Tendo City

Yes, he says it.

However, overall it's an above-average performance for him.. the questions are good (better than the questions in most political interviews, for sure...), and sometimes his answers actually answer the questions.

Full video available here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11...18209.html

Part of the interview:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/keN12U2coK8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/keN12U2coK8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It certainly is true that these issues are incredibly difficult... Russia invading Georgia, China's human rights record, China's support for the government of Sudan (eg. supporting the violence in Darfur), etc... the question is, on the one hand we can say "don't do that" or "that's bad" all we want, but when we're doing our own horrible things like Iraq, it gives them a slightly better excuse to ignore it than they would have otherwise.

But of course, with how they always do just ignore us when we talk about human rights, how much is the issue worth pushing? I think it is justified anyway, though it would particularly be so if we actually could hold up a higher standard on our side instead of one nearly as bad, and the Chinese government certainly doesn't like it given how they much prefer to avoid such "troubling" issues. But then the question of course becomes "well, should we follow that up with action, and if so what?"

Here Bush of course is opposed to doing anything. Either he still believes the delusion that capitalism will inevitably lead to democracy or he just doesn't care (about how China is an autocracy). I'd bet on the latter of course... but any serious actions we could take would hurt us very badly too, so there's good reason to not try them. So yes, certainly very difficult issues... it's good to see Bush actually have to answer such questions once in a while.

On the other side of course, it's notable that Costas doesn't say a word about Iraq. Asking about Darfur and Georgia while dodging our own disaster? He mostly did a good job, but it's too bad he didn't even mention it.

Well, he said it in regards to problems with China, not in general, but it is still a dumb statement since our relationship with China is pretty one-sided.

Why haven't you impeached this guy yet?

Quote:Well, he said it in regards to problems with China, not in general, but it is still a dumb statement since our relationship with China is pretty one-sided.

Indeed... even if you restrict it to our relationship with China, I'd say that things are going pretty badly, for sure... they seem to have pretty much all the leverage and all we can do is beg them to not destroy us (by, for instance, deciding to stop letting us borrow money from them).

Quote:Why haven't you impeached this guy yet?

I wish I knew... :(

I'm certainly in favor of impeachment, and have been for several years now.

I should say, though, that I think Cheney should be impeached first. His crimes are worse, I think.

Quote:S combat troops could leave Iraq by 2011 under the terms of a deal awaiting approval by Iraq's parliament and presidency, an Iraqi official has said.

The draft security agreement also calls for US forces to withdraw from all Iraqi urban areas by June 2009.

The 27-point agreement reportedly includes a compromise allowing US soldiers some immunity under Iraqi law.

The final date when US troops leave will depend largely on security, the BBC's Crispin Thorold in Baghdad says.

The decision will be taken by a joint committee, which could reduce or extend the amount of time US troops spend in the country.

Mohammed al-Haj Hammoud, the top Iraqi official negotiating with the US on the status of US forces in Iraq, said a deal had been agreed that envisaged all US combat troops leaving Iraq by 2011.

Some US troops could remain beyond 2011 "to train Iraqi security forces", the AFP news agency quoted him as saying.

"The combat troops will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 2009," Mr Hammoud said.

"Both the parties have agreed on this... The negotiators' job is done. Now it is up to the leaders."

A White House spokesman has however said details of the draft agreement were still being discussed.

Gordon Johndroe said US President George W Bush had spoken with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki about the deal.

They "had a good conversation", Mr Johndroe said, adding that "there are a lot of details that have to be worked out".

Handover aim

A deal also appears to have been struck on the controversial issue of granting US troops immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.

Mr Hammoud said the deal allowed US troops to remain immune from prosecution on military bases and while on operation.

All other cases would be considered by a joint judicial committee.

clicky

This will probaily take the thunder out of Obama's campaign, As the anti war movement is a big part of his support, This kind of change pretty much will assure opponents of the iraq war that withdrawal will happen regardless of who wins.

They need to take them from iraq and redeploy troops into Afghanistan ASAP, The Pakistani border needs to be secured, I can say that Canada is weary of the afghan mission especially when soldiers are killed like just a few days ago, From what I can see a another federal election here in Canada is quite likely and a change in goverment could happen.

The way I see it , Pakistan is where Al'qeada has burrowed itself into, Osama is a very popular man in Pakistan and they are a nuclear armed nation, With Pervez Musharraf gone who knows what will happen now.

We need to keep an eye on Pakistan.

Why does that take the thunder out of Obama's campaign? It's pretty much his plan that they are implementing. I think this actually hurts McCain since it focuses people more on the economy, which is definitely not McCain's strong point.

DMiller Wrote:Why does that take the thunder out of Obama's campaign? It's pretty much his plan that they are implementing. I think this actually hurts McCain since it focuses people more on the economy, which is definitely not McCain's strong point.

I've never claimed to be an expert on politics

Out by 2011 isn't exactly something that will help McCain, ASM... people have decided that the Iraq War was a mistake, and that opinion has lasted through much of this year despite a lessening in the violence there. John McCain isn't winning on the Iraq issue... he keeps trying to push his "I supported the surge, which worked" line, but for many people, all that does is remind them of the fact behind that: He supported the war in the first place.

The war in Georgia does seem to be helping McCain a bit because overall Republicans win foreign policy (which is why Obama might have chosen Biden?), for whatever idiotic reason (considering how many massive foreign policy messes the Republicans have gotten us into, why people think of them as better at it really makes no sense...), as Iraq did for Bush in 2004 before most of the American people turned against it, but no... I definitely think that the more Iraq or the economy are an issue, the better Obama does; the more generic foreign policy or Republican wedge issues (deceptive lies about tax cuts, abortion/gay marriage, etc) matter, the better McCain does. Right now it's close, far closer than it should be... hopefully America will wake up and realize that McCain would be far more of a Bush 3rd term than most anyone in this country wants, but we'll see.

Oh, and if it really is Biden, Obama clearly thought that he really needed to narrow that foreign policy gap. Biden is/was almost certainly the #1 person in the Democratic VP running on the foreign policy issue.

The problem with Biden is that he's well known for saying really stupid things sometimes, which could be an issue, but they obviously just think that the positive is more than the negative...

A Black Falcon Wrote:Out by 2011 isn't exactly something that will help McCain, ASM... people have decided that the Iraq War was a mistake, and that opinion has lasted through much of this year despite a lessening in the violence there. John McCain isn't winning on the Iraq issue... he keeps trying to push his "I supported the surge, which worked" line, but for many people, all that does is remind them of the fact behind that: He supported the war in the first place.

The war in Georgia does seem to be helping McCain a bit because overall Republicans win foreign policy (which is why Obama might have chosen Biden?), for whatever idiotic reason (considering how many massive foreign policy messes the Republicans have gotten us into, why people think of them as better at it really makes no sense...), as Iraq did for Bush in 2004 before most of the American people turned against it, but no... I definitely think that the more Iraq or the economy are an issue, the better Obama does; the more generic foreign policy or Republican wedge issues (deceptive lies about tax cuts, abortion/gay marriage, etc) matter, the better McCain does. Right now it's close, far closer than it should be... hopefully America will wake up and realize that McCain would be far more of a Bush 3rd term than most anyone in this country wants, but we'll see.

Oh, and if it really is Biden, Obama clearly thought that he really needed to narrow that foreign policy gap. Biden is/was almost certainly the #1 person in the Democratic VP running on the foreign policy issue.

Wesley Clark would give Obama the credentials needed to rebuff republican attacks on the matter of foreign policy experience, General Clark commanded most of the NATO operations during the Clinton era including Kosovo and he would blow McCain out of the water in regards to matters of war and peace.

Even though its likely Clark would get the defense secretary position should Obama win, Just as Kerry intended too but having Clark on the ticket as a running mate would give Obama a strong face.

Like you said, He should hammer away on economics.

The "evangelical" vote is partly why the republicans keep winning off on the good pious "christian " tirade, This is Obama major weakness,The Reverend wright scandal is stinging him.

In Canadian politics, Alberta would be Canada's bible belt or the closets thing to it, Most of the population is very liberal and left leaning even a conservative goverment that came from "christian evangelical constituent's" could never hope to take or maintain power without conceding to the whims of the largely liberal country.

The republicans would not be the way they are if it waisnt for demographics that would back it.

The American media deserves a great deal of blame for not doing their job during that crucial period in 2003, All the pre war propaganda was treated with far more skepticism in the foreign press then the American ones,Since the corporate media is profit based some of us suspect that just maybe they kept conveniently quiet during 2003 so they would get the rewards of war coverage ratings,Its kind of like the plot of James tomorrow never dies,Media barons are a threat to democracy thats clearly visible in Russia.

Update, Joe Biden is his running mate.

Quote:In Canadian politics, Alberta would be Canada's bible belt or the closets thing to it, Most of the population is very liberal and left leaning even a conservative goverment that came from "christian evangelical constituent's" could never hope to take or maintain power without conceding to the whims of the largely liberal country.

This may be a typing error on your part, but I'd just like to butt in here and let you know that Alberta is extremely conservative and closely eschews most of the values that those in the Bible Belt holds dear. Albertans love fetuses, Jesus, and pick-up trucks, and hate fags, taxes, and marijuana. If we had any black people, I'm sure we'd hate them too! But we seem to make do by being a little bit extra racist and discriminatory to the large Native population. The Progressive Conservative party has been in power in Alberta since 1971 and won 72 seats in the last election (as opposed to 9 seats by the Liberal party, and 2 seats by the socialist NDPs). Also, in the last Federal election, every single one of Alberta's 28 seats was won by a member of the Conservative Party. Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is from Calgary. He's a horrible leader and given his stance in the popularity polls, people seem to support all the backward steps he's taking in the country's domestic and foreign policies. Fuck Stephen Harper. Sometimes I'm ashamed that I live in the same province as him, but not really.

I feel like I should contribute something to the topic at hand, though. Biden and Obama? McCain and whoever? What's the difference? John McCain might win this fucking thing. McCain on the moneyline right now is at +155. Incredible! I'm tempted to put a bunch of money on him to win because it's such a great value bet. And I better hop on this soon, because pretty soon he'll be on the minus side and I'll have missed out on a good chunk of change. Given how much the people hate Bush and the current state of the Republican Party and the country as a whole, the fact that he even has a shot is mesmerising. Basically, the people might elect an extension of George W. Bush, a man who is currently enjoying a 28% approval rating. HUH? I spent a few weeks in the States earlier this month and the political discussions I overheard and participiated in (which seemed to be the only types of discussions people were willing to have) were very much in favour of McCain and very much against Obama, mostly because he's a "nigger." It was outrageous, the vehemently racist and ignorant sentiments that every single American I encountered harboured. Unbelievable. And all these people were from the very progressive and tolerant state of Mississippi. Am I to assume that all Americans are like the ones I met? Throw in the towel America, because your country is BEAT!

Fittisize, I think he was saying that while Alberta is conservative, the rest of Canada is for the most part pretty liberal. I think that's pretty clearly true, and a Canadian 'conservative' is nothing compared to an American conservative... Canadian conservatives are nowhere near as far right, I'm pretty sure. America is just a more conservative country. It's so bad that even the Democrats are just barely, on only some issues, left of center... the center is the "left" in many people's minds. Actual left-wing views are pretty rare, really... most Democratic politicians are centrists, for instance, while most Republicans are much farther towards the extreme. It does seem that America is edging just slightly left this year, maybe, but as all of the close polls show, even there the right-wingers are able to hang on, despite all logic...

I agree, there's no way for me to explain why McCain is doing so well in the polls despite Bush's appropriately low approval ratings. It really makes no sense... people are just being deluded into thinking that he represents change when compared to Bush, or that he's as moderate as he was in 2000 (he's not even close, he's gone hard right in the past four years), or that

There are some things the Democrats can do to hurt him, though. First, abortion. John McCain has a 100% pro-life (anti-abortion) voting record. Many moderates supporting him do not understand this, or they think that "abortion is safe in America".

Abortion isn't safe. In fact, it's one 80-something year old man away from being made illegal. That is, of course, Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court... four votes on the court already are anti-abortion. John McCain would make that five, and abortion would be gone as a federally mandated right. And then some states would ban it, and women would start dying in those states of illegal abortions.

And that's just one issue... really, above all others, the Democrats MUST win this in order to keep the Supreme Court as just a center-right court (because the four liberals are overall older than the five conservatives), instead of a far right one...

Quote:, mostly because he's a "nigger." It was outrageous, the vehemently racist and ignorant sentiments that every single American I encountered harboured. Unbelievable. And all these people were from the very progressive and tolerant state of Mississippi. Am I to assume that all Americans are like the ones I met? Throw in the towel America, because your country is BEAT!

I hope that's meant as a joke, because the South is, of course, the most conservative and anti-black part of the country. Despite black people making up 40% of the population of the state, Obama has virtually no chance of winning it because of how conservative and racist the white population is... it'll be a minor miracle if Obama wins even one Southern state apart from Virginia and maybe Florida.

The liberal parts of the country are the Northeast and Pacific coast; the middle-coast states, Midwest, and Rocky Mountain areas are mixed. And that's why the Democrats' plan for victory this time focuses on winning all the states that voted for Kerry (the Northeast, part of the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast) and adding 9 electoral votes to that.

Colorado has 9 electoral votes. So all that's needed is Kerry + Colorado... and Obama is leading in Iowa and New Mexico too, and could also win Virginia and Ohio. But between Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Florida, Obama only needs to win one to win, assuming he can hold the states that voted for Kerry and Gore, which he should be able to do... the election is definitely Obama's to lose.

He could, of course, manage to lose it somehow, but he has the clear advantage.

Quote:Fittisize, I think he was saying that while Alberta is conservative, the rest of Canada is for the most part pretty liberal. I think that's pretty clearly true, and a Canadian 'conservative' is nothing compared to an American conservative... Canadian conservatives are nowhere near as far right, I'm pretty sure. America is just a more conservative country. It's so bad that even the Democrats are just barely, on only some issues, left of center... the center is the "left" in many people's minds. Actual left-wing views are pretty rare, really... most Democratic politicians are centrists, for instance, while most Republicans are much farther towards the extreme. It does seem that America is edging just slightly left this year, maybe, but as all of the close polls show, even there the right-wingers are able to hang on, despite all logic...

Exactly, When I put that up my concentration was taxed from fatigue since I suffered bouts of insomnia during that week, Those "thoughts just needed to come out" :D .

The conservative movement of Canada is divided into two segments, The old red Tories of the former "progressive conservative party" which was more centrist and closer to the democrats of the U.S, What makes the red Tories different is that they are fiscally conservative.

The new Tories make up members of the former "reform party", They fed off the alienation of the western Canadians disaffected with the eastern oriented federal goverment in Ottawa.

Alberta and the prairie provinces was settled by "cattle ranchers" and agrarians from the USA some generations ago .

*Something like that shitty Michael Landon tv show from the 1970's little house on the prairie*

A good portion retained their American god fearing ana-baptist values , All the Polish and eastern European immigrants brought in during those pioneer days mixed in with them darn Yankee agrarians.

The new Tories integrated with the old largely centrist red Tories during the merger in 2003-2004 , Hard right exreformers from Alberta (Northern Jesusland) have taken leadership of the new "Torie party" and in a sense their something of a offshoot of the American republican party. Since the demographics are not there to support "jesusland" politics the Tories are heading for the middle trying to do a balancing act to appease east and west, The new Tories are pro Zionism and all for unconditional support for Israel which has alienated their "ethnic vote" especially since the recent Israeli-Lebanon war.

Part of me hopes that the "red Tories" will reassert leadership in the future and move the party more towards the center.

I predict a Liberal minority goverment in the coming future.

Neo Cons came from American ultra liberalism, In reality their masquerading as conservatives.