Post #118,084
9/18/03 7:08:19 AM
|
Bush seen on news saying Saddam not connected to 9/11
Interesting,
His admin wanted everyone to believe the opposite was true just prior to the invasion
His admin wanted everyone to believe that Iraq posed a serious & immediate threat by way of WMD & produced enough proof to justify a war
His admin wanted everyone to believe, prior to Iraq attack, that the after war plan was well under control, we only had to ask Rumsfeldt
STATUS AT THIS TIME
US embroilled in a downward spiral in Iraq, desperate to get UN back in but not making any headway (UN partners are not willing to dig Bush out of his own dung pile).
Blair is fighting for his political life
Bush is increasingly being challenged on the veracity of the 'facts' used for war and on the deepening economic crisis in the US that is not ending. As things get tougher many will question why so many billions are being spent on and in Iraq (a good proportion of this tax payer money will be paid back to pro Bush contractors).
Interestingly - Howard (Australian PM) at this time, is having no trouble toughing out the 'sexed up' pre Iraq war intelligence scandal
In summary, I am not sure I would bet on Bush getting back into office any more honestly than he got in 1st time (I'll qualify that remark - here is my $100 that says Bush will get re-elected using the same pre election tactics (enhanced) used to oust the Dems). It seems to me that unless his real payoff was the appropriation to rebuild Iraq, he & his admin will stoop to anything to get past 2004 election by whatever means they con conjure up.
Cheers
Doug Marker
|
Post #118,086
9/18/03 7:29:08 AM
|
Re: Bush seen on news saying Saddam not connected to 9/11
At one time a few months back, three-fourths of the people here believed Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. It's now down to three-fifths, but I guarantee you they believe this lie because the President propagated it.
Bush and Company are the vilest administration in our history. Only Andrew Johnson and Clinton come close. Fillmore was a buffoon, but a harmless one.
(You did see, that El Res is still propagating the lie about Saddam-Qaeda ties? ..)
-drl
|
Post #118,100
9/18/03 10:03:34 AM
|
You talking to me yet? If so, wtf do you mean...
Clinton was "vile". Look, I didn't like some of his policies because he is a bit too conservative/nearly Republican for me. But I wouldn't go so far as to call him "vile". Why do you?
bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
Post #118,104
9/18/03 10:11:58 AM
|
Re: You talking to me yet? If so, wtf do you mean...
Because he was a duty-shirking coward (like Bush), a bald-faced liar (like Bush) and a monstrous egotist with a propensity for whore-mongering (like Bush). Those two are the worst of the Southern lot, goober peas in a body-snatcher pod.
Yes, I'm talking to you. I've been ill for 2 weeks and I get grumpy sometimes.
-drl
|
Post #118,118
9/18/03 12:58:40 PM
|
I don't think that's entirely fair.
And I'm glad you're talking to me.
The way Clinton avoided duty is vastly less perverse than the way Dubya did. I don't know him personally, but I do know that many who did not serve in Viet Nam chose not to because of a conscientous objection. The majority? I doubt it. But there were some. IMO Clinton can claim the moral ground here because he never pretended to serve. He never used Daddy's influence to get himself in the Champaign Division of the National Guard. AND - MOST IMPORTANTLY - HE NEVER WENT AWOL.
Did he lie about getting a hummer? Yes, what married man wouldn't? If you were ever going to tell a lie, that'd be the time you did it. What else did he lie about? Not inhaling? I actually believe him on that one. I know it's possible, I've seen it done. I can see how a country kid from Arkansas would yield to peer pressure enough to take an offered joint, puff on it and not inhale. What's so unbelievable about that? But did he lie about anything of substance? I don't think so. Contrast these lies of his with lying about WMD which resulted in an unjust war and cost thousands of lives (including hundreds of American lives - and more are dying every day or two). Then tell me the difference of scale doesn't put these two in completely different categories.
Both are "monstrous egotist"s but name me a person who even runs for the highest office in the land who isn't? You can only hold Clinton vile for this reason if you hold that ALL our Presidents were vile. (A point I'm reluctant to dispute except to say that surely Jimmy Carter wasn't vile.)
I'll concede "a propensity for whore-mongering" would cause me to call him "vile". But that reason alone is insufficient.
Sorry to hear you were ill. Hope you're feeling better.
bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
Post #118,157
9/18/03 6:09:36 PM
|
I'd second your brief comparo, FWIW.
But believe there are MANY (too many to list) obv Differences in their characters, their 'beliefs' (which we only ever can get via osmosis and discrimination) - than your OK but brief listing.
as in.. All Generalizations Are False cha cha & cha
Ashton
|
Post #118,207
9/19/03 12:00:38 PM
|
I was brief on purpose this time.
And only considered the differences Ross listed ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
Post #119,146
9/26/03 9:45:51 PM
|
Re: I don't think that's entirely fair.
Having a large healthy Freudian ego (a vague term in any case) is not being a "monstrous egotist". An egotist is one who has himself as his primary agenda. Most American Presidents do not fit this bill - I can think of Jackson, Buchanan, A. Johnson, T. Roosevelt, Nixon, Clinton, and Bush the Idiot. In stark contrast - Washington, who dreaded the job, Lincoln, who genuinely wanted to help his suffering people, Grant, who was the most decent of men and who wanted to serve as best he could, F. Roosevelt, who was in a similar situation as Lincoln, Eisenhower, who reminds me of Grant, and Kennedy, who had real vision and optimism in an impossible time. Clinton and Bush are in my estimation the perfect representatives of a miserable generation, totally self-obsessed and lacking in any coherent vision that results in sane policy.
-drl
|
Post #118,241
9/19/03 3:20:51 PM
|
duty calls?
Who, apart from enlistees, had a "duty" to join in the misconceived Asian Games of 1959-1975? By 1969 it was obvious to anyone with eyes to see that the war was not going to be "won," and that the duration and nature of its prolongation would be determined by the perceived advantage to be had for the Nixon administration. Hell, avoiding Southeast Asia looks to be the single significantly intelligent act of Dubya's wastrel youth--assuming, of course (which may be a stretch), that the strategem employed was of his own devising.
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #118,254
9/19/03 5:05:13 PM
|
Not a stretch, impossible.
Doubtless Dubya's flying career started as a plea to Daddy to avoid "getting hurt."
bcnu,
Mikem
The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.
- Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
|
Post #119,150
9/26/03 9:58:31 PM
|
Re: duty calls?
I would not have gone to Vietnam in the later stages (1968 onward). But I would not have pulled strings, even if it had been possible, to get out of it. Clinton wrote that infamous letter in which he stated that he "wished to maintain his political viability within the system" - that is, he wanted to cover his fat hick ass while reserving the possibility of manipulating the "system" to further his personal agenda. He was despicable. At the time of his ascent, a strong and lasting relationship with Eastern Europe and Russia could have been established, as well as some kind of real policy for ensuring that Americans would be doing American jobs in the developing tech industry. He failed utterly and miserably at both. All he wanted was to be President, not create any lasting value. He is even worse than Bush in some ways, because he is theoretically smarter.
-drl
|
