It seems like from Watergate on, both parties have been working harder in the character assassin business.

At times like this, I wonder if a parlmentary democracy would be better. Generally, one party would be in charge (Executive and Legislative) fully accountable for their actions. If things go badly, they can't easily blame the other. If the US were a parlimentary democracy, a vote of confidence would probably be the hot topic.

In addition to the increased combativness of today's politics, I find the polarization of the two parties disturbing - it promotes gridlock.

 

Well, the "polarization" has not yet led to gridlock, thank Gosh.

And there is more animosity between the parties now because of the fact that Bush won in 2004 when the Dems expected Kerry to knock him off, and some of the far Lefty wackos STILL to this day think Bush somehow stole the 2004 election also.

And the war has not helped relations between the parties, although remember: BOTH PARTIES VOTED YES FOR THE IRAQ WAR. Kerry and all the leading Dems were convinced Saddam had WMD also, and all of them have statements on record and in Congressional record as saying so from their own lips.

So, yes, the 2 party system has weaknesses, but it has show to be successful in the USA for an awfully long time.

 

I remember someone at work that currently opposes the war, but was itching to fight back in 2003. I'll defend his right to an opinion, but not his intellectial dishonesty.

 

Yep, the Dems keep saying that Bush lied about WMD. Even if he didn't have some and buried them in the middle of the desert or shipped them out of the country right befor ethe war, you can't escape the fact he was giving money to the families of suicide bombers.

Anyway, back to Libby: not only was it not classified, but Wilson was constantly telling people his wife worked for the CIA!

 

Going to war is serious business, and "giving money to the families of suicide bombers" just wouldn't cut it as a reason to invade and occupy a country. Using intelligence that was based on such unreliable sources to pressure the people into going to war for much different reasons is the issue, and as more evidence comes out about the internal operations of the administration we'll get a better picture of what went on. Unfortunately because the corporate media played a big part in the selling of the war, I really doubt we'll hear the whole story in this matter, nor do I think it will bring down the administration.

Personally I think there's a better chance of getting Bush & Co. out because of 9-11, treason is not something that's been ruled yet. Unfortunately the Dems aren't anything to cheer about, most of their core policies are identical and what they differ on are the 'wedge' issues, those things that polarize the public but aren't really what the public cares about. It's a real shame, there's no way to vote the bastards out because both parties are just as owned.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "if he didn't have some". They found enriched uranium over a year ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

"Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 7, 2004; Page A16


Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced yesterday that almost two tons of low-enriched uranium and about 1,000 radioactive samples used for research had been removed from Iraq's Tuwaitha Nuclear Center and brought to the United States for security reasons."

 

One thing that people miss when they do the no WMDs were found is the fact that there should have been some found because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM. The fact they are missing shows a cover up or missmanagement by Sadam. If he would have come clean and said "Yes, here is what we have" or "We destroyed them and here are the records" the war could have been averted. Going up to the war there was ample time for Sadam to come clean.

Also, The dems have a problem with credibility in that the Senate has a committee that has the same intel as Bush had. If you look it up you will see many Dems that agreed with Bush when they saw the intel. This wasn't intel bush sent them it was the same stuff that was sent bush by the various departments. Its not like bush pulled a fast one. Lots of people on both sides saw the same stuff he did and came to the same conclusion. This will make it very hard to say he "lied" unless you include as co-liers the Dems and Reps that came to the same conclusion.

Nothing will come of this. The Dems are just trying to eat away at his credibility. It is a good tactic because he does have credability problems. From what I have seen less than 1/2 the people think he is trustworthy. This isn't limited to only Dems. I lean conservative and I too have issues with his credability. If he doesn't regain it I feel the Reps will suffer in the next election because of it. I believe in recent state wide elections the Reps lost a bunch of Governerships.

 

@Schwa: Uh, wouldn't paying the families of suicide bombers be aiding terrorism? That's reason enough to go to war...

@AZCivic: Meant to say if he didn't have some and didn't bury it in the desert or ship it out.

Ooh, they did have some? Then why are the liberals constantly saying there wasn't WMD? Oh wait, I know: the media hasn't covered it much. I don't remember hearing about that Uranium find...

@tbaleno: Yeah, the war, Katrina, and the Republicans in congress acting like Democrats when it comes to spending are probably going to get the Republicans kicked in the rear in '06. But the NRA will definately do some rallying for '08.

 

What are you talking about Schwa ?

 

"
Ooh, they did have some? Then why are the liberals constantly saying there wasn't WMD? Oh wait, I know: the media hasn't covered it much. I don't remember hearing about that Uranium find..."

Because Uranium is not the same thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. If it was, almost every state in the US would be a nuklyar superpower. Rather in the same way that people with heart disease who have nitro patches on, are not bomb carrying terrorists, and you should refrain from lynching them on sight.