Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Palin & Presidential Politics ...

Does Gov. Palin have sufficient experience considering that she has less time and credentials in high ranking positions than any of the other candidates?

Although I do like the fact that she's a woman, her experience IS a legitimate, highly relevant & serious question for the McCain campaign & the American voting public.

Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant ... and while I agree that her daughter herself is off-limits, this does NOT mean that potential questions should not be raised ... among the relevant issues this raises which do need to be addressed:

(1) that Gov. Palin and her daughter may not effectively communicate ... or (2) that she is too busy to know what her daughter is actually doing & the manner in which she delegates her time ... particularly, if the Republicans want to claim some unique entitlement to having better "family values" than Democrats ... and (3) Gov. Palin is a staunch advocate of promoting abstinence as a governmental policy, but can't even get her own children to follow this policy, is not strict about it, - or maybe it's just a political position, but not one that she holds personally.

TrooperGate ... does make you wonder about McCain's judgment in picking someone who they know or should have know was under investigation by her own State for serious ethics violations ... now they've even had to hire an attorney to defend her in the investigation, which indicates that there is actually some legitimacy to the charges and the need for investigation (not that there has or has not been an actual violation) ... and if the investigation proves the charges to be true and correct, either before the election (or worse yet after if she does become VP), what a HUGE disaster that would be for the country and particularly for the Republican party. And what does it say about the credibility of her announced position of being a strong proponent of ethics reform to even let herself be put in the position of being able to be accused of such a matter (ie, she could have simply refused to have become involved because the decision involved a family member [her ex-brother in law], or delegated any termination related decisions to others on her staff or cabinet, or to his superiors, and issued such a statement to the public) ... there are serious questions raised about her judgment and her ethics by this matter.

Just a few legitimate questions to think about & which the Republican party needs to address at its convention - which instead they have been sloughing off in their press interviews as if anyone with such concerns is just an idiot.

I don't know how they will be answered, just that the questions are legitimate.

Peace,
Beth Isbell
------------------------------------------------

"From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 2, 2008 8:55 AM


Hate to burst your bubble, but she has more experience than Obama. She's the governor, which gives her executive experience- more than Obama can say. AND she was a mayor, also more than Obama can say. He hasn't run ANYTHING except a well-oiled campaign of lies.

As for the ethics investigation, again the dems can lie all they want, but the "investigation" is over and nothing was found that would indicate she violated state rules or laws.

I tend to agree with you though about the daughter situation. I left the Republican party and registered independent because i am sick and tired of the moral bullshit in the party platform. Morality is between oneself and the maker- and NO ONE should judge another with a party platform. The dems certainly do it as well, but they're just so ridiculous I don't even consider them a likely alternative. All that said, I DO believe that her family situation is much like the rest of America and is a great example of how families of all kinds CAN work.

Great points you make! Keep up the discussion! I appreciate you for it.

-Stephen"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Stephen ... Not really sure that I want to live under all of the draconian Republican policies and practices for another four years, if ever. Their long string of conservative judicial appointments have taken away your and my civil rights (and I am a civil rights lawyer, so this I know personally). Torture? Wire-tapping without warrants? Denial of rights to consult with attorneys for your own defense? Denial of habeas corpus rights and rights to trials by juries? Even the conservatives they have appointed to the Supreme Court think they have gone way too far in undermining Constitutional liberties. Not to mention our credibility on human rights and democracy issues with most foreign leaders and citizens in those countries, which makes it far more difficult to obtain consensus on implementing our foreign policy initiatives. Increasing the national debt by trillions - to the point of severely weakening the dollar and US economy abroad - on a war which is being fought largely on the wrong front and which was admittedly based on known misinformation. Substantial increases in foreclosures, unemployment rates ... tax policies which reward the wealthy & MNC's that ship US jobs overseas.

I suppose that I could go on & on & on & on ... but if you hate democrats it probably wouldn't cause you to stop & think anyway ...

I would love it, however, if they would simply try to actually make our children's and grand-children's lives better ... saddling them with tons of debt, a destroyed environment, no jobs, and no Constitutional rights and protections really seems quite adverse to that noble goal.

But everybody is entitled to their own position ... and the purpose of my original post was to merely present a neutral view to get folks thinking.

Beth
---------------------------------------------------

"Beth,

A well- known U.S. Senator from NY, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Dem, was famous for saying, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts."

The myth of "draconian Republican policies and practices" is simply that- a myth. There is not ONE substantiated case where an American citizen was wire-tapped fraudulently. There is not even a named citizen in any complaint against our government. This is a fact. Not one case. Nor is there any case of an American being denied Habeus Corpus, or the right to an attorney or a trial by jury. Again, the facts.

What it all boils down to is the Dems' idea that terrorism should be equated to crimes under which the U.S. courts would have jurisdiction and the Constitution applied. This is a new phenomenon, and has no precident in our legal system. The idea of foreign fighters and terrorists being tried in an Oklahoma court for attacking troops overseas or our citizens here is ridiculous. Nowhere in our Constitution does it call for this. Our Constitutional rights are not intended to be applied to or forced onto others- much like we don't want theirs forced on us. As a lawyer, you should be familiar with these points and not so easily swayed by lies that the media have put out there. So ask yourself if killing a U.S. soldier on the battlefield is murder or a consequence of war? Were the attacks on the WTC murder or a deliberate military strike against U.S. interests? 94 Senators and the vast majority of congress agreed with the latter when they weren't up for election. Hmmm...

Anyway, I love discussing this with someone like you who can articulate your point! We should meet for coffee and continue with your other points. I know I would enjoy that! I DO listen and research other peoples' points of view. It forces me to have a stronger understanding of the positions I take. So thank you and let's keep this great, civil discussion going!

-Stephen"

----------------------------------

From: Beth
Date: Sep 2, 2008 7:39 PM


I'm pretty sure that muslim guy in Chicago who was denied right to counsel, held without aq speedy trial (another Constitutional guarantee), and falsely "accused" of terrorism (charges later dropped as I recall) was also a US citizen. How do you know that no American citizens have not been wire-tapped? You don't and you don't have ANY way of knowing. I'm pretty sure the government did wire-tap those US muslim & non-muslim citizens in the New York case, and the US citizen muslims in the Michigan mosque financing case. If the conservative Supreme Court keeps slapping the Bush administration for violating citizens and non-citizen captives rights, are they wrong? Perhaps they and we have just misunderstood the Constitution & its protections all of these years.

Don't let yourself be fooled Stephen ... you seem like an intelligent guy. It is NOT necessary to deny any of these rights to US citizens or non-US citizens, military combatants, or even "terrorists" assuming they actually are terrorists (and recently they released several who were wrongly accused and held against their will, without counsel, subjected to torture, without trial) - cases of mistaken identity happen frequently, particularly when the accusations are based on eyewitness reports (which have more often than one like to remember resulted in black men being convicted of murder or rape which DNA later overturns).

It is necessary to deny such rights to establish a dictatorship or regime which is more sinister in nature (not suggesting that this is or is not actually the purpose here) -- but the point is that preservations of these rights and freedoms that you think new times, and new labels such as "terrorists", easily justify denying are absolutely necessary to prevent such evils. As Shakespeare said on the subject of establishing a dictatorship ... "The first thing we do is to kill all the lawyers." Think about it Stephen -- weren't the founders of the United States actually "terrorists" under the Bush administration's broad definition. Maybe your Southern ancestors (if any) in the civil war could also be considered terrorists. Maybe blacks / african-americans who rose up against slavery also meet that definition. The threat and actual existence of terrorism is not "new" as you suggest, it has been present since long before the Magna Carta and our precious Constitution were ever written, but they were written even in spite of such ever-present threats. Not to mention that the US is actually a party to the Hague Convention and other international treaties which absolutely prohibit this type of abuse of prisoners of war. Seems stupid to suggest that the "war on terrorism" as it is called to drain our national debt is not a "war" at all when we talk about human rights and civil liberties. Such double-speak is a serious and scary problem ... seems like Orwell might have a point.

I have lots of friends with whom I disagree politically, or vice-versa, one is not a pre-requisite of the other, and try to keep the discussion civil.

Peace,
Beth
---------------------------------------------

"From: Stephen'08
Date: Sep 2, 2008 6:16 PM



Come ON! Again you offer "pretty sure" and probability. And the left says this is happening- with NO PROOF! Facts speak louder than guesses. Until liberals and lawyers actually prove anything has happened, they can't keep fooling Americans into believing this nonsense.

As for the Chicago org that was shut down, they were proven in Federal court to be funneling money to HAMAS- a terrorist organization as recognized by the U.N. and the rest of the free world. You need to decide for yourself if terrorism is evil or not. If you don't see blowing up innocent people as wrong, then there's nothing anyone can say to you.

You're definitely a good lawyer! You have distracted from fact over and over with conjecture. Good job! But the question is has the government violated anyone's rights and you have not yet offered ONE shred of proof to that accusation.

As for the alleged "torture," again an unproven accusation. It has simply been the left's mission to discredit our military and government by any means necessary. And since the Socialist, er, Democrat party control the lies the media love to put out there, who are the true "dictators" you speak of? I think the answer is pretty clear! Calling our President a 'dictator' and 'torturer' is just ridiculous and another distraction from the facts. And I definitely think the Supreme Court was wrong in their ruling on the Gitmo Prisoners. There was definitely an agenda there, since Article Four of the Geneva Convention defines enemy combatants and their treatment to the letter of how the Bush admin does.

Wow. You made me research the Geneva Convention! LOL! Thats GREAT! Keeps me on my toes!

-Stephen"
------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen,

Here's a link documenting this administration's extraordinarily broad position on warrantless wiretaps and even warrantless physical searches (similar to the kind employed in the Watergatescandal) ... and it also discusses a case in which the FBI wiretapped & searched attorneys offices of a charity alleged (but not proven) to be funneling money to Osama Bin Laden:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/artic ... _3.htm_and,
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/03/24/705/01356

And systematically reading/searching lots of US citizens e-mails, maybe even yours or mine, without warrants or even probable cause to do so:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-108800.html

Overbroad searches or wiretaps are "common":
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/washi ... 7fisa.html

The Haddad Michigan Mosque/Cleric case ... harassment through secret immigration/deportation hearings and other means of intimidation:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan20 ... -j31.shtml

US involvement in torture is well-documented, both indirectly:
"U.S. authorities, including President George W. Bush and CIA Director Porter Goss, have stated publicly that the United States only renders terrorism suspects to countries that give assurances that suspects will not be tortured. However, the U.S. has rendered suspects to countries with long and well-documented records of torturing detainees, including Egypt and Syria." Human Rights Watch report on Sweedish case,
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/11 ... n14548.htm

And directly:
Forbes Mag: The US admitted to the UN committee on Torture that it had tortured detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and in Iraq & Afghanistan ... http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/20 ... 10388.html

Red Cross documents torture of US detainees at Guantanamo Bay:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/polit ... &position=
See Also: http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/report ... uantanamo-

720 detainees at Guantanamo, 420 released, of remaining 270, 1/5 have been cleared for release but still being detained, and US only intends to prosecute 60-80 of the remaining 270 ... that's 600+ cases where the US had no evidence or mistaken identity or not enough of any terrorist activity sufficient to justify holding these prisoners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo ... ntion_camp

The same wikipedia article documents rampant torture and abuse of detainees, and multiple court cases (including several US Supreme Court cases) finding that the Bush administrations' denial of habeas corpus rights and other protections to detainees violated the US Constitution. And also discusses reports by the UN and lots of other neutral organizations finding systematic torture and abuse of US detainees.

Well-Documented cases of Iraqi detainees that were never charged and ultimately released after being tortured without ever being charged:
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1359
(50+ cases documented of Iraqis detained but later released without charges)

US military personnel witness statements documenting such torture:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18414

Torture by US CIA officials even occurred in Bosnia as early as 2001:
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1144

Even evangelical church leaders have denounced the US's use of torture as demonstrated by "documented cases of torture and inhumane and cruel behaviour have occurred at various sites in the war on terror." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/ma ... pilkington

Here's a LONG list of NY Times articles on the abuses of the Bush Administration ... documenting unauthorized searches, illegal wiretaps, and even court cases which have found the government's over-broad searches have violated Constitutional rights:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference ... atch=exact

There are thousands of other relevant articles and I don't have time to search all of them for you.

As to the Geneva Convention & the definition of enemy combatants ... we had declared WAR against Iraq before capturing almost all of these detainees on the battle field, which makes them prisoners of war subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention ... the UN report strongly condemns US failure to follow the Convention on this point.

Keep in mind that the Bush administration asked for the authority to conduct unauthorized searches and wiretaps in its drafting of FISA and other secrecy measures ... but you seem to naively think that just because they asked for such authority, they have never actually used it? That is as ridiculous as it sounds ... You deny that the US tortured prisoners in the face of overwhelming evidence, and even the Bush administration's admission to the UN, that they did engage in torture.

Of course, I don't want terrorists blowing up US citizens or property. (Why is it that the right always accuses those that stand up for civil liberties as being unpatriotic - it's abusive and just flat out wrong). I just think that preservation of all of our Constitutional rights is equally as important, if not far more important. -- These are not only the rights of Muslim attorneys or clerics who are also US citizens, but also your rights, my rights, and the rights of our neighbors and children. And what does it say about the US to citizens around the world that despite all of our "talk" about freedom and rights, that in reality we torture and abuse detainees without right to counsel or even a trial; it's no wonder that they don't believe us because our actions are contrary. And this severely undermines our credibility and foreign policy efforts.

I would much rather have freedom and Constitutional rights, even at the expense of 100% safety, than to have "alleged" safety, with greatly diminished rights. I would much rather risk my daily safety to have my Constitutional rights than to allow government to conduct unauthorized wiretaps and searches, or torture, etc. I hardly think that the founders of the United States would have risked their lives and safety to secure such freedoms if they did not value these rights more than their safety. Further it's a myth that giving up of our rights "assures" our safety. It is the preservation of these rights, for which millions of Americans have sacrificed their lives in WWI, II and other wars, that keep us safe & free.

I can't believe that someone with your intelligence has bought into the administration's propaganda that we must give up our rights to be safe hook, line & sinker. And, you really do need to specifically address my challenge to you to justify why it is necessary to deny any of these rights in order to secure our freedom ...

Beth

Additional follow-up:

Stephen:

Neither the Third Convention or Fourth Convention of the Geneva Convention contain the term "unlawful combatant" as proposed by the Bush administration. This is a made-up position not endorsed by the Conventions or the Commentary by its authors, or the Int'l Red Cross.

Under the Bush Administration's "interpretation" of the Third Geneva Convention (applying to prisoners of war), "illegal" enemy combatants or "unlawful combatants" are not subject to the Convention's prisoner of war protections. The administration's position is directly contradicted by the Convention and it's authors:

The Third Convention does extend such protected status to all enemy combatants, which is broadly defined by the Convention. However, Article 4 contains the following definitions, among others, of "prisoners of war":

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(Notice the "or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power" language which would easily apply to Hammas & the Taliban ... and even to Al-Quada. Think about it, ... in almost every war, there is the government side and the rebel forces - under the Bush Administration's broad definition, rebel forces would ALWAYS be "unlawful combatants" who would not be entitled to the prisoner of war protections ... and that is a totally ludicrous position.)

4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

This language applies to almost all of the US detainees that lived or resided in the territory under attack or war and where it doesn't the broad language of the Fourth Convention which protects citizens or inhabitants of the territory.

The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that:

"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." Jean Pictet (ed.) [2]"

So nothing actually in the Third Convention or Fourth Convention or the Commentary by the authors which is guiding authority of interpretation supports the Bush Administration's view, and in fact, is to the contrary. Further, even assuming the Bush Administration view has any validity, the International Red Cross correctly sums up the situation - regardless of lawful or unlawful classification, ALL persons are entitled to humane treatment by their enemies.

"In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC 'If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy."

Beth

Excellent (and telling) discussion, Beth. Thanks for posting it, and thanks for all of your exhaustive research work! I love it! It never ceases to amaze me how deep in denial so many of our "conservative" friends have been and continue to be. Thanks again.

"----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: tory stinnett
Date: Sep 9, 2008 4:02 PM

You have asked so here's you a little breakdown on my issues...........

A) The Wars with both Iraq and Afganistan - I support BOTH, Fully, NOT just the troops. I agree with Everything we've done so far....... I remember it clearly on 9-11, I remember thinking, this war against "Terrorism" may never end. It could go on for decades. There may Never be and actual "End." Like we had in WWI and WWII. I also clearly remember thinking the American People, especially Hardcore Liberals will not have the stomach or will to continue if this thing gets protracted....... Have we made mistakes? Of Course! But I sincerely believe that attacks on America have to be met without hesitation or Mercy.

B) Universal Health care - I'm absolutely against Socializing Medicine. We live in a Capitalist Democratic Republic, and I LOVE it that way! Is it perfect? Of course Not. Have we gotten better in our 200+ years as a nation? I think so. We're technically still VERY young when it comes to the Age of our Nation compared to others on the planet and have made mistakes. We will continue to.

C) Raising Taxes and Bigger Government - Absolutely against BOTH! What has become of the American Dream? where you can work your ass of to get somewhere, finally become wealthy (if that's what you wanted) by the sweat of your own back and your own ingenuity ONLY to have the Government TAX you quite a bit more in order to redistribute the wealth to Larger Government, more regulation and to people who DID'NT bust their ass or work hard

D) Gun Control - STRONGLY against it. Enough said.

E) The Death Penalty - Again, I'm for it. I think we have to be careful to ensure everyone's rights are protected, but in the long run, I would have to say I'm for it.

F) Abortion - This ones not so cut and dried for me. I have lots of questions that have never been answered. I believe in the right ot Life, But I believe in a woman's right to control her Body.

G) Gay Rights - I believe Everyone in this Country should have Equal rights, Regardless of ANYTHING.

H) Energy - DRILL NOW! Here at Home. Period. Of Course, we should always continue to explore alternative Enery Resources, that's a given. Perosnally, I'd like to see more Nuclear Energy, But that's just me.

Those are not all my issues, But I gotta go ... and they are not in Priority sequence. Above ALL my Greatest concern is the Defense of this Nation. If we don't exist or are rendered Impotent then the other issues don'ty really mean that much do they?.............. Now when you add up how I feel about the issues I've listed, you can clearly see how I lean Conservative and am supporting McCain - Palin..........

Tory"

----------------------------------

Thanks ...

As to each of the issues you listed, here is my personal position (and btw while I'm liberal on most social issues, I'm more moderate than you think on most fiscal & economic issues, & a lot of other issues as well):

A) War ... I support the war in Afghanistan ... I support all of the troops ... I wish Republicans would give troops injured in battle adequate health care - they don't & have refused to provide adequate benefits ... I wish that Republicans would give soldiers who have served their country college education benefits like we used to do and the Democrats still want to do - unfortunately, the Republicans don't. I believe that the Bush administration mislead the American public as to the grounds for war in Iraq - and had they not done so we would not be there and 1000s of our soldiers would not have died unnecessarily, and we would not have run up trillions and trillions in national debt that has weakened the US dollar & our economy and that the Republicans have no adequate plan to repay (& balance the budget) - that type of conduct is totally irresponsible & harmful to my children's future (since they will have to pay for all of this Republican spending irresponsibility). I think we should be in the mountains in Pakistan - and that the Republican administration has refused to go in there despite intelligence showing that's the most likely place that Osama Bin Laden is hiding.

B) Health Care ... if you don't have insurance, as I and lots of poor or middle class folks don't, and you get really sick, need a critically necessary surgery, or need immediate emergency care ... and can't afford it, ... then you understand why insurance is important ... The reality is that we (taxpayers) pay for all the emergency care and uninsured health costs now, we pay economically through resulting unemployment and then resulting benefits (welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, retraining) and loss of productivity ... these costs will be substantially reduced if there is adequate health care for all. It's very elitist to say only those with lots of money should get health care.

C) Taxes ... It's just a silly myth that the Dems are going to raise your taxes ... you don't make more than $250,000 - so you personally Tory are going to get a tax cut if the Dems are elected ... my views on tax policy are well spelled out in my other blog posted on this myspace site (A discussion between a Republican and Democrat on Taxation)

D) Gun Control ... I think the 2nd Amendment means what it says ... but I don't think hunters need AK47s & automatic weapons to do the job ... I do think registration & background checks don't violate the 2nd Am. Since registration & background checks are currently the law in place, the Dems are not going to do anything more on this issue if elected.

E) Death Penalty ... I don't think the Government has the right to kill people (which btw violates one of the 10 commandments) ... but personally I think some of them probably deserved killin' ... but this type of judgment should be reserved to God, not Government ... historically, there have been a lot of innocent men executed and a lot of folks sentenced to the death penalty later released due to DNA. I think both Dems and Reps see this as a states right issue ... so nothing you or any other voter need to worry about in the national election.

F) Abortion ... I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice ... in other words, I personally would do all I can to talk someone out of an abortion and even create & fund programs to assist in that effort, but I still believe that Government should not control a woman's body ... I believe in contraception ... I also believe in promoting sex education, not just abstinence education. I don't think Roe should be overturned ... btw neither do either Dem candidate or John McCain ... only Sarah Palin is strongly anti-abortion and thinks Roe should be overturned ... so really the only way your view of the issue can be protected is to vote Dem.

G) Gay Rights ... you know where I stand. (Which is also how the Dems [and you] see the issue & not how the Republicans see the issue ...)

H) Energy ... the Republicans have had plenty of opportunity to address the problems in this area and haven't ... the Bush administration has actually altered scientific reports where 99% of the scientists agree that global warming is a real issue to claim that it isn't really a problem ... they remove pollution control regulations on their business cronies ... they refuse to impose windfall profit taxes on oil companies who are just far too greedy and rolling in record profits on the backs of American families who only see their gas prices rising significantly. They have failed to enact programs which significantly encourage development of green energy initiatives & left us behind the curve. As to drill now, I'm watching T. Boone Pickens (one of the greatest oil men ever & an Oklahoman at that) on TV right now saying that more drilling is only a stop gap measure that isn't a viable mid or long term solution. I'm cool with more wind, biofuels, clean coal, nuclear, etc. - so is Barack Obama ... I agree with what he has to say on energy issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1A8dLkRWM Watch this speech on energy and let me know what you disagree with, if anything.

Here's Obama's actual stance on all of the issues in this election:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

If you specifically disagree with anything he says, let me know.

If you really are concerned about defending America ... do you really think it's a good idea to overextend our forces & divisions so that only one or two are left to actually defend the territorial US while 80-90% of our troops are deployed all over the place? Do you think it's a good idea to run up trillions in debt on military spending with no responsible plan to pay for it, leaving us vulnerable to economic attack or being held economic hostage by China & other countries we are borrowing from to finance this huge debt? Do you think that our troops should continually be forced against their will to return again & again to Iraq even after their tours of duty & military obligations have expired (which is effectively an involuntary draft - designed to prevent them from leaving the military when Government had previously said they could)? I don't particularly see any of this as good for morale & not the best strategy to defend ourselves against any actual terrorist threats. Iraq (Saddam Hussain) was NOT planning to attack us, had no nuclear weapons and no bio/chem weapons factories - the fact that the Bush administration mislead us has been well documented by interviews with folks actually inside the administration & involved in making those decisions. (Frontline recently aired an excellent and thorough series of reports/shows thoroughly supporting this undeniable conclusion). To risk our personnel & their lives, to run up trillions in debt, and overextend our military leaving our ability to defend our nation at home & our interests elsewhere in serious jeopardy was/is not good strategy.

Peace,
Beth

A thinking conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan, go's off on McSame and Palin!

"I’ve voted a straight Republican ticket every year of my life since 1975, when I first came of voting age, but I was stunned and horrified by McCain’s choice of Palin. I simply cannot even consider voting for McCain after this choice, which speaks loudly of his own selfishness and fundamental frivolousness.

So I was shocked when I turned to the conservative blogs looking for others who shared my dismay and found a celebration going on. They really honestly believe that Palin’s “inexperience” and Obama’s “inexperience” are equivalent. I have had no luck at all in the past 24 hours trying to explain that Obama is quite obviously an impressive man (with whom I disagree on almost every major issue) with extraordinary qualities of organization, discipline and leadership. I see nothing in Palin’s record to suggest that she has any such qualities.

He is a man who has spent his adult life thinking serious thoughts about serious issues and having serious conversations about them with other serious, well-informed people; while Palin quite as clearly has done none of those things. He was the president of the Harvard Law Review; she was the point guard on her high school basketball team.
He has surrounded himself in his campaign with world-class people (with whom, again, I disagree on almost every issue); and though I am doubtless an elitist and snob for saying so, I doubt that she has even met a half-dozen world-class people in her lifetime.

While Obama might do a hundred things as President that I believe are bad for the country, I am confident that he would surround himself with experienced, informed, competent advisors and that he would make no world-destroying blunders. I cannot say the same about Palin and, in view of what this choice reveals about McCain’s character and judgment, I cannot say the same of him either.

The Palin pick says much more about McCain than it does about Palin (all it says about her is that she didn't have the good sense to turn it down). What it says about McCain is that he is more interested in politics than policy, more interested in campaigning than governing, tactical when he should be strategic, and reckless when he should be considered.

He is as big a gamble as president as Palin is as vice-president. This decision was about gut, about politics, about cynicism, and about vanity. It's Bushism metastasized."