another Dubya new word

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: GUEST,Truthtoller
Date: 08 Apr 02 - 03:56 AM

You boys would know. Does the 'W' stand for wanker??

T.T.

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 12:42 PM

Here is this from the transcript of yesterday's Bush/Blair press conference down there in Crawford:

"QUESTION: Prime Minister, we've heard the president say what his policy is directly about Saddam Hussein, which is to remove him. That is the policy of the American administration. Could I ask you whether that is now the policy of the British government?

And could I ask you both, if it is now your policy to target Saddam Hussein, what has happened to the doctrine of not targeting heads of state and leaving countries to decide who their leaders should be, which is one of the principles which applied during the Gulf War?

BUSH: Maybe I should be a little less direct and be a little more nuanced and say we support regime change. "

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 12:10 PM

The U.S. is considered one large glass house by many of those leaders of nations who the U.S. objects to. The trouble is that the glass is a one-way mirror for many North Americans who live between Canada and Mexico, and we can't see ourselves as the world sees us, we only see the reflection that government and commercial interests want us to see. It's important to read news from other nations, to play "what if" concerning the complaints lodged by people we consider despicable (Saddam, for example). I only bring this up (for the contributors to this list I'm probably stating the obvious) because it is my fear that while we overtly claim we want peace and democracy in Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, and elsewhere, our governmental representatives and corporate culture are covertly working against those desires.

DougR, I don't think you can accuse this Guest of trolling, so don't worry about contributing to the discussion. It is something we would discuss among ourselves, introduced from the same humourous standpoint.

SRS

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: kendall
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 07:34 AM

What about all this noise about moving the head terrorist to another country where torture is accepted? If this is done, no doubt they will find out what they have in store for us in the form of more incidents such as the WT center. Sure, that will slow them down for a while, but, then what? When we become as bad as they are, who wants to live in such a world? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth only makes the whole world blind and toothless. (Mohandas Mahatma Ghandi)

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 05:06 AM

DougR: You are right of course that there is no inconsistancy in logic between Bush's statements because "not picking leaders" is different to "picking people who should not be leaders". On the other hand, if you do the second often enough, you end up with the first! Also, as kendall pointed out, the US is often prepared to support opposition groups against people they feel should not be leaders. This is, for all practical purposes, picking the next leader whether they are explicitly named or not.

It is also my opinion that it would be better for Iraq and for the world if Saddam was not leader. That does not mean I think it is therefore right to actively replace him. I am sure you will agree that such decisions are part of an immensely difficult moral area. Leaving the specifics of Saddam aside, there has to be a point at which we have no choice to but to interfere in another country - essentially when 'we' judge they are too great a threat to 'us'. I don't think many people would feel WWII was morally unjustified, for example. Equally, there are ways other countries can disadvantage us when we both agree it would be wrong to interfere. In between is a vast grey area. For my part, while I have many objections to how Saddam is behaving I do not yet feel we have reached the point of interfering.

I hope I have managed to keep the tone of this civilised - apologies if I haven't.

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 01:07 AM

I think he's pretty funny-here
Rustic

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 10:32 PM

Dumbya may be laughable, but he's hardly comical. Disgusting, scary, inexcusable, perhaps pitiful by turns- but he's NOT funny. Nor is the mess he and the BuShites are making of the U.S. while distracting the vast majority with foreign adventurism.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: Lynn
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:49 PM

C-flat - I heard that story too. Still that doesn't make it true, but...

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: kendall
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:30 PM

We created Saddam, now, as in the story of Frankenstein, we are regretting it.

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: C-flat
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:44 PM

I heard that George Dubya was entertained recently by Stevie Wonder and tried to attract his attention by WAVING to him? Please, someone tell me otherwise!

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: Amergin
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:39 PM

gotta love dubya...he is always great for good comedy relief....not much use otherwise though...

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: DougR
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:37 PM

Oops. I just realized I broke my own rule. I replied to a Guest thread posted to create controversy. Arghhhhh!

DougR

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: DougR
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:34 PM

Not really, DMcG, post again after Bush has named a successor to Saddam. Anyone who doesn't think Saddam should be replaced is, well, mistaken in my opinion. That doesn't mean the U. S. is going to name a leader to replace him.

DougR

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 12:00 PM

George W talks about the oil business or money - things he has a deep personal interest in

I thought Bush failed in the oil business? Of course, I'm sure he's still interested in it.

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: Amos
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 10:32 AM

Easy to fix! I know someone who works in the oil business -- that's the way he describes it -- and if you press him he tells you he works in the distribution side -- and if you ask a little more closely it turns out to be retail management -- and then finally he allows that what he does is manage a Texaco station on the night shift!! LOL

So I am sure I can find W a job for which his talents are more suited and which falls along his real interest line more closely.

A

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: mack/misophist
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 09:52 AM

Some one pointed out to me that when George W talks about the oil business or money - things he has a deep personal interest in - he speaks as well as you or I. It's only when he tries to sound presidential that he can't bring it off.

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: kendall
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:26 AM

It may not be a habit, but we sure aSA HELL HAVE DONE SO. His command of English is only slightly worse than his knowledge of history. Can you say, Pinochet? Thieu? how about Allende? The list is too long to list.

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:14 AM

What impressed me was that he said the "America is not in the business of picking leaders of other countries" (re Arafat) then a little later in the interview (and surely less than an hour real-time?) that it was US policy that Saddam Hussain should not be leader in Iraq

A slight problem with consistancy there?

Subject: RE: another Dubya new word
From: kendall
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 07:58 AM

Ref. another thread, I'm not ashamed to be an American, but, I am ashamed that this doofus is.

Subject: another Dubya new word
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 07:11 AM

Dubya came up with another last night in a TV interview for Britain
Apparantly America is fighting against an "Infatada"