First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:31:38 GMT

Thats right folks, if you like iraq, your gonna love iran, get ready for bush and repubs to send more American kids, fathers and mothers to DIE in iran, any war(so long as none of them serve) is a good war to bush and chicken hawk repubs. So start saving your $ so you can afford to go Arlington and visit your sacraficed loved ones and while your there, say thank you to bush and repubs.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

doc,lewisville tx — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:40:13 GMT

Once again we find the American public wringing their hands and saying "We don't want war with Iran,but Bush says we have to,What can I do to stop it"?.It's really quite simple.Re-instate the Draft so that more than one percent of American families have children in harm's way.I gaurantee the sight of eighteen year old young men and ladies being sent to fight a war,without the choice of fighting or not,will end these stupid cnflicts.And to make sure the law is upheld evenly,take away every deferment such as Cheney and the other Chicken War Hawks sleazed by on,and evryone,Rich and Poor will give such a cry of injustice,that the Military-Industrial machine will be forced to use other means for profit.God Bless our Troops,and please call your local elected official and DEMAND that we care for our wounded soldiers.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Arshad, Newburgh, NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:48:57 GMT

Hillary is leading in IOWA? Well this is what real voters in IOWA are saying:

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1296

"Although I'm still a big supporter of Bill Clinton, I don't feel the same way toward Hillary," Boeve added. "In fact, she's at the very bottom of my list, and I can't see how she's leading in the polls. I haven't met anyone who is supporting her, but I keep hearing she's leading by significant margins. Who are these people supporting her, and where are they?"

The voters are questioning the credibility of the endless 24/7 polls. MSM, you know the answer.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Scally Wag — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:49:38 GMT

Arrrrgghhh!!

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:50:44 GMT

If the GOP wants to ensure the complete annihilation of their party attacking Iran is just the way to accomplish that.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:28:43 GMT

typical GOP QUIEN ES MAS MACHO garbage vis-a-vis Iran when they are all chickenhawks except McCain and we know where his poll numbers are. The GOP still think they can rely on that they are strong on defense. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

James — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:29:43 GMT

What about the big elephant in the room regarding Hillary's judgement on Iran? President Bush stated a connection between Iran's nuclear capability to World War 111. That would leave her open to criticism from both sides especially Barack Obama who as been tooting judgement over experience for the better half of his campaign. It also makes the connection between Bush and another Clinton presidency which could hurt her in both primary and general elections. This could potentially affect her negatives further from the left wing anti-war voters and the Republicans as ammunition in the general election if this issue with Iran intensifies. President Bush may have taken a page out of Karl Rove on this one. Tell me what you think.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Sherri, Charleston WV — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:37:24 GMT

How in G-d's name can the Republicans try to outpiss one another in terms of Iran when none of them have no conceivable idea of what to do in Iraq???? Who do they propose to send to Iran?....There aren't exactly hundreds of thousands of soldiers waiting around for their call to duty; they are already engaged to the seams. They need to campaign on a more humble platform.....asking for dialouge, trying to repair our shattered credibility in this world forum, and quit trying to look and act like the lead in a John Wayne film.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Rick, WS, NC — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:40:28 GMT

The cheerleading chickenhawks have the rhetoric and bumper stickers...just not the right stuff to actually go fight

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:40:52 GMT

obama,,, his judgement: against the war when running for senate, FOR funding and AGAINST troop withdrawl as a senate, against the war when running for pres.

We've seen his judgement.. it's called "count on the fools" like bush did.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:47:48 GMT

Doc - The problem is not with public opinion. The problem is with the president's opinion, and the Republicans in Congress who are unwilling to break with the president's opinion to do what the majority of Americans have asked them to do.

While it is true that most people have not really felt the effects of this conflict the way Vietnam or WWII was felt by the average American family, reinstating the draft is not necessary to sway public opinion. The American public does not need to see 18 year old kids getting drafted and marching off to war to think that it needs to stop - they already think that.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:48:58 GMT

I think the exact opposite will happen....

The more Hillary opens herself up to ridicule for ideas that have either been tried or stolen from other candidates and the more the public learns about all the back room deals and the dirty dealing she has done over the years and the more people study her record in the Senate and realize this woman has done nothing for her state and the more stories about people who are criminals either working for her election or raising money for her campaign, then people will realize she just is not worthy to be President of the United States.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:52:53 GMT

Arshad - My grandparents, my mother and my uncle all grew up in Tipton. I lived there the first 10 years of my life. Not everyone there is experiencing this so-called Clinton fatigue. Some are, I'm sure, but just as some are wary of another Clinton adminsitration, so are others wary of Obama's abilities to effectuate any of the change about which he speaks.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:55:24 GMT

I am still not supporting any particular candidate but Senator Clinton and her advisors should be complimented on knowing how to play the political game. Bringing up the gender issue herself, and using humor to deal with it is a very effective tactic, makes her look more warm and friendly and points up the fact that gender shouldn't be an issue at the same time. No dummies, they!

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

NotALemming — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:08:35 GMT

Yes, how could letting a fanatical Muslim country obtain nuclear weapons ever end up with a whole in the ground were Israel once was or a weapon being smuggled into this country by one of their terrorist allies. Certainly it's nonsense to think such a thing could happen, or a failure to hold Iran and its Russian and Chinese allies accountable for bringing about such a possibility. Yes President Bush is a real Cowboy for alluding to such a possibility. After all the peace movement, or doing nothing, certainly will see us through to a safe Liberal utopia. Why should we even be talking about Iran? It's just a big scare tactic, right? There is nothing to fear other than George Bush and our new Democratic leaders will keep us safe without making anyone mad.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

abec.velazquez,Bronx,New york — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:16:33 GMT

George Bush,and dick cheney,should be tried for crimes against humanity,for the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed in iraq and afghanistan. according to this administration anyone against the american policy is a terrorist or an insurgent.it has to stop!

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Arshad, Newburgh, NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:19:04 GMT

Carrie,
First thanks for being the 1st Clinton supporter who disagreed without being disagreeable.

I understand people's concern about Obama's ability to deliver the changes. Obama has a strong record of delivering change, both in IL state senate and US senate. He and his record is less known to people because he is such a fresh face on national stage.
He is huge on ethics. He implemented most sweeping ethics reform of last 25 years in IL, he reformed death penalty system sending innocent people in death row. There was a NYT article shows Obama introduced some 800 bills in eight years in IL senate.

Take a look at the attached article suggesting some very bright mind is working with him on domestic and international agenda. I am highly confident and optimistic about an Obama presidency. So are many many people. Believe in him, he won't let us down.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-obama_mon_nusep17,0,3844054.story

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

James — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:19:33 GMT

Arshad,thanks for that article. It just proves a point. The Bush presidency has put a drift between the Republican and Democratic parties for the last 7 years. The Congress has not passed a "significant" bill in conventional terms since January all they seem to be voting on is the Moveon.org bill to two non-binding resolutions. One of which may give Bush an incentive to authorize war with Iraq. Then we had the triangulation of the the Clinton administration and Hillary is still using it to this day. Senator Clinton is seeking the "centrist" theory of politics. She says just enough to please the audience of front of her depending on the demographics and but not too controversial to stir too many critics on the right.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jessica — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:21:37 GMT

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me... this is absolutely ridiculous.. First they said Iraq had nuclear weapons and look how that turned out. Does anyone know what the shape of Iran's economy is? They wouldn't have the nerve to attack us.. Iran is not a threat at this point.. And thanks to our senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one who voted for the Iran Resoultion which was written up by Lieberman who is Obama's advisor and Barack doesn't show up to vote for it.. Both of them will take us into some kind of war with Iran..

The only two who had proper judgement to begin with are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.. They both voted against the Iraq war and now want out of the Iran War.. we neeed to secure ourselves here

I suggest that anyone who is anti-war and wants lower taxes to get behind either Ron or Dennis...

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:22:52 GMT

Why don't the GOP frontrunners explain in detail, how many of their family members will fight in the proposed Iran War, and the following World War Three.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

George Jackson, Killeen, TX — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:25:19 GMT

Carrie: What public opinion poll are you reciting? Most of these polls are conducted in very blue states with blueist of blue constituents. Most republicans answer the question this way: Pollster: Do you think the Iraq war is going good? Answer:No, but I say that because I think we need to use more brute force. Pollster: A simple no is sufficient.. Polster: Do you think Bush is doing a good job in the War on Terrorism? Answer: NO, because I think he needs to tame Iraq with brute force and be done with it.....So you see how a pollster makes a poll say whatever, depending on the agenda. I say this because I was called for the first time. I asked him why did he ask my party affiliation first as opposed to last because I didnt want my answers to get twisted. He said that the campaign (whoever it was)wanted questions asked in this order. BTW: The caller ID identified this as an ABC affiliate.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

WDRussell, East Liverpool, Ohio — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:26:07 GMT

Beware, gutless George and the chickenhawks have their pom-poms out again.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jessica, Wisconsin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:34:06 GMT

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jessica, Wisconsin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:34:06 GMT

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jessica, Wisconsin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:38:23 GMT

I for one would love to see a women president. Unfortunately, Hillary is not the person to do this. There is so much hidden baggage about the Clintons that will come out in the general election. If it doesn't cause her to loose the election it will definately set a very nasty tone to her presidency. She talks of how she is being attacked now - all people are doing now is pointing out policy differences. Just wait until the real attacks come in the general election. I don't think she will be able to survive them.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:43:52 GMT

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democratic_iowa_caucus

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

The first Rasmussen Reports poll of the Iowa Democratic Caucus for 2008 finds Senator Hillary Clinton on top with support from 33% of Likely Caucus Participants. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is supported by 22% and Illinois Senator Barack Obama attracts 21%."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_jersey_2008_presidential_election
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Hillary Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani 51% to 40% in an early look at the race for New Jersey’s Electoral Votes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Presented without comment to the reality-based community.

Van

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

MIke RC, Rockwall, Texas — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:47:47 GMT

Fred Thompson has been MORE aggressive. Maybe so, but the bar was set pretty darn low. Indeed, it would be pretty much impossible for anyone having a pulse to be less aggressive.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

CitizenJ — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:48:11 GMT

While going to war with Iran may be reprehensible, it is probably the best chance the Republicans have for keeping the White House in 2008. It will remove some attention from Iraq - which, if left alone will doom the Repubs - and place more on Iran. Regardless of how things have turned out in Iraq, Republicans are still seen as being strong on national defense. What better way to mobilize those defecting Republicans than to give them a new, fresh war to get excited about? Sure, it is a risk. But it is also their best chance, and they know it. What do they have to lose? Don't expect Iran to go away any time soon.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

James — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:51:28 GMT

Jessica. I do agree with regarding Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to an extent. The number one problem that they have is not having a record of both passing legislation that both the Democratic and Republican party can agree on. I researched both of their records but I just do not see it but I maybe wrong. That is the main reason why I am choosing Obama because he managed to pass the reform and surveillance bill while under a Republican majority as co-sponsor of those bills in just 5 years in office. Its more significant when its in Illinois. Hillary Clinton has not passed one bill as a co-sponsor in her seven years of elected office.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:57:13 GMT

Here is a good article about how far Hillary will go to get what she wants. Basically, saying that she thinks she is above the law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/sandy_berger_and_the_real_hill.html

Now is the time to think about this. Do we really want more of this crap?

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:34 AM)

No Jessica, we don't want any more of this crap. If you can't support Obama without demonizing Clinton, please stop.

It seems some have taken to posting on every thread.
I apologize for posting this twice, but I'm following the lie.

"According to reports in Newsweek, The Washington Post, and other liberal news media not commonly associated with a "vast right wing conspiracy," Hillary Clinton has selected a team of national security advisers led by the "triumvirate" of Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, and Sandy Berger."

"WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton claims Sandy Berger has "no official role" in her campaign after Republican lawmakers blasted her Monday upon learning that Clinton's campaign is taking advice from the former top aide to President Bill Clinton who admitted stealing classified documents and disposing them."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300005,00.html

At the end of an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a short while ago, USA TODAY's Susan Page inquired about reports that former Clinton administration national security adviser Sandy Berger is advising her.

Susan asked whether Clinton has any qualms about having Berger as an unofficial adviser to her campaign, given his mishandling of sensitive, classified intelligence documents in 2003?

"He has no official role in my campaign. He's been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn't have any official role," Clinton said."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/sen-clinton-san.html

Your own publication can cite only a refutation;

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/sen_clinton_sandy_berger_has_no_official_role_in_my_campaign/

Yet you take reports from legitimate news outlets denying any special status for Berger, and deliberately overlook the fact that there is no record anywhere of Berger being tapped by the Clinton camp for any position at all, let alone as one of her, "top three" advisors, except for an uncorroborated statement in a single magazine article. You then use this tissue-thin item and construct an entire analysis from it. I read somewhere that you're a lawyer, I hope you have a better grasp on the facts when your not swinging that partisan axe that you are so obviously grinding against the Clintons.

Even more despicable is that this item is almost TWO MONTHS OLD, has been refuted dozens of times, officially by the Clinton campaign, and has never been corroborated by any other source but the author, and you are still running with it like it's not just FACT, but Breaking news.

Richard Nixon spent the final years of his life as a free-lance foreign policy advisor, with several books on the topic to his credit, this despite his national disgrace. Henry Kissinger, he of the secret bombings and Vietnam era scandals, is now an ad hoc advisor to the Bush administration. These are true and verifiable facts.

Were the republican establishment and now the Bush administration, "guilty by association", because they were willing to seek the counsel of the disgraced?

It's a foolish premise, and a biased one at that. Even if the rumor of Berger's involvement was true, the conclusions you draw would still be highly questionable.

Would you go to equal lengths to leap to your conclusions based on such flimsy evidence if your target was a republican? I find your sloppy scholarship and seemingly deliberate and multiple blind spots to be the work of a partisan hack.

Van

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jessica, Wisconsin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:57:36 GMT

Van,

It looks this poll is from roughly the same time as the one you posted, yet the results are different. I wonder why you didn't post this one?

Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican cacus goers and 600 likely Democratic cacus goers, aged 18+, and conducted October 12-14, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

5. If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were held today between, Joeseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote? (Democrats Only; Names Rotated)
Hillary Clinton 28%
Barack Obama 23%
John Edwards 20%
Bill Richardson 9%
Joseph Biden 6%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 12%

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_101807.htm

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jim B., Towanda, PA — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:06:09 GMT

Why don't the GOP frontrunners explain in detail, how many of their family members will fight in the proposed Iran War, and the following World War Three.
Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:22 AM)

Should the Democratic candidates they explain how many of their children will run to Canada?

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

John B, Des Moines, IA — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:12:22 GMT

Jessica, we spent over $50M in taxpayer dollars and managed to prove that Bill Clinton likes women. The only dirt you're likely to find exists only in the imagination of the right wing smear machine. Hillary isn't my favorite candidate, but she's battle proven.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

nuanced — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:19:48 GMT

1984 is here if you want it.
War without end - vote Republican.
Your children will be told to thank you for it.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Rick,ky — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:20:16 GMT

The American voter spoke very loud last november.The echo all you warmongers hear next year will be " Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat happppppppppppppppened to our religious War, we so wanted". Sit back in your barco lounger & watch the Gay Ole Party be destroyed. But on the plus side, you will still be able to listen to rush & sean. Aint life grand!!!!!

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:33:09 GMT

If indeed we are on the precipice of WWIII..then the seriousness cannot be underestimated. One would expect the Draft to be re-instated, and those with last names such Rove, Cheney, Bush, et al will gladly supply their children for the cause. If the fear of WWIII is not real then George W. Bush is once again a mass of lies... and his playing the fear card (once again) should be ignored.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Lee Holmes — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:33:20 GMT

All of you people would have flunked geo-politics. It is simplicity to the point of mundane stupidity to cluck over ''chickenhawks''while yet ignoring the central thesis of Bushs remarks which are sound. And for the reasons you people ignore to the worlds peril. Opening moves are already taking place.[as this poster observed long before Hersh began writing his idiotic paranoid pieces for the NEW YORKER].

Apart from the Democrats utter stupidity in angering Turkey to the point where it has now moved mechanized armoured columns up to and across the Iraqi nothern border with Kurdistan,is the dire worry,quite justified,of the Europeans over the Iranian attempts to create a three-stage ICBM using the SHAHAB missle platform. Using an arc with its centerpoint placed just north of Tehran,Berlin,Rome,Vienna,Lyon,Sarajevo,Budapest,and Warsaw can be struck with this missle.
In the spirit of this fear,the EUs diplomatic lines to Moscow are melting down with warnings that in the event of Iranian nuclear ICBM acquisition,they must be placed under a US missle shield.[Israel is already working on theirs to counter the Iranian threat].In response,the Putin government,which has been offering training to Iranian missle scientists,has convened the Caspian Sea Conferance this week of the so-called ''Stan''nations in order to deny EU and US nations their lands and airspace in return for Russian ''protection'',while at the same time,pressuring and threatening former member states of the Warsaw Pact.[Thus Poland,Bulgaria,Rumania,are drawing closer to the US seeking its protection. Romania is now offering forward bases to the USAF/USA,creating a new ''Fulda Gap''should Russia mass armies on its western borders].
Iran,now emboldened by American weakness as evidenced by its Democrat Party,as well as EU confusion,goes forward with its centerfuge uranium enrichment and missle program backed by Russias veto vote in the Security Council of the UN which will be effectively neutered in offering any sanctions against Iran,Russia,now coming into the light as Iranian partner and nuclear co-sponsor.
Israel,having been assured that it will be ''wiped off the map''by Iran,is readying its nuclear defense systems. Persian Gulf states worry that this region will be among the first areas invested by Iran in a Nasser-like attempt to nationalize this sea,the transhipment point of the majority of oil supplied to the West.
Even Hillary Clinton ,in recent remarks in response to Sen. Obama,has stated plainly that she would move as president against Iran should it seek to take over the Persian Gulf,as it did in 1986-1987. Thus,a ''war for oil''cooked up as a fantasy under Bush critics,will become a reality under supporters of a president Clinton.
Iran is the linchpin to the threat of a third world war. That it is being stupidly ignored by those who sling ''chickenhawk''labels around proves that there are also those who run around like chickens,with their heads cut off,who are also willfully choosing to ignore the threat posed by a united Russian-Iranian confederation. Spin your fantasies while ye may. This is only the beginning. It will get worse.[and yes,even under a president Hillary or Obama].

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:40:31 GMT

Arshad - Point taken. I like Obama; I have consistently said that I think he is a good leader and a brilliant speaker. I'm just not sure this is his time. If he gets the nomination, I will support him completely.

By the way, I'm not a Hillary supporter. I would call myself more of a Hillary defender than anything else. I haven't found a candidate that really inspires me yet, so I am continuing to weigh my options.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:44:14 GMT

George: I'm not citing any public opinion poll, although I'm sure in a matter of minutes I could find a dozen or more that show that the majority of Americans want out of Iraq sooner rather than later. At the very least, the majority of Americans don't think it is wise to continue on our present course when it's clear we don't have the first flippin' clue what we are doing there.

By the way, you don't think the same thing is done by the pro-war pollsters too?

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:53:21 GMT

Van,

It looks this poll is from roughly the same time as the one you posted, yet the results are different. I wonder why you didn't post this one?
Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:57 AM)

I had addressed my post to the reality-based community.

This is only about the HUNDREDTH time that someone has posted something like this when I have the link in my post. Don't you even BOTHER to look at something completely before you accuse? Apparently not.

From my post;

Hillary Clinton leads Rudy Giuliani 51% to 40% in an early look at the race for New Jersey’s Electoral Votes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Presented without comment to the reality-based community.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:43 AM)

Please note and follow the THIRD link entitled, "latest polls", and you will, of course, find it right there.
I have always posted complete info without regard to who the numbers favor. I don't have to edit or cherry-pick and if I did, I wouldn't do it because it would be misleading.
I am sure that when you see that you were wrong, you'll readily admit your mistake.

Van

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Diane, Grand Blanc, MI — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:05:36 GMT

It is beyond rational thinking that the Democrats in Congress have not started impeachment of this nutcase that calls himself President. He's already caused the biggest mistake in US history by invading Iraq. Are we going to allow this maniacal, narcistic individual the power to annihilate and destroy innocent lives with nuclear capabilities? God help America and the world!

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jessica, Wisconsin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:21:38 GMT

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:23:24 GMT

Lee Holmes:

You posted " Apart from the Democrats utter stupidity in angering Turkey to the point where it has now moved mechanized armoured columns up to and across the Iraqi nothern border with Kurdistan" and that's where I stopped reading. The reason why Turkey is mobilizing forces along the Turkey-Iraq (note:Kurdistan does exists ONLY in the minds of the Kurds) is because the Kurdish terror group the PKK has repeatedly attacked targets inside of Turkey and coalition forces have done jack squat to reign them in. Turkey is about to invade northern Iraq because this administration can't manage to keep the mess they started from spilling over into another allies territories.

You would know this if you had any concept of geo-politics that you claim liberal flunked. It's a valiant try on your part to sound all academic. But it was flawed from the begining considering the source.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:32:14 GMT

Lee

I don't think calling for intense diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the Iranian nuclear issue should be considered ignoring the Iranian threat. Talking about WWIII before diplomacy has been given an honest chance of success just seems premature. Some may say President Bush is trying to put us in a position of negotiating from strength but to others it may seem like a scare tactic, saber rattling if you will. And the tactic seems hollow given that the Iranians can see our lack of success in Iraq.

Perhaps the time will come when we have to face the threat of WWIII, I pray not, but I would hope if that time comes it will be the last resort of a free people who exhausted every diplomatic effort to try to avoid it.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

sonya, atlanta,ga — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:38:34 GMT

Yes Bush is a nutcase and Congress especially Hillary are the enablers of this nutcase by passing the Iran amendment. Just as Obama was correct about Iraqi he is correct about Iran. Iran is a threat but you don't give any opportunity to a nutcase to go to war. And all of Bush's saber rattling is an indication that he will use the Iran amendment (even though it's non binding) as a pretext to go to war. Congress didn't authorize Vietnam. Bush still has control over sending airstrikes which would preciptate a war with Iran with Russia on their side. Americans stop this madness- vote all the old guard thinking politicans out of office and do not vote for Hillary who is just the same in this ill fashion thinking.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Lee in CA — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:40:56 GMT

"All of you people would have flunked geo-politics"

And you've been SOUND asleep for El Presidente Jorge's 7 years of accomplishing nothing but spreading misery, lying and looting the treasury.

There's no reason to trust Bush over the Iranian president - they're both dangerous and crazy.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:44:35 GMT

Dot, Illinois good post I am a Hillary supporter and will be an Obama supporter eight years from now. Senator Clinton has been handling the barbs thrown at her by the republicans for fifteen years and I am sure she can handle the Rove smear machine. She is what we called "One tough broad" in the days of my youth and that is what it will take to stand off the dirty tricks of the opposition party.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:45:02 GMT

Ah Van,

This is what you had at the top of your post. You are correct in stating that you included a link to the latest polls on real clear politics. But at the top of your post you singled this poll out while not citing any information from the poll that I cited.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:21 PM)

I wonder why you didn't post this one?
Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:57 AM)

You said I DIDN'T post it.

I accept your apology.

Van

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:47:27 GMT

Lee-Who is going to fight your meglomaniac war with Iran? Who is going to pay? The neo-con Israel lobbiests... I presume? Maybe we can go further in debt with China? Furthermore, please spare us your long meandering sudo-intellectual blogs.Most of us I think really do not read the majority of it. You are just the grand poohpa apologist of this blog.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Tim M, Ithaca NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:48:59 GMT

Since Bush invaded Iraq, the price of oil has more then doubled. Expect the same result when he starts bombing Iran. By this time next year, expect to be paying $6-8 a gallon for gas while Bush's cronies at the oil companies rake in ridiculous profits and Haliburton gets more multi-billion contracts to build prisons for all the "enemy-combatants" (regular Iranians captured defending their country from an illegal invasion) we capture and need a place to torture. This is obviously becoming Bush's trump card that he will use to cancel the election and declare himself president until we win the "war on terror."

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Rick, WS, NC — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:53:43 GMT

Why are guys named lee always so dumb? Oh well, the reason there are problems with Turkey is that the bushies running the abortion called the Iraq war have not secured any borders and 3000 terrorists are living in iraq and attacking Turkey...no dem caused that problem...it was chickehawks who didn't understand what they were doing when we went to iraq and don't understand what they are doing with iran

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Nat, SC — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:09:38 GMT

Someone mentioned to me the other day that you never see Hillary campaigning with or talking about Nancy Pelosi who is third in line to the Presidency..wonder why? Is it that she is afraid:

1) If America realizes it (I wonder how many people are consciously aware of it...if you saw Jay Leno last night I would bett not many, they asked a woman that question) they may not want two women in the top three spots in thsi country....Is America ready for that big of a change?

2) Most don't view Nancy P as being that effective as a Speaker of the House...the preception might transfer to her?

How would number 1 impact the thinking of men? Maybe the rethinking of women?

It is understanable that the Democratic men won't bring it up...but if she wins the GE you can bet Republicans will. This maybe her biggest liability
Grace,NY (

I'm curious what do others think...Why has she not mentioned Nancy Pelosi?

Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country?

Do they realize that this would be the case?

Will Republicans use it against her if she wins the nomination?

Could this be the "sugar plum" they are holding back?

They poll on everything else where is the poll on this?

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jessica, Wisconsin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:11:29 GMT

Van,

Yes, I did say that and I was wrong. Sorry.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

juan,ft lauderdale,fl — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:13:41 GMT

Tim M- I have had the same nightmare! That is when Americans better rise up and fight the mother of all battles.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:31:51 GMT

Van,

Yes, I did say that and I was wrong. Sorry.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:11 PM)

Thanks, that's all I was saying.
I am for Hillary, but I am not against Obama. There IS a difference.

Van

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

sonya, atlanta, ga — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:37:54 GMT

To the poster that said Obama will make a great president in the future. Well America doesn't have 8 years to wait for a great president. With the problems of Iraqi, Iran, healtchare, global warming, our economy and divided nation we need a great leader now! We wasted 40 years doing nothing but fighting the cultural wars of the 60's. Every issue brought forth in Bobby Kennedy's campaign is still revelant today and not resolved. America is at the point in history of either rising to the challenges that face us or becoming consumed by it ala Rome. I for one, don't want another 8 years of a can't do, will not do government. Even Schip couldn't passed and it was originally a Republican Congress that passed it. Voting for Hillary is like for more of the same and I'm so sick and tired of people supporting Hillary just because she is a woman and wouldnt it be nice for a woman to run things for the same. This is a highschool contest. Hillary's supporters our using the same type of logic as the Bush supportors did-wouldn't it be nice to have a president who is so down home that I can have a beer with. If that is your only reason for supporting Hillary-you are just as crazy as the rest of Washington DC. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will not vote for her and millions of others won't. And by any small chance she becomes President, she will not be able to govern- because she will not win by a landslide and the fractous congress will remain and nothing will get done. Politics as usual

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:39:18 GMT

Nat, SC "Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country ?" Your question would not be applicable if Senator Clinton won the election and her VP choice was a man.

"Will Republicans use it against her if she wins the nomination?" I would think that using this as an issue would back fire on the Republicians because it might alienate many women voters and women make up a rather large portion of the voting public.

Lastly, wouldn't it be beneficial for our country if we could look at candidates not as men or women, black or white, but as individuals who want to become the leader of our country? Then we could look at their positions with respect to issues that face all Americans, women and men, black and white, and could assess which candidate mostly clearly articulates positions that we think are correct, and vote for that candidate based on those issues.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:47:51 GMT

Lee Holmes wrote, "a united Russian-Iranian confederation."

What ever happenned to the axis of evil? You lied about habeas corpus not being in the Constitution. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Why should anybody believe this new line of crap?

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:50:19 GMT

"I will not vote for her and millions of others won't. And by any small chance she becomes President, she will not be able to govern- because she will not win by a landslide and the fractous congress will remain and nothing will get done. Politics as usual."

sonya, atlanta, ga (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:37 PM)

Your bitterness and malicious wishful-thinking are a perfect example of being unable to support your candidate and demonizing Clinton instead.

Even more disturbing;
"I'm so sick and tired of people supporting Hillary just because she is a woman."

Replace, "Hillary", with, "Barack", and "woman", with, "African-American, or black", and what does that sound like?
That's right, and it makes as much sense, as in NONE.
You're a bigot, and you don't even realize it.
Don't be a hater...

Van

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Paw Paw, NC — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:03:33 GMT

There is no use debating all this, when President Bush reaches the point of no return he will attack Iran, and our beloved Congress has already given him full authority by declaring the Iranian Military a terrorist organization.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Mark Thieme — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:06:35 GMT

Morally, the best thing that could happen to America would be a clear Obama win and a strong Obama presidency.

Geo-politically, the best thing that could happen is a strong Clinton family presidency.

Only one of those is a practical possibility, short of disaster.

An old monk friend said to me recently, "I would always rather have a smart abbot that a pious one."

So, Here we have a choice of two strong leaders of our mansion on a hill.

Hillary is a good Christian in her way as is Obama. Theologically, they would not likely disagree about much.

Both are brilliant.

Only one has been tested by the fire and she has learned the wisdom of serpents from experience.

I trust Obama, I am very afraid of Hillary (wisely so, if you know). And so are our adversaries around the world. So is the political establishment in America... and, not incidentally, global corporatism loves her.

There ain't nobody stopping her now.

It could be worse.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Crystal (Time for change) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:11:15 GMT

Van, I think you went a bit far with the bigot thing. Some people are voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, which is really scary to me b/c with all the issues that this country is facing I would hope that people ultimately vote for the person who would do the best job. But those who are not informed of the issues, stances, and past of the candidates are voting for Hillary simply b/c she is a woman, a fact that she knows, admitted and has played on constantly. Sadly, she wants people to vote for her just b/c she is a woman b/c she knows that on the issues alone she comes up pretty darn short!!!

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Nat — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:57:52 GMT

Nat, SC "Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country ?" Your question would not be applicable if Senator Clinton won the election and her VP choice was a man.

Dot ..I believe i said 2 out of the top 3. Speaker of the House is third in line for the Presidency.

Why does she never speak opf Nancy P and her accomplishments as a woman...

has Nancy P endorsed her?

Regardless of how things should be I broing up a valid question for all of those who question whether America is ready for Obama. I question whether they are ready to have to women in as CIC or in line for it.

MSNBC take a poll you guys love polls...I'm surprised the Clinton's havn't done one. Then maybe they have...that is why you don't see Nancy with her.

BTW she is the one who is constantly pushing this woman thing

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Lee Holmes — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:04:20 GMT

John Doe: You are slow on the trigger as usual,although obstuseness is your usual wont. The impetus for heretofore non-invasive action on the portion of the Turks[outside of artillary strikes which were yet launched on the Turkish side] into the Kurd north was US diplomatic efforts under intense labour by US Ambassador Wilson. Those efforts have been wiped out by the stupidity of the Democrat leftwing. It is expected that by next week,that the Turks will[already are in fact],demand that the US leave its hugely strategic Incirlk airbase. It has already recalled its ambassador to Washington.

Remarks, Turkish Army Chief of Staff Oct.17,2007[REUTERS,DER SPIEGAL]:'' The relations between our two nations[Turkey,US] will never be the same again''.

Dot: A fractured unsure plan by the Democrats offers no opportunities for success. The Iranians see the rubble left behind by nascent Democrat forays into this realm which have been proven failures. The recent Armenian declaration. The Pelosi trip to Syria. The confusion by the Democrat presidential leader over what conditions by Iran would trigger a military response[''oil''as it turns out].The anger of Iraqis over their federalization plan that they want no portion of. There will come a time when all of the diplomacy that the US can muster will avail nothing. When it becomes a vehicle of appeasement rather than one for real change. The leftwing places its crummy busted -flush hand down on a false hope that there will be a ''velvet revolution''in Iran. These hopes are already being crushed out by the Mullahs.

Lee: You forget that Irans seeking of the Bomb predates the Bush presidency by many years. Clinton did nothing. Bush tries,but is shouted down as a worse maniac than Ahmedinjezad by his nations unhinged leftwing. Meanwhile,the bomb WILL come,when it is another president at the helm and all except Bush[and possibly the Israelis,who have been sounding the alarm for years], will share blame for this eventual development.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Lee Holmes — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:10:32 GMT

Peter: You are being dishonest.[as well as obtuse.Why is this a recurring role with you people?]You know damned well that Habeas Corpus is a portion of this document. But one that is applied to CITIZENS. Not terrorists from a foreign nation representing no army and serving under no flag. Don't hand me this crap. If Bush ''lied'',then so did everyone else,including your frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for president,as well as the Democrat leadership in this presentday Congress. And ''lied''YEARS BEFORE Bush took office.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

IntheMIddle, TX — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:12:40 GMT

And WTF are you Van? Some of the BS you say on here is borderline at best. Its easy to rant and rave on here but say this stupid she-i-t in someones face. That is what I thought, a different story. You come on here with your page long paste and think we are all supposed to be impressed at all of the free time you have. Well you get no acalades from me. As for Hillary, I cant stand the witch because I know what she stands for. My vote is already set and cant be changed, probably like most that consider themselves independent. There is no true independents, you flow to one side or the other. Point blank.....whoever raises the most money will win......you can debate all day long but that is the truth. Democrats cant win the Whitehouseso that is a wasted vote. Clinton won because of Ross Perot. Democrats will maintain Congress and we will continue on in 2009 the same way we are here today with the same tired arguments.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Mark Thieme — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:15:36 GMT

The unspeakable irony is that the "Christian Right" will support any of the republican candidates over Obama and Clinton, whose faith, although maligned by the nut cases, is central to their personality.

Both Hillary and Obama know more about prayer meetings, Bible verses, and revivals than Guiliani and Thompson combined.

One way or another, the corrupt Gothic pagan regime of Bushco will be followed by an administration whose leader's faith has been tested and has prevailed.

An administration of imperfect humans who know the meaning of Amazing Grace.

"Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin," the hand wrote on the wall the night of Belshazzar's feast. "You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

So it is for the Bushgoths.

To the hateful "Christian Right":

"The end is near. Are you ready?"

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:28:09 GMT

Nat

Actually, in the second part of you submittal you did say what I quoted. I have copied into this note.

I'm curious what do others think...Why has she not mentioned Nancy Pelosi?

Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country?

Do they realize that this would be the case?

Will Republicans use it against her if she wins the nomination?

Could this be the "sugar plum" they are holding back?

They poll on everything else where is the poll on this?

No big deal, my main point is that I prefer to support a candidate on his/her position on the issues, not on other less important (to me) factors.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:01:00 GMT

Lee Holmes

Thank you for your response. I understand all that you are saying. I reiterate that the WWIII comment is premature. Iran is a matter of concern for both parties and for both this administration, and the next be it Republican or Democratic. Another WW would be so disastrous, it is difficult to imagine.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

sonya, atlanta, ga — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:01:03 GMT

Van, you can call me all the names you want. I wished I had the opportunity to meet you face to face. I stand by my statements, Clinton is a divider and not a uniter- and at this juncture we need a president that can bring our country together to deal with the perilous challenges we face. No more flip floping, triangulation. We need a leader not a policy wonk poll taker.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Mark Thieme — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:29:51 GMT

It could be worse.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Lee in CA — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:45:03 GMT

"But one that is applied to CITIZENS."

"Jose Padilla," and you're pretty damned dishonest (and obtuse) yourself.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:09:36 GMT

IntheMIddle, TX (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:12 PM)

I really enjoy your humor.

Van

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Dot, Illinois — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:10:50 GMT

Nat

This is a copy of your post.

I'm curious what do others think...Why has she not mentioned Nancy Pelosi?

Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country?

Do they realize that this would be the case?

Will Republicans use it against her if she wins the nomination?

Could this be the "sugar plum" they are holding back?

They poll on everything else where is the poll on this?

My point is that issues are more important than when or not candidate is man or woman.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

vanreuter, NY NY — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:11:45 GMT

Van, you can call me all the names you want.

sonya, atlanta, ga (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:01 PM)

Okay, thanks. I call 'em as I see 'em.

Van

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Lee Holmes — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:52:27 GMT

Lee: And Jose was granted these rights.And was found guilty. And in a nation under Bush. Next. You will have to do better than one guy in a nation of 300 millions. And you will have to do way better than granting foreign terrorists engaged in self-proclaimed war against the United States the constitutional rights that they do not deserve and indeed,are not even applied to them.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jessica — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:17:32 GMT

James, both Obama and Hillary stated they could not promise to withdraw the troops by 2013 possibly later.. Edwards was the only one who could manage to that.. Obama is what they call an "empty suit" He spoke against the Patriot Act and then voted in favor of it.. he cannot stop funding the war and now he has the same position on Hillary as it.. Ron has a proper exit strategy out, and will legally natin build to stablize Iraq.. It will be a process and may take some time.. but 6 years that the democrats are advocating is not something our economy can handle.. I suggest you reeavaulate your choice.. Barack Obama is anything but a progressive... He's the same establishment candidate.. Ron Paul isn't :)

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

H P Boston — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:59:58 GMT

No Mark Thieme it could not be worse!
Whats with the religious crap theme Thieme...?
The sewer that is Washington is as bad as it can be.
It can not be worse!

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:00:22 GMT

Lee Holmes wrote, "Peter: You are being dishonest.[as well as obtuse.Why is this a recurring role with you people?]You know damned well that Habeas Corpus is a portion of this document. But one that is applied to CITIZENS."

On Sept. 20, 2007 you wrote, "First,you cry crocodile tears over the ''dismantling''of the Constitution when it comes to granting foreign enemy combatants Habeas Corpus rights which appears nowhere in the Document."

I responded with, "Read Article 1, Section 9, Lee." Does that look to you like I don't know that Habeas Corpus is in the Constitution? The word "CITIZENS" does not appear in that article and section. By the way "enemy combatants" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

You then wrote, "I saw that coming down the pike and was ready for it."

You saw that coming. So you knew that Habeas Corpus rights are in the Constitution and you wrote the lie anyway. You are the one being dishonest.

You then wrote, "If Bush ''lied'',then so did everyone else,including your frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for president,as well as the Democrat leadership in this present day Congress."

What gives you the impression that I believe anything they say on this matter? And, because they all lie, doesn't make it OK for you to lie or for Bush to lie.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Jessie — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:02:55 GMT

Ron Paul is a nutjob.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Lee Holmes — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:27:12 GMT

Peter: Habeas Corpus rights are extended to citizens of this nation. Not foreign enemy combatants.[particularly battlefield combatants fighting under no flag and wearing no uniform, as those who now crowd GTMO,and even here,Japanese and German soldiers were routinely denied Habeas Corpus rights during and after WWII]. Even the USSC in HAMDI and HAMDAN recognized that military courts tribunals could be used as a vehicle to try these individuals without the granting of Habeas Corpus rights that are shared by US citizens,these tribunals acting NOT under the umbrella of the US Constitution,but under foreign treaties that we entered into. Not once in the history of this nation has such a condition ever existed. Not even for AMERICANS[in the form of ex-Confederates as we see in Ex Parte Garland [1868].The commandant of Andersonville prison,Cpt.Henry Wirz,CSA,and the Lincoln assassination conspiritors were flatly denied these rights and tried by military tribunals whereupon all save Dr. Mudd faced the hangmans noose. The weight of legal history and precedent is against you. You are creating ''found law''out of a heretofore non-existant legal condition.[Take ''privacy''for instance. It does not appear in the Document either]. It is not so much that you are ''lying'' yourself,but suffer from the confusion that routinely affects partisans. Pass to Bush,and I make the accurate observation that this person did not generate these ''lies''in order to willfully decieve the American people. Any assertion that he did is itself a lie,which is not backed by ample istorical precedent.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

John B, Des Moines, IA — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:03:04 GMT

Lee, your discussion of Habeas Corpus rights are correct in regards Prisoners of War, but the Bush administration defines Enemy Combatants as being neither civilians nor POWs and thus are entitled to the rights of neither. This is a legal neverland in which a person can be designated an Enemy Combatant by the Executive with no right of oversight by anyone and no rights to call his own. In effect he can be "disappeared" in the finest traditions of the Soviet Gulag. At some point this extreme version of executive power will be abused and by all indications probably has been already. I say probably because all such information is classified and personal accounts are either forbidden or dismissed as hearsay. For the life of me I can't understand why that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of everybody, but ESPECIALLY those who claim to be conservative. If conservatives claim to have getting government out of our lives as a primary motivation this flies in the face of that. Although the older generation of my family is almost entirely gone they were all very conservative, and would certainly have been terrified at the thought of an American government that can make people vanish into a legal hole. And no, that is not something that's exclusively for non-citizens under the legal arguments being used.

First thoughts: Is Iran the new Iraq?

Lee Holmes — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:14:15 GMT

John B: Yet the vehicle for removing these prisoners from this ''neverland'',accepted by the administration,lay in the USSC HAMDAN and HAMDI decisions. HAMDI affirmed the right of the administration to restrict Habeas Corpus rights demanded by these combatants that are enjoyed by ordinary American citizens. It is extremely important to observe that ''American citizens''were the standard applied by Sandra Day O'Connor for the majority when the administration was dealt the first of these two setbacks in trying these enemy combatants. While rejecting the administration position that these could be tried in what was argued ''Cuban territory''at QTMO,setting up military courts there,operating under the UCMJ,the majority nevertheless confirmed that these defendants could be tried at a lower constitutional standard than ordinary Americans accused of crimes whereby national citizens would be tried in civil courts affording these full HC rights.
The later HAMDAN also confirms this view while rejecting the administration basis of using ''unitary''executive power in order to set up military tribunals. The Stevens majority decision sets aside unitary right,while refusing to address Habeas rights demanded by the defendants. Here,Stevens and the liberal/swing majority makes plain that it will be Congress that will award the type of legal proceedings afforded these defendants,which Congress so performed in 2007. Quite separate from a legal ''neverland'',foreign enemy combatants will be tried under the Geneva Conventions[as opposed to the US Constitution or its US Codes where the UCMJ resides],Art III hearings whereby defendants would have legal representation,arguments in defense and prosecution,presiding judges, and weighing of evidence in order to determine guilt or innocence subtracting key areas of Habeas protections including certain evidence introduction[bearing upon national security], and confrontation of witnesses. As it now stands,Art.III,as applied,is a superior condition to those of any nation on earth that now holds individuals accused of battlefield crimes acting in a combatant status,because they apply to a treaty codifying international laws with respect to combatants that are nevertheless not observed by all of the treaties signitories. Only the United States of all of the planets nations has moved towards comportment with combatant rights and seeking the determination of justice for the crimes they have been charged of committing. Putin would have these summarily shot.[and did,with the ''disappearence''of several Chechnyan rebel leaders]. So would Ahmedinjezad,or Assad,as would a plethora of African strongmen. Chavez would toss these into a hole never to see the light of day again,[while American leftists wax poetic at the ''justice''of this mans reign],as would Castro,the Red Chinese,the Indonesians,our own neighbors to the south in Mexico,and more than a few European countries in the East.
There is no disputing the imperfect nature of this legal environment.Its wheels grind slowly. Yet the struggle for fair legal rights continues even inside of a nation that has been labeled ''fascist''and ''totalitarian''[which is nonsense,else these debates would not even be occuring in such a condition],by it's critics. Everybody gets something in the new paradigm of international terrorism since 9/11.[terrorism,which,as I have pointed out,includes declarations of war against this nation]. Nobody gets everything. Not the everything-at-all-costs civil liberties factions, who feel that these terrorists are no differant than a 7-11 stickup man, nor the administration,which wished to hold them for the unseen duration of this war on terror. What we are seeing is the birth of an entirely new legal structure, divorced from traditional constituional right[as applied by America],that embraces the very international treaties liberals demand that we should have been adhering to all along in with regards to the environment[KYOTO],small arms[UN],and international law[The World Court].