Slashdot Mirror

And I highly doubt that Gore would have ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11.

He probably wouldn't've given them $43 million four months before 9/11, either.

But, really, this is simple speculation, and complete bullshit anyway. There's no reason to assume he wouldn't've, and every reason to assume he would. Americans wanted someone to blame for the attack. Americans (and the world in general) were behind the invasion of Afghanistan. I doubt Gore would've just sat on his ass after 9/11.

And, better, he wouldn't've invaded Iraq, especially on trumped-up non-9/11 pretexts, taking our eyes off Afghanistan. If you read the news, things aren't going well in either Iraq *or* Afghanistan. Bush hasn't successfully ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan yet. And he hasn't caught bin Laden, either. So, he's 0 for 2. 0 for 3 if you count the faisco in Iraq.

The fact is, Bush has put America in more danger. Instead of taking care of the problem, he's fucked up two foreign contries, squandered the good-will America had after 9/11, lied to and spied on his own citizens, ignored domestic issues, spent our future so the Chinese government owns even more of the US, increased the size of government tremendously, increased the power of the executive branch over the other two branches of government so we no longer have effective checks-and-balances, and has labeled everyone who criticises him as "anti-Patriotic." The two countries he's fucked up are breeding grounds for people who have reason to hate America now. Those "insurgents" aren't all old terrorists. Many of them are citizens of Iraq who have been let down by America's inability to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed. They don't care that it's not all our fault, that we've been hindered by lack of cooperation from Iraq itself.

All they know is, life is much, much worse in Iraq now that America is in charge.

Basically put, none of the candidates were all that hot; it's getting towards picking the least foul one rather than one you like the most as all of them stink to varying degrees.

Amen to that.

Bush was the worst of all possible candidates. Nader would've been a helluva lot better, even. The scary thing is, we elected him the second time through as well, after seeing what a lying, scheming bastard he really is. Bush turned out to be far, far worse than I imagined. The fact we re-elected him just shows that Americans don't really care about candidates, they just care about "red vs blue," like we were voting for our favorite sports team or something, and we're going to stand by our team, no matter how suck-ass they are, and we're going to shout about how terrible the other team is, no matter how good they really are.

In general I don't approve of pardoning anyone unless they are innocent (i.e. railroaded). So no I don't approve of Clinton's pardon of Lasater (as Governor of Arkansas). This is mainly because pardon's are largely used as a way to:

a) Provide rewards to campaign contributors.
b) Shield the President and his administration from possible scandal.

But don't get all preachy about pardon's because Republicans are notorious for covering their tracks with pardons. They pardon money lau

Regarding Lasater himself. Don't get all preachy about all that Mena Arkasas stuff. I think something fishy went on. But I don't think that Clinton had ANY power to influence a CIA operation. If you investigate, it will lead you straight back to Oliver North and straight up to President Bush Sr.

Mena is one of those weird instances where both parties seem to have simply "dropped" the issue because they were both in for a world of embarrassment. And don't tell me that Lasater was "Bill's dealer" (though it is likely that he dealt for Clinton's brother). Clinton is to well put together to deal with that shit. But one COULD make the case that George was pardoning HIS drug dealers (or his brother's, or his brother's children's) because to this day, George REFUSES to deny that he has done drugs.

You say Clinton pardoned people before their sentence was over. How about Bush Sr pardoning people before they ever got to trial (the Iran-Contra conspirators)? And of course, the ULTIMATE pardon of all time, the Ford pardon of Nixon which effectively prevented any further investigation in the so-called "second rate burglary" and the grander scheme of ILLEGAL domestic spying that Nixon was engaged in.

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns /030601.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2001/02/27/pard ons/

If this is an issue of restoring a "civil liberty", I think it's bogus. I don't really don't CARE about expungement and I really don't approve of THAT either for the same reason that I don't care for pardons. They are used as political chips. If serving your sentence warrants the return of a civil liberty, than you return it to ALL citizens, not just a select few who pay the right amount of money to a political action committee.

So there, I don't think EITHER party should engage in pardons or expungement (except in the case of minors) or commutations (except for commuting death penalties). And I think the legislative bodies should be able to overturn pardons as well by a simple majority vote.

The fact that everyone keeps bringing up everyone ELSE's pardons to me is a good thing. But don't be a partisan. And just remember that it's the Republicans that are the "tough on drugs" party. So hold yourself to a higher standard.

Personally, I'm for drug legalization. The drug war is just a big waste of time to me. But I say to you, hold yourself to your own standards!!!!

Ah, the old $43 million lie.

Robert Scheer wrote a column for the L.A. Times claiming that the US Government made a $43 million gift to the Taliban. Compare his column to the actual atatement from the State Department, which makes it clear that the aid (which was mostly in the form of wheat) was given directly to the people of Afghanistan, bypassing the Taliban. The only remotely Taliban-friendly thing in the statement was a brief mention of the Taliban's decision to ban poppy cultivation; the aid was partly intended to help the farmers affected by the ban.

I have very few good things to say about the Bush administration. This is one of them.

(Mods : I know it's off-topic, and a reply to an AC, but I just have to bitch.)

But what about the vast majority of the marijuana bought in the United States? It comes from drug cartels in Mexico and Latin America.

Wrong. The vast majority comes from within the US.

That money goes (indirectly, through your dealer)... ...to pay for rent, snacks, and a PlayStation.

Since we're talking about funding drug cartels and supporting terrorism, I suppose it's only fair to bring up Iran-Contra.

It's heroin that's the real killer. ... a good deal comes from Southern Asia and Asia Minor, and is sold specifically to fund terrorist organizations in those parts of the world ... So yeah, by buying drugs you really ARE supporting terrorism

Well, our government
did pay those same terrorist organizations in hopes that they wouldn't sell drugs. Of course, being 'evil-doers', they didn't. Nor did they stop being terrorists.

Nevermind the fact that for the poor farmers of Afghanistan, it's easier to buy food with money from poppy fields than it is to grow food for your starving family. Funny how that still hasn't changed, dispite being 'liberated' by the US.

I don't care one way or another who uses drugs, but I do care when people believe the bullshit our own government spouts. The drug-money that reaches terrorists is a pitance next to the amount of pork in our anti-drug budget.

-dr.badass

What does marital fidelity have to do with the job of President of the United States? What business is it of yours (or Ken Starr's) who Clinton sleeps with? Wasn't Newt Gingrich sleeping with a House of Representatives employee at the same time that he was preaching "family values"? Mr. Family values was twice divorced the last time I read about him. And his successor-to-be, Bob Livingston, resigned after word of his affair leaked out. And let us not forget Henry Hyde, who headed up the Clinton Tribunal, and who also had an affair with a married woman, destroying her marriage.

As to the "honesty" issue, I'm sure that Clinton is not the first man alive to ever lie about having an affair.

I'd much rather have a President whose idea of "getting some on the side" does not involve massive campaign donations from Enron and who does not think "Kenneth" every time he hears the word "lay."

What does marital fidelity have to do with the job of President of the United States? What business is it of yours (or Ken Starr's) who Clinton sleeps with? Wasn't Newt Gingrich sleeping with a House of Representatives employee at the same time that he was preaching "family values"? Mr. Family values was twice divorced the last time I read about him. And his successor-to-be, Bob Livingston, resigned after word of his affair leaked out. And let us not forget Henry Hyde, who headed up the Clinton Tribunal, and who also had an affair with a married woman, destroying her marriage.

As to the "honesty" issue, I'm sure that Clinton is not the first man alive to ever lie about having an affair.

I'd much rather have a President whose idea of "getting some on the side" does not involve massive campaign donations from Enron and who does not think "Kenneth" every time he hears the word "lay."

That link doesn't mention the $43 million we paid them to declare opium anti-Islamic. Or that the Bush administration did this in May of 2001.

Yup, and it's sad how many people in the US seem to be oblivious to that fact. I was appauled when news first broke out that the current administration handed over $43 million to the Taliban. Maybe someone should have sent Dubya a memo that the Taliban are terrorists and that he claims he's against states who sponsor terrorism. Oh right, I forgot that was before 9/11.. now all of a sudden he has morals and ethics. These are the type of people sounding the drums for war, the need to spill so much innocent blood (yes Iraqi civilians will be killed in this war by the way) for pre-emptive strikes against US threats. Can North Korea or China launch pre-emptive strikes against the US or will that be terrorism? Maybe it's just me but it seems like Bush is the biggest threat to the US.

So then this article that appeared in the LA Times in May of 2001 is incorrect? This article was published long before hating the Taliban was vogue.

I'd like to see who all is back from the Reagan era. I know Cheney and Rumsfeld. Admitidly two very high ranking officials, but who else. It seems a bit generous to say "a good majority

• Mitch Daniels - Office of Management and Budget Director
• Condoleezza Rice - Foreign Policy Advisor
• Robert Zoellick - US Trade Representative
• Andrew Card - Chief of Staff
• Richard A. Clarke - Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security
• Robert Joseph - Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense
• Elliot Abrams - Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights,and International Operations
• Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State (from former Bush Admin)
• Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
• Gary R. Edson - Deputy Assistant for International Economic Affairs and Deputy National Security Advisor
• William Howard Taft, IV - Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State
• Timothy Muris - Federal Trade Commission

Just when did the US create a situation in the middle east? Look at Britain that created Israel. Look at the arab countries for attacking Israel. Look at Israel for rocketing innocent people. Look at childish leaders that can't agree on how to meet for peace, let alone discuss peace terms. There are lots of people to blame for the problems but hardly the US, unless giving hope of some sort of peace settlement is a bad thing.

You must remember that Bush came into the White House saying outright that Clinton's mistake was in meddling with the affairs of the Middle East. Up until 2 weeks ago, he pretty much wanted to ignore the issues...which lead to mass confusion on Bush's stance Which Sharon took as an OK to advance onto Palestine territory. Now recently, Powell went over there to try to resolve things, but his mission was considered by many as a failure. Both sides have lost respect for the US as a mediator.

Bush does not really care or want to be involved in the middle east. It's quite a tangled web. On one hand, part of his administration wants to fully support Israel. But on the other hand, if he does support Israel, the entire Islamic world will come down upon him. Even today's news, the Saudi Prince (our supposed Ally) just threatened to cut off ties to the US if the US does not take a harder stance on Israel. In addition, Egypt (another ally) is threatening to go to war again Israel once it gets enough financial support.

Alright...I'm done with my rambling... :-P

But we also gave them $43 million dollars earlier this very year because they banned drugs.

So much for sanctions/condemnation. Keep up the good work, guys.

link

OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED on its own soil!

Exactly. For the first time in history, two big cities in the US were attacked. Now, there's something interesting about it: the US has played first role in the bigger wars in the past 50 years, and none of these wars were fought on american soil. Think about it for a moment.

...and hoping and giving them stuff has failed. It's time to punish the evil with consequences for evil acts, no matter the casualties.

Remember the $40M the US gave the Taliban this year? Well, maybe this should be a reason to review the US foreign policy.

Why is it so hard to some people to understand that the recent attacks were a direct retaliation made to the US by the terrorists? Please, I beg you to think about it and understand that the US has already caused lots of casualties in Mid-East countries, and that those casualties are the main cause of the terrorism we saw last tuesday.
Read this letter from an Afghani-American, and try to understand why bombing Afghanistan is useless.

Terrorism is not dominant in the islamic countries. It's a product of radical groups, spread all over the world. The best way to make them stop attacking the US, is make them stop wanting to do it. And not by fear, but by reason.

Yup, that's so easy we're busily undoing it here. And Russia is far from being out of the woods yet.

Of course the $40M we gave the Taleban this year may not be helping the insurrection.

After the Afghani-Russian war that we armed and funded them for they begged us to stay and help set up a democratic government, but they no longer held any strategic interest for us, I'm afraid. So we left them to the Taleban, which we have helped prop up, just like the military government in neighboring Pakistan.

No, I'm afraid that who we support has little to do with whether they are democratic and everything to do with their short term realpolitik strategic value. Russia's stability was quite critical to us for what I hope are obvious reasons. About 20,000 of them.

If you would like some more examples think on Pinochet, Noreiga, the Shah, and Hussein. None of those ran even mildly democratic governments, yet they all received stong support at one time. And we've had to clean up after a few as well. The list is far longer of course. Our country has become known for it's puppet dictators. But we live back here where it's safe and free. Or was.

Sure, "Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban"

1. Bin Laden comes home to roost - about the militant's CIA training
   
2. Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban - Opinion, references the $43 million in 2001
   
3. $70 million in aid to Afghanistan in 1997 - according to the CIA itself.
   
4. Who is Osama Bin Laden?
   
5. They can't see why they are hated - Opinion
   
6. Arab-Americans feel a backlash
   
7. Arab-American community 'keeping its head down'
   
8. Acts of Terrorism the Ultimate 'Faith-Based Initiative' - Opinion
   
9. Charity receives hate calls
   
10. Falwell says 'ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this'