The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists

The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the
pernicious Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action, and it
elicited an allergic reaction worldwide - not because anyone had a
good word to say about Saddam Hussein, but because we insisted on
invading Iraq unilaterally without any clear evidence that he had
anything to do with September 11 or that he possessed weapons of mass
destruction.
The gap in perceptions between America and the rest of the world has
never been wider. Abroad, America is seen as abusing the dominant
position it occupies; opinion at home has been led to believe that
Saddam posed a clear and present danger to national security. Only in
the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion are people becoming aware they
have been misled.

Even today, many people believe that September 11 justifies behaviour
that would be unacceptable in normal times. The ideologues of American
supremacy and President Bush personally never cease to remind us that
September 11 changed the world. It is only as the untoward
consequences of the invasion of Iraq become apparent that people are
beginning to realise something has gone woefully wrong.


Fundamentalism has spawned an ideology of American supremacy

We have fallen into a trap. The suicide bombers' motivation seemed
incomprehensible at the time of the attack; now a light begins to
dawn: they wanted us to react the way we did. Perhaps they understood
us better than we understand ourselves.

And we have been deceived. When he stood for election in 2000,
President Bush promised a humble foreign policy. I contend that the
Bush administration has deliberately exploited September 11 to pursue
policies that the American public would not have otherwise tolerated.
The US can lose its dominance only as a result of its own mistakes. At
present the country is in the process of committing such mistakes
because it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense
of mission is matched only by their false sense of certitude.

This distorted view postulates that because we are stronger than
others, we must know better and we must have right on our side. That
is where religious fundamentalism comes together with market
fundamentalism to form the ideology of American supremacy.

We may have more difficulty in perceiving the absurdity of pursuing
supremacy by military means, because we have learned to rely on
military power and we particularly feel the need for it when our very
existence is threatened. But the most powerful country on earth cannot
afford to be consumed by fear. To make the war on terrorism the
centrepiece of our national strategy is an abdication of our
responsibility as the leading nation in the world. The US is the only
country that can take the lead in addressing problems that require
collective action: preserving peace and economic progress, protecting
the environment and so on.

Whatever the justification for removing Saddam, there can be no doubt
that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Wittingly or unwittingly,
President Bush deceived the American public and Congress and rode
roughshod over our allies' opinions.

The gap between the administration's expectations and the actual state
of affairs could not be wider. We have put at risk not only our
soldiers' lives but the combat readiness of our armed forces. We are
overstretched and our ability to project our power has been
compromised. Yet there are more places where we need to project our
power than ever. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons; Iran
is doing so clandestinely. The Taliban is regrouping in the Pashtun
areas of Afghanistan. The costs of occupation and the prospect of
permanent war weigh on our economy, and we are failing to address
festering problems both at home and globally. If we ever needed proof
that the neo-cons' dream of American supremacy is misconceived, Iraq
has provided it.

It is hard to imagine how the plans of the defence department could
have gone more awry. We find ourselves in a quagmire that is in some
ways reminiscent of Vietnam. Having invaded Iraq, we cannot extricate
ourselves. Domestic pressure to withdraw is likely to build, as in the
Vietnam war, but withdrawing would inflict irreparable damage on our
standing in the world. In this respect, Iraq is worse than Vietnam
because of our dependence on Middle East oil.

Nobody forced us into it; on the contrary, everyone warned us against
it. Admittedly, Saddam was a heinous tyrant and it was a good thing to
get rid of him. But at what cost? The occupying powers serve as a
focal point for attracting terrorists and radicalising Islam. Our
soldiers have to do police work in full combat gear.

And the cost of occupation is estimated at a staggering $160bn for the
the fiscal years 2003-2004 - $73bn for 2003 and $87bn in a
supplemental request for 2004 submitted at the last minute in
September 2003. Of the $87bn, only $20bn is for reconstruction, but
the total cost of reconstruction is estimated at $60bn. For
comparison, our foreign aid budget for 2002 was $10bn.

There is no easy way out. The Bush administration is eager to get the
United Nations more involved but is unwilling to make the necessary
concessions. We have no alternative to sticking it out and paying the
price for our mistake. Eventually a different president with a
different attitude to international cooperation may be more successful
in extricating us.

The US is not the only country at the centre of the global capitalist
system, but it is the most powerful and it is the main driving force
behind globalisation. The European Union may equal the US in
population and gross national product, but it is far less united and
far less comfortable with globalisation. In military terms, the EU
does not even qualify as a power, because members make their own
decisions.

Insofar as any nation is in charge of the world order, it is the US.
That is not to suggest that other countries are exempt from having to
concern themselves with the wellbeing of the world. Their attitudes
are not without consequence, but it is the US that matters most.

If Bush is rejected in 2004, his policies can be written off as an
aberration and America resume its rightful place in the world. But if
he is re-elected, the electorate will have endorsed his policies and
we will have to live with the consequences. But it isn't enough to
defeat Bush at the polls. The US must examine its global role and
adopt a more constructive vision. We cannot merely pursue narrow,
national self-interest. Our dominant position imposes a unique
responsibility.

George Soros
Monday January 26, 2004
The Guardian Newspaper, London UK

Socialism is still alive and well in the American DemocRAT Party!

end

"Polybus" > wrote in message
om...
> The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists
>
> The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the
> pernicious Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action, and it
> elicited an allergic reaction worldwide - not because anyone had a
> good word to say about Saddam Hussein, but because we insisted on
> invading Iraq unilaterally without any clear evidence that he had
> anything to do with September 11 or that he possessed weapons of mass
> destruction.
> The gap in perceptions between America and the rest of the world has
> never been wider. Abroad, America is seen as abusing the dominant
> position it occupies; opinion at home has been led to believe that
> Saddam posed a clear and present danger to national security. Only in
> the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion are people becoming aware they
> have been misled.
>
> Even today, many people believe that September 11 justifies behaviour
> that would be unacceptable in normal times. The ideologues of American
> supremacy and President Bush personally never cease to remind us that
> September 11 changed the world. It is only as the untoward
> consequences of the invasion of Iraq become apparent that people are
> beginning to realise something has gone woefully wrong.
>
>
> Fundamentalism has spawned an ideology of American supremacy
>
> We have fallen into a trap. The suicide bombers' motivation seemed
> incomprehensible at the time of the attack; now a light begins to
> dawn: they wanted us to react the way we did. Perhaps they understood
> us better than we understand ourselves.
>
> And we have been deceived. When he stood for election in 2000,
> President Bush promised a humble foreign policy. I contend that the
> Bush administration has deliberately exploited September 11 to pursue
> policies that the American public would not have otherwise tolerated.
> The US can lose its dominance only as a result of its own mistakes. At
> present the country is in the process of committing such mistakes
> because it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense
> of mission is matched only by their false sense of certitude.
>
> This distorted view postulates that because we are stronger than
> others, we must know better and we must have right on our side. That
> is where religious fundamentalism comes together with market
> fundamentalism to form the ideology of American supremacy.
>
> We may have more difficulty in perceiving the absurdity of pursuing
> supremacy by military means, because we have learned to rely on
> military power and we particularly feel the need for it when our very
> existence is threatened. But the most powerful country on earth cannot
> afford to be consumed by fear. To make the war on terrorism the
> centrepiece of our national strategy is an abdication of our
> responsibility as the leading nation in the world. The US is the only
> country that can take the lead in addressing problems that require
> collective action: preserving peace and economic progress, protecting
> the environment and so on.
>
> Whatever the justification for removing Saddam, there can be no doubt
> that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Wittingly or unwittingly,
> President Bush deceived the American public and Congress and rode
> roughshod over our allies' opinions.
>
> The gap between the administration's expectations and the actual state
> of affairs could not be wider. We have put at risk not only our
> soldiers' lives but the combat readiness of our armed forces. We are
> overstretched and our ability to project our power has been
> compromised. Yet there are more places where we need to project our
> power than ever. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons; Iran
> is doing so clandestinely. The Taliban is regrouping in the Pashtun
> areas of Afghanistan. The costs of occupation and the prospect of
> permanent war weigh on our economy, and we are failing to address
> festering problems both at home and globally. If we ever needed proof
> that the neo-cons' dream of American supremacy is misconceived, Iraq
> has provided it.
>
> It is hard to imagine how the plans of the defence department could
> have gone more awry. We find ourselves in a quagmire that is in some
> ways reminiscent of Vietnam. Having invaded Iraq, we cannot extricate
> ourselves. Domestic pressure to withdraw is likely to build, as in the
> Vietnam war, but withdrawing would inflict irreparable damage on our
> standing in the world. In this respect, Iraq is worse than Vietnam
> because of our dependence on Middle East oil.
>
> Nobody forced us into it; on the contrary, everyone warned us against
> it. Admittedly, Saddam was a heinous tyrant and it was a good thing to
> get rid of him. But at what cost? The occupying powers serve as a
> focal point for attracting terrorists and radicalising Islam. Our
> soldiers have to do police work in full combat gear.
>
> And the cost of occupation is estimated at a staggering $160bn for the
> the fiscal years 2003-2004 - $73bn for 2003 and $87bn in a
> supplemental request for 2004 submitted at the last minute in
> September 2003. Of the $87bn, only $20bn is for reconstruction, but
> the total cost of reconstruction is estimated at $60bn. For
> comparison, our foreign aid budget for 2002 was $10bn.
>
> There is no easy way out. The Bush administration is eager to get the
> United Nations more involved but is unwilling to make the necessary
> concessions. We have no alternative to sticking it out and paying the
> price for our mistake. Eventually a different president with a
> different attitude to international cooperation may be more successful
> in extricating us.
>
> The US is not the only country at the centre of the global capitalist
> system, but it is the most powerful and it is the main driving force
> behind globalisation. The European Union may equal the US in
> population and gross national product, but it is far less united and
> far less comfortable with globalisation. In military terms, the EU
> does not even qualify as a power, because members make their own
> decisions.
>
> Insofar as any nation is in charge of the world order, it is the US.
> That is not to suggest that other countries are exempt from having to
> concern themselves with the wellbeing of the world. Their attitudes
> are not without consequence, but it is the US that matters most.
>
> If Bush is rejected in 2004, his policies can be written off as an
> aberration and America resume its rightful place in the world. But if
> he is re-elected, the electorate will have endorsed his policies and
> we will have to live with the consequences. But it isn't enough to
> defeat Bush at the polls. The US must examine its global role and
> adopt a more constructive vision. We cannot merely pursue narrow,
> national self-interest. Our dominant position imposes a unique
> responsibility.
>
> George Soros
> Monday January 26, 2004
> The Guardian Newspaper, London UK

"Polybus" > wrote in message
om...
> The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists
>

The citizens of that country will have the opportunity to put this
proposition to the test soon enough. In the meantime please
desist from this egregious cross posting.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in news:bv3psf
:

>
> "Polybus" > wrote in message
> om...
>> The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists
>>
>
> The citizens of that country will have the opportunity to put this
> proposition to the test soon enough. In the meantime please
> desist from this egregious cross posting.

As should you...and I...what about it?

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

hey - did you hear that evidently the REPUBLICANS hacked the DEM's computers
and were reading their e-mail (oh, well... pot...kettle)

(and NO, I'm not blowing smoke - report came from PC week magazine - and
why they would know "first" is beyond me...)

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
...
> Socialism is still alive and well in the American DemocRAT Party!
>
> end
>
> "Polybus" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists
> >
> > The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the
> > pernicious Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action, and it
> > elicited an allergic reaction worldwide - not because anyone had a
> > good word to say about Saddam Hussein, but because we insisted on
> > invading Iraq unilaterally without any clear evidence that he had
> > anything to do with September 11 or that he possessed weapons of mass
> > destruction.
> > The gap in perceptions between America and the rest of the world has
> > never been wider. Abroad, America is seen as abusing the dominant
> > position it occupies; opinion at home has been led to believe that
> > Saddam posed a clear and present danger to national security. Only in
> > the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion are people becoming aware they
> > have been misled.
> >
> > Even today, many people believe that September 11 justifies behaviour
> > that would be unacceptable in normal times. The ideologues of American
> > supremacy and President Bush personally never cease to remind us that
> > September 11 changed the world. It is only as the untoward
> > consequences of the invasion of Iraq become apparent that people are
> > beginning to realise something has gone woefully wrong.
> >
> >
> > Fundamentalism has spawned an ideology of American supremacy
> >
> > We have fallen into a trap. The suicide bombers' motivation seemed
> > incomprehensible at the time of the attack; now a light begins to
> > dawn: they wanted us to react the way we did. Perhaps they understood
> > us better than we understand ourselves.
> >
> > And we have been deceived. When he stood for election in 2000,
> > President Bush promised a humble foreign policy. I contend that the
> > Bush administration has deliberately exploited September 11 to pursue
> > policies that the American public would not have otherwise tolerated.
> > The US can lose its dominance only as a result of its own mistakes. At
> > present the country is in the process of committing such mistakes
> > because it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense
> > of mission is matched only by their false sense of certitude.
> >
> > This distorted view postulates that because we are stronger than
> > others, we must know better and we must have right on our side. That
> > is where religious fundamentalism comes together with market
> > fundamentalism to form the ideology of American supremacy.
> >
> > We may have more difficulty in perceiving the absurdity of pursuing
> > supremacy by military means, because we have learned to rely on
> > military power and we particularly feel the need for it when our very
> > existence is threatened. But the most powerful country on earth cannot
> > afford to be consumed by fear. To make the war on terrorism the
> > centrepiece of our national strategy is an abdication of our
> > responsibility as the leading nation in the world. The US is the only
> > country that can take the lead in addressing problems that require
> > collective action: preserving peace and economic progress, protecting
> > the environment and so on.
> >
> > Whatever the justification for removing Saddam, there can be no doubt
> > that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Wittingly or unwittingly,
> > President Bush deceived the American public and Congress and rode
> > roughshod over our allies' opinions.
> >
> > The gap between the administration's expectations and the actual state
> > of affairs could not be wider. We have put at risk not only our
> > soldiers' lives but the combat readiness of our armed forces. We are
> > overstretched and our ability to project our power has been
> > compromised. Yet there are more places where we need to project our
> > power than ever. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons; Iran
> > is doing so clandestinely. The Taliban is regrouping in the Pashtun
> > areas of Afghanistan. The costs of occupation and the prospect of
> > permanent war weigh on our economy, and we are failing to address
> > festering problems both at home and globally. If we ever needed proof
> > that the neo-cons' dream of American supremacy is misconceived, Iraq
> > has provided it.
> >
> > It is hard to imagine how the plans of the defence department could
> > have gone more awry. We find ourselves in a quagmire that is in some
> > ways reminiscent of Vietnam. Having invaded Iraq, we cannot extricate
> > ourselves. Domestic pressure to withdraw is likely to build, as in the
> > Vietnam war, but withdrawing would inflict irreparable damage on our
> > standing in the world. In this respect, Iraq is worse than Vietnam
> > because of our dependence on Middle East oil.
> >
> > Nobody forced us into it; on the contrary, everyone warned us against
> > it. Admittedly, Saddam was a heinous tyrant and it was a good thing to
> > get rid of him. But at what cost? The occupying powers serve as a
> > focal point for attracting terrorists and radicalising Islam. Our
> > soldiers have to do police work in full combat gear.
> >
> > And the cost of occupation is estimated at a staggering $160bn for the
> > the fiscal years 2003-2004 - $73bn for 2003 and $87bn in a
> > supplemental request for 2004 submitted at the last minute in
> > September 2003. Of the $87bn, only $20bn is for reconstruction, but
> > the total cost of reconstruction is estimated at $60bn. For
> > comparison, our foreign aid budget for 2002 was $10bn.
> >
> > There is no easy way out. The Bush administration is eager to get the
> > United Nations more involved but is unwilling to make the necessary
> > concessions. We have no alternative to sticking it out and paying the
> > price for our mistake. Eventually a different president with a
> > different attitude to international cooperation may be more successful
> > in extricating us.
> >
> > The US is not the only country at the centre of the global capitalist
> > system, but it is the most powerful and it is the main driving force
> > behind globalisation. The European Union may equal the US in
> > population and gross national product, but it is far less united and
> > far less comfortable with globalisation. In military terms, the EU
> > does not even qualify as a power, because members make their own
> > decisions.
> >
> > Insofar as any nation is in charge of the world order, it is the US.
> > That is not to suggest that other countries are exempt from having to
> > concern themselves with the wellbeing of the world. Their attitudes
> > are not without consequence, but it is the US that matters most.
> >
> > If Bush is rejected in 2004, his policies can be written off as an
> > aberration and America resume its rightful place in the world. But if
> > he is re-elected, the electorate will have endorsed his policies and
> > we will have to live with the consequences. But it isn't enough to
> > defeat Bush at the polls. The US must examine its global role and
> > adopt a more constructive vision. We cannot merely pursue narrow,
> > national self-interest. Our dominant position imposes a unique
> > responsibility.
> >
> > George Soros
> > Monday January 26, 2004
> > The Guardian Newspaper, London UK
>
>

"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in
:

> hey - did you hear that evidently the REPUBLICANS hacked the DEM's
> computers and were reading their e-mail (oh, well... pot...kettle)
>
> (and NO, I'm not blowing smoke - report came from PC week
> magazine - and why they would know "first" is beyond me...)

Obviously, the Republicans need to get their ideas somewhere and they
sure as hell have not had a good one since Eisenhower...maybe even
before that.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

In article >,
"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote:

> hey - did you hear that evidently the REPUBLICANS hacked the DEM's computers
> and were reading their e-mail (oh, well... pot...kettle)

It's worse than that...

The system was new and installed pre-Bush, and had the lovely
characteristic that everyone could read everyone else's email; it was
all public.

Hasn't anyone heard of security?

(Polybus) wrote in message . com>...
> The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists

Soros and his ilk have taken over?? Say it ain't so!

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Polybus" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists
> >
>
> The citizens of that country will have the opportunity to put this
> proposition to the test soon enough.

You mean ellections I guess. However since both parties belong to the same
group of extremists what opportunity are you talking about?

Michael

"Polybus" > wrote in message
om...
>
> If Bush is rejected in 2004, his policies can be written off as an
> aberration and America resume its rightful place in the world.
>
Protector of Europe and paymaster to the world?
>
> George Soros
> Monday January 26, 2004
> The Guardian Newspaper, London UK

Why doesn't Soros go back the Greece and practice sodomy?
-Rich

In rec.food.cooking Richard > wrote:
> Why doesn't Soros go back the Greece and practice sodomy?

Why would Soros go back to Greece? He's been a United States resident
since 1956. Not to mention the fact that Soros was born in Hungary, not
Greece. If Soros wants to use his money to get the word out about how
bad George Bush is, that's none of your business.

wrote in message >...
> In rec.food.cooking Richard > wrote:
> > Why doesn't Soros go back the Greece and practice sodomy?
>
> Why would Soros go back to Greece? He's been a United States resident
> since 1956. Not to mention the fact that Soros was born in Hungary, not
> Greece. If Soros wants to use his money to get the word out about how
> bad George Bush is, that's none of your business.

Aren't the @#%@#@# Liberals always crying about how people with
money can get things done politically that people without can't
and how unfair it all is?
-Rich

Richard muttered....


>
> Aren't the @#%@#@# Liberals always crying about how people with
> money can get things done politically that people without can't
> and how unfair it all is?
> -Rich

Somehow, Soros's $45,000,000 and Al Franken's decking a demonstrator make
loverly bookends to the leftish gas bag.

Double standards, double gaits, two faced and and as dual purposed as one
of Bill Clinton's seegars.

TMO

Richard wrote:
> wrote in message >...
>
>>In rec.food.cooking Richard > wrote:
>>
>>>Why doesn't Soros go back the Greece and practice sodomy?
>>
>>Why would Soros go back to Greece? He's been a United States resident
>>since 1956. Not to mention the fact that Soros was born in Hungary, not
>>Greece. If Soros wants to use his money to get the word out about how
>>bad George Bush is, that's none of your business.
>
>
> Aren't the @#%@#@# Liberals always crying about how people with
> money can get things done politically that people without can't
> and how unfair it all is?


The truth, you mean? The *******s!

In rec.food.cooking Richard > wrote:
> wrote in message >...
>> In rec.food.cooking Richard > wrote:
>> > Why doesn't Soros go back the Greece and practice sodomy?
>>
>> Why would Soros go back to Greece? He's been a United States resident
>> since 1956. Not to mention the fact that Soros was born in Hungary, not
>> Greece. If Soros wants to use his money to get the word out about how
>> bad George Bush is, that's none of your business.

> Aren't the @#%@#@# Liberals always crying about how people with
> money can get things done politically that people without can't
> and how unfair it all is?

The conservatives seem to cry a lot about that too when someone
who's wealthy works against them. I heard lots of conservatives
crying that Jon Corzine bought his Senate seat. Corzine, for those
of you who don't know, is a first term Democratic Senator from
New Jersey who funded his own campaign and is probably among the
most wealthy people in the Senate, if not THE most wealthy. He
made is money working on Wall Street and as head of Goldman Saches.
In the New Jersey paper I read, hardly a day went by where some
bleedy heart conservative wasn't crying about how Corzine was
trying to buy a Senate seat. Even Corzine's opponent in the
election complained about that. Boo hoo!

In rec.food.cooking Olivers > wrote:
> Richard muttered....

>
>>
>> Aren't the @#%@#@# Liberals always crying about how people with
>> money can get things done politically that people without can't
>> and how unfair it all is?
>> -Rich

> Somehow, Soros's $45,000,000 and Al Franken's decking a demonstrator make
> loverly bookends to the leftish gas bag.

> Double standards, double gaits, two faced and and as dual purposed as one
> of Bill Clinton's seegars.

No double standard at all. The guy who Al Franken decked was loud and
boistrous and would not let Howard Dean even finish his speech.

Stan from Temple muttered....


>
> No double standard at all. The guy who Al Franken decked was loud and
> boistrous and would not let Howard Dean even finish his speech.
>

Watch, folks, as Stan from Temple flashes his asss without dropping his
trousers. In a typical childish spurt of naivete', he proclaims for the
world: "Why, we Liberal demonstrators are never loud or boist(e)rous!"

Assault is assault, Stan, and in an equitable corner of the world, fat,
bespectacled Al ought to get arrested for it just as quickly as the cops
would haul off a band of your brand and affiliation.

Let's have some more loud and boisterous demonstators when that band of
whining misfits goes on parade, especially Tubby Dean, "El Agitado".

TMO

In rec.food.cooking Roger Blake > wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2004 21:20:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>No double standard at all. The guy who Al Franken decked was loud and
>>boistrous and would not let Howard Dean even finish his speech.

> So you are saying that liberals *do* believe violence is a solution
> when it is their ox being gored. Thank you for admitting this.

Violence in this situation was delt out to the heckler after HE became
violent; it was a matter of self-defense. Are you saying now that you
are against self-defense?

> wrote in message ...
> In rec.food.cooking Roger Blake > wrote:
> > On 2 Feb 2004 21:20:50 GMT, > wrote:
> >>No double standard at all. The guy who Al Franken decked was loud and
> >>boistrous and would not let Howard Dean even finish his speech.
>
> > So you are saying that liberals *do* believe violence is a solution
> > when it is their ox being gored. Thank you for admitting this.
>
> Violence in this situation was delt out to the heckler after HE became
> violent; it was a matter of self-defense. Are you saying now that you
> are against self-defense?
>
Wrong.

In article >,
writes:
> In rec.food.cooking Roger Blake > wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2004 21:20:50 GMT, > wrote:
>>>No double standard at all. The guy who Al Franken decked was loud and
>>>boistrous and would not let Howard Dean even finish his speech.
>
>> So you are saying that liberals *do* believe violence is a solution
>> when it is their ox being gored. Thank you for admitting this.
>
> Violence in this situation was delt out to the heckler after HE became
> violent; it was a matter of self-defense. Are you saying now that you
> are against self-defense?

Were you there, Stan? I was.
It wasn't at all well-handled by either the Dean Campaign's Security,
or by Franken. It would have been very easy for it to go from a Marx
Brothers (Night at the Opera, specifically) farce to a real tragedy.
As in people getting killed. Not good planning on the campaign's
part, and plenty of poor judgement calls to go around.

That said, Franken did do something that was a positive step,
afterwoard - a special show for the benefit of the Palace Theatre
Trust, which owns and operates the Palace Theatre in Manchester.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster