BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:45 AM

Nerd,

I agree.

Little Hawk,

my one point was not about what you think about the present politics of Israel, but how you construct it that the general Israel agenda in the Middle East is one of the two reasons for the USA to chose Islamic fundamentalists as a new target. How does Israel control American politics?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:06 AM

I thought as much, Dewey. When someone points out that your argument is logically fallacious, you can either complain about the language of his point, or dismiss it as trivial. What you can't do is effectively defend your argument.

No offense taken, as you've very kindly proven me right...

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 12:22 AM

No, the point is too trivial.

No offense but,

Goodbye,

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 12:13 AM

Sorry, Dewey, no offense was intended. I come from a real big city, where "bullshit" hardly counts as a swear word. (In fact, isn't that what this whole BS section is supposed to be?)

So I'll rephrase:

Also, let me point out that Dewey's claim:

I still say Bush is by far the better candidate on National Security and Terrorism, despite the heavy handed war in Iraq, and foreign policy mistakes.

And I think you'll find (in all the polls done so far) that the majority of Americans agree with me on this point.

This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact.

is inaccurate. In AD 500 you could say "I believe the world is flat. And the Majority of my countrymen agree with me.   This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact."

But you'd still be wrong, and it still wouldn't be a fact.

I stand by this statement, Dewey. The pint is that just because a lot of people agree with you doesn't make you right.

Now that the profanity is gone, would you care to address its claims logically?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 11:13 PM

Sorry about the Caps they are offensive too, but I am trying to improve on this.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 11:11 PM

Ben Franklin, a diplomatic genious, expressed his convictions and opinions (which he avoiding making in the first place) in the following ways. I believe we could all benefit on the Mudcat from adopting just a few of his protocals.

For example, when forced to express an opinion that his friends might not agree with him on, he did the following:

It appears to me (at present) to be this way.
Although I agree with you argument of (such and such) I think (such and such) should also be taken into account.

Notice he used the words "At present" When Conversing, This Accomplished 2 objectives.

1. It forced him to have an open-mind and empathy toward the other person and his views. (necessary when learning anything of benefit and maintaining a friend)


2. It also lead to the perfect realization that his views
   could be wrong and offensive to someone else.

Notice also that he acknowledged the points to which he agreed with his adversaries, Finding a spirit of agreement promoted cooperation and friendship, This qwelled the anger of his advisaries, and made them more open to hearing what HE had to say. (i.e. it lowered his advesary's defenses)

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 10:42 PM

Sorry Amos.

I Guess Nerd was swearing at me, I retract the statement, as it was written to the wrong party.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 10:34 PM

That is bit Unfair of you, Amos.

The metaphoric stick I have is PEACEFULLY AT BAY,


Your stick is at my throat with bitterness and profanity for expressing my opinion. The topic was:

"What some conservatives think of Bush" I am largely a conservative so hence "the opinion was expressed."

Such hatred toward the other side is un-necessary.

Have YOU Read Dale Carnegie's Book, "How to Win Friends and Influnece People"

He says you cannot convince another person of anything, and the best way to win and argument is to avoid one all together. Sure flaming and forcing you political opinions (with profanity included) makes the enforcer FEEL BETTER, but it put the other person on the defensive
and causes him to justify himself. Also it does very little to promote harmony with others or even have them attempt to listen to your side. Most times, people (out of bitterness) will avoid intersactions with such people. Also doing this, make the enforcer of the opinion look like less of a people for not controlling his emotions and his tongue, such a person might never learn anything new (as we all are not right ALL the time) as his mind is closed.

The true richness in life is empathy and understanding for the other persons pespective as well as your own, and an open mind toward all people on all subjects people.

Sure, there are people I dis-agree with, but I try to be Holy first, and send out love and consdieration.

If one has all the answers and greats the other person with vitreal, does this help his cause in any way, his peace of mind, or his interaction with other human beings.

I'll let you all answer the above for yourself, as I didn't think that voicing my opinion her was going to cause such a caustic experience.

I'm gonna stay away from the message broards and get back to meditation and writing, I get more multiplicities of blessings from this, than posting here with the dissidence and the self ego.

Which is NOT the spirit of God, nor the kingdom of heaven that is within US.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 08:40 PM

Wolfgang,

The interesting thing about the new data on the Reichstag fire is that the new interpretation more closely parallels what probably happened in the US in 2001: an foreign group committed a terrorist act against an important symbolic building. The government then used that as an excuse to attack any and all groups that opposed it, whether they were guilty of the attack or not.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 04:37 PM

LH:
Nice post twice above. My compliments to your father and his part for the Allies. My father was posted to the Pacific Islands, and after VJ Day he was in the occupation of Japan.

I am a big fan of Canada in spite of their opposition to the current American efforts overseas. You guys are true friends and your opinion is your opinion. You're sort of like the French only sane.

By your lights I am a strong Zionist, so there we are. I don't think our problems with the current terrorists are over Israel, however. I believe that rather than the US being perceived as a supporter of Israel, Israel is perceived as being an American incursion into the Islamosphere. I am all for it.

I still think your credulosity as between plausible and implausible is at a different 'set point' from mine.

I am not a knee-jerk supporter of all American policy. I was only recently enlightened into the sad history of the US in toppling Mossadegh (in Iran), and my first reaction is we had no business doing that and we set the stage for a lot of grief. I am still mostly ignorant there, though, and one can't go back in time.

In keeping with the title of this thread I urge people to take a look at Pat Buchanon's recent work: "Where The Right Went Wrong" and a very interesting book by Thomas Barnett of the U.S. Naval War College, very much a 'big picture' effort: "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century". He's been making the rounds of the book tours and I agree with what I heard him saying re: Iraq, that there were and are good reasons to be there, but there have been some tactical mistakes made.

Let the Shire remain the Shire. We may all need to go there for a break.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 03:55 PM

My problem isn't with Jews, Wolfgang, it's with Zionists. I like Jews in a general sense. Many of my heroes are Jews. I don't like the policies of the Likud Party.

As for the Reichstag fire, well...I am not in a position to know for absolute certain who started it.

My use of the phrase "entirely possible" was to indicate that I think it's a rather plausible possibility as opposed to a completely implausible one. I have drawn no final conclusion about it, however, I just have some suspicions. If you object to my use of the phrase "entirely possible" in that context, that's okay, I guess. We all have our own ways of expressing things and interpreting them.

Perhaps I should clarify what I said further. I don't know whether or not elements in the USA government colluded in, helped arrange, or helped allow the WTC and Pentagon attacks. I simply consider it a possibility, and not an implausible one.

It's a possibility worth considering and investigating.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 02:02 PM

After the collapse of the Soviet system in the late 80's, the USA decided it needed a new enemy on the World stage. They chose the Islamic fundamentalists. Why? 2 reasons. Oil and the general Israeli agenda in the Middle East. (Little Hawk)

The Jewish conspiracy to control the world? The Israeli agenda in the Middle East is one of two reaons for the USA to chose the Islamic fundamentalists as a new enemy?

I didn't say it was "likely", I said it was possible. I have no particular opinion at this point on how likely it is that that occurred. (Little Hawk)

You're juggling with words, Little Hawk, and they fall down.
You didn't say 'possible' as you prefer to remember now, you said entirely possible. The emphasis 'entirely' makes a neutral reading that you now claim impossible for the normal reader.

But if you really claim that the neutral reading should be the correct one then you should grant that also to the word 'likely' which is at least as neutral as 'entirely possible'. Have you really not seen the irony that you have used the word 'likely' yourself in your attempt to explain how the word 'possible' should be understood as being different from 'likely'?

A last note about the Reichstag fire. I see this in discussions used, in particular, by Americans as an example for a government doing an evil deed and blaming someone else. You should consider taking another example to make this point. Since a few years, mainstream (and not just Neonazi) research in history has slowly started to rethink this scenario. The main reason for that was the fall of the wall which made possible access to documents about the fire (the Reichstag building was on the East side of the wall) which were not known before. It is not proven (they are still debating) but it is entirely possible, more than remotely likely and fairly probable that this is a communist propaganda lie still believed by Western lefties. It seems the Nazis have not done this particular deed, though there is no doubt that they have used the fire in their sense. When I read the Reichstag fire argument I read it in the new sense: It shows that not in each case someone who profits from a happening has staged it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 12:25 PM

Stalin's Russia was also one of the other countries that defeated that country where the Reichstag fire occurred, Robomatic...doesn't prove a darned thing either way. To have fought dictators does not in itself guarantee one's own moral spotlessness. Not by any means.

I have long been an avid student of WW II history, and I am far more familiar with maps of Normandy, Barbarossa, and the Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes) than I am with any map of the Shire. :-) Matter of fact, I can't recall any of the principle features on the map of the Shire. My father drove an M5 Stuart tank for the British forces and helped defeat the Nazis...all the way from Normandy to Prague.

The USA was once a bastion of freedom and progressiveness (albeit an aggressive and expansionist bastion of such). It is now just an aggressive bastion, period.

My father, who is still alive, holds that same opinion I just expressed. He is astounded at what has happened in American politics in the last 20 or 30 years, and he considers the present American government to be the moral antithesis of the American Ally whose forces assisted his in defeating the Germans in World War II.

I guess he's living in "the Shire" too according to you, eh?

You're resting on laurels that are way out of date.

I do breathe the air of freedom, because: 1. I'm in Canada, and 2. I'm in charge of my own destiny, and rely on myself instead of on a corrupt bunch of liars in high places to do my thinking for me.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 10:55 AM

Well, once again I'm observing WAY lotta thread 'drift'. Right to la-la land. These are NOT possibilities because they are rants from various wackos with no legitimacy either in logical analysis nor are there facts on their side. You face them with facts and they counter with additonal end runs into fantasies.

Expounding falsehoods on the open market is not a crime, nor is the pursuit of truth. Therefore LH continue to breathe the air of freedom. In case you don't remember, this is one of the countries that defeated that other country in which the Reichstag fire occurred. I think you might find some history and a geography available on the web, if you have the power to distinguish them, from, oh, a map of the Shire.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 07 Sep 04 - 09:44 AM

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 08:34 PM

pdc:

What's left of the free world thanks you.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 08:30 PM

Please let me add some fuel to the fire. The following is from a dubious website, but the site SOMETIMES has some valid information. A new book regarding 9/11 is coming out soon, and here is a preview of what it states. (Sometimes conspiracy theories arise because there have been conspiracies. But sometimes not.)

Mike Ruppert's new book "Crossing the Rubicon" will be released publicly in mid-October.

In his press release he synopsizes the key points:

"1. I will name Vice President Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the FAA, the Pentagon, or the White House Situation Room;

2. I will establish conclusively that in May of 2001, by presidential order, Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control of all wargame and field exercise training and scheduling through several agencies, especially FEMA. This also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD drills -- some involving hijack simulations -- taking place on that day.

3. I will also demonstrate that the TRIPOD II exercise being set up on Sept. 10th in Manhattan was directly connected to Cheney's role in the above.

4. I will also prove conclusively that a number of public officials, at the national and New York City levels, including then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, were aware that flight 175 was en route to lower Manhattan for 20 minutes and did nothing to order the evacuation of, or warn the occupants of the South Tower. One military officer was forced to leave his post in the middle of the attacks and place a private call to his brother - who worked at the WTC - warning him to get out. That was because no other part of the system was taking action.

5. I will also show that the Israeli and British governments acted as partners with the highest levels of the American government to help in the preparation and, very possibly, the actual execution of the attacks."

An unattributed article (its link was not available) at the Jeff ***** site gives some further details on the specific exercises:

1 ) MILITARY EXERCISE NORTHERN VIGILANCE: Transferred most of the combat ready interceptors and possibly many AWACS from the north east into northen Canada and Alaska. This explains,in part, why there were only eight ( 8 ) combat interceptors in the NE on 9/11.

2 ) NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: FEMA arrived in NYC on 10 Sept 2001 to set up the command post for FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on Manhattan's PIER 29. This shows our masters are loving, they made a strong effort to minimize the required deaths. This was probably forced on them by the CFR, nice guys who must occasionally kill innocent people.

3 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. The 9/11 commission made only mention of this single exercise and lied about its purpose. The commisssion said its purpose was to intercept Russian bombers.

4 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT WARRIOR: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

5 ) WARGAME EXERCISE NORTHERN GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

At the time of the real hi-jacking there were as many as 22 hi-jacked aircraft on NORAD's radar screen.

Some of these drills were "Live Fly" exercises were actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control were simulating hi-jacked aircraft. Some of the drills electronically added the hi-jacked aircraft into the system. All this as the real hi-jackings began.

NORAD could not tell the difference between the seventeen bogus blips and the five actual hi-jacked aircraft blips. Cheney could.

It is clear we know almost nothing about how 9/11 was executed. We should know it was an exceeding highly technological operation involving dozens of major projects each employing large resources.

http://www.rense.com/general57/lid.htm

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 06:34 PM

What I said is not "my fantasy", it's merely one possible theory about what happened in 2001. If I believed in this theory without a doubt, then it would be my fantasy. I don't necessarily believe in it, I just wonder about it. It's a possibility.

If people are unwilling to even consider such a possibility, it's probably because it scares them too much...or it violates something they consider sacred. People who are unwilling to consider possible theories for the commission of a crime do not make very good crime investigators, do they?

Ask yourself why this theory frightens or outrages you so much that you cannot stand to even hear it articulated by someone, and you will come to understand more about yourself in the process.

If I had been a German in the 30's and had suggested publicly that the Reichstag fire was planned by the Nazis, the Gestapo would have come and arrested me and probably had me shot....for speaking the unspeakable. I would have "disappeared". Believe me, I'm glad it hasn't gone quite that far in America yet. Be careful that it doesn't, because it's well on the way. If it does go that far, you'll know it soon enough, and your Bill of Rights will be just a fading memory.

The rest of the World can see it, but how many Americans can? Not enough yet to stop it. The World now fears America, for good reason. America is the most feared nation on the face of the globe, because it is under the command of a rogue government with the most powerful weapons of mass destruction in the World and the will to use them...whenever and wherever it pleases. Britain rides on its coattails and shares in the spoils.

And, yes, both the Democratic and the Republican Parties have become so dishonest that they are virtually beyond redemption. They do not represent the public, they represent their primary funding sources...the major banks, the World Bank, the IMF, and the major corporations. And there is nothing the public can do about it through the normal avenues of electoral politics. Nothing whatsoever. They pick the candidates, you rubber stamp their pick...after fighting over your non-choices (Tweedledum and Tweedledee) uselessly for a year. They win, you lose. Every time. You (Americans) have all collectively been robbed. You are ruled by a corporate and fiscal oligarchy that serves money and raw power...not liberty, freedom, justice or anything else even remotely like those values.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:36 PM

I just hope people in the US aren't as easily sucked in by the pomposity of the RNC Convention.

This is a joke, right?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:32 PM

Maturity is the ability to cope with reality without becoming paralyzed by indecision. (Anon.)

Bush failed this one in Florida sitting in a school classroom. To me, this election is not about Bush and Kerry. It is about who is more trustworthy. From my perspective, Kerry engenders more trust than Bush. I cannot bring myself to feel loyalty to people who sell off the poor of their country to big corporations. The Neocons are doing this. It sucks. I truly feel that Kerry is the better man for the job. However, it may already be too late to save what was once the greatest country on this planet. But, I hope not.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:26 PM

In a conversation between F Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemmingway, one of them said " What's moral is what I feel good after, and what's immoral is what I feel bad after."

The mark of maturity is the length of time after...

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:21 PM

And on that point we both agree, bb. Like talkin' morals in a whorehouse.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:14 PM

"Honesty is a thing of the past in politics"


I think that BOTH parties can take credit for this, not just the Republicans...

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 05:09 PM

bb,

You are likely right. The thing is, Washington has put so much spin on things to do with 9/11 that it really is difficult to know where truth ends and conspiracy begins. It's too bad that things have come to this in the United States. It is too bad that so many Americans could even think that their government would use citizens as pawns in this type of political manipulating. Honesty is a thing of the past in politics, and the Enron, Halliburton rip-offs certainly make average 'gotta pay the bills and feed the kids' people feel like garbage. Sign of the times, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 04:55 PM

no idea of a web site...


But when I drove by, before the constructipon, it did not seem that small. The incredible thing is how far in it got ( to the third ring, I think)- that building was built of LOTS of concrete! The video I have seen is from a security camera, and the frame rate is not what we are used to. But there were pieces of plane about- and that plane went somewhere- the radar says into the building. Or did some shadowy group kill everyone on board without leaving evidence, and sneak the bodies into the burning Pentagon?

There were several eyewitnesses driving on Rt 395 past there at the time of the impact- I remember the interviews, and drove by about two days later where the press had interviewed them ( Just south of the 14th St. bridge, after the Rt. 1 splitoff that I took for a number of years)

Simple explaination...

Hijackers took over plane after takeoff from Dulles, guided it into the Pentegon. Check NTSB for the crash report, I am sure they have one.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 04:42 PM

Direct me to a site that explains it all in simple terms. Thanks. The hole in the Pentagon made by the plane that slammed into it seems so small. And the video looks fake.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 04:35 PM

Guest, Grok:

What about the plane that hit the Pentegon? Why the quotes? There are films and witnesses. A friend of mine was the airline agent that sold two of the hijackers tickets.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 04:31 PM

I think the point is whether O b L had help from people in the American intelligence community. However, I will never forget the gloating face on that sick piece of shit as he smiled and nurtured glee at the death of 3000 people. Something to be proud of I'm sure. However, the question still remains: Why was the bin Laden family allowed to leave the US without being questioned? And I'd still like to know about the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon. How history can be made obscure, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 02:50 PM

LH you are playing a very dangerous game when you posit a possibility based on who YOU PERCEIVE benefits. It's not far from that to considering a while passel of farfetched theories based not on any kinds of facts whatever but on plot scenarios, which are a dime a dozen as you should know. Within hours of the events on 9/11 at the World Trade Center, there was commentary widespread over the Islamic world that it was an Israeli plot. I don't think what you are implying is any different because once you stop considering the facts, your fantasy is as good as anyone elses.

Leave us not forget the tapes wherein Osama specifically took credit as leader of Al Qaeda for the planning and execution of the terror.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:38 PM

I didn't say it was "likely", I said it was possible. I have no particular opinion at this point on how likely it is that that occurred. But I do know that from the point of neo-Conservative planners it was very fortuitouis, given the fact that they were planning to launch a second war on Iraq ever since 1996. The WTC attack enabled a public mood in America of support for such a course of action...even though it was not Iraq that was responsible for the attack.

So it's blasphemy to you? Well, consider this...stranger things have happened. All it would take is a few pragmatists in high places who figured they needed a terrorist incident to stir up the public. That doesn't mean George Bush knew about it. He wouldn't need to know about it. Better if he didn't, in fact. Wars have been launched before over bizarre (and in some cases totally fictional) incidents, such as:

1. The blowing up of the Maine in Havana Harbour in 1898. Very handy. Led to the USA gaining an overseas empire from Spain at very little cost. May have been an accident, may have been sabotage...but almost certainly was NOT done by the Spanish, who did NOT want a war with America.

2. The Gulf of Tonkin incident. Entirely phony. Never happened. Used by LBJ to justify massive American involvement in Vietnam.

3. A government group in the intelligence community had on paper plans to arrange missile or bomb attacks on American cities or down American civilian airliners in the early 60's and make it look like Castro did it, therefore providing an excuse to invade Cuba. John Kennedy came across the papers detailing these plans, had a fit about it, and stopped the whole thing dead in its tracks.

These things happen, and the people who arrange them don't really give a damn how many people get killed in the process. They are playing geopolitics and they play to win. You may wake up one day and discover that those you most trusted to protect you have in fact betrayed you.

Not everyone in the government is a good person by your definition or mine.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:33 PM

Lonesome EJ:

You said "and his investment of time and money in 80s anti-ballistic missile technologies in preference to controlling the spread of third world and terrorist access to nukes, are issues with which even staunch conservatives have difficulty. "

I believe that the controlling of the spread of third world and terrorist access to nukes is the exactly the justification for the attack on Iraq, and the probable attacks on other countries. The time and money presently being invested on the "80s anti-ballistic missle technologies "( developed in the mid to late 90s...) is in addition, to deal with a different threat, which still exists: long range missiles. I don't think that the GI with a rifle is any good against the spread of biological agents- does that imply we should not bother to have the GI? (Hint- the answer is to prepare for ALL types of attacks)

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:18 PM

I didn't say it was likely, I said it was possible. I have no particular opinion at this point on how likely it was. But I do know that from the point of neo-Conservative planners it was very fortuitouis, given the fact that they were planning a second war with Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 11:04 AM

This thread has gone bonkers. High on emotion and quotations of other peoples' emotions. I sure hope LH was trying to be sarcastic when he/she/it posted that it was likely that the WTC was an American plot.

That was not just tripe, it was thoughtless vicious tripe.

The rest is emotional tripe.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:24 AM

And another.

Web posted Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Are we better off?
Letter to the editor




Ronald Reagan, famously, asked us: "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The country responded. "No," they said. Today, it is time to ask the question again.

Should George W. Bush be elected this fall, he will have a mandate to continue on his course. We, as a nation, will be perceived by the world as having told him that we agree with him and his goals and the means he uses to achieve them. Is that what we want the world to think of us? Is that how we want to think of ourselves? Are we better off today than we were four years ago? No. No. No.

Elva Bontrager

Juneau

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 06 Sep 04 - 12:21 AM

The lady not only talks the talk; the lady also walks the walk.


Web posted Wednesday, April 23, 2003 at JuneauEmpire.com

Juneau dissent is healthy to explore

People who equate criticism of the Bush administration with being anti-America are proving only that they do not have any understanding of what this country is about. Dissent is written into the U.S. Constitution and has been supported by all of the philosophers and statesmen since. Objecting to dissent is a non-thinking, simplistic reaction. If dissent were not allowed, this country would be a very different one from the one we love.

Let me put it into simplistic terms. Say that I object heartily to, and worry about and resist the plans and policies of Juneau's mayor or the Juneau Assembly. Does that make me "anti-Juneau?" Does that mean that I hate Juneau? Heavens, no. Nothing of the sort. I love Juneau and want it to do well. It means only that I don't have the same response or proposed solutions as they do to current problems and outlooks. I'm well aware, as should be those so quick to label as un-American those who disagree with the U.S. government, that mayors and assemblies and U.S. administrations linger for awhile then move on. The city, the state, the nation remain.

Elva Bontrager
Juneau

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 11:45 PM

I'm so sorry, Ebbie. I didn't know. This is what America needs to see. The face of real people facing real loss at the hands of an administration out of control and preying on people's fears. Yes, the terrorist threat is real, but this was not the way to fight it.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 11:02 PM

More at http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090604A.shtml

"This is my reply: Mr. President, I know that you probably still "don't do body counts," so you may not know that almost one thousand U.S. troops have died doing what you told them they had to do to protect America. Ryan was Number 832. Liberty was, indeed, precious to the one I lost-- so precious that he would rather have gone to prison than back to Iraq in February. Like you, I don't know where the strength for "such pride" on the part of people "so burdened with sorrow" comes from; maybe I spent it all holding my mother as she wept.

"I last saw my loved one at the Kansas City airport, staring after me as I walked away. I could see April 29 written on his sad, sand-chapped and sunburned face. I could see that he desperately wanted to believe that if he died, it would be while "doing good," as you put it. He wanted us to be able to be proud of him. Mr. President, you gave me and my mother a folded flag instead of the beautiful boy who called us "Moms" and "Brookster." But worse than that, you sold my little brother a bill of goods. Not only did you cheat him of a long meaningful life, but you cheated him of a meaningful death. You are in my prayers, Mr. President, because I think that you need them more than anyone on the face of the planet. But you will never get my vote.

"So to whom it may concern: Don't vote for Bush. No. Just don't do it. I would not be happy with you."

    Sincerely,
    Brooke M. Campbell
    Atlanta, GA

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 09:59 PM

And Iran will probably be the next war zone.

The 911 hijackers were not from Iraq. Most of them were Saudis. Their top leaders appear to have graduated from the same Mujahedin religious fanatics that the USA originally trained and funded to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. After the collapse of the Soviet system in the late 80's, the USA decided it needed a new enemy on the World stage. They chose the Islamic fundamentalists. Why? 2 reasons. Oil and the general Israeli agenda in the Middle East. Islamic fundamentalists were the perfect enemy for America to fight an endless war with. (An endless war is economically more advantageous than a war with clearcut and final objectives.) They were located in not one place, but many. All the better. They could serve as a justification for intervening in not one place, but many. And they were weak enough militarily to be considered a suitable target (unlike China or Russia)...yet spread out enough for it to be impossible to ever completely eliminate them AS an enemy.

Absolutely perfect!

Islamic Fundamentalism is an enemy made in heaven from the point of view of the Neo-Conservative planners and the American military-industrial complex. They now have a classic Orwellian worldwide war that is unwinnable, unloseable, unendable, indefinable, almost incomprehensible, and totally unjustifiable (except to a very credulous person who believes the all-pervasive fear propaganda dispensed by the corporate media).

It is entirely possible that certain of those same neo-conservative forces conspired in arranging or allowing the WTC attack.

Our version of "burning down the Reichstag". Very convenient for people wanting to launch an endless war.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 07:41 PM

I sadly predict, if the shrub is elected or re-appointed, his arrogance will know no bounds. His selfish, mindless agression will trigger a divison in this country that will make the 60's look tame.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 06:22 PM

How can anyone really trust Bush with the security of this country? He has done more to increase terrorism internationally than any president we've ever had.

His solution in Iraq should be evidence enough to know that he doesn't have any decent plan to secure America.

Kerry has at least some military experience. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and all the other war-mongers have made a mockery of US foreign policy.

Those that claim that Bush is strong on security more than Kerry are just following the Party Line. They get their news from Fox.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 04:37 PM

How Bush got into this position is unbelievable. He had FIVE years total in any kind of public service- and I have talked with many Texans (I am involved in tourism and many Texans travel) who say that he made a mess of the economy and goals in Texas in those five years.

He would NEVER have gotten in line for the presidency without the political powers who wanted him in there and plugged him in. My god, he can't even formulate a coherent paragraph by himself.

Nowadays it is being said that he is not as stupid as we used to think- but my suspicion is that he is simply better at learning thes lines.

In contrast, John Kerry is a thinking man who has spent many years in the Senate where he has been exposed to many issues that have been debated by various sides and then acted upon with various degrees of success. He is aware of nuance,the value of goals and the art of compromise in the pursuit of those goals.

In wartme, he served his country. When he came home, he served his country further by helping us realize the futility of the war in which we were engaged. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

How in the world does Bush come off as being a better leader? Or better in combating terrorism? What has Bush done that has helped? If anyone can point to FIVE things that Bush has done that has made this a better, stronger, safer country since he took office, I will shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Nerd
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 01:38 PM

Also, let me point out that Dewey's claim:

I still say Bush is by far the better candidate on National Security and Terrorism, despite the heavy handed war in Iraq, and foreign policy mistakes.

And I think you'll find (in all the polls done so far) that the majority of Americans agree with me on this point.

This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact.

is bullshit. In AD 500 you could say "I believe the world is flat. And the Majority of my countrymen agree with me.   This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact."

But you'd still be wrong, and it still wouldn't be a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 11:23 AM

My post, which I agree was high on feeling but not unfactual, was addressed more to Dewey's previous one to me.

GWB is, in fact, an individual who has knowingly and willingly exercised his power over the military to bring about the death of innocent individuals.

He was not unaware this would happen when he exercised that power.

For all the facile excuses you care to make about the nature of states and the formalisms of war, I cannot escape the fact that he committed an act close to or identical to serial murder.

A

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 10:37 AM

Amos:

It's pretty apparent you were answering the post above mine but you didn't specify, unless you see yourself holding a running argument on the forum.

There's definitely a failure to communicate. Your post is full of emotion, not "the facts." 'W' has not been the best communicator either, but he has communicated enough to put forward reasons for his actions. I think that it is true that a majority of Americans back him, although we'll learn more in November when we actually vote on it. Whether you like it or not, that's a hell of a lot of folk.

I think there has been a failure of the imagination. Us with too little and Islamic Fundamentalists with too much.

And those are FACTS!

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 10:36 AM

Amen,Amos

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Amos
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 10:11 AM

The majority of Americans? Wow, that's definitely a court of high appeal; I would trust it more if their information had not been so unceasingly distorted by Bush's machinery. That anything close to 48% of America wants a war-monger for a candidate is disturbing to me.

As for you arguments about war, I find them circular and self-fulfilling, and trite and low on merit.

It is a colossal and tragic failure of imagination that we decided to solve the Iraq situation, whatever it actually was, with violence and murder.

It was not necessary at the time. Knowingly perpetrating violence and murder is the earmark of a murderer.

And 48% of the nation is a deluded accessory after the fact to an act of murder. We killed, not because we had to but because we could, and we did it at the premeditated behest of an insane human being.

Those are the facts.

A

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 05:51 AM

Dewey:

But it's such a BIG stick? C'mon, one swing around the parking lot before it's full!

Seriously, I just saw a CSPAN presentation from June of this year ('04) wherein a fellow who works at the U.S. Naval War College, Thomas Barnett, was putting forth a global view as to what's going on and what the US should do. He's got a new book out called "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century". It was late and I didn't catch it all, so I don't feel up to summarizing it except that he's one of the few people I know to articulate a world view. I did understand him to be in support of globalization as an overall modernizing and civilizing influence in the world today. He seemed to be saying that the countries which embraced globalization had less terror and mayhem, the those which weren't getting into it were the opposite, and they were mainly the Arab countries and Africa. He was critical about several aspects of American policy, especially not getting other significant powers in the world to join us.

I'm going to follow up on this. If any of you are familiar with him please chime in.

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 04:58 AM

I would also add that Just having a big stick doesn't license you to use it.

Peace

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: Dewey
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 04:46 AM

Amos,

I get your point, (Bush advocating war death etc.)
And yes I agree, the war in a Iraq was heavy handed.

Should we try a candlelight vigil For World Peace?

We all could? but... it will displace these facts: not everyone on this planet wants peace,


Anyway Lets Keep the Vibs Coming. either that or speak softly and carry a big stick

(I'll let all of you out there determine which it is you perfer)

I still say Bush is by far the better candidate on National Security and Terrorism, despite the heavy handed war in Iraq, and foreign policy mistakes.

And I think you'll find (in all the polls done so far) that the majority of Americans agree with me on this point.

This is thus, not my opinion, but a fact. But only on that issue alone does he score high, not the economy.

Dewey

Subject: RE: BS: What Some Conservatives think of Bush
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 05 Sep 04 - 12:42 AM

I too totally understood what Doug R meant by saying he'd rather fight 'em in Iraq than Phoenix.

I just think implying that if you fight 'em in Iraq you won't have to fight 'em in Phoenix is nonsense. And implying that the War in Iraq is a war against terrorists is nonsense.

It's a GWB slogan, not a reasoned plan of action.

How 'bout "If we'd killed them hijackers in Iraq we wouldn't have had that 9/11 disaster?" That's the By-God Truth, but it doesn't get you anywhere.

clint