Political Things I Don’t Understand

You are not white, Chris, you are a Latino.

BTW: I am not white too, I am pinky.

Re: Clinton, Two things:

1. He was told the interview would be about his environmental investment fund, no mention of questions about Osama.

2. The question he was asked was, “Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaida out of business when you were president?” This could’ve been asked less provocatively, such as “Why were you unable to put Al Qaida out of business?” Or even, “Knowing what you know now, what would you have done differently?”

Presidents traditionally avoid criticizing their predecessors, but this question put him in direct conflict with the status quo by suggesting the current mess is his fault (a very popular talking point on the right these days). If someone insinuated that about me, I’d strike back hard too. Interestingly, no one from Fox ever asks agressive questions like this of the current president.

You hit the nail on the head – these issue baffle me as well.

Never attempt to use logic when understanding religious fanatics. The two are incompatible.

uh-oh… Chris is thinking Forbidden Thoughts again…!! ;-)

I agree, we should put all the anger and hate into testing Vista so it will be a great release at RTM.

[...] Political Things I Don?t Understand [...]

Short answer to all: People are stupid.

Take care now. Bye bye then.

When Clinton was president the right wing accused him of being obsessed with getting Bin Laden, now they want to know why he didn’t do more to get rid of him. Can’t have it both ways………

I beg to differ Derek you are wrong on both points.

1. Mr. Clinton agreed to his first one-on-one interview ever on “FOX News Sunday.” The ground rules were simple: 15 minutes for our sit-down, split evenly between the Global Initiative and anything else we wanted to ask. (quoted by foxnews website)

2. Although Wallace did ask this, it was part of a whole opening discussion and not a simple “Why didn’t you do more…”

here is a snip: “WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on “Fox News Sunday,” I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I’ve got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?…”

For those of you who would rather think for yourself instead of allowing Derek to translate this issue for yourselves, feel free to read the actual transcript at the following URL:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215397,00.html

I don’t think Clinton was upset over this weekend’s Fox News interview. I think he’s upset over the “Path to 9/11″ and these accusations out there that he didn’t do anything about Bin Laden. Fact is, when he was trying to do things, the people who are accusing him of ignoring the issue were yelling “Wag the Dog” and “No war for Monica”. They wouldn’t let him do what he wanted to do, and now he’s responsible, in their minds, for 9/11. I’d be upset, too.

What’s more, I’d be upset to know that these same questions were never asked on Fox News Sunday of the people who were in office at the time of 9/11. And, yes, these questions should be asked. If you watch the entire interview, Clinton made clear to the 9/11 Commission that he wants his failures out there, so people learn from them…but it was the way in which they were asked…quoting a Clinton smear book that no one had ever heard of, framing the questions in an accusatory fashion instead of being a journalist. It was shameful. What this media is doing to this country is shameful, and Clinton was there to see it in action. It pissed him off, and rightly so.

I don’t understand the “They want to kill your family” thing. Where are you hearing this? I heard Bush say it a few times last week…an interview with Matt Lauer stands out…but not much beyond that.

As for the “N” word, it’s intersting, isn’t it? I want to say it’s wrong, as I’ve heard so many black people speak of how damaging it is…and how people using it today don’t understand what it really means and how damaging of a word it is. Then, I watched some old Richard Pryor stand up this weekend, and he has the N-word flying out of his mouth like there’s no tomorrow. A part of the culture us white geeks don’t understand, therefore can’t speak about…I guess. Then again, maybe we should give George Allen a ring. I hear he loved the word in college…

Finally, as for party lines, it’s the wedge issues. Abortion was neither Republican nor Democrat until the Republicans snapped it up in the 70s. They’ve learned a lot since then. We shouldn’t vote down party lines. Our country would be a much better place if we had an educated electorate…but we don’t. Instead, we have people who are too busy to keep up, so they vote on wedge issues and sound bites. It’s truly time for a change…but, we’re also lazy. We went to war under false pretenses, and a few people march. Until we fill the streets, nothing is going to change…and I can’t imagine anything that would make us fill the streets.

Re: Pope Benedict’s speech. A nun was also shot and killed as a result of one of the stupidest and most untimely speeches I can recall, aside from George Dubya’s recent efforts. So I’d say there’s nothing to laugh about.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20431451-5001021,00.html

This post is a blatant attempt at getting a lot of comments ;)

Actually, linking Islam with fascism has a pedigree that goes back at least to 1963:

In 1963, Princeton published his Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa. For years, this book was the basic text in the field, and included the only academic treatment of Islamism, which no one much cared about at the time. Halpern labeled it “neo-Islamic totalitarianism,” and this is how he described it:

The neo-Islamic totalitarian movements are essentially fascist movements. They concentrate on mobilizing passion and violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader and the solidarity of the movement. They view material progress primarily as a means for accumulating strength for political expansion, and entirely deny individual and social freedom. They champion the values and emotions of a heroic past, but repress all free critical analysis of either past roots or present problems.

Halpern continued:

Like fascism, neo-Islamic totalitarianism represents the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence. Unable to solve the basic public issues of modern life�?intellectual and technological progress, the reconciliation of freedom and security, and peaceful relations among rival sovereignties�?the movement is forced by its own logic and dynamics to pursue its vision through nihilistic terror, cunning, and passion. An efficient state administration is seen only as an additional powerful tool for controlling the community. The locus of power and the focus of devotion rest in the movement itself. Like fascist movements elsewhere, the movement is so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members.

http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2006_09_20.htm

“When Clinton was president the right wing accused him of being obsessed with getting Bin Laden” – Jack

Jack, please post evidence of this. What most conservatives said at the time was that the cruise missile attacks against Bin Laden were used to distract from the Monica Lewinski scandal. All his comments proved was that his policy decisions were based solely on public opinion and had very little to do with making the tough choices against what he perceived to tarnish his “legacy”.

As for Islam being such a peaceful religion, the burning of churches and killing a nun says it all.

Now for the term, “Islamic Facism”, read “Islamic Fascism 101″:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGEyNjcyNzBjYTQ2MDM0ZGIzZjY5YjhhMzViYjdjNTA=

The party lines, why are their Mac only people? why are their Linux people? why are there Christians? why are there atheists?

As someone who worked on the Hill alot of people truely DO believe in their party just as much as a religion, on both sides not just a Republican thing. From the little campaign work I did it’s the same among those active in their parties on a local level.

1. Cry first because real suffering is involved. Then laugh because the irony is too much to stand.

2. I don’t know who originated it. The Bush propaganda machinery has adopted in yet another attempt to rally the American public around the War in Iraq. Following the evaporation of every previous rationale for the war, Bush needs to legitimate it somehow. The game is to equate this struggle with World War II. You have to ask, though, if this is really the focal point of an epoch battle between the forces of democracy and fascism, why aren’t we mobilized? Why cut taxes? Why limit the number of soldiers we send? The country is not on a war footing. But the admistration wants to wrap Bush in the mantle of War President. “Terrorists” is not who we’re battling. But rather only a subset of terrorists. “Fascists” doesn’t fit the ideology of the radical Muslim fundamentalists who have embraced terror as a tactic.

3. Of course the question is legitimate. Clinton said as much.

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

WALLACE: Do you ever watch “FOX News Sunday,” sir?

CLINTON: I don’t believe you asked them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions.

CLINTON: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris. Tell the truth, Chris.

WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask, sir.

Funny, isn’t it… Wallace admitted that he never asked that question of Bush.

There is a concerted effort by the right wing propaganda machinery to blame 9/11 on Clinton. Funny… until this weekend there were too accepable stories: “enough blame to go around” and “it’s because Clinton didn’t get Osama.” But what about the third story that’s been locked away: When Clinton left office, he put a big note on the fridge saying, watch out for this Osama character. The Bush administration did very little to take that seriously. Anything that Bill said, must be wrong. Thank God Bill got upset. Now we can open that locked cabinet and pursue actively the failures of the Bush administration. Please read or play the Olbermann commentary on this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/

The right is trying to paint this as “Clinton goes crazy” so they don’t have to answer the legit questions

4, 5, 6: I’ve already sucked up too much air here I’ll save these for another round.

7. Some people vote for party because they don’t have time to investigate.
But in a situation like today’s, anyone who views Bush’s policiies as disastrous, would do well to vote straight Democratic. The rubber-stamp Congress is just an enabler. From my POV, it’s time to change direction.
In saner times I’d vote for the person. This year, that’s not a luxury I can afford.