Dude, you just cited the Daily Show as a source of information and commentary.


The Daily Show delivered a piece of information (that CNN didn't fact check any of their guests, yet fact-checked CNN) in a humorous and insightful way. What difference does it make what network it's on? The Daily Show would work extraordinarily well on a cable news network, and Colbert actually does a parody of a Glenn Beck/O'Reilly show (with real information delivered on the way). No, they're not exactly like Hannity or O'Reilly, but that may because Stewart and Colbert are the first wave of the next brand of talk show. Ten years from now, would it shock you to see a "Daily Show" style program on MSNBC or Fox News?

Fox News did already attempt that very thing, and it was a complete failure.

You're correct, Franken was on the Air America thing.

For pennance for not fact-checking myself on either issue, I will now refrain from posting in here for 24 hours. Unless I screw up that fact, too.

Yeah it was, but just because the show was a failure doesn't mean you can't succeed with the idea. It failed because it wasn't funny. In fact, it was fucking wretched (as are most conservative attempts at comedy). If Fox went with more of a libertarian bent, I'll bet it would work much better. Red Eye is amusing, and apparently is getting more of the 25-54 demo at 3 a.m. (202,000 viewers) than CNN's 8 p.m. (191,000) show with Campbell Brown.

Is now a good time to explain why comedic theory makes it difficult for a conservative comedy program to work?

Sure! I think we hit threadjack about 40 pages ago, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

If I have time tomorrow I'll write up a bit on it.

It's funny reading all the recent posts about fact checking as an attribute or condition of news. Isn't one of the issues with the Obama team in this whole Fox News attack, the fact Fox News fact checked the administration on a Sunday show? Obama's team got all indignant because fact checking them on a Sunday show is never done by the alphabet networks.

Virtually talk show is a source of information and commentary. I learned that one of the Kardashian girls is marrying Lamar Odom by watching The Soup on E! one day. Is Joel McHale now the same as Anderson Cooper?

I have no doubt that the show would work great on a cable news network. That's because most of the stuff on cable news networks isn't news, it's entertainment. Fox could put a reality show on following Sarah Palin around and it would be the highest rated show guaranteed. That doesn't make her reality show a news program because it's on one of those networks.

And what they do is not new. It's been done by late night talk show hosts for decades. Do a quick routine, throw in a bit, then interview a guest. Not much different than what Leno, Letterman, etc have been doing. Stewart's is more politically focused, but it doesn't make it much different. But I guess in your views, Jay Leno is a news program because he made some jokes about Rod Blagojevich.

Red Eye is hilarious but I don't know if I'd call it conservative. It leans to the right but I doubt the same people watching O'Reilly are watching that show. I'd bet there is quite a lot of crossover from the Daily Show crowd to Red Eye.

The alphabet networks are entertainment based as well. Most of their programming is entertainment driven. I bet if someone did the math on all of their programming over 95% of it would be considered entertainment.

Edit: Although I do not agree with you that most of the cable news network shows are entertainment based. I think CNN, MSNBC and FOX all have opinion based hosts, but pundits are not entertainment. You don't have to call it hard news, but it is still very much news. Plus all of those networks have hard news programs as much as any other channel does.

Actually, the administration went a step further and called out certain situations where they said Fox News didn't ask the hard questions about a few selected Republicans. Of course, Chris Wallace promptly showed footage where he asked tough questions of Republican leaders in the exact situation where the administration official said no hard questions were asked, making the attack by the administration official look pretty silly.

As several writers noted yesterday, the 'knife to a gunfight' comparison is pretty accurate. The Obama administration really made a terribly stupid move to engage in this campaign against Fox News. One wonders if they will ever realize it or continue to proceed thinking that it's actually a good idea in any way, shape, or form.

Interesting discussion going on about the official government website. It appears that the administration only cares about your opinion on health reform if you support the administration's position. There is a button on the front page where you can click on it to voice support for the bill, but no place to click if you want to voice your opposition. This wouldn't be a big deal if it was on the White House site, but they've set up a separate, taxpayer-funded .gov website to make it appear unaffiliated with the White House.

Health Reform

It's somewhat comforting to know we're back to the outrage of the day.

btw: I think the outrage would be better directed at the shitty clip art used on the front page.

Isn't Glenn Beck a comedy show? I mean nobody takes him seriously, right? RIGHT? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TELL ME I'M RIGHT!!

Fixed.

thanks for the link MBBF - I just went and voiced my support.

If you tell me what blog you poached your info from I'd be able to have a discussion directly at the source.

I saw it on both MSNBC and on the non-opinion hours of Fox News. But you didn't want a legitimate source now, did you? You just wanted to practice the stupid tactic of attacking the source rather than the topic itself. It's not hard to figure out where you learned that ineffective tactic.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a legitimate response to the original post.

Now THIS is a creative response. Well done. :D

A legitimate response like it's no big deal? It happens all the time.

Even if it had come from the White House it would still be taxpayer funded.

It's certainly no different than Congressional mailings that are taxpayer funded.

You didn't seem to care when the Bush admin blocked searches on abortion on a government funded database or used SS mialings to help pitch privatization.

How is this any more of an outrage than spending taxpayer dollars on the First pet's website?

Would it be any better use of taxpayer dollars to set up a website where people could compare Obama to Hilter and Mao?

YOU CAN'T KEEP BRINGING UP BUSH I ALWAYS TALK ABOUT REPUBLICANS DOING WRONG AND I'M IN THE MIDDLE AND POST THINGS WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS ALL THE TIME1!!@@2!

1. If it was on the White House site, it would be a different situation because it's directly from the source. Opinion occurs regularly on that site.

2 Congressional mailings are not the same situation. There's no limiting factor to only allow constituents to express approval/disapproval that fits that rep's opinion.

3. Did you post the information on those Bush incidents? If so, I would have been similarly opposed. I wasn't aware of either of those incidents. Just because I wasn't aware of them (hence I didn't voice my opposition) doesn't mean I would have been in favor of it. That's a very weak argument, even for you.

4. I don't see any issue with the First Pet website. Is there some form of partisanship on that site? I don't believe there is.

5. As far as the Obama comparison, I'd have to know the exact form of that comparison. If it's on a representative's website or on the White House website, they have free reign to express their opinion. This information was intentionally moved under the HHS to provide a more legitimate, non-partisan face to the website. That's fine if they want to do that, but it better be informational rather than partisan. Or at least be informational during the non-opinion hours of the website.

6. Who the fuck really cares other than you and FoxNews (and they probably love it).

I love how he thinks anyone buys the shit he shovels.

JPhillips has every right to bring up Bush. It often weakens his argument for conservative posters like myself who didn't agree with some of the Bush policies. But he still has the right to try to make weak general arguments on a party basis if he so chooses. It just makes it easier to dissect his points.

http://johnboehner.house.gov/

OH NOES!!! Taxpayer dollars spent on partisanship! Why can't I also see the charts Congress does want me see? Why is there only an anti-Obama youtube video?

Appreciate the opportunity to chat with you, Mr. Gibbs.

So you posted a site that backed my statement in an attempt to refute it? Interesting choice.

As I stated previously, the White House site and any rep sites are all full of opinion for obvious reasons. That's a much different situation than a department website which should be non-partisan.

Maybe this will be more productive than outrage about a web button. Stunning how the Republican party has fallen off a cliff and independents have soared since the tea parties started.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/par...trends=&lines=

I think a lot of the growth in independents is Republican leaning and will probably vote R in 2010. I wonder how much of the growth of independents comes from moderates and how much comes from the far-right.

edit: I guess I have to settle for a link. The upshot is that in June ID was around 36D/30R/33I and now the Pollster composite has it at 33D/21R/39I.

I'm not able to view this embed, but I'm assuming it's the study saying that the number of people who identify themselves as Republican is now something like 20%. For those that prefer to make discussions about party affiliation, I'm sure they'll find some importance in this poll. I think it's a reaction by people like myself who like the fiscal aspect of the party, but have absolutely no interest in supporting many of the social policies of the party, which are downright wacky in some cases and just don't make sense in others.

I agree with you that it likely doesn't change who they vote for in the election, despite the need to distance themselves from the Republican social mantra.

yes - the embed isn't working right

here's a legit question for you though - and I'd like to try to have a real conversation about this - you've stated that you agree fiscally with Republicans , yet you find Republican social policies "downright wacky" or "not making any sense."

I would contend that as far as STATED fiscal policy there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, but as far as ACTUAL fiscal policies there are minimal differences (leaving aside the balanced-budget of the Clinton years).

The deficit has continued to increase under both parties, neither party truly seems interested in reducing the size of government where it is overly bloated or eliminating wasteful spending, every elected member of government is trying to pork-barrel their way to reelection. Fiscal discipline is sorely lacking in both parties.

I would contend that (again aside from the balanced budget of the Clinton years - and for fuck's sake we could really use a balanced budget amendment) the financial aspect of the differences is less important than the social aspect - particularly because those social things often affect far more people far more profoundly.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't se a massive difference in fiscal policies (aside from the Democrats wanting to tax corporations better and not the middle class and the Republicans in favor of some form of supply-side economics and tax breaks for the rich to further promote that). Leaving aside the argument over supply-side economics and whether it is viable - the end result of tax-bracket changes is not likely to markedly affect anybody posting on this board in a material fashion (enough to change their standard of living), and the fiscal policies of the government are largely entrenched and apolitical at this point, so why would someone such as yourself not say "wait a second, I don't want creationism taught in schools and abortions outlawed and stem cell research prohibited and GLBT-Americans denied their civil rights" and vote Democrat?

Did the Bush years (and really the Bush I years also) not show that "fiscal discipline" in the current GOP is just lip-service thrown out there to try to broaden their voting base?

In summary, I've already agreed with that point in this and other threads. I suppose the Republicans get pounded for it more because it is supposed to be their schtick, but I hold them equally accountable. I guess some Republicans might give the Bush adminstration some credit for ballooning the deficit 4X less than the first year of the Obama administration, but that's only levels of bad government in my eyes. Both are lousy.


Creationism is a non-starter. It will die away in the few areas that lend it credence. And I'm sure the courts would keep it out as well. Abortion is another situation where I feel it will never be removed. It's a good way for both sides to turn out the vote, but I can't see any situation where it's abolished. Stem cell research is a concern for me, but I do think you are seeing an emergence of the right wing who realizes that research can occur without 'killing baby fetuses' as some would lead you to believe. I also believe that rights regarding sex discrimination will happen. I think the fact that a Democrat president hasn't facilitated major change yet indicates that there is still work to be done, but it will happen. You can't snap your fingers and sign a piece of paper and expect change to resolve years of bias.

Are you comparing Bush's first year with Obama's there, or Bush year 8 versus Obama year 1? Source please.

I know you've agreed with the point (and IMHO I think Republicans certainly do get pounded for it more and deserve to get pounded for it more because it is their schtick - at least with a Democrat you know (Clinton aside to date) you won't see a huge reduction in deficit spending), but that then raises the larger question - if the central attraction of the Republican party to you is this "fiscal responsibility" which is a myth, then what is holding you there? You've seemed to indicate you don't necessarily agree with the religious-right on social issues.

I guess I'm just trying to understand.

Are you hoping that fiscal responsibility returns? Because in that case I'd argue that you're probably equally as likely to have that happen under a Democrat at this point (see Clinton, Bill), as it seems to be much more a function of an individual rather than a serious plank in either party's platform.

I'm going off the top of my head. Bush was around $400B+ near the end and Obama' first year was around $1.8T. If those aren't spot-on, feel free to correct. As I stated, no level of defecit is acceptable in my eyes. It's just levels of stupidity.

I'd note that there was a Republican congress in session for much of his presidency. It seemed to work well, though I'd note that Bill Clinton was a MUCH different Democrat than Barack Obama. I don't think that a return to a Republican congress under Obama will yield similar results to the Clinton administration setup.

FYI.....I did add more edited notes into my previous post. Sorry for the late edit that may have been missed.

My answer to this would be that at least the Repubs are giving away my money to people who create jobs, while the Dems want to give away all my money to people who have shown very little initiative to do anything with it other than throw it away. Sure, their spending indirectly creates jobs, but it's still a lousy investment.

Now, I'd rather find someone that gets government out of many of the businesses it has stuffed itself into (like the Libertarians if they'd shut down the insane side of their party, and for the record I HAVE voted Libertarian in some local races), but until we do I'll back the party that does less harm with the money they are wasting than the party that does more harm.

Where does the war in Iraq fit on the more harm/less harm scale?

There's a serious misunderstanding of Clinton, IMO. When he came in in 1992 he was generally to the left of what Obama has done. He was for gays in the military immediately, tax increases across the board, universal, single payer healthcare, cuts to the military, etc. In almost any way you want to measure Clinton was to the left of Obama.

It's almost like the success that Clinton had as president demands that his policies be seen as more conservative than they actually were.

His success was that he was able to work with Congress at some level to reach an agreement. If Obama can't even get a Democrat-led Congress to agree with each other and him, how will he achieve it with a Republican-led Congress?

No. He failed on healthcare. Passed his tax increases only with Gore's vote. Got hammered on gays in the military. Forced a government shutdown in a dispute with Gingrich and the GOP.

Oh, and got impeached.

He had terrible relations with Congress throughout much of his presidency and was frustrated by his inability to pass his agenda.

Are you talking to me? I'm on the record firmly as saying that al-Qaeda is now very busy hitting us over there rather than over here, and nothing has changed my mind on that.

The only reason Clinton was considered a success was because he inherited an improving economy (Bush got voted out while the recession was already ending) and presided over an era of economic prosperity that turned out to be based on lots and lots of fraud.

There was an internet bubble, but there were great gains in productivity in the 1990s. Saying it was all fraud is wrong.

And does this give me permission to say Reagan inherited the Carter boom?

He did?

:+1:

Yes. He wasn't convicted by the Senate, but the House impeached him.

Innocent until proven guilty, no?

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that he was impeached. Andrew Johnson was also impeached, but not convicted.

this goes back to the "supply-side economics" argument though, and it doesn't work. giving tax breaks to corporations and rich people doesn't result in markedly more jobs being created.

but we could have a whole thread just about supply-side economics. that wasn't my point in asking the question.

if the answer is "because i believe in supply-side economics" then okay, that's the answer. i just wanted to try to establish if it was that, or something else.

I didn't say I believed in it, and I didn't talk specifically about tax breaks. I'm saying that both sides take far more money from me than the government should need for the things it is involved in, I'd just rather my money go to corporations and people creating jobs than go out in hand-outs to folks who aren't helping the economy move along.

I'd rather they weren't taking so much of it in the first place, but I'd prefer what does get taken not go to promoting a culture of irresponsibility, laziness, and entitlement.

Isn't that what happened with the bailouts? We game ALL of our money to big banks who coincidently fund all of there corporations who "create jobs.". I've yet to see gains from that. Oh and don't forget your tax money that bailed out the auto industry who also "create jobs.". Giving money to insanely rich people doesn't work whether it's dems way ir repubs way. All rich people do is find a different way to hoard that money. They sure as he'll aren't going to give it back to me with a better paying job. Nothing personal gstelmack. But i really hate that flawed argument.

Neither the bank bailout nor the auto takeover would be in any way related to what gstelmack is talking about. Most conservatives were against both moves. It's easy to see how poor of a decision both of those moves were in hindsight. Both of those moves rewarded companies who were too lazy to fix the root issues involved with each industry. Good companies who are successful make tough decisions.

And note I said I'd rather not give away any. Just if I'm supposed to choose between Dems handing out my money on deeply flawed entitlement programs and Repubs handing out my money to crooked corporations, I'll take the latter because at least they are giving SOMETHING back. We are asked to pick the lesser of two evils, and I told you why I'd pick my evil.

And yes I love Ford for refusing most of the bailout money and fixing their own problems.

And specifically on this, I am definitely of the opinion that the first bailout was Bush rewarding all his cronies. The last round, including Obama's Olympics trip, was him rewarding all HIS cronies. I have a pretty conservative family (even my relatives in Massachusetts ;) ) and most of us hated what Bush did with that bailout.

I don't think you know what the word impeached means.

they don't give anything back though...

pretty sure that wasn't part of any sort of bailout or anything and we covered ad naseum in the Olympics thread that it is absolutely 100% standard operating procedure and indeed even necessary and expected these days for the heads-of-state of the countries that have cities under consideration, to be there in order to lobby aggressively for their city.

I don't think the bailouts were about anyone helping their cronies from either administration's perspective. There was massive backlash against both. I think it was about a couple guys showing up to his office and saying if we don't bail these companies out, you'll be the President to preside over a complete economic collapse.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. They spend a lot of money, they tip well, they hire folks, they contribute noticably to the economy, etc. If you don't think that's giving anything back, then we won't agree on the point.

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to attack a country that actually was housing Al-Qaeda? Instead of one that wasn't and just hoping they'd flood into the country?

So we're going to re-hash old debates again? I am not going to fight the "why we went into Iraq" argument all over again. I'm just saying that we're keeping the terrorists busy over there instead of over here, and I'm okay with that result.

Look, I get it. Bush is evil, Obama is the second coming, all us Repubs should just jump on the Dem bandwagon and get this country moving forward. Blah blah blah blah blah.

The best justification for the Iraq war (and it's not necessarily a good one, it's just the best one), is that we created a hell on earth in a place where a new regime would be beneficial anyway, and yet, a place where a war would have an air of "injustice" to it that would compel Al-Qaeda from all over the world to flock to the area for their holy war. Afghanistan, perhaps because it was too sympathetic a war, didn't quite fit the bill - we were there first, and it wasn't the terrorist magnet that Iraq was.

al-Zarqawi is one small example. He was drawn to Iraq (or at least, drawn to stay there), where he was killed. If not for the war, he might be plotting terrorist attacks in Jordan or somewhere today.

How much did Iraq distract and occupy the time and resources of Al-Qaeda? Where would that energy and those resources go if not for that war? Then if Iraq continues to stabilize and is someday a successful democracy - that's just gravy.

I certainly wish we had a crazy-advanced text-sim that would sim the world with and without the Iraq war, etc. But there's really no way to know, without it, where'd we'd be. It could turn out to be beneifical for us and world, even if the real reasons behind were grossly misguided.

How do to deal with the fact that during the most of the Iraq war/occupation global terror attacks by AQ and affiliates went up? If we were forcing AQ to flock to Iraq how did they attack Bali, Indonesia, London, Madrid, etc.?

All of these terror attacks, and 9/11, take so few people that it's very hard to believe we could ever distract a high enough percentage to ensure our safety.

How many AQ attacks have occurred on US soil since? And London and Madrid were a while ago. Basically they've had to pull their horns in closer and closer.

Terrorists need a safe base of operations to work from. At the moment that's Pakistan, and it's pretty shaky.

But as violence has decreased in Iraq worldwide terror attacks attributed to AQ and affiliates has gone down. There's no evidence that violence in Iraq meant less chance of terror attacks. If you're only going to judge based on U.S. attacks during the past eight years how do you reconcile that the same could be said at the end of the Clinton years?

All of the post hoc justification of Iraq based on a flypaper theory has no evidence whatsoever to validate it.

edit: There's plenty of potential safe havens for terrorists today from Africa to the Middle East to Central Asia to parts of the Phillipines.

If after 9/11, someone told you that Bush would be president for another 7 years and there wouldn't be another attack on U.S. soil, that would be considered a pretty huge victory and accomplishment.

It's a fair argument that the administration did more than was necessary for that outcome, at the expense of civil liberties and lives. But we can never know for sure. It's like the stimulus package. We'll get out of the recession - but we'll never really know if it the cost endured was necessary.

I'm curious as to what evidence you have that supports that claim, as opposed to evidence that contradicts it:

7 July 2005 London bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

21 July 2005 London bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007 Glasgow International Airport attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2003 Casablanca bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

25 August 2003 Mumbai bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 financial buildings plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Najibullah Zazi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hosam Maher Husein Smadi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I disagree. We had a ratcheting up of terrorist attacks on US targets throughout the 90s, both here and overseas. There has been a marked dropoff since we sent the military back in there.

As for post hoc justification of Iraq, as I said we'll rehash old ground. All the 20-20 hindsight folks look back and say there was no reason to go, when at the time we got a resolution through congress, including folks who served under Clinton and were worried back then about the Hussein regime, a guy who had consistently shown a tendency to go after his neighbors. You guys want to just brush all that aside based on later revelations and ignore what the situation was at the time, including the fact that we could not afford to take ANY chances anymore (Hussein could have been open with inspectors, but wasn't, and paid the price). We disagree and you want to keep arguing it.

Fine, you guys don't agree with my economic or foreign policy reasons. How about that twice now we've had a popular Democratic president swept into office with a majority in Congress promising to change things in Washington, and once again they are showing themselves to be exactly the same as everybody that's gone before, keeping their popularity by offering handouts to buy votes to support themselves.

I've said over and over it's not like I'm in love with the Republican party or how they handle things, but I like the Dems even less. So I go Republican.

It's a much different thing to say the homeland was safe for eight years and some measure of credit should go the the Bush admin, than the Iraq War is responsible for keeping us safe.

So you found one attack on what is considered US soil, although not actually over here but rather close to the region in question.


We're foiling plots now at a pretty good clip. How exactly does this help your case? They don't have a safe haven making it much more dangerous for them to operate.

Looks like a lot of security and intelligence failures in those countries (except the for the ones you posted that involved U.S. soil or planes, which are the four in your list that were thwarted.) Maybe those other countries should try the PATRIOT Act. :)

I agree with the terrorist attack accomplishment. But if you also told me that we'd currently be in two dead end wars, Bin Laden still alive, and riding out one of the worst financial collapses in the last 80 years, I'd be as surprised as well.

I'm just saying as a whole, the security policy was successful. The debate is whether the cost was too high, which is a fair debate, but one that can never be resolved.

It's not opinion that terrorist attacks increased worldwide, it's State Department statistics. Even if you limit it to U.S. targets you can't exclude civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, there is no evidence that a fly paper theory actually resulted in fewer terrorist attacks.

As for the rest, stop feeling persecuted. The only reason we're arguing this is because you started it. I said at the time I could have supported military action, but after Bush requested no rebuilding funds for Afghanistan in 2003 I figured they'd just fuck things up without a plan for fixing it. As it turns out I feel pretty good about that reasoning.

So a plan was created to justify a war by saying Iraq had WMDs, then blow it up and purposely screw up the backend of the war so that terrorists could freely enter Iraq and kill tons of innocent civlians and U.S? This was the plan from the start?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and still doesn't. The fact we haven't been hit is not because of the war in Iraq. If people want to argue it's the Patriot Act, war in Afghanistan, CIA, FBI, etc, I'm down with that. But saying that us going into Iraq and botching up a war in a country that was not related to terrorism is far fetched.

But again, by that logic you'd also have to say that not invading Iraq and Afghanistan was successful from WTC bombing until 9/10. You can't prove causation in relation to Iraq.

Of course not, that's my point - you also can't prove the opposite, that Iraq wasn't beneficial.

I have no idea what the plan from the start was, I'm just talking about post-war justifications. So justification probably isn't even the right word.

There were probably multiple, conflicting plans from the start.

As usual, it's always about "U.S. soil".

All I'm saying is that it's pretty blinkered to make the statement that we're "keeping them busy in Iraq" when there's a long list of incidents one can cite that are a) Al-Qaeda related and b) happen all over the globe (i.e. not just in Iraq).

While the Iraq War may have had an effect (an in fact there's evidence to show that it may have helped Al Qaeda, not harmed it), it seems a bit logically weak to say it's the sole, or even main, reason there have been no successful attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 (which, of course, ignores successful attacks elsewhere, as if they have no relevance to the topic).


You said we're "keeping them busy over there". Every foiled attack shows that this is not the case.

If you said the Iraq War "makes it harder for them to be successful over here", then maybe you'd have a stronger case, but only if you leave out a) every other factor that makes it harder for them to attack U.S. soil now and b) the fact that they have continued to execute successful attacks elsewhere.

The history of counter-terrorism in the 21st century does not boil down to:

1. Attack Iraq
2. ???
3. Profit!

:D

I think the burden rests with those that killed tens of thousands, wounded tens of thousands and left a million or more displaced. If the best that can be argued is you can't prove it didn't work, that makes my point, IMO.

Way to miss the point.

The number of attacks to reach the execution stage shows the extent to which Al Qaeda can continue to operate on a global scale (and even on U.S. soil), despite the extent to which we're "keeping them busy" in Iraq.

I'm not sure if you're talking about Iraq or the PATRIOT Act, or just conflating the two, but here's one measure:

2,974: U.S. citizens & foreign nationals (not including terrorists) killed on 9/11
4,669: Iraq Coalition casualties to date

You also can't prove that me moving down the street from a Mexican restaurant in 2004 and subsequently eating at it once a week which caused massive gas problems wasn't the reason for no terrorist attacks in this country.

Both are unfalsifiable claims and should not be used to try and proof something.

The number you don't have as part of that equation is the casualties from terrorist attacks if the Iraq War (or the Patriot Act) didn't happen.

You can argue that that number is zero, all I'm saying is that we don't know that number for sure. That's where the meaningful debate is.

I'm trying to look at the war from a historical, practical perspective, not just the from the view of the vengeful/blame game that most discussions about this revolve arround. The war could have have been misguided, reckless, and criminal - that doesn't neccesarily mean that U.S. and the world didn't/can't benefit from it in some way, taking account of the high cost.

The usual argument is that that Bush overdid things post 9/11, and that point is supported by the lack of known terrorist threats. That's certainly been argued here, I can't remember if it was you.

can someone PM me when the talk returns to the Obama administration? :)

Of course it is. Aside from England, who else around the world wanted to actually help us?


I don't really care about all over the globe. I care about my safety and security. They started a war, we've taken it back to their home turf. Europe had a couple of issues which are now under control, and now they're back carrying out attacks in their own backyard.


They are having a much harder time carrying out SUCCESSFUL attacks, and we are killing them off at a pretty reasonable clip right now since we've carried the war to them. What we've done is taken away their secure bases, and this has stirred up a hornet's nest that is now having trouble doing much more than attack targets near them. Sure, it got a bit worse right away (look at the times on your successful attacks above and see them petering out) and is now much better, at least for US citizens who aren't in the war zone.

And FWIW, I'd argue that most of the things that have made the war on terror successful are things the Dems and supporters have argued strongly to shut down, and curiously that Obama has decided not to shut down since he's actually taken office.


No one said it was.

B.S. This whole thing started with someone asking how we could possibly support Republicans in this day and age, and I gave my reasons. You guys decided to gangbang the reasons. I said when I mentioned the Iraq thing that you guys wouldn't agree and it wasn't worth debating AGAIN, yet you guys decided to debate it AGAIN. I feel more secure since we've carried the war to them, you don't, and you want to attack all the things that do make me more secure.

What I love is the secure knowledge so many of you feel that with the tiny bit of national security info the press (a regularly shown to be lying press) feeds you, you know everything about the world situation and the war on terror. Forgive me if I put a bit more faith in the people that have a ton more info than any of the rest of us do. And note that most Dems that have had access to this, including the sitting president, haven't felt a really need to do much more than bluster when it's politically expedient to. Obama extended the Patriot Act with minor revisions, can't shut down Guantanamo, extended Rendition, etc etc etc. He may be making some progress to eventually pulling out of Iraq, I'll give you that.

There you go Cam!

But that's like me saying:

"Republicans are douchebags. I know some of you don't agree, but let's not argue this again."

Once you lay out a political point, in a political thread, you have to expect a political response. If you don't want to debate the war, don't mention it.

My point was, the war in Iraq was extremely expensive both in monetary costs and human lives lost (not to mention the immense damage it did to our credibility in the eyes of other nations worldwide). Thousands of Americans dying over in Iraq doesn't feel any better to me than thousands dying on U.S. soil. People dying for a sham of a war is far more costly in my mind than spending money on programs that I may not support. At some point, money is just money. I don't like taxes, but I can live with them. Lost lives can never be replaced, and families that have lost loved ones can never be compensated for their losses.

And if you're that concerned with being fiscally responsible, perhaps avoiding flushing trillions down the toilet in Iraq would have been a good place to become budget conscious. If you can find a justification for a war where we were blatantly misled and manipulated by our own President, more power to you I guess. Me, I can't help but think about how many more people would likely still be alive had Gore won the 2000 election.

Why I keep appearing in this thread baffles not only you guys but also me. I know I sound like a broken record but once somebody answers my question I will be satisfied. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why does it have to be programs I don't like versus a war I don't like? Or health care I don't want versus corporate welfare I don't want? Or social progress versus free enterprise? There is a political party that encompasses both ideologies. You guys unintentionally argue in favor of it in every single post. But the mass media and politicians themselves have somehow convinced you it's not viable. Why continue to be manipulated by the system? A third party vote is only a wasted vote becuase politicians have convinced you of this.

Being a member of the two primary parties means you do not affect(effect?) change at all. It just means you're a tool that enables corporate lobbyists to decide policy.

I'm hope you're proud of yourself.

And by hope I mean that I hope you die a horrible death by means that involves trout and anuses.

More of the same attacks from Democrats. I don't inherently have an issue with the program itself or the slant that Ed obviously has on his programs and other programs on MSNBC. They're doing nothing different than Fox News in that regard, which is fine IMO. But the hypocrisy from the administration, the representative being interviewed, and liberal supporters that Fox News is not a legitimate news source when MSNBC takes a similar slant the other way and receive no criticism is silly at best.

Grayson: Fox News Is "The Enemy Of America" (VIDEO)

There's really only one way that a feud of this magnitude will be settled.

Between the cold bars of the steel cage.