Penguinsfan, you've got a good handle on it all, and it seems your politics are based in what you find reasonable rather than emotion and personal opinions. I think my dislike of Bush casts me as a bit more liberal than I actually view myself, but then again that's the greatest bias of all. I didn't mean to be hostile over the Balkan issue, and I appreciate your mannered response. To some of your other points:
1. Bush's qualifications: I'd say the poor speaking ability is indicative of larger problems. He's not an intellectual, which isn't bad in and of itself. He does, however, talk about being a 'gut player' and it's widely reported the man just isn't versed in issues that our chief executive ought to have a full and thorough grip on. Academic pedigree as opposed to Gore, they're fairly of the same cast. They went to the best colleges because of who their parents were, plain and simple. Bush isn't a total retard, but I doubt he'll be teaching any classes at Columbia to recuperate his energies after his political career is over. Once again, I'm not saying devoted academics make better presidents (case in point: Carter), I'm just saying Bush doesn't have what it takes to do the job properly. But then again, his 'common fella' appeal is his greatest electoral strength. I find it scary that people favor that over mental ability.
2. Bush and the AWOL claims. There is a wealth of evidence out there, depending on the opinion of whoever's website you check, you'll get 'the real deal.' There isn't conclusive proof that he was around during the period in question, and the fact the administration doesn't discuss it or just offer up something solid is good enoguh for me, despite the seeming myriad of evidence that he was gone for a stretch. More alarming was the fairly lame nature of his entrance into the guard, in which his father had a sit-down with the base commander. George was accepted that day and skipped above something like 150 other kids on the list to get into flight school. Guess I just don't like the nepotism or something. Either way, the chances of Bush seeing any real combat, or his interest in this happening, aren't really chances at all. I never said Gore was any better on the matter, just that as far as I'm concerned Bush clearly sidestepped any real service, not that he
was alone, and there's a wealth of evidence suggesting he didn't even have the fortitude to stick the national guard business out. Hey, he was a young guy, it doesn't even matter that much to me, but it goes along with my general opinion that he's no friend of the military.
3. Afghanistan. You're right, I didn't point out we were fueling the Afghani military machine. Glad to see soembody knows the history and politics of the region. I persoanlly my point about the military is still valid. It's not a trendy liberal idea to say that the military of today is Clinton's brainchild, it's just how things work. Any military historian or anybody working in teh Pentagon will tell you that a first term president gets the military that their predecessor built and designed. We went into Afghanistan, and even Iraq realatively early in Bush's term, and the army was fairly unaltered. Despite arguments over proper amounts of troop numbers and strategic support, nobody can argue that our efficiency and military precision was unparaelled. People that study such things said it was the first truly modern combat action the world had seen. The sophisitcation of our communication and sensing technology, plus the precision bombing and deployment power of our military is amazing, and head and shoulders above the army we invaded Iraq with under Bush uno. This new military was engineered under Clinton's watch. I'm hardly articualte on the matter, but as always I can tell you there is plenty of good information out there, non-partisan in nature.
4. Liberals and the military. Well, see above, but on the issue of non-response to those terrorist actions I'll say these things. First, I don't recall anybody in mainstream politics, liberal or conservative, calling for war over each of those events. And Clinton did launch missiles at both Iraq and in response to terrorism in Sudan. I disagreed strongly against Sudan becaus I thought the targets were sketchy at best and it was largely a publicity stunt during the lewinksy business. Other western countries, like Italy, France, and Germany, had suffered some heavy casualties due to terrorist attacks as well, but they weren't rolling for war. That series you listed were sypmtoms of the festering trouble. The first WTC attack was a bungle to be sure, but if you sit back and look at the rhetoric from the time, nobody tenatiously hang onto the issue and demanded that Clinton gear up and go to war on terrorism. He happened to be president, but it was a fuck-up on many levels. The fact that Clinton was president doesn't really make the case that any Democrat is soft on terrorism anyways. By all accounts Clinton was fairly obsessed with capturing and killing Osama Bin Laden as he was causing him a good deal of grief, but just as our current boss is floundering, he was unsuccessful. I think many people, not necessarily you, think that Democrats and some kind of naive pacifism go hand in hand. That's just horseshit and spin, nothing more.
5. Iraq and Al Queda. The 9/11 panel recently found no links between Iraq and 9/11, which is basically a 'duh' statement. Frankly, if we were to go after every nation that had some association with the Al Queda and other terrorist networks we'd have to take out something like 30 countries. The fact is, the case for war in Iraq is shaky, and it's benefits questionable. I'm only against it because I do believe in the long run it has hurt our international position and created more problems than it solved. It has cost a ton of money and we have little to show for it except and old dictator in a cage and and red cheeks in the international community. Bush linked it to teh war on terrorism, but I believe there were far better ways to spend the money, resources, and effort than Iraq. I'm aware of the theories about the WMDs getting shuffled around, but I mean, well c'mon now. We confiscated thousands of PCs, interviewed thousands of workers and sceintists, and contrary to propaganda we've combed over a good portion of that whole region. This administration has proven it doesn't wait for a rock solid case to emerge before they'll take it to the public as proven fact; if there was the slightest evidence Iraq had some functional or viable WMDs stored or being developed, it would have been out long ago. And frankyl, states like Syria are scared shitless of us by many accounts, I doubt they would just be holding stockpiles of nukes and gas in the wake of our invasion. We have intelligence in places like Syria, and believe me they're looking. As ineffeicient as the intelligence community has proven with this stuff, they're still damn good, and if Syria or some other sympathizer just had this unbelieveable and threatening load of weapons dumped on them we'd have some scraps by now that say so.
6. Foreign Policy. It's not fair to hold Bush up to Clinton, and Clinton isn't truly great in my opinion either. I made the comparison in a responsive fashion to somebody else that said Bush was brilliant and Clinton a bungler. I'll chalk up my feelings to negative consequences of their policies for America. And that's not even entirely fair as we haven't seen how Bush has panned out yet, so I'll gladly concede that Bush's damage is largely my prediction.
I appreciated your comments though, I like your take on things. You seem more interested in alligning your opinons with what you judge to be the truth than simply being 'right.' Usually when people argue about politics they'll say or do anything to appear to have the answers or be on the correct side of things. Whether we disagree or not you've got the best kind of attitude and that's really all that counts.
