Ashcroft, I am not much a fan of either. The new laws he is trying to enforce are a clear violation of our freedoms, particularly the freedom of speech. I assume you're not a fan of Colin Powell and his "soft" approach to diplomacy either, right? So if you don't think much of Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Ashcroft (and possibly Powell) - 3 of the 5 or 6 power brokers in this administration - how are you such a fan of this administration?
I am not the biggest fan, I just think they are doing the right thing in the Middle East. I would have prefered they were better diplomats, but, at some point I feel it is necessary to act, simply because it is the right thing. DD
But you know, the point of being "better diplomats" isn't just to win brownie points. The news out of Iraq this morning is total chaos in Baghdad -- several car bombings, at least three dozen people dead, hundreds wounded. Why are we helpless to prevent this kind of anarchy? Because we don't have enough troops to secure the city. Where do the guerrillas get all the explosives, including the rockets they fired at Wolfowitz's hotel yesterday? From ammunition dumps that we don't have enough troops to guard. The point of better diplomacy is that it would have gotten us more troops, and more support to rebuild Iraq more quickly and more effectively.
Swopa, The problem is that France said they would veto the war no matter what. There are car bombings and chaos no doubt, but it is getting better over there. DD
I don't believe they had a nuclear program, but one thing to remember, if you can hide a person you can hide a nuke too. we still haven't found Sadaam. Or Bin Laden. So they are good at hiding stuff. The eveidence supports that.
I guess there's always that possibility, but even Dr. Frankenstein couldn't create a human if the technology available to him were similar to what the Iraqis had to build nukes.
Really? Tell me exactly what entails a nuclear facility and how you can't hide it. Thanks in advance.
What would you do if I wasn't around to keep you well informed and clear up your misconceptions? from last weeks New Yorker, in the Hersh article
it's worth pointing out that ashcroft didn't write these laws, he's just enforcing them. congress wrote the laws (i assume you're referring to the patriot act), ashcroft is making sure the law actually get applied, which, come to think of it, is his job. if someone doesn't like the law they should bring it up with their congressman, or challenge the law in court, assuuming there are people out there who have actually had their civil rights violated by the patriot act. regarding ashcroft, i'm certainly no fan of his religious views- at best i'm agnostic- but i've yet to see where he lets his religious views interfere with his application of the law. i don't usually vote for someone based on their views on a particlular set of litmus test issues, but rather on the character of the man/woman. on balance i probably agreed w/ gore on most issues, but voted for Bush because i thought he'd be a better president. the true test of ashcroft's character came in the 2000 election. he was running for reelection as a senator from missouri. his opponent, the democratic govenor, died in a plane crash just before the election. the new governor promised to appoint his widow to the seat if he won. on election night, a judge in the heavily democratic precincts of st. louis allowed the polling places to stay open far past their scheduled closing time. allegations of voter fraud were rampant. ashcroft lost an extremely tight vote, to a dead man, with reports to mass voter fraud, and a democratic judge who bent the rules. what did ashcroft do? did he file suit, challenge the result, throw the election and the state into months of chaos as the courts sorted out who really won? no, he magnanimously accepted defeat and moved on. it wasn't a given at this point he'd get a job in the new republican administration since it wasn't clear who'd be the new president. contrast his actions with the scorched earth policies of both participants in the Florida debacle and you have a better picture of the character of our attorney general.
Hardly. Ashcroft lost by about 50,000 votes. Even if all the disputed votes in St. Louis were illegal or were actually for Ashcroft, there would not have been enough to come close to making up a 50,000 vote deficit. Fact is, he lost and had no chance of winning even if he went to court and challenged the St. Louis votes. As far as his magnaminity goes, he was trying to preserve a chance to challenge Mrs. Carnahan two years later. If the vote had actually been close, say 300 votes, you can bet he would have been as nasty as possible and willing to do anything to come out on top.
shortly before Bush said he wouldn't give the inspectors any more time France mentioned that they would want just 30 more days. On Hardball this past week John Kerry who'd spoken to Anan, just before the U.S. action discovered that France and Russia were prepared to come forward with an offer. I believe the veto no matter what was early on in the process, and it was conditional, not automatic.
ashcroft lost by 48,000 votes, or about 2% of the total, out of almost 2.5 million cast. in his concession speech he said "I lost this race because I didn't get as many votes as my opponent did...I hope the outcome of this election is a comfort to Mrs. Carnahan..Missouri is a compassionate state and, I think, in a very special way, they have demonstrated their compassion." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/06/politics/main247248.shtml
any resolution that carried an explicit guarantee of action were it not complied with would have been peremptorily vetoed by france.
For once, I agree with Basso. The true test of Ashcroft's character: people who knew him prefered to vote for a dead man.
First no nukes; now no program. Now we are left with "they had the intent" to have nukes. Oh well there is always the centrifuge. Isn't there?
