Discussion:
Sharp, new focus for U.S. election
(too old to reply)
Ron
2004-08-28 04:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Sharp, new focus for U.S. election
Brian Knowlton/IHT IHT
Thursday, August 19, 2004

WASHINGTON For the first time in decades, foreign affairs and national security issues are
emerging in the final months of the U.S. presidential campaign as greater concerns among
American voters than economic matters, according to a survey released on Wednesday.

Not since 1972, during the Vietnam War, have security and foreign affairs concerns
dominated at this point in a campaign, the Pew Research Center said in the report.

The survey suggests that public views on Iraq, and the administration's success or failure
in overcoming violent opposition there in coming months, could decisively influence the
election between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, said the Pew director,
Andrew Kohut. The study also found that Americans' views on Iraq and other foreign policy
issues had diverged to a historically unusual level - the foreign policy opinions of
Republicans and Democrats had been much closer in the past- reaffirming the notion that
the candidates would have to continue scrapping through to Election Day for votes among
small numbers of undecided voters.

For instance, Republican support for the doctrine espoused by Bush that pre-emptive war is
justifiable against potential enemies has grown, to 88 percent from 79 percent last year,
while Democratic support for it has fallen, to 44 percent from 58 percent.

Nearly the same number of Americans said they favored a "cautious" foreign policy as a
"decisive" one.

"The debate about whether it is better to be loved or feared is shaping up as a major
issue," said Lee Feinstein, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, which
collaborated on the Pew study.

Four in 10 Americans now cite international and defense issues as the most important
problems confronting the country, the survey found. Only one in four mentioned economic
concerns.

The Pew Center, relying partly on data from past Gallup polls, said that security and
foreign affairs issues dominated from World War II until 1972.

But in 1976, a year after the fall of Saigon, economic issues took over. That trend peaked
in 1992, when the candidate Bill Clinton instructed campaign aides that "It's the economy,
stupid." That year, voters surveyed by Gallup cited economic concerns 18 times as often as
foreign and security matters.

The focus on foreign and security issues is, if anything, growing as the campaign
progresses, the Pew report said.

The poll was conducted by phone from July 8 to 18 among 2,009 Americans. Smaller up
samplings followed in early August. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

The lessons of the survey offer each camp some encouragement, said Walter Mead of the
Council on Foreign Relations.

"Both pro- and anti-Bush voters agree that foreign policy is very important," he said. But
while Americans give Bush higher marks on the war on terror, "Kerry has a lead when you
ask which is better on foreign policy," Mead said.

Pew and other polls show that Kerry has an advantage on the economy. But on the question
of who would do a better job of handling Iraq, the two men are tied, the poll found.

"Supporters of both candidates can find both encouragement and grounds for concern in the
study," Mead said. If the troubles in Iraq have fueled a rising preoccupation with foreign
affairs, recent economic improvement could be a reason for the relative decline in
Americans' concerns on that front. Kerry has repeatedly criticized Bush for the loss of
millions of American jobs since 2000, and said that as president he would provide
incentives for businesses to keep jobs at home; the president has pointed to the creation,
in recent months, of hundreds of thousands of jobs and said his tax cuts will create more.

Other poll findings also held mixed blessings for the Bush and Kerry campaigns: Nearly 6
respondents in 10 faulted the administration as being too quick to use force in Iraq, and
just over half said they disapproved of the way Bush was handling matters there. Just over
4 in 10 approved of his course on Iraq. Those surveyed were deeply concerned with the loss
of international respect for the United States. Two-thirds said the country was less
respected now, and among opponents of the Iraq war, the level approached 9 in 10. More
Americans than in any previous Pew survey, 45 percent, said the United States plays a more
important role as world leader than it did a decade earlier. Yet, a declining number - 38
percent, down from 45 percent in October 2001 - supported the idea that the United States
should be the single dominant world power.

At the same time, the threat of terror continues to mark public attitudes on the use of
force and the extent of national protection measures, as shown by support for pre-emption.

While 3 in 10 Americans said that the U.S. government had gone too far in restricting
civil liberties as part of moves meant to fight terrorism, 5 in 10 expressed concern that
it had not done enough to protect the country.

Bush has frequently asserted that the antiterrorism laws of the Patriot Act are
justifiably tough, despite criticisms that they allow intrusions on privacy.

"There are a lot of places in the poll where you can see that the shock of Sept. 11 is
just a central concern for the American public," Mead said.

One of these apparently was the belief among a substantial minority of respondents, 43
percent, that torture can sometimes be justified by circumstances, a number that might
seem surprising after the public shock over abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Carroll Doherty of the Pew Center said the public saw no contradiction in wanting both
stronger relations with allies and tougher measures against terror. "They want both," he
said.

The survey found strong partisan disagreements on several foreign policy issues.

Half of Democrats and nearly as many independents said that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
might have been motivated partly by U.S. wrongdoings in dealing with other countries. But
three in four Republicans rejected that view, up even from the 65 percent who said so in
late September 2001.

International Herald Tribune



Copyright © 2004 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
Hanoi Jane Fonda
2004-08-28 05:23:04 UTC
Permalink
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE DUMB LIBERAL

It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a
cave. A liberal male homosexual walked by, attracting the attention of
another liberal male homosexual. The one liberal male homosexual
stepped forward and smacked the other liberal homosexual over the head
with his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious other liberal
homosexual into his cave for several hours of anal, and oral sex. Next
thing you know, AIDS is invented!

One day there were two liberals standing in front of a cave trying to
figure out how to steal their neighbors pig when a female walked by.
The first liberal raised his arm to club the female. The female
communicated to him that he was a dirty and smelly liberal that needed
to take a bath. The female made it very clear that she did not want
any liberal to touch any part of her body. WHACK! WHACK! One of the
dirty smelly liberals hit the woman over the head with his club. And
then both liberals proceeded to gang rape her.

Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent of
projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the liberal corner
drug dealer, where the big strong liberal brute, strung out on PCP,
was laid flat by the small liberal crack dealer who shoots him with a
stolen 357 magnum. Once liberal brute strength was no longer the
controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas slowly started
to fester in human culture, and civilization began to deteriorate.

Throughout human history, the price for advocating conservative
tolerance and progressive change has been paid for in threats,
beatings, excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder,
assassination, and execution. Countless liberals have caused
civilization to pay the ultimate price, for their inhumanity. John F.
Kennedy, and Bill Clinton are two of the more famous of liberals in
high places that have been found out to have committed sex crimes
while serving as president.

Today there are many liberals - individuals, groups, and nations - who
use threats and violence to silence the voices of conservative reason,
tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in liberal racists
and homosexuals, Black Panthers and gays who spread AIDS just for the
fun of it, for money and out of anger generated by interactive cause,
and because of religious or racial intolerance and liberal bigotry.

Alan Berg, on talk radio, was a liberal that loved to stir up trouble
any way possible. Then Alan Berg was found dead outside of the
building he lived in. Obviously the result of a drug deal gone bad.
Liberals are well known for shooting each other during drug deals.

David Rice is a liberal on death row in Washington State who has no
remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and
carving out their living hearts only because he heard they had money
that he wanted to buy drugs with.

At Ruby Ridge, a liberal controlled FBI shot a woman, holding a baby,
in the back of the head.

In 1993, in Waco, Texas, liberal Janet Reno sent liberal controlled
federal troops into a compound to set fires and kill hundreds of women
and children.

The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11 terrorist
attacks upon America. Thousands of innocent civilians were murdered.
The perpetrator, the liberal Osama Bin Laden and the liberal al
Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the left-wing mentality of causing
death and destruction everywhere possible. Liberals are still trying
to defend Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorists by protesting our
military people who are trying to get rid of the terrorist threat to
America.

Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or
that they are not done primarily by liberals is utter nonsense. All we
have to do is to look back at all of the liberal atrocities throughout
history as seen below:

Who nailed who to a cross?
Roman Soldiers nailed Conservative Christ to a cross.

Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George?
The liberal colonists of what is now the United States of America. The
Conservatives took up guns, and then chased the British out of America
with those guns while the liberals were all crying for more gun
control laws.

Who started our Civil War to defend slavery?
Abraham Lincoln, a conservative Republican, came to the aid of the
slaves. The southern liberals wanted to keep black people as slaves.
But it was a northern conservative Republican who freed them.

Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their sovereignty
over their own bodies in the freedom to choose abortion?
Liberals love to kill everything, including unborn babies. Liberals
are very sick people.

Who fought against child labor statutes?
Liberals are all for labor unions that would have everyone paying dues
to an organization that is rife with crime and corruption, just like
the Clinton family.

Who fought against the concept of free public education?
Liberals want everyone else to pay for everything that they do.
Liberals feel that they should not have to work for anything at all
when they can make someone else pay for it.

Who fought against the right of women to vote?
Liberals do not want anyone to vote for anyone who is not a liberal.

Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation?
Conservative Republican Teddy Roosevelt.

Who fought against workers organizing?
Liberals feel that workers should organize in order to try to extort
more money out of employers.

Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars
"unsafe at any speed?"
The same liberal idiot ( Ralph Nader ) that nobody pays attention to
forty years later. The Chevrolet Corvair is not much different than
any modern car. The Chevrolet Corvair was way ahead of its time. But a
stupid liberal, of that time, wanted everyone to drive huge hulking
cars that weighed in at about 2 tons each. Now liberals want all of us
to drive electric cars that are not practical either.

Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11 terrorist
attacks?
William Jefferson Clinton! Because Billy Clinton had a perfect chance
to get Osama bin Laden and decided to forget about it, because he felt
that getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky was more important.

Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40
million more?
European liberals decided that Adolph Hitler was not a problem during
the late thirties. So liberals just decided to looked the other way
when he decided to start gassing the Jewish people.

Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years?
The liberals still believe in the Jim Crow laws because all liberals
believe that all black people belong on welfare. Liberals believe that
black people are not capable of taking of taking care of themselves.

Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security,
health care for the elderly, and minimum wages?
The liberals believe that everything should be controlled by one huge
government where the people have nothing to say about anything.

Who fights against environmental protection statutes?
The liberals believe that we should all drive electric cars, but are
too stupid to think about where to get the energy from ( Coal?
Nuclear? Water Dam? ) that would be used to charge the batteries with.
And if it’s hydrogen, then where to get it from in a manor that does
not destroy the planet.

Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle minorities?
Liberals believe that it is normal for a man to insert his penis into
another mans rectum for the purpose of sex. Bill Clinton believes that
it is normal, for him, to insert a cigar into a girl’s vagina in order
to have sex. Liberals believe that it is normal for grownups to have
sex with children. The ACLU has come to the defense of NAMBLA for
proof of this one.

Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering, terminally
ill patients soon to die anyway?
The same people that oppose the killing of babies.

Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our
other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections?
The same liberals that believe that the Second Amendment should be
removed from the United States Constitution.

Who are the hypocrites forcing their inhibitions and prohibitions on
ALL Americans via legislation and draconian, police-state enforcement
practices?
The same liberals that believe that the government should assume
people are guilty of something before they buy a gun. So the liberals
want the government to do background checks on law abiding people
before they buy a gun. But liberal criminal’s never bother with
background checks.

Who always puts personal gain above the common good?
Liberals always put personal gain above all else. That is why liberals
believe that everyone else should pay into taxes to foot their welfare
checks.

CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS?

The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE OF
THE LIBERAL MORON!

Liberals have distorted and demonized the world. The true conservative
is favoring progressive change, humanistic values, and opposition to
authoritarianism. Conservatives can see liberal governmental waste and
tolerance of criminality. Liberals are guilty of abuses such as
massive welfare programs for lazy people and taxing companies until
they are out of business. Liberals believe in fraud against the public
that pays for their welfare checks, and other crimes. Conservatives
are all for change for the better and progress. Liberals only believe
in the motto: "what's in it for me?"

At the core of liberalism is the Clinton family - the despotic
practitioners of "sexual perversion makes me feel right," craving
wealth and corrupt power, and willing to use any and all means to get
them. Liberalism is the philosophy of William Jefferson Clinton
wearing no pants, and playing with his erect penis.

AND THE CLINTON FAMILY HAS TRIED TO DESTROY OUR EARTH!
David Galehouse
2004-08-28 10:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hanoi Jane Fonda
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE DUMB LIBERAL
Unattributed article = bullshit.

Stop stealing other's "intellectual" (although that's a stretch in this
case) property, Hanoi. You are a dishonest freak.
Hanoi Jane Fonda
2004-08-28 11:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Clinton Admits Doubts About His Administration's al-Qaeda Response

Posted April 9, 2004
By Shaun Waterman

The commission probing the Sept. 11 terror attacks met Thursday with
former President Bill Clinton in a three-and-a-half hour, closed-door
session during which, commissioners said, he expressed some doubts
about his administration's response to terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda.

"He was very frank. He gave us a lot of very helpful insight into
things that happened [and his] policy approaches [to them]," said
Reagan-era Navy secretary commissioner John F. Lehman.

The meeting -- though likely to be overshadowed by the public
testimony under oath the commission heard the same day from current
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- brings into sharp relief
long-standing allegations that Clinton's response to a series of
attacks by Islamic terrorists made the United States appear weak and
encouraged al-Qaeda in their belief that they could strike the United
States with impunity.

"We did go into some of the obvious criticisms of the eight years
under his tenure," Lehman told CNN, after news of the Clinton meeting
broke late Thursday afternoon.

He added that the former president was now second-guessing some of the
decisions that he made at that time. "He was very frank, very open
about talking about some decisions where, had he known some things,
[they] might have gone one way or another way."

The commission -- formally known as the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Against the United States -- has already reported
that there were several occasions after the attacks on two U.S.
embassies in East Africa when senior officials might have had an
opportunity to order terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden killed,
either with cruise missiles or by locally recruited Afghan CIA agents.

On four occasions in 1998-99, commission investigators said at a
hearing last month, officials -- including counterterrorism tzar
Richard A. Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet and Clinton National
Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger -- opted not to strike locations
where bin Laden was thought to be. Officials said their information
was not certain enough and the number of innocent civilians who might
be killed was unacceptably high.

Commissioners said they also asked Clinton about policy matters. "We
asked him a host of big questions, big policy recommendations," said
former Indiana Democratic congressman and commission member Tim
Roemer.

The former president's office said in a statement that Clinton was
"pleased" to have had the opportunity to meet with the panel "and
believed it was a very constructive meeting."

Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, who was Clinton's deputy attorney
general, told CNN that the former president -- as he is wont - was
very voluble. "He even answered questions we didn't ask," she joked.

Commissioner Slade Gorton, the former GOP senator from Washington
state, added that the meeting ran over by almost an hour but was "very
valuable" because "President Clinton has done a lot of thinking since
he left office on issues like this," and said the commission was
grateful for his advice.

Both panelists also took the opportunity to comment on papers from the
Clinton White House, which, though provided to the current
administration by the former president's archive, were not turned over
to the commission.

After the issue was brought to light by former Clinton official Bruce
R. Lindsey, commission lawyers were given access to the papers and
concluded that, of more than 10,000 documents, less than 70 were
relevant to their inquiry and not duplicative of material already
obtained elsewhere.

"We haven't gotten them yet," Gorton said of the documents, "and they
are relevant to our mission. ... We fully expect that we will get all
of them so that they can inform our ultimate report."

"Now that we found out why it was that we didn't get certain Clinton
administration documents that were withheld by the White House," added
Gorelick, "we're going to issue a parallel request for similar Bush
administration documents."

Shaun Waterman is the homeland and national security editor for UPI, a
sister news organization of Insight.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/04/13/Politics/Clinton.Admits.Doubts.About.His.Administrations.AlQaeda.Response-656714.shtml
Thom
2004-09-07 00:30:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:23:04 -0400, Hanoi Jane Fonda
Post by Hanoi Jane Fonda
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE DUMB LIBERAL
It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a
cave. A liberal male homosexual walked by, attracting the attention of
another liberal male homosexual.
Both republicans no doubt since no self respecting cave woman would
screw a republican.

THOM

Loading...