 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush's press conference last night.
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: SeanM Date: 14 Oct 01 - 06:48 AM I'm sorry... can't resist... So, GUEST - you're saying that the Bush family is THIS generation's Kennedy family, but without the charisma? I wouldn't call the family 'despotic', just 'rich with too damned many connections'. This from someone who voted against him, will vote against him when he runs again, and would much rather have a stick from the tree in my backyard for president. Well, maybe not. The stick hasn't shown me any hope at giving speeches. There may be hope for the house cockatiel though... M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:16 PM Stand by for a ram. IF they catch Bin Ladan, they will a. kill him 2. throw him into prison. If they kill him, he will be a martyr. If they put him into prison there will be a rash of hostage taking. I think Kat had the right idea. Kidnap him, do a sex change on him, then send him to live under the Taliban as a woman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST Date: 14 Oct 01 - 10:11 PM SeanM, So you believe there is only one American political dynasty per generation? Apparently you aren't too familiar with the political dynasties in the US?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: SeanM Date: 14 Oct 01 - 11:47 PM It's debatable as to whether you could technically call the Bush (or Kennedy, or any other) family a "dynasty". After all, the definition is simply that of a succession of rulers who are members of the same family (though if you want to be pedantic, Clinton's interlude precludes their being a presidential dynasty). Thus, just because a series of family members are in political offices, they aren't a 'dynasty'. That would require the passing of a specific office from father to son - which COULD have happened had Bush the Elder passed the office directly to Bush the Junior. Now if you want to state that the Bush, Kennedy etc. families represent an unhealthy amount of political offices held by a given family, I'm with you on that. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST Date: 15 Oct 01 - 09:06 AM Well, I suppose the dictionary definition would be a dynasty defined either as a succession of family members or a lengthy amount of time a single family is in power. Nonetheless, you chose to focus your attention away from my comparison of the Bush family to despotic ruling families in other regions, like Haiti and the Middle East. You can argue the pedantic points of dynasties, of course. The point I was making was about political despots, which I believe both Papa Bush and Baby Bush are prime American examples.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 15 Oct 01 - 02:05 PM Hey Al, thanks for participating in our little forum here! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: LoopySanchez Date: 15 Oct 01 - 02:54 PM I guess George needs to: -Sell some nuclear technology to China, -Sell some pardons to world class criminals, -Go eight years without an energy policy, -Sneak in exective orders at the last possible minute to make the next administration look bad (reducing already safe arsenic levels by 400%, so that the new guy has to repeal them to keep everyones' water bills from skyrocketing) -Barbecue a few children at a cult compound -Engage in a little quid pro quo sexual harassment (Blow jobs in exchange for Avon jobs), -Engineer the largest tax increase in U.S. history, -Cut the military by a third while sending them on more peacekeeping missions than any president in history, -Send some storm troopers into homes to aim assault weapons at six year old Cuban refugees...
and Laura needs to: -Form an illegal, unelected 500 member committee to try to socialize medicine,
It would probably help if some of their lawyers and cabinet officials died under mysterious circumstances, too.
I figure that all this must be done before this presidency will ever be considered legitimate by any liberal... Is that what it comes down to? A simple yes/no answer will suffice. Go ahead and call me reactionary, but know that the "reaction" is to those who can't give Bush one iota of credit for doing anything right. "A dead fish could lead the nation with full support right now"... "He didn't pee on his feet, yay!"..."He's still a doofus"... You may now begin your unfounded personal attacks on my inteligence, character, and sources for facts presented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Oct 01 - 03:53 PM "We know he's guilty turn him over" - that's not even a précis of what he said, it is a literal quote.
Given that he's supposed to talk like someone in a Western movie, that isn't the language of a sheriff, it's the language of someone leading a lynch mob.
He is supposed to be the leader of a great democracy, founded on the rule of law and all that. And so far as I can see there is a pretty solid case against Bin Laden. But there are a lot of people out there who still need to be convinced.
That is not a sensible sort of thing to say. I don't think you'll find many head of state who would say something like that. Well there probably are, but they aren't the sort you'd have much respect for.
The right thing to do with criminals is to put them on trial and prove that they are guilty. In an open court that is going to look at all the evidence, and is going to bring in a verdict that honest people everywhere will see as meaning something.
"We know he's guilty turn him over" Maybe they shouldn't have had those Nuremberg Trials, but just shot the Nazi leaders in a cellar somewhere.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:03 PM McGraw: All well said, but one distinction: He's not talking to the legal representatives of a sovereign nation. He's taking to banditos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:17 PM A distinction, hurricane, but I'd call it a distinction without a difference. And I'm afraid in saying that he wasn't talking to a legal government or a bunch of banditos, be was talking to the fans.
This really isn't supposed to be show business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:25 PM Oh, my, yes, this is supposed to be show business of the highest order. Beats the next step. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:27 PM Loopy, The Clintons are gone, lets let 'em gop and get behind this president. I am made uncomfortable by Bush's "We know he's guilty. Turn him over." There's no reason he can't appear to be on a quest for justice. If he had said that "The members of the Taliban are aware of his guilt and are simply playing politics. They do not need any evidence" Our purposes would be better served. Perhaps, once Mr's Powel and Chaney have worked on him more, he will speak more intelligently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 15 Oct 01 - 04:35 PM Loopy, I will only address one of your statements because I dont want to take the time or energy to shoot the rest of them down. Your statement that implies that Clinton had some of his detractors "disappear" is pure crap. Go to the hoax buster site. They debunked this some time back. I hate when someone spits out opinions and calls them facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:30 PM Refusing to negotiate with the Taliban for the turn-over of Bin Laden (at the top of the "most wanted" list) through a third country, as Bush angrily did today, is indefensible. The Taliban offer was slapped down, and the US conducted the heaviest bombing of this campaign. The rest the world is keenly aware of our hypocrisy. Bush ain't after Bin Laden or the Taliban--he wants more permanent bases in the region, and knows that Pakistan is one the brink of civil war over our presence in that country. In other words, our boys aren't safe in Pakistan (especially considering that country has nuclear capabilities), and need their own bases in Afghanistan. Exploiting the third world to keep Americans safely driving their gas-guzzling SUVs is what this is about. Its the best god damn way of life on earth, don't ya know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:31 PM JtS: At first I thought you had it exactly right, but as I think about it: Perhaps if he said it your way, it would make it all too clear that the Taliban know about bin Laden's guilt (they don't need any evidence) only because they are his direct and knowing accomplices, and you know what THAT means. It could be interpreted as hand him over before we blow you to smithereens. (Just a thought.) (In other words: The phrase used was "I know he's guilty." Yours adds an extra allegation. That extra allegation has implications.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:37 PM >>>Exploiting the third world to keep Americans safely driving their gas-guzzling SUVs is what this is about. <<< A lot of you keep saying that, as if the massacre of 6,000 civilians was just a lucky coincidence. I'm going to stay content in my naivete, and believe that the response to the massacre is because of the massacre, not for SUV mileage expenses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:49 PM Bush made it clear when he made his speech to Congress in September that the time for negotiation was past. The conditions under which the Taliban offered to surrender Bin Laben were unacceptable. I, hurricane: don't confuse Guest with facts. It might be too much for him to grasp. Don't want overload, ya know. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Oct 01 - 08:32 PM If the Taliban regime were to surrender Bin Laden to a court of law for trial, that wouldn't be "negotiating".
But in the light of Bush's clear and unambiguous statement "We know he's guilty, turn him over", it's hard to see how that could be an American court.
Incidentally, one helpful thing about Bin Laden's formal statement seems to have been generally overlooked, so far as I have seen. He directly praised the people who hijacked and crashed the planes, and said they were doing a good thing.
In saying that he has discredited a theory that appears to be quite widely believed in some places to the effect that the whole thing was carried out by Mossad. That has provided a way in which it has been possible for people to condemn the attacks as an atrocity, and yet deny that Bin Laden had anything to do with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 15 Oct 01 - 09:24 PM "I think he might be guilty, so please turn him over before I start to bomb the beejeezus out of your country because I think he might be guilty?" No, I don't think that would play any better. Bush would be neither judge nor jury if bin Laden were to go to a U.S. court. He is of the Executive Branch, which is charged with enforcing the laws. So there is no real harm in his saying: I am confident in his culpability and that is why (a) I want him and (b) I will utilize severe measures to ensure his apprehension. The people who would impugn the integrity of the U.S. courts in such a situation (should it arise) are not going to persuaded from their views before or after the fact, so it doesn't matter much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Melani Date: 15 Oct 01 - 09:44 PM I agree with DougR (gasp! that's the second time in a couple of weeks!)--there should be no negotiation--just hand the sucker over. I think trial in some kind of third party court would probably achieve the same end as trying him in the U.S. I also think there's very little chance he would survive his first meeting with U.S. troops. Just a guess. I am impressed, somewhat against my will, at Bush's showing as commander-in-chief. He seems to have learned to speechify somewhat better, or at least is rehearsing more. I await world developments with interest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: JamesJim Date: 15 Oct 01 - 11:08 PM "Don't mess with Texas!" jc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 16 Oct 01 - 01:14 AM Watch it Melani, it might be catching! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Oct 01 - 06:57 AM "I also think there's very little chance he would survive his first meeting with U.S. troops. Just a guess."
If someone is surrendering and you kill them, that's a war crime and an act of terrorism. It happens in the heat of battle and the aftermath as well - but Americans managed to avoid doing that with Nazi and Japanese war leaders. This is supposed to be against terrorism.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,Greg F. Date: 16 Oct 01 - 07:38 AM This is supposed to be against terrorism. Only if you actually believe the crap Dumbya's handlers are putting about. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST Date: 16 Oct 01 - 07:44 AM Surrendering Bin Laden to a third country isn't negotiating. Bush says he wants Bin Laden, yet when offered him by the Taliban, he answers with the heaviest bombing of the campaign. There are logical, reasonable, *legitimate* reasons the American government and military is uniformly hated around the world. This is a perfect example of American arrogance. Don't accept Bin Laden when he is offered, don't stop the bombing when the international community pleads with us to stop to prevent the starvation of up to 2 million people in the coming months--just keep having our way, and the rest the world be damned. Sure, stick with the naivete and Texas--I'm sure your safe and comfortable, mean and petty lives are so much the better for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:06 AM Guest: The Taliban did not offer to turn bin Laden over to anyone. They offered to commence negotiations about the possibility thereof. If you buy into that then your naivete is more debilitating than mine. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59568-2001Oct14.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,just a nobody Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:37 AM Guest, where did you get your information. They have made no attempt to turn Bin Ladin over. Unless we negotiate, pull our troops out, stop supporting Israel, that sort of thing. Let us not forget, it was the Taliban that said that they would free Bin Ladin's 'restrictions' so that he could carry out his Jihad. Lets look at what the Taliban have been telling us. They said that Bin Ladin could not have done this because they have cut off his communications. But they lost him days later. How the hell can we believe that they knew what the hell he was doing when they "Lost" him. Then he pops back up and we can negotiate. Then they are turning him loose to run his Jihad... so you can believe the Taliban all you want Guest... they have a poor track record in this affair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Oct 01 - 11:09 AM Hi Hurricane, Your point is well taken. What I was trying to say is that he should be calling their bluff instead of appearing to be a cowboy. I am not an international diplomat, but I am fairly confident that Mrs Powell and Chaney could think of a way to appear firm but reasonable. When W. speaks for himself he seems to be quite the cowboy. It is only common sense and apparant to all that, If the Taliban were to surrender the bin Laden organization to another country then the reason for the USA to attack Afghanistan would decrease. If he were simply to call their bluff by saying, "Get them out of your country and we will reconsider." which of course they could not do. Then America might appear to be more fair without losing face. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:19 PM Nothing is fair in love and war, Jack. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Oct 01 - 12:25 PM I said "appear to be fair" Doug. We can call it war and make more enemies or we can call it justice and maybe win the war. The battle with bin Laden is for hearts and minds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Oct 01 - 01:58 PM Anyway, I see from the news tonight that the current US line is in favour of the Taliban being a major element in a new Afghan regime. Moderate Taliban that is.
This game is a lot more complicated and sneaky than they make out in the staged public performances. If anyone says they understand it they are either lying or wrong. Or in some cases both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Greg F. Date: 16 Oct 01 - 02:10 PM I would think "moderate Taliban" something of an oxymoron, no? Apparently Dumbya sees no contradiction, tho...... Since the so-called "Northern Alliance" is no less religiously fundamentalist than the Taliban, the "New Afghan Regime"- just one more dictatorship placed in power by the U.S.- should be a real great blow for freedom. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 16 Oct 01 - 02:23 PM Yes, this is bizarre on many levels. I can't find a reference to it, but I do see that the Northern Alliance are announcing conspiracy theories of their own. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001350016-2001360412,00.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Larry124 Date: 16 Oct 01 - 02:25 PM If only we'd have tried to understand the grievances of the Nazis and the Japanese Militarists in the 1930's, and to learn more about their concerns, and to explain ourselves better to them, then all that sad loss of life 1939-1945 might not have been necessary. Are you kidding me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Donuel Date: 16 Oct 01 - 02:43 PM I'm watching Bush at the event for children to give a dollar to Afgan children. Although I never thought I would say this about Bush....MWAHAHAHAHAHA MWHAAAHHA some hypocrites are funnier than others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 16 Oct 01 - 03:42 PM Larry 124, I'd like to suggest that you study some history, it will help you understand not only when, but, WHY. Do you really think those Nazis and Japanese got out of bed one day and decided to declare war on us? To reflect your question, Are you kidding me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 16 Oct 01 - 04:00 PM Larry 123, don't shake up Kendall. He's still recovering from his erotic trip to Great Britain. dougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Oct 01 - 04:00 PM Good one Larry124 the roots of the Taliban are pretty close to those of the NAZI's we'd better get on that one right away. I'll warm up the time machine and you get ready to go back and start the Marshall plan in 1919. Think we've learned? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,BEsharp Date: 16 Oct 01 - 05:51 PM From what I've seen the US doesn't make foreign policy decisions based on ethics. It's all done based on US interests. Ethics are brought up to justify what is being done. An example: Saudi Arabia has one of the most extreme religiously fundamentalist (see the next section on this) ruling class, yet you never hear about that on CNN. On a side note I think fundamentalist is not the correct term for these radical islamic groups. The definition of fundamentalism is: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. Where this definition does not fit is "a return to fundamental principles". They actually stray far from the original teachings of islam. There seems to be many posts here that lean far to the right or left. I, like a lot of people I've heard from lately, sit on the fence. I believe there should be justice for the attack. There should measures made to ensure our country's safety from terrorist attacks without infringing on our personal freedoms indefinitely. I also firmly believe we need to look at our foreign policy as a people, with all the facts, and reevaluate how we go about our business with All the countries of the world. If only there were less sheep in this country. And to think I was coming to this site expecting to discuss music. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST, I, hurricane Date: 16 Oct 01 - 06:17 PM BESharp: I think most people here agree with what you've written. I'm even more cynical on the basics of U.S. policy than you are, though. I think policy is dictated by U.S. interests to the extent that it is not subverted by private financial influence. What gets me most annoyed is when it is subverted by foreign financial influence. Persons or entities in Saudi Arabia may well exert such influence. (And I mean beyond the U.S. policy interests in access to oil reserves.) However, just about everyone here agrees that the attacks require justice. Almost everyone agrees the underlying purpose for the justice should be deterrence, not revenge. There are a few kooks who think the massacre is just being used as an excuse to raid the 'stans' oil reserves, but the only real dispute here seems to be whether non-force means of coercion can be sufficiently effective, and when they should have been or should be attempted. There is even agreement that a generalized reduction of international tensions on many fronts is warranted. The speifics require thought on a wide spectrum, though, so nobody has the answers, or pretends to. The biggest problem is defining the immediate mission and completing it as defined. Answering the questions of how far to go in serving global interests (while impinging upon more immediate U.S. interests) are going to be left to our descendents to figure out, I imagine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 17 Oct 01 - 12:34 AM GUEST BE sharp: if you came to this site expecting to discuss music, why on earth would you contribute to this thread? It's plainly marked, "BS". Go find the music threads, of which there are many, and have at it! No one's stopping you! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: SeanM Date: 17 Oct 01 - 12:50 AM In a related topic, I note today that we're condemning Israel's "targeted killings" of Hammas terrorist leaders. Guess that they should get with the program and start carpet bombing, eh? Oh wait - didn't we send in the special forces specifically to 'neutralize' terrorist leaders? Sometimes the din of bullshit coming from On High is truly spectacular. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,BE# Date: 17 Oct 01 - 01:13 PM DougR, I know it was marked as BS. It was just my sad attempt at some humor during a discussion of a dreary topic. I was coming here as a short escape from all the talks of war. Yet, when I see these topics I can't help bur read them. I do find it helpful to hear as many opinions as possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Date: 17 Oct 01 - 02:06 PM Like it or not we are involved in a heavy situation right now. There is no response or action to this situation that is going to satisfy everyone. There is no leader in any position anywhere who could satisfy everyone. The Taliban had THREE WEEKS to make a decision about bin Laden. Even when presented with the evidence they requested, they were still willing to sacrifice the Afghan population in favor of ONE MAN. To me there is something dreadfully wrong with that philosophy. Why is bin Laden so much more important than the WHOLE POPULATION of their country? Could it be because he FINANCES the Taliban? The United States sends money all around the world, including Afghanistan. And didn't we help to rebuild Japan, who declared war on us? Or have I been deluded by some half-rate Yankee history book? Well. I am tired of talking about it. There is no way that we will all ever agree on what should be done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 17 Oct 01 - 02:18 PM Kim C (cookie or not): Good post. You make some excellent points that I'm sure will draw some excellent negative comments. Guest BE#: sorry if I appeared to over-react to your original post, but criticizem of BS posts by Mudcatters who object to them is such a common complaint, I guess your comment plucked my string. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Oct 01 - 02:31 PM Well, noone helped to rebuild Afganistan after it'd been wrecked fighting the Russians.
"They were still willing to sacrifice the Afghan population in favor of ONE MAN. To me there is something dreadfully wrong with that philosophy." Put like that it sounds rather fine actually, and that's how a lot of people all over the world are likely to see it.
The best realistic option would be to cobble up a deal under which Bin Laden gets put on trial in a genuinely independent court, including Muslim judges,and a new regime takes over in Afghanistan including some of the Taliban, with the Al Qaida training camps are closed down, and serious help put in. Anyway that seems to be the kind of deal that is being worked on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: kendall Date: 17 Oct 01 - 04:00 PM Would we have turned over the head of the C.I.A. to Chile after the murder of President Allende? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Date: 17 Oct 01 - 04:05 PM I regret I am not familiar with that, although I did read a novel by Isabel Allende once. (I think she was his niece?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: DougR Date: 17 Oct 01 - 05:44 PM Kim C: you're funny. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush's press conference last night. From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Date: 17 Oct 01 - 05:51 PM No really! Isabel Allende is related to Salvador Allende somehow, I just don't remember how... anyway... back to our regular programming. :-) |