Better off without
I think we all would be better off if we did away with political parties. Candidates would then have to run on their own qualifications and not be stigmatized by what party they belong to. I think that a lot of people and legislators vote by party too much and don’t go it alone with what they think is best.
I’m glad that Angus King is running for the Senate and I plan on voting for him. Go, Angus!
Doug Pooler
Dexter
Kinder words, please
I am 85 years old and have never heard such disgusting and nonsensical comments in my entire life as I’ve heard recently over the radio, newspapers and TV. “Kiss my Butt,” calling women “sluts” and degrading candidates for electoral offices.
This is not, in my opinion, about free speech; it is about slander and ignorance and should be stopped once and for all, by barring them from public view and voice.
Hats off to those sponsors who dropped Rush Limbaugh from their lists.
I think if candidates running for public office spend their time presenting and promoting themselves instead of fighting their opponents with slanderous and very unkind words, they will rate higher with the public. I know it will with me.
Norman Philbrick
Bangor
Iran sounds like Iraq
The current crisis over Iran’s nuclear development has an eerily familiar ring, very much like the Iraq war entry rationale: a lot of hype and speculation and a paucity of solid facts.
What is overlooked in this current scenario is that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. Any reasonable person should ask: “If Iran should give up its nuclear ambitions, shouldn’t Israel get rid of its nuclear arsenal?”
For decades, Israel has exerted an oversized influence on U.S. politics. Our leaders, both Republican and Democrat, jump through hoops when Israel speaks. No state in the U.S. gets the doting TLC we give Israel. The time is long overdue for a tough love policy toward Israel.
Gene Wilbur
Parkman
RIP, TRJ
For those familiar with Belfast and Waldo County history, Village Soup, our only newspaper, doesn’t exist as of March 9.
Belfast had more than one newspaper in the early days, but The Republican Journal which was born in 1829, was the one constant in the area. Except for a short time during the Civil War, TRJ was available every week for the reader to pick up and read. Whether you agreed with the points of view, in the “olden” days you could write in your comments.
A few months ago, the name The Republican Journal was changed to Village Soup Journal, much to the chagrin of those of us who revered the name TRJ. Originally, as someone wrote to the Soup Journal, the name had nothing to do with the Republican Party, but referred to the republic of the United States. The name had withstood owners and editors from various political parties.
Perhaps those early owners and editors didn’t agree with the change of the newspaper name, used since 1829. Anyway, a few short years ago, Waldo County had three newspapers. I’m sure with the reporting history of Waldo County that there are many in the vicinity with newspaper experience, and that we won’t be without a newspaper for long, and perhaps The Republican Journal will exist again.
God bless, and may TRJ either rest in peace or rise from the ashes.
Isabel Morse Maresh
Belmont
Searsport must step up
Searsport voters have had their say and have turned down a temporary moratorium on DCP’s proposal to build an LPG terminal. This is a very good thing because there is now a clear sense of control in local hands, and with it, responsibility.
No one can expect DCP or any large corporation to focus exclusively on local needs; the Gulf Oil spill is a solemn reminder of that. Thus, the real work of the DCP proponents has only just begun.
Those Searsport residents who voted to move ahead right away have the responsibility to make sure that the 12 coveted jobs do go to locals, that the tax base is indeed increased, while residential property and small business values do not suffer, as they have maintained.
It will be up to them to follow up on all the environmental and safety issues at Mack Point and on the roads leading in and out of Searsport. And if things go wrong, they must be answerable to their neighbors and the town as a whole, as well as surrounding communities.
It now falls on their shoulders to invest the energy and long-term commitment needed to ensure that DCP follows up on all their promises. And whatever their personal feelings, the proponents will need environmental and safety studies, not funded by DCP, which consider the potential impact of such an installation on surrounding communities that would share in the effects of any accidents or other environmental damage.
Joanne Boynton
Belfast
Defending pensions
When accepted by the United States Peace Corps as a volunteer in Belize, I made plans to retire from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. I did not have sufficient years to qualify for a retirement fund, but I was asked, “How many years did you teach school?” That did it — my years of state service and six years of teaching were enough time. I was accepted as a state retiree!
Over the years I have been secure and comfortable knowing that I have a monthly income that allows me to live life as I want to live it. An additional security was the fact that as long as I am around, the state in 1934 had made a contract to “never alter the certain section of the public employee retirement contract.”
When I read a few weeks ago that the Maine Association of Retirees was suing the state retirement system for changing those early rules, I was amazed. Dumb as it may seem, I knew nothing about the past history of my retirement fund.
I went to work, read more about the issue, met with staff members at the Maine Association of Retirees office and slowly I am better aware of the issue.
Think of the thousands of teachers, firemen, game wardens and others who have worked each day to make and keep Maine the positive, unique state it is. Today I personally thank the Maine Association of Retirees group for carrying out its responsibility to defend its members and assure that financial benefits to each of us will continue.
Katy Perry
Hallowell
Thank you Mr. Philbrick. Let us hope that the “invisible hand” of the market place gives Limbaugh a strong push into obscurity. Let us also hope that Ms. Fluke sues him for slander. Both actions are necessary checks on the coarsening of our public debate.
Don’t hold your breath. 20 million people still listen to Rush. The show sponsors will be back as soon as the dust settles.
Imus paid a lot for his flub, which, in my opinion was not nearly as bad. And his program was much better than Limbaugh’s.
Rush has probably 4 times the listeners as Imus. Rush is pretty much untouchable. The advertisors will be back. He has to large an audience to ignore.
Huckabee has a show coming soon at the same time. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with that.
If that is true and I think it probably is then that explains what is really wrong with America. And, tells me there is not much hope for a respectful, dignified society. American is indeed going downhill if rhetoric like those two spew appeals to anyone.
You can touch Limbaugh if you wish. I for one would just as soon not.
15 million out of a nation of 313 million is less than 5% of America. As he is on at mid-day, very few of his ditto-heads would appear to be gainfully employed.
20 million people per week listen to him. So if he does five shows a week and gets 20 million listeners that means he has 4 million actual listeners. (20/5=4 million)
That is how radio ratings are determined. So if his numbers are down to 15 million then he only has 3 million listeners or 0.95% of Americans.
Have you met a ditto-head who was actually employed? Catching a mid-day radio program is a “luxury” I have only on the rare occasions I am driving.
Is posting on here all day long also a luxury? How is it you liberals can constantly whine about a man that you all claim to never listen to?
Yes, I have met ditto-heads who are employed. And others who are now retired after a lifetime of employment.
So what is it going to be? Is Limbaugh hugely influential in the GOP or is he an irrelevant bump on a log?
I think his influence is vastly over-rated, as is his show.
He’s one of the best comedians on the airwaves.
It’s 15 million and dropping. My relatives who had listened to Limbaugh have grown tired of his schtick. If advertising boycotts don’t work, where might I find Beck on Faux News?
Thats almost as good as the ole “I’m calling for my best friend” line.
20 million people per week listen to him. So if he does five shows a week and gets 20 million listeners that means he has 4 million actual listeners. (20/5=4 million)
That is how radio ratings are determined.
Ms. Fluke is certainly within her rights to bring an action against Mr. Limbaugh, but she will have a very steep hill to climb. See New York Times Co. v Sullivan.
Although Ms. Fluke will be held to the Sullivan standard, on these facts she can prove by clear and convincing evidence that Limbaugh spoke in reckless disregard of the truth.
Her testimony was but four pages long and Limbaugh continued his rant for three days without once pausing to read her testimony. In her testimony, Ms. Fluke never once spoke of her own need for contraceptives and she pointed out that the entire premium for the group health insurance policy was paid by students (Georgetown only set its terms). Thus, saying that she wanted “us” to pay for her sex life was clearly reckless.
Short of saying that he can’t read, I am not sure what Limbaugh’s defense would be. This case would clearly get to a jury and I think a D.C. jury (the obvious place to file, since Georgetown is in DC and Ms. Fluke presumably lives in D.C.) will not be gentle with this blowhard.
Thank you – a reasoned response is always a pleasant surprise in these forums.
Thank you for your kind words. One advantage here would be the ability of Ms. Fluke’s lawyer to call Limbaugh as her very first witness. (He can’t plead the Fifth as there is no possible criminal charge out there.) I don’t believe Limbaugh’s lawyer could ever get Limbaugh toned down enough that the jury would not see right through him.
The whole fluke thing was nothing but a program paid for by the Obama administration to pull attention away from Obamas mandatory birth control issues if you dont believe me, do a little research and see who was paying for her to travel around and make these speaches. It just suprises me that Rush took the bait. usually the liberals dont have a chance when trying to lure him in
Rush is not the brightest bulb in the bank of lights, he thinks he is, but the only thing he knows how to do is speal vile thoughts to some of the other dim lights.
I really hope he stays on as he just proves how far right the Republicans have gone. The independants may have a problem turning that far right, most of us prefer left hand turns like Nascar and not to sharp a turn either.
comparing the country to nascar taking left turns is kinda funny, but you had better find a better driver than Obama, and tell him to pull his prius over cuz the republican party is about to win another big race!!!!
Yes, but they Republicans are on the wrong track unless the race is to the bottom.
Good luck with that! I would not count my chickens just yet.
You mean Obama did not get a Volt? He put a lot of money into it.
Democrats set a trap and the Republicans stepped in it. Do we really want people too dumb to see a trap running the country?????
I guess the real question is do you want people that crooked and despersate enough to have to set traps running the country/ dont worry if you look at Obummers approval numbers you will realize he is on his way out
And you really believe President Obama spends his time setting up the Republicans so they look dumb? That somehow the fact that Santorum is a religious nut and says outrageous things like disbelieving the separation of church and state is a trick President Obama pulled, that it’s the presidents fault Newt has plans for colonies on the moon and cheats on multiple wives or that Romney flops when he tries to flip.
Come on !! Israel is threatening to bomb Iran, Syria is ready to blow up, the jobless rate is still up, the American public is polarized, Europe is in financial trouble, we have problems with immigration and the economy is lousy and you think President Obama, a constitutional lawyer, summa cum laude graduate with and IQ in the stratosphere is busy plotting how to get Ms Fluke to give a news conference to trap Rush Limbaugh? What kind of brain thinks up that kind of nonsense?
Honestly, no one knows what Obama does behind closed doors, but his track record does indicate that he will do just about anything to get where he wants to go.
As for being a “constitutional lawyer”, that’s just not true. He was a senior lecturer, cloaked in a professor’s robe. Note in the following release from the UC Law School that he “served” as a professor, and was considered to be a member of the faculty, but that he declined to join the faculty when invited.
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
EJ I don’t know what you do behind closed doors. That doesn’t permit any rational person to make up stupid stuff about you. President has a license to practice law in Illinois. He majored in Constitutional Law at Harvard. He isn’t a divorce lawyer. He’s a Constitutional lawyer. His teaching career at Chicago has nothing to do with whether he has a license to practice law.
then why does he keep trying to make so many unconstitutional changes to the country
Go bother another site with dopy questions.
“That doesn’t permit any rational person to make up stupid stuff about you.” Thanks for proclaiming Dr. D, fw, chenard, and even you as irrational.
EJ, we don’t make up stuff about you. That’s your job and I might add you do it quite well, just like the Republicans that keep stepping in manure and blaming the president for “setting traps”
Nobody actually blames the Blamer-In-Chief, do they?
It’s actually Assassin in Chief
A clever but meaningless insult.
it is about time you finally admitted that the country that your beloved Obama lectured on fixing is going to hell in a hand basket on his watch. By the way he was a community organizer and nothing more except for the costumes he wore
The Dow Jones has risen by 5000, the private sector has added jobs for 24 consecutive months, we are out of Iraq and exiting Afghanistan, bin Laden is dead, Gaddafi is gone with not a single American life lost, Wall Street is re-regulated, adult children under 26 can be covered under their parents’ health insurance plan, and the lifetime benefit cap in health insurance policies is eliminated. I guess it has been a trip to Hell in a hand basket under this President.
I sure do miss Bush II: the worst terrorist attack in US history, two unfunded wars, one of which, Iraq, is the second worst foreign policy mistake in US history, the worst response to a natural disaster in US history, and the second worst economic crisis in US history.
As today’s poll from the Pew Research Center has President Obama leading Romney by 12 points, and Santorum by 18, I think you should work hard for Santorum. If it is going to be a thumping re-election victory for the President you might as well lose with a hard right true believer.
Less people workiong today than when he took office
The economy had been losing 600,000 to 800,000 private sector jobs per month for months before Obama’s first full month in office and is now averaging well over 200,000 in private sector job gains per month. It takes time to come out of a recession as deep as this one and it hasn’t helped to have state and local governments laying off workers in foolish austerity programs.
If you wish to see what happens when a national government attempts austerity in an economic crisis, look at how England’s Conservative government, which went full bore in the direction of austerity, now faces the bleak prospect of a second recession.
When private demand drys up, the surest way to restore fiscal health is to increase public demand through public spending. Paul Krugman was right that the President should have pushed for even more American Recovery Act spending, but Republican misuse of the filibuster meant that the President had to cut a deal with three Republicans to get anything passed.
Oh really clever reply to my question. Do you really believe President Obama spends much time setting traps?
UndertaxedUnderObama, it is a joy to see you invent words, facts, and conspiracy theories.
What does “despersate” mean?
Did the conspiracy to get Limbaugh to defame Ms. Fluke involve putting an electronic device in his head to control his words? If so, has President Obama done that to your brain to make you seem wild-eyed and crazy?
Where will you go when President Obama is re-elected? Should we begin a fund to help buy your ticket to Canada or Mexico? Tell us your destination and, so long as it does not have internet access to allow you to post on this website, I bet we could raise the money for your ticket in a flash from your fellow posters.
sorry about the misspelled word I have big working hands and I guess they dont fit the keys as well as your spindly lying fingers. And I guess I will go the same place as we all will if OBummer gets in again, down the tubes. But I am a survivor I would guess unlike yourself
I survived George W. Bush, the worst President in American history. If you were a citizen living in the country from January 20, 2001-January 20, 2009, you did as well. Congratulations.
Did President Obama plant an electronic device in Limbaugh’s brain?
Has he planted one in yours?
What the most tax you ever paid in one year? 10K, 25K 50K. Reading your posts I get the sense you have no stake in the game
As a business owner who is a member of the 1%, I pay combined real estate, FICA, sales, income, and excise taxes well in excess of $100,000. I have to meet a payroll every week.
I recognize that my success is a result of state-supported education from kindergarten through post-graduate education, including scholarships from a state-supported school. Even though I have no children, I recognize that public investment in education is the only way I can be assured of an educated workforce.
Too many conservatives, having used a state-supplied ladder to rise in economic status, wish to remove the ladder from those beneath them. I have too much a sense of history and too much appreciation for government benefits I received years ago to be so short-sighted.
Countries that invest in transportation, education, infrastructure and manufacturing thrive over the long term. The Chinese know this but the Republicans do not.
Well said! The Republicans have forgotten that we are a nation.
Thanks.
So President Obama sent instructions to Rush Limbaugh. Telling him to slander a woman he had never met and knew nothing about. Thanks for clarrifying my overtaxed brain.
Undertaxed under Obama, you can’t make up facts in response to my posts.
Ms. Fluke was not paid for her testimony and we are not talking about “mandatory birth control.” If you find a willing partner, you can attempt to impregnate her. She is merely given the option of purchasing contraceptives without either a co-pay or worrying whether her employer approves.
I can’t imagine injecting my opinions into the pharmaceutical choices my employees make. Were I to hire you I could care less about your frequent need for Viagra.
The word is “speeches.”
If Rush is so great then why does he not debate Liberals on a neutral program or neutral site to show his greatness. The fact that he will not debate anyone outside of his radio show shows that he knows he would lose, and lose badly.
Which “neutral program” would you suggest? Maddow? Schultz? Mathews?
How about the Sunday morning talk shows, for one?
Not only does the drum beat for war sound eerily the same as the beat for the Iraqi fiasco but the same people are beating the drums: Israel and the conservatives in the US.
If you liked what happened in Iraq you’re going to love what happens when we cave to Israel and bomb Iran for them. The US is a sovereign nation. Why do we keep acting like a sub-set of the Israeli state.
Do I really have to go back and pull up all ofthe documentation showing that there were plenty of prominent Democrats pushing for the war in Iraq before Bush even took office?
Such selective memories you guys have.
Don’t waste your time. ms will not allow her party to be blamed for anything. I mean, when you’re part of a party that doesn’t lie, with a perfect president, then you’ve got to defend them.
So you think the Iraq war was wrong as and you’re against all further involvement in the middle east?
Didn’t imply that. ms was blaming the whole thing on the Republicans, and hardday was bringing up the fact that there were many Dems beating the drums of war.
But, on your comment, I’m for pulling back from all of those countries and monitoring from safer locations. Those people, I’m sorry to say, are wallowing in their own hatred and ignorance. And just as the failure of the Russians should have told us, no matter what is done, nothing will change. You can’t fight ignorance with guns, bombs, logic or diplomacy.
You said blame, what else could that imply?
EJ! I can finally agree with you regarding the middle east.
The only thing we need to do in the Middle East is make sure they don’t get nukes. A nuke in the hands of radicals is a dangerous thing. And the Middle East is overrun by radicals.
As goofy as I think they are in the middle east, I don’t beleive they are suicidal. Even if Iran gets the bomb, give them the same message that China and the USSR got. It’s called mutual self destruction.
Question: Where do just about all of the suicide bombers come from? A radical Islamist is more than willing to commit suicide if they think that Allah will bless them. And since a radical Islamist is effectively in charge of Iran, then he won’t hesitate to use a nuke, nor will he be swayed by any warnings, sanctions or threats. He is a truly evil individual. And he’s surrounded by many other truly evil individuals.
Are you confusing Al Qaeda the organization with The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the leader of Iran? He is neither a radical Islamist nor is he evil. He has stated that developing nuclear weapons is against the teachings of the Koran. Ayatollah Rafsanjani is the person pushing for nuclear development in Iran. Iran does not generate suicide bombers. The leaders of Iran are not evil. The Muslim religion is not evil. While some terrorists may be Muslims, Muslims are not terrorists, do not believe their God blesses terrorist killings and have no nuclear weapons. Where are you getting your information?
I agree with you that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not evil, nor is he a madman. I do, however, consider him to be a radical, and I think he’s pretty angry with the West.
The Qur’an forbids suicide, and the Hadith says a Muslim cannot commit suicide even during battle. That is why only a tiny percentage of Muslims support suicide bombings.
Just the same, our relations with Iran are delicate. Do they want to develop a nuclear weapon? Probably. Would they use it against Israel (which is also a nuclear power)? Probably not. Can we influence Iran to not develop a nuclear weapon? Certainly President Obama has put much tighter sanctions on Iran than anyone ever did in the past. Let’s hope the President can find a satisfactory diplomatic solution.
It is apparent that you do not know what you are talking about.
Check out the suicide bombers, most are kids or not overly bright young adults. You don’t have any of their leaders willing to risk their own lives. Now if you step up and use a nuclear weapon all bets are off. They will get hurt and in all likelyhood, everyone around them will be hurt or killed. They have the same courage that our politicians do. They are all right with getting others to do their dirty work but like to stand way behind the lines while it’s done.
There were no kids on 9-11.
Do you really believe that if some Middle Eastern country uses nuclear weapons against the West that the leaders of the country would not be in a safe place before the act?
The technique of suicide-bombing was developed by Hindus (the Tamil Tigers) in Sri Lanka who used it against the Buddhist ruling majority in the long-running civil war in Sri Lanka that ended recently.
Although some Muslims have copied the techniques of the Tamil Tigers, just consider the fact that there are four million Muslims in the United States. If your estimation of Muslims is correct, all four Million U.S. Muslims should have strapped on bomb vests today and gone out and blown themselves up. Yet for some reason that didn’t happen. Most Muslims get up in the morning, eat breakfast, brush their teeth, and go off to work or to school — just like you and I.
Thanks for the history lesson. Now notice that I mentioned “radical Islamists”, not Muslims.
If I may. The doctrine of “Mutually Assured Destruction” MAD as it was called, died with the Soviet Union. We built our whole political diplomacy and military posture around that notion at the time. That no longer makes sense.
We now have weapons of mass destruction that could fall into the hands of irrational players (from our point of view) , including states and terrorists. That caused a necessary shift to recognizing opponents as either rational players or irrational players…
An irrational player, your run of the mill terrorist, might set off a dirty bomb to advance whatever nutty cause they have.
But It may be from the point of Iran, totally rational to build a bomb, threaten Israel and therefore realizing their age old dream of being a regional superpower… which means dominance over their Arab neighbors. Totally rational from their point of view.
How might others in the region counter that? A Saudi bomb, a Turkish Bomb, and a Egyptian bomb. All near certainties should Iran develop its first. MAD would not play much of a role with so many “for hire ” terrorist groups in the region and a number of conflicting rational actors advancing their own domestic agendas with this new power.
Right now, the only real irrational player in the Middle East with nuclear capability is Israel. By any lights, it is rational for Iran to have nuclear capability. It is a sovereign nation with concern for its security just as Israel is. Or the United States. In fact, there is only one area on which most Iranians, no matter their views otherwise, seem to agree and that is that Iran has the right to a nuclear program.
Iran is constantly threatened by Israel and Israel has committed numerous aggressive acts against Iran. Since the United States continues to support Israel, whether in the right or the wrong, we are in danger of being drawn into a war in which we may not wish to engage. Given the exhausted state of our military and our economic woes, Israel’s saber rattling, is a distinctly unfriendly attitude toward its most constant supporter. The members of our own Congress who seem to see Israel as their constituent seem eager to get us involved in another war. Republican presidential hopefuls also seem so inclined.
It is important to note, too, that Israel is no longer the state it once was and is fast becoming a nation of rabid religious fundamentalist and radical anti-democratic forces. As such, it is every bit as dangerous as any other nation that advocates religious law over secular law. We have the same to look forward to under a President Santorum and his belief that we should all adhere to Catholic doctrine. Which is similar to sharia and other types of religious law.
Thanks for another reasoned reply.
The fact that you think that was a “reasoned reply’ is only further reason why liberals should not be in charge of anything. You people are truly clueless.
Thanks for another unreasoning, knee-jerk, emotional reply.
Shock and Awe was clueless he first time around and you want to use it again against Iran. And you say liberals are clueless?
Right on EJ glad you have finally seen the light.
I know there were dumb Democratic Senators that voted for war. Ordinary Democratic citizens marched against going to war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm
Some of the “Dumb” Democratic Senators who voted for the Iraq war.
Joe Biden current VP
Hillary Clinton current Sec State
John Edwards former Pres Contender
Thomas Daschle Former Senate majority Leader
Harry Reid current Senate Majority Leader
Just because one was a prominent Democrat doesn’t mean their vote was any less dumb.
Just for clarifications sake they were all prominent Democrats.
Are they now OK and no longer “dumb”.
Going to war in Iraq (one cannot say “with Iraq” since they had not attacked us) was as it turned out an incredibly stupid act. Voting for the war was a stupid thing to do. How many different ways would you like me to say that.
On the other hand, what would the Middle East be like today with Saddam Hussein having been in power these last 10 years?
What would the Middle East be like today? Perhaps, much less violent. We would most likely have engaged Sadaam as a counter to the Islamist threats of Al Qaeda. He did not trust Islamic extremism himself since they were a threat to him – remember he was a Baathis, not an Islamist. Sadaam would also have been a balance to our perceived threat from Iran – as he was for many years. Perhaps, we would even have given him some of those WMD in exchange for his aid against Iran, after all, we did before. As for the rest of the Middle East, there may be some of the turmoil we are seeing because social and other media provide people with a view of the rest of the world that they may wish to enjoy themselves.
As it stands, Iraqis have had to exchange one really crappy government, that occasionally had the support of the United States, under which those who disagreed were silenced, tortured and/or killed with an equally crappy government, essentially formulated by the United States, under which those who disagree are silenced, tortured and/or killed. Under Sadaam they would still have the infrastructure and society that makes for a level of some sort of decent life for those who keep their heads down. It would not be better for those who want democratic society, but perhaps the Arab Spring would have occurred anyway and Iraq would eventually have joined in, on its own, and deposed Saddam by force of will on the part of Iraqis themselves.
For us, it would be soooo much better. We would not be extracting ourselves from Iraq. We could have focused our attention on the Taliban and maintained gains that we had made in Afghanistan. Perhaps, we would now be leaving Afghanistan with a government that could protect and defend against extremism. We could perhaps have made a real difference there.
Our military would not
be exhausted. Our reputation as a nation that does not start wars of
aggression or torture people would be intact. We would not have spent billions down the drain and could perhaps have done some infrastructure and education improvements in our own country. Perhaps we would even have a greater sense of collegiality in government and less partisan bickering and whining. We may even have an economy that was thrumming along nicely.
Thank you for a very reasoned reply.
Put the bong down
Odalisque made some legitimate points — and you have no response except “put the bong down.”
The Iraq War displaced millions of people. Hundreds of thousands, and by some estimates over 1 million, Iraqi civilians died. There were over 4,400 U.S. deaths, and almost 32,000 U.S. wounded. That doesn’t count traumatic stress. The Iraq War cost the U.S. about $1 trillion, a number so large it is impossible to comprehend.
So, yes, Saddam Hussein was a very bad man — yet he was also a man who had the support of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush for quite a long time. Certainly President George W. Bush was not honest with the U.S. public about his reasons for invading, nor did he comprehend the difficulty of invading and occupying a nation where we did not speak the language, understand the culture, or share the religion of the majority of the people. Bush 43 should have concentrated on the War in Afghanistan, but he neglected it because he was too eager to go into Iraq. We stretched our military to near the breaking point, and reduced our credibility around the world. Iran looked at our invasion of their enemy, and decided that they should develop nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves from us.
Was it worth it? It’s good to be rid of Saddam Hussein, but by and large the cost was much higher than the benefit.
I was merely curious to see how “dumb” you thought your fellow Democrats were.
Really really dumb if all you are looking at is their vote on the Iraq war.
There were plenty who wished to go into Iraq when we had them on the run after we kicked them out of Kuwait. After 9/11 there wasn’t any pols in Washington foolish enough to stick their heads up and tell Bush II to not invade Iraq. Even though we all knew that we were supposed to be going after Osama bin Ladden in Afghanistan.
Actually, you do. You are confusing those who voted for the war with those who were pushing for the war well before 9/11. The combined vote in the House and the Senate on the Iraq War Resolution in the fall of 2002 (just before the mid-term elections when war hysteria was at its peak) was 263-7 for war among Republicans and 148-111 against war among Democrats. A majority of Democrats (57.1%) voted against the war while an overwhelming majority of Republicans (97.4%) voted for the war. Hillary Clinton’s vote for the war likely cost her the 2008 presidential nomination.
Before 9/11 I recall no prominent Democrat talking of invading Iraq. Calls for regime change in Iraq in the period of 1997-2000 came primarily from the Project for a New American Century. The signatories to their 1997 statement of principles are Republicans all: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Quayle, Libby, Wolfowitz, etc.
I am confusing nothing. But I am not going to cite the evidence, the letters to two different presidents,and the hipocracy of the Democrats leadership which rose to epic proportions. It’s not worth it. It will be dismissed with the same ridiculous or nonsensical comments the left always uses when confronted with the facts.
Keep your precious “evidence” secret where only you can read it, Gollum.
The word is “hypocrisy.”
Pray, Gollum, tell me what of my post is “nonsensical?” Was it the precise vote counts or the membership and stated goals of the Project for the New American Century?
Thank you for correcting my mispelling. Your response only serves to reinforce my feeling that debating anything with you is a complete waste of my time.
Gollum, I will no longer try to engage you intellectually, as you don’t seem up to the challenge.
LOL at Gollum.
His post is reminiscent of Nixon’s “secret plan” to end the Viet Nam War. Nixon was another Gollum-like creature.
Sally,
THIS conservative is emphatically stating, right now, NO. No I do not war, and we should pull our troops out of pretty much everywhere, and fix our selves before we do anything else stupid.
Write your congressman/woman and let them know. If we keep quiet someone will drag us into another war.
According to Def Sec Leon Panetta and therefore by extension it is US policy, international groups like NATO and the Arab League can commit us to war. According to Panetta those that can are 1) The President 2) foreign organizations like NATO and the Arab League. 3) Congress will be “kept informed.”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/03/08/panetta_wed_seek_international_approval_not_congress_to_act_in_syria
Watch the video
Sound bites and contextless quotes from Townhall with commentary by Michelle Malkin and John Stossel, now there’s a really impartial news source. Read a transcript of the entire exchange, do some background work on the NATO treaty our Congress signed , read a book about government, the constitution, foreign affairs, international law and military intervention in foreign countries. Don’t just babble mindlessly.
Just look at the video of Panetta… Ignore the crap. Find it on Youtube. Its around. Then take a read of the US Constitution.
Foreign groups like the Arab League do not trump Congress. It doesn’t matter what Panetta says.
Rolls eyes
*turns up nose*
It’s snowing out, don’t turn it up too far.
How about Israel? Seems to me that they are the nation that is trying to drag us into war.
The discussion is what constitutes a “legal” basis for war. Feel free to express your opinion on that topic.
Actually the question is whether Israel is trying to drag us into a war.
Follow the thread sally… focus.
I started this thread.
Follow the thread, Cheesecake … focus.
Did you know that the majority of Israelis are not in favor of a war with Iran ?
I wonder how they’ll feel after Iran drops the bomb on them?
That’s a very unlikely “if,” although I can understand why some Israelis are worried that someone besides them will also have a nuclear weapon in that region.
The Qur’an states clearly that one must not commit suicide, and the Hadith makes it clear that a Muslim cannot commit suicide even during battle. That’s why only a tiny percentage of Muslims support suicide bombings.
The Iranians are not suicidal, and almost certainly would not risk a nuclear exchange with Israel. Iran is a thorn in the side of both Israel and the U.S. The greatest risk of war, however, seems to be coming from Israel’s desire to launch an air strike against Iran, thus delaying Iran’s nuclear development perhaps by a few months. If the Israelis strike, the whole region will be pushed closer to war, and Iran will be more determined than ever to have a nuclear weapon.
I’m glad that President Obama has put far tougher sanctions on Iran than anyone ever did in the past. A diplomatic solution is much preferable to war. War is the failure of diplomacy.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Perhaps I should be impressed. My high school Latin teacher died five weeks after the course began, and so I’m afraid I didn’t get very far. Pacem refers to peace, I believe, and bellum to war, but I certainly might be wrong. Would you be so kind as to translate?
If you desire peace, prepare for war.
Thanks. We don’t disagree about that statement.
It would be nice if candidates could run a clean race without any under handed tactics or ads to portray each other in a variety of ways. But it’s probably never going to happen, and it will only be more prevalent in today’s world with all of the social media out there. People can now make their own “ads” about specific politicians and the candidates have no control over their supporters.
Quite frankly I do not see in the Bible where it says that this country must go to war for the State of Israel. They are a soverign nation and can defend themselves. American soldiers are to be sent to war for the interests of the United States not for the need of another nation.
I will bless those that bless thee and curse those that curse thee.
-God, in reference to what is now Israel, circa 5000 BC
Basing foreign policy on a 5000 year old promise seems irrational and ill-advised to say nothing of superstitious.
Basing it on oil seems to be the driving factor in the last 20+ years.
Quite frankly, I remember when Isreal became an indipendent nation in the late 40’s and was voted into the UN as a recognized nation. Since then, if memory serves me, Israel has been attacked and beaten back attacks on many occasions. I don’t recall the US ever sending in troops to support Israel. They have managed to man their own defense.
France, Italy, England, Netherlands, Belgium, most of N, Africa, most of SE Asia, many nations in the Pacific, Korea, South Vietnam, Kuwait, and a bunch of other nations we have sent our troops into. We have thousands of our service men and women buried on foreign soil.
Maybe it’s that they have bought most of their arms or munitions from us that you object to.
No, I object to our foreign policy being run by another nation. You als0 left out the fact that Israel has many times struck first in its own defense. To believe that the United States must fight for Israel is to put us in continual war .
We are the most warlike nation on this planet, plain and simple.
You have no idea how the world works. None at all.
Name one country that has invaded or attacked more countries then the US has in the past 10 years, 25 years, 50 years or maybe even the past 100 years?
I believe some have been necessary and others have not been. We can both come up with a list of both if we try but no country has attacked or invaded as many countries as the US has since WWI.
The entire human race is warlike with the exception of a few peaceful countries (mostly because of geography) and the game is to keep yourself growing and at the same time fend off other threats. Humanity has always been that way.
It is true that the human race is aggressive but you did not answer my question. What country has invaded or attacked more countries than the US, if any?
We have of course. Because we are currently the most powerful. We have interests allies and goals. Every dominant country in history has been warlike. If you are not “warlike” you are “warred-on”. It is humanities way. Point to a time in history when it has not been so.
Only weak countries, or countries perceived to be weak, are attacked. A country does not have to attack another country to avoid a conflict.
Wilson felt that way. He wanted a world without war, then changed his mind and put us into WW1 in order to push the League of Nations. Which failed miserably and in part, led to WW2.
Why do you keep saying that when from their posts people are obviously more informed than you are on foreign affairs.
Who is advocating for the US to fight Israels wars? When? Where?
I have a long boring but surprisingly informative article if you really are interested.
Since Mr. Philbrick is the one who wrote the letter he is the one who chose the subject and that subject is not Hollywood and rap music. You change the subject to that and then condemn him for not addressing it. Which sounds to me like you condone such language from our conservative leaders.
so freedom of speech only applies when its in agreement with your values?
I see nothing in amc’s comment that is worthy of a flagging.
I have to agree. His comments certainly are inflammatory. But then my comments about how I want to marry my boyfriend next year could be seen the as the same among some people and *I* wouldn’t want to be removed. As long as he’s not threatening people with bodily harm, personally attacking individuals, or using foul language, I don’t have any beef with his commenting on the articles.
I just flagged your comment. Now you can go away. thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Boynton.
It would be great if some who know for sure would make a list of all those Searsport residents who have been clamoring for this tank. Let’s see how many of them actually step up and do the work to protect their town?
Or were they only willing to take the $100 that DCP paid them to go out into the community and convince their neighbors what a good deal this will be.
Maybe the BDN editors could make a note on their calendars for say, June 2013, to write an article as to how many of the promises this petrochemical giant actually fulfilled?
We all seem so willing to accept promises we want to hear–JOBS!–but who is minding the henhouse? I have read that the selectboard in Searsport is not…
Anybody can report on what was done in june of 2010.
Thank you for noticing error, now corrected, above.
+ Norman Philbrick,
Without a doubt, you are petitioning for censorship. No, no, and no. Any censorship used to stop language you don’t like, (and not because the word used was one that is both a noun and a verb), is censorship that could be broadened to a wider range of people that may include you. Think very long and hard about what that means, because that road doesn’t lead to freedom.
+ Gene Wilbur,
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57394904/the-spymaster-meir-dagan-on-irans-threat/?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel
This top Israeli spy plainly admits that Israel attacking Iran would be stupid. No, he says, that’s suicide. We’d rather get international pressure and let the United States attack Iran! Can you believe that?
Doug Pooler–the idea of no parties sounds nice until you actually start to imagine what that would look like. Let’s take Congress–Imagine 435 Representatives and 100 Senators with no party affiliation. They are all independents, picking and choosing what they will vote for or against. You think nothing gets done now and that chaos reigns, imagine what all those independents would do. Eventually those independents would naturally coalesce around a leader or two, and new parties would be formed.
Political parties formed the moment our government was formed. They formed because each party articulates its vision for how government should function in relation to the people. It seems that voters who have the most problem with political parties are those who have not developed a clear vision for how the government should function beyond a Utopian desire for everyone to get along and solve all the world’s problems.
Utopia does not, and will never, exist. Instead, we have political parties.
Mr. Wilbur, what a great idea. Why don’t we alienate the one, strong, stable ally we have in the Middle East? Maybe then the Arab nations will love us. And then Israel can renounce its nuclear weaponry, cut its military, and live in harmony with her neighbors.
Israel is not our ally. We are their cat’s paw.
You just got done telling me that foreign Agreements trump the Constitution. In the case of Israel they don’t????
I suggested you do some reading before posting twaddle. You apparently didn’t.
Are you sure…..
“We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO, and
too little time,
my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives
of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the
United States Congress?” Sessions asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
Wednesday.
Panettas response:
“You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we
would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to
approach this, whether or not we
would want to get permission from
Congress,” Panetta said.
It seems to me that even George Bush went to Congress and sought approval for Iraq. As I recall Ronald Reagan was reprimanded by Congress for not doing that during Iran-Contra.
Are you really saying the Constitutional power to wage war no longer resides with Congress but with the Arab League Ms. Twaddle??
Would you please read the entire exchange between Session and Panetta.
The Q & A between Sessions and Panetta surrounds the definition of a legal basis for war.
Panetta says it needs to be some foreign group.
SESSIONS: So you are saying NATO would give you a “legal
basis”? And an ad hoc coalition of nations would provide a “legal
basis”?
PANETTA: We would seek whatever legal basis we would need
in order to make that justified. We can’t just pull them all
together without getting the legal basis on which to
act.
SESSIONS: I’m all for having international support, but
I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international
assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to
be deployed in combat. I don’t think it’s close to being correct.
They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s
required to deploy the U.S. military is the Congress and the
president and the law in the Constitution.
Sessions is right and Panetta is clearly incorrect.
You’ve only given part of the exchange. Having listened to the entire hearing let me assure you that Sen. Sessions was out on a mission. The “international legal basis” that he kept asking about was explained to him very clearly first by a general testifying at the hearing, (I can go back and get his name if you wish) then by Sec. Panetta again quite clearly 3 more times. Every time the concept of “international legal basis” was explained again to him he put on a stammering voice to show how “breathlessly” shocked he was that NATO or the UN could take precedence over the US congress. Finally Sen Leven explained the concept again. This concept is not hard to understand and it certainly doesn’t in any way prohibit the US from acting unilaterally to defend itself. The smirk on Sen. Sessions face indicated he understood the concept also.
Conservatives are creating an issue from Sen. Sessions studied performance which may have been planned since Tancredo came up with his impeachment bill for Rep. Jones suspiciously quickly.
This is an absurd characterization.
Alienate is too strong a word to use here, and the zero sum game you refer to just isn’t accurate.
Reagan actually refused for a while to sell weapons to Israel after the IDF dumped millions of cluster bomblets on South Lebanon in the aggression that led to the formation of Hezbollah in 1982. Israel dropped millions of cluster bomblets on So. Lebanon again in the 2006 incursion into Lebanon against Hezbollah, destroying much of the infrastructure in the process, strengthening resolve and radicalizing Lebanon against Israel…
The bomblets still, to this day, kill and maim the farmers trying to eek out a living from their lands, and children who find the D-battery sized bombs and think they are toys. This type of criminal behavior should have been dealt with in, at the very least, the same way Reagan dealt with it. A rebuke. No need to alienate Israel, as you say, but to tolerate criminal behavior only encourages it.
I could go on with the criminal extra-judicial assassinations that are happening today, provocations that result in retaliation, which in turn Israel uses to bomb the be-jesus out of Gazan civilians. That is on going, and was especially criminal in Operation Cast Lead. I prefer to refer to that massacre as Operation Fish Bowl; the Gazan were not allowed to flee and instead were like fish in a fish bowl for Israel’s American-made weapons systems. There is no reason for this to be financed and assisted by American weapons and money and Congressional support.
I really do not like debates over Israel. I mean, if, with all the peace talks that have been held with the best diplomats the world can offer, a sensible peace cannot be created in the Middle East, then what chance do I have of making any sense of it? So I am not disagreeing with any of your points.
The only time I feel compelled to stand up for Israel is when people insist they should unilaterally disarm and when people complain that the US is too friendly with Israel. Israel has the right to defend herself, and the US benefits from its alliance with Israel. We should not abandon them with the belief that the Arab nations will look kindly on us for it.
Doug: Yup, political parties, once they become bloated behemoths only interested in self-preservation, stink. This goes for both R (and TP) and D…and any others which manage to fit that description.
Gene: Iraq was a dress rehearsal for what will happen in Iran. The drums of war are already beating and far too many Americans are either too dumb to know the message comes filled with lies or are too deafened by our current wars to even hear them. We have become a warmonger culture…Where the American people now apparently believe that war is a great thing.
Katy: Yeah, all those you mentioned earn MAYBE a “middle class” (what’s left of it) income but everyone seems fine with throwing stones at them and swiping their pensions. Meanwhile, people seem perfectly fine in allowing the ultra-wealthy Wall street/banking crew to rob and steal with delight and glee and do nothing about it. Same old Same old…middle class slobs brainwashed by Wall Street corporate cronies to beat and abuse other middle class slobs…All the while ignoring who the real crooks and scumbags are.
Same way people will abuse some meth head for dumping out welfare water for a few bucks but don’t offer a peep when a corporation scoops up tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to close factories in the U.S. and move them overseas.
war is good we need to keep a constant vigilence against the evil and those not with god, they are not human