The New Road

Bush may have been one of the factors that is driving the country apart, but look at the 2000 election. It would not have been so close if 50% of the country were not disgusted with Bill Clinton.

Personally, I was shocked that Bush didn't win in a landslide against Gore. I was deeply embarrased by Bill Clinton and surprised that there were so many Americans who wanted to keep his legacy going in 2000. I also traveled outside the country extensively during his terms and there was plenty of anti-americanism out there during that time, too. Your idea that the whole world had a love affair with Bill Clinton is just false. It doesn't matter much who we elect as our president - a lot of the world hates us. And they will continue to hate us when Hillary is elected in 2008. Your time will come again.

The culture historically shifts from liberal to conservative and back again over the years and I see it shifting more quickly now with all of the information/discussion options available to the public. I think the discussion is good.

As for Dan Rather and the fraudulent document - maybe it stands as a warning to the networks to substantiate their claims and be able to present a real story without having to manufacture evidence. Maybe it will force them to tighten up their journalistic strings and stop trying to force-feed the public one-sided garbage, because intelligent people are paying attention and calling them on their "mistakes". With the accessiblity to technology and reference sources we have today, nobody has free reign to spew lies unchallenged - not Rush, not Savage, not Rather & CBS.

And do you really think our country is not a working nation? Really?

I'll trade answers with you. I'll answer your question if you answer one of mine.

Is this not a working nation. No. It's not. I could answer about the federal stuff and Bush and all that. But let me answer about the local situation.

First, this vague 'outsourcing thing' that gets a little attention now and again on the news, has hit the Valley economy like a sledgehammer. I have several friends who have joined the ranks of the permanently unemployed. Their high paying jobs shipped to India. Both of my last jobs have significant Indian outsourcing efforts that are growing very rapidly. It's no joke to say that in the next five to ten years all of the paying programming jobs in America will have gone to India, leaving only architecture and management jobs which are few and far between. And this isn't like textiles. These are highly skilled, high paying careers. It scares the shit out of me and it's REAL. And what's worse is that I don't know what to tell my daughter to get into as a career. Accounting jobs are getting outsourced. Certain types of medical practice (radiology, surgery) are getting outsourced. It's very, very bad.

Secondly, that little energy crisis that everyone in Texas gets a good laugh about. You know. The one where the Enron guys were on the phone talking about how they were fucking Aunt Millie? The one that Bush's cronies let run because they were in bed with energy companies. Well that little crisis gutted the California economy. There have been school closings, serious program cutbacks, bridge tolls have all gone up, transit tolls have gone up, and the state had to take out a $15B just to get near balancing expenses and to get our bonds out of junk territory.

As I said, that's just locally. So, no, I don't think this is a functioning country. It cannot continue like this.

Now for my question. Was the country united after 9/11?

First of all, I find it interesting that I'm the conservative and you're the one scared shitless of change.

I doubt your highly skilled, intelligent, hardworking friends will be permenantly unemployed. Their jobs may have been eliminated, but they'll find something else. And if all the programming jobs are shipped overseas, they will use their creativity to invent a new widget and market their skills. Come on, Jack, if the market moves, you move with it. You lived in Australia to follow the job. I have a theatre performance degree and I'm working as a business manager in a CPA firm. You adapt to the market. That's not new, or the poor people who processed cotton before the gin would have starved to death.

In the meanwhile, though I'm not from California, I do process CA payroll and I know you guys have an extraordinarily high tax rate - including unemployment, so that should help get the folks through until they make other plans. And to take it to a broader level, our economy is growing faster than in the past 20 years and unemployment is very low.

It's not the government's job to make sure our dreams come true and all our plans fall into place. It's capitalism. It fosters creativity and brings the best products and services to the world. Now India gets a piece. I would think you'd be happy for them.

I know it's scary. Change is scary. My husband started his own business last year and there have been some very tough times. We'll make it through, though.

To answer your question about unity after 9/11. There were a lot of displays of pride to be American. I suppose we were unified in that. And I don't think there were very many people who would disagree that the attack on us was wrong. I think it was evil. Do you? Obviously, we were not unified on how to handle the situation.

I'm going to limit myself to just the question of were we unified after 9/11. Yes - Absolutely.

I am a Liberal with a capital L. I believe whole heartily in freedom for all Americans across the board. I for one was grateful the congress set aside their difference to stand behind the president and to go after Al qaeda and the Taliban. It was absolutely the right thing to do. I was so proud of Bush then, I was so grateful that he seemed like a strong leader. I remember thinking that I hadn't given him a chance and that he exceeded my expectations.

But that all changed when he got sidetracked on Iraq. His personal vendetta against Sadam split this nation. This nation is divided now because so many of us are angry that over 1000 US soldiers have died based on BUSH's lies. There were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, yet before the war Bush and his administration said they knew the exact location of them - 550 sites.

Bush took my trust and crushed it. There is no way he'll ever get my vote and I seriously doubt anything he says will ever give me faith in him as our leader.

"NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED"

Obviously I think that 9/11 was evil.

That being said, I am deeply offended by the raising of the question. So offended that it took me almost a day to regain my composure enough to respond coherently. I'm really sick and tired of the right wing claiming that only they truly honor the fallen, and that only they are true Americans and patriots. This crap about being more American, or true American, or more patriotic is disgusting.

Was 9/11 evil, of course. But if your point is somehow that Republican's are fighting this "War on Terror" as an extension of the 9/11 event, that is where you are wrong. We were fighting Al Qaeda when we were in Afghanistan. But Iraq is in no way connected to 9/11. It's an optional war that could have been fought at any time and should not have been fought now.

But I suppose I should thank you for reinforcing the cause of the split. How do you get someone to hate you? You get them to trust you, and then you violate that trust. All of America and most of the World was behind Bush after 9/11. And then he made up stupid reasons to fight an optional war that they were simply looking for an excuse to fight. Anyone not blinded by party faith and Rove's spin machine could see this. Millions protested against the war and continue to protest. And now the facts back up that we should have never gone in there. That's how you split up a nation.

It has nothing to do with Clinton. It has nothing to do with the selection of the President. It has everything to do with Bush's squandering of the publics trust in his decision to go to war. His decision to violate all of the restraints put on his administration by the Congress in their authorization of the use of force. And the incompetence that his administration has shown since the end of major combat operations.

Bush claimed that his administration would bring a new era of responsibility to government. He is responsible. He is responsible for this horrible pointless war. He is responsible for the lackluster economy. He is responsible for the 1.2 million lost jobs. He is responsible for turning a 5.5 trillion dollar surplus into a 5 trillion dollar debt.

Why should I trust Bush? He started a war for all of the wrong reasons. He has failed to fight Al Qaeda effectively. He has botched the Iraq transition. He has give tax breaks to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. Worst of all he violated out trust. We trusted him to protect us. To fight Al Qaeda. He did a little of that and then went on to fight his own pointless war for his own reasons. He simply cannot be trusted again.

Sorry I offended you, Jack. I certainly didn't mean to. I was trying to make a distinction between right and wrong and good and evil. I think Islamic extremists are evil, not just wrong or misguided or misunderstood. I think they should be destroyed, not just to make an example for the rest of them, but because they have no right to exist and their ideas should be crushed. They are a threat to the world.

How did we betray Al Queada's trust? Because they sure hate us.

Was it when we ignored them after they bombed the WTC in 1993? Or when we ignored them when they killed our soldiers on the USS Cole? Or maybe when we ignored them when they bombed our embassies in Africa? Or when they dragged our soldiers through the streets in Bosnia? Is that how we betrayed them and broke their trust?

They trained in Afganistan. They exist in many many places. And we're trying to find them where they are and kill them.

Of course, I'm probably only saying this because I am a non-thinking, blinded by ideology sheep, but I honestly believe we are on the right track. And I think it will get worse (much worse, probably) before it gets better. But I think this action is preferable to no action. Or indiciveness.

That's one of the things I admire about George W. Bush. He has stated his case clearly from the beginning. He has followed through with exactly what he said he was going to do. I know where he stands. Whereas John Kerry is an intellectual who sees all sides of the situation and stands firmly on one side until the other side is presented more clearly. Then he takes that side - until he finds that another side may have some merit, but the other side does too - so he goes back to the original position, but with different circumstances. Are you confused? Who is going to make his decisions for him when he's in charge? A leader must be able to lead.

I think you win a conflict (the kind where the enemy is activly trying to kill you) by making a plan of attack, considering the risks, following rules of engagement, and making a decision. This is a life or death struggle we're in.

Lori - many many people died while Clinton was lying. Lying is wrong. It's even one of the Commandments. See above for a list of people who died while Clinton lied. And add to it Vince Foster, David Koresh and his nutty followers. Luckily, little Elian Gonzales survived his brush with the Clinton Administration.

In contrast - Bush never lied. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and internationally believed Iraq had wmd's. Bush did not just invent the idea. Everyone in the world knew he used them on his own people. There had been 14 resolutions to get him to stop his program. Inspectors had been thrown out of the country. You've read the quotes of democrats and republicans from 1998-2003. Bush did not purposefully invent a story, DENY the truth, stand up in front of the country and say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. . " Oops, wrong guy.

The point is, Bush came to a conclusion based on the most trusted, reliable sources in the world and he made a decision with the backing of Congress to act on it. And then we gave them 4 months to hide the stuff.

This is a life and death struggle. Against Al Qaeda. Against Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda are the people that attacked us. They weren't from Iraq. There is no connection to Iraq. They weren't in Iraq, during Bush or before Bush.

The war with Iraq was a mistake to begin with. There were no Al Qaeda there, and we aren't fighting Al Qaeda now. We are fighting a bunch of local insurgents.

All this war is doing is playing into Al Qaeda's hands. They can point to this war as a sign of unbridled senseless Western aggression and use it as a recruiting tool.

This is why getting Kerry into office is so important. We can't follow the neocon empire agenda and go into Iran and Syria. Which is still not the fight with Al Qaeda. We need to get out of Iraq and then get back into Afghanistan.

As to why they hate us. It sure isn't 'because they hate freedom'.

As to John Kerry being a 'flip flopper', or god forbid, as you say, an 'intellectual'. I'll take the intellectual. As to the 'flip flopper' that is standard Republican bullshit spin that they have used in every race I have ever seen and well before that.

As to how to conduct war. So this is war done right? We have an insurgency problem that CIA says will only get worse. The White House had a State Department after action plan that was completely ignored, which resulted in this insurgency.

As to the Vince Foster stuff. That's just conspiracy theory.

As for supposedly supposedly ignoring Al Qaeda. I plead with you to actually read the 9/11 report. It's very clear on how Clinton fought Al Qaeda as best he could while trying to fend off the rabid right, and without having, unfortunately, enough casualties to get public support behind a boots on the ground police action in Afghanistan. That's a bi-partisan report.

As for trying to turn my violation of trust issues into some sort of support group for Al Qaeda. I don't get it. There are lots of ways to piss people off.

As for authorization. The Congress gave him the consent to go to war, if and only if, he had the consent of the U.N. (which he didn't), and if he aggressively negotiated unsuccessfully for the return of inspectors (he didn't). The consent was not a carte blanche decree. A vote yes was not a vote to go to war. A vote yes was to put power into the hands of a responsible President who could leverage it to motivate Saddam. That responsible person was not there. Instead we have a cowboy who is out of control.

As for the four months to 'hide the stuff' you mention. If that was true, was that a good idea? Was that a way to win a war?

Finally, as to the good versus evil thing. This is what I was afraid would happen when I answered simply 'yes'. I think the 9/11 _act_ was evil. But I don't believe that good or evil is something that can be applied to a person, or worse, to a group of people. We should fight them based on what they do, or intend to do, but not based on our own summation of _who they are_. Labeling a group of people evil, then denying them the right to exist, borders on advocating genocide.

In some cases my approach and this good versus evil approach result in the same tactical maneuvers. Finding Osama Bin Laden and his supporters and bringing them to justice. Stopping Al Qaeda before they attack again. These things line up. Where it starts to fall apart is taking on wars like the one against Iraq, which look more ideologic than pragmatic.

The reason I can label this particular group of people as evil and deny them a right to exist is because this one common affiliation they have is for the destruction of me and you and the rest of us who do not agree with them.

That being said, Al Qaeda translated is "the list". Al Qaeda is not "Afganistan". People with this warped interpretaion of Islam combined with a deep hatred of The West traveled to Afganistan to train to kill. Their names were added to a database, a list, and the list is known as al qaeda. Then, these terrorists went back to their home countries to wait for instructions to use their newfound skills.

If you're telling me that Zarkowi (sp?), the guy WITH THE SWORD in Iraq, is not a member of al qaeda, I'm telling you that you are wrong.

Should this have been a seek and destroy mission rather than the "regime change" missions we have led in Afganistan and Iraq? Would the international community have backed that? Random assassination of civilians who's names are on "the list"? We're trying to foster democracy and set an example for the goodness of our system.

As to John Kerry's intellectualism. I'm not against that at all - complex issues require deep thought. But is he capable of making a decision? That's my concern. Who is he going to listen to when the decision must be made? The only way to get a clear answer is to look at his voting record - and it is inconsistent. THAT is my concern.

I'd love to read the 9/11 report. Send it to me. And if you send me a dvd of Farenheit 911, I'll watch that, too.

The bi-partisan 9/11 report is freely available here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/