 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:51 PM Hmmmmm? http://www.massanuttenalum.org/memorial/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:47 PM No, let me make it even easier fir ya, Old Guy... Just cut and paste: http://www.massanuttenalum.org/memorial/... Hey, I don't know if you went to Vietnam or didn't... I didn't but a large number of my classmates did... Far larger in percentage than in other schools... These are just the friends I lost... Many more came home really messed up... We ain't atlin' about a school that gradutates 300 kids, Old Guy, but maybe 80... Yeah, please check this out and I don't care what you call me but these friends of mine laid down their lives in a stupid war started by a bunch of folks who, like the current batch, din't know squat about war... Yeah, you take a good look into the faces of my friends who died and come back and twell me just why you support this current stupid war... Will ya do that, neighbor??? BObert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:45 PM And just fir the record, Old Guy, from my vantage point seems that you do more than yer fair share of playin' crybaby... Sometimes it takes more courage and wisdom not to fight... In the discipline of martrial arts that I learned the question was asked, "When is it RIGHT to fight" The answer, "Never"... No, while defense is sometimes necessary it is not RIGHT... That's why I learned the concept of "minimum force"... If the Bush administration had more folks who understand fighting, war and defense, then they would never have attacked Iraq... The folks who made these decisions-- desisions made for political and business (oil) interests-- were not folks who knew much about anything other than politics... None of the inner circle had even fought in a war... Most had never even served in the military and the one who had, didn't fight and went AWOL!!! This does not make for wise decision making... About the only person who was trying to slow down the push was Colin Powell but even he could not slow down the thrisrt for war by a bunch of folks who knew nuthin' of war... Yeah, you may think that being anti-war is somehow being a crybaby... You couldn't be more wrong if you lived to be a thousand years old... But don't just take my word fir it... Google in Massanutten Military Academy (1963 thru 1965) and see how many of my good friends, guys I had played sports with and partied on weekends off, died in Vietnam... Then consider that there were only about 80 of us in each class... You do the math... Yeah, you wanta call me a crybaby, pal, fine but you don't have a friggin' clue... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 31 Oct 05 - 05:55 PM "Also why do the Muslim extremists hate us and want to kill us?" Well, Old Guy, I'm not sure that all of the terrorists and potential terrorists start out as "Muslim extremists." And as to why so many Middle Easterners hate us so much, I think I gave a pretty good explanation of that at 30 Oct 05 – 07:43 PM. I sometimes wonder if you read any of the other posts on this thread. Go give it a look. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 31 Oct 05 - 05:39 PM Hatred is inherent in insanity, often. If group "X" wants to kill "group Y" it is always because they have been given ugly information about that group. In most cases the vast majority of any group do not have the despicable attributes that are plastered onto them by the hate-mongers. "They" is always someone, and a small minority of any "they" is actually as rabid as they are painted. Because this is true I get very leery of anyone making grand assertions about hatred. As to Salam Pak I think the article you presented to is very powerful and persuasive. But I don't think it is true. The reason i do not is essentially that the only reason those who wanted a war with Iraq woul dnot have promoted this interview all over creation is because they (a) knew it would be debunked and knew it to be false or (b) they were too dumb to realize a golden opportunity had been handed to them on a platter to demonize Iraq and everything about the regime therein in one fell swoop. I seriously doubt the latter; however mad these men may be, they are not stupid in managing PR. Short-term, anyway. Given the number of media outlets BEGGING for a jot or tittle of something electrifying to feed their revenues from the Administration, why was PBS's cut-and-dried case for aggression against the U.S. by Hussein never raised on high as a rallying flag for war? Doesn't make sense, given how many other far-fetched or downright false data points the Bush machine has flau8nted as an excuse for all this killing. So although it is really interesting and compelling data, I have to discount it, on the basis that it is the work of a single source, and lacks certain earmarks of fact that I would expect to see. You will recall a similar cloud of false information about Saddam Hussein and his WMD program was promoted by (primarily) one self-serving Iraqi exile all over Washington, and he storred up a real hoorah's nest with his assertions of WMD that never materialized -- the ones thart Rumsfield confidently said would be found around Tikrit to the north, south, east and west (meaning anywhere at all). I'd be interested if any other independent sources came up with the same diagnosis of that camp. Independent verification can be very important sometimes. Especially wherte assertions of hatred and manslaughter on a large scale are involved. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 31 Oct 05 - 03:16 PM Amos: It have trouble with my dialup cutting out before I post. I use wordpad and paste it into the text box. Anyway how about Salman Pak and the double decker bus? The site I quoted at PBS.org has conveniently put a disclaimer on the right hand side of the screen since they published the interview. That's because they, like the Dem=mocrats, want to distance themselves from their previous thinking that Iraq had WMD's There were aerial images of Salman Pak that you could on the 707 in on the net but they have all disappeared except at Rush Limbaugh's site. If I put a link here to something from Rush Limbaugh it would certainly bring an outcry from the anti-war crybabies here. Also why do the Muslim extremists hate us and want to kill us? I think it is because we support Israel. The next time Israel does something not to our liking we should cut them off. Let them go it alone. The Arabs would attack and Israel would make mincemeat out of them. Israel is fierce, well disciplined (unlike a lot of Americans) and fully capable of defending themselves. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM Bush's call for sacrifice made manifest: "Four soldiers from the Army's Task Force Baghdad soldiers died Monday when their patrol struck a roadside bomb in Youssifiyah, 12 miles south of Baghdad in an area known as the ``triangle of death.'' Two other soldiers from the 29th Brigade Combat Team were also killed in a bombing Monday near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad. The U.S. military also said a Marine was killed Sunday near Amiriyah, 25 miles west of Baghdad. Those deaths raised the death toll for October to more than 90, the highest monthly total since January when 107 American service members died. The latest deaths brought to 2,025 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003. In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said there is no readily apparent explanation for why the number of U.S. casualties was higher in October than in previous months. But he said the insurgents' roadside bombs - which the military calls improvised explosive devices, or IEDs - are getting more sophisticated. ``We see an adversary that continues to develop some sophistication on very deadly and increasingly precise stand-off type weapons - IEDs, in particular. They're obviously quite capable of killing large numbers of noncombatants indiscriminately, and we're seeing a lot of that, too,'' Di Rita told reporters. The insurgents continually search for new and more effective ways to use IEDs, he said, while U.S. forces look for new ways to counter the IED threat. ``We're getting more intelligence that's allowing us to stop more of these things, find more of them. So we're learning from them (the insurgents) and the enemy is learning from us, and it's going to be that way for as long as there is an insurgency,'' Di Rita said. Before dawn Monday, Marines backed by jets attacked insurgent positions near the Syrian border, destroying two safe houses believed use by al-Qaida figures, a U.S. statement said. The statement made no mention of casualties, but Associated Press Television News video from the scene showed residents wailing over the bodies of about six people, including at least three children. At the local hospital, Dr. Ahmed al-Ani claimed 40 Iraqis, including 12 children, were killed in the attack. But the claim could not be independently verified. APTN footage from the scene showed Iraqi men digging through the rubble of several destroyed concrete buildings with a pitchfork or their hands. In the building of a nearby home, women cried over the bodies of about half a dozen blanket-covered bodies lined up on a floor. Some of the blankets were opened for the camera showing a man and three children. ``At least 20 innocent people were killed by the U.S. warplanes. Why are the Americans killing families? Where are the insurgents?'' one middle-aged man told APTN. ``We don't see democracy. We just see destruction.'' He didn't give his name. Elsewhere, two separate mortar attacks in Baghdad and northern Iraq killed three Iraqi people and wounded 11 on Monday. " (From the UK Guardian, this date). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:51 PM Time Magazine's Joe Klein, columnist, comments on the relative skills of various Presidents' administrations on the "Permanent Campaign" of PR that is required of the Administration by our ravenous media community and technology: "..George W. Bush may be the very best. Indeed, his Administration represents the final, squalid perfection of the Permanent Campaign: a White House where almost every move is tactical, a matter of momentary politics, even decisions that involve life and death and war. That is what the Scooter Libby indictment is really all about. "It is about trying to spin a war. "Bush's White House is a conundrum, a bastion of telegenic idealism and deep cynicism. The President has proposed vast, transformational policies—the remaking of the Middle East, of Social Security, of the federal bureaucracy. But he has done so in a haphazard way, with little attention to detail or consequences. There are grand pronouncements and, yes, crusades, punctuated with marching words like evil and moral and freedom. Beneath, though, is the cynical assumption that the public doesn't care about the details—that results don't matter, corners can be cut and special favors bestowed. "Bush opposed a Department of Homeland Security, then supported it as a campaign ploy—and then allowed it to be slapped together carelessly, diminishing the effectiveness of the agencies involved. "The White House proposed a massive Medicare prescription-drug plan and then flat-out misrepresented the true costs (and quietly included a windfall for drug companies). Every bit of congressional vanity spending, every last tax cut, was approved. Reagan proved that "deficits don't matter," insisted Vice President Dick Cheney. ..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 31 Oct 05 - 12:26 PM Old Guy: I am SO pissed. I just spent twenty minutes composing a thoughtful reply to your article, which I read with care and interest. And JUST as I went to post it here, the Cat farted and ate the damn post whole. I will try and reconstruct some of it -- but you know that's never a sgood as the original. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 05 - 07:19 AM Another Bobert prediction here: If this story is even somewhat true about this judge's rulin' it will be debunked... Just as all the others have been... Why would I predict this??? Well, it's rather obvious.... Seein' as every other reason for invading Iraq has been debunked if the Bush administration thought it was true they'd have this story splattered accross the world... Don't need no Scooter Libby to figure that one out... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST Date: 31 Oct 05 - 06:54 AM Old Guy, you using actual facts here and I think that is against the laws governing posts in this and other threads. Good work, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Oct 05 - 11:24 PM "So, I say, until you can back up what you have obviously made up or heard on some obscure right winged entertainment show, you have taken several steps back away from the credibility line" PBS Frontline has now been declared a right wing entertainment show: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html Obviously this judge is an idiot: Friday, May 9, 2003 7:22 a.m. EDT 9/11 Bombshell: Judge Rules Saddam Trained Hijackers In a bombshell finding virtually ignored by the American media, a U.S. district court judge in Manhattan ruled Wednesday that Salman Pak, Saddam Hussein's airplane hijacking school located on the outskirts of Baghdad, played a material role in the devastating Sept. 11 attacks on America. The ruling renders moot complaints from Bush administration critics that the U.S. has so far failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, since an official verdict that Baghdad was complicit in the attacks provides more than enough justification for the decision to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. In reporting Judge Harold Baer's $104 million judgment against Hussein and Osama bin Laden, only the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Chinese news service Xinhua mentioned Salman Pak by name. And why do they hate us? Oniel has a book book to sell and so does Wilson so how can they get themselves publicized? Amos I do watch Fox which is the leading news channel. "According to Nielsen Media Research the channel was the only cable news service in August to grow in viewership from a year ago, gaining 20 percent in primetime and 29 percent across the entire day. By comparison, CNN fell by 9 percent. This past August was in fact the 28th consecutive month that Fox was the leading news channel." You must be watching the rabble rousing channels. I hate soap operas, don't own any dogs or guns, don't watch Nascar or any kind of racing and I wait for the movies to come on TV. Anything else you know about me? Can't you answer the question about Salman Pak? All those other activities you are pursuing but you are still compelled to bitch about Bush tells me that you suffer from OCD, compulsive obsessive disorder amongst other things. "Compulsions, are repetitive behaviors or rituals that the patient performs to counteract the anxiety and distress produced by obsessive thoughts" Try some Zoloft. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 05 - 10:58 PM Bobert, if you're rootin' for him, then I am too; lemme know how it turns out. I just don't have time to get into the sport just now! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:49 PM But, Amos, how can you turn ywer back on Stroker Ace in points run fir the NASCAR championship??? He needs you as much as the #39 Halliburton/DOD/Budweiser/Brown & Root car needs you!!! Hey, buddy, this is crunch time!!! What kind of American are you, anyway??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 05 - 08:38 PM As for what I have time for, Old Fart, I have two jobs and in addition am working a medium size construction project, building a waterfall, and am also overseeing a complete renovation of a bathroom and a separate flooirng project for the home office and the kitchen -- all happening at once. I have 1 novel, two CDs and a sound editing project to fill the gaps. What I do NOT have time for is Fox News and its knee-jerk brothers in rabble-rousing, pop TV shows, NASCAR, raising dogs, studying old firearms, or watching soap operas or going to third rate movies with first-rate ad budgets. Those are my own choices, and I am perfectly content with them. I hope you are similarly happy with yours. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 30 Oct 05 - 07:43 PM "Well [totally uncalled for expletive, about which far to much has also been said, but it does show the level of debate espoused by the fellow who used it], what kind of a long range plan can you come up with for combating terrorism in the world?" Okay, Old Guy, I'll tell you what kind of long-range plan is absolutely guaranteed not to work: invading countries with large armies and destroying the infrastructure (power, water supplies, blowing up roads, bridges, buildings, etc.) that people depend on, and killing some 30,000 civilians and wounding and maiming an undetermined number. This is a sure-fire way of pissing off a lot of people and thereby encouraging recruitment for the various terrorist organizations around the world in order to fight the "Great Satan." Osama bin Laden and those of his ilk can claim (and are claiming) that this provides irrefutable proof that America is indeed that "Great Satan," there to steal their oil and gas resources, keep them oppressed, and in the process, attempt to obliterate Islam. Iraqis who lived under the yoke of Saddam Hussein are not so dumb that they don't know that Hussein was our tyrant, and we didn't want to take him out (read "replace him") until he got delusions of grandeur and became hard to handle. Most of them are glad to see him gone, but being right there, they're not as easily fooled as to the true motives of the American government as the American public seems to be, thousands of miles away and receiving their news from the corporate media. There are a number of very effective ways to combating terrorism. Immediate deterrence can best be accomplished by good intelligence leading to carefully targeted surgical strikes. But the best long-range plan is to find out why these folks are so pissed off at us and see if we can find ways to stop pissing them off. And no, it's not just because the people who become terrorists "hate freedom and our way of life." They don't. In fact, they would like some of it themselves. Therein lies the key. Terrorists spawn like mosquitoes in a swamp of hopelessness and despair brought on by injustice, oppression, and exploitation, much of which is caused by the policies of the United States and a number of European countries that have been exploiting them for generations, if not centuries. This is why these are the countries in particular that have been, and will continue to be, targets of terrorist attacks. The way to stop mosquitoes from breeding is to drain the swamp. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 30 Oct 05 - 06:23 PM Ahhh, Old Guy... Give it up, fir gosh sakes... You can't be so ill-informed that you still believe all that old PR crap, can you??? Tell ya what, bin Laden woouldn't have lasted a week in Saddam's Iraq... Not a week... Saddam didn't have no use fir radical Islamists... Maybe you'd like to come forward with any shread of evidence to the contrary??? And where do you get yer information that Iraq was a safe haven for trainin' terrorists under Saddam??? Ivf Dick Cheney had this levidence he's be screamin' from the top of this house and he ain't screamin' nuthin' of the sorts.. So, I say, until you can back up what you have obbviuosly made up or heard on some obscure right winged entertainment show, you have taken several steps back away from the credibility line... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 30 Oct 05 - 04:33 PM So, Amos, I persume you have nothing better to do with your time. Nothing mor peoductive to do. You have whanged your anti-bush drum a few more times, evaded the argument that Saddam did support terrorisim and the fact that GWB was not the only one that believed Iraq had WMD's. And you still have no alternative strategy. Looks like you are caught up in an unwinable struggle with the way things are in the world. Just answer this one: Why was there a 707, a double decker bus and a train set up in a taining camp in Iraq where muslims from outside of Iraq trained? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 05 - 02:07 PM Reid Calls for Rove to Resign By Daniela Deane Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, October 30, 2005; 12:30 PM The leader of the Senate Democrats today called for White House chief political strategist Karl Rove to resign, saying it's time for President Bush to "come clean" with the American people about the administration's role in the disclosure of a CIA operative's name. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), speaking on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," said both Bush and Vice President Cheney owe an apology to the American public. Reid said Bush should pledge not to pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff who was indicted Friday on five charges relating to statements he made to the FBI and a grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. He took aim at Rove, whose actions were probed by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Rove is reportedly still under investigation. "I think Karl Rove should step down," Reid said about the White House deputy chief of staff. "Here is a man who the president said if he was involved, if anyone in the administration was involved, out they would go. Anybody who is involved in this, they're gone." (...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 30 Oct 05 - 01:18 PM Old Guy's remarks that those who oppose the Iraq War (or the so-called "war on terrorism") are to blame for prolonging it is the same tired old wheeze that people of his ilk used during the Vietnam war. The fact is that, in both cases, we had no business being there in the first place. And again, in both cases, when this fact finally sank into the minds of a sufficient number of the American population (many of whom knew this right from the start), they began to assert their democratic right—indeed, their democratic obligation—to begin to question the government that led them astray and call them to account. In both cases, the aim of the United States government was to establish and maintain geopolitical power in the area. Lest anyone be bit remiss in their history, this is just the same old imperialism, having retired the toga, the crown and scepter, and the jackboots, and kitting itself out in a power suit and red necktie. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 05 - 12:47 PM n his radio address, Bush said Iraq had passed an important milestone with the certification of passage of its new constitution. "Three years ago, when Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron grip, the prospect of Iraqis voting on a democratic constitution would have been unthinkable," he said. "Now, the Iraqi people have shown that individual rights and rule by the people are universal principles, and that these principles can become the basis for free and decent governments throughout the Middle East." Bush said Iraqi voters had refused to surrender to intimidation and had risked their lives for liberty. "Our security at home is directly linked to a Middle East that grows in freedom and peace. The success of the new Iraqi government is critical to winning the war on terror and protecting the American people. Ensuring that success will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve, and it will involve more risk for Iraqis and for American and coalition forces." "The progress we have made so far has involved great sacrifice. The greatest burden has fallen on our military families. We've lost some of our nation's finest men and women in the war on terror," the president said. Ya know, for a minute there, he had me going. The speechwriter who composed the first few paragraphs of this quote is the most coherent statement of post-invasion rationalization I have seen. But then you get to the end and it all falls apart. I remember that Iraq was not involved with those who launched 9-11, and the logic of this glorious facade crumbles into ugly smithereens. It is quite unclear how Iraq became the focus of the wa Three cheers for brave Iraqis holding out for democratic freedoms, I say. And a tip of the hat to the brave men and women daily getting cut to ribbons in support of making that happen. And a flying cow-turd to the numb-nuts who sent them there. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 05 - 12:30 PM In Indictment's Wake, a Focus on Cheney's Powerful Role E-Mail This Printer-Friendly Single-Page Reprints Save Article By ELISABETH BUMILLER and ERIC SCHMITT Published: October 30, 2005 WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 - Vice President Dick Cheney makes only three brief appearances in the 22-page federal indictment that charges his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., with lying to investigators and misleading a grand jury in the C.I.A. leak case. But in its clear, cold language, it lifts a veil on how aggressively Mr. Cheney's office drove the rationale against Saddam Hussein and then fought to discredit the Iraq war's critics. The document now raises a central question: how much collateral damage has Mr. Cheney sustained? Many Republicans say that Mr. Cheney, already politically weakened because of his role in preparing the case for war, could be further damaged if he is forced to testify about the infighting over intelligence that turned out to be false. At the least, they say, his office will be temporarily off balance with the resignation of Mr. Libby, who controlled both foreign and domestic affairs in a vice presidential office that has served as a major policy arm for the West Wing. Jason Reed/Reuters Vice President Dick Cheney, left, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., far right, after a White House meeting in July. Timeline of the Leak: All Events A trip by Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger nearly four years ago was the beginning of a series of events now being investigated by a special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald. TEXT News Release | Indictment (pdf) Fitzgerald's News Conference: Transcript | Video Reaction: Bush | Cheney Bloggers React Key Articles and Documents Stephen Crowley/The New York Times Vice President Dick Cheney, shown last month after a luncheon in Washington, has played a major role in setting Bush administration policy. "Cheney has had a tight, effective team, and they have been an incredible support system for the presidency," said Rich Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. "To the degree that that support system is weakened, it's a bad day at the office. But no person is indispensable." For now, David Addington, the vice president's counsel, is the leading candidate to replace Mr. Libby. Mr. Cheney's allies noted that there was no suggestion in the indictment that the most powerful vice president in American history, with enormous influence in all important corners of administration policy, had done anything wrong. They also said that Mr. Libby, whose role had been diminished in the past year as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice became more powerful and the leak investigation took its toll, could be quickly replaced from the vice president's large Rolodex of support. "His reach within both the party mechanism and the policy structures of the government is so deep that I believe that it is possible to find somebody who would provide the technical and intellectual support that Libby did, even if he doesn't have the same personal relationship that he had with Libby," said Tom Rath, a New Hampshire Republican with White House ties. "That's very hard to duplicate." The indictment against Mr. Libby, known as Scooter, alleges that the vice president's office was the hub of a concerted effort to gather information about key critics of the Bush Iraq policy. [Page 28.] The larger question, Republicans said, was Mr. Cheney's standing with the public - and what his staff has often called the vice president's constituency of one, Mr. Bush. Christie Whitman, the president's former E.P.A. administrator and a longtime Bush family friend who was critical of the White House and the Republican right wing in a recent book, said that she did not expect the president's personal relationship with Mr. Cheney to change. Nonetheless, Ms. Whitman said she believed that if more information about Mr. Cheney's involvement in the leak case became public, "and if it keeps hanging around and getting close to the vice president, he might step aside - but that's an extreme case." \ I submit that given the range and depth of the Administrations encroachments on peace, justice, Constitutional rights, economic well-being and the unity of the nation, and dismantling of Misters Rove and Cheney's power-mucking machinery is all for the good, despite any transitional confusion it might cost the inebriates. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 05 - 12:23 PM From today's Washington Post: White House Ethics, Honesty Questioned 55% in Survey Say Libby Case Signals Broader Problems By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page A14 A majority of Americans say the indictment of senior White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby signals broader ethical problems in the Bush administration, and nearly half say the overall level of honesty and ethics in the federal government has fallen since President Bush took office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey. The poll, conducted Friday night and yesterday, found that 55 percent of the public believes the Libby case indicates wider problems "with ethical wrongdoing" in the White House, while 41 percent believes it was an "isolated incident." And by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in the government has declined rather than risen under Bush.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 05 - 12:06 PM Last year, President Bush promised that anyone at the White House involved in the leak would be fired [3]. We believe that the President should stick to his word. That's why we're calling on him to fire Karl Rove. Valerie Plame was an operative working on stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--the most important beat at the CIA and one of the most important jobs in the country [4]. Rove revealed her identity and destroyed her network of connections to settle a political score. He weakened America's national security. For that alone, he deserves to be fired. But as it turns out, that's also the White House's official position. Press Secretary Scott McClellan told the press in September of 2003, when the story first broke, that anyone at the White House who was involved would be fired "at a minimum." [5] And when asked on June 10th, 2004, if he would "stand by your pledge to fire anyone found" to have leaked the agent's name, President Bush responded, simply, "Yes." [6] Of course, in the past the White House has strenuously denied that Rove had anything to do with it. In 2003, McClellan said that he'd asked Rove if he was involved, and Rove had said he wasn't [7]. "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." [8] "I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was." [9] Asked again if Rove was involved, McClellan responded, "That's just totally ridiculous." [10] So what did McClellan have to say about the clear discrepancies between what the President Bush and he had said in 2003 and what Newsweek reported on Sunday? Nothing. Here's an excerpt from the transcript: Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose? A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing. Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved. A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation. Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved? A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... . Q: Any remorse [11]? It's worth noting that both Bush and McClellan have commented on the case repeatedly since 2003.[12] Republicans claim that the furor over this case is just politics as usual. But what Rove did has serious ramifications. Here's the story in a nutshell: In 2002, former Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to investigate rumors that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. Wilson found nothing, and wrote about it in a New York Times op-ed column on July 6, 2003 after President Bush used the claim as part of the case for war. Wilson was married to Valerie Plame, an undercover operative, who was revealed shortly thereafter by conservative columnist Robert Novak. Novak cited "senior administration officials" as his source that Plame was an operative [13]. Why out Plame? While we don't know the full story, there are a couple of reasons to do so: to exact revenge on Wilson for refusing to toe the Administration line, and to send a message to would-be whistle-blowers that they should keep their mouths shut. In any case, Plame's work was important, and by exposing her identity, the leaker destroyed ten years of covert relationship-building and could have jeopardized the lives of other covert agents in the field. At best, it was recklessly irresponsible; at worst, it was malicious; and either way, the leaker undermined our national security. That's why we, like the President, believe it's time to fire anyone who was involved with the leaking of Plame's name. And now we know that means firing Karl Rove. Sign our petition now at: http://www.moveonpac.org/firerove/?id=5782-137503-L51VFFQnBKO_KG40XoQzlQ&t=2 And thanks for everything you're doing. (Excerpted from a MoveOn broadside). FOOTNOTES: 1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek 2. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=776 3. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=777 4. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002374617_leak12.html 5. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/print/20030929-7.html 6. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=777 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/12rove-quotes.html?pagewanted=print 8. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/12rove-quotes.html?pagewanted=print 9. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/12rove-quotes.html?pagewanted=print 10. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/12rove-quotes.html?pagewanted=print 11. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR2005071100991.html 12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR2005071101284.html 13. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030714.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:18 PM Well done on capturing 1400, Bobert! The UK Independent takes dim view of the Oval Office at the moment: ...Special report: Bush faces his Watergate Sleaze, leaks and an indictment add up to the worst presidential crisis since Nixon. And it will get worse. The White House has lost one key man but the whole chain of command may be engulfed by a scandal slowly revealing the lies that led to war. By Andrew Buncombe in Washington Published: 30 October 2005 Presidential second terms are prone to scandals, from Bill Clinton's embarrassments over Monica Lewinsky to Ronald Reagan's implication in the Iran-Contra imbroglio. But the troubles now circling George Bush's White House could be even worse than Watergate. It might not appear that way at first. Mr Bush is unlikely to have to join Richard Nixon, the only president in US history forced to resign from office. But the issues raised by "Plamegate" - the leaking of the identity of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent - are far more significant than those involved in the "second-rate burglary" of the Democratic National Committee's offices in Washington's Watergate complex in the 1970s. They go to the heart of why America, and its faithful ally, Britain, went to war in Iraq. The immediate problems are bad enough. On Friday Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted for obstruction of justice and making false statements to a grand jury. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor appointed to investigate Ms Plame's outing, announced that he was not indicting Karl Rove, President Bush's closest adviser, although he remains under investigation and may have to give evidence against Mr Libby...." As ye sow, Mister President, so shall ye... President: I don't sew. I leave that stuff up to Laura (wink). But my faith is mighty important to me.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:02 PM And 1400, to boot... Now 1401... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 29 Oct 05 - 09:57 PM Well, well, well... That one took okay so lets reload with GUEST A's name on this one... Quoting Alison Young (Knight Ridder reporter) in regardes to DHS: "In Januaryof this year, the DHS unveiled their National Response Plan. This was supposed to be a blueprint in this post-September 11 world for how we werer going to deal with a massive catastrophe. While certainly terrorism was an emphasis behind this document, it very clearly says that this is to be uswed when you have a major catastrphic natural disaster, such as a hurricane.... It very clearly says that in a catastrope that locals have become overwhelmed by the situation, both in terms of resources and the structure, that the fedewral governemnt is supposed to to take the proactive- proactive steps to protect the lives of citizens..." Okay, now lets look at the orgaization chart here that has at the top, the president. Right under him is the Secretary of the DHS and under him is the head of FEMA... Like one, two, three.. Fast forward, 'er rewind to the Congressional hearin's about the poor showing on the feds side and here's part of the text: Rep. Christopher Shays (adressin former" FEMA head, Michael Brown): "Now, with the non-evacuation, when you knew that neither thr governor or mayor were going to do their job, did you call-- and I would like to bring the Presdient in. When did you contact the President to say we have a catastrpe happening with an incompetent mayor and an incompetent governor not responding to this? When di you contact the President to let him know of this extraordinary crisis that would impact our country?" Brown: "I talked with the White House on both Saturday (2 days before Katrina)and Sunday (1 Day before Katrina)"... It might have been Friday, but I have to go back and check my records." Shays: "Did you ask for a higher authority to help you out? You're the head of FEMA, but the governor and mayor aren't paying attention to you. I want to know who you asked for help." Brown: "On SDaturday and Sunday, I started talking with thwe White House." Shays: "The White House is a big place. So give us specifics. I'm not asking about conversations yet, I want to know who you conatcted." Brown: "I exchanged emails and had phone calls with Joe Hagin, Andy Card and the President." Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, GUEST A, seems that given the circumstances, the recently released "National Response Plan" with its options, the contact by Brownie with the President forwarning him of A., the category 5 storm about to hit the gulf coast and B., the difficulties of the mayor and governor of Lousinana, that a President with his head in the game (i.E. knowin' A and B and knowing about then National Response Plan" WOULD HAVE had better things to do than vactaion and go off to some country music thing.. Now maybe you thing it's perfectly okay to contiunue the finger pointin' in the direction of the governor and mayor and that perhaps is another issue but... ... bottom line, Bush's folks set up the system and it failed... This ain't got one thing to do with the governor or the mayor becuase everything that had been pre=supposed happened and the Bush adminstartion didn't act accoring to what they had planned to do if such an event would occur... Worse than that, 3 days into the misery in New Orleans, with folks hungry, the feds ordered the Red Cross out from NO where the Re Cross had food to deliver... Yeah, this is just the tip of the iceberg, GUEST A, of what should be America's "Bill of Particulars" against Bush and his boys... And lets not even go into how many billions went into rich retirees bank accounts after Hurrican Fancis just before the 2004 ele3ction... Maybe you'd like to just makie a response to what I have---NO CUT 'N PASTE--- have just laid out here??? Retard Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 29 Oct 05 - 09:10 PM No, Old Guy, you are wrong... The inforamtion that was presented to the Democrats was "cooked"... By whom??? Ahhhh, looking a lot like Dick Cheney's office... Hey, you yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, that ain't like yere 1st Ammenrdment right, tyhat is criminal... There were a lotta folks in position to know stuff about Iraq who were absolutely "blackballed" from the Bush administartion aqnd by the media... Scott Ritter was one such person... Having been part of the weapons inspection team that left Irag in the late 90's he should have had some cedibility but guess what... He weren't singin the company fight song... No, he was telling what turned out to be the truth and he paid dearly for it.... Si I ain't buyin' yer claim that we aqcted on "best" intellegence... We acted on "cooked" intellegence... Former Treasury Secrtary O=Niel said that Bush was intent on attacking Iraq from Day One... Oh, yeah, we're making all this up?? No, we aren't. The story is there if yer willin' to get her head outta Fox News fir a minite or two... I know that's hard to dio but, "Garbage in, garbage out" and we're getting a lot of "garbage out "outta you so I figgure it must be coming from some place??? Ahhhhh, Guest A, don't fret none... I'll get 'round to you as well... I'm on dial up so I don't have much luck with Mudact but I'll try again... Better post while I have 'nuff dial up to at least get this one thru... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST Date: 29 Oct 05 - 06:40 PM Freda, my opinion of the "Bush presidency rocked to the core" by the indictment of Libby (5 indictments)will no more be true than the Clinton presidency was rocked to the core by the indictments of Henry Cisneros (18 indictments), Mike Espy (39 corruption counts), Billy Dale (2 counts of embezzlement). It is simply, and to our detriment, a part of the system. I am, however, still perplexed that the real reason for the two year investigation did not result in a charge. And yes, the investigation is complete. Even the hardcore Democratic legal beagles attest to that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: freda underhill Date: 29 Oct 05 - 01:06 PM By the way.... :-) Bush presidency on shaky ground as top aide charged By Alec Russell October 30, 2005; Telegraph, London George Bush's presidency has been rocked to its core by the indictment of senior White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby for perjury and other criminal charges. The scandal threatens to expose the inner workings of Mr Bush's administration in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Even as the US Administration confronts the growing challenge of Iran and the mounting difficulties of the war in Iraq, Mr Bush's team risks seeing out the last three years of his presidency in a mire of legal and judicial uncertainty. Libby immediately resigned from his role as Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. The President's own chief political adviser, Karl Rove, escaped indictment for the time being, but he was warned he would continue to be the subject of the criminal investigation into a White House intelligence leak at the heart of the Administration's case for going to war in Iraq. Libby was charged by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald with two counts each of perjury for lying to a grand jury, two counts of making false statements by lying to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice by hindering a grand jury investigation into the leak. Libby predicted that, "at the end of this process I will be completely and totally exonerated". Mr Fitzgerald issued the indictment on the last day of a two-year investigation into whether Libby or other White House aides knowingly "outed" a CIA agent, Valerie Plame, in July 2003. Unmasking a spy can be a Federal offence. If convicted on all five charges Libby could face 30 years in jail and a heavy fine. But far more damaging to the US Government is that the case threatens to expose the workings of the key decision-makers in the countdown to the increasingly unpopular Iraq war. Mr Cheney himself is mentioned in the indictment and may have to testify in the trial. Mr Fitzgerald said the indictments showed "the world that this is a country that takes its justice seriously, that all citizens are bound by the law". The White House was spared its ultimate nightmare, the loss of Karl Rove, Mr Bush's chief adviser, another key suspect in the case, who is known to his critics as "Bush's brain". But Mr Fitzgerald has made it clear to Mr Rove he remains under investigation and at risk of legal action. Many Republicans believe Mr Bush's difficulties in recent weeks stem from his aide's preoccupation with the case. The indictment is the climax to a disastrous week for Mr Bush with the number of US deaths in Iraq passing 2000 and the collapse of the President's attempt to install a friend and aide, Harriet Miers, on the Supreme Court. Mr Bush's nomination of Ms Miers, who has been the President's lawyer, was rejected by his own party. Ms Plame was unmasked by a conservative columnist citing senior administration officials, just a week after her husband accused the White House of twisting intelligence to make the case for war. Ms Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, said that she had been "outed" to punish and discredit him. Libby was not charged with the alleged original crime of leaking Ms Plame's identity. Instead, the prosecutor has accused him of lying about how and when he learnt of her CIA role. The prosecutor dismissed the argument of Bush loyalists that Ms Plame was not a covert agent. He said her cover was blown in 2003 and that before then even friends and neighbours did not know she worked for the CIA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:41 PM I find it most odd that you believe the cost of in blood and treasure is made worse by those who oppose the war. The voices of those who don't go along with this escapade in blood, guts and idiocy may well have added a tenth of a per cent. But I think the real stress induced by vocal opponents to this war is in the uncomfortable minds of those who settled for slaughter without trying very hard to find another path. Let me point out that hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of human bodies have been poured into this rathole because of one decision, and one decision only. When you take un that sort of command responsibility, you by God owe those you work for a due diligence in understanding. It is not clear to me why the half of American voters who did so wanted to invest that much power into the hands of a man who was flagrantly inarticulate, dumb as a rock, with a history of extreme alcohol abuse and cultish epiphanies. But no matter. Once they had done so, he was obliged to find out before he acted, and he did not do so. What Clarissa P Estes or anyone else outside the Oval Office said or thought is scarcely germane to the lethal bloodshed unleashed by his single stupid decision. Not the only such, but the most bloodthirsty. So let's make this clear: I am not going to shut up just because you think criticizing the President is aiding and abetting the enemy; that is the logic of totalitarianism, in case you didn't notice. My moral obligation is to speak freely in good conscience to the truth as I see it. THere is only one possible rationale that could justify Bush's decision to invade Iraq. If he had conceived that this "common sandbox" strategy, drawing Muslim extremists from all around Allah-land to one battlefield because we had tactical superiority in a more traditional military scenario and they had tactical superiority in continuing their hide, kill, and flee methods. Like the British army of 1770, we aren't build for small S&D missions as our primary military approach -- we build BIG war machinery. But I am pretty sure that no such grand strategic decision formed any part of his watery thought processes on the issue. No mention of such a strategy have I ever heard, except in my own discussions. So I am of the opinion that this was just an unforeseen after-effect of his simple, bullheaded decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam for Poppa, or some such foolish notion. And don't try to get him off the charge of intentional falsification. He had been told long before his State of the Union address that the Nigerian uranium issue was bogus, and he trotted out the false story anyway. Then he tried to pin it on the CIA. He asked for war-plans for Iraq BEFORE September 11th and immediately after it he (or his string-pullers) decided to tack it onto the military plan as fast as they could. It had nothing to do with WMD at the time. He has not come forth and described his ACTUAL discussions or strategic planning or intell. even years after the fact. Why not? He has done little to pursue Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the extremist attacks. Why not? Don't get me wrong -- if the people of Iraq want a constitution and want citizen's rights and protected democratic priveleges, they should have it, and I am not adverse to helping them get it. But there are higher purposes toward which this nation could steer its diminishing wealth than getting caught in an extremist crossfire fueled by people who cannot even say "separation of church and state", especially at the hands of a leader (so-called) who doesn't much believe in such separation himself -- another clear indication that he is unqualified for the job. If this is leadership, amigo, then I ain't following. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:47 AM Amos: Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. First of all there is no easy or sure way to combat terrorisim but something must be done. Some action must be taken based on whtever knowledge is at hand. Here is what the anti-war get nowhere people believe: "He just decided and spread false information to support his decision" The information he "spread" was the best information available at the time. Democrats, foriegn governments, foriegn intelligence agencys, bunches of people around the world believed it. Now that it turns out to be not entirely true every looks for a scape goat to dump on as if to cleanse themselves of any mistaken beliefs. If you would use your internet skills for ferreting out quotes about the existance of WMD's from people like Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry and others on down to the level of Clarissa Pinkola Estes, you would find a huge body of popular opinion that Saddam did have WMD's. Now all of this is forgotten and the spyglass on on GWB. "He lied" is the fashionable hue and cry of the people without the guts for war. If the Anti-war and anti-Bush people would shut the hell up, this war would be over sooner with less dying on both sides. As it is, the terrorists see that if they keep it up long enough the American people will loose their resolve and withdraw. Now people are saying Iraq never had anything to do with Al Quaeda or training terrorists that attacked the US. When confronted with the evidence they choose to go back to the "He lied" chant to shut out the evidence. There is one fact that no one disputes. Saddam paid a $250,000 reward to the familys of Palestinian suicide bomers after they attacked Israel. I am no fan of Isreal but this action is still an act of supporting and propagating terrorisim. If he was capable of that he was capable of training terrorists in Iraq. To me Salman Pak proves that he did. Now why don't these people that expend so much effort on negative things that accomplish nothing and even cause more damage to the war on terrorisim, focus their energy on something positive like fighting poverty and homelessness in the US. There are better things to do with your time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 29 Oct 05 - 08:43 AM Yes, GUEST A, aqnd in lenght, but not this mornin'... I've gotta get my guitars loaded to play a picnic/party at the last Farmer's Market in Luray... But, yeah, I not only can but will show you why I blame the Bush administration fir the poor handlin' of Katrina... BTW, just a little homework here fir ya, pal... You might wanta Google the Congressional testimony of Michael "Brownie" Brown fir a clue here... There's a lot more than what was chiozen fir the 30 second sound bite where he angrilly said "(I) did my best"... Yeah, if you read the entire testimony you'll prolly come back with some different perceptions... Or if you just want to wait 'til tonight, I'll be glad to save you the homework time... Gotta go... Work before play, ahhhhh, play before play, ahhhhh, whatever... Gonna get fed well either way... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,A Date: 29 Oct 05 - 04:51 AM Bobert, as I said elsewhere, thanks for bringing up Katrina. If Homeland Security had not been invented and FEMA would not have been incorporated into it, then perhaps the response to Katrina would have been to your liking. This is to disregard the performance of the LA local and state governments. Could you please explain to me how you can blame this administration for the performance of an agency they did not want to begin with, knowing it was set up by the Congress and not by those who would become responsible for its' operation. No, you really can't, not to me or any other individual who favors fairness. I think this debate has concluded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 29 Oct 05 - 03:58 AM Old Guy: I don't have a plan for this mess. If I did you can be sure I would be pounding the drum for it/ Do you think Bush has one, aside from "make Iraq be a democracy and then bring the troops back"? That;s not a plan, by the way --at best it is a vision. If I was being critical there are other terms I could use for it. I'd have one pretty quick if it was my job to, though. As for combatting terrorism, my approach would be to track down those who initiate it and find out what they are doing and why and based on some understanding, plan accordingly. Your furless leader did not find out who, or why, or acquire much understanding. He just decided and spread false information to support his decision. Having demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to communicate the truth, I have no way to adjudicate the real merit of anything that comes out of his mouth. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 05 - 11:05 PM The modus operandi of the Right Wing these days is to avoid meeting the main issue head on, where more often than not, they don't stand a chance, and duck off to the side and attack by bringing up something completely irrelevant. E.g., note how often, when the Bush administration comes in for criticism, that the Right Wingers around here suddenly bring up Bill Clinton's petty peccadilloes and try to make something world-shaking out of it. If it even goes into the history books at all, it will only merit a footnote, and as has been pointed out by a number of people so far, Clinton's indiscretions and subsequent lie did not result in one single death, let alone the deaths of 2,000 American soldiers and upwards of 30,000 Iraqis. Nor did it embroil this country in yet another quagmire that it will quite possibly be decades getting itself out of. Now, here, in this thread, we have Amos calling attention to the writings of those who are critical of the Bush administration. Admittedly, Amos is trying to make a point. That's fine. It's his right. As a matter of fact, one could say that as a good citizen, it is his duty both to himself and to his country to express his considered viewpoint and call attention to material that supports it. So—in response to this, what do the Right Wingers around here do? They make use of another diversionary tactic to attack Amos on matters that are totally irrelevant to the subject of this thread. It makes no difference what philosophical or religious viewpoints and beliefs Amos may have held in the past, or, for that matter, what philosophy or beliefs he holds now. This, in no way, alters the truth or falsity of the articles he is calling to our attention. This is yet another blatant example of the resident Right Wingers attempting to divert attention from the main points of an argument by invoking a very popular fallacy with them—the argumentum ad hominem: this consists of attacking the person asserting the argument rather than the argument itself. It makes no difference to the truth or falsity of the argument if the person making the argument is a liar, a thief, an axe-murderer, or a maniac—or whether or not he can walk on water. If the argument is true, it is true independent of the person asserting the argument. Likewise, if it is false, it is false regardless of the presumed credibility of the person making the assertion. For a thorough exposition of the argumentum ad hominem, see the following:— One More Time! [And as many times as it takes before people stop using it and stick to the point.] In a nutshell, rather than attempting to refute the argument itself, those who use the argumentum ad hominem do so in order to divert attention from the argument by attacking the credibility of the person asserting the argument. This, obviously, is what GUEST,Old Guy (whom, I suspect, is an apprentice of Karl Rove) is knocking himself out in an effort to do. I don't know Amos personally—we have never met face to face—but from his posts, I have always found him to be quite sane, well centered in reality, intelligent, and articulate. In fact, he has what some might regard as "a dangerous gift of eloquence" (and therein lies the problem that some people here seem to have with him). But if Amos were flitting about as an Operating Thetan, or running around and foaming at the mouth (neither of which, as far as I can tell, he is doing), it would have absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of anything he says or of any article he calls our attention to. Old Guy (and you too, "Xenu"), you may as well get off that bus because it isn't going anywhere. It results only in making you look like a bit of an ass. Don Firth "If the words are true, what does it matter who speaks them?" ~~Kahless, the Klingon Messiah. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:28 PM Think about it this way, Old Guy... Before you showed up 'round here just about every thread got highjacked with politics... Hey, you could start a thread entitled "Best Key for 'Puff the Magic Dragon'" and next thing you'd know it was about Iraq??? Go figure??? Well, unlike my rowdy self, Amos has the discip-line and respect fir Mudville to kkep all of the Bush stuff in one nice little thread... Now you may think that is abd but the alternative is much worse... Believe me... Take a little time and go back and reread some threads from the pre-Iraq-invasion and you'll come back with a different perspective... Amos ain't rying to build nuthin' here... It's just a danged "claering hose" kinda thread where folks get to bring in stuff about the Bush admionistration, which even the most loyal, would have to admit ain't doina too much a bang up job these days... So, please, Old Guy, the shit fir this an' shit fir that aonly makes you sound ignorant... I don't know if yer ignorant or not and, if you are, you don't either but, hey, get off my boys butt, will ya??? Disagree with him... Disagree with the links... But don't personalize it, my friend... Okay? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:13 PM I never questioned his intelligence, only his dogged persuit of posting every nit shit thing he can find that is negative to GWB even if it is from Al Jazeera. Are we really interested in the writings of Clarissa Pinkola Estes? He is simply building a monument to himself. Something he can consider an accomplishment. However his judgement is poor and his mission is counter to the furtherance of freedom and peace in the world. Rather, it is counter productive. I attribute this to his weakness for following cults. Maybe he is attempting to build his own anti-bush cult. I think it is surely the result of an imbalanced mind. I can't imagine believing anyone who believed in an E Meter. That's like believing Louis Farrakhan who says there is a spaceship shaped like a wheel orbiting the earth in making preperations to eradicate white people from the earth. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 09:36 PM Well, I'll say this... I have sat and listened to Amos talk fir 3 or 5 minutes and I have just read Old Guy's last post and I'd have to give Amos a upperhand, by far, in just communication skills, for being able to put together cognitive thoughts without interspersing a single "shit for brains" interjection... Might of fact, I think that this level of discourse is below Amos's inner self, outer self and any self in between... Old Guy, Just a suggestion here... Try stickin' with the issues more... The meat and potatoes of issues... Not the sound bite translations... Though you may be very informed about stuff, you certainly don't come accross as someone who, ahhhh, no disrespect intended, reads alot... Bobert p.s. Yeah, I'm sure you coulod say that 'bout me 'cause I don't type 'er spell too well but, hey, I do read... a lot.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 28 Oct 05 - 09:21 PM Yes I was never a cult follower so I do not have the credibility of someone that was and as far as I can tell still is. One that falls for bullshit becomes an expert on bullshit to the point that all he knows is bullshit. All he spews is bullshit. One day he says that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. Then he says there was a marginal connection. When I call him on it all he can say is the never said there was a connection. Vast amounts of credibility there. This same person declares a thread belongs to him and he says what can be posted there. Rather childish but still credible. Then when asked what should be done to fight terrorisim he has nothing to say but "If you had bothered to participate in this community for any time, you would see many efforts to produce alternative plans" Now there's a plan. And did this credible person's hero just before the last election claim "John Kerry fought to establish the Department of Homeland Security. George Bush opposed it for almost a year after 9/11." Now I am asking again, Who's idea was homeland security and who's idea was it to make FEMA part of homeland security. And what is Mr Amos Jessup's recomendation for a long range plan to fight terrorisim? And in case I am accused of not answering questions, I do support GB's policy of not listening to the anti-war idiots. I do not support all of his policies though. I am not a blind cult follower. For example I do not support his policy on enforcing immigration and border enforcement. Now are you going to answer or do I have to start a thread titled "Amos has shit for brains" so you will answer? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 07:50 PM BTW, do you know about Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon??? Might wanta Google search 'um before yer rebuttals??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Bobert Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:39 PM Okay, we can get right down to specifics on DHS but lets look at the facts... Rather than gear it up toward, ahhhh, fighting terrorism and findin bin Forgotten, it has become a whipping boy for Bush and Co. to whup up on any American of the DHS's chosin' who: 1. Goes to the library 2. Gets medical care 3. Owns a computer 4. Uses a leagally obtained perscription drug 5. Supports a chucrch group 6. Gives to a charity And guess what? Seems that if you give to a charity that you had no idea was givin' funds to a group that DHS deems, without evidence of wrong-doing, is a terrorists organization, you can be arrested and taken off to Guantanemo Bay, helf there without legal reprseentation, or even ever being charghes of doinhg anything wtrong anf kept there indefinately... And if Dick Cheney gets it his way, according to a recent Washington Post article, you might even end up with a lethal injection or just plain tortured to death... You see, Section 215 of the Patriot Act (Which it ain't...) removes the "probable cause" provision that the American system of justice has relied on going back to the Founding Fathers... Without "probabal cause" you have the makings of a police state... Hmmmmmm, I thought we were trying to catch the bad guys??? Instead, what Cheney and Bush have done is taken a major step in making George Orwell look purdy right on, just missin' the actual date of governemnt in every bedroom in America... Now you, GUEST A, might like police states... I don't, and I don't like George Bush, Dick Cheney and Admiral Poindexter spendin' my hard earned tax bucks snoopin' 'round my life 'cause I don't agree with them... They ooughtta be snoopin' 'round bin Forgotten's life, thank you... And lets take this thing one step further... What was the original purpose of the DHS??? To make us safer... Are we any safer??? The incidents of terrorism have increased globally have increased every year since it went into existence... And lets look at another aspect of the mission of the DHS and that is the issue of steppin' in when there is a regional catastrophy... Think Katrina here... So my two major problems with the way the Bush administartion has administered the DHS are: 1. Rather than go after terrorists, Bush and Co. have turned the US into a police state. 2. The Bush adminstration is nhot prepared to deal with catastropies, either man-made or natural... Plastic and duct tape ain't leadership... It's a friggin' joke... Well, lets see how Old Guy and GUEST A respond to this mere introduction of my "Bill of Partriculars" on Bush's leadership of the DHS, then maybe we'll get into "No Child Left Un-Recruited"... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Donuel Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:38 PM Delay is a talking head on MSNBC a lot these days. He has extra time without his leadership meetings. Ounce for ounce he is far more intelligent than GWB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:23 PM From www.spiked-online.com, in an article entitled "How Low Can Bush Go?" http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CADFF.htm How low can Bush go? The president's retreat on Miers leaves him and his party in a lose-lose situation. by Helen Searls "...The failure of the Miers nomination came in the middle of what the New York Times described as Bush's worst ever political week. Bush's stock is already very low; he has never recovered from the slump he faced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina at the start of September. The grim reality of his failures in Iraq was brought home clearly this week when the death toll of US soldiers in the conflict reached the 2000 mark. With news bulletins peppered with heart-wrenching stories of loss, coupled with grief-stricken mothers questioning their sons' sacrifices, nobody seems to be prepared to give a ringing endorsement of the president's foreign policies. Nor is the domestic arena any refuge. The White House and the Republican Party are awash with scandal. Former house lead Tom Delay has been indicted by a Texas grand jury for the fraudulent use of party funds. Senate leader Bill Frist is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Washington is awash with speculation about impending indictments within the White House. Two leading White House players, Karl Rove and Lewis Libby, are awaiting the pronouncements of the special prosecutor over allegations of wrongdoing concerning their involvement in leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent and the subsequent cover-up. It is against this backdrop that Bush withdrew the Miers nomination. To back off from a fight, when things are going so badly, just confirms the view that the president and his allies have lost their way. One need only consider future nominations to the court to see what difficulties have been created. Whomever Bush nominates next, the nomination will have the feeling of being provisional rather than absolute. If a determined section of the Republican Party can derail one nomination that did not fit their plans, what is to stop them or others from doing the same next time? Indeed, it is difficult to see whom the president could nominate next without coming out weakened and damaged. If he nominates another candidate like Miers, or even a more moderate candidate, he runs the risk that the candidate will be derailed again by sections of his own party. But if he picks a more openly conservative candidate with a clearer ideological agenda, he looks like he is being dictated to by the religious right. Moreover, moderate Republicans may find it hard to vote for such a nominee. The fight that this would provoke might do real damage to the future election chances of the Republican Party. Despite all the noise made by the conservative right, absolutist conservative policies like banning abortion do not have majority support among the electorate. While anti-abortion politics galvanise religious conservatives, such policies are not election winners at the polls. Bush has always understood this. When anti-abortionists have pressed him to promise to appoint judges to overturn Roe v Wade (the ruling that safeguards women's right to abortion), Bush has said he thought the country was not ready to take such a step. Throughout his presidency he has been careful to keep the issue on the back burner. While he signed the ban on the so called 'partial birth abortion' procedure - a measure that was not so controversial - he has been careful to remain quiet on the broader issue of outlawing abortion. The president and the Republicans may now be so directionless and consumed with their own internal difficulties that they no longer recognise how fragile is their own political cohesion. With nothing on the political horizon to galvanise the party, a bitter fight over conservative values in general and abortion in particular is the last thing that either the president or his party needs. ..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,A Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:16 PM Bobert, what I am refering to was posted yesterday. One more time, however, you were implying that No child left behind and Homeland Security had major problems. I said give me one from each and I will respond accordingly. You now seem to be beating around the bush, so to speak. AND YES, I know GWB was not very much in favor of a Homeland Security department by itself. And possibly he was correct. After he was forced into it, the Dems insisted that that FEMA be part of it. Sooooooo, after a once very effective FEMA was buried in the new organization, it was not able to respond as effectively as it once did. AND, DUMB BASTARDS like yourself were the first to blame Bush. Yes, it was a Government agency but was now NOT the way GWB said it should be. And please try not to forget that FEMA was never a "first responder". Even some of the Floridians did not follow instructions with regard to having 3 days food and water which had some clamoring for help within a day of the passing of Wilma. Folks, lets' try to be fair. The government should not be depended on for our salvation, for more reasons than one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:38 PM You know, Old Guy, that what you post is saying nothing about Amos, but it speaks volumes about you. Your credibility is nonexistent. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:32 PM Oh enlightened one was referring to Amos but he only responds when I call him shit for brains. Telling isn't it? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:15 PM Just heard on the news a few minutes ago that Karl Rove is not off the hook yet. Rove's attorney has managed to convince special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he may have misinterpreted something Rove said during the hearings. The special prosecutor allowed as how this may possibly be true, and although he won't have time to do it this session, he will go over the transcripts and investigate the matter further. So Rove is still hanging in mid-air. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Amos Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:44 PM WASHINGTON - The vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby Jr., was charged Friday with obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements in the CIA leak investigation, a politically charged case that will throw a spotlight on President Bush's push to war. Libby resigned and left the White House. Karl Rove, Bush's closest adviser, escaped indictment Friday but remained under investigation, his legal status a continuing political problem for the White House. The grand jury indictment charged Libby, 55, with one count of obstruction of justice, two of perjury and two false statement counts. If convicted on all five, he could face as much as 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines. The charges stem from a two-year investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into whether Rove, Libby or any other administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame or lied about their involvement to investigators. Libby is accused of lying about how and when he learned about Plame's identity in 2003 and told reporters about it. The information on the officer was classified. He is also accused of lying when he told Fitzgerald's investigators that he learned about Plame's CIA status from Tim Russert of NBC. He learned it from several government sources, including Cheney, the indictment says. Any trial would dig into the secret deliberations of Bush and his team as they built the case for war against Iraq. Bush ordered U.S. troops to war in March 2003, saying Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program posed a grave and immediate threat to the United States. No such weapons were found. The U.S. military death toll climbed past 2,000 this week. ... (From the AP WIre for 10-28-05) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration From: Don Firth Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM There are tasks far too monumental for anyone to even attempt. Or bother with. Don Firth |