BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 01:07 PM

". . . truth is in the eye of the beholder, I think."

Just to pick a small philosophical nit, Doug. Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. Truth is truth. Whether or not someone choses to look at it is another matter.   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:12 PM

Well, I don't think I need an apology, Doug -- I was just making a point. I don't usually post links to newspaper as "proof," because eveeryone will disagree about the politics of a particular newspaper.

The point was, though, that you accuse others of using rhetoric, while doing the same thing yourself. When offered the opportunity and the assistance to look at the proof from sources you would consider okay, you didn't.

Your deefense seems to be certered around the idea that he's President, so he must be a good guy. Hogwash. Popularity contests do not ensure that the best contestant win.

The only charge I would level at Bush is that he's a hypocrite and a liar. He talks about corporate responsibility & ethics, but his own record is awfully dirty in that department -- much of it barely on the side of the law, but some of it not.   When it come to his episode of insider trading, he's either guilty or a complete blithering idiot -- take your pick.

He talks a big military game, but chose to go AWOL for a year while serving with the national guard.

He talks a lot about "Christian values," but fails to behave in a way that emphasizes the teachings of Christ.

He's been caught in so many lies, I can't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. He lied about his alcoholism, lied about his history with CHIP, lied about his military record. He lied about his relationship with Kenneth Lay. He said he watched the first plane hit the Twin Towers live on TV -- when there was no such broadcast on any TV station. He lied first about having foreknowledge of the fact Harken Energy would report a loss, or he wouldn't have sold his stock. When shown he DID know, he decided to say the paperwork had been lost. 4 times. Then he said the SEC has exonerated him, when it hadn't ever done so.

The list goes on and on. Yet we're supposed to believe him when he says, "I have proof, trust me?"

Not a chance. He's either a deliberate and prolific liar, or too stupid to remember events in his own life.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 09:58 AM

I've spent an interesting afternoon reading through the links provided above by Nicole.

Fascinating reading! - If it were about anybody other that George W Bush - nobody would have given a hoot, not an eyebrow would have been raised.

The sixteen links she refers to in her chronological table (some are duplicated) date largely from the late 1990's to some written in 2002. The two exceptions are the Harkin Minutes of Meeting dated 6th December, 1989, and the motherjones.com link piece re Family Values dated Sept/Oct 1992.

Excellent exercise in 20 x 20 hindsight, combined with extremely dextrous weaving of exceptionally tenuous threads in order to build the case.

This won't come as much of a surprise - but in this case Doug you are spot on - the whole thing is purely a political hatchet job - the authors know they don't have any evidence against the man, but by God they are going to muddy the waters for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 03:29 AM

Well, Peg, truth is in the eye of the beholder, I think. I don't believe most conservative thinkers would consider either CNN, The Washington Post, or the sources Nicole relied on to support her argument as conservative in any way. Liberals may consider them so, but not conservatives.

I don't want to pick on Nicole. I like her, though I have never met her. But charges made about GWB on this forum, in my opinion, are outrageous. Note that I said, in my opinion! The charges made by many posters are unsupportable by facts. They can be supported by sources opposed to him. No doubt about that.

I have been accused of being unfair to Nicloe. Perhaps I have. But can anyone who has pointed the finger at me, refer me to a single article in those same sources she used to support her argument, that supports the president on any single issue? If you can, I will apologize to Nicole, and to all Mudcatters.

The general feeling on the Mudcat seems to be that one can level any charge against GWB or any Republican for that matter, point to a source that is anti-GWB and Republicans, and everyone is supposed to say, "Hey, that must be right!" It says so in print! I don't subscribe to that theory. Were I to use the same arguments to criticize the Democratic leadership citing conservative publications (there are some)I'm sure my liberal friends would be as unaccepting of the evidence as I am about Nicole's sources.

I replied to your post, Peg, because I respect you, and your views. I had already posted a 30 at the end of my last message, and as a teacher of Journalism, you know what that means. I will still read messages posted to this thread, but this time it is really 30 for me.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Peg
Date: 04 Oct 02 - 12:15 AM

Not to beat a dead horse, but Doug, you are being very unfair and difficult about this.

Nicole was apparently damned if she did, damned if she didn't. What sort of "facts" is she expected to provide beyond the reporting of a number of respected journalistic venues? I realize journalism isn't what it used to be in Ed Murrow's day, but neither should the research and investigations of reporters for these news outlets be dismissed simply because you enjoy characterizing al of the press as "liberal." (I teach media studies and it has been my conclusion more and more recently that nothing could be further from the truth, especially given the corporate ownership of most major news outlets).

Comparing Rush Limbaugh to CNN? Please. And last time I checked the Washington Post was considered a fairly conservative paper...so where's the bias now?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Nerd
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 01:29 AM

Well, DougR if you used Rush Limbaugh as a source it would be decried by us (or at least by me) because he is a flaming Nazi gasbag who makes up his facts. Hennity I don't know, so I can't comment. But Nicole went to CNN, to the Associated press, The Washington Post, Time, The nation; in other words to people who go and report real facts. So I think there is a difference there.

What's not that logical about your position is that you asked for facts relating to Bush's wrongdoing but then discredited the facts nicole sent on the grounds that the people presenting the facts were anti-Bush. Obviously, if someone is presenting facts that incriminate Bush, their rhetorical goal MUST be to discredit him--otherwise they would present different facts. So you have asked for certain facts and then essentially refused to accept any of those same facts because they can only serve an anti-Bush agenda. Seems to me you didn't REALLY want the facts you asked for.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 01:16 AM

Graciously done, Thomas me friend! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 03 Oct 02 - 12:30 AM

Doug, I said you were being stupid. I did not mean that I thought you were a stupid person... I am way stupider than you!


To the corner I shall go today

Dreaming of the peace

And quietly as we should say

That warring has to cease


Speaking out to better worlds

Inlists the ardent minds

Better than a flag unfurled

Flown high... so often blinds


Entreat me now in ruptured joy

What are we doing here?

Are war machines but one man's toy

When all shed bitter tears?
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 11:01 PM

DougR:

You are certainly not stupid, and it was inappropriate to resort toshallow ad hominem propositions. Thomas, go stand in the corner! :>)

I value your views, Doug -- change them when you wish,but don't stop communicasting.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 10:14 PM

If I can't discuss a subject with someone without being called stupid, then count me out.

I have great respect for Nicole. She is an excellent spokesperson for views that are opposite from mine. If I offended her, I am sorry, but I do believe that she is capable of defending herself if I did, and I don't believe she would hesitate to let me know.

Were I to use Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hennity, or any other conservative voice as a resource to support my views, I would be labeled a right-wing kook, I'm sure. Yet sources opposed to Bush are used with abandon here, and are considerd by the majority in this forum as being perfectly okay.

I believe if GWB was as bad a person as Nicole claims, he would have been jailed by now. He certainly would not be president of the United States.

That's 30 for me on this thread.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 08:59 PM

Doug. Oh Doug. NicoleC kicked your ass, ON YOUR TERMS, and you can't even begin to show her the respect she deserves... How can you be so stupid (yes, stupid) to suggest that ANY credible critsism of GWB would EVER come from his 'supporters'... Duh... Bushmen are the kings of denial, and the princes of pay-off... all blind support, and yes, they are supressing facts right now!.


The facts that NicoleC presented to you on a silver platter are no less true because you have sluffed them off as discreditable sources... I think in fact, the way the Bushmen work is this... "one unsupportive word and you're out on your ear"... and,... "we've got enough on you to keep you quiet for a long time"...


The way I see it, Bush can't take two steps away from "his" military, because when he does, he'll have no actual support at all... get real Doug... will these "facts" be real enough then?


For my part, the connection between the bin Ladens and the Bushs makes my skin crawl...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:58 PM

See, the thing is that those who understand the core values of the Founding Fathers embrace a tolerance which allows even sleazeballs into their definition of "American". But those who embrace the vision of sleazeballs don't make the same room for visionaries of a more Jeffersonian stamp!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:49 PM

But seriously, I don't think Bush is "un-American." That requires defining what being "American" is, and I don't think any of us can manage that.

That doesn't mean I might not question his motives and I definately believe that he is acting contrary to American interests. (In a BIG way!)

I might call him un-American if he were trying to get American to rejoin the British Empire or such :)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:35 PM

LOL, Leedle 'Awk!! You 'ave ze ahrony in your blood, Non?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:17 PM

Are you experiencing deja vu, Doug? :-)

I do not think it's fair to lable G.W. as "un-American". Unsavoury, perhaps...unrepentant...unconscionable...uncanny...unresponsive...but definitely NOT unAmerican. The nerve of some liberals!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 06:04 PM

Thank you Nicole, for the time and trouble you went to. The information is well organized, and again, thank you for doing it.

I expect that President Bush will be arrested any day now, along with his father, his mother, his brothers, and all their kin. :>)

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 04:59 PM

I ain't doin' it again. (At least not any time soon.) All that re-organized plagiarism was hard work.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:59 PM

All right, you reactionary cross-eyed mugwump of an owlhoot!! Who are you and what have you done with my buddy DougR??

**BG**

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:53 PM

Well, Doug, my friend, I do think your hypocrisy is hanging out at tad here. Nicole has not only provided you with more stuff to work with than Ken Starr got for your $40M, but also has done it in a logical and concise manner. And the little timne between your post suggests that you didn't spend much time on *evaluating* but a lot of time in *reacting*.

A second thought on the subject, which also has some apparent hypocritical undertones on your part relates to *proff*. Here, Nicole has provided you with a lot more proof of Bush's wrong-doings than Bush has presented the American people in trying to sell a war against Iraq.

Yeah, I know you will twist this up to suit yourself, but you are not sounding like the *thoughtful* guy we've all come to wrestle with here lately and I, for one, miss the old Doug!

Free Dougie Now!

Free Dougie Now!

Hey, just practicin' in case someone has actually taken you off and left Ari Fleisher to man your spot in the Catbox. Man, that would be bad, because this guy 'ill shoot ya' if he don't like ya'. Just ask him...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:28 PM

I rest my case.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:05 PM

Gee, Doug, I gave you the opportunity to look up your own sources, and you didn't bother, and complained.

I gave you my sources, and you complained you don't like them because they are politically slanted. Well, duh -- is there any other kind?

Of course, many of those sources quoted extensively from mainstream newspapers, the AP wire, and SEC reports -- you could go look up the originals if you want. One was even a copy of an internal Harken Energy document. Is it "anti-Bush" because it says something you don't like?

I still don't know what "charge" you think I made -- because I never made one, except to say that it looks like a lot like a snake. And it still does.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 02 Oct 02 - 01:05 AM

Nicole: Pardond me, but I did read the sources you provided. All of them were anti-Bush! Wow! Is there anything within any of them that would lead one to believe they are a nonpartisan source? Not that I could see.

One can post a website on the Internet and post anything they bloody well please! Don't offer this kind of "evidence" and expect a person with more than a third grade (U.S.) education to accept it as fact! You are better than that!

Superb, Clint says. Why not? It coincides with his belief!

The CNN report I found particularly interesting: "Bush Declares $2 million dollar profit." That's a crime? I don't think so!

Hard facts that Bush is a crook; is as bad as you say he is. No opinions please.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 11:31 PM

Excellent, Nicole. Superb, even.

Clint

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 11:08 PM

No, Doug, Bush was NOT cleared of the charges, although he repeatedly says so. The investigation was never completed, and he was neither cleared nor disciplined. Insiders investigation the case have been saying since 1991 that they were prevented from pursuing the case by the SEC chairman -- Bush Sr.'s former lawyer. Oh wait, here's a link from CNN:

White House Defends Bush Handling of Stock Sale

You don't like it when people post links to political commentary that doesn't agree with your idealogy, so I gave you the opportunity to investigate for yourself. But you didn't bother -- instead you dismissed it based on someone else's heresay.

Which is exactly why I never bothered to bring this up before. I'm afraid it's beyond the scope of my day to give you a complete dossier on the Bush family investment history, as I could spend 4 or 5 months at the job. Then you wouldn't read it.

But here you go -- AGAIN -- anyway:

George Jr.'s (incomplete) Financial History in Brief

1978 Founded Arbusto Energy with $17,500 from his education trust fund and $3 million in funds from family friends and backers of Bush Sr's political aspirations. They made no money but got tax writeoffs so they were quite happy.
1979 James Bath, a close family friend, pays $50,000 for 5% of Arbusto. Bath was U.S. representative for Salem bin Laden, Osama's wealthy Saudi father.
1982 George W renames bankrupt company Bush Exploration, sells 10% to Philip Uzielli for $1,000,000, and takes company public to raise $1,400,00.
1984 Bush Exploration (broke again) merges with Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation, owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Bush becomes CEO, gets 16.3%, and a salary of $75K. Reynolds is now ambassador to Switzerland.
1986 Spectrum 7, nearly bankrupt, is acquired by Harken Energy Corp. Bush receives 227,000 shares of Harken stock and is made director and consultant to the company at up tp $120K salary, $600k in stock options and a couple of hundred thousand in free or forgiven loans.
1987 Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) provides $25 million cash infusion. Saudi Sheik Abdullah Bakhsh joins the board with 17.6% ownership.
1989 Harken hides losses by selling Aloha Petroleum, a susidiary to insiders for 12 million, $12 million of which a loan held by Harken. The $8 million (supposed) profit on the sale is counted as Harken income by Arthur Andersen, the accountant.
1989 DeWitt and Reynolds help Bush buy the Texas Rangers for $86 million. Bush invests $500K (borrowed on his Harken stock), gets 10% and becomes the public half of a general management duo with Rusty Rose. A new $135M stadium is built with taxpayer money for the team which it eventually owns.
1989 At a December meeting of the Board of Directors of Harken, George W signs off on use of a recently created Cayman Island subsidiary to pursue company's $25 million contract to drill for oil off the coast of Bahrain.
1990 In January, Bahrain signs a exclusive oil drilling with Harken to the surprise of analysts. Harken stock shoot up in value.
1990 At March 14 Harken Board of Director's meeting, Bush is appointed as the chairman of a board committee to investigate the restructuring of $12 million in secured notes held by the group of Harken insiders who, in 1989, purchased the Aloha Petroleum subsidiary from Harken. Board also approves sale of Aloha.subsidiary from Harken. Board also approves sale of Aloha.
1990 June 22: W. sells his Harken stock for $848,560 - two weeks before $23 million in losses revealed. He pays the Rangers loan out of the proceeds.
1990 In July, Aloha Petroleum sold to Advance Petroleum Marketing which relieves the associated debt. Advance Petroleum was owned by David Halbert who had invited GWB to invest $10k or so in Allied Home Pharmacy several years earlier which yielded GWB up to a million in 96.
1990 Iraq invades Kuwait
1991 April: SEC investigates GWB for failing to report Insider Trading of Harken Energy stock. The investigation was led by James Doty, a friend and business lawyer for Bush in the past.   
1993 October: GWB asks for letter from the SEC regarding the investigation. The letter, signed by SEC Associate Director Bruce A. Hiler, specifically refuses to exonerate him or to preclude further SEC actions.
1998 GWB sells his Advance stock and his Rangers stock for 16 million.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 10:16 PM

Don: I would guess that 90% (just a guess mind you)of the stuff posted here is opinion. It probably is based on something the writer has read or heard. Reading or hearing something does not necessarily constitute fact! It may well be based on someone else's opinion~

Nicole fails to point out that the Harkins charges were fully investigated by the SEC, and Bush was cleared of any wrong doing. Questionable in some people's eyes, but not illegal. Obviously she disagrees with the NEC, which is her right.

When one makes charges such as those that Nicole has made, I don't believe the onus for supporting the "facts" presented is vested in the reader. These are serious charges, and the writer should provide non-partisan sources for the information written. That's my feeling anyway.

The two examples she has given are well known, have been investigated by the appropriate government agencies, and neither Bush or Cheney has received even a slap on the wrist. These are the serious "crimes" they both have committed?

I realize that Bush and Cheney naysayers can say, "Well, certainly you don't expect government agencies to discipline the president and vice-president of the United States, but I for one, would!

Facts, not supposition, not innuendo, that's what I would like to have. It is the frustration of seeing chages such as those Nicole has made without suppling PROOF that causes me at times to reply "horse pucky," or "left-wing rhetoric" to some posts. You don't like it? That's your perogotative.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: The Pooka
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 10:01 PM

misophist: I love my Mom (God rest her) & apple pie. As for "attempted genocide", I am sadly constrained to say that the one time the US seriously attempted it, we essentially achieved it: against the Native Americans. Thus slavery is our second-worst national historical sin. // But as for "rigged elections": Bush's was not. I was agin' him and I still am, please understand; and his election was damned unfortunate; and too damn bad that the first "Electoral College Inversion" (going opposite the popular vote) since 1888 produced: Dumbya. But, it was not "rigged". Not even the *smart* Republicans are smart enough, and foresightful enough, to arrange in advance -- or even after the fact -- such a complicated confluence of circumstances. / If you wanna say "stolen" as distinguished from "rigged", I'll dissent somewhat less vigorously. But you can't base the larceny case just on the fact that Uncle Albert won the national popular vote. Constitutionally that is just plain meaningless. Sorry. Get used to it. Or change it. (Good luck with that, btw.) The popular vote does not elect the President any more than it elects the UK-style Prime Minister. We 100+ million voters do not choose the President in November. 538 electors---whom we elected in November, unbeknownst to most of us---do that, in December. The "Inversion" occurs only rarely---3 times in our history so far. Hopefully, not soon again. But when it does---"That's the way it is." (BTW do you think the 1960 election was stolen? Nixon did. And of course HE was "not a crook." :)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 06:45 PM

Sorry to say so, Doug, it strikes me as a little hollow that you want Nicole to detail everything point by point when you seem to be in the habit of dismissing peoples' well reasoned and often well documented writings by calling them "horse pucky" or "left-wing rhetoric." It sometimes seems rather pointless to try to discuss things with you. I do read your writings carefully and consider them seriously. If you're going to participate in a reasoned discussion, it seems to me that you should do the same. When someone answers an argument by calling it "left-wing rhetoric" or "right-wing rhetoric," that is not a refutation. It merely demonstrates a closed mind. You're an intelligent man. You can do better than that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 05:41 PM

Sorry, I got over-dramatic there. Make it "I was always anti-Stalin, but I never thought we ought to *attack* Russia pre-emptively."

My aim was to show that one could
1. be anti-Stalin (and anti- all the later rulers of the USSR) and
2. not wish to start a pre-emptive war with Russia and
3. still be a loyal citizen of the United States, just like every president we had from WWII til the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Stalin & Russia are being used here as a parallel to Saddam and Iraq.

And that was my way of explaining "In a democracy (or a republic if you want to split that hair) dissent is not necessarily disloyalty," which was my point. It seems to be a difficult concept for many people.

Clint

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 05:37 PM

No, Doug, because the issue is far too complex to jot down in a paragraph or two. if you want to know, you're gonna have to go look for it. And you'll have to dig, because the connections are all over the place in the Bush family, and there's not much to solidly connect the dots. One wonders how so many shady characters end up doing business with the younger Bushes, though.

But, I'll help a little bit.

Here's a few items:
INSIDER TRADING:
According to SEC records, on four separate occasions President George W. Bush disregarded federal statutes by failing to file insider stock trade reports on a timely basis, back-dating one trade by some four months. (Harken Energy SEC Abstract Filing, transaction date: 6-22-1990; Oil stock sale made 41 days prior to Iraq's attack on Kuwait -- $848,560 profit, filing date: 3-4-1991- 8 1/2 months late and reported to the SEC two days after Gulf War was over on 3-2-1991; Harken Energy SEC Abstract Filing, transaction date: 6-16-89, filing date: 10-23-1989 -- 17 weeks late.)

Also look for why Bahrain would stake it's oil future on Harken Energy, when Harken had absolutely no experience with offshore drilling. Why did the previous Bush adminsitration immediately after that allow Kuwait and Bahrain to spend $19.6 million to hire Hill & Knowleton to lobby Congress for war against Iraq? Might it have something to do with a very lucrative military base deal announced shortly thereafter?

Cheney. Halliburton.

Then there's the Carlyle Group. It's international holdings are predominantly in the Near East and Persian Gulf. You'll have to look up the list of primary stockholders and executives, and their ties to both Bush administrations.

This is a complex one: Remember, "If you do business with terrorists, if you support or succor them, you will not do business with the United States."? Hmmm... does that include Arbusto Energy? Khalid bin Mahfouz is one of Osama's biggest financiers -- he's also been one of W's biggest investors. You'll enjoy following this money trail, because Clinton is mixed up in it, too. Bill White and James Bath are good names to look for, too, as well as Salem bin Laden.

Okay, I gotta go back to work now. After you've had fun with those, I'm give you some more.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 05:33 PM

Doug:

For shame, slinging that perjorative. Molly Ivens is clearly a straightforward optimist and idealist who has a different vision of what we should be doing in the world. To accuse her of treason in a war we have not yet declared is carrying rhetoric too far -- even unto jingoism. You do know better, no? OR have you decided that war has been declared, based on the general sea of rhetoric flying around?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 04:35 PM

Clint: I don't recall ever supporting nuking Iraq.

Nicole: So, we are just to take what you say as fact, because you say it? Hmmmm. Well, I don't think so. Anymore than I would expect you to do the same with me. When one makes serious charges against an individual, one should be able to back it up with facts, or else, make it clear that it is opinion only. My thinking anyway.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 04:29 PM

On the other hand, if past behavior is not grounds for current condfemnation, then the apparatus' case against Saddam looks pretty thin. Fortunately, we don't all have watery memories, either about Saddam's crimes OR about Bush crimes.

I refuse to choose one of them over the other. I think they ought to dukle it out in the middle of a desert somewhere. I'm sure Bush would win on points.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 03:23 PM

I haven't, Doug, because it would be pointless for me to spend an hour or two outlining in detail, citing references, the Bush family investments and those of the high ranking members of the administration, past financial misdoings and the times they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. When it comes to the oil industry, it's a lot.

No matter waht evidence of past behavior I present, you think that it doesn't color their current motives, and you might even be right. But I, on the other hand, am not so forgiving without *some* indication of remorse or change in behavior. If it looks like a snake, slithers like a snake, and bites like a snake, I'm going to assume it's a snake.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 03:08 PM

Then you do truly believe that Molly Ivins is, as the nickname "Baghad Molly" would imply, a traitor to the United States? In the editorials I've read she speaks against Saddam and for peace, and I don't see that as contradictory. I was always anti-Stalin, but I never thought we ought to nuke Russia pre-emptively.

Moscow Clint

(True. I used to live in Moscow, Idaho.)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 12:59 PM

Clint: writers on the Mudcat have referred to our president as much worse. Your criticizm of my referring to Molly Ivans as Baghad Molly is your right, of course, but I still believe it is a fair statement, and I don't retract it.

Nicole: I do understand the pricipal of profit. Perhaps if you presented evidence of your claims, rather than present them only as an opinion, you might sway me. I'd certainly read any evidence you present.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: NicoleC
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 12:48 PM

Doug, you seem to assume that making money = prices going up. The equation is not that simple -- if prices drop by 10%, and you pass 9% of that cost on to your consumer, your profit margin still goes up. Then there's commodities trading (too scary for my wallet), where you can profit by correctly predicting prices go down. Then there's little issues like Bush the Lesser selling off a passel of oil stocks days before Bush the Elder attacked Iraq the first time.

The money is really in being able to manipulate the market, not just driving prices up.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 11:55 AM

Doug: Having the Kuwaitis in our hip pocket is what we got out of the deal which further can be interpreted as, ahhhhhh, and I don't think this will come a big secert but....oil. Lots of cheap oil. What were the Kuwaiti's gonna do? Run the price up on us?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: mack/misophist
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 10:29 AM

Bush (either of them) is as American as Mom, apple pie, rigged elections, and attempted genocide. Check out the Monroe Doctrine for an early example of the US standing up for some one who didn't ask for it. I love my country but, damn, does it have a long way to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 01:40 AM

For God's sake, DougR, "Baghdad Molly" is a cheap and petty insult, not a reasonable argument. Disagreement is not disloyalty, and namecalling is not discussion.

Think about it; did you correct your children because you hated them or because you loved them? Just so, there are those who attempt to correct their country because they love it.

Look up "ad hominem" if you can find a dictionary. And look up the concept of the loyal opposition.

Clint

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 01 Oct 02 - 12:37 AM

Thanks, Amos, I found it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 04:37 PM

Doug:

See the "Discussion 2" thread started slightly later than this one for the conservative article.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DougR
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 04:32 PM

"To the victors goes the spoils", huh, Bobert?

And just what were the "spoils" that resulted from Desert Storm? Oil DECREASED in price after that war, and the last I heard, Kuwait still controls it's own oil fields.

As you are fond of saying Bobert, my friend, that dog just won't hunt.

Pooka: I keep looking for that "conervative" article you mentioned in your first post but all I've seen so far is Baghad Molly's left wing rhetric.

Have I missed something?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 04:00 PM

Well bespoke, Don, and I am entirely in agreement with your concerns. Watch the moving pea, by all means.

The sorry truth is that Bush's legitimacy is so compromised he couldn't bring the States to speak with one voice even if he proposed abolishing war and taxes.

Now this UN thing is a gem, as long as it is a clear voice of considered resolution and not in any way either a front for the US or a front for some sorta One World for All movement. I hate it when that happens! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 03:18 PM

Amos, I definitely agree that Hussein is a murdering tyrant of the worst kind and needs to be dealt with. I do favor the United States leaning on him heavily—along with the United Nations and a substantial coalition of other concerned countries. Bush made a very good point in his speech that if the United Nations doesn't do anything to enforce its resolutions, it declares itself irrelevant (kind of gutsy on Bush's part when you consider that that, of course, is a double-edged sword). Okay, give the UN a chance to get its socks pulled up and give the weapons inspectors a chance to do their thing. If Hussein balks or weasels, then go in, along with UN approval and the aforementioned coalition of concerned countries.

I am all in favor of the United Nations being a viable force rather than merely a debating society. But there are many in this country, and the world over, who would just as soon see the UN remain toothless, especially when they (we) want to selectively ignore its resolutions. This is an opportunity for the UN to show whether on not it has a future. To simply by-pass it at this stage destroys that opportunity, and the United States appoints itself World Policeman, an appointment that not all other nations may agree to (read World Bully).

In the meantime, I am deeply concerned about the erosion of our civil rights, the abysmal state the economy has fallen into, and the many social and environmental programs that the Bush administration is pruning away while people are heeding the trumpets of war.

Again, don't forget to keep track of which hand the coin is in.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 02:22 PM

Bush is as American as apple pie. I am intrigued by the thought that he thinks he is patriotic though... He has been pillaging money and freedom from this country from slightly before the elections till now, and seems to be content in doing so. The surplus that we worked so hard for has turned to liability and shame. The freedoms that gave this country it's good name are behind the lock and key of illigitimacy and world wide mocking...

From the beginning of the GWB political push, the preponderance of evidence shows his continual supply of accusations towards others to be a toxic and exclusive smoke screen... And if you cast an informed and critical eye to the coup, his accusations appear to be self criticisms and personal indictments of his own intentions...

Where does he get off thinking that he is the Godsend of patriotism when most of his actions seem to go against the very fabric of the paper that the Constitution was written on...

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 02:11 PM

Danged, what's really wrong with an "Emergency Middle East Summit", some good PR work, and a first step toward working on not only probelms related to Iraq, Suaid Arabia from werest the terrorists came from and the Isreali/ Plaestinian situation. Just make sure everyone gets an invite and they be offered some level of protection.

Really, what's wrong with the concept? Nothing! Except it gets in the way of the US unilaterially declaring itself the world's policeman rather that the world's peacemakers.

Oh, I can hear the drum beaters now. "We gave Saddam 12 years to do this and that...blah, blah, blah." Or "Bobert's just a dreamer, blah, blah, blah." Or amybe just "I won't work because blah, blah, blah."

We'll what we're doing now certainly ain't workin' and do you have to see the body bags comin' home, and suicide bombers coming to a theater near you, before getting beyond thinking inside the box for solving probelms which do take the courage to fundamentally change the way earthings solve problems.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 01:42 PM

WIsh you guys would sign your posts!

Consider the balance of power in conventional forces in the Mesopotamian area. Iraq has enough firepower with the use of NBC to steamroller the Saudis, the Syrians, the Kurds and and the Kuwaitis. The Iranians would fight him to a draw or lose. But they are not interested in doing so. So from the point of view of regional defense he has no need for NBC weapons. Yet he has apparently continued building his stockpiles of chemical weapons, although I cannot be 100% sure this is true. And there is evidence he is striving for nuclear capability -- I cannot imagine who else would have arranged for 5 ounces (140 grams) of weapons-grade uranium to be speeding across the desert toward the Iraqi border in a taxicab. $5 million dollars' worth , if I recall correctly. You think they were gonna make Timex dials with it? What use does he have for bio weapons? The only use he has put his Bio/Chem capability to was monstrous, unconscionable and genocidal. I can understand the impulse to roll out the Bradleys and smash the bugger but5 I believe it is an immature impulse.

I think it would be far _more_ interesting if we exercised enough PR control to get all his neighbors from Kurdistan around to Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey to agree on a reestablishment of the United States of Ottoman -- or at least a community of nations with the local strong agreement that Saddam was puredee bad news and ought to be bumped or weaseled out of his slot.

Bush may well find it handy to direct our attention to the "Big Evil over there" so we don't notice him buying judges. But the issue is not entirely fabricated, as a lot of very dead Kurds can attest -- not to mention those who have been shot, hanged or sliced for appearing in a bad light to the Iraqian PResident or his Ba'ath henchmen.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 01:33 PM

In a country that, for whatever reasons, is unwilling to solving its many domestic problems (to do so might necessitate embracing policies that some people regard as "socialistic" and are, hence, unacceptable), war or the threat of war provides a time-honored method of directing the attention of the populace elsewhere. It also provides a way of getting most of its citizens to overlook the erosion of their rights in the name of "national security."

For decades, it was the Soviet Union. Now that the Cold War is over, the government has been groping around, trying to find a "viable" external enemy. From the government's viewpoint, 9/11 was a gift. That gift has the advantage of being a perpetually unsolvable problem because the enemy could by anyone and anywhere. But "terrorism" has the disadvantage of being too diaphanous. No point source to justify a massive military machine. What is needed is a more concrete enemy. Hence, the "axis of evil," a menu of choices. Today, the Special of the Day is Iraq.

While one hand points with alarm at the "enemy," don't forget to notice what the other hand is doing.

Basic Machiavelli. History repeats . . . and repeats . . . and repeats . . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,a guest
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 01:05 PM

If "the world's defenders of freedom and basic human dignity" do put their foot down on Hussein, without the support of the rest of the world, because we think that the Iraqi government should reflect our beliefs about democracy, how does that make us any better than them? At least Hussein's people didn't vote him into office. That was us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 12:59 PM

What's Saddam got to do with Al Qaida? All the evidence is they hate each other.

All right, they are both Arabic and Muslims - but that's about as significant as saying Bush and Timothy McVeigh are just the sameby virtue of being being Christian Americans.

Saddam is a nasty piece of work, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he has any ambitions to force the rest of the world to embrace his beliefs - which don't seem to have much to do with anything other than his own survival.