 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush's press conference last night.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:19 PM Nothing is fair in love and war, Jack. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Oct 01 - 11:09 AM Hi Hurricane, Your point is well taken. What I was trying to say is that he should be calling their bluff instead of appearing to be a cowboy. I am not an international diplomat, but I am fairly confident that Mrs Powell and Chaney could think of a way to appear firm but reasonable. When W. speaks for himself he seems to be quite the cowboy. It is only common sense and apparant to all that, If the Taliban were to surrender the bin Laden organization to another country then the reason for the USA to attack Afghanistan would decrease. If he were simply to call their bluff by saying, "Get them out of your country and we will reconsider." which of course they could not do. Then America might appear to be more fair without losing face. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,just a nobody Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:37 AM Guest, where did you get your information. They have made no attempt to turn Bin Ladin over. Unless we negotiate, pull our troops out, stop supporting Israel, that sort of thing. Let us not forget, it was the Taliban that said that they would free Bin Ladin's 'restrictions' so that he could carry out his Jihad. Lets look at what the Taliban have been telling us. They said that Bin Ladin could not have done this because they have cut off his communications. But they lost him days later. How the hell can we believe that they knew what the hell he was doing when they "Lost" him. Then he pops back up and we can negotiate. Then they are turning him loose to run his Jihad... so you can believe the Taliban all you want Guest... they have a poor track record in this affair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:06 AM Guest: The Taliban did not offer to turn bin Laden over to anyone. They offered to commence negotiations about the possibility thereof. If you buy into that then your naivete is more debilitating than mine. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59568-2001Oct14.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST Date: 16 Oct 01 - 07:44 AM Surrendering Bin Laden to a third country isn't negotiating. Bush says he wants Bin Laden, yet when offered him by the Taliban, he answers with the heaviest bombing of the campaign. There are logical, reasonable, *legitimate* reasons the American government and military is uniformly hated around the world. This is a perfect example of American arrogance. Don't accept Bin Laden when he is offered, don't stop the bombing when the international community pleads with us to stop to prevent the starvation of up to 2 million people in the coming months--just keep having our way, and the rest the world be damned. Sure, stick with the naivete and Texas--I'm sure your safe and comfortable, mean and petty lives are so much the better for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,Greg F. Date: 16 Oct 01 - 07:38 AM This is supposed to be against terrorism. Only if you actually believe the crap Dumbya's handlers are putting about. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Oct 01 - 06:57 AM "I also think there's very little chance he would survive his first meeting with U.S. troops. Just a guess."
If someone is surrendering and you kill them, that's a war crime and an act of terrorism. It happens in the heat of battle and the aftermath as well - but Americans managed to avoid doing that with Nazi and Japanese war leaders. This is supposed to be against terrorism.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 16 Oct 01 - 01:14 AM Watch it Melani, it might be catching! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: JamesJim Date: 15 Oct 01 - 11:08 PM "Don't mess with Texas!" jc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Melani Date: 15 Oct 01 - 09:44 PM I agree with DougR (gasp! that's the second time in a couple of weeks!)--there should be no negotiation--just hand the sucker over. I think trial in some kind of third party court would probably achieve the same end as trying him in the U.S. I also think there's very little chance he would survive his first meeting with U.S. troops. Just a guess. I am impressed, somewhat against my will, at Bush's showing as commander-in-chief. He seems to have learned to speechify somewhat better, or at least is rehearsing more. I await world developments with interest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 09:24 PM "I think he might be guilty, so please turn him over before I start to bomb the beejeezus out of your country because I think he might be guilty?" No, I don't think that would play any better. Bush would be neither judge nor jury if bin Laden were to go to a U.S. court. He is of the Executive Branch, which is charged with enforcing the laws. So there is no real harm in his saying: I am confident in his culpability and that is why (a) I want him and (b) I will utilize severe measures to ensure his apprehension. The people who would impugn the integrity of the U.S. courts in such a situation (should it arise) are not going to persuaded from their views before or after the fact, so it doesn't matter much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Oct 01 - 08:32 PM If the Taliban regime were to surrender Bin Laden to a court of law for trial, that wouldn't be "negotiating".
But in the light of Bush's clear and unambiguous statement "We know he's guilty, turn him over", it's hard to see how that could be an American court.
Incidentally, one helpful thing about Bin Laden's formal statement seems to have been generally overlooked, so far as I have seen. He directly praised the people who hijacked and crashed the planes, and said they were doing a good thing.
In saying that he has discredited a theory that appears to be quite widely believed in some places to the effect that the whole thing was carried out by Mossad. That has provided a way in which it has been possible for people to condemn the attacks as an atrocity, and yet deny that Bin Laden had anything to do with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:49 PM Bush made it clear when he made his speech to Congress in September that the time for negotiation was past. The conditions under which the Taliban offered to surrender Bin Laben were unacceptable. I, hurricane: don't confuse Guest with facts. It might be too much for him to grasp. Don't want overload, ya know. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:37 PM >>>Exploiting the third world to keep Americans safely driving their gas-guzzling SUVs is what this is about. <<< A lot of you keep saying that, as if the massacre of 6,000 civilians was just a lucky coincidence. I'm going to stay content in my naivete, and believe that the response to the massacre is because of the massacre, not for SUV mileage expenses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:31 PM JtS: At first I thought you had it exactly right, but as I think about it: Perhaps if he said it your way, it would make it all too clear that the Taliban know about bin Laden's guilt (they don't need any evidence) only because they are his direct and knowing accomplices, and you know what THAT means. It could be interpreted as hand him over before we blow you to smithereens. (Just a thought.) (In other words: The phrase used was "I know he's guilty." Yours adds an extra allegation. That extra allegation has implications.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:30 PM Refusing to negotiate with the Taliban for the turn-over of Bin Laden (at the top of the "most wanted" list) through a third country, as Bush angrily did today, is indefensible. The Taliban offer was slapped down, and the US conducted the heaviest bombing of this campaign. The rest the world is keenly aware of our hypocrisy. Bush ain't after Bin Laden or the Taliban--he wants more permanent bases in the region, and knows that Pakistan is one the brink of civil war over our presence in that country. In other words, our boys aren't safe in Pakistan (especially considering that country has nuclear capabilities), and need their own bases in Afghanistan. Exploiting the third world to keep Americans safely driving their gas-guzzling SUVs is what this is about. Its the best god damn way of life on earth, don't ya know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:35 PM Loopy, I will only address one of your statements because I dont want to take the time or energy to shoot the rest of them down. Your statement that implies that Clinton had some of his detractors "disappear" is pure crap. Go to the hoax buster site. They debunked this some time back. I hate when someone spits out opinions and calls them facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:27 PM Loopy, The Clintons are gone, lets let 'em gop and get behind this president. I am made uncomfortable by Bush's "We know he's guilty. Turn him over." There's no reason he can't appear to be on a quest for justice. If he had said that "The members of the Taliban are aware of his guilt and are simply playing politics. They do not need any evidence" Our purposes would be better served. Perhaps, once Mr's Powel and Chaney have worked on him more, he will speak more intelligently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:25 PM Oh, my, yes, this is supposed to be show business of the highest order. Beats the next step. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:17 PM A distinction, hurricane, but I'd call it a distinction without a difference. And I'm afraid in saying that he wasn't talking to a legal government or a bunch of banditos, be was talking to the fans.
This really isn't supposed to be show business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:03 PM McGraw: All well said, but one distinction: He's not talking to the legal representatives of a sovereign nation. He's taking to banditos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Oct 01 - 03:53 PM "We know he's guilty turn him over" - that's not even a précis of what he said, it is a literal quote.
Given that he's supposed to talk like someone in a Western movie, that isn't the language of a sheriff, it's the language of someone leading a lynch mob.
He is supposed to be the leader of a great democracy, founded on the rule of law and all that. And so far as I can see there is a pretty solid case against Bin Laden. But there are a lot of people out there who still need to be convinced.
That is not a sensible sort of thing to say. I don't think you'll find many head of state who would say something like that. Well there probably are, but they aren't the sort you'd have much respect for.
The right thing to do with criminals is to put them on trial and prove that they are guilty. In an open court that is going to look at all the evidence, and is going to bring in a verdict that honest people everywhere will see as meaning something.
"We know he's guilty turn him over" Maybe they shouldn't have had those Nuremberg Trials, but just shot the Nazi leaders in a cellar somewhere.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: LoopySanchez Date: 15 Oct 01 - 02:54 PM I guess George needs to: -Sell some nuclear technology to China, -Sell some pardons to world class criminals, -Go eight years without an energy policy, -Sneak in exective orders at the last possible minute to make the next administration look bad (reducing already safe arsenic levels by 400%, so that the new guy has to repeal them to keep everyones' water bills from skyrocketing) -Barbecue a few children at a cult compound -Engage in a little quid pro quo sexual harassment (Blow jobs in exchange for Avon jobs), -Engineer the largest tax increase in U.S. history, -Cut the military by a third while sending them on more peacekeeping missions than any president in history, -Send some storm troopers into homes to aim assault weapons at six year old Cuban refugees...
and Laura needs to: -Form an illegal, unelected 500 member committee to try to socialize medicine,
It would probably help if some of their lawyers and cabinet officials died under mysterious circumstances, too.
I figure that all this must be done before this presidency will ever be considered legitimate by any liberal... Is that what it comes down to? A simple yes/no answer will suffice. Go ahead and call me reactionary, but know that the "reaction" is to those who can't give Bush one iota of credit for doing anything right. "A dead fish could lead the nation with full support right now"... "He didn't pee on his feet, yay!"..."He's still a doofus"... You may now begin your unfounded personal attacks on my inteligence, character, and sources for facts presented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 15 Oct 01 - 02:05 PM Hey Al, thanks for participating in our little forum here! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST Date: 15 Oct 01 - 09:06 AM Well, I suppose the dictionary definition would be a dynasty defined either as a succession of family members or a lengthy amount of time a single family is in power. Nonetheless, you chose to focus your attention away from my comparison of the Bush family to despotic ruling families in other regions, like Haiti and the Middle East. You can argue the pedantic points of dynasties, of course. The point I was making was about political despots, which I believe both Papa Bush and Baby Bush are prime American examples.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: SeanM Date: 14 Oct 01 - 11:47 PM It's debatable as to whether you could technically call the Bush (or Kennedy, or any other) family a "dynasty". After all, the definition is simply that of a succession of rulers who are members of the same family (though if you want to be pedantic, Clinton's interlude precludes their being a presidential dynasty). Thus, just because a series of family members are in political offices, they aren't a 'dynasty'. That would require the passing of a specific office from father to son - which COULD have happened had Bush the Elder passed the office directly to Bush the Junior. Now if you want to state that the Bush, Kennedy etc. families represent an unhealthy amount of political offices held by a given family, I'm with you on that. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST Date: 14 Oct 01 - 10:11 PM SeanM, So you believe there is only one American political dynasty per generation? Apparently you aren't too familiar with the political dynasties in the US?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:16 PM Stand by for a ram. IF they catch Bin Ladan, they will a. kill him 2. throw him into prison. If they kill him, he will be a martyr. If they put him into prison there will be a rash of hostage taking. I think Kat had the right idea. Kidnap him, do a sex change on him, then send him to live under the Taliban as a woman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: SeanM Date: 14 Oct 01 - 06:48 AM I'm sorry... can't resist... So, GUEST - you're saying that the Bush family is THIS generation's Kennedy family, but without the charisma? I wouldn't call the family 'despotic', just 'rich with too damned many connections'. This from someone who voted against him, will vote against him when he runs again, and would much rather have a stick from the tree in my backyard for president. Well, maybe not. The stick hasn't shown me any hope at giving speeches. There may be hope for the house cockatiel though... M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST Date: 13 Oct 01 - 10:47 PM Papa Bush, Baby Bush--no difference between the two. Not in press conferences, wars, attacks on American civil liberties, obsession with the CIA/secret government and covert action, or the economy. The Bushes are a despotic American dynasty, just like their Middle Eastern counterpoints. We are living in an era of politics and economies dominated by American Big Oil interests defending Middle East Big Oil interests. This has nothing to do with religion, patriotism, or the moral high ground against "terrorism." Its about power, and going to any perverse lengths of abusing people and the planet to keep it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 13 Oct 01 - 07:17 PM Bert, it was I who first called him a "smirking doofus" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 13 Oct 01 - 07:08 PM Doug, what question? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,AKRick Date: 13 Oct 01 - 04:34 PM I'm always amazed to see that people living in a four dimensional world insist on seeing it in two dimensions ... i.e. leftist/rightist, liberal/conservative, us/them, etc., etc.. Mostly, it seems to be a refusal to look outward from their own closely held beliefs toward the possibility that some information might not conform to their worldview and therefore they might have to actually put a little work into revising it. An active mind is always changing. As for Bush/Gore, what a wretched choice to have had to make. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Donuel Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:39 PM When the nicest things said about Bush by the intelligensia in DC is that he is coming along fine or that he has crossed from boyhood to a man before our eyes, I see someone inferior to the position. That being said let us hear from the alternate universe where the Supreme Court selected Gore for president. "Heelloo II'm Al Goore. In response to today's merciless attack of monstrous proportions, one which will live in infamy until the end of time, we will be assembling an international and acumenical grand jury tribunal with justices from of every faith and nationality. We will deliver intelligence and informatioon from every agency worldwide and prosecute the criminals responsible. When the indictments are handed down we will then grind them to dust with every conceivable weapon known to man." - sometime during my second term..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:00 PM Jack Jack Jack. You just can't resist can you? Who died and made you my official scolder? :>) DougR P. S. Kendall: read Jack's posts if you want a reply to your question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Oct 01 - 02:31 PM Doug Doug Doug, I am very disappointed that you consider yourself in a battle with anyone. Especially on this forum. Is it a "holy war" with "liberals"? A quest against world government? of which battles do you speak? And again you reacted to a post without actually reading it? Greg F. Said GWB was a doofus 6 months ago and is still a doofus. Why would that statement prompt him to reconsider? Calm down Doug, Read the posts...... Read them again ... then, start typing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 13 Oct 01 - 01:25 PM Mister, I'm one of your "liberal nit wits" but, I'll match my knowledge of history with you or any other drum pounding, flag waving, mouth breathing knuckle dragger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Donuel Date: 13 Oct 01 - 11:35 AM Rich your heart is true and your passion strong but it seems you have overdosed on 8 years of Rush Limbaugh. Believe me when I tell you we "get it" . We even get you. BTW we paid our UN dues in a hurry and Bush asked to use UN radar planes over American skies since we are stretched so thin. I never saw Bush more like a deer in the headlights last night when he responded to the anthrax letter scare tactics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,Rich Date: 13 Oct 01 - 11:24 AM All of you leftest people just don't get it do you? The United States feeds, cloths, educates, cures of disease, appeases, and puts up with the UN diluting our national sovereinty. This president is trying to fix so much of the incongruent policy of the last 8 yrs as well as the unfortunate influence of leftist liberalistic influences in the house and senate. This is why we are in this mess. You liberal leftist nit wits should just get the hell out of this country and go bang your tamborines and worship Mao, Marx and Zinn with the rest of the worlds under or over (depending on overall nit witery)educated thugs. This country has, the right man on the job, period. If Gore were there with his yahmaca wearing whimpering side kick, we'd be in a world of hurt. Facts are not truth they are only part of the truth, your rapist president billy showed us all that because that's what is, is! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: SlowAlan Date: 13 Oct 01 - 10:56 AM All of the speeches of Bush, Blair and Australia's goofy drongo PM Howard have sounded both wrong and antiquated. Each of their "tough talking" speeches has, to my eyes, cloaked incompetence and insecurity. Their ridiculous response to the horrific terrorist actions is to start their own terror! These political gimps have got to realise that plenty of us have evolved beyond the chimpanzee, and we prefer to solve crises by spiritual means..and a bit of "lateral thinking"....eg. Has anyone in America actually asked themseves why they are so hated, and what behaviour they should change in order to rectify this situation? That would be the best start to the situation. Fighting faceless terror with faceless terror in the hope of attaining peace is (as we used to say in the Anti Vietnam War movement.."like fucking for chastity"). The second thing they should do is to show, by a huge convocation of mullahs, perhaps even buddhists and christian religious leaders, that although America's foreign policy in the Middle East has been arrogant and "evil", to respond in the way of terror against monotheist civilians, especially by suicide, is an abomination in Islam, without Koranic justification, and that the Mullahs who teach this route are wrong, in grievous theological error. This is the correct spiritual approach..first, look for one's own errors, then look for the similarities, not the differences.Everyone makes mistakes, America makes plenty, and Ossama and the terrorist boys have made a very big one indeed. But, remember to put it in perspective, in most weeks in Iraq, five thousand people, mainly women and children are said to die of starvation and disease as a direct result of the western allies foreign policy of blockade. They must stop the bombing immediately, and pull back all troops, and apologise..then bore them to death with theological argument.That is what would completely pull the rug out from under the terrorists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,DSJ Date: 13 Oct 01 - 09:56 AM A few days on, and I'm even more disturbed by my local media's reporting of primary school children being forced to say the pledge of allegiance, and standing in line with fists full of money to put in a big jar "for the children of Afghanistan". Anyone else having problems with this one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 13 Oct 01 - 01:33 AM Doug, how could anyone help liking you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: SeanM Date: 13 Oct 01 - 12:56 AM Actually, though a bit over the top in my view, Greg F DOES have a point. In times of war, the population generally does come together behind the president. In a situation like this (where a substantial act of aggression led to the attacks), it's to be expected that a large part of the nation (the intelligent as well as the sheep) will flock to the prez. And six months ago, had Bush asked for the nation to 'get behind him' in the same blind fashion it is today, I'm quite certain he'd not have the same results without the same stimulus. We're a divisive nation at best. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 13 Oct 01 - 12:21 AM Uh, I don't suppose it ever occured to you that six months ago you might have been wrong, Greg F.? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Greg F. Date: 12 Oct 01 - 09:45 PM Yup. He went to the bathroom again and didn't piss on his shoes!! AGAIN!!!(loud applause) He's still the same smirking doofus he was 6 months ago- the U.S. citizenry would "get behind" a dead mackerel if it happened to be president during a national crisis of this type. Let this circus play out before we start handing out premature awards & laurel wreaths- he hasn't changed his basic positions- particularly on domestic policy- one iota. Greg
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Troll Date: 12 Oct 01 - 09:26 PM He's coming along just fine. He has already surprised a lot of people and I think he'll surprise a whole lot more. He may turn out to be a very effective wartime leader. Everyone thought the nation was sunk when FDR died but Harry Truman surprised the world with his leadership ability. I hope Bush can do the same. He's moving in that direction. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: SeanM Date: 12 Oct 01 - 09:01 PM Chalk me in the "not very impressed, and somewhat alarmed by" category. The moment that perked my ears (besides the Reagan-esque "evil ones" refrain) was the question about whether our commitment to Afghanistan would result in a Vietnam type quagmire. His response was that the lesson learned from Vietnam was to not commit conventional forces to an unconventional war. What worried me was his next sentence - basically stating that this was why we'd commited conventional forces. Huh? M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: CarolC Date: 12 Oct 01 - 06:44 PM I guess my point was that I don't usually make comments on this sort of thing, so it doesn't make much sense to me that someone would include my name in a list of people who perhaps do comment on this sort of thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 12 Oct 01 - 06:37 PM Jack Jack Jack. You're a real scolder, aren't you? I wasn't referring to DSJ's comments about presidential press conferences, I was referring to the same tired old criticisms we have heard about Bush since the presidential campaign. Anyway, Jack, me lad, I'm sure DSJ is a big boy or girl and can handle his/her own battles, don't you think? If you didn't pick up on the fact that when I wrote my first post I had tongue firmly planted in cheek, I don't know what to tell you. Carol: I was referring to the fact that this was the first thread (the beginning posts, at least) that uniformly expressed approval of the president. You may have posted some similar ones, but none come to mind at the moment. Donuel: "I think the administration will explore all avenues available to ensure survival of the United States." Well, I certainly hope so, don't you? Kendall, you old curmudgeon, don't complain to me! It's obvious you flew across the pond with one thought in mind: capture the hearts of all the female Mudcatters in Great Britian. It also appears you made a lot of progress. Hell, even the Llamas were fighing over you! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Paul from Hull Date: 12 Oct 01 - 06:03 PM What makes you think we are being "groomed to accept the use of tactical nuclear weapons"?....Against WHO, exactly, & for WHAT precise reason? |