The type of people who support Bush are not inclined to whine as much as those that don't. This board is a good example of that.
Red, don't even start.
phillyTIM
Golden Member
- Jan 12, 2001
- 1,942
- 10
- 81
speaking for myself: i'm not particularly pro or anti anything, contrary to what many of you might have an impression of
i assess a situation, try to be as unbiased about it as possible, then come to my own conclusion
and i don't whine, i state facts; fully able to qualify what i say
i can't help the facts cause a hole the size of mt. st helens in the justification of bush's dealings
i assess a situation, try to be as unbiased about it as possible, then come to my own conclusion
and i don't whine, i state facts; fully able to qualify what i say
i can't help the facts cause a hole the size of mt. st helens in the justification of bush's dealings
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
speaking for myself: i'm not particularly pro or anti anything, contrary to what many of you might have an impression of
i assess a situation, try to be as unbiased about it as possible, then come to my own conclusion
and i don't whine, i state facts; fully able to qualify what i say
endquote
Thats how ALL of us are!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Are your delusions drug induced or just another by-product of your degraded mental state?
I think people put too much stock in the superficial. How can somebody hate Bush just because his brain and his mouth don't talk to each other. And sure he looks like a chimpanzee, but chimps are cute. And if you look at a map of the parts of the US where he won a majority, you'll find it's the part where people are the most backward and uneducated and religiously brainwashed. In the cities, people form thicker neural pathways because of the vastly richer stimulation and social interactions, it doesn't mean they know more. No. Why shouldn't the sleepy part of the country bring us their visionaries for the future. The past is always better than tomorrow. There is no problem that can't be solved by war. Bush is a magnetic leader in my opinion. He touches the average in all of us. He knows how to bring out the mediocre in every situation. Hail Bush!
Not exactly the smartest campaign strategy. Insult the voters of the opposition and then ask for their votes. Its easy to dismiss those who disagree with you, although not all that effective. You've proven yourself more intelligent than that and less elitist before Moonbeam.
Powell and Blair are thoughtful moderates whether they agree with Bush or not. Bush is neither moderate nor thoughtful. He's a relatively ignorant ideologue; ie he has a few ideas that he relatively faithfully adheres to but rarely questions. The historical record clearly shows Bush wanted to attack Saddam and merely needed a reason. Blair and Powell both worked to build a somewhat coherent albeit circumstantial body of evidence to support Bush's initiative, while Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz circled the globe exhorting others to join their mission against evil.
I cannot fathom why Blair and Powell succumbed to using unsubstantiated claims and clear false information to advance Bush's agenda. I assume Bush did it b/c it's consistent with his lack of knowledge and curiosity. Without question, Blair and Powell made excellent moral arguments to the necessity of removing Saddam's regime. But where is their commitment to such principles throughout Africa, SE Asia, and former Soviet republics? The only thing Bush got right was the moral failings of the UN. All of the major world powers have ignored if not actively participated in the subjugation of people throughout the globe.
I honestly believe that if Blair and Powell (maybe even Bush) provided a holistic plan for dealing with Iraq . . . realistic alternatives to warfare (while acknowledging that warfare may be inevitable considering the regime) and what the plans were for the aftermath . . . regime change in Iraq would have had real allies.
Regardless, I believe Bush, Blair, and Powell made principled stands . . . just that Blair and Powell have principles the whole world would probably embrace even if they disagreed with the accuity of the problem and/or potential methods.
Washington Post
On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.
Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.
You can claim he didn't read it but he certainly signed it.
Advocates for military action against Iraq say the process may appear mysterious only because the answer was so self-evident. They believe that Bush understood instantly after Sept. 11 that Iraq would be the next major step in the global war against terrorism, and that he made up his mind within days, if not hours, of that fateful day. "The most important thing is that the president's position changed after 9/11," said a senior official who pushed hard for action.
History doesn't appear to agree with you.
"The issue got away from the president," said a senior official who attended discussions in the White House. "He wasn't controlling the tone or the direction" and was influenced by people who "painted him into a corner because Iraq was an albatross around their necks."
Someone agrees with you.
Then, in April, Bush approached Rice. It was time to figure out "what we are doing about Iraq," he told her, setting in motion a series of meetings by the principals and their deputies. "I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go," Bush hinted to a British reporter at the time. "That's about all I'm willing to share with you."
Yahoo Asia
"Prior to September the 11th, there was apparently no connection between a place like Iraq and terror," he said. There were concerns about terrorists in Iraq, but no fear about a threat to the American homeland. "... We were confident that two oceans could protect us from harm."
But, Bush added, "the world changed on September the 11th."
"Obviously, it changed for thousands of people's lives for whom we still mourn. But it changed for America, and it's very important that the American people understand the change. We are now a battleground. We are vulnerable."
That, he said, is the reason "we cannot ignore gathering threats across the ocean."
Your parsing of my post ignores the broader context. If the goal was to free the people of Iraq from a despotic regime. I don't question Bush at all. I disagree with his methods but they have certainly been effective. If the next goal is stabilization/humanitarian relief, the words of this administration DO NOT match the actions. If the subsequent goal is for Iraqis to decide on their favored form of government and how to properly extract and share their oil, then this administration is again FOS. The only sign that actions are matching deeds was the appointment of State Dept oversight instead of DOD. Otherwise, the Bush administration seems quite focused on who controls Iraqi oil/revenue but relatively oblivious (in action) to civilian strife, empty schools, destitute hospitals, lack of potable water, sporadic electricity AND the absolute crush of international agencies yearning to help.
Regardless, the people living in despair in Sudan, Chad, Columbia, Nigeria, Chechnya, Uganda, Congo, and Uzbekistan can expect little from this administration b/c it STILL isn't interested in nation-building . . . unless of course you've got resources. The US spends billions destroying countries but never wants to write a check to build one. Bush is not the first hypocrite to occupy the Oval Office and he won't be the last.
On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.
Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.
You can claim he didn't read it but he certainly signed it.
Advocates for military action against Iraq say the process may appear mysterious only because the answer was so self-evident. They believe that Bush understood instantly after Sept. 11 that Iraq would be the next major step in the global war against terrorism, and that he made up his mind within days, if not hours, of that fateful day. "The most important thing is that the president's position changed after 9/11," said a senior official who pushed hard for action.
History doesn't appear to agree with you.
"The issue got away from the president," said a senior official who attended discussions in the White House. "He wasn't controlling the tone or the direction" and was influenced by people who "painted him into a corner because Iraq was an albatross around their necks."
Someone agrees with you.
Then, in April, Bush approached Rice. It was time to figure out "what we are doing about Iraq," he told her, setting in motion a series of meetings by the principals and their deputies. "I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go," Bush hinted to a British reporter at the time. "That's about all I'm willing to share with you."
Yahoo Asia
"Prior to September the 11th, there was apparently no connection between a place like Iraq and terror," he said. There were concerns about terrorists in Iraq, but no fear about a threat to the American homeland. "... We were confident that two oceans could protect us from harm."
But, Bush added, "the world changed on September the 11th."
"Obviously, it changed for thousands of people's lives for whom we still mourn. But it changed for America, and it's very important that the American people understand the change. We are now a battleground. We are vulnerable."
That, he said, is the reason "we cannot ignore gathering threats across the ocean."
Your parsing of my post ignores the broader context. If the goal was to free the people of Iraq from a despotic regime. I don't question Bush at all. I disagree with his methods but they have certainly been effective. If the next goal is stabilization/humanitarian relief, the words of this administration DO NOT match the actions. If the subsequent goal is for Iraqis to decide on their favored form of government and how to properly extract and share their oil, then this administration is again FOS. The only sign that actions are matching deeds was the appointment of State Dept oversight instead of DOD. Otherwise, the Bush administration seems quite focused on who controls Iraqi oil/revenue but relatively oblivious (in action) to civilian strife, empty schools, destitute hospitals, lack of potable water, sporadic electricity AND the absolute crush of international agencies yearning to help.
Regardless, the people living in despair in Sudan, Chad, Columbia, Nigeria, Chechnya, Uganda, Congo, and Uzbekistan can expect little from this administration b/c it STILL isn't interested in nation-building . . . unless of course you've got resources. The US spends billions destroying countries but never wants to write a check to build one. Bush is not the first hypocrite to occupy the Oval Office and he won't be the last.
My parsing of your post was done for brevity not to mislead. I understand the context. One of goals was to free the Iraqis. I think it was Tuesday's reason du jour. Your article says a TS doc. was signed shortly after 9/11. I wonder what other countries were mentioned in that doc. I also wonder why there was no mention of it in Woodwards book. (I know Doc, it was fluff piece. It certainly pissed Rummy off though). In any case I think there is certainly a difference between being willing to go to war and actually saying it is the only option. I was never under the impression that going to war was the only option. Other's would disagree but the word sabre rattling is not in their vocabulary.
Not exactly the smartest campaign strategy. Insult the voters of the opposition and then ask for their votes. Its easy to dismiss those who disagree with you, although not all that effective. You've proven yourself more intelligent than that and less elitist before Moonbeam.
--------------------------------
But it's not fair that all the idiots are on the right.
--------------------------------
But it's not fair that all the idiots are on the right.
UQ, I would agree with you if people like Wolfowitz and Perle didn't have sway in our government. Almost everybody in the Executive are unelected but it is quite frightening that a small cadre of people pushing an agenda to change the world have more power than the Legislature.
People like Wolfie and Perle are not sabre rattling . . . what you are hearing is the sound of them wiping the blood of this week's opponent off a Claymore (don't know what Jews use), a momentary return to the scabbard, and then whipping it out for the next adversary to truth, justice, and you know the rest.
I really wish Saddam had crumbled or members of his regime had done something less than pleasant to him or he had taken offers of exile to some other oligarchy in the region. I would have said, " Bush is a stud. I still hate most of his policy but he gets kudos for this one."
I may not HATE Bush but he rarely shows anything approaching quality extemporaneous thoughts OR curiosity to intellectually explore alternatives to the prevailing POV. I could certainly be wrong but my impression is that Bush doesn't ask many questions or give many answers b/c he doesn't know the details. As the executive, he cannot be expected to know everything but Bush (IMHO) doesn't care to know much at all. I would certainly read anything you can recommend which contradicts my impression.
Regardless, Blair gets kudos for swimming upstream. But now that Bush is going in a direction Blair never endorsed it will be interesting to see if he's willing to continue to fight for the moral position instead of the almost irresistible force of the Bush administration.
People like Wolfie and Perle are not sabre rattling . . . what you are hearing is the sound of them wiping the blood of this week's opponent off a Claymore (don't know what Jews use), a momentary return to the scabbard, and then whipping it out for the next adversary to truth, justice, and you know the rest.
I really wish Saddam had crumbled or members of his regime had done something less than pleasant to him or he had taken offers of exile to some other oligarchy in the region. I would have said, " Bush is a stud. I still hate most of his policy but he gets kudos for this one."
I may not HATE Bush but he rarely shows anything approaching quality extemporaneous thoughts OR curiosity to intellectually explore alternatives to the prevailing POV. I could certainly be wrong but my impression is that Bush doesn't ask many questions or give many answers b/c he doesn't know the details. As the executive, he cannot be expected to know everything but Bush (IMHO) doesn't care to know much at all. I would certainly read anything you can recommend which contradicts my impression.
Regardless, Blair gets kudos for swimming upstream. But now that Bush is going in a direction Blair never endorsed it will be interesting to see if he's willing to continue to fight for the moral position instead of the almost irresistible force of the Bush administration.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter