This is from 1994. What happened? Did Cheney think the quagmire was going to be scourgified away by a wave of Bush's wand?
Cheney in 1994
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
If we had known.
If we had known this is what would happen to Baghdad, would you have still authorized the war, Mr. President ?
Inferno
Yet he did know. This was not only suspected, but predicted, by the CIA, by many thinking persons who grasped the complexities of invading a country unprovoked, a country only held together by the strength of a dictator for 50 years. Woe the arrogance of men and their guns! Woe upon those who use power to enforce their will! Woe to all humankind for violence begetting violence, for those believers who forget the words of our master. "All who live by the sword die by the sword."
Inferno
Yet he did know. This was not only suspected, but predicted, by the CIA, by many thinking persons who grasped the complexities of invading a country unprovoked, a country only held together by the strength of a dictator for 50 years. Woe the arrogance of men and their guns! Woe upon those who use power to enforce their will! Woe to all humankind for violence begetting violence, for those believers who forget the words of our master. "All who live by the sword die by the sword."
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Early look at Candidates
It's that time again.
A year and half before we actually go out and vote, the presidential candidates are well on their way to ensuring that fatigue will overwhelm whoever wins the presidential race. Our country will be able to sleep at night knowing a tired, stressed out, overworked, and overburdened man or woman will be making incredibly important decisions in January 2009.
Oh well. I may as well participate.
So here, for your viewing pleasure, is my early take on who are the best candidates put up so far by each major party.
Democrats:
Barack Obama:
Pros: Exciting as any candidate we've seen since JFK (at least, from listening to his speeches. I wasn't around then, so I can't really know). His rhetoric just blows everyone else out of the water, and the Democrats seem to for once have a fielded a candidate who takes traditional social morality seriously.
Cons: Experience. Definitely a newcomer on the national scene, and has only been a senator. The country may be nervous at this point to give the job to somebody who may be seen as inexperienced. However, the country is deathly tired of lies and shallow idealism. Abe Lincoln had almost the exact same amount of experience as Obama though, and he did alright. He also was a tremendous orator. We'll just have to see.
Hillary Clinton:
Pros: Crafty and clever. I don't mean this in a political sense like her husband. I don't think she's as good as her husband at wriggling out of the jaws of death in a media spectacle. However, by all accounts she has been very effective in the Senate at working with both sides and getting legislation passed. She seems to understand how power works, she grasps nuance, and generally is willing to compromise. I would really like somebody with these skills as our next president. Plus she's got more balls than all the rest of the senate combined.
Cons: Well, half the country thinks of her as the devil. That could be an obstacle. If she can overcome that political challenge, or at least win another 5% over to her side, she'll win.
Republicans:
John McCain:
Pros: Depsite the fact that he trails Giuliani in the polls, he has a lot more substance. He's been in politics for a long time, and he also strikes me as similar to Hillary: well versed in power and nuance. He's also a little more principled, I think, when he takes a stand for something. He's definitely proved that by sticking to the troop surge. A lesser politician would never, ever have done that.
Cons: As much as I admire his principles, well, we've all seen the danger when somebody is completely unwilling to compromise. I think McCain is light years away from His Excellency, but well, I just think McCain is plain wrong on the whole Iraq thing and that's hugely important for the next 5-10 years.
Honestly, there isnt really anyone else inspiring on the republican side, except the guy who hasn't officially announced:
Fred Thompson:
Pros: I like actors running for president. Not because they're smarter and better, but because i can think of no better training for navigating the halls of power and convincing others to get on board. Being a politician is really made of of two primary jobs: recognizing realities beyond your direct control, and creating reality in areas within your control. In politics convincing others to work with you creates new boundaries and structures that define daily life for billions of people, especially for an American president. Actors seems particularly able to do that
Cons: He's old, not running yet, and perhaps a little conservative. Not much else will be known about him until and if he enters the race.
People I really dont want president:
Giuliani, Edwards, and several of the other republicans. In my opinion, however, only Giuliani and the four above have any realistic shot of making it
My pics:
As of May:
Who will win: Obama
Who I want to win: very slight edge to Hillary
- James
A year and half before we actually go out and vote, the presidential candidates are well on their way to ensuring that fatigue will overwhelm whoever wins the presidential race. Our country will be able to sleep at night knowing a tired, stressed out, overworked, and overburdened man or woman will be making incredibly important decisions in January 2009.
Oh well. I may as well participate.
So here, for your viewing pleasure, is my early take on who are the best candidates put up so far by each major party.
Democrats:
Barack Obama:
Pros: Exciting as any candidate we've seen since JFK (at least, from listening to his speeches. I wasn't around then, so I can't really know). His rhetoric just blows everyone else out of the water, and the Democrats seem to for once have a fielded a candidate who takes traditional social morality seriously.
Cons: Experience. Definitely a newcomer on the national scene, and has only been a senator. The country may be nervous at this point to give the job to somebody who may be seen as inexperienced. However, the country is deathly tired of lies and shallow idealism. Abe Lincoln had almost the exact same amount of experience as Obama though, and he did alright. He also was a tremendous orator. We'll just have to see.
Hillary Clinton:
Pros: Crafty and clever. I don't mean this in a political sense like her husband. I don't think she's as good as her husband at wriggling out of the jaws of death in a media spectacle. However, by all accounts she has been very effective in the Senate at working with both sides and getting legislation passed. She seems to understand how power works, she grasps nuance, and generally is willing to compromise. I would really like somebody with these skills as our next president. Plus she's got more balls than all the rest of the senate combined.
Cons: Well, half the country thinks of her as the devil. That could be an obstacle. If she can overcome that political challenge, or at least win another 5% over to her side, she'll win.
Republicans:
John McCain:
Pros: Depsite the fact that he trails Giuliani in the polls, he has a lot more substance. He's been in politics for a long time, and he also strikes me as similar to Hillary: well versed in power and nuance. He's also a little more principled, I think, when he takes a stand for something. He's definitely proved that by sticking to the troop surge. A lesser politician would never, ever have done that.
Cons: As much as I admire his principles, well, we've all seen the danger when somebody is completely unwilling to compromise. I think McCain is light years away from His Excellency, but well, I just think McCain is plain wrong on the whole Iraq thing and that's hugely important for the next 5-10 years.
Honestly, there isnt really anyone else inspiring on the republican side, except the guy who hasn't officially announced:
Fred Thompson:
Pros: I like actors running for president. Not because they're smarter and better, but because i can think of no better training for navigating the halls of power and convincing others to get on board. Being a politician is really made of of two primary jobs: recognizing realities beyond your direct control, and creating reality in areas within your control. In politics convincing others to work with you creates new boundaries and structures that define daily life for billions of people, especially for an American president. Actors seems particularly able to do that
Cons: He's old, not running yet, and perhaps a little conservative. Not much else will be known about him until and if he enters the race.
People I really dont want president:
Giuliani, Edwards, and several of the other republicans. In my opinion, however, only Giuliani and the four above have any realistic shot of making it
My pics:
As of May:
Who will win: Obama
Who I want to win: very slight edge to Hillary
- James
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Gun Control & the Media
I wanted to post some of my thoughts on gun control in light of the media reaction to the massacre at VT. In this first post, I'd to talk more about how the media reacted to the VT attack.
First, I want to say that overall, I thought that the media has done a good job covering the attack. They responded early, and they seemed to handle the interviews with victim's families and the injured in a responsible way. They also seemed careful in how they reported the initial facts, at least as much as can be expected in a tense and changing situation.
I strongly disagree, however, with the overwhelmingly rapid introduction of the gun-control debate into the situation. Within 10-12 hours, before any politician, victim, or advocacy group had sought to blame the situation on gun-control, the media began asking, was it because of a lack of gun-control? Right after the convocation ended I remember seeing anchors bring up that issue, again when not one victim, victim's family, or advocacy group had made a commentary. Nowhere in this initial reporting did i hear it stated "Victims are questioning gun-control laws," or "X organization issued a statement on gun-control."
I want to make a distinction here. I don't think it was wrong for the media to report where the subject received the gun, or that it was surprisingly easy; or to question, once they learned about his mental history, how he was able to obtain the gun and whether there was some violation of law. This is very different from a lot of what I saw, specifically the introduction by the media of the national gun-control debate into the middle of a tragic situation.
In the coming weeks experts and politicians will need to be discussing whether there should be changes in gun-control laws on a national or state level. But the media seemed to force the issue into the public debate before anyone else had said anything about it. That question was a media-driven question, and this to me seemed irresponsible. Imagine what the response would be if some leading presidential candidate had held a national press conference and blamed the tragedy on a lack of gun-control within 12 hours of the shooting. Would he or she still have any chance at all of being a contender? The media spurred this issue into the forefront, irresponsibly. Editorials should be left out of first-response reporting.
-James
First, I want to say that overall, I thought that the media has done a good job covering the attack. They responded early, and they seemed to handle the interviews with victim's families and the injured in a responsible way. They also seemed careful in how they reported the initial facts, at least as much as can be expected in a tense and changing situation.
I strongly disagree, however, with the overwhelmingly rapid introduction of the gun-control debate into the situation. Within 10-12 hours, before any politician, victim, or advocacy group had sought to blame the situation on gun-control, the media began asking, was it because of a lack of gun-control? Right after the convocation ended I remember seeing anchors bring up that issue, again when not one victim, victim's family, or advocacy group had made a commentary. Nowhere in this initial reporting did i hear it stated "Victims are questioning gun-control laws," or "X organization issued a statement on gun-control."
I want to make a distinction here. I don't think it was wrong for the media to report where the subject received the gun, or that it was surprisingly easy; or to question, once they learned about his mental history, how he was able to obtain the gun and whether there was some violation of law. This is very different from a lot of what I saw, specifically the introduction by the media of the national gun-control debate into the middle of a tragic situation.
In the coming weeks experts and politicians will need to be discussing whether there should be changes in gun-control laws on a national or state level. But the media seemed to force the issue into the public debate before anyone else had said anything about it. That question was a media-driven question, and this to me seemed irresponsible. Imagine what the response would be if some leading presidential candidate had held a national press conference and blamed the tragedy on a lack of gun-control within 12 hours of the shooting. Would he or she still have any chance at all of being a contender? The media spurred this issue into the forefront, irresponsibly. Editorials should be left out of first-response reporting.
-James
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)