 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 16 Jan 06 - 09:11 PM Yo, Amos... First of all GUEST's is playing their usual coawrdsly game of impersonating other GUEST's AR ain't AR... It's just some right winged rich white guy... Ignore him... He just want to get richer and that's why he's spending his time 'round this joint messin' with folks who are talling the truth... Keep in firing, Amos... AR is cool with you... Asshole GUEST ain't... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST Date: 16 Jan 06 - 09:08 PM I must enter a comment here: the "NOTE" in the entry above refers to the 16 August 1972 Oufkir coup attempt against Hassan II, after which Oufkir himself was assassinated. That is the coup that is associated with the mission that included John Bragin, Amos Jessup, and Liz Ausley, concerning e-meters and sec-check training for the Moroccan security forces. However, one thing that we came across in our research, which caused considerable confusion for some time, is that there was another attempted coup in Morocco against Hassan II earlier than Oufkir's 16 August 1972 coup attempt, and it came very shortly after the Susan Meister incident: on 10 July 1971. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST Date: 16 Jan 06 - 09:01 PM We interviewed Amos Jessup, who was visibly upset and shaking on and off. He blamed himself, as Susan wanted a committed relation-ship and he didn't. Susan was in the cabin alone after he went to work. He didn't see her alive again. He had no idea she was suicidal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 16 Jan 06 - 08:42 PM From today (Monday) in the NY Times: "The Imperial Presidency at Work E-Mail This Printer-Friendly Save Article Published: January 15, 2006 You would think that Senators Carl Levin and John McCain would have learned by now that you cannot deal in good faith with a White House that does not act in good faith. Yet both men struck bargains intended to restore the rule of law to American prison camps. And President Bush tossed them aside at the first opportunity. Mr. Bush made a grand show of inviting Mr. McCain into the Oval Office last month to announce his support for a bill to require humane treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and other prisons run by the American military and intelligence agencies. He seemed to have managed to get Vice President Dick Cheney to stop trying to kill the proposed Congressional ban on torture of prisoners. The White House also endorsed a bargain between Mr. Levin and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, which tempered somewhat a noxious proposal by Mr. Graham to deny a court hearing to anyone the president declares to be an "unlawful enemy combatant." The bargain with Mr. Levin removed language that stripped away cases already before the courts, which would have been an egregious usurpation of power by one branch of government, and it made clear that those cases should remain in the courts. Mr. Bush, however, seems to see no limit to his imperial presidency. First, he issued a constitutionally ludicrous "signing statement" on the McCain bill. The message: Whatever Congress intended the law to say, he intended to ignore it on the pretext the commander in chief is above the law. That twisted reasoning is what led to the legalized torture policies, not to mention the domestic spying program. Then Mr. Bush went after the judiciary, scrapping the Levin-Graham bargain. The solicitor general informed the Supreme Court last week that it no longer had jurisdiction over detainee cases. It said the court should drop an existing case in which a Yemeni national is challenging the military tribunals invented by Mr. Bush's morally challenged lawyers after 9/11. The administration is seeking to eliminate all other lawsuits filed by some of the approximately 500 men at Gitmo, the vast majority of whom have not been shown to pose any threat. Both of the offensive theories at work here - that a president's intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress - are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right. The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 16 Jan 06 - 08:36 PM The Environment News Service reports in their current edition: WASHINGTON, DC, January 13, 2006 (ENS) - Over the opposing voices of Alaska Natives, scientists, sportsmen and conservation groups, the Bush administration Wednesday opened for oil and gas leasing 100 percent of Alaska's Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. The decision eliminates longstanding wildlife and environmental protections first put in place by Reagan administration Interior Secretary James Watt. The 4.6 million acre area of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is immediately west of the massive Prudhoe Bay oil field in northern Alaska bordering the Beaufort Sea. Conservationists point out that the area provides vital habitat for migratory waterfowl, caribou and other wildlife, and is an important subsistence hunting and fishing area. Congress last month rejected a proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 110 miles further east. The Teshekpuk Lake Special Area encompasses one of the most important wetland complexes in the circumpolar Arctic. The 45,000 head Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Herd bears its calves and seeks relief from insects near Teshekpuk Lake, and it is a key summer molting or nesting location for many of North America's migratory ducks, geese, swans, loons and other birds. For numerous species of wildlife, the network of coastal lagoons, deep-water lakes, wet sedge grass meadows and river deltas of the Teshekpuk Lake area are unsurpassed habitat. (Photo courtesy Northern Alaska Environmental Center) Alaska Natives rely on the area for subsistence fishing and hunting, especially caribou hunts. Brant and other waterfowl that migrate there are harvested for both subsistence and sport in Alaska and in many of the Lower 48 states. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Chad Calvert, who approved the changes to allow drilling, said the amended plan will guide leasing, exploration and development in the Petroleum Reserve for the next 10 to 20 years. He said the lease stipulations and required operating procedures used will be similar to those adopted for the adjacent northwest area of the Petroleum Reserve in 2004. Conservationists were dismayed by the decision. "The administration today opened 100 percent of the northeast NPRA to drilling," said Eleanor Huffines of the Wilderness Society. "Apparently 87 percent wasn't enough for the oil companies." "Even more outrageous is the administration's attempt to dress this up that as 'environmentally responsible' decision," Huffines said. "This decision ignores the voices of leading scientists, sportsmen from across the nation, and the Alaska Native people who depend on the wildlife and subsistence resources of the region." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 16 Jan 06 - 10:30 AM The LA Times reports another wheeler-dealer shut down by public scandal, who asserts his innocence: "Congressman Implicated in Scandal Steps Aside Bob Ney temporarily exits a key chairmanship as the GOP tries to contain the damage. He has been linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), who has been accused of accepting lavish gifts from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, announced Sunday that he would step down temporarily from his chairmanship of a key House committee. In recent days, Republican leaders hoping to contain damage from the Abramoff scandal had begun to discuss removing Ney as chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which oversees the day-to-day operations of the House of Representatives. Ney's announcement was seen as an effort to avoid being forced from the post." Good thing we have, at least, clean, ethical leadership in the Executive, seeing as how there's so much slush, pork and graft flying around on the Hill...right? Hmmmmmmm? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 16 Jan 06 - 12:41 AM A correspondent to a list, who works for the American Civil Liberties union, says: "You may have seen that the Associated Press broke a story late this week on a survey of the states conducted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), which polled state DMVs about implementing the requirements of Real ID identification card and system by the Act's May 2008 deadline. The states are fairly howling over the costs and practical difficulties (some say impossibility) of implementing this thing - especially within the deadline set by Congress. One official was so exasperated that he punctuated his official response by exclaiming " Can we all just go home now?" Cost and complexity may turn out to be the Achilles heel that ultimately dooms the Real ID, but it would be a real nightmare for Americans in much broader ways. The ACLU has created a new web site www.realnightmare.org which has the complete state by state survey results and a white paper detailing the results, but also covers the profound effects that Real ID will have on the rights of all Americans. Real ID will be a privacy nightmare creating a de facto National ID card and computer database. Among the most disturbing mandates will be the card's standard "machine readable component" like an RFID chip or 2D barcode that it will make its data instantly available to not only every convenience store clerk, but to omnivorous data brokers like Choice Point. And it will be fundamentally unfair to countless Americans who will find themselves unable to jump through all the bureaucratic hurdles and overcome all the mistaken or lost records that will be required to get the de facto national ID. Imagine being a former resident of New Orleans or an asylee from Iran being asked to present one of the few official government documents recognized by Real ID – only to learn that have been lost to a hurricane or held by the government that persecuted you. Here are the relevant URLS Website: http://www.realnightmare.org/ White Paper: http://www.realnightmare.org/about/89/ AP article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3583029.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 16 Jan 06 - 12:21 AM I'm sorry, AR, but I don't do quizzes from flamers. I have never pretended to be an expert on Presidents -- that little piece of methane was generated by OG up thread a way -- and if you're referring to his history quiz about Kennedy and Laos, I am really sorry but I just don't see the connection here. If somebody is trying to make a point about the great American legacy of warmongering, they should come out and say so. You seem to hold the view that shattering human flesh with shrapnel is somehow an honorable pursuit,, a reasonable tool of international growth. I hold the view that it is the ultimate confession of failure in every other arena of international dialogue. It is the last resort of human stupidity; a marriage to endless brutality. If you like that kind of path, I just wish you and you colleagues in the war-mongering department the joy of it. I am sure it brings great satisfaction, in the very short term. But spare me the specious rationalization about how "goo" it is. 'Cuz, fact is it isn't "good"; it is really, really stupid. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 15 Jan 06 - 11:33 PM Amos is so dumb he can't answer questions but he can sure spew bullshit. He don't have a clue, never had a clue and never will have a clue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:34 PM Molly Ivins writes: "Article Last Updated: 01/13/2006 07:24:41 AM The irony that is the Bush administration BOY, you really can't take your eyes off this bunch for a minute, can you? If they're not screwing up one thing, then they're screwing up another — busy little beavers. And then there are the administrative nightmares they have created all by themselves: The new Medicare prescription-drug benefit is such a disaster area, four states took it over in less than a week just to make sure poor people received their drugs. Some of the media are starting to get the drill. Give us something like the West Virginia coal mine disaster, and instead of standing around emoting like Geraldo Rivera, a few reporters have enough sense to ask the obvious question: What is this mine's safety record? And when it turns out to be abysmal, a few more reporters have enough sense to ask: Who's in charge of doing something after a mine gets 205 safety violations in one year? Where's the Mine Safety and Health Administration? Who runs it? What's their background — are they professionals or mining industry stooges? Who's the Michael "Heckuvajob" Brown in this outfit? Why are so many jobs at MSHA just left completely unfilled? How much has MSHA's budget been cut since 2001 to pay for tax cuts for the rich? The great irony is that this was supposed to be the CEO administration. Bush was supposed to put people in charge of government who had track records in private industry, who did in fact know how to run a railroad. For just sheer incompetence, this administration sets new records daily. All those years the right wing sat around yammering about government incompetence, and it took this administration to make it true. But while the media are busy sort of figuring out what government needs to do — homeland security, anyone? — other agencies are slipping quietly out of control, with almost no attention paid. In the case of the Internal Revenue Service, the problem appears to be more malice than incompetence. Right-wing conspiracy theorists used to enjoy frightening themselves with the possibility the IRS would somehow become politicized and be used as a tool by some nasty socialist like Jimmy Carter to go after their ill-gotten gains stashed illegally offshore. Always seemed like a good plan to me. Unfortunately, the only people who ever tried to politicize the IRS were on the right — first Richard Nixon and now George W. Bush. Hundreds of thousands of poor Americans have had their tax refunds frozen and their returns labeled fraudulent, according to the IRS' taxpayer advocate, Nina Olson. Testifying before Congress this week, Olson said the average Advertisement income of these taxpayers is $13,000. Olson and her staff sampled the suspected returns and found that, at most, one in five was questionable. The poor citizens are seeking refunds under the Earned Income Tax Credit, a Reagan program to help the working poor. The total possible tax fraud amount involved in these returns is $9 billion — compared with the $100 billion problem with fraud by small business people who deal in cash. That's the kind of shrewd administration we've come to expect from the Bushies. Olson points out it is not only unfair, but also a waste of time. Meanwhile, mind-boggling sums in taxes are being evaded by those at the other end of the income scale. David Cay Johnston, The New York Times' tax expert and author of "Perfectly Legal," reports the IRS is now involved in an effort to cover up these very kinds of incompetence that Olson demonstrated. "Records showing how thoroughly the IRS audits big corporations and the rich, and how much it discounts the additional taxes assessed after audits, are being withheld from the public despite a 1976 court order requiring their disclosure," Johnston writes. In an episode reminiscent of the "Three Stooges," the IRS simply announced there was no court order." Yep, Bush's wisdom is making this country a better place, no doubt about it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:32 PM Just answer the question asshole. God you are stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 15 Jan 06 - 10:23 PM Sorry, I don't do spin real well; but let me add that the quote is not mine, but VOA's. Old Guy, you miss again. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Old Guy Date: 15 Jan 06 - 08:15 PM Amos: I don't need any sympathy just a straight answer from an expert like you. I guess you are an expert the way you tell everbody that they are stupid if they don't think like you. After a year and a half how many people have you convinced of anything? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Peace Date: 15 Jan 06 - 07:49 PM Amos, you will never be a spin doctor of any note. When you say that "58 percent of Americans are unhappy with the president's handling of Iraq" you demonstrate a poor understanding of realpolitik. From the Bush camp, that should be read as "42% support the President's handling of Iraq and those other assholes just didn't respond properly because they don't really understand the situation." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 15 Jan 06 - 07:41 PM From The Voice of America news feed: Republican Senator Criticizes Bush Administration Over Iraq By Mike O'Sullivan Los Angeles 12 January 2006 O'Sullivan report - Download 447k One vocal critic of the Bush administration is a member of the president's own party. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska says he worries about the United States getting bogged down in Iraq, and about what he sees as an unhealthy concentration of power in the presidency. The outspoken senator shared his views at a town hall meeting in Los Angeles. Senator Hagel says he sometimes gets e-mails calling him a traitor. "One of the comments that I received lately was a very straightforward piece of advice, that is, 'Senator, shut your mouth. Do what the president tells you to do. That's why we elected you.'" The senator reminded his listeners that the U.S. government has three equal partners, the legislature and the judiciary, in addition to the president and his administration. The blunt words, he adds, are not what he hears from his fellow senators, but he admits that some Republican colleagues think he is out of line in his public statements. He repeated some of his criticisms in a meeting sponsored by the group Town Hall Los Angeles, held in the newly opened National Center for the Preservation of Democracy. He says progress in Iraq is up to the Iraqis. "The United States represents the most significant stabilizing factor in Iraq and has for the last three years, but at the same time, we are probably the most destabilizing factor in Iraq. And that has to be sorted out, and that will be sorted out," he said. "And it goes back, it seems to me, to the Iraqi people, and will reside within the Iraqi government's decisions as to where they want to go." Last month, Iraqis voted for members of their 275-member national assembly, which will select a president and two deputy presidents, who in turn will appoint a prime minister to run the government. The debates over Iraq and U.S. presidential powers in the war on terrorism have highlighted tensions between the president and some members of Congress, most often Democrats. But on some issues, the critics also include Republicans. Senator Hagel sees this administration, like some before it, as asserting greater powers in its relations with Congress than the constitution grants it. The most recent dispute concerns news leaks that the president authorized wiretapping of telephone calls between suspected terrorists and U.S. citizens without court approval. The White House says the president has the authority to authorize the wiretaps, and that they are necessary to protect American lives. Critics say the president does not have that power, and Mr. Hagel says he wants a hearing on the issue. Recent opinion polls show some 58 percent of Americans are unhappy with the president's handling of Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:12 PM I suppose your complexity and incomprehensibility is a function of some brain disease, but whatever the cause, you have my sympathy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Peace Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:01 PM The 'secret war' took place on the watches of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Old Guy Date: 15 Jan 06 - 01:48 PM Amos has been hoisted by his own petard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 15 Jan 06 - 11:49 AM You drinking alone again, sir? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST Date: 14 Jan 06 - 10:15 PM I am a childish irritating asshole with nothing to contribute so I just play games. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:40 PM What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind? Hints: It cost US tax payers $2 million per day. Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs. 1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed. He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions." It was kept secret from Congress. When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare. A little perspective never hurt anybody. None of the above is true, BTW. Love to irritate you guys. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Old Guy Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:30 PM I don't know who posted the above but here is my post again. I saw a program about this war on the History channel. I researched it and came up with these facts which I beleive are true and far exceed anything GWB has done and Congress was not even aware that it was going on so they could not disapprove it. The reason I put it in a question format is so that anti-old guyers here would have to actually search for come facts to find the answer instead of giving and quoting opinions. If this person was held to the same scrutiny and critisim that GWB is held to, he should have been burned at the stake instead of mere impeachment. Amos: Bein' an expert and all on presidents and wars I thought you might know the answer to this: What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind? Hints: It cost US tax payers $2 million per day. Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs. 1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed. He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions." It was kept secret from Congress. When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare. A little perspective never hurt anybody. None of the above is true. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Old Guy Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:30 PM I don't know who posted the above but here is my post again. I saw a program about this war on the History channel. I researched it and came up with these facts which I beleive are true and far exceed anything GWB has done and Congress was not even aware that it was going on so they could not disapprove it. The reason I put it in a question format is so that anti-old guyers here would have to actually search for come facts to find the answer instead of giving and quoting opinions. If this person was held to the same scrutiny and critisim that GWB is held to, he should have been burned at the stake instead of mere impeachment. Amos: Bein' an expert and all on presidents and wars I thought you might know the answer to this: What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind? Hints: It cost US tax payers $2 million per day. Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs. 1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed. He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions." It was kept secret from Congress. When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare. A little perspective never hurt anybody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:10 PM Bein' an expert and all on presidents and wars I thought you might know the answer to this: What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind? Hints: It cost US tax payers $2 million per day. Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs. 1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed. He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions." It was kept secret from Congress. When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare. A little perspective never hurt anybody. None of the above is true, BTW. Love to irritate you guys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 14 Jan 06 - 08:59 PM Like who don't have firm perspective of yer agenda, G-GUEST... It's steal as much from the working class as you can while yer guy has power... Nothin' more... Nuthin less... It aint about Amos, or Affirmative Action, or Abortion but a redisribution of wealth to the wealthy.. And, hey, congrates to you and yer team... Yer doing one heck of a good job pillaging... Fir now... Watch yer back, however, when kids like my son-in-laws who all live in the "Southern Strategy" states, figure out yer ball game 'cause you won't get them back... Obviously, you don't understand southern culture... When they figure out yer game, you won't get them back...Believe me... I grew up in the South... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,G Date: 14 Jan 06 - 08:39 AM Snuck in again and saw where bobert is coming to the shoring up of Amos. Geez! Like Amos needs that from you. Amos does well on his own and your trying to"help" is a distraction to others. Do you remember telling me that I was in deep doodoo when you saw Martin G. agreeing with me and misconstrued that as support. Well, your attempting to back Amos is like tosing a concrete block to a man drowning in a pond. Now, in keeping with the title of this thread, "Popular views of the Bush Administration", I shall add this one; I am glad GWB is in the Whitehouse at the present time as compared to the ranting and raving antics of Gore, Kerry and Dean. Am I happy about about everything? Well, has anyone else been that way in the last 30 years? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 14 Jan 06 - 12:49 AM The quote is from JFK's SOU address. What was the "secret war" that was witheld from the Congress? And are you asserting that such an act in the past parallels and justifies Bush's today? I had an ancestor who went forth under the leadership of a King, who used religion as a pretext to try and break open some trade channels that went through the Middle East. In the course of his duty my ancestor slew men and women by the sword, pillaged and stole, and spilled innocent blood all the way from Macedonia to Mecca. So tell me, wise Old Guy....would I then be justified in taking up my sword and slaying people in order to establish some sort of trade channel? Or would I be choosing a barbaric relic for a precedent? In short, WTF does JFK's conduct have to do with this? Do you think it somehow exonerates your much beloved Leader for crimes against humanity? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Condi Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:28 PM Whaaat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Old Guy Date: 13 Jan 06 - 08:07 PM Amos: Bein' an expert and all on presidents and wars I thought you might know the answer to this: What US President sent US armed forces to fight a secret war that went on for nine years and eventually the US withdrew in defeat and left the insurgents we were supporting to twist in the wind? Hints: It cost US tax payers $2 million per day. Two tons of bombs per resident were dropped, equal to 75 Hiroshima bombs. 1/8 of the Americans in the war were killed. He said "Our Constitution wisely assigns both joint and separate roles to each branch of the government; and a President and a Congress who hold each other in mutual respect will neither permit nor attempt any trespass. For my part, I shall withhold from neither the Congress nor the people any fact or report, past, present, or future, which is necessary for an informed judgment of our conduct and hazards. I shall neither shift the burden of executive decisions to the Congress, nor avoid responsibility for the outcome of those decisions." It was kept secret from Congress. When you find out who it was, tell us how his actions and Bush's actions compare. A little perspective never hurt anybody. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 06 - 05:48 PM An interesting contrast between the views of Bush and Spielberg from The Globalist (Susan Braden ) Spielberg Vs. Bush: Movies and Assassinations Who would have thought that the creator of E.T. and Jurassic Park would eventually focus his cinematic lens on high matters of state in a very contemporary context? Sounds improbable? Not to any viewers of Steven Spielberg's new movie "Munich." Susan Braden explains that the movie presents a moral delema similar to one the United States faces today. Juxtaposing U.S. President George W. Bush's decision to permit the CIA to hunt and kill designated individuals anywhere in the world against Steven Spielberg's new film, "Munich," raises interesting questions about the value of targeted assassinations. The issue is not simply whether assassinations are an effective tool in stopping terrorism. At issue is whether assassinations support or undermine the larger U.S. political agenda. While President Bush evidently believes they are critical to stopping terrorism, Spielberg's film suggests the contrary. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush issued a secret decree that determined that killing an al Qaeda operative was an act of self-defense and, therefore, not an assassination — which would be illegal. In the same finding, he thereby authorized the creation of CIA hit units. In May 2005, one of these units was credited with killing al Qaeda operative Haitham Yemeni in Pakistan. Subsequently, in December 2005, another unit reportedly killed Hamza Rabia, a top al Qaeda operative, and four others. ... I remember back when we concurred that sending the CIA out on assassinations was below our ethical minimum of bestiality; Mister Bush obviously has a different minimum. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 06 - 04:36 PM Dear Old Guy: Well, it seems you are going to drum up some sort of judgement or opinion no matter what I say. THere was actually one lesson I learned during the period I studied Scientology, which I have retained: don't draw conclusions from illogical data, or your conclusions will be flawed. That includes, largely, data written by less than discriminating media hacks, bias-punters, quill-for-hires and so on. But in order to apply such a rule you have to develop a sense for when data is complete, consistent, normalized in sequence, reasonable in its assessment of importances and un-importances, and sensible about the true sources of things. But I didn't need to learn all that while in Scientology, I could have learned it from an ordinary study of logic, or just living life with my eyes open. It just made the process a little faster to see it up close. Aside from that your opinions about me are pretty far off the mark, speaking as the owner of said identity, and I leave them to you with pleasure. If you ever want to correct them, I'd be happy to help, but that doesn't seem likely. As for Bush, one of the reasons why I continuously find new articles protesting his nuttiness is that he is always on the go inventing new nutty things to be criticized for. It's not that I hate him personally. It is his abuse of authority that I take extreme exception to, and that same is abuse is what motivates me to speak out. If he were replaced with a more rational person, with a higher sense of ethics and communication I would gladly turn my attention to plenty of other things. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:38 PM Amos: I think you are still carrying baggage from the Scientology era, like battle fatigue or flashbacks. You are most definately educated, possibly too educated to see practicality or non practicality in every day things. I have yet to see you put things into perspective. You allways exhibit the extremes only. Not seeing a whole lot that needs to be changed I feel no need to run for office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Paco Rabanne Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:44 AM "Suppose he ran for public office" Now THAT would be interesting! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:41 AM Well, Old Guy, I am sorry to have put you through the wringer a few times. I think, and Ihope you can see, that when I have done so, it has been in response to logical or communication problems in your assertions, mostly. Go look through our various heated exchanges and see if that isn't so. Like asserting I didn't know the Onion article was a parody, or asserting I was posting blogs when in fact I was posting articles from the Post. Or all that underhanded crap about Dianetics. All the ad hominem categorizations and secre-identity posts you've created to vent your spleen about my viewpoint... I think you will find that on the few occasions when you have set forward plain facts, I have been quite polite about it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:26 AM I under stand what you are trying to say Bobert but the thread says non music. I don't have a thing against music except rap and that heavy acid stuff. I mostly like bluegrass but not the whiney stuff. I like classical, big band, rock, pop, new age, folk, irish, hell I even listen to middle east music on Link TV. I found a cool Syrian song once called Odawoola or something like that that rocked. I don't have a thing against musicians. I like musicians. My wife plays the piano, my grand son has a banjo, guitar, keyboard, drums, trumpet and excels on the clarinet. My Bro in law plays bluegrass and I go to his house some times. I have some Amish friends up in new york and both families play bluegrass. One finger on my left hand has the end mashed and It is too blunt to make chords. I even tried a bass guitar cause the strings are so far apart but the strings hurt. I am on the lookout for a tenor sax and one day I am going to snag one and give it a go. There aint nothing wrong with playing music and the more people playing it the better the world will be. However, entertainment folks think they have superior intelligence when it comes to the way things should be vs the way they are and they try to use their musical or, more often, their acting status to promote "a better world" They try to persuade other folks that are pretty well satisfied to revolt against the system. They use their popularity like a tool. People gather here and spout their enlightened views on things and get sustenance from each other. They think no body will oppose them here. they feel safe, cloistered and protected. They get out of touch with way the other 90 % thinks. When somebody stumbles in a sees nuggets of truth like George Bush is worse that Adolph Hitler, their hackles stand up a little and they say well it is time somebody told these people that they are not the chosen ones, the keepers of the truth and they proceed to enlighten the enlightened ones. Well it's like stirring up a nest of meany bees and they start swarmin all over you a stingin you with real mean words like asshole, idiot, fuck you, dumb ass. Words that are nasty and mean spirited at the same time they are accusing "them" of being mean. Then you give them some facts to try to prove to them that they don't necessarily know everything and they immediately find a superficial reasons why your facts are invalid. Then you say where are your facts? and they proceed to tell you people's opinion or their own opinion and say that it is fact. You point out to them how they try to use sarcasm and name calling and distortion of their opponents names to try prove their unprovable position on something. Do the same to them and they finally start looking for some real facts but only the ones they cherry pick. You get them nailed down to a simple question that they can't answer with out contradicting themselves and they shift to something else. You hear astounding new philosophical theories like "Stats are for losers" After a certain amount of countering their non facts with your real facts they get backed into a corner and get reeeaaal mean and tell you to get out of our town, you don't belong here Amos is probably an OK guy but for whatever the reason he is way off in his thinking processes. He may be too smart. I see he has a trail a mile wide about all the weird crap in his past and I don't think he is qualified to be telling other people what is normal or abnormal. Suppose he ran for public office? How would his record compare to his arch enemy? I saw his anti-Bush pro-Kerry thread and when I saw Kerry on TV badmouthing anything that looked like progress in Iraq, I started an anti-Kerry thread. Well purty soon Amos was attacking and telling me how stupid I was so I did the same on his thread. even after Bush won and Kerry lost he kept it up like some poor demented soul. Like those Japanese soldiers they found over in the Phillipines (I got branded a racist for celling them Japs) 60 years after the war ended. I guess he thinks if he gets the thread long enough no body will wait while it loads and nobody will oppose his perfect logic. Hey Amos buddy, have a few pina coladas or a pull on the jug and stare at the fish tank for a while. The world aint gonna cave in any time soon and you don't have to keep propping it up. Now you people can rant and rave and do all the name calling you want as is your right but you won't change anything unless you get involved in public service and then maybe you can change things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:10 PM Well, Old Guy, I guess it's time to twell you a little bout Amos... Perhaps a little past time but he is the California "Walkin' Jukebox" Now, I realize that this is a folk music web-joint so, even if you don't know nuthin' about music (which don't matter to me much here) there's oemthing that you have to understand about folks who can play any somg that has ever been wriiten and that is, well, you just can't go pigeon holin' 'umto what ever pigeon hole thst is convient to you... Amos is a very talented and complex person who thinks on muti-levels.... I mean no disrespect to you, O-Guy, but it's you that is here in the tis folk music joint attacking a muscian and complex thinker that prolly can play you under the table... Now, and firgive me if you you have indeed put in the time to be a rwal player, but there's a spiritaul payoff that come from playin' lots and lots of music... There's is this point where things become increasingly clear aas to values and what is important... Every ggod musican knows of what I speak... Amos, though he'd prolly say "Awwww, shucks" knows of what I speak... This alone does not give Amos's arguments an automatic B+ but it sho nuff has to be factored into any assesments of his thoughts... (But Bobert. Are you saying that a musicans view points are more valid than a non musican?) Well, yeah, kinda am.... Muscians are patient... They have to be or they quit... Patience, in figuring out life, is a virtue... Impatience is just winning arguemnts at any cost... Don't much matter if yer on the wrong side... Just win the danged thing... Muscians??? Different midset... Hey, we've all made all the deasl and sacrifices so we are able to lok at stuff differently... Please excuse my little tangent here, O-Guy, but you don't come accross as someone who spent hours with the art... I eman no disrespect only making an observation... Amos has put in those hours. I have put in those hours and ther's something in the process that aloows folks to empty the "ordinary li9fe" and see thi gs differnetly... The Bush folks are totally dependent of folks who know the ordinary life and folks like Amos and me, they have written off... You prolly don't have a clue what I am talking about but Amos and I know... Ain't no, haha-we-know-the-secret-handshake thing here but next tiem you think that Amos is someone whoes thoughts should be quicky dispensed of, think again.... Like I said, you prolly don't have a clue what I have just said... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,old guy Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:16 PM sic semper anarchos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:41 PM Your assertion is merely risible, mov Vieux. I would no more fall apart then the Sphinx would fall apart if you were to vanish. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:20 PM So what's not to like? Face it, he controlls you. Your anger gives him strength. If GWB went away you would fall apart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:22 PM Click on the link provided where it says "The Nation", and Voila! Enjoy the article. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,G Date: 12 Jan 06 - 11:02 AM Have not been in here for ages and find that nothing has changed. The sources of many posts can be construed as biased either to the left or just plain anti GWB. That is okay, it is a free country and that enables all to write columns, editorials, etc. without a committent to veracity. By the way, how were you able to obtain a copy of the Elizabeth Holtzman upcoming column for 'The Nation'? Almost 3 weeks in advance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:28 AM I like Bush for the same reason I like Emmett Kelly, or perhaps Monty Python. A good dose of bizarre unreality reminds me of what is real and what is important in life, such as: human life respect for individuals the rights of free association, free speech, and freedom from invasion of privacy An opportunity to build a great nation which contributes to a great species on a great planet an opportunity to work out a human destiny perhaps a bit higher than the lizard-brain dramatizations which have governed our kind in so many of its ridiculous tooth-and-claw chapters. ...among others. He highlights these values by contrast, just as a clown does, or a Punch and Judy puppet, something of which he also reminds me. So you have not known war in this lifetime? Does it strike you as uncomfortable to defend so energetically, if not coherently, something so large in human experience, so overwhelming, and so violent, of which you have no personal contact? It would me. I have seen humans violently lost, but not by acts of war, myself. But I have known peace, and have known relatively sane political times, as well as those times of political lunacy which seem to be wafting us along just now. Which side are you on? Which side are you on? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:38 AM Your assumption is way off base but what is your reason for liking George Bush so much? Your pro-Kerry anti-Bush year and a half rant is an obvious smoke screen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:19 AM Elizabeth Holtzman, writing for The Nation, says: The Impeachment of George W. Bush By ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, The Nation [from the January 30, 2006 issue] Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so. I can still remember the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach during those proceedings, when it became clear that the President had so systematically abused the powers of the presidency and so threatened the rule of law that he had to be removed from office. As a Democrat who opposed many of President Nixon's policies, I still found voting for his impeachment to be one of the most sobering and unpleasant tasks I ever had to undertake. None of the members of the committee took pleasure in voting for impeachment; after all, Democrat or Republican, Nixon was still our President. At the time, I hoped that our committee's work would send a strong signal to future Presidents that they had to obey the rule of law. I was wrong. Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by Bush's breathtaking scorn for our international treaty obligations under the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions. I have also been disturbed by the torture scandals and the violations of US criminal laws at the highest levels of our government they may entail, something I have written about in these pages [see Holtzman, "Torture and Accountability," July 18/25, 2005]. These concerns have been compounded by growing evidence that the President deliberately misled the country into the war in Iraq. But it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)--and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country's laws--that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law--and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government. The framers of our Constitution feared executive power run amok and provided the remedy of impeachment to protect against it. While impeachment is a last resort, and must never be lightly undertaken (a principle ignored during the proceedings against President Bill Clinton), neither can Congress shirk its responsibility to use that tool to safeguard our democracy. No President can be permitted to commit high crimes and misdemeanors with impunity. But impeachment and removal from office will not happen unless the American people are convinced of its necessity after a full and fair inquiry into the facts and law is conducted. That inquiry must commence now.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:58 AM Your guesses about what I like and why are off base, by a mile, but thanks for making them. I imagine from your handle that you might have been involved in an earlier war in some way, OG. Is that right? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 12 Jan 06 - 12:13 AM Maybe history is of no use to you. When was the last time or even the first time somebody correctly estimated the cost of a war? Was your estimate high or low or are you a Monday Morning quarterback? Assuming someone some time missed the estimate were they hounded out of office for such a horrific blunder? Liberals fail to put things into perspective. If their Mickey D's Big Mac is dried out they have a hissy fit regardless of how many others had the same thing happen to them or if they have had the same thing happen 75 times before or if 90% of the people in the world would give their left nut for a dried out Big Mac. What ever happens right now is the worst thing in the world regardless and heaven help anybody who trys to put it in context with reality. Well be prepared for a life of being unsatisfied regardless of how loud you wail about it and how many people you criticize. You just don't like Bush because he won. Admit it and get over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 11 Jan 06 - 06:03 PM Old Guy: I didn't say we should question the evidence. I said we should not use it to explain things that happened before it was known. You may not have noticed it but in this universe, time is pretty much one-directional. It would be a serious distortion of truth to try and move events around in past time in order to make them look more rational than they were. In other news: Martin Wolf: The failure to calculate the costs of war http://news.ft.com/cms/s/48ad9c0a-820f-11da-aea0-0000779e2340.html " Before the Iraq war began, Lawrence Lindsey, then president George W. Bush's economic adviser, suggested that the costs might reach $200bn. The White House promptly fired him. Mr Lindsey was indeed wrong. But his error lay in grossly underestimating the costs. The administration's estimates of a cost of some $50-$60bn were a fantasy, as were Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and much else. So far the government has spent $251bn in hard cash. But the costs continue. If the US begins to withdraw troops this year, but maintains a diminishing presence for the next five years, the additional cost will be at least $200bn, under what Profs Bilmes and Stiglitz call their "conservative" option. Under their "moderate" one, the cost reaches $271bn, because troops remain until 2015. With these costs taken into account, the total macroeconomic costs may add up to $750bn and total costs to $1,850bn. It is possible to argue that the benefits for Iraq, the Middle East and the world will outweigh all these costs. But that depends on the emergence, in Iraq, of a stable and peaceful democratic order. That has not yet been achieved. Even those who supported the war must draw two lessons. First, the exercise of military power is far more expensive than many fondly hoped. Second, such policy decisions require a halfway decent analysis of the costs and possible consequences. The administration's failure to do so was a blunder that will harm the US and the world for years to come." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 11 Jan 06 - 05:57 PM If you think peace monger is good you should be happy. I think it is the opposite of a war monger. Peace mongers belligerontly and sometimes violently try to force others to stop believing in what they believe in and join them in their crusade. They accuse war mongers of doing exactly what they are doing. Now you are questioning forthcoming evidence even before you see it. That is not prejudice is it? Pre judging things before you even know what it is, is smart right? It might prove you wrong and above all you need to be right or your whole purpose for living goes up in smoke. Now you are building up a case to say that even it the documents are real they not have any importance where as before you were saying that even if the documents were not real they still have importance. Good for you Amos, you can have it both ways because as a liberal you can make your own rules for everybody to go by and rule number one is no body that opposes me can make their own rules. Sort of like a perpetual motion machine, perfect in every way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 11 Jan 06 - 05:00 PM I think you may have missed my point, sir. The documents "floated" in the Rather case were forged in form but were apparently, according to witnesses involved, accurate as to content. My point about the emerging documents is not that they should be discredited or ignored, if they are genuine and accurate, but that trying to use them retroactively to justify an invasion that occurred before they were known about when their information was not known would be meretricious and illogical. Because, you see, if Bush knew about any of them, and they supported his decisions to wage war, he surely woudl have used them in defense considering all the uproar that was raised against his invasion of Iraq and since. I am curious that you use the word "peace monger" as a parallel construction to the term war-monger, which is often used as a term of censure. Is it your belief that those who wage peace, or promote peace, are somehow doing a disservice? Is peace in some way a condition you think is bad for the nation? In other words, what do you have against peace-mongering that you would use this peculiar turn of phrase to refer to it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 11 Jan 06 - 04:06 PM It was suspected three years before and denied by peace mongers so you think it should be ignored but when forged documnets are floated they should be believed. Good thinking. Keep your French firing squad manual handy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 11 Jan 06 - 04:36 AM YEah, OG, I saw that information. I must say, you're getting much sharper lately. Good on ya. I was simply commenting that one would not be wise to use what comes out of DOCEX as an explanation for a decision made three years before it wa known, in any case; but I look forward with interest to hearing what comes out of DOCEX. A |