Political News: 11/27-12/3

[Mercy!]

When I was Googling Lieberman’s wife’s name to make sure I spelled it correctly above, I found it on the guest list for the White House dinner honoring Prince Charles and Camilla earlier this month. I spotted just one other elected Democratic official aside from Joe amongst all the names. I guess the President likes to give props to a fellow-traveler where he can.

 

http://www.c-span.org/executive/statedinner.asp

 

And it was just heartwarming for me to see that not only was Ms. Mary Cheney invited, but that she brought her *cough* real good friend *cough* “Ms. Heather Poe (Guest).” I guess their sort is only teed up as an abomination before God and a threat to marriages everywhere during an election campaign. You go girls!

[KipWellsFan]

Uhhm. . .

 

Good catch Jim. That's West Coast time though, long after I went nappies!

[Mercy!]

Good catch Jim.  That's West Coast time though, long after I went nappies!

Anyone?

 

EDIT: http://www.nappies.org

Edited November 30, 2005 by Mercy!

[Chisoxfn]

Soxtalk.com will be adding a new weekly thread to SL&P to try and contain all political talk to one thread. We feel this will help keep all the political stuff in one thread as opposed to it being continually rehashed in multiple threads.

 

We will be merging all political news stories and posts from the week into this thread and will be creating a new thread every week. Only in the instance of major political news, will a unique thread be allowed on a certain issue (for example if a new member of the Supreme Court is elected or when we have election day or if we declare war on a country).

 

Hopefully this will help clean up all the political discussion and debate from other threads. Many people aren't interested in the politics of it all and to appease the majority we will be trying this move out. We also know there are some people that love discussing politics and they will be able to discuss all the politics they want in this thread.

[KipWellsFan]

AP: 'caption is inaccurate'

Sheehan accused “right-wing” sites of “spreading a false story that nobody bought my book at Camp Casey on Saturday. That is not true, I sold all 100 copies and got writer's cramp signing them. Photos were taken of me before the people got in line to have me sign the book. We made $2000 for the peace house.”

 

Her publisher, Arnie Kotler at Koa Books, meanwhile released a letter to her supporters, charging that “AP and Reuters posted photos - I can't imagine why - of Cindy sitting at the book table between signings, rather than while someone was at the table. And now the smear websites are circulating an article, with these photos, that Cindy gave a signing and nobody came. It's simply not true…. the benefit books igning in Crawford, Texas on November 26, 2005 was well attended and a huge success.”

 

Asked for a response, anAP commented this afternoon:

 

"Photographer Evan Vucci, queried about the incident today said that he was present at the book signing from about 10 a.m. to about 11 a.m. During that time, he said, people were coming in to have their books signed in small groups of a few at a time.

 

"At the time the photos were taken 'maybe 5 people had come in,' Vucci says, and Sheehan was waiting for more to stop by, which they did individually as well as in very small groups. Therefore the wording of the caption is accurate in that Sheehan was waiting for people to show up at her signing."

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1001572310

more info at link

 

p.s. I'm not sure this is a good idea Jas. Maybe a politics board?

[Soxy]

p.s. I'm not sure this is a good idea Jas.  Maybe a politics board?

No one in their right mind would moderate it.

[SnB]

p.s. I'm not sure this is a good idea Jas.  Maybe a politics board?

even though i couldn't care less about these types of topics and usually stay away from them. I agree. The whole trade rumor thread thing didn't work out like this and we created a trades forum, i think we should do the same for politics.

[Chisoxfn]

In case people are wondering what is political and what isn't:

-Slamming a political party

-Discussing Policies or different candidates

-Talking about the war in Iraq

-Basically anything that has a serious political agenda in nature.

 

Quite frankly political agenda's and discussion have taken up too much of this forum and its going to stop. Not everyone wants to participate in it and they should be able to visit this forum and be able to enjoy it without seeing every other post dealing with political agenda's and issues. Plus those issues tend to spill into threads that have no political conotation in nature (and I'm sure I botched the spelling of that).

 

Anyway this is the thread for all those that want to bring up whatever the hell political post or agenda they want. For all I care they can start their petition to impeach George Bush right here or start their negative campaign on Hilary Clinton (to ensure she's not elected). I could care less what it is, but its going to stay in this thread and not spill into other ones.

[Chisoxfn]

AP: 'caption is inaccurate'

 

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1001572310

more info at link

 

p.s. I'm not sure this is a good idea Jas.  Maybe a politics board?

To be honest, like Chisoxy said, you wouldn't find a sane mod willing to moderate it. I think 90% of us are absolutely sick of all the political nature and how people are always forcing their agenda's on others. Because of that we will be sticking to one thread per week.

 

No mod or admin in their right mind would want to or would sift through all the trash that is spewed in these political threads (sorry, but for the most part its true). There is way too much slamming going on in the threads and people are taking a condescending tone to other posters (not only in those threads but other threads).

 

Its something that has sickened a lot of us. Politics is a touchy subject and I understand there often times isn't a middle ground, but there is no reason for people of different political opinions to be slamming the other person so hard (whether they do it in an agressive style or a backhanded style).

 

This thread will enable those that want to discuss the topic every opportunity to do so, while at the same time, allowing those that don't want to discuss it at all (or not often) the ability to enjoy this board as well (without having to deal with the political debate).

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

No one in their right mind would moderate it.

 

 

What a thankless s*** job that would be huh?

 

 

Seriously though, I like the idea of a politics only thread.

[bmags]

What a thankless s*** job that would be huh?

 

 

Seriously though,  I like the idea of a politics only thread.

 

it'll be so hard to sift through...

[Chisoxfn]

it'll be so hard to sift through...

Every week you'll get a new one. Heck, if one of the main political posters wants to (and I won't cause I gave up on talking politics here a long time ago) they could always edit the top post of the thread and throw up the daily stories that people have posted (just the links) for those that are interested.

 

Just throwing that idea out there though (cause I do know there is a core group on this forum that loves talking politics).

[FlaSoxxJim]

Just throwing that idea out there though (cause I do know there is a core group on this forum that loves talking politics).

 

But lumping all of politics into a single "politics" thread is not going to foster any sort of meaningful discussion. You may be correct in your assessment that nobody would jump at moderate a politics forum, but would that really be any more work than policing the new dedicated "politics" thread on SLaP?

 

And for that matter, have you asked the current mods if any of them would be willing to be the referee in a politics forum?

 

If the concern is for people who don't want to be bothered with it, then why not put it all into it's own off-topic forum?

 

Of course we all realize this is first and formost a White Sox fan community site. But it is a credit to the members that they are capable of discussing the world outside of baseball, and if the first months of the off-season are slow news-wise, the activity (and yes, the intensity too) on SLaP tends to pick up.

 

None of us have a right to tell you how to run things; your dime, your call and that is as it should be. But this will cost the site a lot of the openness and intellectual depth that set it apart from the other fan sites.

 

Carry on.

[Soxy]

This may not foster much discussion--but how much "discussion" was really going on before? To quote a favorite movie, "Talking constantly isn't communicating." Neither is the yelling, snarking and generaly asshattery that was going on before. I say give this new format a chance and if people can be civil to each other maybe we can revisit this later. But right now we don't need a million threads all with people posting the same s*** rhetoric (and, to quote my dearest Joni, I'm referring to "both sides now") without actually listening to other people.

[FlaSoxxJim]

OK. OK.

 

How 'bout that Thome trade?

 

Flaxx out

[bmags]

This may not foster much discussion--but how much "discussion" was really going on before? To quote a favorite movie, "Talking constantly isn't communicating." Neither is the yelling, snarking and generaly asshattery that was going on before. I say give this new format a chance and if people can be civil to each other maybe we can revisit this later. But right now we don't need a million threads all with people posting the same s*** rhetoric (and, to quote my dearest Joni, I'm referring to "both sides now") without actually listening to other people.

 

but we enjoyed it!

[Soxy]

but we enjoyed it!

Good. I'm glad someone did.

[Rex Kickass]

I think that this is a great idea. The politics side of this board has taken over a lot recently, and this may be one way to actually tone down the pissing matches that these boards have become.

 

When these threads actually start becoming more than Uh-Huh! and Nuh-uh! threads again, maybe it'll be all cool to have extra political threads.

 

But here, I'll start something worth talking about

 

____

 

George Bush is set to give an important speech tomorrow. A couple things are probably going to happen. He's going to declare mission basically accomplished and he's going to announce plans for a drawdown of forces in Iraq.

 

Both are good for one reason. As much as he says he's doing what's right, he's finally listening to people that are offering a dissenting point of view. That's encouraging.

 

What worries me is that this is purely a political solution. One that "gets us out" without actually fixing the problem. And that will lead to a bigger problem down the road.

[DBAHO]

but we enjoyed it!

Define we.

 

This thread has been made to hopefully improve the discussion aspect of people's political views, and to cut down on the slanging etc. b/w people.

 

But everyone is entitled to their own view about what they believe, even though you may not agree with they think. Hopefully we'll see a little less slanging, and more quality discussion.

[Steff]

In case people are wondering what is political and what isn't:

-Slamming a political party

-Discussing Policies or different candidates

-Talking about the war in Iraq

-Basically anything that has a serious political agenda in nature. 

 

 

 

- The crime rate in Camden, NJ.

 

:rolly

[Controlled Chaos]

Imagine that...some good news from the front!

 

Our Troops Must Stay

By JOE LIEBERMAN

 

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood -- unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

 

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

 

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

 

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

 

Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

 

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

 

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

 

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

 

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

 

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

 

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

 

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

 

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

 

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan -- Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

 

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future -- and why the American people should be, too.

 

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

 

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

 

Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Finally a Democrat who gets it.

 

 

This is my favorite part.

 

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

 

 

To all the people who say the Iraqi's hate us and that they were better off under Saddam and blah blah..........TAKE THAT!!!

[Steff]

Finally a Democrat who gets it.

This is my favorite part.

To all the people who say the Iraqi's hate us and that they were better off under Saddam and blah blah..........TAKE THAT!!!

 

 

 

Someone said they were better off under Saddam... ?

 

:headshake

[Controlled Chaos]

Whoa I just noticed this thread when I was looking for my post.

What's the deal? Are we gonna try lumping all topics in one thread? Won't there be like 10 conversations going at once?

[Rex Kickass]

Yes and yes.