http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/ ... 66,00.html
so - does anyone actually agree that the New York Times is a threat to US national security?
You do not have a right to know
Moderators:Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide
-
Best First
- King of the, er, Kingdom.
- Posts:9750
- Joined:Tue Oct 17, 2000 11:00 pm
- Location:Manchester, UK
- Contact:
-
Metal Vendetta
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:4950
- Joined:Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:00 am
- Location:Lahndan, innit
-
Kaylee
- Big Honking Planet Eater
- Posts:4071
- Joined:Thu Oct 26, 2000 12:00 am
- ::More venomous than I appear
- Location:Ashford, Kent, UK.
- Contact:
Sounds like hot-air from the Bush administration. They're not making many friends doing it- the die hard Conservatives lap it up because this muscular conservatism has made them strong candidates for power particularly when tough decisions need to be made, but from my experience in the US most Americans are pretty unimpressed with them and are starting to see through a lot of their empty cage-rattling and threats.
If the Democrats could actually get their act together and form a cohesive opposition rather than trying to win elections on a "Hey, we're not Bush!" agenda things would probably be in better shape- although a commentator in The Times did make a valuable point imo. He observed that the Bush administration can't just be voted out, it has to fail. Which it is, slowly but surely. It has to be seen that this neo-conservatism is no better than anybody else's idea and that Bush's big project has conclusively failed. That way they will be knocked back where they deserve to be and America can swing back more towards the centre, rather than a few years later somebody saying "Hey, maybe we didn't give Bush's ideas a big enough chance, let's try again."
If the Democrats could actually get their act together and form a cohesive opposition rather than trying to win elections on a "Hey, we're not Bush!" agenda things would probably be in better shape- although a commentator in The Times did make a valuable point imo. He observed that the Bush administration can't just be voted out, it has to fail. Which it is, slowly but surely. It has to be seen that this neo-conservatism is no better than anybody else's idea and that Bush's big project has conclusively failed. That way they will be knocked back where they deserve to be and America can swing back more towards the centre, rather than a few years later somebody saying "Hey, maybe we didn't give Bush's ideas a big enough chance, let's try again."
-
Shanti418
- Over Pompous Autobot Commander
- Posts:2633
- Joined:Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:52 pm
- Location:Austin, Texas
We'll see. It's going to take a large portion of us pulling our heads out of our asses.
The problem with the Democrats is that they want to follow the polls as opposed to sticking their neck out there and letting the people come to the position they take.
They don't like the war, but their constituants are too evenly split on the war for them to come out against it. (most of them)
This NY Times thing:
First off, let's just put out as fact that the majority of Americans did NOT hear or care about this. Secondly, when Repub talking heads talk about it, they just go, "blah, blah, blah, National Security, blah, 9/11, blah, we are in a war, blah, blah, blah," and that's generally enough to shut most people up or sigh and walk away.
IMO, one of the worst things about the Bush Administration, and the thing that blinds the people and clogs the workings of governement, is that whenever anyone challenge their positions or actions, instead of defending them, or rebutting the arguement, their main objective is simply to muddy the issue so you walk away going, "Well, who knows who's right." Or they deflect the issue (like they're doing currently) to something that they're in front of, something that's impossible politically to denigrate, and something completly ridiculous and useless, like their fanatical devotion to getting flag burning banned right now.
The problem with the Democrats is that they want to follow the polls as opposed to sticking their neck out there and letting the people come to the position they take.
They don't like the war, but their constituants are too evenly split on the war for them to come out against it. (most of them)
This NY Times thing:
First off, let's just put out as fact that the majority of Americans did NOT hear or care about this. Secondly, when Repub talking heads talk about it, they just go, "blah, blah, blah, National Security, blah, 9/11, blah, we are in a war, blah, blah, blah," and that's generally enough to shut most people up or sigh and walk away.
IMO, one of the worst things about the Bush Administration, and the thing that blinds the people and clogs the workings of governement, is that whenever anyone challenge their positions or actions, instead of defending them, or rebutting the arguement, their main objective is simply to muddy the issue so you walk away going, "Well, who knows who's right." Or they deflect the issue (like they're doing currently) to something that they're in front of, something that's impossible politically to denigrate, and something completly ridiculous and useless, like their fanatical devotion to getting flag burning banned right now.
Best First wrote:I thought we could just meander between making well thought out points, being needlessly immature, provocative and generalist, then veer into caring about constructive debate and make a few valid points, act civil for a bit, then lower the tone again, then act offended when we get called on it, then dictate what it is and isn't worth debating, reinterpret a few of my own posts through a less offensive lens, then jaunt down whatever other path our seemingly volatile mood took us in.