• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Brent Scowcroft schools George Bush

arsbanned

Banned
Already, the president found himself in a rare public argument last week with one of his father's closest friends and advisers, Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser. The election "won't be a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict," Mr. Scowcroft declared Thursday, adding, "We may be seeing incipient civil war at this time."

Mr. Scowcroft said the situation in Iraq raised the fundamental question of "whether we get out now." He urged Mr. Bush to tell the Europeans on a trip to Europe next month: "I can't keep the American people doing this alone. And what do you think would happen if we pulled American troops out right now?"

In short, he was suggesting that Mr. Bush raise the specter that Iraq could collapse without a major foreign presence - exactly the rationale the administration has used for its current policy.

Mr. Bush, asked Friday whether he shared Mr. Scowcroft's concerns about "an incipient civil war," shot back, "Quite the opposite."

"I think elections will be such an incredibly hopeful experience for the Iraqi people," he said.

But the president's optimism is in sharp contrast, some administration insiders say, to some conversations in the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon and Congress. For the first time, there are questions about whether it is politically possible to wait until the Iraqi forces are adequately trained before pressure to start bringing back American troops becomes overwhelming.

Brent Scowcroft is not some LIBBBBBERAL SWWIIIINE, but a Republican whio served as National Secuirty Advisor under GHWB. When are they finally going to be forced to admit it was a mistake and start pulling our people out of there? My gut tells me that time is drawing nearer.
For those who would like to read the entire article, registration is free. AT probably even has an account people here can use. Anyone know if that's the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01...html?oref=login&hp
 
George Bush never listened to anyone as far as I can tell. I think he believes everything he says. I would not be suprised if potential problems never occured to him, and he forbids talk of negative consequences.
 
We're always "turning the corner" on meaningful change for the better in Iraq, yet each and every time the event never lives up to the hype. The elections are just the latest version of this.
 
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Already, the president found himself in a rare public argument last week with one of his father's closest friends and advisers, Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser. The election "won't be a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict," Mr. Scowcroft declared Thursday, adding, "We may be seeing incipient civil war at this time."

Mr. Scowcroft said the situation in Iraq raised the fundamental question of "whether we get out now." He urged Mr. Bush to tell the Europeans on a trip to Europe next month: "I can't keep the American people doing this alone. And what do you think would happen if we pulled American troops out right now?"

In short, he was suggesting that Mr. Bush raise the specter that Iraq could collapse without a major foreign presence - exactly the rationale the administration has used for its current policy.

Mr. Bush, asked Friday whether he shared Mr. Scowcroft's concerns about "an incipient civil war," shot back, "Quite the opposite."

"I think elections will be such an incredibly hopeful experience for the Iraqi people," he said.

But the president's optimism is in sharp contrast, some administration insiders say, to some conversations in the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon and Congress. For the first time, there are questions about whether it is politically possible to wait until the Iraqi forces are adequately trained before pressure to start bringing back American troops becomes overwhelming.

Brent Scowcroft is not some LIBBBBBERAL SWWIIIINE, but a Republican whio served as National Secuirty Advisor under GHWB. When are they finally going to be forced to admit it was a mistake and start pulling our people out of there? My gut tells me that time is drawing nearer.
For those who would like to read the entire article, registration is free. AT probably even has an account people here can use. Anyone know if that's the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01...html?oref=login&hp

I do not think this administration will ever admit it is wrong. They can not do it. If they cut and run, they will wrap it in some ridiculous spin which the bleaters will lap up. Otherwise, it will take a new president to admit Iraq was a fiasco.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980
 
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
George Bush never listened to anyone as far as I can tell. I think he believes everything he says. I would not be suprised if potential problems never occured to him, and he forbids talk of negative consequences.
Even those who helped him in his time of "finding Jesus" who later had opinions counter to his own were cast aside like yesterday's garbage. Bush is truly a unique individual. And I don't mean that in a good way.
 
So what else is new, we learned this about Bush years ago, we decided to keep him in office. So why continue to bring up things like this?

Bush aparently is lives in a special little world where everything is perfect, he can do no wrong and never has to look back. 😕

I guess in a certain way we all have our own little worlds, I know I do and in mine, I am poor military man , father of three, husband to a beautiful woman, who pays alot of taxes, trying to save a buck, working myself to death, investing in the economy and hopefully plan to retire one day. I do not get ahead in life and all of the good breaks seem to pass me by. :roll:

I wonder which of our two little worlds is the better one? :Q
 
News bulletin: Someone disagrees with the President. President's opponents hail his opposing view as evidence that he's blind and wonder when he'll finally see the 'truth' and pull his troops out of Iraq to leave the country to get embroiled in a massive civil war or invasion from the outside. Opponents also seem to gloss over the fact that their own candidate, a senator who shall not be named, also realized that staying in Iraq for the present time is crucial.

Film at 11!

 
Originally posted by: yllus
News bulletin: Someone disagrees with the President. President's opponents hail his opposing view as evidence that he's blind and wonder when he'll finally see the 'truth' and pull his troops out of Iraq to leave the country to get embroiled in a massive civil war or invasion from the outside. Opponents also seem to gloss over the fact that their own candidate, a senator who shall not be named, also realized that staying in Iraq for the present time is crucial.

Ah, so now I see...everyone who disagrees with the Bushbot voted for Kerry. Got it! :roll:

(you better inform all those republicans in the government that disagree with Bush that they voted for Kerry without even knowing it) :roll:
 
Originally posted by: yllus
News bulletin: Someone disagrees with the President. President's opponents hail his opposing view as evidence that he's blind and wonder when he'll finally see the 'truth' and pull his troops out of Iraq to leave the country to get embroiled in a massive civil war or invasion from the outside. Opponents also seem to gloss over the fact that their own candidate, a senator who shall not be named, also realized that staying in Iraq for the present time is crucial.

Film at 11!



I guess you didn't read the article. What does Kerry's position have to do with what Scowcroft said?


:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: yllus
News bulletin: Someone disagrees with the President. President's opponents hail his opposing view as evidence that he's blind and wonder when he'll finally see the 'truth' and pull his troops out of Iraq to leave the country to get embroiled in a massive civil war or invasion from the outside. Opponents also seem to gloss over the fact that their own candidate, a senator who shall not be named, also realized that staying in Iraq for the present time is crucial.

Ah, so now I see...everyone who disagrees with the Bushbot voted for Kerry. Got it! :roll:

(you better inform all those republicans in the government that disagree with Bush that they voted for Kerry without even knowing it) :roll:
Wow, way to weasel out of addressing the point! Does anyone here care who catnap1972 voted for? Anyone? Anyone? NOPE!

When two candidates garner 90%+ of the vote in the country and both recognize the need to stay in Iraq, you'd think people would recognize there's probably a valid reason for that stance. But no, not you guys. You're...what? Smarter? More informed? Psychics?
 
I do agree with yllus, whether or not we agree he should have gone to Iraq, we are now there, leaving now is not the answer. We have to finish what we started.
 
These guys disagreed with Bush too and warned of possible doom. Bush ignored them.

With only four months to go before scheduled elections in Afghanistan, a growing number of observers are concerned that balloting might aggravate rising ethnic tensions between the northern and southern parts of the country.

Some experts are calling for the elections to be put off until next year. A delay would enable both international donors and the government of President Hamid Karzai to make greater progress in disarming the warlords who still run most of the country and in extending security to rural areas, they argue. These experts fear that the challenges created in preparing the country of some 28 million people for an election will divert attention and scarce resources from more important tasks, particularly in the security realm.

But Karzai himself, apparently backed by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, appears determined to forge ahead, at least with presidential elections that he and Washington believe would give the central government greater legitimacy, both internationally and inside Afghanistan.

Turns out Bush was right and they were wrong. I bet you won't see an update from Globalpolicy.ord admitting they were wrong though. Those idiots never admit their mistakes. :roll:
 
Those idiots never admit their mistakes.


Good thing they aren't in charge then, as that would be beyond deplorable what with American lives being on the line and all, wouldn't it?
 
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
George Bush never listened to anyone except God or Jesus as far as I can tell. I think he believes everything he says. I would not be suprised if potential problems never occured to him, and he forbids talk of negative consequences.

Corrected.
 
Originally posted by: kage69
Those idiots never admit their mistakes.


Good thing they aren't in charge then, as that would be beyond deplorable what with American lives being on the line and all, wouldn't it?
Good thing Scowcroft is not in charge either, eh? Or the many hand-wringers with the muttonheaded belief that the answer to Iraq is to begin pulling out immediately.
 
Good thing Scowcroft is not in charge either, eh? Or the many hand-wringers with the muttonheaded belief that the answer to Iraq is to begin pulling out immediately.

Interesting that you cannot level the same critcism to the chimp as you do a collection of analysts, to say nothing of the "muttonheaded" thinking that got us into this clusterfvck in the first place. I guess I missed the part where Scowcroft advocated leaving Iraq immediately, but it's refreshing to see someone acting like they care about the lives of US soldiers.
 
Originally posted by: kage69
Good thing Scowcroft is not in charge either, eh? Or the many hand-wringers with the muttonheaded belief that the answer to Iraq is to begin pulling out immediately.

Interesting that you cannot level the same critcism to the chimp as you do a collection of analysts, to say nothing of the "muttonheaded" thinking that got us into this clusterfvck in the first place.
Why should I join all the monkeys leveling criticism at Bush? Millions of chimps calling a chimp names?

No thanks.

I guess I missed the part where Scowcroft advocated leaving Iraq immediately, but it's refreshing to see someone acting like they care about the lives of US soldiers.
I guess I mssed the part where I claimed Scowcroft said that. My comment was in regards to Dan's comment in his OP.
 
Why should I join all the monkeys leveling criticism at Bush? Millions of chimps calling a chimp names?


Ahhh, right, because we all know he doesn't deserve any criticism right? Please.
He looks like one, and his intellect seems to be about right. I'm truly sorry it's lost upon you. Selectively applying criticism paints you in much the same light, as does the fact that for some reason association via critcism is somehow more important than addressing the issues that actually garner said criticism. How vain of you. Yes, better to be with the millions of chimps that consider him a competent statesman and diplomat I suppose.

I guess I mssed the part where I claimed Scowcroft said that. My comment was in regards to Dan's comment in his OP.

Sorry, but I got that feeling, although you didn't literally write it, my bad. It's not a good thing Scowcroft isn't in charge though, he has displayed a great deal more understanding, maturity, and pragmatism than W has and there's no doubt in my ind he'd be doing a better job - but then again, W isn't exactly a metric of excellence so that's not saying much.
 
Originally posted by: kage69
Why should I join all the monkeys leveling criticism at Bush? Millions of chimps calling a chimp names?


Ahhh, right, because we all know he doesn't deserve any criticism right? Please.
Ahhh, you miss the point. Plenty of people deserve criticsm yet I see those many of the same folks criticising Bush hold their tongues when it comes to criticising others. So don't give me any BS about what's deserved and what's not. When the liberals get past their own hypcorisy in leveling criticism, then I'll join them. Till then I'll be just as hypocritical as they are. After all, I am a liberal myself.

He looks like one, and his intellect seems to be about right. I'm truly sorry it's lost upon you. Selectively applying criticism paints you in much the same light, as does the fact that for some reason association via critcism is somehow more important than addressing the issues that actually garner said criticism. How vain of you. Yes, better to be with the millions of chimps that consider him a competent statesman and diplomat I suppose.
I consider those who feel the need to constantly criticise Bush, often incorrectly and rhetorically, the vain ones. They do it for nothing more than their own personal pleasure, a type of circular liberal community political auto-eroticism (if you catch my drift). It does little but to make them look like partisan idiots and fools. If you think it's better to be a member of those millions of chimps, do help yourself. I choose otherwise.

Sorry, but I got that feeling, although you didn't literally write it, my bad. It's not a good thing Scowcroft isn't in charge though, he has displayed a great deal more understanding, maturity, and pragmatism than W has and there's no doubt in my ind he'd be doing a better job - but then again, W isn't exactly a metric of excellence so that's not saying much.
And?

/me licks finger and points it to the sky

Well the wind hasn't changed. Bush is still president and that's not going to change either until 2008. Instead of constantly whining, why don't you and the rest of your ilk put your boundless energies into finding someone who will be a metric of excellence and promote him, instead of worrying about Bush all the time? The penchant for these new liberals to pout like spoiled little children when they dont' get their way is annoying as fvck. All their supposed intelligence and they don't seem capable of using it.

What a shame.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
George Bush never listened to anyone except God or Jesus as far as I can tell. I think he believes everything he says. I would not be suprised if potential problems never occured to him, and he forbids talk of negative consequences.

Corrected.

Indeed...but what's troubling about THAT is that god never existed, and Jesus is 2000 years dead...so essentially we have a madman at the helm...
 
Originally posted by: dgevert
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
George Bush never listened to anyone except God or Jesus as far as I can tell. I think he believes everything he says. I would not be suprised if potential problems never occured to him, and he forbids talk of negative consequences.

Corrected.

Indeed...but what's troubling about THAT is that god never existed, and Jesus is 2000 years dead...so essentially we have a madman at the helm...

Lets not forget a country as your logic states founded by madmen!

 
Originally posted by: JimKiler
Lets not forget a country as your logic states founded by madmen!

Eh?

Thomas Jefferson wasn't delusional. He didn't think he was being directed by god. He didn't believe in the Christian God...deism is NOT christianity...

Ben Franklin...also a deist.

George Washington? Yup, deist.

John Adams? Yup, deist again...

Thomas Paine, not a founding father but very influential on them...deist, highly critical of Christianity...

Time to take off the blinders there bud. Your god doesn't exist, and Christianity was never the foundation of this country.
 
Ahhh, you miss the point. Plenty of people deserve criticsm yet I see those many of the same folks criticising Bush hold their tongues when it comes to criticising others. So don't give me any BS about what's deserved and what's not. When the liberals get past their own hypcorisy in leveling criticism, then I'll join them. Till then I'll be just as hypocritical as they are. After all, I am a liberal myself.

I'm not defending 'those people,' at all, I believe criticism should be leveled wherever it is deserved. If you consider that BS, sure, whatever. I think the BS is more accurately represented by a standard you choose to level at one party, yet the more important party involved somehow isn't subject to it. But hey, at least you admit being a hypocrit. Points for honesty!

consider those who feel the need to constantly criticise Bush, often incorrectly and rhetorically, the vain ones. They do it for nothing more than their own personal pleasure, a type of circular liberal community political auto-eroticism (if you catch my drift). It does little but to make them look like partisan idiots and fools. If you think it's better to be a member of those millions of chimps, do help yourself. I choose otherwise.

You need to raise your standards. I don't think it's vain to expect the highest office in the land to be filled by someone of commendable intellect, maturity, and experience. The current situation is embarrasing for me, and I take no pleasure from it. With your rather impressive history of apologies for Bush, you'll just have to excuse me for not taking anything you say about partisanship seriously.

Well the wind hasn't changed. Bush is still president and that's not going to change either until 2008. Instead of constantly whining, why don't you and the rest of your ilk put your boundless energies into finding someone who will be a metric of excellence and promote him, instead of worrying about Bush all the time? The penchant for these new liberals to pout like spoiled little children when they dont' get their way is annoying as fvck. All their supposed intelligence and they don't seem capable of using it.

Ah yes, the 'any difference of opinion is whining' routine, I've seen this before. You'd make a great right-wing pundit. I won't go into why criticism is healthy for our way of life, you should be familiar with that, least I hope so. Yes, vent your frustrations on those you disagree with rather than addressing the issues and people you support, great strategy. Hypocritical apologists labeling others as whiners, somehow it just doesn't work. A shame indeed.

 
Originally posted by: kage69
I'm not defending 'those people,' at all, I believe criticism should be leveled wherever it is deserved. If you consider that BS, sure, whatever. I think the BS is more accurately represented by a standard you choose to level at one party, yet the more important party involved somehow isn't subject to it. But hey, at least you admit being a hypocrit. Points for honesty!
Thanks. Honesty in such subjects is so often a rarity in here, idn't it? It's not as if the hypocrites are't readily apparent though, eh?

You need to raise your standards. I don't think it's vain to expect the highest office in the land to be filled by someone of commendable intellect, maturity, and experience. The current situation is embarrasing for me, and I take no pleasure from it. With your rather impressive history of apologies for Bush, you'll just have to excuse me for not taking anything you say about partisanship seriously.
You confuse apolgies and truth. I make no apologies for Bush. I present the truth to counter the distortions and BS so often batted around in here by the RBH'rs. If you have to get hyperbolic and couch those truths as "apologies" to make yourself feel better, once again, help yourself.

Ah yes, the 'any difference of opinion is whining' routine, I've seen this before. You'd make a great right-wing pundit. I won't go into why criticism is healthy for our way of life, you should be familiar with that, least I hope so. Yes, vent your frustrations on those you disagree with rather than addressing the issues and people you support, great strategy. Hypocritical apologists labeling others as whiners, somehow it just doesn't work. A shame indeed.
How shameful that you can't see the difference between criticism and incessant whining. You're obviously a lost cause in recognizing that, so there's no use persuing this any further with you. Keep up with your healthy patriotism that ultimately accomplishes...nothing.
 
Thanks. Honesty in such subjects is so often a rarity in here, idn't it? It's not as if the hypocrites are't readily apparent though, eh?

Indeed, although some are more apparent than others.

You confuse apolgies and truth. I make no apologies for Bush. I present the truth to counter the distortions and BS so often batted around in here by the RBH'rs. If you have to get hyperbolic and couch those truths as "apologies" to make yourself feel better, once again, help yourself.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I've seen you spew grade-A apologetic crap on several occasions. I won't dig up long past threads, there's no point, you'll just deny it and do your little semantic tap-dance all over again - but I'm glad you're so comfortable being an image obsessed hypocrite with an agenda, I'm sure some of your brethren don't sleep as well at night as you do.

How shameful that you can't see the difference between criticism and incessant whining. You're obviously a lost cause in recognizing that, so there's no use persuing this any further with you. Keep up with your healthy patriotism that ultimately accomplishes...nothing.

Hearing hypocrites like you make use of words like "truth" and "patriotism" always makes me laugh. Right, the REAL accomplishments are done when vanity is your concern, not the issues. Thanks for the chuckle! 😀
 
Back
Top