Orangeburg debate just
a start, but a good one
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
AS BOB COBLE walked out of a breakfast meeting Friday, the bearlike New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson placed him in a loose, amiable headlock and asked what he would have to do to get him to support his bid for the presidency.
“You’ll have to squeeze harder than that,” I thought. As the governor knew, the Columbia mayor is a John Edwards man.
But for those who had not made up their minds, the “debate” in Orangeburg Thursday night was a better-than-expected opportunity to begin the winnowing process.
Eight candidates in 90 minutes is patently ridiculous. But those who planned and executed it, from South Carolina State University to MSNBC, can take pride in making the most of the situation.
National media, as expected, focus on which of the “two candidates,” Hillary or Obama (like Madonna, they no longer need titles or full names), came out on top. Some stretch themselves and mention ex-Sen. Edwards.
OK, let’s dispense with that: Sen. Clinton presented no surprises, rock star Obama came across as pretty stiff playing in this orchestra — nothing of his usual, charismatic rolling thunder. Ex-Sen. Edwards did his usual shtick.
But some of us tuned in to learn something new. I did. And I didn’t care which of the overexposed, anointed titans of fund-raising would be a more ideologically pure party standard-bearer. Those of us who spurn both parties — in other words, those of us who actually decide national elections — were looking for someone we might vote for (if such a person survives the partisan gantlet far enough to give us the chance). We’ll be looking for the same when the Republicans meet at the Koger Center May 15.
I don’t think any of us got any conclusive answers. But the questions posed were good enough to provide some impressions, however scattered, that at least made the event worth the time invested:
Best new impression: I had heard good things about Gov. Richardson, but not met him before. The debate, plus his call-in to a radio show I was on Friday morning, made me want to find out more. I liked the fact that he was real, honest and unscripted, perhaps the result of being a governor and actually dealing with real problems instead of living in Washington’s 24-hour partisan echo chamber.
Best old impression: Could Sen. Joe Biden contain his gift of gab well enough to play well with others on such a crowded stage without his head exploding? “Yes.” Since I’ve heard him speak in our own board room for two hours almost without pause, this was a pleasant surprise. I’ve always liked the guy, but this is one Irishman who didn’t just kiss the Blarney Stone; he took it home with him.
Commander in chief? I expected the candidates to compete to see who was most against our involvement in Iraq and for the longest time. But if it’s fairly judged, Dennis Kucinich wins that pointless contest hands-down. It’s also a barrier to me, since I consider giving up in Iraq to be anathema. So I looked to see who was leaving themselves any room to present a more credible position in the general election, when it’s no longer necessary to court moveon.org. The winners of that contest: Sen. Biden, followed by Sen. Obama.
Second funniest moment: The look in John Edwards’ eyes when he acknowledged being filthy rich, just before going into his nostalgic boilerplate about having been poor once upon a time. This is a much-rehearsed look for him, intended to look like wide-eyed candor. But it struck me like, You bet I’m rich, and lovin’ it, too. Probably an anomaly in the camera angle.
Making Kucinich sound reasonable: A writer on Slate.com summed it up better than I can, as follows: “When the candidates were asked who owned a gun, (Ex-Sen. Mike) Gravel was one of those who raised his hand. ‘I was worried that he meant he had one with him at the moment,’ said a senior adviser to a top candidate.” I hadn’t gotten around to including a link to this particular candidate on my blog. After Thursday night, I don’t think I’ll bother.
Common sense: You could tell who really wanted to be president. They raised their hands to say they believed there’s such a thing as a global War on Terror, and didn’t raise their hands to support Dennis the Menace’s move to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Outside of partisan blogs there’s something we call the real world; everyone except Rep. Kucinich showed that they live in it at least part-time.
The most enduring litmus test: Even after all the times I’ve seen and heard this, the grip of the abortion lobby on the Democratic Party still strikes me as astounding. Is there any greater demonstration of the power of party uber alles than hearing a Roman Catholic such as Sen. Biden emphatically saying, “I strongly support Roe v. Wade,” and asserting complete faith in the existence of a right to privacy in the Constitution?
South Carolina’s shame: Only one thing was mentioned all night that let you know this took place in South Carolina — the Confederate flag at our State House. So much for our wish to build a new image based on hydrogen research and the like.
The event helped me begin to focus on this process, which has been easy to ignore with everything going on in South Carolina. There will be many debates, interviews and other opportunities before the winnowing is done. Whether this newspaper will support, or whether I personally will vote for, any of these candidates is a question that it is far too soon to answer.
But this was a start.
Related Posts
I wanna see Bob Coble and Bill Richardson, naked, in a mud pit, wrestling for the endorsement…
Throw in Hillary and you can make it a Friday night cage match…and take bets on who’s butt will be the first to get its own zip code!
Now that is TV people will watch!
Brad, this is the second time (that I know of) that you’ve been dismissive of the right to privacy in the Constitution.
I don’t understand how this – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” – can be interpreted as anything other than a right to privacy.
Whether this privacy extends to a woman’s womb is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree… But no right to privacy?
It means what it says. And if you’re looking for something a little more specific in terms of what the Framers were thinking of, it means that redcoats, or their latter-day equivalent, can’t go knocking your door down, or frisking you or reading your mail, without a warrant. That’s all it means. It certainly doesn’t mean that the state can’t act to protect life. It certainly doesn’t mean that the state can’t act in loco parentis to protect children whose parents don’t want them.
A “right to privacy” would certainly include what the Fourth Amendment says, but the Fourth Amendment does not encompass everything that we mean by “right to privacy” in 2007.
It’s interesting that you say “You could tell who really wanted to be president”, because one person who didn’t raise his hand when asked if they believed there’s such a thing as a global War on Terror was John Edwards.
Apparently, he doesn’t want to be President. I can just see the Republican commericals attacking him for that, but it
probably won’t get there.
A “right to privacy” would certainly include what the Fourth Amendment says, but the Fourth Amendment does not encompass everything that we mean by “right to privacy” in 2007.
I agree, Brad. Therein lies the beauty of a living document like the Constitution. It doesn’t say Congress can create an Air Force, and it doesn’t say you have a right to blog, yet supports such powers and rights.
I won’t argue whether the right to privacy in the Constitution extends as far as the womb, but I will suggest that most people only “strictly construe” the text of the Constitution when it serves their argument.
A “right to privacy” would certainly include what the Fourth Amendment says, but the Fourth Amendment does not encompass everything that we mean by “right to privacy” in 2007.
Nor does it deny these rights. Clearly any reasonable interepretation of constitutional privacy rights extends to a person’s body. The burden of proof for excluding a given privacy lies with those who would deny a given privacy. That burden has not been met in the case of abortion. Therefore the state has not business interfering with a persons body. This should be the end of the story for this issue.
It’s also a barrier to me, since I consider giving up in Iraq to be anathema.
-Brad
Now this is about as partisan as it gets. Brad talks about “giving up” in Iraq as “anathema”. “Anathema” is a very provacative word that suggests opponents of the war are evil. “Giving up” implies we have some chance of achieving something positive by use of our military. No REASONABLE person still believes that. So “giving up” is completely inappropriate.
It’s not about winning or losing any more. We’re way, way, way beyond that. What we should be trying to do is seek the best possible outcome from a security situation that is out of American military control. The best possible outcome clearly includes a withdrawal of American troops. Dennis Kucinich is total correct on this issue.
Why is it so ridiculous to think the VP should be impeached? Perhaps there’s not enough hard evidence to convict but there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence to support impropriaties in the areas of the energy policy task force, Haliburton’s selection for no-bid contracts and of course the outing of a CIA agent. Sounds like high-crimes or misdemeanors to me.
Brad, I certainly share what I perceive to be your hope that Richardson and Biden end up being more significant factors in this nomination process than their current poll numbers and fundraising results would indicate.
I have to be careful here, because the last time I defended John Edwards I got deleted; I don’t particularly feel that Edwards is our best choice to become President, but summing up his whole anti-poverty platform as “shtick” strikes me as borderline callous. Coming from someone who has been so passionate in defense of public education here in SC I find this strong and persistent hostility to Edwards truly puzzling.
Yes, we all know how rich Edwards is. But for you readers out there who tend to buy Brad’s “hypocrisy” line on Edwards, you might want to check this out.And remember a guy named FDR. And ask yourselves, if most politicians at the national level are wealthy, is it really better to be “less hypocritical” by (as a rich politician) advocating policies on behalf of your financial class that hurt the interests of the less well-to-do? We certainly have a plethora of these, but I can’t name names here.
I didn’t see the debate, but if (as Mike Nardy) says, Edwards really did not raise his hand to embrace the Orwellian phrase “War on Terror” then his courage and independent thinking might make me have to think about him even more seriously as a candidate. Is Edwards the Robert Kennedy of our time?
Folks, this is a sincere question: Can anyone explain to me why bud keeps equating having a position on an issue as “partisan?” He must be employing a meaning of the word that has eluded me all my life.
And Phillip, there’s nothing wrong with being rich. FDR wasn’t a phony about it. There was no doubt that he was a patrician who cared about all people. He didn’t pretend to be something else.
You see, I’ve had the opportunity to see Edwards on a number of occasions do his aw-shucks folksy act for the cameras or for us editors who were deciding whom to endorse, then brush by and ignore the regular folks who just wanted to shake his hand. I’ve seen him pause to shift his face from cool indifference to warm, populist grin just before going on-stage. I’ve known him to go jogging through Columbia before showing up sweating at a rally at MLK park before a friendly crowd that had been sweating waiting for him because he was supposed to be there 90 minutes or so sooner.
He’s appalling.
I too applaud Edwards for not raising his hand on the “War on Terror” question. There is no such thing as a war on terror. Terror is a tactic used to intimidate an opponent. The U.S. has even terror tactics from time to time. We just call it something different: “Shock and Awe” or “The Surge”.
The more I learn about John Edwards the better I like him. Then again, I like most of the Democratic candidates right now. They seem to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to good presidential candidates. The GOP on the other hand has the worst set of candidates I can ever remember from a major party. The 2008 election should be a laugher.
Brad, a partisan can either be someone who supports a particular group or political party even though they may have different positions on certain issues. But a partisan can also be someone who clings to a preconceived CAUSE, in spite of overwhelming evidence that the cause is counterproductive. Check out the word partisan on Dictionary.com.
Your use of the VERY provactive term “anathema” suggests you have totally closed your mind to ANY evidence that continued military involvement in Iraq may be counter-productive. Your writing suggests an almost religious faith in continuing with Iraq.
Yet you never offer any evidence that a withdrawal will create problems that are more significant that what we’re already dealing with. You only say that it will. Frankly, history suggests just the opposite. American and French withdrawal from Vietnam had no long term ill effects on either of those countries. Same for Isreal in Lebanon or for that matter the British in Iraq in the 1920s. Absent any significant counter-evidence it would seem that a major power who withdraws its troops from a nation that is openly hostile to it being there almost always leads to an improvement in the security situation of the occupying nation. Or at worst, no significant change.
Can anyone explain to me why bud keeps equating having a position on an issue as “partisan?”
I would imagine bud’s trying to make a point about the editorial page editor of The State. You routinely accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being “partisan.” It seems never to cross your mind that anyone could have a principled position that is not exactly aligned with yours on any given issue.
Here’s an excellent piece about the sheer hackery displayed by Brian Williams (and Stanton too):
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
Is there any greater demonstration of the power of party uber alles than hearing a Roman Catholic such as Sen. Biden emphatically saying, “I strongly support Roe v. Wade,”
See what I mean?
So you seem to think Biden’s a bad Catholic. Maybe you could lead a crusade to have him excommunicated.
By the way, what’s the RC Church’s position on the Iraq war?
If you think of the Fourth Amendment as recognizing individuals rights of property, then maybe you can argue the a woman has the right to kill the fetus which is her property alone, with no property interest by the other biological parent.
Apparently the Catholic Church opposed the American invasion of Iraq. This is from AmericanCatholic.org:
“The Roman Catholic Church, led by Pope John Paul II, opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Now the Vatican is turning its attention to Iraq’s post-war needs by making offers of humanitarian assistance and calling for all nations to be involved in Iraq’s rebuilding.”
From OpEd news-
April 30,2007
Impeachment is moving inexorably into the mainstream.
On Saturday, April 28, people across the nation rallied to spell out the word “Impeach” with their bodies, from coast to coast. Most of their efforts went unreported in the nation’s complicit, propaganda-organ-like corporate media, but the effects of the effort were still felt.
Earlier in the week, the Democratic Party convention in California (the largest state Democratic party organization in the nation) voted overwhelmingly to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
I would say that for Senator Biden to affirm a vision of American law and the rights of American citizens that differs from the view the Catholic Church would like to impose, does not indicate that he is “partisan” or in the “grip of the abortion lobby”. To me, his position indicates that he is running for the Presidency of the United States, seeking the position in order to use whatever talents he has to benefit the people of the United States and promote a vision he has of the kind of country the United States should be. He is not, it appears to me, seeking a position as some sort of “enforcer of Catholic Doctrine”. He is not seeking to be “the Pope’s man in Washington,” or anything like that.
Mr. Warthen appears to be saying that it is not possible for Senator Biden to come to a principled conclusion that differ’s from Mr. Warthen’s position, and that Senator Biden is therefore not following his own conclusions, but is simply following the dictates of his party without thought.
I have to say that there are plenty of principled people that support abortion rights, and very few principled people that are opposed to abortion rights (unless the “principle” is the principle that women with unwanted pregnancies are sluts who deserve whatever happens to them, or that it is OK to subject women to increased risks of death or serious injury in order to prevent members of the anti-abortion lobby from experiencing emotional discomfort. Certainly the view Mr. Warthen seems to be espousing, that any Catholic must follow a set of policy precepts laid down in Rome, is much more of a partisan viewpoint than anything I have ever heard out of Senator Biden.
The idea that Catholic politicians put loyalty to Rome ahead of loyalty to America is an idea that I would have expected to hear from anti-Catholic bigots, not from Catholics.
Partisan:
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
Brad shows a biased, emotional allegiance to a continued occupation of Iraq, a cause if you will. He does this by stating Dennis Kucinich’s ideas about Iraq using the pejorative: “giving up in Iraq”. A more balanced, and I believe more accurate, assessment of Kucinch’s position would be something like this: Kucinish “supports withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq”. Now that’s quite different from “giving up in Iraq”. Perhaps Kucinich believes as I do that withdrawing our combat forces will actually improve the situation for the Iraqi people.
Another term Brad cavalierly tosses out is “anathema”. This can be a very strong word that goes to the heart of Brad’s tenacious support for keeping our troops in Iraq, regardless of any evidence that this particular “cause” can be justified. Again, from Dictionary.com:
Anathema:
1. a person or thing detested or loathed: That subject is anathema to him.
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
So Brad has such a strong support for continuing in Iraq that the very idea of pulling out is “detested or loathed” at best, or at worst “accursed or consigned to damnation”.
Brad consistently de-legitimizes anyone who disagrees with his opinions.
I first noticed it when he informed his readers that opposition to Iraq was really just a manifestation of personally hating George W. Bush.
Notice how he leaves out the possibility that principle or practicality might play a role in opposing the invasion.
How’s volunteering at the VA Hospital, Brad?
Brad is a partisan Republocrat… he’ll support anyone who is part of the system that he adores… yet strangely calls dysfunctional. Brad’s litmus test for candidates appears to be:
a) how long have you been in office? More = better
b) will you answer my phone calls?
He loves politicians… not progress.
Bud, typically a word is used in one sense at a time, not every sense in which it may be used. I think that’s appropriate in this case. I don’t think that it is appropriate to call Mr. Warthen a “partisan” in the sensse that he uses the word, unless you mean that he fails to exercise independent judgment and instead makes unprincipled arguments in order to promote the agenda of the Republican Party.
In the broadest sense, a partisan is an adherent to a cause. The fighters in the Revolutionary War (on both sides) were partisans. The combatants in the Russian Revolution (on both sides) were partisan. There’s nothing the matter with that, but it’s not what Mr. Warthen means when he decries partisanship.
In decrying partisanship, Mr. Warthen appears to be criticizing those who, according to him, fail to address issues in a principled way because they are excessively influenced by issues such as party loyalty and cultivating support for the party to which they belong.
I admit that his position is a little incoherent, considering that he seems to criticize Democrats for “partisanship” when they take positions held by large majorities of the population, rather than considering that the Democrats may have, in a reasoned and principled way, come to the same conclusionas shared by large majorities of the population. However, I think I have articulated his viewpoint correctly, even if he doesn’t always seem to follow it consistently.
Therefore, I continue to hold that the fact that Mr. Warthen supports the Iraq war doesn’t make him a partisan in the sense that he uses the word. He takes, or claims to take, what he describes as a principled stand in favor of the Iraq war. The fact that the principles he articulates, if consistently and logically applied, don’t really explain his support for the war, does not prove that he isn’t applying those principles to the best of his somewhat limited ability.
The fact that you disagree with Mr. Warthen doesn’t make him partisan. The fact that you’re right and he’s wrong doesn’t make him partisan. The fact that his support for the war is irrational doesn’t make him partisan. Mr. Warthsn’s support for the Iraq war is partisan only if it is influenced by unprincipled considerations involving supporting one political party over another.
Let’s look at an example. Let’s take a point of view that is as irrational as continuing to support the Iraq war.
Suppose that Mr. Warthen insisted that he was Napolean. Suppose he insisted that he was Napolean and that the nice men in the white coats were anathema because they were keeping him from the glory he aimed to gain by invading and conquering Russia. Suppose he insisted that he had a new plan that would work this time, and if they would just open up the room and take off this strangely confining garment he was wearing, he would show everybody.
Would you say that he was partisan? No you wouldn’t, because Mr. Warthen’s belief that he was Napolean would be a principled belief, a belief that was rooted (so far as he could perceive) in reality.
Now, if you want to show that Mr. Warthen’s support of the Iraq war is grounded in, or influenced by, partisan considerations, you will have to show, from his own actions or utterances, that his support for the war is unprincipled, and that his arguments against opponents of the war are unprincipled.
For example, can you show me that he has ever accused opponents of the war of a lack of patriotism?
Can you show me that he has accused opponents of the war of being motivated by a dislike of President Bush?
Can you show me that he has ever held up John McCain as an independent-spririted, honest man, who is willing to take courageous stands against the President?
Can you show me that he has failed to recognize John McCain’s and Lindsey Graham’s visit to Iraq as a stunt?
Can you show me that he has ever pointed to Lindsey Graham as an example of a patriot, or a statesman?
Can you show me that he has ever tried to confuse support for the president with support for the troops, or has tried to stifle criticism of the president on the grounds that it disheartens the troops?
On issues other than the war, can you show me that he has invented rules for Democratic candidates for office, and criticized them for failing to follow these invented rules – has he ever, for example, criticized John Edwards for being financially successful?
Don’t just tell me that Mr. Warthen has done these things. By doing so, you are simply asking me to take on faith that you are credible and your perception of Mr. Warthen’s words and actions is correct. You do indeed seem to be credible, but if your claim is right, it should be relatively easy for you to point to specific examples showing that Mr. Warthen has spoken and acted in a partisan way, and to quote specific words and phrases of his supporting your claim.
Don’t TELL me that Mr. Warthen is partisan, SHOW me.
Oh, and I think your criticism of Mr. Warthsn’s use of the word “anathema” is misplaced. In presuming that he understands all the subtleties of what the word means, I think you are overestimating his command of the English language.
I first noticed it when he informed his readers that opposition to Iraq was really just a manifestation of personally hating George W. Bush.
-RTH
RTH makes reference to Brad accussing opponents of the war as being “Bush Haters”. I don’t recall that exchange. RTH, can you reference the thread where this appeared? That would be conclusive evidence that Brad is a partisan for the “cause” in Iraq. But that is merely over-kill. The attacks on Dennis Kucinich are sufficient in my book to label Brad as a partisan.
Carol, as for your Napolean example, I don’t believe it applies. Brad is not crazy, he’s just stubborn. He cannot divorce his feelings for the war effort with the reality of the facts. That’s a very different proposition.
Hey, Brad, why don’t you post a link to that cute li’l hatchet job you did on war opponents. You know, the one where you blamed anti-invasion/occupation sentiment on irrational Bush hatred. Some of us haven’t forgotten. It was a column in the dead tree edition. I’m certainly NOT going to give $5 to The State to find it.
OTOH, Ms. Hathaway can just keep reading your columns and comments. She’ll soon get the picture.
“He cannot divorce his feelings for [some proposition] with the reality of the facts.”
Bud, isn’t that what “crazy” means?
Anyone who wants us to turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda and maybe annexation by Iran is not exactly patriotic, whether their motivation is sinister or just ignorance.
Certainly the view Mr. Warthen seems to be espousing, that any Catholic must follow a set of policy precepts laid down in Rome…Catholic politicians put loyalty to Rome ahead of loyalty to America – Carol
These precepts are based on the Gospels – the word of God. God as in “one nation under God” as in “in God we trust” as in “endowed by their creator”. We have a nation built on faith so the notion that patriotism is mutually exclusive with faith is faulty.
Carol, your claim that abortion rights advocates are, as a whole, a much more “principled” group is wildly partisan and biased.
If humans are left to determine truth and morality on their own, the result is moral anarchy. The terrorists of 911 can be defended as just because they deemed their actions as righteous according to their personal moral code. The KKK, under the auspices of the principle of “white Christian America”, can are principled moralists.
Using that rationale, a fetus (baby) who is viable can be legally dismembered inside the womb because of a “principled” right to reproductive freedom. Yet, if he or she were born premature at that same age, dismemberment would be illegal infanticide. This is an example of a principled position?
Note that Edward was not asked if he agreed with the phrasing “War on Terror”. He was asked if he believed it exists and he essentially said “No”. That exhange plays right into the worst stereotypes about Democrats, that they don’t understand the magnitude of the fight we’re in.
If Edwards is nominated, you can be sure that the Republicans will attack him for this and it will destroy him. If not, they’ll just play clips of saying he wants to raise taxes and that’ll be the ballgame. Edwards is finished as a Presidential contender, sad to say.
Back to Edwards for a minute:
I like Edwards. I was one of Edwards’ first supporters. I’ve given Edwards contributions (this is a feat for me considering that I’m always broke). I’ll still probably vote for Edwards. Brad does have a point, but it is far too overstated. Edwards is in no way appalling.
Politicians go from place to place, giving the same speeches and answers to questions over and over again. All politicians have a public persona. All politicians are to some degree actors. Undoubtedly Edwards is a gifted orator and speechwriter, and he is quite capable of communicating his ideas in a fine rhetorical fashion. But there is a difference between the Edwards of today and the Edwards of a few years ago.
You could see the difference during the “moral leader” question. It was as if you could see the gears clicking in his head going through which special interest groups he could possibly offend. Maybe he was thinking of how Bush answered the same question during a previous election, and he didn’t want to be identified with Bush. When he finally did find an answer, it sounded almost contrived-even though I am convinced that he meant what he said.
Based on a question and answer session that I participated in with John, I would like to let him know that I don’t hate wealthy people. I hate an economic system that literally creates poverty by its nature. If Edwards has the wealth of Bill Gates, then I can care less. I hate the economic system that creates “Two Americas”. The question should be: “How do I make capitalism fair?” rather than “How can I show you the way to be successful within capitalism?”
My advice to Edwards is for him to be himself.
I was a big Edwards supporter in 04. Now I’d almost vote for Kucinich over him.
The $400 haircuts, the barn that could house the Goodyear blimp, hedging on the moral leader question, and not firing the anti-Catholic bloggers reflect a moral standing not in keeping with his persona.
This is a big deal because he makes the morality a center piece of his platform. It’s more than the issues he champions, it’s a trust and judgement issue.
I hypothesized that Gore lost his way when he tried to emulate Clinton’s political slickness and charisma instead of being himself. I think Edwards has done the same.
Regarding the aforementioned bloggers, if they had written with such vitriol towards gays or African-Americans, I’m sure he would have done more than give them a “fair shake”.
Mr. Nardy, the fact that Edwards doesn’t buy into the phony “war on terror” metaphor may “tie into the worst stereotypes about Democrats, as you say, but that doesn’t really bother us because only about 27% of the populatiion buys into that stereotype. And we don’t need that 27% to get elected. “Magnitude of the fight we’re in,” forsooth! You may be too immobilized with fear to think rationally about what America needs to do, but fortunately, not all of us are. The “war on terror” theme has the advantage that it allows many people to fight a “war” by talking about it, but it hasn’t redounded to the benefit of the United States. Look at what the “war on terror” has brought us so far. One lost war, one war that we should have won easily but are now struggling not to lose, endless waste of lives and money, a diminution of our stature and influence in the world, a greatly increased threat. Terror can best be fought against by stopping terrorists and reducing their influence and appeal, not by waging (and losing) endless religious war.
You can go hide under your bed and jump every time you see a shadow for fear that the terrorists are going to grab you. The rest of us, made of sterner stuff, will try and repair the damage that has been done to this country.
Mr. E, I’m afraid that I find your argument both dishonest and absurd.
“We have a nation built on faith so the notion that patriotism is mutually exclusive with faith is faulty.”
I’m sorry, but if you must argue by misrepresenting the viewpoints of your opponents, you might as well admit that you’ve lost. I never said that patriotism and faith are mutually exclusive, and it’s clear that I didn’t. You can’t have any honest reason for suggesting that I did. What I said was that it is improper to expect an elected official to substitute Catholic doctrine, or any other religious doctrine, for his own judgment about the best course of action for the country.
Catholic doctrine, or other religious faith, may inform his thinking, and give him guidance about what is best for the country, but it is anpatriotic and unAmerican to expect an elected official to be dictated to by church officials.
And we do not have a nation “built on faith”. Our nation is built on principles of representative democracy, of control of the government by the people. The fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were more or less Christian (some more, some less, some much less) does not imply that the country was “built on faith”.
Oh, and your saying this:
“These precepts are based on the Gospels – the word of God. God as in ‘one nation under God’ as in ‘in God we trust’ as in ‘endowed by their creator’.” about Catholic prescriptions on public policy is a dishonest attempt to avoid having to make an argument. And I say this even aside from the fact that “under God” wasn’t introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance until 1955.
I do not agree that Catholic teaching on abortion is based on the Gospels. Beyond that, many Ámericans don’t accept the Gospels as authoritative at all, and don’t care what the Gospels say about anything, and even less what a bunch of foreigners claim that the Gospels say about what U.S. public policy should be.
When you say that so-and-so is based on the Gospels, what you are saying is that it is based on YOUR intepretation of religious principles that are important to YOU. Fine. But don’t expect OTHER people who have different religious viewpoints, or different interpretations of shared religious principles, to accept your views because you claim a religious foundation for them. You are not providing support for your position, you are simply trying to win the argument in a lazy way.
“Carol, your claim that abortion rights advocates are, as a whole, a much more “principled” group is wildly partisan and biased.”
This is meaningless to a degree that it makes me wonder about your command of the English language. What on earth do you mean by “partisan?” Do you mean that I feel solidarity with people who, like myself, favor abortion rights? Well, yes, I do. Can this possibly come as a surprise to you?
And “biased,” what on earth is that supposed to mean? That I find the views of those who, like myself, favor abortion rights more persuasive than I find the views of those who don’t? Yes, I do. This is news to you? You think this fact is worthy of remark?
In calling my claim “partisan” and “biased” you have not a meaningful statement. Instead, what you have said is that I have views on the issue.
“If humans are left to determine truth and morality on their own, the result is moral anarchy.”
No it isn’t. That’s just absurd. It’s easy to work out a system of morality, entirely divorced from religion. Take stealing. What’s the best possible rule for everyone? The best possible rule for everyone is that he gets to steal an no one else does. That rule isn’t going to be acceptable, because it benefits one person and disadvantages everyone else, so you have to come up with a different rule? What’s a rule that’s likely to be acceptable? No one gets to steal. The rule was developed with no religious consideration involved, and the result is not moral anarchy.
“The terrorists of 911 can be defended as just because they deemed their actions as righteous according to their personal moral code.”
LOOK at what you said. Did you even THINK about what you said? The terrorists of September 11 did NOT deem their actions as righteous according to their personal moral code; they deemed their actions as righteous according to the RELIGIOUS PRECEPTS they had been taught. We condemn them because their religious precepts are wrong. If their relgious precepts were right, if Allah did in fact command them to murder innocent people, they would not merit condemnation.
But we don’t need religion to condemn them, although it certainly can be used to condemn them. We can, for example, observe that their actions caused great sadness and loss to many people.
You claim that your religion is necessary for a system of morality because you want to win the argument without doing any work.
“Using that rationale, a fetus (baby) who is viable can be legally dismembered inside the womb because of a “principled” right to reproductive freedom. Yet, if he or she were born premature at that same age, dismemberment would be illegal infanticide. This is an example of a principled position?”
At the point of viability, Roe v. Wade allows total prohibition of abortion, except when necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.
So your opposition to “partial birth abortion” doesn’t arise from your desire to protect a viable fetus. It arises from your desire to subject women to the risk of death or serious injury in order to deny them the right to a procedure which, while it might be the safest available option for them, would be emotionally upsetting for you.
Mr. Nardy,
This whole “war on terror” hoax is nothing but a contrived set of talking points used by the neo-cons as a scare tactic to gain votes. Fatal acts of terrorism against Americans from Islamic fundamentalists are extremely rare. Even in 2001 the number of Americans killed in terrorist acts would not rank in the top 10 causes of deaths.
John Edwards was absolutely correct by not acknowledging the existence of a “war on terror”. And I applaud him for it.
In 2006, there were 14,000 violent attacks by terrorists worldwide. 95% of them were by Islamic terrorists.
Deaths were up 25% over 2005.
28 Americans were killed, all outside the USA.
Over 150 major terrorist attacks on the US have been thwarted since 2001.
Last week, Saudi Arabia thwarted an attack on their oil refinery and an offshore drilling rig.
– Source = US State Department 4/30/2007
To put MGs numbers in perspective, there were more than 42,000 traffic deaths in the U.S. alone in 2006. Compared to the 28 Americans killed by terrorists why do we get so worked up by this phoney issue?
MG, thanks for the link to the terrorism report. It makes for some facinating reading. It was particularly interesting that terrorist deaths continued to decline in Ireland. Bill Clinton’s success in that trouble spot is truly remarkable. In contrast, the area of emphasis for the Bush administration, Afghanistan and Iraq, have soaring rates of terrorism. This report highlights just how much of failure the Decider is when it comes to foreign policy management.
The big drop in deaths of US citizens to terrorism is due due to efforts to clean up the mess made by Clinton and his appointees whom Bush left in place, like Tenet and Minneta.
If Clinton had acted when the French told him of the Sept 11 plot, we would have prevented that disaster.
If Jamie Gorelick and Janet Reno had not stopped the FBI from receiving information about the plot from the Army Intel program Able Danger, the terrorists could have been arrested months before 911.
Currently, we are discovering and disarming over 2,000 bombs a month, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you want the terrorist attacks to increase, just implement the Democrat’s surrender plan.
dmiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage — your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other — made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.
Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision, and speed, and boldness the enemy did not expect, and the world had not seen before. From distant bases or ships at sea, we sent planes and missiles that could destroy an enemy division, or strike a single bunker. Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground, in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American Armed Forces.
This nation thanks all of the members of our coalition who joined in a noble cause. We thank the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, who shared in the hardships of war. We thank all of the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country. And tonight, I have a special word for Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld, for General (Tommy) Franks, and for all the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States: America is grateful for a job well done.
The character of our military through history — the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies — is fully present in this generation. When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength, and kindness, and good will. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country, and I am honored to be your commander in chief.
In the images of fallen statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, Allied Forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation. Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war. Yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.
In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food, and water, and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices. And everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the “beginning of the end of America.” By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.
In the Battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals, and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists, and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.
From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al-Qaida killers. Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-half of al-Qaida’s senior operatives have been captured or killed.
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused, and deliberate, and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th — the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all:
Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.
Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups, and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction, is a grave danger to the civilized world, and will be confronted.
And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America.
Our commitment to liberty is America’s tradition — declared at our founding, affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, asserted in the Truman Doctrine, and in Ronald Reagan’s challenge to an evil empire. We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope. When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life. American values, and American interests, lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty.
The United States upholds these principles of security and freedom in many ways — with all the tools of diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, and finance. We are working with a broad coalition of nations that understand the threat, and our shared responsibility to meet it. The use of force has been, and remains, our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland — and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.
Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war — after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history — you are homeward bound. Some of you will see new family members for the first time — 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.
We are mindful as well that some good men and women are not making the journey home. One of those who fell, Corporal Jason Mileo, spoke to his parents five days before his death. Jason’s father said, “He called us from the center of Baghdad, not to brag, but to tell us he loved us. Our son was a soldier.” Every name, every life, is a loss to our military, to our nation, and to the loved ones who grieve. There is no homecoming for these families. Yet we pray, in God’s time, their reunion will come.
Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this earth was to fight a great evil, and bring liberty to others. All of you — all in this generation of our military — have taken up the highest calling of history. You are defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope — a message that is ancient, and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah: “To the captives, ‘Come out!’ and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!”‘
Thank you for serving our country and our cause. May God bless you all, and may God continue to bless America.
Mr. Guy, I am troubled by this statement of yours:
“If Clinton had acted when the French told him of the Sept 11 plot, we would have prevented that disaster.”
Now, this is what I have been able to learn about the French intelligence that you speak of:
“The January 5, 2001 file was titled “Aircraft hijack plan by radical Islamists.”
It said that in October of the previous year, bin Laden had decided at a meeting in Afghanistan his next action against the US would involve a hijacking, but that there was still disagreement among Al-Qaeda leaders over the exact details.”
Now, if I understand you correctly, it is President Clinton’s fault that he did not react to a file dated January 5, 2001, produced by French intelligence agencies, and passed to the United States obviously some time after it was created. This file said that bin Laden had decided on a hijacking in October of 2000, but had not decided on the specific course of action to be taken to carry it out.
You are claiming, if I understand you correctly, that Clinton is responsible for the September 11 attacks because he did not act strongly enough to stop them between January 5 and January 20, but that Bush bears no responsibility for his total inaction between January 20 and September 11.
Your viewpoint seems to me (and I say this with the greatest possible respect and concern) to reflect a disturbing disconnection from reality on your part.
Might I suggest that you go to a nice, quiet, dark room and lie down for a little while, and then perhaps go somewhere for a nice long rest?
Carol, thanks for reminding me that this is the fourth anniversary of VI Day, otherwise known as Mission Accomplished Day. Today, the Dems are suppossed to send over their funding proposal for Iraq which the Decider has planned to veto. What a fitting tribute to the sheer audacity of George W. Bush. He’ll veto it of course and send it back to congress where, in all likelyhood, Congress will buckle under. I say to the Dems, do nothing after the Decider vetos this thing. Let him figure out how to support the troops without any money.
Bill Clinton, the all-purpose excuse for incompetent and corrupt Rethuglicans.
Cheney hadn’t managed to find time to convene his task force on terrorism in the NINE MONTHS before 9/11. Yet, the 9/11 attacks were Clinton’s fault… on BizarroWorld.
Also on BizarroWorld, Dear Leader wouldn’t be at fault for ignoring the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing because it didn’t specify the conspirators by name, the exact time, precise place and specific means of attack by al Qaeda.
Needless to say (on BizarroWorld), no one in the administration could have possibly imagined that a high-jacked plane could be used in an attack against inside the U.S. This, despite the closure of airspace over Genoa to prevent this very type of attack in July, 2001 against a meeting of heads of states.
Maybe Dear Leader doesn’t worry his empty head about such minutae but you’d think that National Security Advisor Rice, also attending the meeting, would have heard something about the security measures since the objective was to kill Dear Leader.
French Intelligence informed President Clinton and his CIA Director George Tenet that Al Qaeda, operating out of Iraq, planned to hijack several planes simultaneously.
The only imagination required is post hoc, to make excuses for their failure.
MG, it’s interesting how you selectively use facts as a distraction from the current situation in Iraq as it stands on VI Day. The reality is that Bill Clinton DID take the French warnings seriously and through Richard Clarke, who remained on the Bush counter-intelligence team, attempted to convey the urgency of the matter to the new president. Tragically, these warning fell on deaf ears and no effort was made by the White House to follow up on the clear warnings of impending peril. In short, your suggestion that Clinton ignored serious warnings is patently ridiculous. There has never been a president more dedicated to addressing security concerns that Bill Clinton.
Then again, Bill Clinton may not have had the opportunity to read My Pet Goat. Had he been exposed to that griping tale of suspense perhaps he, like his successor, would have failed to act in the best interests of the nation.
I realized this morning that the best way for Democrats to guarantee victory in 2008 would be to let Bush have his way on Iraq for the next year. Let him have all the money he wants to funnel to Halliburton… let him spend as much as he wants without asking Americans to sacrifice to pay for the “war”… let him put as many troops in harms way for the next year… If he’s given that free reign, it removes the only talking point the Republicans have for 2008.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should announce tomorrow, “President Bush, we are behind you 100%… lead us into victory in Iraq. We’ll focus Congress on other issues.”
Democrats pulled the trigger too soon on making Iraq an issue.
Let it be Bush’s War. Let the Republicans break ranks later this year when they realize they’re political careers are tied to Bush’s War….
Doug, some Dem leaders would like to adopt the same strategy. Unfortunately, they can’t duck their responsibility so readily. Nor can they avoid the vocal base who thought that they elected representatives to Congress for a reason.
Carol, partisan is an adjective referring to an individual who adheres to bias in ardent support of a position. Your statement that abortion rights advocates are a much more principled than those opposing abortion is an example of such partisanship. Afterall, what is your justification for this, your opinion?
Catholic, and Christian faith in general, is the basis for the morality for many of us, including public servants. In turn, their moral code is the foundation for many of their decisions and positions. Simply put, the Christian faith plays a role in how public servants make decisions. Your suggestion that Faith shouldn’t overshadow patriotism certainly suggests the notion that they are mutually exclusive.
This is a highly faith based country with a great number of us believing in the Gospels, whether your principled perspective accepts it or not.
Carol, regarding abortion being an act of principled guidance, RvW resulted in third trimester abortions being subject to prohibition but leaving open the 2nd trimester, as you explained. Yet, a baby was born premature at 23 weeks recently. 23 weeks would fall in the 2nd trimester, which is my point.
Such a baby could be dismembered legally moments before he or she was actually born. An hour could make the difference between principled privacy and infanticide.
“Your statement that abortion rights advocates are a much more principled than those opposing abortion is an example of such partisanship.”
First, I admit that I am a strong partisan in favor of abortion rights, and against the position you hold, which is that women are passive incubators rather than human beings.
Second, my claim that abortion rights advocates are more principled than adherents of the anti-abortion industry is my considered opinion, developed through years of observation, and, as it happens, given more support with each post of yours. Justification for my opinion can be found, for example, in the dishonesty of your arguments above.
“Catholic, and Christian faith in general, is the basis for the morality for many of us, including public servants.”
That has nothing to do with anything. It is entirely irrelvant to the issue at hand. If you would learn to read better, you could read my discussion above in which I address the issue. I do not deny faith, or Christian faith, or Catholic faith, as a basis for morality for many people. What I deny is YOUR right to impose YOUR particular interpretation of Catholic morality on the public policy of the United States. Joseph Biden’s faith does not tell him that a woman should be forced to be a passive incubator. You are not entitled to force your viewpoint on the people of Delaware, who chose them as your representative, by claiming that “faith informs government policy” as support for the propsition that YOUR faith and opinions should be the sole arbiter of government policy.
“This is a highly faith based country with a great number of us believing in the Gospels, whether your principled perspective accepts it or not.”
That is not relevant to anything. I’m glad, however, that you seem to have abandoned your earlier erroneous proposition that this country was built on faith, even if you aren’t willing to admit that you were wrong.
Many people do accept the gospels, including me. However, I do not agree with your proposition that the Gospels require women to be treated as passive incubators, rather than human beings. Moreover, as I noted, many people do not accept the gospels at all, and they are no less entitled to advocate for their viewpoints. You wish to gain acceptance for your viewpoint by saying “but my viewpoint is faith-based”. You’re entitled to derive your viewpoint from your faith, but in order to gain general acceptance you need to do more than sit and bleat that no one should challenge your viewpoint because it is based on the Gospels. You need to show how it is based on the Gospels, and why the Gospels should be follwed in this instance.
Roe v. Wade does not rigidly divide pregnacy into trimesters, but points to viability as a defining point at which a state may proscribe abortion, except when necessary to save the life or health of the mother. Advocates of the ban on “partial birth abortion,” demonstrate that they are willing, for example, to force a woman to be subjected to a procedure that may destroy her health, or to be force her to carry a nonviable hydrocephalic fetus, rather than terminate a pregnancy in a way that is safest for her, but which makes advocates of the ban emotionally uncomfortable.
Any woman who was not forcibly impregnated is an “active incubator” who made choices leading to her pregnancy. She has to accept some responsibility for those decisions, and at some point, her responsibilities to the unborn child, the other parent, and society, begin to outweigh her convenience.
The legal fact is that a woman may hire a doctor to medically remove a fetus at any time prior to delivery if it is truly a danger to her health to continue the pregnancy.
The medical argument is used far more often than it is a reason in reality.
why is the US do isular? No other Western Country has an issue with Gays in the military. Why is the universal healthcare of other western countries not even mentioned? Does the rest of the Western World mean anything to the US or are we just a prop?
The Republican debate of June 4th was superb. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans actually speak their minds.
Hillary, Edwards, and Obama look like children compared to the Republican field. From an intellectual standpoint, the
Republicans far out do the “tripple failure” that is Hillary, Edwards, Obama.