

Not trying to. Just answering the question which I assume was asked about what mormons (and therefore Romney) believe about God. This is why I began my explanation with "We believe".

Sorry if I misled you to believe that I felt that I was speaking on behalf of God. I forget sometimes to be on the lookout for people misreading me for the purpose of making glib accusations.

It's not glib, it just looked to me like you were certain about God's actions. Please don't blame me for your lack of clarity.

Why you impudent commoner!!

You shouldn't be using Romney's (and my own) religion as a way to attack him. You should be more respectful because whatever your religion teaches you I won't attack you for your beliefs.

Having had a tangle with the LDS church myself, I wish you would hold your co-religionists to that standard.

I don't know anyone who would attack another religion -- as far as my friends and the members of my church go.

Unfortunatly I can't control everyone but I can make a point that no matter what someone else does that doesn't make it right for you to do.

Unfortunatly I can't control everyone but I can make a point that no matter what someone else does

Martin I think if anyone tries to force a practice that religion is or should be, exempt from criticism we do a bigger disservice than letting people see, learn, and judge for themselves.

Same can be said of any belief system or political issue. When we are ready to roll up our sleeves and make everyone comply with our perspective we need to take a closer look at ourselves.

Your kind approach to personal attacks is admirable, but I don't read fauxscot as crossing lines in his disdain for religion. Lot of history of hatred, suppression and laws against religious practices and beliefs and for some reason that just stokes the fire :-)

Well, I guess the magic Mormon underwear didn't do the trick. Not praying hard enough? To the wrong god, perhaps? Please. explain this one. How could Mitt possibly lose if god were on his side?

Maybe it is best to just sit back and let people say things that are wrong while attacking my religion...

I don't think so. I'd rather not be complacent. I'd also like to see more respect, if not for diversity, but for the NV COH. Right?

:P

such as why if he claims not to be Muslim, was he sworn in as Senator by the Koran, and went to the same elementary school in Indonesia as Osama bin Laden! I don't know how true those are,

If they don't know if they are true, why do you say them? Do you often say things you are not sure are true?

Barack Obama is a Christian.

Those allegations have been found to be completely untrue despite a very pervasive effort via email to perpetuate totally false claims.

Congressman Keith Ellison (D) Minnesota is the first and only Muslim US representative that has been sworn in by the Koran.

why if he claims not to be Muslim, was he sworn in as Senator by the Koran, and went to the same elementary school in Indonesia as Osama bin Laden! I don't know how true those are, but it kinda freaks me out I can imagine. Allow me to retort.

Why, if McCain claims to have been a POW, does he speak fluent Vietnamese, and carry a copy of Mao's Little Red Book in the breast pocket of his sport coat? Why, if Romney is a mainstream Christian, does he have sixteen wives, and sacrifice goats at midnight at the center of a pentagram by the dark of the moon? If Huckabee is such a conservative, why does he think the Constitution should be altered to bring it in line with the Bible? I don't know how true those statements are, but boy do they freak me out!

Congressman Keith Ellison (D) Minnesota is the first and only Muslim US representative that has been sworn in by the Koran. Technically untrue. Ellison, like everyone else, was sworn in en masse, using no book at all (including the Bible). At the later photo-op re-enactment of the swearing in, Ellison used a two-volume copy of the Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

Now I wonder if those who received the email about Obama, who nodded their heads, and who dutifully forwarded it a number of friends would even be convinced by the actual facts of the matter and even bother forwarding those facts to those same friend?. I think not. People are far more willing to believe something negative about a person than they are to change their belief when proven wrong. Some partisans, even knowing that something is a lie, will continue to spread it because it serves their agenda. If I tell you that Frank is a pedophile you are far more likely to believe it and continue believing it, even if I later come back and say that Frank likes to pedal his bike on File Street after work.

Technically untrue. Ellison, like everyone else, was sworn in en masse, using no book at all

Good clarification iarnuocon. Technically you are completely correct, but the point was addressed in great debate how far could Ellison go with swearing in on the Koran and since there is no spiritual book identified for swearing in, Ellison went so far as to publicly emphasize that his responsibilities would be upheld as dutifully as his faith in the Koran.

This is where much of the confusion surrounding Obama stems.

Why, if Romney is a mainstream Christian, does he have sixteen wives, and sacrifice goats at midnight at the center of a pentagram by the dark of the moon?

Excuse me??

I would think the statement is self-evident. We can all make grandiose and ridiculous claims and say we "don't know how true" they are, and then claim to be really freaked out by those claims. That kind of "reasoning" is total bull@!$%#. It's like saying

I have imaginary issues with this guy!!!

Great. Who gives a @!$%#? Anybody can make that type of statement about anyone. Why even make the statement? The only purpose it serves is to completely discredit your own opinion.

Oh. I missed that part, or at least the insinuation.

Can't argue with 25.7. Makes sense to me now.

I thought our country deserved him

Why do you hate America?