BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American

Subject: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: The Pooka
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 09:57 PM

Since we've had such a dearth of political discussion lately (oy!), I'm posting 2 recent columns---From the Left & From the Right---printed in my local paper. I agree, in large measure, with both of them. Yes, I do. Anyone else?

An Un-American Plan For World Domination
Molly Ivins
September 27 2002

No. This is not acceptable. This is not the country we want to be. This is not the world we want to make.

The United States of America is still run by its citizens. The government works for us. Rank imperialism and warmongering are not American traditions or values.

"The National Security Strategy of the United States - 2002" is repellent, unnecessary and, above all, impractical. All the experts tell us anti-Americanism thrives on the perception that we are arrogant, that we care nothing for what the rest of the world thinks. Even our innocent mistakes are often blamed on obnoxious triumphalism. The announced plan of this administration for world domination reinforces every paranoid, anti-American prejudice on this earth. This plan is guaranteed to produce more terrorists. Even if this country were to become some insane 21st-century version of Sparta - armed to teeth, guards on every foot of our borders - we would still not be safe. Have the Israelis been able to stop terrorism with their tactics?

Not only would we not be safe, we would not have a nickel left for schools or health care or roads or parks or zoos or gardens or universities or mass transit or senior centers or the arts or anything resembling civilization. This is nuts.

This creepy, un-American document has a pedigree going back to Bush I, when - surprise! - Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz were at the Department of Defense and both such geniuses that they not only didn't see the collapse of the Soviet Union coming, they didn't believe it after they saw it.

In those days, this plan for permanent imperial adventurism was called "Defense Strategy for the 1990s" and was supposed to be a definitive response to the Soviet threat. Then the Soviet threat disappeared, and the same plan re-emerged as a response to the post-Soviet world.

It was roundly criticized at the time, its manifest weaknesses attacked by both right and left. Now it is back as the answer to post-Sept. 11. Sort of like the selling of the Bush tax cut - needed in surplus, needed in deficit, needed for rain and shine - the plan exists apart from rationale.

As Frances Fitzgerald points out in the Sept. 26 New York Review of Books, its most curious feature is the combination of triumphalism and almost unmitigated pessimism. Until last week, when the thing was re-released in its new incarnation, it contained no positive goals for American foreign policy, not one. Now the plan is tricked out with rhetoric like earrings on a pig about extending freedom, democracy and prosperity to the world. But as The New York Times said, "It sounds more like a pronouncement that the Roman Empire or Napoleon might have produced."

In what is indeed a dangerous and uncertain world, we need the cooperation of other nations as never before. Under this doctrine, we claim the right to first-strike use of nuclear weapons and "unannounced pre-emptive strikes." That means surprise attacks. Happy Pearl Harbor Day. We have just proclaimed ourselves Bully of the World.

There is a better way. Foreign policy experts polled at the end of the 20th century agreed the great triumph of the past 100 years in foreign policy was the Marshall Plan. We can use our strength to promote our interests through diplomacy, economic diplomacy, multilateral institutions (which we dominate anyway) and free trade conditioned to benefit all.

None of this will make al Qaeda love us, but will make it a lot more likely that whoever finds them will hand them over.

This reckless, hateful and ineffective approach to the rest of the world has glaring weaknesses. It announces that we intend to go in and take out everybody else's nukes (27 countries have them) whenever we feel like it. Meanwhile, we're doing virtually nothing to stop their spread.

Last month, Ted Turner's Nuclear Threat Initiative ponied up $5 million to get poorly secured weapons-grade uranium out of Belgrade. Privatizing disarmament - why didn't we think of that before?

Molly Ivins is a syndicated writer in Texas.
Copyright 2002, Hartford Courant

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:23 PM

yep, that is the story and here are the alernatives. This is the *real deal*. George Bush is spending $200M on PR for his war. Hmmmmmmmm? That;s more than the annual budgets for some Third World countries *just* to convince Americans that the US needs to invade a country that could be defeated by most any one it its neighbors.

Like they say, if you tell a lie often and loud enough someone will belive it. $200M. That's a lot of loud, loud lies! Lots! And who paid for the PR work???? The American taxpayers, thats who!!!!

Yeah, $200M to shove anti-humanism, Satanic crap down your throats. Makes my poor ol' Wes Ginny butt sick....

And whoes signing the checks (covered by our tax bucks) a man who was not even elected to the office for which he STOLE!!!! That's who.....

Peace thru Resistence

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:45 PM

But ummmmmmmm.... hey uhhhhhh ......Bobert?

Bush's popularity is so high,... right?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: mg
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:51 PM

and how exactly are those neighbors going to defeat it? And it is nuts to call it imperialism because going into Iraq, which I don't know enough of all the pros and cons to make a statement about its feasibility, is not imperialism. It would ultimately, hopefully, be liberation. Big difference. Maybe the price would be too high for us or for the Iraqis hoping to be free. I don't know. But let's get our labels at least right. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:54 PM

RAVE ON BOBERT!!! YOU DA MAN!!!

What say we get Dubya and SH in a boxing ring and let 'em duke it out between themselves? Leave the rest of us out of it. Just don't hurt ole Dubya too bad or that Cheney fucker would become Prez. Talk about the fryin' pan and the fire!

Bruce
(aka Bee-dubya-ell who is finding it increasingly distressing to share middle initials with a certain Texan)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 10:58 PM

GIVE 'EM HAYULL, MOLLY!!!

Thanks, Pooka!!

A clarion, that girl. A positive clarion!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:00 PM

Bruce: Works fine for me! Winner take all! No, heck no! Junior couldn;t fight his way out of a wet paper bag. How about Cheney fighting Saddam? No, that ain;t gonna go to well with Cheney's heart condition... Danged, how about Powell? He mnight take Saddam btu he;s not exactly a shoe in either. I don't know....

Mary: What's wrong with the term "imperialism". Half the reasons that Bush wants to go to war with Iraq is to secure 15% of the world's oil reserves. Sounds like "imperialistic" thinkng to me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:02 PM

Like Daddy -- Like Son?

Oh, I want a war, just like the war, that dear ol' daddy had...

Anyhoo -- does anyone know where I could find a midi file and lyrics for "Somebody Play Dixie For Me?"

I hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: DonMeixner
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:38 PM

This tough for me. I am probably like most Americans in my political views. Pretty down the middle in most things.

I was anti-war during Viet Nam. I support freedom of choice and separation of Church and State. I strongly agree with my right to bear arms. And my right as an American to assemble and speak my unpopular mind anytime I choose.

Now I sit back in amazed fascination as I hear the Peace freaks from the 60's saying we have to blow up the Evil Arab Terrorists and Pat Buchannan saying we have no business in the desert, stay home.

I am afraid of Bush. I think he is a windbag in someones pocket. I think he is still unsure where most of Asia is located. And I think he can't speak for himself without he becomes tongue tied. I do think he is just bright enough to be a good puppet and do what ever his string man tells him to do and say.

Who is the man (men) with the strings? My guess is it is George Herbert Bush and more importantly John Ashcroft. Look at the Patriot Act. The congress and senate as my representitives are being asked to sign away my promised rights as stated in the constitution. Fear of the terrorists is their justification and won't I give up some rights so the government can serve me better.

Ashcroft fascinates me. How was he placed in a high position in government? Especially when people in his home state found it wiser to reelect a deadman than vote Ashcroft into office. The locals must know something us out of towners don't.

At any rate pretty soon I'll be sitting in my living room when the house comes under attack. But who will I be shooting with my black powder 1884 45-70 Trapdoor Springfield. The Al Quida guy in the back yard or the guy in sunglasses across the street watch me through the strap door in the business section of his New York Times?

Is Bush un American? Possibly not, but his advisors and he certainly need a civics lesson on what a government of, for, and by the people really means.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 02 - 11:53 PM

There is no question that both Bushes and Ashcroft are legally and biologically "Americans". And let us be very chary of starting a New Wave of Investigating Un-americanism, Senator!

But the telling question is whether their short-term decision making supports the actual principles of the nation or erodes and compromises them in some way.

At this time I have seen no evidence to dissuade me that the answer is a resounding affirmative: GH, GW, and Ashcroft are participating in a severe compromise of American ideals and statutory principles. Unfortunately and ironically, this is a typically American thing to do.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: The Pooka
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 12:01 AM

DonMeixner, us guys in the Muddled Middle are being Left behind, Right? / Now you take me. (But not literally. Please.) I was PRO-war on Vietnam---but of course I didn't go & fight, did I? No. / I too support separation of church & state; but then what am I supposed to say about the politico-clerical arrangements in my beloved Republic of Ireland that I'm always yammering about, now I ask you. / And I'm not too sure that *I* believe in my right to bear arms, being a rather Poorly-Regulated Militia meself. Then again, while you were training yer 1884 Springfield on the Man in Black across the street, I was seriously considering the potential application of my 1995 Taurus .357 Magnum to the noisy terrorist cell of raccoons up the chimbley. Fortunately the Wife dryly pointed out that hollowpoint rounds will ricochet off of bricks & hit me in the arse, or even warse; & that furthermore the local constabulary would take a very dim view. So I decided to Give Peace a Chance. // Which I hope Dubya, or his Puppeteer, does, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 12:20 AM

Pooka:

This being kinda cooling weatherm shouldn't light a small test fire to make sure that damper draws okay?

I'ld a thunk in this age of high-flown anti-terrorist tactics it would be the patriotic thing tuh do!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 01:36 AM

Aye, Mary---the Iraqis have a right to be free; but not "free" like the young protesters who were rounded up and jailed the other day in the USA for daring to show opposition to Globalisation and the dangerous power of the big banks. We all want peace---but an imposed "pax Americana" of the Bush-Cheney -Ashcroft-Bushietail Blair variety is NOT what the world wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Hrothgar
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 04:22 AM

I keep telling myself - Abraham Lincoln was a Republican ..........

Something has come unstuck here.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 05:39 AM

More often than not the process of extending an empire is described as "liberation". Napoleon was a "liberator", and so was Stalin in Eastern Europe; so were the British in Africa; the Americans in the Philippines...

And in a sense this was partly accurate - but the other part makes a bit of a difference.

Assuming I don't want to be understood as anti-American, which comes across as more hostile - to say that Bush is un-American or to say that he is not?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Troll
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 06:39 AM

Stating categorically that one of the reasons that Bush wants war with Iraq is so he can control 15% of the worlds oil reserves is exactaly the same as Bush saying that Saddam is building WMDs. There's no proof for either statement.
If there is proof of the oil accusation, bring it out- not "I think" or supposition or "it stands to reason- but actual proof.
If that cannot be supplied then Bush'e accusations are just as valid as yours Bobert.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: kendall
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 06:44 AM

The past is prolog. We are quite able to make a parking lot out of Iraq; But, I guarantee it will only make things worse. Just look at Israel and the Palistinians; they have been taking revenge on each other for half a century, and we are headed down the same road.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Troll
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 07:36 AM

The problem is, as I see it, what happens if we DON'T stop Saddam? What happens when he DOES get nuclear devices?
That's what worries me. If we- or someone- doesn't stop his WMD program now, before we have ironclad proof of its existance, it may well be that our first bit of proof will come when he uses nuclear blackmail to take over his neighbors or slags down Tel Aviv.
Then we will be well and truly in deep trouble.
I'd like more and better proof but how much proof do we need?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 08:24 AM

Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons. I would imagine Saddam is more likely to blow his brains out with a revolver than use any nuclear weapons he might conceivably have on Israel.

And America has some 6000 nuclear weapons...

I get the feeling that some people have lost touch with reality about this kind of thing. There is no reason whatsoever to expect that Saddam is going to launch any kind of attack on anybody outside his own borders, and no reeason to think that his overthrowal will make it in any way reduce the possibility of major terrorist attacks in the rest of the world.

The central reasons for trying to get rid of him appear to be a)he is an extremely unpleasant dictator; and b) his presence interferes with the availability of Iraq's oil resources. Since those aren't things that would permit of a legal attack, other reasons to do with self-defence have to be paraded.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 11:12 AM

troll: There have also been reports in the Washington Post within the last week or so of "sources within the administration" stating that profits from the sales of Iraq's oil could be used to reimburse the US for the costs of the War, which some estimate at as much as $200B!

Now, one would think, that if the US could justifyt making the Iraqi people pay for the US coming over and killing them, then it's not too far a stretch, to see an oilman President figure out a way for his buddies to continue getting their hands on the booty.

After all, to the victors go the spoils.

Now, there is one more scenerio that has not been discussed too much here and that is, "*What if* the US looses the war? This is a very interesting question.

Sure, The US could have used nuclear weapons in Vietnam and paved it but it lost because the Vietnamese people dug in and fought a gurilla war. What if the Iraqi's do the same? Sure, they can be beaten because of the supply issues but at what cost to the image of the US? If they dig in there are only two scenerios and neither presents the US with a victory any more than nuking Vietnam would have been a victory.

Scenerio 1: The US has to figth block by block against an enemy that looks pretty much like everyone else. In this case, the US is going to rack up a lot of casualties and collaterial damage that will quickly make it out to look as if the war was not well thought out.

Scenerio 2: The US can take everyhting In Iraq and force most of the Iraqi's into Bagdad and other populotion centers and starve them out. Now given Saddam's poor track record on his treatment of his own folks, guess who will be getting the bulk of the food and medical attention? His staff and his army. So the reality is that this approach will make the US look real, real bad.

No victory in either of these likable scenerios.

You know, the more one looks at this situation the more hopeless it looks since Bush so desperately wants his war and his folks want this war and it looks so much like he's gonna have his war come Hell of high water. He's got a lot of folks afraid to even speak up or to dare tell a pollster they are against the war. Man, when the American people are browbeat into submission at such a critical time it does not bode well for the future of democracy. It is critical that folks take a stand today because evry day you remain silent is one more day the Bush and Co. think you're in total agreement with their regime.

There can be no winner if the US attacks Iraq.

Peace thru resistence

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion 1: Bush is un-American
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 02 - 12:45 PM

If the world's defenders of freedom and basic human dignity such as the United States do not put their foot down and stop fanatical lunatics like Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, the Talliban, etc., who are hell-bent on forcing the rest of the world to embrace their beliefs and bow to Allah or die as infidels, then who will?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

WIsh you guys would sign your posts!

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

Have I missed something?

DougR

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

Doug:

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

A

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

Thanks, Amos, I found it.

DougR

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

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

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

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

Clint

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

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

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

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

Bobert

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

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

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

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

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

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

DougR

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

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

Moscow Clint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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

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

DougR

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

Doug:

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

A

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

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

But, I'll help a little bit.

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

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

Cheney. Halliburton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clint

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

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

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DougR

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

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

White House Defends Bush Handling of Stock Sale

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

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

But here you go -- AGAIN -- anyway:

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

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

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

Excellent, Nicole. Superb, even.

Clint

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

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

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

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

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

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

DougR

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rest my case.

Don Firth

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

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

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

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

Free Dougie Now!

Free Dougie Now!

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

Bobert

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

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

**BG**

A

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

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

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

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

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

DougR

DougR

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

Are you experiencing deja vu, Doug? :-)

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

- LH

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

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

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

A

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

That's 30 for me on this thread.

DougR

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

DougR:

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

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

A

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

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


To the corner I shall go today

Dreaming of the peace

And quietly as we should say

That warring has to cease


Speaking out to better worlds

Inlists the ardent minds

Better than a flag unfurled

Flown high... so often blinds


Entreat me now in ruptured joy

What are we doing here?

Are war machines but one man's toy

When all shed bitter tears?
ttr

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

Graciously done, Thomas me friend! :>)

A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DougR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Firth