usvi-on-line
Good luck with your new president and the inauguration
I love seeing that we everyone is being respectful yet offering different opinions.
Personally, I think we should sit in a circle holding hands with the terrorists singing kumbaya. What?? I like that song.
Another subject. What do you think of the Caroline Kennedy story??
Gov. Paterson has reported Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration of Clinton’s seat because of "personal reasons."
There have been reports of tax problems, a “nanny” problem, and having an affair with the NY Times. I think this is going to turn into a circus for her and all reports say she is really private and shy.
I just wonder if she jumped ship or if she was pushed? Did she know she wasn’t going to be chosen?? Or did she withdraw because she didn’t want to have her private life revealed?? Either way I think she should have just kept quiet and maybe there wouldn't be as much noise as there is now. Maybe Gov Paterson felt he needed to explain his reasons for not choosing her and she panicked?
What has bothered me is the warm reception for Kennedy. For example, I watched the View and couldn’t believe that they were saying Kennedy has executive experience because of raising her family and running the house. Yet these same women weeks before thought Palin didn’t have enough experience doing those same things AND being a mayor and governor.
The fact that she used "you know" with great frequency while speaking wasn't inherently disqualifying, while "you betcha" and a wink were considered evidence of being stupid.
Anyway, I can’t help but wonder how Clinton feels about this. Apparently she wasn’t in support of Kennedy.
Sometimes I wonder why anyone would want to be in office. I think that is especially true for women. Look at how Clinton was treated . . . she did pave the way and gets more respect now but she went though hell. And Palin was treated even worse. I have a feeling it will not be good for Kennedy once the dust settles.
Later,
Gina
Personally, I think we should sit in a circle holding hands with the terrorists singing kumbaya. What?? I like that song.
Umm, yeah . . .if they haven’t been charged yet show signs of being terrorists . . . I admit, that given the alternative, I would prefer they stay there . . . otherwise, I don’t know where they should go . . .I really don’t. Flip, what do you think should happen? Where do you think they should go? I have a lot of faith in our government and military and believe that if they have brought them to Gitmo it isn't just because they were wearing a turban. I believe there is a good reason they have been brought there.Many detainees have been there for over 6 years. Is it preferred that they just rot there forever?
Another subject. What do you think of the Caroline Kennedy story??
Gov. Paterson has reported Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration of Clinton’s seat because of "personal reasons."
There have been reports of tax problems, a “nanny” problem, and having an affair with the NY Times. I think this is going to turn into a circus for her and all reports say she is really private and shy.
I just wonder if she jumped ship or if she was pushed? Did she know she wasn’t going to be chosen?? Or did she withdraw because she didn’t want to have her private life revealed?? Either way I think she should have just kept quiet and maybe there wouldn't be as much noise as there is now. Maybe Gov Paterson felt he needed to explain his reasons for not choosing her and she panicked?
What has bothered me is the warm reception for Kennedy. For example, I watched the View and couldn’t believe that they were saying Kennedy has executive experience because of raising her family and running the house. Yet these same women weeks before thought Palin didn’t have enough experience doing those same things AND being a mayor and governor.
The fact that she used "you know" with great frequency while speaking wasn't inherently disqualifying, while "you betcha" and a wink were considered evidence of being stupid.
Anyway, I can’t help but wonder how Clinton feels about this. Apparently she wasn’t in support of Kennedy.
Sometimes I wonder why anyone would want to be in office. I think that is especially true for women. Look at how Clinton was treated . . . she did pave the way and gets more respect now but she went though hell. And Palin was treated even worse. I have a feeling it will not be good for Kennedy once the dust settles.
Later,
Gina
-
cypressgirl
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:42 pm
- Location: houston
Now that we have established the fact that Bush did nothing positive and worth a crumb of credit while in office and Obama has/will not be able to make one bad decision or mistake, I feel better already. 
Let's give Gitmo a rest and move on to Caroline Kennedy. This should be worth a few pages of lively debate. I was personally shocked to hear she speak.
Let's give Gitmo a rest and move on to Caroline Kennedy. This should be worth a few pages of lively debate. I was personally shocked to hear she speak.
-
sailorgirl
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:03 pm
An interesting read, and I'm encouraged to see that there might be more transparency in this process. I came away with this question... if he made all those admissionsbefore he was subjected to enchanced interogation techniques, why was it necessary to employ those techniques?soxfan22 wrote:Sailorgirl...The question about "forced/false confession" is a good one.
I just happened to find this article on the web. I think everyone who has an interest in this Cole bomber, Al-Nashiri, should read it...It actually includes some of the dialogue from his interrogation at gitmo and his history as it pertains to osama bin laden. Very interesting stuff, and it touches on your question of false confession, the ACLU, etc.
Oh, and it's new...posted on January 16, 2009.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/ ... lotter.php
Like I said at the end of my post...
It is ok if we disagree on this. It is ok if others think that there is no price too high to pay. Just as many have felt more secure with Bush in office for the last 8 years, I feel tremendous relief to have a man in office who does believe that there are fundamental principles that make this nation what it is and that those principles are unwavering and nonnegotiable.
Perhaps there was no attack on US soil since 9/11 because for Bush and his advisors no price is too high to pay in terms of our citizen's liberties or our alleged enemies basic rights. Waterboard me, hold me in isolation for 6 years and I am pretty sure I'd confess to being the Unabomber.
We may have not had a domestic terrorism incident since 9/11 but we have paid a high price. Over 4000 US troops are dead and 100,000s of our US troops are wounded. Again 100,000s, some estimates reaching to over 1 million, civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan dead. There has been a tremendously high price to our "safety".
I am not privy to the Clinton administrations policies or the information they had available related to terrorists threats. However, the evolution of terrorism has been quick. The evolution of tools to combat it after 9/11 became a top priority, including the way we are now screened getting on airplanes. The way things were on 9/11 it would not have mattered who was in office. Hijacking was the threat, not making planes flying bombs. Again, it was Bush who received briefings "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" and as far as anyone can tell did very little to head it off. He reacted strongly (as we all needed him to do) when it occured, but it wasn't like he had only been in office a month and was completely uninformed about the threat.
The war in afghanistan, a Bush decision, I completely support. I've said it before. So to say that at least I think everything he did was wrong is just not true. I do think he overstepped and has a mentality that NO PRICE is too high. I just disagree. I am fine with others think he was right. I just personally disagree.
I do not think Bush did everything wrong (in addition to Afghanistan - though we need more troops there - he handled the transition quite nicely) and I do believe some progress was made on the domestic side to keep us safer. I just don't accept the principle that subverting citizen's rights and shredding the Constitution is the way to go. It is not a zero sum game. We don't have to give one up to have the other. My opinion. Not an argument. Just an opinion.
It is ok if we disagree on this. It is ok if others think that there is no price too high to pay. Just as many have felt more secure with Bush in office for the last 8 years, I feel tremendous relief to have a man in office who does believe that there are fundamental principles that make this nation what it is and that those principles are unwavering and nonnegotiable.
Perhaps there was no attack on US soil since 9/11 because for Bush and his advisors no price is too high to pay in terms of our citizen's liberties or our alleged enemies basic rights. Waterboard me, hold me in isolation for 6 years and I am pretty sure I'd confess to being the Unabomber.
We may have not had a domestic terrorism incident since 9/11 but we have paid a high price. Over 4000 US troops are dead and 100,000s of our US troops are wounded. Again 100,000s, some estimates reaching to over 1 million, civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan dead. There has been a tremendously high price to our "safety".
I am not privy to the Clinton administrations policies or the information they had available related to terrorists threats. However, the evolution of terrorism has been quick. The evolution of tools to combat it after 9/11 became a top priority, including the way we are now screened getting on airplanes. The way things were on 9/11 it would not have mattered who was in office. Hijacking was the threat, not making planes flying bombs. Again, it was Bush who received briefings "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" and as far as anyone can tell did very little to head it off. He reacted strongly (as we all needed him to do) when it occured, but it wasn't like he had only been in office a month and was completely uninformed about the threat.
The war in afghanistan, a Bush decision, I completely support. I've said it before. So to say that at least I think everything he did was wrong is just not true. I do think he overstepped and has a mentality that NO PRICE is too high. I just disagree. I am fine with others think he was right. I just personally disagree.
I do not think Bush did everything wrong (in addition to Afghanistan - though we need more troops there - he handled the transition quite nicely) and I do believe some progress was made on the domestic side to keep us safer. I just don't accept the principle that subverting citizen's rights and shredding the Constitution is the way to go. It is not a zero sum game. We don't have to give one up to have the other. My opinion. Not an argument. Just an opinion.
Flip...Your post had a lot of "Bush, Bush, Bush" in it.
You had made the arguement that your principles of reaching out to people, not alienating the world would make us safer.
My question was very specific to Clinton. You really didn't answer, other than once sentence to say you really weren't privy to the Clinton policies.
But this was a discussion about the merits of reaching out to the world for their approval.
So I'll ask again:
The only thing I will ask in response to Flip's post is this...Did Bill Clinton not reach out to the world? Even today, there is no public personality more universally loved in the world community than William Jefferson Clinton. Even in the wake of the Obama love-fest, Clinton is still the Democrat Party's biggest drawing card in terms of the ability to raise funds and build coalitions.
Yet on his watch we endured quite a few terrorist attacks both at home and abroad. Everyone who wants to discount W's tactics in the War on Terror out of hand can never answer why Bill Clinton, with all of his worldwide admiration, wasn't able to ever stem the violence against our interests home and abroad?
You had made the arguement that your principles of reaching out to people, not alienating the world would make us safer.
My question was very specific to Clinton. You really didn't answer, other than once sentence to say you really weren't privy to the Clinton policies.
But this was a discussion about the merits of reaching out to the world for their approval.
So I'll ask again:
The only thing I will ask in response to Flip's post is this...Did Bill Clinton not reach out to the world? Even today, there is no public personality more universally loved in the world community than William Jefferson Clinton. Even in the wake of the Obama love-fest, Clinton is still the Democrat Party's biggest drawing card in terms of the ability to raise funds and build coalitions.
Yet on his watch we endured quite a few terrorist attacks both at home and abroad. Everyone who wants to discount W's tactics in the War on Terror out of hand can never answer why Bill Clinton, with all of his worldwide admiration, wasn't able to ever stem the violence against our interests home and abroad?
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
These are some of the same people that tried to tell us that because Obama ran a "flawless" campaign, that should somehow count for "executive experience". I'm sorry, but because you ran a camaign that only had YOUR interests at hand (which is true of ALL campaigns), and every little thing was spun faster than a 13 year old on the gravitron, that doesn't qualify for executive experience.GinaXOXO wrote:For example, I watched the View and couldn’t believe that they were saying Kennedy has executive experience because of raising her family and running the house. Yet these same women weeks before thought Palin didn’t have enough experience doing those same things AND being a mayor and governor.
Just another example of the media force-feeding us what they THINK we had to believe.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
Crazy insane people who hate us will do crazy insane things to hurt us no matter how diplomatically poised our president is. Maybe those Saudi terrorists just really hated Bush and waited till Bill left office to terrorize us.
Rewrite history all you want but remember Iraq has not in any way been tied to 911.
It is my belief that diplomatic goodwill is critical to our long term safety. There was so much good will and empathy and support for us post-911. Remember what that felt like? It was a good thing. That compassion and good will was squandered when it became clear to the world that they were at best mislead, at worst flat out lied, to our allies about WMDs in Iraq. Our credibility eroded. Perhaps that is why with Obama taking office we've seen other nations stepping up to the plate to resolve the issues around Gitmo that were unwilling to do so when Bush was in office. Again, NOT saying this is right or wrong on their part, just that is is a fact that Bush severely eroded relations and made it almost impossible for other world leaders to support us without paying a severe political price with their own citizens.
I am relieved to see that Obama thinks the perception of the world does matter. Again, if the entire world turns against us we are in big trouble. We need allies and friends. War and destruction should be the last resort not the first.
Rewrite history all you want but remember Iraq has not in any way been tied to 911.
It is my belief that diplomatic goodwill is critical to our long term safety. There was so much good will and empathy and support for us post-911. Remember what that felt like? It was a good thing. That compassion and good will was squandered when it became clear to the world that they were at best mislead, at worst flat out lied, to our allies about WMDs in Iraq. Our credibility eroded. Perhaps that is why with Obama taking office we've seen other nations stepping up to the plate to resolve the issues around Gitmo that were unwilling to do so when Bush was in office. Again, NOT saying this is right or wrong on their part, just that is is a fact that Bush severely eroded relations and made it almost impossible for other world leaders to support us without paying a severe political price with their own citizens.
I am relieved to see that Obama thinks the perception of the world does matter. Again, if the entire world turns against us we are in big trouble. We need allies and friends. War and destruction should be the last resort not the first.
Was the press (I don't consider the View press) easy on Caroline? Did I miss something?soxfan22 wrote:These are some of the same people that tried to tell us that because Obama ran a "flawless" campaign, that should somehow count for "executive experience". I'm sorry, but because you ran a camaign that only had YOUR interests at hand (which is true of ALL campaigns), and every little thing was spun faster than a 13 year old on the gravitron, that doesn't qualify for executive experience.GinaXOXO wrote:For example, I watched the View and couldn’t believe that they were saying Kennedy has executive experience because of raising her family and running the house. Yet these same women weeks before thought Palin didn’t have enough experience doing those same things AND being a mayor and governor.
Just another example of the media force-feeding us what they THINK we had to believe.
Some headlines:
Mystery and Speculation Surround Caroline Kennedy's End to Senate Bid
Caroline Kennedy: the woman who y'knowed too much
Finally, a real peek at our Valley Girl, Caroline Kennedy
Kennedy Ended Senate Bid Because of Taxes, Employee, NYT Says
I don't know but that doesn't seem like a pass to me. Seems to me she was on track to be every bit as picked apart as Palin. Her honeymoon lasted about until she officially threw her hat in the ring. (Don't worry I don't think we'll see Obama's honeymoon last long either check out some of the headlines already coming - I think that is a good thing. Remember it was not me calling him "the one" and the "messiah" I am pretty sure I said he'd be moderate - I think that got sox all in a tizzy (his words: what single thing ever in his most liberal record ever in history leads you to believe this?...and so on), though Sox was it you or SJfromNJ posting a day or two about his moderate apprach thus far?
Obama's moderation pleases me. His bridge building is positive. He needs to appeal to the middle to be reelected in 2012.
I'll take the Caroline bait. BTW, I for one was surprised that Cuomo didn't get the tap and really didn't feel strongly for or against Caroline being selected. I am as a woman pleased to see a woman tapped to take Clinton's seat, even if she is pro-gun rights! SHOCKING I know. (Though please don't hold me to any support of Gillibrand because I have done no homework on her).
Anyway...
The difference with Caroline is that she decided to step aside when she saw that either 1) it wasn't gonna happen or 2) when we realized she was out of her league or 3) when she truly did have a family situation of a magnitude that made her reconsider the time and energy she had to devote to the position.
Palin could have voiced legitimate reasons to bow out - young child, teen unwed daughter - but she chose not to. Her choice. I am not saying she was wrong or right, just that it was her choice to make. (Actually I was really happy she didn't because in the long run I am pretty sure it really galvanized us leftie liberal feminists and turned us out in droves in opposition - can you say unintended consequences?).
Caroline chose not to dig in her heals and go down in flames as surely it seems she would have done. Some might see that as weakness or as a purely political move but I think her debut showed that she was a bit lacking in the political savvy that came so easily to her father and comes so easily to her uncle.
So in summary. Caroline stepped aside and the media didn't give her a pass.
Crazy insane people who hate us will do crazy insane things to hurt us no matter how diplomatically poised our president is. Maybe those Saudi terrorists just really hated Bush and waited till Bill left office to terrorize us.
Do you really believe that?? They were taking their airplane training during the Clinton administration, so I doubt the were waiting for W. How could they have predicted who would be President? I really think they hate Americans and would have attacked regardless of who was in office. It is doubtful, to me, that they will move over to the Obama lovefest even with Obama's good gestures.
Lets hope that you are right and making this move will put us in better standing throughout the world. I really don't think it will make a difference. Some terrorists are trained from the time they are small to be anti-American. If being in good standing with them helps, great, but I think our best plan to protect ourselves is to have a strong military and a known determination to punish those who threaten us. I think it is unwise for us to look soft.
SOX: yeah, I saw that. I tape that show and really should not because it gets my blood boiling. Joy is so close-minded and if she says "your guy lost, get over it" one more time I think I might have to quit taping it. She didn't get over it for 8 years-and counting. Today should be interesting. I am sure they will spin the Kennedy story.
No, I don't. It was an attempt (failed) at levity.GinaXOXO wrote:Crazy insane people who hate us will do crazy insane things to hurt us no matter how diplomatically poised our president is. Maybe those Saudi terrorists just really hated Bush and waited till Bill left office to terrorize us.
Do you really believe that??
Again, I SUPPORT the actions in Afghanistan and the hunting down and killing of Bin Laden.
I guess my point is this.
A bunch of terrorists who hate us is bad.
A bunch of terrorists who hate us and a world who questions our moral integrity and thinks we used the terrorists attacks as an excuse to wage an illegitimate war is super bad.
A whole new generation of children who have only known a life of poverty and war and distruction in the most dire of circumstances and are more primed to believe the hateful preachings of horrible people who hate us - extremely bad.
I just don't agree that the maverick, go it alone, we are a superpower and we will impose our will, is the way to go. We will reap what we sow.
I think the validity of being safer when we are in good standing depends on what the real reason for terrorists to hate America. If you believe it is because they see us as a bully then Obama's actions yesterday will help us. On the other hand it is possible that our world actions aren't at the core of why terrorists target us. Terrorists are almost always misfits who place their own twisted morality above mankind's. They come out of a culture that reinforces their hostility, distrust and hatred of the West--and of America in particular.A bunch of terrorists who hate us and a world who questions our moral integrity and thinks we used the terrorists attacks as an excuse to wage an illegitimate war is super bad.
Osama bin Laden has an answer--religion. For him and his followers, this is a holy war between Islam and the Western world.
Sox re your link to the WSJ editorial, I don't think too many people will play the race card to stifle criticism of Obama. I don’t think the majority of reasonable thinking people wants to give him a free pass based on his race or expect him to give them a free ride (despite the rantings of Hannity etc.). On the other hand, when some folks don’t seem capable of even giving the guy a chance with pre-emptive, dire Chicken Little warnings, then it makes others wonder if there is something else at work there other than just plain old ideology.
Its funny that that the WSJ editorial cited the Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb incident because in reality, if there is one area in our society where there is the almost a true meritocracy it is in sports (especially in Philly where sports fans will eat their own at the drop of a hat, not caring one bit what color you are).
I don’t think the Obama administration itself will stoop to playing the race card, because they see the backlash from the press after Bush played them (and us) with the patriot card post 9/11 and in the run up to the Iraq war.
I am referring of course to the brilliant use of the "If you're not with us, you're against us" PR campaign coming out of the White House that was used so effectively to undermine dissent by the press and the American public, just as much as it was aimed at our enemies.
That said, it was a good wake up call for the press to be called out by the right and the likes of SNL and yes, even Jon Stewart, for how Obama was being coddled during the campaign.
Indeed, it is tough to balance criticism with wanting to pull together in time of crisis and wanting give the guy a chance.
Reasonable criticism is usually welcomed and therefore considered – scorch the earth/blowhard criticism is not. Its one thing to use those techniques in a campaign (repudiated somewhat I hope by this election) but really not helpful at a time when we need solutions to move forward.
Its funny that that the WSJ editorial cited the Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb incident because in reality, if there is one area in our society where there is the almost a true meritocracy it is in sports (especially in Philly where sports fans will eat their own at the drop of a hat, not caring one bit what color you are).
I don’t think the Obama administration itself will stoop to playing the race card, because they see the backlash from the press after Bush played them (and us) with the patriot card post 9/11 and in the run up to the Iraq war.
I am referring of course to the brilliant use of the "If you're not with us, you're against us" PR campaign coming out of the White House that was used so effectively to undermine dissent by the press and the American public, just as much as it was aimed at our enemies.
That said, it was a good wake up call for the press to be called out by the right and the likes of SNL and yes, even Jon Stewart, for how Obama was being coddled during the campaign.
Indeed, it is tough to balance criticism with wanting to pull together in time of crisis and wanting give the guy a chance.
Reasonable criticism is usually welcomed and therefore considered – scorch the earth/blowhard criticism is not. Its one thing to use those techniques in a campaign (repudiated somewhat I hope by this election) but really not helpful at a time when we need solutions to move forward.
Last edited by jmq on Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When we come to place where the sea and the sky collide
Throw me over the edge and let my spirit glide
Throw me over the edge and let my spirit glide