|Iraqi WMD farce... the most dishonest President since Nixon||PdxMark|
May 31, 2003 10:59 AM
|I've been willing to give the Bushies the benefit of the doubt while they try to come up with some evidence of the WMDs that supposedly justified the war - realizing it could take time to search throughout Iraq. But it's beginning to seem that honest-to-God certainty about the existence of WMDs is fading into some combination of fore-knowledge that there were none (ie., they all LIED), baseless conjecture about where they went, and idiotic confusion about just what a WMD is.
WMDs were a LIE to market the war: Paul Wolfowitz, said in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that weapons of mass destruction became a war banner because it was the only reason everyone in the administration could agree upon when citing why they were going after Saddam. "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason."
Baseless concecture about what happended - where did the WMDs go?: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld speculated this week that the weapons were destroyed on the eve of fighting. Condoleezza Rice said said it was possible some had been removed from Iraq before the fighting concluded last month. "The United States would be forced to act if it discovered that Damascus allowed Iraq to hide weapons of mass destruction in Syria during the war." Or maybe space aliens flew in and took them away. The evidence in support of each of these pssibilities is the same.
Duh, what IS a WMD anyway?: President Bush said this weekend that weapons had already been found. As evidence, though, he pointed to two suspected biological laboratories which both the Pentagon and U.S. weapons hunters have said do not constitute arms.
Just to be clear. This administration has lied from the start about the purpose and the evidence in support of the war. Is the region more stable now? Hmm... who can tell yet. Is the world a better place without Saddam? Yes. Is George W. Bush 100 times a bigger liar than Bill Clinton ever was? Yes.
You may like George W. Bush's policies, but to consider him honest, particularly in matters of national policy, is either delusional or requires purposeful ignorance of of his lying disposition.
|Respectfully beg to differ...||Matno|
May 31, 2003 3:11 PM
|Not that I think the present administration is honest, but "a bigger liar than Bill Clinton ever was?" Dude. That's laughable. Nobody is THAT bad. You're just saying that because you happen to disagree with W more than you did with Clinton. Just because Slick Willie may have been dishonest in favor of things you support doesn't make him any less dishonest. Let's not forget what he gave to the Chinese. |
To paraphrase... You may have liked Bill Clinton's policies, but to consider him honest, particularly in matters of foreign policy or his own personal life, is either delusional or requires purposeful ignorance of of his lying disposition.
|Anyone watched 60 minutes Clinton/Dole?||CARBON110|
May 31, 2003 3:55 PM
|I look for it every Sunday. And, Every Sunday Bill makes Bob look like a boob. Bob,who I like, makes personal attacks on Bill and gets heated, Bill keeps his cool all but once so far and responds with an undeniable truth about Republicans. To bad the Aliens that took the WMD didnt take GWB as well and showed him to the universe. Then perhaps the universe would look upon us as unpredictable maniacs with WMD and leave us alone. Although I would only want them to take GWB if it was those sneaky proctologist Aliens from space. The other Alien races can visit anytime :D|
|Sneaky proctologist Aliens from space... Great movie;-) nm||rwbadley|
May 31, 2003 9:31 PM
May 31, 2003 6:20 PM
|Bill, the most glib and facile liar that I have ever seen. It must have come from a lifetime of practice. I guess neither I nor my daughters will ever forget his finger wagging, stare down, and denial of having "sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky..." Really, a beautiful piece of liarship that seems to just flow trippingly across his tongue. Very impressive.
And no, I don't watch CNN, not since they had Baghdad Peter Arnett reporting in the first Gulf War or was it their faked story of the U.S. using Sarin gas in S.E. Asia? Really don't remember when I stopped believing in CNN's credibility.
Jun 1, 2003 11:31 PM
|not telling the truth about a blowjob which results in a with hunt and about WMD's which results in a war - I know which is worse in my book...|
|Wow. Poor memory...||Matno|
Jun 2, 2003 7:16 AM
|How about the whole Bosnia thing that Clinton got us into purely as a diversion from other "issues"? I don't know the numbers, but I'm guessing the casualties there (directly resulting from our involvement) were a lot higher than in Iraq. At least Bush didn't act under the United Nations. For that alone, Clinton ought to be hung for treason...|
|Wow. Poor post...||eyebob|
Jun 2, 2003 8:08 AM
|Since you didn't bother to actually research your points but
instead enlightened us with your vitriol, here are a few websites that might be of interest. First off, you're right to assert that the Bosnia War did kill more people. (I'm assuming that you're referring to civilians here). IF you see this link,
estimates presume somewhere around 25K to 60K dead (these may have included some military too) which because it was a three year War works out to be something like 56/day dead. If you go here,
it looks as though during W's one month war, about 234/day died. So, more people per day died by a factor of 4) in W's War, but, yes, fewer total died.
What did you mean by "At least Bush didn't act under the United Nations. For that alone, Clinton ought to be hung for treason" anyway. I'm confused.
|Thanks for proving my point.||Matno|
Jun 2, 2003 8:45 AM
|I'm not concerned with the "per day" cost of lives - it's the totals that matter. Perhaps it was a poor comparison since it's hard to know how many people would have died without US intervention in both situations. Certainly a lot in both Bosnia and Iraq. However, in Iraq, our actions (thus far) put an end to the killing. In Bosnia, the UN actually increased the fighting (and confused everyone there to no end) by supporting both sides at different times and in different ways, thus dragging out a conflict that we had absolutely no business getting involved in.
As for Clinton, sending Americans to fight under the command of foreign officers (i.e. the UN) is treasonous and wrong. Period. I've spent a lot of time at the UN, and I have yet to figure out a single redeeming value for its existence. Not ONE! It's bad enough that we are in it in the first place, but to remain in it in spite of the continual America-bashing that goes on is ridiculous. At least since the Bush administration took over, the Americans who represent us there have some semblance of moral fiber. Under Clinton, they were all hand-picked by Hillary (I heard that straight from the state dept. member in charge at the UN). Speaking of representation, when was the last time we elected anyone at the UN? They are no longer an "international forum" but rather have become a law-making body whose laws are enforced even in our own courts (and increasing in both scope and power). Nobody realizes what goes on there because a) news media are not allowed in any of the meetings, and b) nobody even knows who is there. Ask any American who our UN representatives are. Do you know any of them?
|how foolish I am||MJ|
Jun 2, 2003 8:46 AM
|to think genocide is an issue and blowjobs aren't...
hang Clinton for treason for going in under the UN? huh?With the exception of Iraq Bush is on the UN - does he also get hung in your little fantasy make believe world?
|You said it...||Matno|
Jun 2, 2003 10:38 AM
|and you're dead right. "Foolish" is probably a good description...
As for the treason issue, working together with the UN, while foolish, is not necessarily criminal. However, sending American troops to be commanded by foreign UN officers while wearing UN uniforms is absolutely contrary to our Constitution and thus treasonous by definition. If Bush were to do the same thing, I wouldn't hesitate to call him a traitor. I've already said he has been dangerously close to the line (if not already over it) on more than one occasion.
As for Clinton's actions in Oval Office corridors, it became a serious issue when it went public. I think it did more to lower the level of morality in this country than a year of Hollywood filth ever could. What he did is now seen by many as acceptable behavior ("hey, if the president did it...."), but it is not. But then, you'd have to have moral values yourself to be able to see that...
|do you think it's||MJ|
Jun 2, 2003 11:31 PM
|more than a little ironic for someone who apparently has no problems with genocide to lecture anyone about fixed moral values, their application and what is and is not acceptable behaviour
by any sane person's measurement you need to review your moral compass if a blowjob from an underling is equitable with genocide
I bet you get the most upset in films when the bad guys kill the animals (Hollywood filth! ha - you don't know filth!)
maybe you should let the Secret Service in on your treason/hanging suggestions - and make sure they know GW is, in your opinion, on the line...
I think your understanding of constitutional law is lacking although I'm sure the very understanding AG would also be thankful for your views
perhaps you should make all your suggestions and wait for their visit to discuss the moral degeneration of the US - I understand agent's are real talkative on the way to the pokey
|Read what I said...||Matno|
Jun 3, 2003 3:34 AM
|I never I have no problem with genocide. In fact, I condemned the UN for fostering it and prolonging the fighting. How that translates to "have no problem with it" in your mind is as much of a stretch as most of your arguments.
As for killing animals, I only have a problem with it if there's no reason for it. I happen to be a life-long hunter.
I'm glad to hear that you're an expert on our Constitution. Please enlighten me as to what I should do to learn more about it. Personally, I think my strict constructionalist view of the U.S. Constitution shows that I DO understand it quite well. Specifically, I was referring to the fact that ONLY Congress has power to declare war, yet our executive branch has gradually eroded that principle by twisting the rules to the point that the president can now literally wage war without being officially sanctioned by Congress. A violation of a direct Constitutional principle like that by someone who has placed his hand on a Bible and sworn to uphold the Constitution is, by definition, treasonous. As for carrying out punishment for someone who commits treason, I'll leave that up to the proper legal channels.
|Read what I said...||MJ|
Jun 3, 2003 4:38 AM
|probably a good call on leaving that one up to the proper channels
why do you assume I don't know about the US constitution?
what about Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Central America, Grenada, Panama and the Phillipines? how do those fit your criteria of need for Congressional approval? should Trmuan/Eisenhower/Reagan/Bush/Nixon be hung for treason too?
|Read what I said...||Live Steam|
Jun 3, 2003 4:47 AM
|I am assuming in you rant about treason and Congressional approval, you are referring to the war in Iraq? Congress gave it's approval. So did the UN in res. 1441 which they selectively chose not to enforce.
As for your stupid post about genocide, it's just that - stupid and really deserves no more of a response than to say it is stupid, unintelligent, ill conceived and irresponsible.
Jun 3, 2003 5:12 AM
|Matno is the one saying that there was not approval for UN actions - I made no such claim - again reading - you gotta work on it
the genocide point stands - how someone can be genuinely offended by a blowjob but think preventing genocide is over the line is truly a mystery
|So did you.||Matno|
Jun 3, 2003 7:26 AM
|I wasn't comparing Clinton's scandal to genocide. You did that. I condemned them separately. I pointed out that his lack of morality had a significant impact on our country, which it did. As for "preventing genocide," who did that? Under Clinton, we, along with the United Nations, made the situation WORSE. In no way did we "prevent" genocide. We supported both genocidal factions at different times and for no good reason, which led to a protraction of the fighting and MANY more deaths than could have been. THAT is what I condemned. What I referred to as being "over the line" was the fact that ANY U.S. military action taken under the leadership of the United Nations is a violation of our Constitution in that it strays from the proper decision-making channels set up therein. Remember that our Constitution is a list of enumerated powers, and EVERY other power not specifically listed therein is not legally the domain of the federal government.
As for Truman, et al, yes, I do think they were out of line (even Reagan to some extent). Our foreign policy has been dismal for much of this century. Of course, the Cold War was a different era and not necessarily worse than what we see now - in some ways. At least then, most people recognized communism as bad. I think even many Americans have already forgotten just how bad it really is. Even worse, many seem to believe the notion that "communism is dead." Talk about naive.
|You and those that take your position .....||Live Steam|
Jun 1, 2003 7:13 AM
|make me laugh. "He lied. Boo hoo hoo!" Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. However, no one here can state with absolute certainty there were not WMD prior to the start of the war. Also there may be other issues that cannot be made public because of national security. I am sure there are much more deep issues than your simplistic outlook that there are no WMD. The ME is a mess and was on the verge of getting much worse. The war put a huge kink in some master plan to set the global community into a greater turmoil than 9/11 did. The war was something the terrorists could not account for. Read my post below. I do not care if they find WMD or not in Iraq. I care about the safety of my family, my friends and neighbors and my country. You all should feel the same, no matter where you hail from. The terrorists emanating from the ME do not care about global peace. They only care about furthering their delusional and extreme beliefs of what the World order should be. Think about who the real criminals are. You want to call Bush a liar to make yourself feel better about you politics, go right ahead. You only further strengthen the position of the conservative right. For proof of what the majority want from our leaders just look at the polls and who is controlling Washington.|
|Is that Saddam's Master Plan? Is that in the secret files...||PdxMark|
Jun 1, 2003 2:54 PM
|with the WMD evidence? Wow.... Maybe they keep the Master Plan in the Black Helicopters that launch from the alien Mother Ship. You do make up some fun stuff...
I agree that no-one is able to state with certainty that there are no Iraqi WMDs. My point is that our Lying President and his Lying Puppets stated without doubt that there WERE WMDs. And now they make-up stories about where those WMDs might be.
There were other justifications for the Iraq war that could not be made public -- Paul Wolfowitz's scheme to Americanize the ME. It might work. It's going well in Afgahnistan so far. Oh wait, I guess it's not.
But, it's nice to see that we at least agree on one point. President Bush did not tell the truth about the rationale for the war... You call it national security... I call it a lie.
|Bush and his advisors...||Jon Billheimer|
Jun 1, 2003 4:20 PM
|...may have lied or they may have been given really, really bad intelligence...or the intelligence may have been purposefully politicized to go along with what the leadership wanted to hear in the first place. I think the sad and potentially dangerous part of it is that most Americans, in their fear and anger over 9/11, are willing to give their government almost any pretext to attack an Arab enemy and eagerly believe the government's equally facile assurance that 1)this particular enemy was an imminent threat to America and that 2)this "glorious", lopsided victory will make the American people safer. Failing to produce the so-called incontrovertible evidence the Strangelove talking heads trot out the myth of America's infallible virtuousness in rooting out evil wherever it may exist.
Unfortunately, the Bush brain trust has committed America to a new form of hegemonic imperialism that makes Victorian Britain and the ancient Romans look like amateurs. Equally unfortunately, the enemy that we all confront cannot be neatly circumscribed by national boundaries, nor can America's self-chosen wars be declared finished, won, or lost as a result of territorial conquest and the overthrow of specific regimes. It remains to be seen how Dubya's, Wolfowitz's, and Perle's version of Pax Americana is going to work out. But don't hold your breath all you right wing quick fix types. Things aren't as simple or as fixable as you've been led to believe.
|No one said it would be quick, but ....||Live Steam|
Jun 1, 2003 5:44 PM
|the path the previous administration put us on was certainly not the answer. Path? They basically put their heads in the sand. You are correct on one point - the lines are certainly blurred between who is an who is not the enemy.
It has been said by many experts on Middle Eastern affairs that they only respect power and respond to fear. They view inaction as weakness. The past administration emboldened them and made them feel very invulnerable and strong by the lack of response we gave to their aggressions against US concerns. Khadafy certainly responded to a few well placed Tomahawk missiles, and he faded into the woodwork. That too was courtesy of a Republican president. For better or worse, we must put a powerful and unyielding front out their instead of weak-handed ineffectual policy of abeyance.
|Jon Billheimer........Well said and Excellent delivery.....||CARBON110|
Jun 1, 2003 6:56 PM
|Live Steam when you post I feel like I'm on FOX news web site. Jon, well done, reading between the lines can be hard and you put it perfectly. By the way, when did the CIA become the Central Intuitive Agency? I recomeend you read the above statement since it states its own truth|
|Jon Billheimer........Well said and Excellent delivery.....||Live Steam|
Jun 2, 2003 5:37 AM
|"Live Steam when you post I feel like I'm on FOX news web site."
I forgot to thank you for the kind words of praise :O) Hey, maybe my true calling has been revealed!
Jun 1, 2003 7:18 PM
|"Unfortunately, the Bush brain trust has committed America to a new form of hegemonic imperialism that makes Victorian Britain and the ancient Romans look like amateurs"
That's a really stupid statement, but I do so look forward to seeing our new "empire" that makes the ancient Romans looks like amateurs. Wow, that will be impressive. Slaves, delicacies, and wealth flowing into America as we drain all the wealth from every foreign country as we destroy them. Makes my heart just go pitty-pat thinking about it.
In reality, time will show that beautifully formed hyperbole of yours to be truly stupid. Ain't no empire coming from this country, or emperor, or even Pax Americana. But please, go ahead and hold your breath all you left wing hystrionic types. Hold your breath the rest of your life however long that may be, but when you pass to whatever is next, rest assured that there will be no American empire as you so glibly expostulated.
|Dear Xenophobe...||Jon Billheimer|
Jun 1, 2003 7:53 PM
|...since you think me guilty of hyperbole, why don't you go to the "horse's mouth" and read the pronouncements of Perle, Wolfowitz & Co.? Call it hegemony, imperialism, world domination or "American leadership", these guys have publicly laid it out. The genius of the American form is that the money flows in without the messy and cumbersome necessity of administering the empire British-style. However, committing more and more American forces in more theatres around the world may eventually tip the balance in that fatal direction. The reason that America dwarfs all other imperial powers historically is that its influence is far wider and its wealth far greater and its economic and political dominance more entrenched. However, the military adventures become more and more expensive and time may well show that they also become less and less effective in dealing with a diffuse and ill-defined enemy. At least in GWI the U.S. got the triple advantage of 1)trimming Saddam's wings, 2)seeing an arrogant and disagreeable Kuwaiti regime humbled and somewhat financially depleted as a result of their shared costs of the war, and 3)American companies being enriched as a result of reconstruction efforts following the war. This time around the cost-benefit ratio is not going to look nearly as attractive.
If the Wolfowitz gang get their way this is only step one in an expansive and expensive agenda. Enjoy your dividend tax holiday coming up, because there may not be too many more on the horizon.
BTW, I've never once sung the praises of the former Clinton administration! So my critical comments on the current foreign policy are not a "compare and contrast" essay. I simply believe, as does most of the rest of the Western world, that American foreign policy has gone off the rails.
|Dear foreign 'friend' (?)||SteveS|
Jun 1, 2003 8:56 PM
|Sticks, stones and terrorists will break my bones, but words will never hurt me, or something like that went the old rhyme. I do so hope that the immigrants from Trindad and Barbados with whom I had lunch today, don't get wind of my intrinsic fear of foreigners, we had such a pleasant luncheon.
I do have to say that your spiel above was so beautifully executed. Weak but beautifully pitched. Really, there is no need for me to go to the horse's mouth, when I/we have many foreign observors, much like you, to give us your wisdom. In your case,a prognostication that America is building an "empire that will make ancient Rome look amateurish." That was your stated, and no doubt superbly thought out, prognostication. Bueno (a foreign term), so be it, if that so happens. Personally, I think it is a typically stupid statement. (as opposed to calling a person an epithet) We can get similar, invariably left (as opposed to right, or correct)views from Chirac, members of the Canadian government, Islamic terror rationalizers, etc., but I am not obligated to like either their ideas or themselves. Oh, ugly Xenophobic me!
9/11 changed a lot of things. For me, many foreigners are worthless to the defense of my family or country. Others, like British, Australian, and Polish military among a few, have earned my respect. Sad to say, but the war on terror will last a long time, as Cheney noted today. Some day it is quite likely the terror crowd will have a great field day in Europe and kill many people. Now I would decry that in advance if it ever happens, but it might serve to waken a lot of tremulous types to a very ugly world reality, whose roots ain't the leftists ever-favorite...'poverty.' That is, unless the Islamic terrorist world changes and decides to give peace a chance.
Thank you on the tax holiday, but I have always heard that death and taxes were inevitable, so I expect ever more and higher taxes in the future. Death too.
BTW, congratulations on having never sung the praises of the Clinton administration. (his body language gave him away as a fake)
I simply believe that most of the Western world's foreign policy has gone off the rails, kind of like Zurich and it's anarchists in the streets today. Worthless to me and mine.
Jun 1, 2003 9:33 PM
|LAUSANNE/GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) - Anarchists and anti-capitalists rampaged through the plush streets of Geneva and Lausanne Sunday, smashing shops and looting businesses as world leaders met beyond their reach in France.
Police detained several hundred youths, most of them in Lausanne, and the skirmishes continued into the evening in Geneva while world leaders settled down unperturbed to dinner some 32 miles away.
In Geneva, home to the World Trade Organization and some of the world's richest private banks, police fired anti-riot pellets and tear gas against gangs hurling stones and bottles.
Host France chose the Lake Geneva spa town of Evian for the June 1-3 annual meeting of the Group of Eight major industrial powers knowing narrow access roads made it easy to close it off to the often violent protesters who regard the G8 as a rich state club.
But that left the Swiss lakeside city of Lausanne, where some of the invited Third World leaders were staying, and Geneva to bear the brunt of the protesters' fury.
"Within a few minutes...violent agitators carried out true urban guerrilla warfare and ravaged the center of Geneva, only to disappear and later melt into the peaceful demonstration," Geneva's head of Justice, Police and Security Micheline Spoerri told Swiss Television.
Clothing shops and petrol stations were smashed and ransacked by protesters, many wearing the trademark black T-shirt of the anarchists, to the chants of "No blood for oil," in a reference to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
The "G8" includes industrialized Western nations and Russia, but leaders of some less developed, including China, India and Brazil, have also been invited.
PLUNDERING THE POOR
Anti-G8 protesters accuse rich states of plundering the economies of the developing world and say Third World leaders will come away with nothing but promises.
The violence overshadowed largely peaceful marches linking Geneva and the French frontier town of Annemasse, the nearest point to Evian demonstrators could reach, in which tens of thousands of people chanted slogans against the war in Iraq and world poverty.
|He's on to your rhetorical dirty tricks, Jon. (nm)||czardonic|
Jun 2, 2003 10:21 AM
|tell us about history now too||MJ|
Jun 1, 2003 11:41 PM
|it appears your grasp of current affairs is sorely lacking as well|
Jun 2, 2003 9:04 AM
|No, MJ, didn't you see that I posted about your Euro anarchists having a belated celebration in Switzerland? They are intellectuals. Probably they like Communists and defend the 'rights' of dissident-terrorists.
(MJ recently discovered that the German army lost the battle of Stalingrad to the Communists (he's a fan) in World War II. He was a bit late. The rest of the world knew that for almost 60 years that Gen. Paulus lost the battle. Nothing had changed from that time. MJ is an intellectual too. You can tell by the depth of his posts)
|"new form of hegemonic imperialism"?||Matno|
Jun 2, 2003 7:40 AM
|Not really new. Just a new twist on an old tactic. FDR's was worse, in my opinion. Sure, he went through the proper channels to get the war started, but he also intentionally allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed so that he could get away with it. (It was the only way out of his "He'll keep us out of war" campaign promises). Same as Bush, he did it for the sole purpose of stimulating the economy (a weird side effect of war).
Truman, on the other hand, set the precedent for going to war without the permission of congress when he declared a U.S. "intervention" in Korea. Kennedy continued this tactic with the Vietnam "conflict" and Clinton used it repeatedly in Bosnia, Somalia, etc. At least Bush tried to have a reason for war and went through the proper channels (for the most part). I don't think for a minute that his main motivation wasn't to draw attention from the economy (which really has little to do with him anyway, but the president somehow always gets the blame...) Of course, I could go on and on about all the things he's done wrong too. Billions of federal dollars towards reconstruction, counseling, college funds, etc in the aftermath of 9/11? Ridiculous. It's sickening that we, as a society, have come to expect federal aid whenever disaster strikes. Truly sickening.
Oh, and one last comment. "Right wing quick fix types" isn't really accurate in the sense that you're using it. The right wing leans towards simple solutions, which, while probably the best solutions, they are far from quick. I've pointed out many times on this forum that the difference between left and right wing thinking is that right wingers think long term, while left wingers think only of the short term. Thus, any "right wing quick fixes" (particularly economic) would require a long time for recovery from our last 50 years of overspending, but would truly be solutions for the future. That's exactly the opposite of the left's attitude of "let's slap a bandaid on it (i.e. throw money at a problem) and let the next generation worry about our debt." Miopic and dangerous.
|"new form of hegemonic imperialism"?||Jon Billheimer|
Jun 2, 2003 8:58 AM
|I've always wondered about the FDR allegation and Pearl Harbour. Seems there are pros and cons among historians--a grey area. Hmmm. If so that would be worse than outrageous.
I do believe that the Bush administration really believes in its foreign policy agenda and sincerely believes that it will protect and advance America's interests. I simply think that the thinking is simplistic and arrogant at its roots. I also think 9/11 was seized on and exploited by the administration. I really don't think that GWII was launched as a diversion from domestic issues. But maybe I'm wrong. I think it was done to establish a powerful American presence in the middleast from which to lever the behaviour of Arab governments to conform to U.S. aims and interests.
|You may be right about Bush...||Matno|
Jun 2, 2003 10:29 AM
|I'm not sure about the entire administration, but I do get the feeling that GW himself is usually convinced that what he's doing is right. I won't argue for a minute that he's a political genius himself. I would even go so far as to say he's not nearly as intelligent as Bill Clinton. But intelligence doesn't mean much without wisdom, which Bill definitely had little of. As for the reasoning behind the war in Iraq, I'm sure that there is not one all-encompassing reason, but I also think that Bush is a politician (as opposed to a statesman) whose primary interest right now is in getting reelected. Had we not had this little diversion from the economy, I guarantee that his popularity would not be nearly as high as it now is.
As for FDR and Pearl Harbor, there may be pros and cons among historians, but the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of "worse than outrageous." There's really not a question of whether he knew about it any more (if there ever was). Now the only people who argue against that are the ones who think he was a good person and can't understand how a good person could do such a thing, a perfectly sound argument. What they fail to see is that he was NOT a good person. Nearly everything he did was bad for the country. Unfortunately, being president and being a great person don't go hand in hand...
|"What a tangled web we weave..."...||Jon Billheimer|
Jun 2, 2003 11:34 AM
|...could never be more true than when it applies to the conduct of political affairs. Sometimes I think that unless one is actually "there" no one ever really knows the "truth" about historical events. The psychologists are probably right when they point out that virtually all history, i.e. recorded memory, is revisionist! And I think the last people ever to tell the truth about what they do or don't do are politicians.|
|Ain't that the truth! (nm)||Matno|
Jun 2, 2003 12:42 PM
|Bush is a politician?||Live Steam|
Jun 2, 2003 1:39 PM
|I have to disagree here. He has gone against the tide on quite a few huge issues - the war and taxes to be explicit. Huge political gambles. The previous administration was full of "politicians". They had one eye on their agenda and one eye on the polls. The Democratic party is still stuck in that mode. This is their undoing.
I believe Bush sees his election to the presidency as a higher calling - which is how it should be viewed - as opposed to our previous talking head. I have stated this before. I agree with Jon that Bush does believe in what he is doing. You may not agree, and you may think it is "simplistic", but it has to be admired. Someone actually has a plan and believes in it - and I might add, he believes in it for the right reasons. I do not think that he sees the US as an Imperialist state. I really believe he views the US as protectors and protagonist of liberty and freedom.
Jun 2, 2003 2:04 PM
|He does whatever he thinks will get him reelected. "Huge political gambles" is part of that game. If Bush really viewed his election as a "higher calling" he wouldn't be playing up the "religious right" act on the one hand, while quietly appointing avowed homosexuals to top administrative posts on the other. Regardless of which side you're on, that's a contradiction of values, and not his only one. I don't think Bush is any more religious than Bill and Hillary were (which is to say, in name only). He plays it up because the country was ready for the "moral pendulum" to swing back the other way after Bill. (Kind of like Charlene Wells winning the Miss America pageant right after Vanessa Williams was stripped of her title, even if that wasn't dependent on popular vote. The public was ready for someone "squeaky clean").
I'm not saying Bush doesn't "view the US as protectors and protagonist of liberty and freedom," I'm just saying that if it were not politically expedient for him, I don't think he would be quite as gung ho about it.
I will say though, that my first impression of Bush (during the first round of republican presidential debates) was very negative from a religious stand point. When asked who had had the most influence on his life, he said "Jesus Christ" and sounded about as sincere as Jesse Jackson forgiving the Klan. I honestly don't think he would have said that if other candidates hadn't already said it. There was NO conviction behind it whatsoever. I don't really think he has flat out lied about motivation for the war in Iraq, but when he said that, well, you won't convince me that he was telling the truth.
I kind of expected a more conservative reply from you Steam. I'm a little bit disappointed by this blind "republicanism."
And now that I've stirred up a hornet's nest here, how about that Ariel Sharon?...
|What political risks?||czardonic|
Jun 2, 2003 2:29 PM
|So far Bush has merely banked on the selfishness, fear and ignorance of the American vote -- a pretty safe bet IMO. Let's face it. There's no shortage of "Conservatives" ready to carry his water towards high-deficits, increased government spending, expansion of federal powers and open ended foreign adventures.
IMO, It doesn't matter what you beleive in or the reasons for it if if your policies are unwise and injurious to the country. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
|Very accurate assessment.||Matno|
Jun 2, 2003 3:41 PM
|Especially the part about putting "conservatives" in quotes. It's amazing how many people assume that just because he's a Republican president that his policies are sound. "High-deficits, increased government spending, expansion of federal powers and open ended foreign adventures" pretty much sums up what Bush has done so far. Doesn't sound very "conservative" to me...|
Jun 1, 2003 11:38 PM
|incontrovetible proof is just that - let's see it
"much more deep issues" - really
what plan of greater turmoil? whose plan? Bush/Blair?
SH was not a terrorist or a threat - but since the war there have been 'Al-Qaida' bombings in Morocco and in Saudi Arabia directed against western interests - is that the kind of protection you're after?
was war in Iraq against SH who was not a threat againt the west really the best way to protect your family? it seems the opposite is true
SH is not linked to terrorism - it's onlyl the feeble minded folk who get things so mixed up - it appears you'll swallow anything they dish out without a pause for any critical assessment - you remind me of one of the recruits in Starship Troopers...
it's precisely because the stakes are so high that leaders can not lie
|so i guess you feel safer...||rufus|
Jun 2, 2003 8:46 AM
|knowing that the INS remains basically the same as before 9/11, and we have done almost nothing to make our borders safer, or to place stricter scrutiny on who is and isn't allowed into our country? i guess you feel safer knowing that we only have manpower and means to physically inspect one out of every ten shipping containers that enter our borders? how easy might it be to sneak a dirty bomb into this country?
you speak of homeland security. well, homeland security begins at home, and unfortunately, except for creating the largest beaurocratic boondoggle in history, little has been done to make our country safer at home.
|You hit the nail on the head...||Matno|
Jun 2, 2003 7:04 PM
|I just hope it's not the nail in the coffin! Like you said, we've spent billions of dollars on not making the homeland more secure. Why? Well, partly because there's not a whole lot you can do about terrorists who are willing to commit suicide. But mostly because politicians feel compelled to do SOMETHING, even if it's just to look like they're doing something, and many people actually do feel more secure when little old ladies get frisked before boarding an airplane. For the rest of us who still have our brains, it's more than just a little annoying.|
Jun 2, 2003 7:37 PM
|...I don't know what kind of pills you've been taking today, but you've sure been making a lot of sense!
The use of conservative/liberal labels is interesting. Over time their meanings seem to morph and change according to the expediencies of circumstances and vogue. Watching Bush in action (I never paid attention to him prior to 9/11, unfortunately) he has never appeared conservative to me in the sense that I've understood the word. Yet he appeals to the "conservative" voter. For me that translates to fearful, middle-class, simplistically religious American. Yet he does very unconservative things such as running up huge budgetary deficits, embarking on a foreign policy of brinksmanship and military adventurism, and buying off middle and upper-middle class voters with a very selective tax cut, which even the venerable Warren Buffet called stupid. It seems that we're wandering around in a political hall of mirrors in which nothing is as it appears to be.
|ONce, again, well said....||eyebob|
Jun 3, 2003 7:36 AM
|Conservatives and liberals have dummed down the meanings of those two labels completely. Clinton was a "Democrat" but really, really, really, a moderate "Republican" when it came to domestic economic policies for example. When I think of how W projects himself as a "conservative" I too link it to his pan-handling of the social right-wing types that makes the label stick.
|repeating what you want won't make it so... nm||DougSloan|
Jun 1, 2003 7:43 PM
|repeating what you want won't make it so... nm||MJ|
Jun 1, 2003 11:39 PM
|what? repeating you want to not be lied to by your leaders?|
|I say give it some time...||TJeanloz|
Jun 2, 2003 5:19 AM
|There are a few issues here. One is that I'm not convinced that there are no WMD in Iraq, or rather, that there were no WMD in Iraq before the war. Somewhere below, I estimated that the size of the "arsenal" would have been ~7 shipping containers. Give me 7 shipping containers and a month to hide them in California, and I bet it takes you a while to find them. Especially if you give me the authority to kill everybody who helps me or knows where I'm putting them. So I'm not convinced that Iraq was as clean as some people are now saying it might have been. It seems this is the other side reacting prematurely, the same way that war supporters rejoiced with every drum of pesticide found post-war.
On the issue of lying, I'm not entirely sure that I'd call it lying if you are repeating what the CIA tells you is fact. I think we can agree that nobody believes GWB, himself, analyzed the sattelite photos and other intelligence, to make his determination. If the people who did that analysis passed bad information up the ladder, it is GWB responsibility, but it isn't lying if you repeat information that you believe to be true. However, it is also possible, as the Left is now alleging, that GWB really did know that there were no WMD, and he lied outright. It's possible.
I'll be interested to see how this issue plays out as the election nears; because if the Democrats seize upon it too strongly, and then, a year from now, the WMD are found ingeniusly hidden, it could really do damage to their own smear campaign.