I probably should stay out of this, too. But I'll take one more (hopefully the last) try at a few points:
Thanks to Karen for clearing up the contract issue. I stand corrected.
We could debate the finer points of lying and get into intentions and implications and created beliefs and suchlike, but that's just going to get us into a murky swamp. I do, however, agree that Clinton perjured himself and did a pretty sleazy job of it. I don't think you'll find many people who disagree. If you believe otherwise, you might want to check your sources.
Speaking of checking sources... You state that Plame's husband is a publicity hound and then take his own self-glorifying book as a reliable source? Plame was outed by Novak, who was tipped off by Karl Rove. And her actual job was covert nuclear inspection... finding evidence of production of nuclear materials for WMDs. She went to Africa looking for the presumed source of Saddam's supposed WMDs, and when she reported that the supply lines weren't there, she was outed... essentially a public firing.
Every Democratic president's first task upon taking office is always to gut the military. And the men and women in uniform know it. That it's the job of Democratic presidents to gut the military and the job of Republican presidents to build it back up is a given like the sun coming up in the East.
Huh? Oh. You mean that it's the Republicans' job to complain about government spending, slash income, and then spend billions of dollars that they don't have bloating the military so that they can buy thousand-dollar toilet seats and several-hundred-dollar intra-ship phones that can't even do the job of a $20 walkie-talkie.
And then it's the Dem's job to come in, balance the budget, and deflate at least some of that bloating.
You know, there was a thing in Newsweek (not the greatest source, but not too bad) about where the candidates would spend the most money. How much it'd cost to put into effect their top 3 most expensive plans. The dems (both of them) want something like $300 billion for health care, and then 50 or so for education and the environment. Comes to about $400 billion. Sounds like a lot? McCain's number one alone tops that. They estimate that his plan for Iraq would cost $550 billion over the next four years.
I guess all those Coast Guard choppers pulling people from their rooftops were special effects by Industrial Light and Magic.
That's the
Coast Guard. But there were calls for the
National Guard to bring in equipment to help clear the roads, rescue people in need, transport them over land, etc. I'm sure they could have helped out at places like the Superdome, too. But they and their equipment were in Iraq.
As for the governor... There was no shortage of incompetence. Plenty of mistakes made by just about everyone involved. One person's screw-up doesn't excuse the next.
Environmental policy... There was a law on the books enacted in the 70s that would have required major upgrades to heavy polluters. The regulation was designed to have major impact 30 years down the road, when the buildings in question came due for repairs (and thus their equipment would no longer be grandfathered in). We would have had much cleaner air, and the upgrades would most likely have boosted efficiency, too... But the companies didn't want to deal with the one-time expense of making the upgrades. So, just when they were finally about to make the key difference... guess who made sure those regulations expired?
Since when was education a federal matter?
You mentioned No Child Left Behind, so you know. Many things are set at the state level, but Bush put national regulations into place in the form of NCLB. He was pushing hard for them. He was very proud of them. It's a program which he instituted in Texas, and which he and his wife made into major talking points at the elections. But, well... Maybe I should
let the National Education Association explain what\'s wrong with it .
Yes. When was the last successful attack on American soil?
And when was the last successful foreign attack before that? And before that? Going 6 years without a major attack is hardly uncommon in US history.
Saddam wasn't a threat to us.
North Korea, who arguably was the greater and more credible threat, has gone largely unignored.
Any president would have gone after Bin Laden. But others might have done it more subtly. And perhaps more effectively. But who can say, really?
As for democracy... It works for us, but that doesn't mean it's the one true path, right for all people and all cultures. People don't like it when you take over their countries and tell them how to run them. (In fact, wasn't that the reason for the first Gulf War?) And democracy doesn't automatically mean freedom and rainbows and the end of terrorism. And the idea that you can impose freedom is just inherently contradictory.
