 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Oct 05 - 08:56 AM The New York Times seems less enthralled: "...No matter what the terrorists are up to, it is not possible to feel safe if the federal government does not appear to know what it is doing on so many different levels. Yesterday was an ideal moment for Mr. Bush to demonstrate that he was really in control of his administration. He could have taken any one of a number of pressing worries and demonstrated that he was on the job, re-examining the problems, working on answers. For instance, he could have addressed the crisis facing the overstretched military due to the endless demands made by Iraq on both the Army and the beleaguered National Guard. The speech came one day after the White House threatened to veto a bill onto which the Senate added a ban on the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against prisoners of the American government. This president could not find the spine to veto a bloated transportation bill that included wildly wasteful projects like the now-famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. What kind of priorities does that suggest? If we ever needed the president to demonstrate that he has a working understanding of exactly where he wants to take this country, we need it now. The president's inability to grow beyond his big moment in 2001 is unnerving. But the fact that his handlers continue to encourage him to milk 9/11 is infuriating. For most of us, the memories are fresh and painful. We mourn the people who died on Sept. 11, as we mourn Daniel Pearl and other Americans, not to mention innocents from other countries, who were murdered by terrorists. The administration's penchant for using them as political cover is offensive. It threatens to turn our wounds, and our current fears, into cynical and desperate spin." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Molotov Date: 07 Oct 05 - 12:48 PM E-Meters Replace Guns Terrorists and subversives are far more afraid of E-Meters than guns. An E-Meter is a small, inexpensive box of electronics that ably distinguishes the subversive or the criminal from honest men. Socialism and Communism, growing ever stronger in the Northern Hemisphere, are a raid on the production of labor by the privileged few. Socialism and Communism seek to have a people's labor for no return. To turn this tide, use E-Meters, not guns. The E-Meter is violently hated by the subversive who already knows of it and will try to tear the sky off to prevent its use. LRH asked for volunteers to accompany him on a special mission on the Avon River. Amos Jessup was among the first to step forward. 'He didn't tell us ahead of time what we were going to do, but it didn't matter to me, I'd have followed him through the gates of Hell if I had to. I was glad to do anything for him because I felt that what he had done to help others was so great an accomplishment he deserved whatever help I could offer. People felt he was a miracle worker, someone who had demonstrated a far higher level of competence than anything we could aspire to. It was as exciting and stimulating as hell to be with him. You had to be on your toes, put out your maximum effort, but it was always very refreshing and therapeutic.' 'I nearly said, "Go and fetch that fat bastard up there! He's the dishonest one! Throw him overboard." I should have done; I wish I had, it would have broken the spell they were all under. I was grabbed by these four big thugs and flung over and I started laughing and laughing. I thought, "Jesus, I'm going to get off this floating insanity even if I have to swim to Yugoslavia MO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 07 Oct 05 - 04:22 PM Gee, MO, kind of OCD arentcha? Mixing up multiple chunks of trash and calling it soup? Wherever are you pumping this sewage from in your sorry little brain? Just in case you are concerned, E-meters do not replace guns. Guns are for killing, of course. That's why people like Mister Bush (and, I presume, yourself) are so fond of them. E-meters, on the other hand, are used by folks who are trying to help other people, even if in doing so they are sometimes misguided. They do not do the trick as efficiently as guns do theirs, but, hey, you can't have everything. The remark about the fat bastard was not mine, but was spoken by a charming but gay Englishman. I knew both him, and the fat bastard in question, in my wild-oats period many years ago. If you want to know about them, feel free to PM me. Meanwhile, I would take it as a favor if you were to keep your ugly and cowardly puss out of this thread. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 09 Oct 05 - 12:01 AM What could be more cowardly than someone entertains himself by digging up all the negative shit he can find about one person that he personally dislikes and then promotes it as the truth? That has all the earmarkings of some sort of massive psycological psychological of a burned out scientologist. All that wierd shit you belived in must have fucked up your brain permanently. How may cult leaders did mr Bush blindly follow? How many murders was he involved in? It is all there on the net for anyone who searches for Amos Jessup. All you want to hear is your own anti Bush drumbeat because it drowns out all those ghosts from the past and gives you a kind of purpose. Get a grip. The world is not ending. Try a positive though for a change. The sun is going to come up tomorrow morning just like it allways has. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 09 Oct 05 - 12:12 AM Jeeze, old guy, you are getting close to really being insulting here. As well as flinging rather bizarre falsehoods about. Thanks for revealing yourself anyway. Your analysis is a little of the mark, though. I am not worried about the sun coming up thanks. I do have some concerns about the American Constitution. But thanks for the reassurance. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 09 Oct 05 - 10:57 AM Lets hear the truth about you and scientology. Are you fully qualified to define what other people can say? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 09 Oct 05 - 11:31 PM Old Guy: I start3d hanging around with old man Hubbard when I was 21; I left about ten years later. I am not qualified to define what others can say, and neither are you. But when you invent falsehoods and then say them about other people, you are crossing the line into slander. If you think you know something about me, I suggest you do me the courtesy of finding out first, Meanwhile this has nothing to do with this thread. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Paco Rabanne Date: 10 Oct 05 - 11:11 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Paco Rabanne Date: 10 Oct 05 - 11:12 AM The Conscious Explorer??? Is this the same chap?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 10 Oct 05 - 03:03 PM Today's Op Ed in the Times is by Kitty JKelly who has done extensive research into the histories of Bushes (Prescott, H, and W) and their clansmen as a biographer. She points out: "SECRECY has been perhaps the most consistent trait of the George W. Bush presidency. Whether it involves refusing to provide the names of oil executives who advised Vice President Dick Cheney on energy policy, prohibiting photographs of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, or forbidding the release of files pertaining to Chief Justice John Roberts's tenure in the Justice Department, President Bush seems determined to control what the public is permitted to know. And he has been spectacularly effective, making Richard Nixon look almost transparent. But perhaps the most egregious example occurred on Nov. 1, 2001, when President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, under which a former president's private papers can be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one. Before that executive order, the National Archives had controlled the release of documents under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which stipulated that all papers, except those pertaining to national security, had to be made available 12 years after a president left office. Now, however, Mr. Bush can prevent the public from knowing not only what he did in office, but what Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did in the name of democracy. (Although Mr. Reagan's term ended more than 12 years before the executive order, the Bush administration had filed paperwork in early 2001 to stop the clock, and thus his papers fall under it.) Bill Clinton publicly objected to the executive order, saying he wanted all his papers open. Yet the Bush administration has nonetheless denied access to documents surrounding the 177 pardons President Clinton granted in the last days of his presidency. Coming without explanation, this action raised questions and fueled conspiracy theories: Is there something to hide? Is there more to know about the controversial pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich? Is there a quid pro quo between Bill Clinton and the Bushes? Is the current president laying a secrecy precedent for pardons he intends to grant? The administration's effort to grandfather the Reagan papers under the act also raised a red flag. President Bush's signature stopped the National Archives from a planned release of documents from the Reagan era, some of which might have shed light on the Iran-contra scandal and illuminated the role played by the vice president at the time, George H. W. Bush. What can be done to bring this information to light? Because executive orders are not acts of Congress, they can be overturned by future commanders in chief. But this is a lot to ask of presidents given the free pass handed them by Mr. Bush. (And it could put a President Hillary Clinton in a bind when it came to her own husband's papers.) Other efforts to rectify the situation are equally problematic. Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, has repeatedly introduced legislation to overturn Mr. Bush's executive order, but the chances of a Republican Congress defying a Republican president are slim. There is also a lawsuit by the American Historical Association and other academic and archival groups before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A successful verdict could force the National Archives to ignore the executive order and begin making public records from the Reagan and elder Bush administrations. Unless one of these efforts succeeds, George W. Bush and his father can see to it that their administrations pass into history without examination." ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Oct 05 - 06:33 PM Stunning New Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST Date: 17 Oct 05 - 10:07 PM I got my information here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=amos+jessup+scientology&btnG=Google+Search And here: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso88591&q=amos+jessup+scientology&rys=0&itag=crv&_sb_lang=pref To my knowledge you have never deounced Sicentology so You must still belive in that Voodoo bullshit. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 17 Oct 05 - 10:29 PM ol' Guy, Give the heck up... Word on then street is that Bush is gettin' ready to resign and take over a company that his daddy just bought, the Lone Star Prtezel Company", with pretzels being sold in over 10,000 outlets in Texas... Yeah, seems that the lies and scandals have takin' a toll on the boy and likie the Texas Rangers (which daddy bought for him) and Harkin Energy (which daddy bought for him), and America (which daddy bought for him)... the boy just ain;t up to the big jobs.... Maybe runnin' a pretzel company will work fir him??? God knows... The boy knows his pretzels... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 17 Oct 05 - 11:00 PM 'Splain this on me Bush Meister: 'A sort of "Lord of the Flies syndrome" began working with the messengers,' said Rebecca Goldstein, who had been recruited into Scientology by her brother, Amos Jessup. 'They were so drunk with their own power that they became extremely vengeful, nasty and dishonest. They were a very exclusive, dangerous little group.' http://www.byington.org/Carl/bfm/bfm19.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 18 Oct 05 - 12:48 AM http://warrior.xenu.ca/1996-0920b.html "SOME HAVE SAID that BLACK PR, i.e., covert destruction techniques, outright fabrication of lies, destroying the repute of individuals and groups, spreading lies by hidden sources, distortion of truth, covert slandering of "enemies", degrading, villifying and discrediting opponents is an acceptable activity for a church. The "Church" of $cientology IS EXPERT on BLACK PROPAGANDA METHODS; their leader wrote lots of policies about the subject." Amos is obviously still very much a Scientologist because he uses these tactics. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 19 Oct 05 - 03:26 AM http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm17.htm "Amos Jessup was among the first to step forward. 'He didn't tell us ahead of time what we were going to do, but it didn't matter to me, I'd have followed him through the gates of Hell if I had to. I was glad to do anything for him because I felt that what he had done to help others was so great an accomplishment he deserved whatever help I could offer. People felt he was a miracle worker, someone who had demonstrated a far higher level of competence than anything we could aspire to. It was as exciting and stimulating as hell to be with him. You had to be on your toes, put out your maximum effort, but it was always very refreshing and therapeutic." Old Guy Jus reportin' the facs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 19 Oct 05 - 11:17 PM http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfm16.htm (Amos) Jessup had gone to Saint Hill in 1966, while he was studying in Oxford, to try and get his young brother out of Scientology and instead had become converted himself. 'I was soon convinced', he said, 'that instead of being some dangerous cult it was an important advance in philosophy. Freedom of speach is a double edged sword ain't it? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 05 - 02:02 AM Hey, ya ole fart: If yer gonna bring religion into it, you should include the fact that I walked out on the Scientology gang many years back, and that I am on their permanent list of black sheep. Just so you include all the facts. No Scientologist in his "right" mind would be caught dead talking to me; reason being, I practice too much freedom of speech for comfort, kind of like with you. And, like you, they have done what they could to shut me up. But, like you, it didn't amount to much anyway. Because, like you, they are motivated by spite and bitterness. And no, freedom of speech is not a double edged sword. But if frittering away one;s youth in a fringe outfit is the worst crime you can find on my back-line, I still feel a few feet closer o heaven than your double-tonguing fry-brain meathead of a Pruzident. By the way, Old Guy, what;s your religion? You still worshiping Jack Daniels, old automobiles, or pinning your hopes on imaginary playmates? Mebbe you could talk to God about his conversations with George -- seems to me they're a little behind the times. Like, B.C.E. out of date. Mebbe Small-Minded George never heard about the New Testament, though. A lot of good Christians seem to forget that part handily. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 05 - 03:14 PM Amos: You may have left the cult but it appears you have were permanently brainwashed. I don't have a religion but I am not anti-religion either. I see the good and bad in people and I go with the good guys. I have come to the conclusion that wars are usually caused by religion. Sometimes you have to defend yourself though. If you anti-war Jello Brains had your way we would be speaking Japanese or German right now, Poor as shit and suffering like the North Koreans because we would be under the thumb of a dictator that you anti-war pukes refused to fight. You don't know how lucky you are to have people willing to fight for your freedom while you call them names. "Scientology joins the anti-war campaign. In Portland, Oregon a coalition of "mainstream religious organizations" has joined the protest against war with Iraq. And that coalition "also includes such fringe religious organizations as the Church of Scientology," reports The Portland Tribune." Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 21 Oct 05 - 07:55 PM Ahhhh, fir starters, "Bite Me!", O-Guy... And fir a close second, fir an old guy you certainly got yerself a nice stash of mind-alterin' substances... Ain't no one callin' nobody names who are out on the front lines, pal, but maybe you'd like to back up that bull with some real posts of folks sayin' they are blamin' the folks who are fightin' Bush's oil/powr/politics war!!! I don't think you will find one post where Amos, I or anyone else here in Mudville has ever said anything nasty about the troops... Find my just one, Big Guy... Just one... And what does Amos's past have to do with George Bush's evil, immoral and corrupt administration??? Did Amos make up the lies that Bush used to sell this now very unpopular to the American people??? Did Amos rat out a CIA agent because her husband debunked one of the lies??? Did Amos award no-bid contracts to Brown & Root, a subsiderary of Halliburton, a corporation that Dick Cehney ran and still collects annual money from??? Did Amos hire the goons and lawyers in 2000 to go to Florida and steel an election??? Did Amos push thru a tax cut fir the upper 1% that we were told would be reinvested in the American economy only to be reinbvested in overseas companies??? Yeah, did Amos really do that??? Did Amos stand up before the Christain Right and tell these folks that he was all fir them while doing all the things that would make Jesus puke out his guts??? Yeah, Old Guy, the drugs must be fine in yer stash box... You really oughtta share... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:40 PM Old Guy: Ya know you really twist things around, sometimes. You think being opposed to unnecessary war is "brainwashed"? Well, I think causing wars unnecessarily is psychotic, and supporting them blindly is mindless sycophancy. Thanks, as well, for trying yo hijack this thread, most of which contains remarks by people neither of us even know, by twisting into an ad hominem issue. If you are really that intent on making stuff up out of whole cloth, why don't you start by dreaming up justfications for invading Syria? That seems to be what the machinery on the Hill is looking at next. Obviously the spilling of blood, the destruction of families, the accidental blowing away of babies, the incineration of passersby like so many overcooked strawberry pop-tarts -- all that violence is just a piece with any old overheated rationalization that can serve to protect your brain from seeing past your nose. Tell ya what, corpse-breath; start your own thread on a topic of your choice, as I did this one, and I promise to stay the hell out of it. Until then I echo Bobert's initial sentiments. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 21 Oct 05 - 10:07 PM Yeah, old guy, what Amos said about what I said... Bite Me, Big Guy!!! You worship an jerk! What does that make you??? Yer "jerk" is a major problem... He decides stuff as if he had a history of runnin' successfull companies... He don't... He ain't never run nuthin' that was successfull... His daddy done give him one successfull company after another and hem blew 'um all up!!!! Yeah, you can go to grave worshippin' a perennial looser, Old Guy... Says more about you than the looser you worship...l Think about it.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 05 - 08:24 PM And....Bite Me... Bobert (Just keepin' the thread goin' without havin' to work up no sweat...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Oct 05 - 11:36 PM The Old Fart said: If you anti-war Jello Brains had your way we would be speaking Japanese or German right now, Poor as shit and suffering like the North Koreans because we would be under the thumb of a dictator that you anti-war pukes refused to fight. You don't know how lucky you are to have people willing to fight for your freedom while you call them names. I haven't been back to this thread for a long time, and I will tell you something. I was doing some silly research for MOAB last week and I did a spontaneous little search for quotes and was surprised to find all of the Scientology stuff about Amos. The difference is, I did some critical thinking while I was reading, and weighed this with the fact that I've been talking to Amos himself for a long time now here at Mudcat. I was able to evaluate what I was reading. The Old Fart doesn't seem to be able or want to do that. I count Amos a friend and am continually astonished by his deep grasp of many subjects. It didn't take long to conclude that the Scientology episode was in the past, and that, as I have always known, for Amos the present as it leads into the future is what is important. The view to the future looks pretty grim right now, with Bush's cadre making war and enriching their corporate friends as fast as they can before they get caught and stopped at the next election. The Old Fart just wants to try to stir up old stuff, out of context, and drag it forward to hamstring someone who has lucid understanding and articulate criticism of Bush and his cronies. How pathetic. That the Old Fart would pull out the soldiers-fighting-wars-for-you-and-me dogerel when he's clearly decades out of touch with the world. No wonder we're facing global warming, with such gaseous windbags around. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:36 AM I thought that would get you crybabies going. Now keep it up and expend all your energy and thought on bullshit. Maybe go out and have a peace rally and bust up something. You all cluster here because you prop each other up. "look there is a lot of peoples here who think like I does so I must not be so fucked up after all" Amos thinks this is his private little forum so he can feel he has accomplished something. His memorial to himself. "don't post anything here about me or against my way of thinking" Well he is just as full of shit now as he was when he was being brainwashed by the Scientologists. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Xenu Date: 23 Oct 05 - 08:52 AM I Know the necessity of war: "Xenu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the good people and the Loyal Officers. Then, with the help of psychiatrists, he called in billions of people for income tax inspections, where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s (except they had rocket motors instead of jet engines). These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth, where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. When they had finished, they lowered H-bombs into the volcanoes. Xemu then detonated all the H-bombs at the same time and everyone was killed." Excerpt from the writings of Amos's former fearless leader, LRH which forms the core belief in the religion known as Scientology. Xenu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Oct 05 - 10:05 AM Thanks, Old Guy. You're kinda fulla shit your own self. Twisting stuff and changing it around. What I said was, ad hominem attacks aren't the topic of this thread. If you had a bunch of public opinions in support of your furless leader...well, it ain't likely, but you could post them here. That's what the thread is for. Mister Hubbard was a bit of a whacko, I don't deny, but he never caused thousands of violent and unnecessary deaths, destroyed homes and villages, or massive destruction. And he also built up some pretty interesting stuff. He could outsmart your candidate by about ten-to-one before waking up in the morning. Your excerpt about Xenu is not, as you describe it, a core belief. It is as far from core belief as you can get -- but being as whacky as it is, it gets a lot of attention. You do seem well-qualified to comment on Hubbard and his works, so you could start that as a thread if you like. Sounds like you know a lot about 'em. In any case, most anyone who knows me knows that I am brainwashed, but not by Scientology. I am stunod and devoid of all rational thought in the presence of Vibrant Pulchritude. Now, there' s something to get brainwashed by!! That's why I founded my own religion, the Temple of the Golden Globes. Come by sometime and take a free chest measurement. Oh...you meant the other brain? Sorry... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Stilly River Sage Date: 23 Oct 05 - 10:41 AM This thread was started by Amos in order to air important stories about a morally bankrupt and probably indictable world leader who needs the bum's rush out of office, along with his friends and most of his party. Regime Change needs to happen at home, not overseas. Amos knows that and is confining much of his eye-rolling and criticism to the thread he established so like-minded individuals can share in the information, or so those who want to know what it's all about can stop by to read. What about that don't you get, Old Fart? The fact that this is a public forum and you've barged in making a stink and naughty noises just goes to your immaturity. There is always the risk that when one starts a topic on a given subject that there are those who would rather break up the party than settle down and really learn something or join the discussion in a serious manner. You have inhabited Mudcat as a Guest for just over a year, and in that entire time you HAVE NOT POSTED A SINGLE REMARK TO A MUSIC THREAD. You're here exclusively to wallow "below the line" where you can vie for the attention of others by being a pain in the butt. Amos, this kind of behavior happens often enough that we know that if the juvenile behavior is ignored the party in question goes away to see if he can stir up someone else. Keep up the good work and add substance to the thread. I think it's about to the point where the oddsmakers are hesitant to bet that Bush will make it through a full second term (used loosely, since he was only elected once). Ignore the Old Guy and he'll go away and look for someone else's sandbox to poop in. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Oct 05 - 11:38 AM The SF Chronicle is critical of the right-wing pundits who abandoning Bush in his time of sinking polls: Miers has yet to face a Senate hearing. On "Face the Nation" last Sunday, Bob Schieffer of CBS, an alumnus of the U.S. Air Force and the Fort Worth police beat, asked: "Most of the opposition seems to be coming from the Republican pundits, not really from Republican senators. Do you think senators are just sitting back and letting the pundits do the dirty work for them?" From the low expectations set by her critics, senators might expect to hear a witness with all the qualities of Carol Channing, Gracie Allen and Betty Boop. Senators can ask her the same questions they asked Roberts. Miers can give the same non-answers given by Roberts and by Clinton nominees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They should ask one important question about cronyism. Another Texas president, Lyndon Johnson, appointed his pal Abe Fortas to the court in 1965 but did not let go of Fortas as a friend and adviser on the war in Vietnam. No justice should remain a presidential crony. Senators might usefully ask the nominee whether she and the president agreed with the observation of Henry Adams: "A friend in power is a friend lost." Miers may or may not be confirmed, but President Bush, abandoned by so many intellectuals he had eagerly courted, can ponder the wisdom of a predecessor. "If you want a friend in Washington," Harry Truman said, "get a dog." Full article here. An interesting almost pro-Bush survey of the Miers cronyism scandal. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Oct 05 - 11:52 AM From some blogs coordinated by a website called the TPM Cafe, some reflections on our foreign policy...if that is what it is: "Why We're in Iraq By Ivo Daalder | bio From: America Abroad Secretary Rice traveled to Capitol Hill today to testify, for the first time ever, on the biggest foreign policy issue confronting our nation: Iraq. In her opening statement, Rice said this about our objectives: We know our objectives. We and the Iraqi Government will succeed if together we can: -- Break the back of the insurgency so that Iraqis can finish it off without large-scale military help from the United States. -- Keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven from which Islamic extremists can terrorize the region or the world. -- Demonstrate positive potential for democratic change and free expression in the Arab and Muslim worlds, even under the most difficult conditions. -- And turn the corner financially and economically, so there is a sense of hope and a visible path toward self-reliance. Now, read that again, and tell me if this is serious. Oct 19, 2005 -- 01:07:20 PM EST Let's remember, there was no insurgency in Iraq before we invaded the country and then totally bungled the aftermath. And there was little chance of Iraq becoming a safe haven for terrorists before we invaded the country and then totally bungled the aftermath. In other words, our first two objectives in Iraq are to undo the disaster our own actions and inactions created! As for the remaining objectives, demonstrating the "positive potential for democratic change and free expression" is a very long cry from establishing a viable democracy in the heart of the Arab world, which a couple of years ago was declared the official aim of our continued involvement in Iraq. And "turning the corner financially and economically," though difficult, doesn't strike me as setting the bar terribly high. Which leaves me with this thought: the limited nature of these objectives suggests that the administration may finally be realizing the extraordinary disaster we're in and is trying, desperately, to find a way to declare victory so we can get out." Anyone who HAS been in war knows that unless you are in desperate straits, you think your way out before you go in, but this little detail escaped not only The Amazing Rumsfeld and his bald-minded leader, but apparently those whose profession presumably qualified them to lead actual war machines in bloodshed. The Big Question, of course, is whether there IS a "necessity" for war, and if so when and what it looks like? It seems to me that claiming such a necessity, when one does not exist, is an immorality of the highest order. Denying such a necessity when it DOES exist is pusillanimous, to be sure; but the inverse is the rampant unleashing of deep psychosis. It requires a self-bound egotism of extraordinary force, so anchored to its fear-driven center as to rule out any objectivity, compassion, or desire to make things better. In fact it stems from an immediate ravening hunger to make things worse. Thus, W. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 05 - 12:28 PM The Xenu thing was only fed to the people who reached level 3 "OTIII" by paying mucho dinero to the "church of Scientology" What I am pointing out is that anyone who fell for that line of bullshit does not have the mental capacity to tell bullshit from the truth. This person has no credibility. I would sooner believe Saddam saying he is innocent. I never paid any attention until I saw the rantings of one Amos Jessup. I wondered if he was Muslim extremist but I searched the internet and found out otherwise. Just like a house of cards, all these anti-war idjits hang out here and prop each other up. They choose they facts they want to hear and blot out the rest from their memory such as the terrorist training camps in Iraq. Eg. Salman Pak. You never hear anything out of these antiwar koolaid drinkers about a plan to combat terrorisim, just criticisim of anybody that does have a plan. Nothing positive or creative, just harping and bitching, crying and sucking snot. If GB had done nothing about Iraq or Afghanistan, where would we be right now? Shit like x number of soldiers and civilians would not have died don't cut it. How may terrorist attacks would we have sustained? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:27 PM If GW had done nothing about the situation that unfolded in September he would have been a bigger ass than he is now. Wherever did you get the idea that anyone here thought he should have? Or are you just tilting at artificial windmills? Is your mind so hampered by bigotry that you can envision no course of action between "nothing" and starting a war only marginally related to the Al Queda attack? Speaking of Al Queda, do you think Saddam Hussein is a reasonable substitute? That toppling the regime in Iraq is equivalent to striking a blow against fanatic Al Qeda style terrorism? Did you think the terrorist attacks were coming from Iraq for some reason? Sanity includes, among other things, finding the right source for a problem. Finding the wrong source, and striking out against it, is just mindless complex reaction which makes the situation worse. Thus, W. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 05 - 03:09 PM Just like I said. Nothing about what to do just criticisim of what was done. You don't have a windmill to tilt at or the balls to tilt at anything. Fact is you anti-war ballon heads don't know what should be done. If you had your own country to run it would last a week before it collapsed from indecision. Move on up to Canada, run them into the dirt and leave the US for normal people to enjoy. Oh and previously you said there was no connection between Al Qeda and Saddam, The evil GB administration thought it up just to grab the oil in Iraq. Were you wrong then or wrong now? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 23 Oct 05 - 06:29 PM Old Fart: You are so busy twisting things you make a fool of yourself. I never said Saddam and Al Queda were connected, and I think the same thing now as I thought back then, whatever it was I said. They were separate and not even interested in each other. Until Georgie Porgie decided to make Iraq into a common sandbox for all Muslims anywhere to come and shoot at Americans in. What should be done now is very different from what should have been done in late September 2001. I take it from your language that you are pro-war -- not any particular war, but in favor of war in general. That is, you espouse the belief that it is preferable to engage in slaughter of your species from time to time in order to resolve issues. I wish you great happiness, Old Guy, and a little sleep at night; I feel sorry for your soul and your mind, though. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:03 PM Well, Old Guy, one thing is true and that is the world's bigest fool is unknown until he opens his mouth and so Iz goina' present you with the: WORLD'S BIGEST FOOL AWARD!!! And a big ol' congrates... Well done and well earned... But besides the accolades, hey, seein' as you ain't been 'round here that long, there have been folks who you would call allies here in Mudville who would post right winged Bushite stuff on threads like "D Modal Tuning" or "Lyrics needed: "Puff the Magic Dragon"... Here waht Amos has done is create kinda a clearing house thread of Bush related stuff... He ain't lightin' off stink bombs in every imaginable thread... This should make you happy because among a half a dozen of us we could wreck this joint with anti-Bush posts on every danged thread... But that prolly jus' shot right over yer head... No matter, rather than address the specific criticisms of yer hero, George W, you attack the messengers... Ahhhhh, you ever want to take one of Bush's policies and defend it without the usual, if you don't like America, leave it crap.... Your arguments are so tired and juvinile that sometimes when I read yer posts it's like readin' not an Old Guy, but a 13 year old who doesn't even know what the word "policies" means... Yeah, why don't you ever want to talk about specific policies??? Afterall, when everything is said and done, at the end of the day, success or failure comes down to policy decisions, not name callin', not a bunch of juvinilistic crap, but policies... Just which of Bush's policies are you ready to defend??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 24 Oct 05 - 07:50 PM Still waitin', Old Guy, on which Bush policy you'd like to defend... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,TIA Date: 24 Oct 05 - 08:13 PM Please tell us Old Guy...how many terrorist attacks has GWB prevented? (include a reference please) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 24 Oct 05 - 08:57 PM "What I am pointing out is that anyone who fell for that line of bullshit does not have the mental capacity to tell bullshit from the truth." Well, Silly Old Fart, I'm afraid I can't quite agree with that. We all do things from time to time that we look back on and say, "Well. that wasn't too bright!" That doesn't mean that we're not too bright, it means that what we did was not too bright. What is bright is that we rcongnize that fact and move on from there. You get the distinction? Let me put it this way: I used to be a conservative. But I saw the error of my ways. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,a Date: 25 Oct 05 - 09:28 AM "..A CLEARING HOUSE OF BUSH RELATED ITEMS....." Hand picked, I notice. Bobert, ever contemplate the word non-biased? I used to be a Liberal until I saw the error of my ways. Doesn't say anything either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 05 - 09:51 AM Well, stranger, I never said I didn't have a point of view. I have told the detractors and will now repeat it to you that if you have any kind of public view about Bushie that you wish to posthere, please feel free. That's what the thread is for. Of ocurse, the more intelligent, factual, or at least interesting the material, the better your chance of getting an answer... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Donuel Date: 25 Oct 05 - 10:47 AM I have been writing and illustrating the New Bush Times for 6 years. It is a kind of Daily Show satire of fake news. ex. Headlines: ( Hussein plans Asteriod Attack ) Back then I was banned from dozens of websites and got plenty of hate mail, but with approval ratings what they are today people are at least laughing again, in between mourning for the dead and wounded. What makes me most indignant are the talking head apologists who now say "NO ONE COULD HAVE IMAGINED five years ago that: AlQada would have grown by 80%, bin Laden would still be loose, Worldwide hatred and vengence against the US is at an all time high, the deficit is at an all time high, that we are bogged down in a war with no more strategy than driving around until shot at - punctuated by several genocidal ethnic cleansings of cities like Falluja...etc. ....... Let me tell you that I knew this 5 years ago, and I'm damn sure most of you knew it as well. The devil is in the details and that will be the Achilles heel for the worst of the liars/killers (aka neocons - The Realist School of National Policy). The bad guys are always better organized. They need to be if only to evade prosecution. They may never face a war crime tribunal. They will not fall based on the big issues but will be slowly devoured, as if by ants taking tiny bites of the little lies until only the clean white bones remain. We will be heard after the fact although we have been vocal all along. This is an illustation of perhaps our worst and longest lasting (semi secret) war crime in Iraq: http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/metalofdishonor3.jpg Thank you again, and now back to our regularly scheduled complaints ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,a Date: 25 Oct 05 - 10:47 AM Point well taken, Amos. This is my first trip through this thread and I notice some of the sources are somewhat dubious. Factual or interesting? Perhaps ten percent of the preceeding are worth discussing and that is not to say the ten percent are factual. I guess it comes down to what one wants to hear, be it truthful or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 05 - 11:12 AM I am always open to facts, sir. When it comes to interpretation, I reserve my judgement. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 05 - 01:11 PM I think it is also fair and reasonable to remember the actual enemy, who has taken advantage of Bush's policy to make a staging area out of Iraq, a country they were once scarce in. This is what the organization that bombed the Twin Towers with stolen airplanes full of (relatively) innocent passengers is up to lately: "Al Qaida claims hotel bombings Al Qaida in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombings of Baghdad hotels that killed 17 people. The claim, made in an internet statement posted on a website that carries extremist material, said the attack targeted the "dirty harbour of intelligence agents and private American, British and Australian security companies." "The lions of monotheism hit the heart of the security cordon," said the statement, which could not be immediately verified. Tuesday's bombings targeted central Baghdad's Palestine and Sheraton hotels, which house Western journalists and contractors. The statement said the group carried out the operation despite high-profile security measures including concrete barriers, barbed, checkpoints and surveillance cameras. Al Qaida in Iraq said militants from its Brigade of al-Baraa bin Malek carried out the attacks. The statement said the militants fired missiles at security forces before the suicide bombers - including one driving a cement truck through a gap blasted in a surrounding wall - detonated the explosives." These are not freedom fighters. They, like our own right wing fanatic Christians, are extremists using religion as a justification for anti-social psychotic acts, an insane desire to either control or destroy others, anti-human and anti-productive and grimly destructive. Individual by individual they may be less so; but when you take on the colors of a band of pirates or a pack of wolves, it is not persuasive to argue that you are basically a puppy and a family man; it is too disonant to bear much credence. Th eindividual is the responsible thrust-bearing for the acts of the group in which he participates. I have been variously labeled as a pinko peacenik of various kinds, both in this thread and elsewhere. So I bring this issue up to point out that given the correctly identified enemy, and no other means to bring about a more amenable frame of mind on his part, I am persuaded that force may sometimes be unavoidable. But human decency requires that the effort to avoid it be made, and that the enemy be identified correctly, and that the standards of human compassion be maintained even in violence insofar as humanly possible. Otherwise, there is no just battle; it is then all a bestial, godforsaken and rotting stew to which the vultures naturally gravitate. Thus, W. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 05 - 03:34 PM In one of the many scandals now caving in around the lie-weary Bush warriors the following development from the Post and the Times is of interest because it indicates things run deeper than previosuly expected: " By Dan Froomkin Special to washingtonpost.com Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 1:39 PM The New York Times this morning reports that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby apparently first learned that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent from none other than his boss -- Vice President Cheney. This new revelation suggests that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity has reached even closer to the vice president than was previously known. About White House Briefing Check here weekdays at midday for my read on the most interesting items about the president and his staff from major newspaper, magazine and broadcast Web sites and Web logs. More About White House Briefing E-mail Dan Froomkin Suggestions? Comments? Please include your name and home town. I may publish all or parts of your e-mail unless you specify "not for publication." Live Online: White House Talk WH Briefing Reader Forum White House Briefing The Cheney Factor Rearranging the Chairs Fitzgerald Launches Web Site Former Insider Lashes Out Waiting for the Sword More News Inside the White House Who's Who in the White House West Wing Floor Plan White House Staff List and Salaries White House Correspondents White House Coverage Bush Picks Adviser as Greenspan's Successor Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees Husband Is Conspicuous in Leak Case CIA Leak Linked to Dispute Over Iraq Policy Resignations May Follow Charges More News More White House Links Select a Source____________Associated PressReutersAgence France-PresseNew York TimesLos Angeles TimesUSA TodayGoogle NewsYahoo News Full CoverageLatest Job Approval PollsWhite House Web SiteWhite House Press ReleasesWhite House Press BriefingsLive White House Video FeedGlobal Message of the DayCompilation of DocumentsAppointee DirectoryThe Complete Bushisms Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. Nathan Full List of Blogs (1 links) » Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web Fitzgerald is expected to wrap up this week, possibly tomorrow. Libby and Bush senior adviser Karl Rove are widely seen as most likely to be indicted. Just how the White House first learned of Plame's identity has been one of the elusive mysteries of this case. Rove is said to have initially told the grand jury he first heard about Plame from some reporter, but he couldn't remember who. Then he said he heard it from Libby. Libby is said to have initially told the grand jury he first heard about Plame from reporters -- but they denied it. And now, says the Times, Libby's own notes show he heard it from Cheney. But today's news raises even more questions than it answers, among them: * Who told Cheney, and under what circumstances? * Did Cheney acknowledge his own role when he spoke to prosecutors last summer? If not, could he be indicted himself? * Did Cheney encourage Libby not to disclose their conversation? * Did President Bush know about Cheney's role? * Who leaked this latest development -- and what was their motivation? * Does this mean the White House will stop blaming reporters for everything? (That one was rhetorical: The answer is no.) The Story -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson and Douglas Jehl write in the New York Times: "I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday. "Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said. "The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was questioning the administration's handling of intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program to justify the war. . . . "It would not be illegal for either Mr. Cheney or Mr. Libby, both of whom are presumably cleared to know the government's deepest secrets, to discuss a C.I.A. officer or her link to a critic of the administration. But any effort by Mr. Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Mr. Cheney could be considered by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the case, to be an illegal effort to impede the inquiry." The Times reporters wonder "why Mr. Libby would have suggested to the grand jury that he might have learned about Ms. Wilson from journalists if he was aware that Mr. Fitzgerald had obtained the notes of the conversation with Mr. Cheney or might do so." Good question. The conversation between Libby and Cheney apparently took place on the day The Washington Post published a front-page story by Walter Pincus about an unnamed diplomat, later publicly identified as Wilson, and his mission to Niger. "A key component of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official," Pincus wrote. David Shuster reports for MSNBC this morning: "The story in the New York Times has huge implications, because it places Vice President Cheney for the first time in the heart of this investigation." . . . Look for a breaking scandal on the Judith Miller front to appear soon, linking Scooter and Judith romantically. The perfect explanation! I shoulda been a gossip columnist!! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 05 - 08:18 PM 10 Mind-Numbingly Stupid Quotes by Tom DeLay 1) "So many minority youths had volunteered that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." --Tom DeLay, explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not serve in the Vietnam War 2) "Now tell me the truth, boys, is this kind of fun?" --Tom Delay,to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the Astrodome inHouston, Sept. 9, 2005 3) "I AM the federal government." --Tom DeLay, to the owner of Ruth's Chris Steak House, on why he should have been allowed to smoke a cigar, despite federal government regulations banning smoking, May 14,2003 4) "We're no longer a superpower. We're a super-duper power." --TomDeLay, explaining why America must topple Saddam Hussein in 2002interview with Fox News 5) "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes." --Tom DeLay, March 12, 2003 6) "Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills." -- Tom DeLay, on causes of the Columbine High Schoolmassacre, 1999 7) "A woman can take care of the family. It takes a man to provide structure. To provide stability. Not that a woman can't provide stability, I'm not saying that. It does take a father, though." --TomDeLay, in a radio interview, Feb. 10, 2004 8) "I don't believe there is a separation of church and state. I think the Constitution is very clear. The only separation is that there will not be a government church." --Tom DeLay 9) "Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist. Fortunately,such families do not exist." --Tom DeLay, during a debate in Congress on increasing the minimum wage, April 23, 1996 10) "I am not a federal employee. I am a constitutional officer. My job is the Constitution of the United States, I am not a government employee. I am in the Constitution." -- Tom DeLay, in a CNN interview,Dec. 19, 1995 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 05 - 08:22 PM From Newsview (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Cheneys_Role.html) ... "The New York Times, quoting unidentified lawyers involved in the case, said Libby's notes differed from his grand jury testimony. Libby reportedly told grand jurors he learned Plame's name from reporters. There is nothing in the public record to suggest that Cheney, like perhaps Libby and deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, pointed reporters toward the CIA official in conversations about her husband, diplomat Joe Wilson. But the investigation has lifted the veil on the White House's brass-knuckle political culture - and Cheney's role in it. The latest disclosure also raises fresh questions about the vice president's credibility, long-ago frayed by inaccurate or questionable statements on Iraq. Cheney told NBC on Sept. 14, 2003, that he didn't know who sent Wilson on a mission to Niger to explore claims that Iraq was seeking nuclear material. "He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back," Cheney said at the time. "I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him." He made those remarks months after the reported conversations with Tenet and Libby, where he would have learned about Wilson and his wife. White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked whether Bush still had confidence in Cheney, replied, "The president appreciates all the things that he's doing." And he's doing a lot. A former congressman, Cheney is the president's point man on Capitol Hill. A former oil man, he spearheaded the White House energy task force and fought to keep its deliberations secret. A former defense secretary, Cheney is one of Bush's most trusted foreign policy advisers and a staunch defender of the war in Iraq. It was Cheney who all but made a direct link between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks, then denied that he had ever done so. He also insisted there was a link between al-Qaida and Iraq. Cheney said in May that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes," an assertion rejected by military leaders. White House officials are circling the wagons around Cheney, defending the vice president while privately pointing to news accounts that take issue with Libby's grand jury testimony. Many also are still holding out hope that Rove, the president's top adviser, will not be indicted in the case. Two senior Republican officials close to the White House, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution, said administration officials are worried that Cheney's role in the case has created a public relations problem by bringing the CIA leak a step closer to the Oval Office. There is less concern about the vice president's legal vulnerability, the officials said, but any uncertainty adds to an already tense situation at the White House. This all started in 2003 after the war began. The fighting wasn't going well, despite Bush's "mission accomplished" speech, and the president was reeling from criticism over mentioning an Iraq-nuclear connection in his State of the Union address. Wilson was a threat, and Bush's advisers had reason to doubt his credibility. So they sprang into action. Fitzgerald will soon decide whether to file charges or write the episode off to what Hess calls typical Washington "malicious gossip." "Cheney had a conversation with his chief of staff. They talked about something that was bothering them. ... He asked the director of the CIA what gives, and they had a conversation. All of this seems to be the way you'd expect people to do business. Yada, yada, yada - and so we go," Hess said. In purely political terms, the question is whether the public will be as blase about the White House response to Wilson once the whole story is out. Or whether they will lose faith in the president and his Mr. Fix-It.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 25 Oct 05 - 08:32 PM From Salon : "Now They Tell Us Why didn't Bush's foreign-policy critics speak out a year ago? By Fred Kaplan Posted Monday, Oct. 24, 2005, at 3:10 PM PT Scowcroft criticizes George Jr. Two erstwhile loyalists have come out roaring against President George W. Bush this past week, attacking not just his conduct of the war in Iraq but the foundations of his foreign policy generally. The critics are retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a longtime friend and former national security adviser of Bush's father, who attacks his targets in a profile by Jeffrey Goldberg in the latest issue of The New Yorker, and retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, another admirer of Bush Sr. and Colin Powell's former chief of staff, who launched his artillery in an Oct. 19 speech at the New America Foundation. Scowcroft, besides voicing dismay over the invasion of Baghdad, slashes the administration—especially his old friend Dick Cheney and his own former underling Condoleezza Rice—for their "evangelical" notion that they can export democracy at the point of a gun. Wilkerson goes further, charging Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with running foreign policy like a "cabal"—worse still, an "incompetent" cabal that has "courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran." He says they've gotten away with it because the president is "not versed in international relations and not much interested in them either." There's nothing novel about the substance of these critiques; many analysts have made similar points for quite a while. The startling thing here is the critics—consummate insiders, veteran military officers, who as a rule don't reveal secrets or attack presidents, especially those named Bush. (snip...)" A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 25 Oct 05 - 08:45 PM Okay, Old Guy, don't like Amos's cut an' pastes, just waitin' fir butt to pick that one Bush policy that makes you feel all warm an' fuzzy... Don't matter which one it is 'cause this ol' hillbilly ain't gonna cut and paste ya, I'm just gonna shread yer arguements... Bring it on, Big Guy, ol' BObert got somethin' fir ya... And you get to pick the weapons... No Child Left Behind??? Oh, yeah, I hope you pick that one... Homeland Defense??? Oh yeah, pcik that one??? Don't matter to me... You pick the one policy that you feel "YOUR" president has done a good job on... Still waitin'... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,A Date: 26 Oct 05 - 01:18 PM Mr. Bobert, what about Homeland Defense? What is your point, if any, or is this just another one of your hollow threats that, if countered, will then be ignored by you? Give me one 'thing', or whatever your implication is, concerning one child left behind. I an a newbie here but it takes very little time to uncover the harsh bluffers from those who attempt to make a point. While I seem to disagree with Amos amd may doubt a lot of his source material, he would be a force to reckon with in a debate, unlike some of you who seem to employ the tactics of a bully. But, Amos, quoting Wilkerson is a bit of a stretch. Who, after all, is responsible for formulating foreign policy? |
