And please do not make ASSumptions about people you do not even know, I am out there, you are the one sitting there writing polemical, fact-free, whining screeds about Rev Billy, another person who is actually doing something. There is more to life than being one of Horowitz’s brainless hacks.

Basically, I try not to insult people overmuch, even when I think they are dead wrong. It’s only when people willingly twist facts to support their arguments that I get snippy. Sorry that my use of the word rhetoric was poorly received. I should have kept in mind that people use the word to insult each other these days, rather than for it’s original purpose.

Peace to you, too. Hopefully, for all of us some day sooner than later.

Sorry if my post seemed insulting to you. I actually meant it as a fairly generous and fair minded set of comments.

You seem to be displeased with my use of the word rhetoric, and clearly mistook my meaning. From the usage, I expected you could see that I meant it with the following definition from dictionary.com: rhet·o·ric (rÄ›t’É™r-Ä­k) n. 1. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively. Quite frankly, it was more of a compliment to your writing skills than anything else.

Clearly, you’re well read and informed. So am I.

Your comments about being a water carrier for Obama, or anyone, are not accurate. Just because I don’t agree with your views doesn’t mean I am dogmatic, nor biased. Telling me that I need to be more objective or to think more critically, is… well, I’ll leave off insults and just say that you were being unkind in your assessment of my motives, my ability to think for myself, and my ability to form my own opinions. Suffice it say that I disagree with you.

For you to say that you have posted the “truth” is an interesting comment. You have posted what you *believe to be the truth*, based on what you have read, heard, etc. I accept that wholeheartedly, and am totally willing to consider your points of view. It doesn’t make either of us bad people when we don’t agree…

So, to the points you raised;

I am aware of the nationality of the 9/11 terrorists. I am also aware of the fact that terrorism is not about nationalism, it is about idealism (fanaticism, really). Ergo, it makes no difference what their nationality was, nor does it matter what nation they are operating in. The source of most modern Islamist terrorists is actually in subverted teachings of the Quran, in specially funded and operated Madrasahs (schools) in numerous countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan being large among them. The source of the funding for these schools, in addition to the schools themselves (terrorist/fundamentalist groups) should be a primary target for our anti-terrorism efforts. But that’s a different matter.

To your point that the Afghani people didn’t attack us, I agree. However, the Taliban regime not only allowed the terrorist group that did attack us safe harbor in their country, they were products of these same types of schools. I am sure that you know Talib means “student”. The reference is to being students of the very Madrasahs that I mentioned above, where hatred and destruction of America/Western ideals and Democracy/etc. is effectively preached as being part of “God’s will” to young boys, so that they’ll willingly strap jackets of C-4 to their bodies and blow things and people up for Allah. Furthermore, while I totally agree with you that we didn’t go to Afghanistan to liberate women (and I never said that), I think it’s fair to point out that the Afghani people were suffering worse under the Taliban than they have been since we arrived on the scene. This isn’t meant to suggest that we should stay longer than we have to, but rather to point out that Afghanistan wasn’t all that awesome under Taliban rule, and wasn’t likely to get any better on its own. It isn’t even meant to suggest that things are “good” there now, they aren’t – it’s bad, and I personally wouldn’t want to live there, so I’m glad I don’t.

Additionally, I never said anything about being in support of US Empire. Your statement that I must or must not, isn’t true. I can say I support taking military action, with a specific set of goals, and then bringing our troops home. Not an act of empire, but an act of force in response to a circumstance that can only be solved by force. This is, essentially, what Obama has announced he wants to do… Did you listen to or read his speech from last night? He’s not interested in trying to conquer the warlords of Afghanistan. He’s shown several times that he’s smarter than that. And, he’s pretty much doing exactly what he promised as a candidate. He’s started reducing combat operations in Iraq, and he’s escalating them in Afghanistan. In speech after speech as a candidate, that’s what he said he’d do, so why is it such a surprise to people? Why would you equate his statement that he’s escalating troops to match the requests of his generals for resources they say they need to accomplish the goals he’s set for them, with an act of US Empire? Especially when, against the opinion of many Republicans, he has clearly stated his endgame? What do you suggest instead? We just leave, right now, and bring all of our troops home? What do you think will happen in Afghanistan if we do that? Do you really think that would be our smartest move? Are you suggesting that Afghanistan will become some sort of utopian paradise if we just get the heck out of there ASAP? The problem I have with the suggestion we leave immediately, is that it ignores the reality that we have messed the place up horribly, already (under Bush). So, it seems to me that we should probably try to restore the *possibility* of order, before we leave. Leaving right now would make that *impossible* – in my opinion. If you think differently, I’m all ears – tell me how it would be better.

With respect to Iraq. Well, here are a few things to consider just in response to the issues you raised. Yes, we’re establishing permanent military bases. However, fewer than planned under Bush, and with the goal of dismantling other military bases in the region. Unless we are going to eliminate military bases around the globe, it makes sense to put them in the best strategic locations, and from a military perspective Iraq is pretty darn strategic. If you think removing all of our military bases around the globe is a good idea, I’m not going to debate that – I don’t necessarily disagree. I think it’s silly for us to try to play the role of world cop. However, if we are going to have any, they should be in the best places. Also, putting bases in Iraq could allow us to get out of Saudi Arabia, which would be, well, very smart. I’m guessing you probably know why that would be smart, but if not – it’s because our bases in Saudi Arabia are a chief complaint of many Islamic fundamentalists (including Osama Bin Laden), due to the fact that our soldiers are effectively in control of Mecca. I’m sure you are also aware that Osama Bin Laden hates the Saudi government, and they hate him, right?

And yes, I know about the failures of diplomacy and inaction on the part of Clinton/Gore with respect to Iraq (and Afghanistan, while we’re at it). However, it’s a bit specious to say that the UNICEF report that 5,000 children died in Iraq while the country was under “brutal” sanctions was somehow unavoidably our fault. Iraq/Saddam could have easily ended those sanctions at any time, by complying with the UN resolutions he ignored until he was deposed. It’s not like the UN was asking for anything unreasonable, considering his actions in Kuwait. What would your preferred policy have been, in place of the attempt to use sanctions to force a change in Iraq’s behavior? The two that come to my mind would be, ignore the problem that Iraq had become under Saddam’s rule, or use military action. Got something else in mind? I’d be interested to hear about what would have been better, please.

With respect to TARP, maybe you missed that I agreed with you on this item, for the most part. The difference in our views is that, while I was disappointed in the way things were handled, I’m willing to give Obama a mulligan on it, since it was so early in his Administration as to be nearly an inherited item (in fact, it really was an inherited item). I didn’t support it at the time, and am hoping for a better “Round 2″ effort from Obama’s team. Saying that I am a water-carrier for Obama, and ignoring my comments about TARP was pretty unfair of you, in my opinion.

Now, I don’t agree with Nader’s idea to tax stock transactions, because a simple stock transaction does not guarantee there is a profit being made in the long run. That only happens when the stock is actually sold, which is already taxed. I think it would be a misguided policy that would further stratify participation in the stock market, and widen the gap between haves and have-nots in this country. Plus it would amount to double-taxation on the same activity. I suppose you could instead put a cap on the amount allowed as a write off for stock losses, though, which could be a big revenue gain for the government. Really, there are all kinds of ways that we could reduce the costs of government in this country (which should be our first priority), as well as to increase revenue for the government to operate (a distant second priority).

How about we stop the insane “war on drugs” (we have 5% of the world’s population, but nearly a quarter of the world’s prison population)? Legalize and tax marijuana, allow the production of industrial hemp, and eliminate unnecessary subsidies (farming, ethanol production, etc.), eliminate the bulk of our “foreign aid” (payoffs to dictators around the globe for the most part), and so on. We could easily balance our nation’s budget if we had the political will to do so. However, that’s a different conversation, and probably more germane to the original topic. Reverend Billy’s ideas along these lines deserve some thought.

So, there’s just one thing I have to say before I sign this monster of a post off, and while it may sound harsh, it’s really from the heart. You are completely out of line with your comments about my friend in the Marines. Your comment about him thinking what he does because he’s fed Pentagon propaganda is not acceptable. Quite certainly, he is subjected to military propaganda, as are all soldiers. However, the implication that he’s not capable of discerning the truth about what he’s being told by the Pentagon, versus what is actually happening seems a bit arrogant on your part. First off, he graduated West Point with honors, and is a brilliant critical thinker. Secondly, he has chosen to stay in the military for the express purpose of being an agent of change within it, which is, by the way, the ONLY way that it is going to change. Thirdly, he’s an officer who was offered the ability to get out of his next deployment, but he chose to stay with his combat command, and his men. I hope fervently for his safe return, as he is exactly the kind of person we NEED in the military, as well as a dear friend. I’d like to see you apologize for your comment on this.

Generally, the thing that struck me the most about your reply was how willing you were to be insulted by someone who’s mostly on your side of the debate. I would caution you that sounding like a left wingnut isn’t better than sounding like a right wingnut. As one of the more “right” leaning posters in this thread said, we need a return to respectful debate if we’re going to really solve anything in this country. Especially among those of us who are willing to be critical of our leaders, while still supporting the majority of their efforts and goals.

Kind regards,

Jade

Most of the people who were driving those planes on 9/11 were Saudi, not Afghani, as is Bin Laden. The people of Afghanistan did not attack us, yet they are suffering the consequences; our government supported the Taliban and gave the 4 million dollars for declaring that “growing opium is against the will of God.” This was only a few months before 9/11 occurred, so we didn’t go in to “liberate women” who are still not liberated. The US will never defeat those warlords in Afghanistan, just ask the former Soviet Union, the true leadership (not the US- installed puppet, illegitimate government of Karzai) is local, within the villages, and they resent centralized power, which is what the US is supporting. I am sorry, but you either support or oppose US Empire, you cannot have it both ways. When Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, even Rev Billy issued a statement letting everyone knows how Orwellian such an award for Obama was. So you can listen to your buddy in the Marines who is being fed Pentagon propaganda, or you can think critically, your choice.

As far as Iraq, under Obama’s watch, we are establishing permanent military bases, you can espouse all of the empty rhetoric and apologies that you wish on this issue, but Obama won the White House with the true progressive/anti-war vote (not just the votes of blind partisan Democrats) by opposing the invasion in Iraq. And Bush would not have been able to carry out the war in Iraq without the blind support of the Democrats. Did you know that much of what Bush carried out was under Clinton? the PATRIOT Act started under Clinton’s Effective Death Penalty Act as well. And it was Clinton/Gore who called for “regime change”. And it was the Clinton Adminstration that pushed through brutal sanctions in Iraq that UNICEF said killed 5,000 children under the age of 5 per month for over a decade.

As far as the TARP bailout, there were many experts who said that this was not the way to go, they were shut out of the mainstream media, and House members on the Black Caucus, some who are in my state, voted against it the first time, and Obama lobbied them to pass it. The American people in mass numbers were calling Congress telling them not to pass it, like with the Iraq War, the American people knew the score when Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, was clearly feeding them a bunch of lies. If we taxed Wall Street transactions, as Ralph Nader proposes, along with installing tighter regulations, we would have more than enough money to balance the budget.

Glad I could add some root analysis to your empty, partisan rhetoric.

Most of the people who were driving those planes on 9/11 were Saudi, not Afghani, as is Bin Laden. The people of Afghanistan did not attack us, yet they are suffering the consequences; our government supported the Taliban and gave the 4 million dollars for declaring that “growing opium is against the will of God.” This was only a few months before 9/11 occurred, so we didn’t go in to “liberate women” who are still not liberated. The US will never defeat those warlords in Afghanistan, just ask the former Soviet Union, the true leadership (not the US- installed puppet, illegitimate government of Karzai) is local, within the villages, and they resent centralized power, which is what the US is supporting. I am sorry, but you either support or oppose US Empire, you cannot have it both ways. When Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, even Rev Billy issued a statement letting everyone knows how Orwellian such an award for Obama was. So you can listen to your buddy in the Marines who is being fed Pentagon propaganda, or you can think critically, your choice.

As far as Iraq, under Obama’s watch, we are establishing permanent military bases, you can espouse all of the empty rhetoric and apologies that you wish on this issue, but Obama won the White House with the true progressive/anti-war vote (not just the votes of blind partisan Democrats) by opposing the invasion in Iraq. And Bush would not have been able to carry out the war in Iraq without the blind support of the Democrats. Did you know that much of what Bush carried out was under Clinton? the PATRIOT Act started under Clinton’s Effective Death Penalty Act as well. And it was Clinton/Gore who called for “regime change”. And it was the Clinton Adminstration that pushed through brutal sanctions in Iraq that UNICEF said killed 5,000 children under the age of 5 per month for over a decade.

As far as the TARP bailout, there were many experts who said that this was not the way to go, they were shut out of the mainstream media, and House members on the Black Caucus, some who are in my state, voted against it the first time, and Obama lobbied them to pass it. The American people in mass numbers were calling Congress telling them not to pass it, like with the Iraq War, the American people knew the score when Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, was clearly feeding them a bunch of lies. If we taxed Wall Street transactions, as Ralph Nader proposes, along with installing tighter regulations, we would have more than enough money to balance the budget.

Glad I could add some root analysis to your empty, partisan rhetoric.

Not taking it personally. Vibrant debate is crucial to the success of our democracy. Happy to have a dialogue with someone who isn’t a demagogue.

Don’t get me wrong – I support Rev Billy, and that’s the primary point of my desire to post on this forum. Everything else I’m about to say is completely off that topic. However, I feel as a self-identified Progressive voter, that the rhetoric you put forth needs to be challenged – respectfully, and with a sense of understanding about the root issues.

So, with respect to the points you have raised above, I guess I just have to say that unwinding our nation from a war where the infrastructure we’d leave behind isn’t in place to support a peaceful transition, would not be to anyone’s benefit. By dint of taking on the Presidency, yes both wars are now Obama’s to deal with. However, I disagree significantly with your inference that he’s handling it incorrectly, or perhaps the same as Bush did.

To be perfectly clear, I want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible. The “rub” in this argument is the definition of “possible”.

As a candidate, Obama pretty clearly said that he’d stop escalating and get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. I still have faith he’ll make good on that, based on what he’s said and done so far. Getting out of Iraq couldn’t reasonably be accomplished in less than a year, considering how deep were were “in”. So, while you’re correct that we’re still there, I’m not in agreement that he’s failed to get us out yet, and he is clearly moving in that direction. Generally, I’m inclined to give him a bit of a break on the fact that *just logistically* it would take months to get all of our people and equipment out of that hellhole. Let alone doing so in a fashion that leaves some semblance of order in our wake. I believe he’ll get it done. He’s been in office for less than a year. Patience and wisdom are required to do this right, in the face of the idiocy that got us into the mess originally.

As for Afghanistan, well, he also said he’d prosecute the situation in Afghanistan (and even potentially Pakistan) with much GREATER vigor than his predecessor, since that’s where the group that attacked us was/is located. So, I’m not sure what is surprising about his decision to do … exactly that. I think the greatest difference between him and his predecessor in this regard, however, is that at the same time he has stated the intention to bring the fight to our *actual antagonists*, he has also given a time frame for how long he expects it to take, and when he’s planning to leave. And you can’t say that his strategy in Afghanistan is a failed strategy quite yet, since it hasn’t even unfolded. While I don’t serve in the military, I have lots of friends who do, and they universally hate the wars in both countries, but they do believe in what we’re trying to do in Afghanistan. A good friend who is a Marine and I chatted about it today, and he’s fully prepared to go back there (it will be his third tour), and he’s pleased to know that there are going to be clear objectives with a clear end in sight this time around.

Finally, regarding the TARP bailout, rest assured that I share your disappointment in how that was all handled. However, I’d like to point out that, again, he’s not been in office for very long, and financial experts on both sides of the aisle gave (I think poor) advice that he should move forward with it. I’d bet if he were asked today what he would do with the knowledge he has now, he’d have tried to do something different. He’s already pushing to make some different things happen on the mortgage lending side, as the Banks basically took all of the money they could get, and then turtled up, basically sticking it to consumers and home owners anyway.

Trying to steer the US Economy is more like trying to turn a cruise ship than a speed boat. When he took the helm, we were pointed straight at an iceberg. The fact that we’d hit it and take damage was a foregone conclusion. All he can do now is try to turn it in a way that minimizes the damage, so that we can repair it and hopefully not sink. That means more of us need to be bailing out the water, than shouting at him that he’s not turning fast enough.

I’m not a fan of the “100 Days” and other short term measurements for Obama, because the issues he has to deal with are far too complicated for pithy sound bites to explain, and rapid decisions to cure.

Yes, it’s now Obama’s war, and Obama’s economy, so to speak. However, I think he deserves a bit more time before we start passing judgment on what he’s done to fix the *8 years in the making pile of dung* he was handed on his inauguration day.

Not taking it personally. Vibrant debate is crucial to the success of our democracy. Happy to have a dialogue with someone who isn’t a demagogue.

Don’t get me wrong – I support Rev Billy, and that’s the primary point of my desire to post on this forum. Everything else I’m about to say is completely off that topic. However, I feel as a self-identified Progressive voter, that the rhetoric you put forth needs to be challenged – respectfully, and with a sense of understanding about the root issues.

So, with respect to the points you have raised above, I guess I just have to say that unwinding our nation from a war where the infrastructure we’d leave behind isn’t in place to support a peaceful transition, would not be to anyone’s benefit. By dint of taking on the Presidency, yes both wars are now Obama’s to deal with. However, I disagree significantly with your inference that he’s handling it incorrectly, or perhaps the same as Bush did.

To be perfectly clear, I want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible. The “rub” in this argument is the definition of “possible”.

As a candidate, Obama pretty clearly said that he’d stop escalating and get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. I still have faith he’ll make good on that, based on what he’s said and done so far. Getting out of Iraq couldn’t reasonably be accomplished in less than a year, considering how deep were were “in”. So, while you’re correct that we’re still there, I’m not in agreement that he’s failed to get us out yet, and he is clearly moving in that direction. Generally, I’m inclined to give him a bit of a break on the fact that *just logistically* it would take months to get all of our people and equipment out of that hellhole. Let alone doing so in a fashion that leaves some semblance of order in our wake. I believe he’ll get it done. He’s been in office for less than a year. Patience and wisdom are required to do this right, in the face of the idiocy that got us into the mess originally.

As for Afghanistan, well, he also said he’d prosecute the situation in Afghanistan (and even potentially Pakistan) with much GREATER vigor than his predecessor, since that’s where the group that attacked us was/is located. So, I’m not sure what is surprising about his decision to do … exactly that. I think the greatest difference between him and his predecessor in this regard, however, is that at the same time he has stated the intention to bring the fight to our *actual antagonists*, he has also given a time frame for how long he expects it to take, and when he’s planning to leave. And you can’t say that his strategy in Afghanistan is a failed strategy quite yet, since it hasn’t even unfolded. While I don’t serve in the military, I have lots of friends who do, and they universally hate the wars in both countries, but they do believe in what we’re trying to do in Afghanistan. A good friend who is a Marine and I chatted about it today, and he’s fully prepared to go back there (it will be his third tour), and he’s pleased to know that there are going to be clear objectives with a clear end in sight this time around.

Finally, regarding the TARP bailout, rest assured that I share your disappointment in how that was all handled. However, I’d like to point out that, again, he’s not been in office for very long, and financial experts on both sides of the aisle gave (I think poor) advice that he should move forward with it. I’d bet if he were asked today what he would do with the knowledge he has now, he’d have tried to do something different. He’s already pushing to make some different things happen on the mortgage lending side, as the Banks basically took all of the money they could get, and then turtled up, basically sticking it to consumers and home owners anyway.

Trying to steer the US Economy is more like trying to turn a cruise ship than a speed boat. When he took the helm, we were pointed straight at an iceberg. The fact that we’d hit it and take damage was a foregone conclusion. All he can do now is try to turn it in a way that minimizes the damage, so that we can repair it and hopefully not sink. That means more of us need to be bailing out the water, than shouting at him that he’s not turning fast enough.

I’m not a fan of the “100 Days” and other short term measurements for Obama, because the issues he has to deal with are far too complicated for pithy sound bites to explain, and rapid decisions to cure.

Yes, it’s now Obama’s war, and Obama’s economy, so to speak. However, I think he deserves a bit more time before we start passing judgment on what he’s done to fix the *8 years in the making pile of dung* he was handed on his inauguration day.