violence problem? ya think?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Glatt: they won't like Bush's successor, either; I'd bank on it.

Yeah, we've pretty much screwed the pooch when it comes to the Middle East. I bet the US could elect Bin Laden as president, and the Muslim world STILL wouldn't like us very much.

[Ibby]

Hey, there's an idea, why didnt I think of that?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

If we had been at war, you would have been hard-pressed to find a Republican trying to undermine the efforts of the commander in chief, at least until the thing was won. That's my opinion, at least.

Not that we would have stuck around long enough to win. Somalia, anyone?

I disagree with you. The way I remember it, when Clinton was planning on protecting innocent victims in Kosovo from ethinic cleansing, the repubicans were critical:

August 12, 1998

As examined in this paper, the Clinton Administration's drift toward armed intervention in Kosovo bears striking similarities to the ad hoc decision-making that led to the Bosnia intervention beginning in 1995 and which, on a broader scale, has become the hallmark of the Clinton foreign policy. These similarities include:
 The framing of a highly complex ethnic conflict, with historical roots and conflicting equities extending back hundreds of years, in grossly simplistic terms in order to justify intervention in a region few Americans know (or care) anything about (NOTE: Details on Kosovo's geography and complex history, including a discussion of the politically charged implications of the variant spellings Kosovo and Kosova, are found in the attached Appendix);
 An almost total lack of clarity and coherence as to the outcome the Administration's policy is designed to produce, as well as how that outcome serves the national interest of the United States; and
 As in Bosnia, an unacknowledged reliance by the Clinton Administration on the cooperation of the person publicly blamed for most of the violence: Slobodan Milosevic himself.
It is imperative that Congress compel the Clinton Administration honestly to address these flaws in its policy before U.S. forces are committed to Kosovo. Indeed, the fact that comparable questions were not answered with respect to the Bosnia deployment (and in most cases still have not been answered) is one reason the Bosnia operation has now become precisely what the Administration promised Congress and the American people it would not be: an ill-defined, open-ended nation-building project -- with no end in sight.

And all the while were attacking him at home with more than nasty name-calling.

August 17, 1998:

President Bill Clinton becomes the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct. After the questioning at the White House is finished, Clinton goes on national TV to admit he had an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

I especially enjoy reading the repubican criticism of this military action. "highly complex ethnic conflict", "almost total lack of clarity and coherence as to the outcome the Administration's policy is designed to produce, and "address these flaws in its policy before U.S. forces are committed ...operation has now become precisely what the Administration promised Congress and the American people it would not be: an ill-defined, open-ended nation-building project -- with no end in sight" ("stay the course anyone?) all sound like the same criticisms of the Iraq policy coming from the other side of the aisle. :p

Politicians have short memories.

[Griff]

I love how the Dems and Reps traded seats on that. A pox on both their houses.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

. . . all sound like the same criticisms of the Iraq policy coming from the other side of the aisle. :p

Not exactly. There was partisanship aplenty in both cases, but Republican rhetoric didn't even begin to approach the level of hatefulness of today's Dems'. They tried to make it sound like it was the worst name-calling and character assassination in history, but it didn't hold a candle to what we're hearing today. Furthermore, the Hollywood and Washington D.C. cocktail party crowd had the left's best interests at heart then and now, and 5 Fox News Channels couldn't begin to counter the spin that they produce in the news and entertainment world. Furthermore, Milosevic didn't have an al-Jazeera to parrot the talking points of Republicans in order to undermine the effort there.

The right and the left hate each other, but the similarities end there.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Not exactly. There was partisanship aplenty in both cases, but Republican rhetoric didn't even begin to approach the level of hatefulness of today's Dems'.

It was far worse.

[mrnoodle]

OH YEAH! I forgot about the Clinton body count. Good find.

But it's still not worse.

(and I still think it's probably true -- if Hillary wins the White House, watch the count go up)

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

The right and the left hate each other, but the similarities end there.

Well, I think both sides are in it for their own gain, especially at the Washington level. So, there's actually TWO things they have in common.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

But it's still not worse.

Far worse.

(and I still think it's probably true -- if Hillary wins the White House, watch the count go up)

So you're hardly speaking from the moral high ground, here.

[mrnoodle]

How does Republicans yelling "murder" > Democrats yelling "murder"?

[DanaC]

Do you not beleive that jihadists have violent capability? If not, perhaps you should explain why to the people of Manhattan, the Pentagon, London, Madrid, Casablanca, Mumbai, Bali, Jakarta and Israel.
__________________

I believe Americans (and the Uk) have violent capabilities. Can anybody say 600,000 dead iraqis?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Not exactly. There was partisanship aplenty in both cases, but Republican rhetoric didn't even begin to approach the level of hatefulness of today's Dems'. They tried to make it sound like it was the worst name-calling and character assassination in history, but it didn't hold a candle to what we're hearing today. Furthermore, the Hollywood and Washington D.C. cocktail party crowd had the left's best interests at heart then and now, and 5 Fox News Channels couldn't begin to counter the spin that they produce in the news and entertainment world. Furthermore, Milosevic didn't have an al-Jazeera to parrot the talking points of Republicans in order to undermine the effort there.

The right and the left hate each other, but the similarities end there.

My response was to your assertion

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

If we had been at war, you would have been hard-pressed to find a Republican trying to undermine the efforts of the commander in chief, at least until the thing was won.

Well, there was a military action (granted, not a "war"), and the republicans' *actions* (and we all know they speak louder than words) was to stab the commander-in-chief in the back with an impeachment proceeding. One that the repubicans knew would never get enough votes, but distracted the government during an armed conflict. Maybe if Clinton's focus would not have been on the impeachment he could have stopped 9/11 from happening. Hey, you know what? REPUBLICANS CAUSED 9/11! :p

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I believe Americans (and the Uk) have violent capabilities. Can anybody say 600,000 dead iraqis?

Yeah, I heard that. Saddam killed 300,000, and Bush's actions have killed twice that. He should be doubly proud.[/sarcasm]

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

How does Republicans yelling "murder" > Democrats yelling "murder"?

Who is Bush supposed to have murdered?

And I'm not talking about bad policies that resulted in deaths; both sides will call those rhetorical "murders". I think plenty of people laid Blackhawk Down and Waco directly at Clinton's feet. It's not as many "murders" as Bush's toll, but you can't claim the dearth of death on Clinton's watch as a point for Republicans.

But are there any actual murders being blamed on Bush?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Who is Bush supposed to have murdered?
...
But are there any actual murders being blamed on Bush?

Well, there's this guy.

According to the two-page accident report, Laura Welch was driving her Chevrolet sedan on a clear night shortly after 8 p.m. on Nov. 6, 1963, when she drove into an intersection and struck a Corvair sedan driven by 17-year-old Michael Douglas.

Although previous news accounts have reported Douglas was thrown from the car and broke his neck, those details were not in the report.

The speed of Laura Bush's car was illegible on the report. The speed limit for the road was 55.

Oh, you meant George.