The image of Bush the Puppet King emerges again

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yahoooooooooooooo
(excerpts from a very short article)
ATHENS (AFP) - A former US diplomat who resigned over the Iraq (news - web sites) war described US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) as a "very weak" man led by the hand into battle by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"Easy to convince, (Bush) blindly believed in Rumsfeld's assurances that the occupation of Iraq would pay for itself," Kiesling said.

 

[Orsorum]

Hey, Keisling, I remember him. Very good resignation letter on his part. Honorable.

 

[Legendary]

So if Bush said God told him to go to war, and Rumsfeld really told Bush to go to war, then is Rumsfeld God?
:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q

 

[CaptnKirk]

No, but Dubya dosen't know that - yet.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
No, but Dubya dosen't know that - yet.

 

[phillyTIM]

HAHAHA!! This all makes perfect sense. Where are you now, Bush apologists?!!

 

[syzygy]

the man is a snot. the letter could have been written by any sophmoric tin-headed grunt. there's nothing distinguishing about the screed
other than its pandering tone. greeks probably didn't notice that.

these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve
in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

 

[phillyTIM]

funny, you guys are all obviously green-faced with envy that the truth has come out! hehehe

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
funny, you guys are all obviously green-faced with envy that the truth has come out! hehehe

ofcourse, sweetie. now go crawl back under your rock.

 

[syzygy]

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

the man is a snot. the letter could have been written by any sophmoric tin-headed grunt. there's nothing distinguishing about the screed
other than its pandering tone. greeks probably didn't notice that.

these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve
in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Prove it. Provide a scintilla of evidence that Keisling is pandering to the Greeks. Less than 8 weeks before we were forced to invade Iraq the majority of the American public still opposed our intervention. The majority of people in the majority of nations still oppose our intervention . . . Keisling has a lot of company. That does not make him right but he certainly provides more substantive evidence for his POV than . . .

there's nothing distinguishing about the screed other than its pandering tone. these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Oh maybe you meant the diplomatic core in Saudi Arabia . . .

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

the man is a snot. the letter could have been written by any sophmoric tin-headed grunt. there's nothing distinguishing about the screed
other than its pandering tone. greeks probably didn't notice that.

these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve
in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Prove it. Provide a scintilla of evidence that Keisling is pandering to the Greeks. Less than 8 weeks before we were forced to invade Iraq the majority of the American public still opposed our intervention. The majority of people in the majority of nations still oppose our intervention . . . Keisling has a lot of company. That does not make him right but he certainly provides more substantive evidence for his POV than . . .

there's nothing distinguishing about the screed other than its pandering tone. these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Oh maybe you meant the diplomatic core in Saudi Arabia . . .

the evidence was in the article itself. it reads third paragraph down: "Kiesling . . . struck a chord with the predominantly anti-war Greeks."
additional 'evidence' is deductive. the article itself was published in a greek daily as an 'open letter.' do you know what an open letter is ?
an open letter, while addressed to a specific person (which i don't know - nor care - if this was or not), targets a broad and usually
sympathetic audience. given the greek's own notorious socialist history and their livid distaste for this conflict, why would a former
u.s. diplomatic to greece stoke the waters if not for a predictable response ? there is enough here, without reading fecklessly into
his personal motivations, to validate my charge that his aim was to score a few worthless brownie points with comments about a man
he doesn't know - as his scattershot blithering proves.

and if by your last snide comment you are alluding to any familiarity with kaplan's 'the arabists', you should now better than to roll your
eyes that our diplomatic core continues to be infected with folk who harbor a fool's love at the expense of his own nation's priorities.
very stupid indeed.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

the man is a snot. the letter could have been written by any sophmoric tin-headed grunt. there's nothing distinguishing about the screed
other than its pandering tone. greeks probably didn't notice that.

these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve
in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Prove it. Provide a scintilla of evidence that Keisling is pandering to the Greeks. Less than 8 weeks before we were forced to invade Iraq the majority of the American public still opposed our intervention. The majority of people in the majority of nations still oppose our intervention . . . Keisling has a lot of company. That does not make him right but he certainly provides more substantive evidence for his POV than . . .

there's nothing distinguishing about the screed other than its pandering tone. these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Oh maybe you meant the diplomatic core in Saudi Arabia . . .

the evidence was in the article itself. it reads third paragraph down: "Kiesling . . . struck a chord with the predominantly anti-war Greeks."
additional 'evidence' is deductive. the article itself was published in a greek daily as an 'open letter.' do you know what an open letter is ?
an open letter, while addressed to a specific person (which i don't know - nor care - if this was or not), targets a broad and usually
sympathetic audience. given the greek's own notorious socialist history and their livid distaste for this conflict, why would a former
u.s. diplomatic to greece stoke the waters if not for a predictable response ? there is enough here, without reading fecklessly into
his personal motivations, to validate my charge that his aim was to score a few worthless brownie points with comments about a man
he doesn't know - as his scattershot blithering proves.

and if by your last snide comment you are alluding to any familiarity with kaplan's 'the arabists', you should now better than to roll your
eyes that our diplomatic core continues to be infected with folk who harbor a fool's love at the expense of his own nation's priorities.
very stupid indeed.

So, everything is wrong in government.....except Bush.

Hard to believe.

Does anyone have an opinion on the subject? Bush as a weak person being led around by Rumsfeld (and others)?

I find it wholly believable. Bush had never been outside the USA before entering the White House. Well, if you don't count Mexico. His foreign policy experience was, and is, non-existent (like the WMD). Condoleeza Rice conducts foreign policy seminars for Bush just to maintain the appearance he's up to speed on world affairs. He would be an easy candidate for Rumsfeld's nose ring. Especially after 9/11. The man looked totally shell shocked.

The few press conferences Bush has held have been scripted. Questions cleared in advance. No surprises. Looks like Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the tool shed. Another reason to lean very hard on people Bush believes have experience.

There is also Bush's religious conversion. (I'm not bringing it up, Bush and Co. brought it up. Probably in an attempt to pander to their radical right wing "Christian" base.) A man who partied until 40, was blinded by the light, suddenly finds himself in the White House.....it's not the best scenario. This guy needs help and he knows it. Throw him a life preserver and he's gonna' grab it. No matter who throws it. Even "Dr. Strangelove" Rumsfeld.

EDIT
typo

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Damn dude you sure can find a lot of info . . . considering it was a Yahoo blurb. If Keisling gave his speech in Chapel Hill, Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Austin, Madison, upstate NY, SF, and a myriad of other locales he would get a very warm reception. It proves nothing other than common beliefs.

You cannot deduce evidence. Evidence provides the basis for your deductions.

given the greek's own notorious socialist history and their livid distaste for this conflict, why would a former
u.s. diplomatic to greece stoke the waters if not for a predictable response ?

So since America has a record of deposing unfriendly regimes for the purpose of accessing Middle East oil it's reasonable to conclude the reason we invaded Iraq was for a similar purpose? How about the Japanese? Due to their imperialist past it's clear the only reason they've committed troops to aid the US is for a foothold in Iraqi oilfields? The UK as a mangled dynasty yearning for a return to the glory days? The problem with history is that everyone has something in the closet they would like to forget. Curiously, it's always some one with a criticism that has amnesia. In Kiesling's expanded comments, I believe he said it was the "shortsightedness" and "unilateral" nature of US intervention that concerned him. The Greeks aren't the only ones with those concerns.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Damn dude you sure can find a lot of info . . . considering it was a Yahoo blurb. If Keisling gave his speech in Chapel Hill, Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Austin, Madison, upstate NY, SF, and a myriad of other locales he would get a very warm reception. It proves nothing other than common beliefs.

You cannot deduce evidence. Evidence provides the basis for your deductions.

impressed are we ? it was all there. i didn't take a walk on the wild side like our diplomatic friend. kiesling wrote an open letter
to a greek daily. those are the pertinent details. no speeches in berkelely, madison, iran, or wherever. sorry.

did i not put the word evidence in quotes ? let me know why i put the word in quotes.

So since America has a record of deposing unfriendly regimes for the purpose of accessing Middle East oil it's reasonable to conclude the reason we invaded Iraq was for a similar purpose? How about the Japanese? Due to their imperialist past it's clear the only reason they've committed troops to aid the US is for a foothold in Iraqi oilfields? The UK as a mangled dynasty yearning for a return to the glory days? The problem with history is that everyone has something in the closet they would like to forget. Curiously, it's always some one with a criticism that has amnesia. In Kiesling's expanded comments, I believe he said it was the "shortsightedness" and "unilateral" nature of US intervention that concerned him. The Greeks aren't the only ones with those concerns.[/

you are off on another tagent. remember the article ? what you beleive keisling said competes with what he actually said, as
excerpted in the article. guess who wins that little fight ?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Damn dude you sure can find a lot of info . . . considering it was a Yahoo blurb. If Keisling gave his speech in Chapel Hill, Ann Arbor, Berkeley, Austin, Madison, upstate NY, SF, and a myriad of other locales he would get a very warm reception. It proves nothing other than common beliefs.

You cannot deduce evidence. Evidence provides the basis for your deductions.

impressed are we ? it was all there. i didn't take a walk on the wild side like our diplomatic friend. kiesling wrote an open letter
to a greek daily. those are the pertinent details. no speeches in berkelely, madison, iran, or wherever. sorry.

did i not put the word evidence in quotes ? let me know why i put the word in quotes.

So since America has a record of deposing unfriendly regimes for the purpose of accessing Middle East oil it's reasonable to conclude the reason we invaded Iraq was for a similar purpose? How about the Japanese? Due to their imperialist past it's clear the only reason they've committed troops to aid the US is for a foothold in Iraqi oilfields? The UK as a mangled dynasty yearning for a return to the glory days? The problem with history is that everyone has something in the closet they would like to forget. Curiously, it's always some one with a criticism that has amnesia. In Kiesling's expanded comments, I believe he said it was the "shortsightedness" and "unilateral" nature of US intervention that concerned him. The Greeks aren't the only ones with those concerns.[/

you are off on another tagent. remember the article ? what you beleive keisling said competes with what he actually said, as
excerpted in the article. guess who wins that little fight ?

So off the personal attack and on to the subject. Is Bush a weakling being led around by Rumsfeld and his ilk?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

the man is a snot. the letter could have been written by any sophmoric tin-headed grunt. there's nothing distinguishing about the screed
other than its pandering tone. greeks probably didn't notice that.

these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve
in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Prove it. Provide a scintilla of evidence that Keisling is pandering to the Greeks. Less than 8 weeks before we were forced to invade Iraq the majority of the American public still opposed our intervention. The majority of people in the majority of nations still oppose our intervention . . . Keisling has a lot of company. That does not make him right but he certainly provides more substantive evidence for his POV than . . .

there's nothing distinguishing about the screed other than its pandering tone. these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Oh maybe you meant the diplomatic core in Saudi Arabia . . .

the evidence was in the article itself. it reads third paragraph down: "Kiesling . . . struck a chord with the predominantly anti-war Greeks."
additional 'evidence' is deductive. the article itself was published in a greek daily as an 'open letter.' do you know what an open letter is ?
an open letter, while addressed to a specific person (which i don't know - nor care - if this was or not), targets a broad and usually
sympathetic audience. given the greek's own notorious socialist history and their livid distaste for this conflict, why would a former
u.s. diplomatic to greece stoke the waters if not for a predictable response ? there is enough here, without reading fecklessly into
his personal motivations, to validate my charge that his aim was to score a few worthless brownie points with comments about a man
he doesn't know - as his scattershot blithering proves.

and if by your last snide comment you are alluding to any familiarity with kaplan's 'the arabists', you should now better than to roll your
eyes that our diplomatic core continues to be infected with folk who harbor a fool's love at the expense of his own nation's priorities.
very stupid indeed.

So, everything is wrong in government.....except Bush.

Hard to believe.

Does anyone have an opinion on the subject? Bush as a weak person being led around by Rumsfeld (and others)?

I find it wholly believable. Bush had never been outside the USA before entering the White House. Well, if you don't count Mexico. His foreign policy experience was, and is, non-existent (like the WMD). Condoleeza Rice conducts foreign policy seminars for Bush just to maintain the appearance he's up to speed on world affairs. He would be an easy candidate for Rumsfeld's nose ring. Especially after 9/11. The man looked totally shell shocked.

The few press conferences Bush has held have been scripted. Questions cleared in advance. No surprises. Looks like Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the tool shed. Another reason to lean very hard on people Bush believes have experience.

There is also Bush's religious conversion. (I'm not bringing it up, Bush and Co. brought it up. Probably in an attempt to pander to their radical right wing "Christian" base.) A man who partied until 40, was blinded by the light, suddenly finds himself in the White House.....it's not the best scenario. This guy needs help and he knows it. Throw him a life preserver and he's gonna' grab it. No matter who throws it. Even "Dr. Strangelove" Rumsfeld.

EDIT
typo

there is nothing here to contest. this is all your personal belief. i don't agree with most of it.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

the man is a snot. the letter could have been written by any sophmoric tin-headed grunt. there's nothing distinguishing about the screed
other than its pandering tone. greeks probably didn't notice that.

these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve
in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Prove it. Provide a scintilla of evidence that Keisling is pandering to the Greeks. Less than 8 weeks before we were forced to invade Iraq the majority of the American public still opposed our intervention. The majority of people in the majority of nations still oppose our intervention . . . Keisling has a lot of company. That does not make him right but he certainly provides more substantive evidence for his POV than . . .

there's nothing distinguishing about the screed other than its pandering tone. these foreign office assignees have a notorious reputation of being more 'understanding' and loyal to the natives of the country they serve in than there own overseas gov't. this especially has been historically true with american diplomats.

Oh maybe you meant the diplomatic core in Saudi Arabia . . .

the evidence was in the article itself. it reads third paragraph down: "Kiesling . . . struck a chord with the predominantly anti-war Greeks."
additional 'evidence' is deductive. the article itself was published in a greek daily as an 'open letter.' do you know what an open letter is ?
an open letter, while addressed to a specific person (which i don't know - nor care - if this was or not), targets a broad and usually
sympathetic audience. given the greek's own notorious socialist history and their livid distaste for this conflict, why would a former
u.s. diplomatic to greece stoke the waters if not for a predictable response ? there is enough here, without reading fecklessly into
his personal motivations, to validate my charge that his aim was to score a few worthless brownie points with comments about a man
he doesn't know - as his scattershot blithering proves.

and if by your last snide comment you are alluding to any familiarity with kaplan's 'the arabists', you should now better than to roll your
eyes that our diplomatic core continues to be infected with folk who harbor a fool's love at the expense of his own nation's priorities.
very stupid indeed.

So, everything is wrong in government.....except Bush.

Hard to believe.

Does anyone have an opinion on the subject? Bush as a weak person being led around by Rumsfeld (and others)?

I find it wholly believable. Bush had never been outside the USA before entering the White House. Well, if you don't count Mexico. His foreign policy experience was, and is, non-existent (like the WMD). Condoleeza Rice conducts foreign policy seminars for Bush just to maintain the appearance he's up to speed on world affairs. He would be an easy candidate for Rumsfeld's nose ring. Especially after 9/11. The man looked totally shell shocked.

The few press conferences Bush has held have been scripted. Questions cleared in advance. No surprises. Looks like Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the tool shed. Another reason to lean very hard on people Bush believes have experience.

There is also Bush's religious conversion. (I'm not bringing it up, Bush and Co. brought it up. Probably in an attempt to pander to their radical right wing "Christian" base.) A man who partied until 40, was blinded by the light, suddenly finds himself in the White House.....it's not the best scenario. This guy needs help and he knows it. Throw him a life preserver and he's gonna' grab it. No matter who throws it. Even "Dr. Strangelove" Rumsfeld.

EDIT
typo

there is nothing here to contest. this is all your personal belief. i don't agree with most of it.

Bush was never out of the USA before entering the White House.
The Bush administration has staged and continues to stage press conferences.
Bush and Co. advertised Bush's "conversion" themselves.

These are all facts, not my personal belief. Facts. You can disagree with facts but then you're living in a fantasy world.

 

[syzygy]

Bush was never out of the USA before entering the White House.

wasn't bush in mexico ? did we annex them yet ? i'm sure he didn't just wander over the border.

The Bush administration has staged and continues to stage press conferences.

how is this a fact ? you perceive they are staged. what proof otherwise do you have ?

Bush and Co. advertised Bush's "conversion" themselves.

so you don't bleive his conversion. perhasp you've seen the film 'wag the dog' once too often ?
if you have any evidence that his conversion was manufactured, please unveil.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy
Bush was never out of the USA before entering the White House.
wasn't bush in mexico ? did we annex them yet ? i'm sure he didn't just wander over the border.

As stated in my first post, "I find it wholly believable. Bush had never been outside the USA before entering the White House. Well, if you don't count Mexico." This does not engender confidence in me for Bush's foreign policy. He has no experience in foreign policy. He is therefore susceptible to the "experts" in his administration taking over.

The Bush administration has staged and continues to stage press conferences.
how is this a fact ? you perceive they are staged. what proof otherwise do you have ?

Link

Link

Bush and Co. advertised Bush's "conversion" themselves.
so you don't bleive his conversion. perhasp you've seen the film 'wag the dog' once too often ?
if you have any evidence that his conversion was manufactured, please unveil.

You make too many assumptions. I never said I don't believe in his conversion. I said the Bush administration pandered to the right wing radical "Christians" in the Republican party. I don't know what this has to do with "Wag the Dog" other than Bush started a war on fasle evidence to perhaps hide the horrible state of our economy ironically hurting the economy further with the $4 BILLION per month Iraq is costing us as well as the $70 BILLION appropriation for Iraq already passed as well as the future appropriations that will be necessary.

So I don't have to prove his conversion is manufactured but I do still believe Bush is in a precarious position. A man who partied for 40 years then becomes "born again" and heads for the White House with no experience. He is dependent on everyone in his administration who will offer him help.....only it's the neo-cons who have his complete attention now because, as the article states, Bush is a weakminded wimp who is being led around by Rumsfeld and others.

 

[DoubleL]

LOL I love it, Now you know how some of us felt for 8 long years, Love it

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: DoubleL
LOL I love it, Now you know how some of us felt for 8 long years, Love it

You were misguided by the Republican party then just as you are now.

 

[syzygy]

this unflattering link counts 3 overseas forays by bush junior. i googled it. it came up the first link. you could've
done the same if you had any pretensions for objectivity. it seems all your links don't shy away from their
ideological slant.

frist trip was in 1975 to china with his pop. next, 1988 to the middle east where he was part of a governors
peace delegation. in 1990 he went to gambia. this partisan link also imputes his knowedge and interest in
world affairs. a fairly childish tactic but judging the source it shouldn't surprise.

the apparent tight control bush has over his press conferences dosn't seem to have affected the major networks.
they're his conferences and he can tweak and define them as he wishes. the fact he does not care for helen thomas
is always a plus. the major networks continue in their liberal ways, so they don't seem too perturbed with his controls.

with that said, i would love to see the gladiatorial openness the british reps put their prime ministers through.

presidents (and all elected officials) are afforded the latitude to define their public appearances as they see fit. if
you don't like the fact that bush denies you another opportunity to ridicule his habits, simply invent them. conjur
them up. pick them out of the air. don't let the absence of facts prevent you from creating your own. i'm sure you
understand that already.

 

[DoubleL]

No fight out of me I am loving every minute of it, LOL, I know how it hurts to hate a man so bad you just have to tell the world, LOL love it

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy
this unflattering link counts 3 overseas forays by bush junior. i googled it. it came up the first link. you could've
done the same if you had any pretensions for objectivity. it seems all your links don't shy away from their
ideological slant.

frist trip was in 1975 to china with his pop. next, 1988 to the middle east where he was part of a governors
peace delegation. in 1990 he went to gambia. this partisan link also imputes his knowedge and interest in
world affairs. a fairly childish tactic but judging the source it shouldn't surprise.

the apparent tight control bush has over his press conferences dosn't seem to have affected the major networks.
they're his conferences and he can tweak and define them as he wishes. the fact he does not care for helen thomas
is always a plus. the major networks continue in their liberal ways, so they don't seem too perturbed with his controls.

with that said, i would love to see the gladiatorial openness the british reps put their prime ministers through.

presidents (and all elected officials) are afforded the latitude to define their public appearances as they see fit. if
you don't like the fact that bush denies you another opportunity to ridicule his habits, simply invent them. conjur
them up. pick them out of the air. don't let the absence of facts prevent you from creating your own. i'm sure you
understand that already.

Well his trips were kept very well hidden. During the 2000 campaign the fact that Bush hadn't travelled outside the USA and couldn't name the leader of any nation outside of the UK, France and Germany was made public over and over. Bush and his campaign never denied the facts. Now you Google it and come up with a right wing site that has info on his world travels.

Perhaps it is you who should worry about your sources instead of the myth of the liberal media.

Bush is a foreign policy neophyte. His performance up to now proves that.