BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 09:48 PM

DougR:

I can't do anything about the election -- I suppose we just want stupid people. But I can draw to public attention facts that are often painted out of the public view or buried by administration machinations.

Bush's decision to combat terrorism by invading Iraq was foolish, ill advised and expensive in life and treasure. As a manager, he would drive a corporation in to bankruptcy, judging by his effects on the nations reserves, economy and public repute.

This is profitable for a minority.

But that does not make it wise, a good course of action, just or even viable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 07:11 PM

Geeze, Amos, I really am getting concerned about you. Did you have a good Thanksgiving? Are you depressed or something? Considering the books you have been reading, searching diligently for crap to relay to us about Bush that other "authors" have written would depress anyone. Maybe you should check with your physician to see if a good dose of Prozac might help your condition.

We (conservatives) survived eight years of Clinton. I'm sure you can survive eight of Bush. If you were to put the same energy into trying to get a candidate that thinks as you do elected in 2008, that you have put into whining about GWB winning the 2004 election, you might be a much more satisfied man in eight years!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 04:21 PM

The New York Times offers an analysis of statistics from Iraq. Motor fuel is more available, the number of insurgents is way up, the per centage of Iraqis wanting US forces to stay incountry is way down, indigenous optimism is down slightly, and the stats on casualties, although mounting, are probably false.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 03:22 PM

 " Iraq was not a threat to the United States, or to any of their neighbors. The sanctions put into effect after the first Gulf War had turned that regime's conventional military into a large collection of paperweights. There are no weapons of mass destruction of any kind in Iraq. There were no connections whatsoever between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and the attacks of September 11.

    The men and women whose faces fill the page below were not told this. They were, in fact, told the exact opposite. They raised their hands and took the oath, they donned their uniform and picked up their weapon, they boarded a plane and flew far from home, and they died. They were doing their duty, and they believed their President.

    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell and the members of this administration have much to answer for. (...)"

From Faces of 1000 Dead -- in case you want to know just whom we have lost because of our President's mismanagement. Just the first 1,000 men and women.

A


 

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 03:11 PM

In related news:

The Bush family saga

By Nicholas M. Horrock and Richard Tomkins
Published 11/26/2003 4:14 PM


WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 (UPI) -- A Texas court has been asked to order the younger brother of President George W. Bush to give a new sample for DNA testing in a paternity-related defamation suit, sources told United Press International Wednesday.

The request for the new sample from Neil Bush, filed on behalf of Sharon Bush, was slated to be heard in Houston's Harris County Civil Court on Dec. 9.

"We require he be forced to give a sample under court supervision," David Berg, attorney for Sharon Bush, told United Press International. "He voluntarily did it before we got to court but not under court supervision. It was a good first step, but we want it under court supervised conditions."

Sharon Bush is being sued for defamation by Robert Andrews, a business associate of Neil Bush, who claims she defamed his 2-year-old son by publicly saying the boy was fathered by Neil Bush.

Maria Andrews, now divorced from her husband, is currently living in Paris with the child. Bush has said he intends to marry the woman following his divorce from Sharon Bush last spring. It was unclear if Neil would join her for the Thanksgiving holiday or remain in the United States.

Neil Bush did not return UPI's calls for comment by publication time Wednesday.

In a deposition given in the divorce case in March, a month before his divorce from Sharon, the president's 48-year-old sibling detailed financial relationships with firms in Taiwan and China and admitted to having had sex on several occasions in years past with unidentified women who simply came to his hotel door in Thailand and Hong Kong.

"It is dead on," said a source who read the leaked transcript, which has not been made public record.

Under the divorce settlement with Sharon, Bush reportedly pays about $1,500 per month in child support payments to Sharon and gives her $30,000 a year in alimony for four years.

The Bushes have three children.

Sharon bought the family home, valued at $850,000, from Neil the exact sum Andrews is suing her for.

---

(From UPI feed: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031126-033621-2133r)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 03:02 PM

BUSH 'TOOK COCAINE AT CAMP DAVID'
And wife Laura liked dope, says book
By Emma Pryer

GEORGE W Bush snorted cocaine at Camp David, a new book claims.

His wife Laura also allegedly tried cannabis in her youth.

Author Kitty Kelley says in her biography The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, that the US President first used coke at university in the mid-1960s.

She quotes his former sister-in-law Sharon Bush who claims: "Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either."

Other acquaintances allege that as a 26-year-old National Guard, Bush "liked to sneak out back for a joint or into the bathroom for a line of cocaine".

Bush has admitted being an alcoholic but, asked during the 1999 election if he did drugs, he said: "I've told the American people that years ago I made some mistakes.

"I've learned from my mistakes and should I be fortunate enough to become president I will bring dignity and honour to the office."

Later an aide clarified his remarks saying Bush hadn't taken illegal drugs in the past 25 years.

Kelley says that the Bush family covered up scandals because of their wealth and influence. She claims George W started drinking at school and continued at Yale university to overcome shyness.

Former student Torbery George says in the book: "Poor Georgie. He couldn't relate to women unless he was loaded."

Another says: "He went out of his way to act crude. It's amazing someone you held in such low esteem later became president."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 03:00 PM

Everybody but Amos.

Getting to the point where he is embarrasses me as an American.

Amos, the revolution will not be televised.

It's entertaining to watch you make a douche bag of yourself.

You are one for the obsessive nut-case books.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 01:46 PM

Werner: thanks for posting the article, but EVERBODY knows Saddam had nothing what-so-ever to do with terrorists.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 04 - 11:48 AM

The New York Times discusses the international convention on the future of Iraq recently held, and the nature of the Bush administration's role in it, on the op Ed page:

Still Worlds Apart on Iraq.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 10:42 AM

Werner:

An interesting document, but one I think has to be taken with some salt. I am mindful of the fact that the belief that Saddam had large installations of weapons of mass destruction was primarily generated by one ex-pat Iraqi. It is also unlikely that such inflammatory intelligence would not be used by the Bush faction in widely publicized justifications for the invasion.

So it seems a little inconsistent. But interesting! Thanks.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 10:11 AM

Dear Guest:

You don't have to paste the whole excerpt into a link. You can limit the amount of text that becomes clickable, which is the text between the first ">" and the second "<" -- see the HTML FAQ.

It is interesting to realize that we had spent a million dollars encouraging the anti-Saddam factions in Iraq under Clinton. Bush's version is a much richer and bloodier stew indeed. I can hear the answer now -- "Yeah, but we got Saddam!". And in exchange we have the mother of all insurgencies on our hands.

The ground truth is that we did not have the courage to take Saddam down by other means. One fanatic suicide bomber in the right place would have done the job much more neatly than this stupid invasion, even if we grant that his oppressive regime was wortht hat risk, which is possibly true.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 08:22 AM

The independent Iraqi weekly Al-Yawm Al-Aakher reveals details on the training of Al-Qa'ida members operating under the orders of Saddam's Presidential Palace two months before the September 11 attacks. The following are excerpts from the article:

WVB

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 08:15 AM

The CIA's secret war in Iraq - ABC News Report
Peter Jennings Reporting
Showdown with Saddam
Feb. 7, 1998

PETER JENNINGS (VO)
             These are some of the
             Iraqis Bob, Tom, John, Ted and other CIA
             officers recruited in their secret campaign to
             overthrow Saddam Hussein. The CIA went after
             Saddam Hussein, because the US military didn't
             get him during the Gulf War-not that they
             didn't try. (interviewing) Do you want him
             killed?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 08:10 AM

Ted:

This is indeed a lopsided thread by a former Kerrydriod with a braincase made of Kryptonite.

HTC

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 08:02 AM

Why do they call Bush a liar?

Clinton says Saddam's ouster essential

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 25 Nov 04 - 03:34 AM

Homey,
    Thank you for those somewhat shocking links. A good attempt at balancing this extremely lopsided thread.
      Most of the students at the school of Architecture that I went to in England in the late 1970's were Persian. They were similar to me in most respects, they drank, smoked, we played chess together, cards, I even taught two of them to drive in my trusty VW beetle.
      When the Shah was deposed, and Persia became Iran, some of the lads failed their exams deliberately, so that they could spend another year in England. THEY knew what was coming! God knows what became of them when they went home!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 09:37 PM

World Tribune.com, the site linked to above, has some very interesting things to say about Bush's overall position. An excerpt:

"In the eyes of the establishment, the Bush tactics, the Bush agenda, and Mr. Bush himself are over the top. The president is girding for battle. He's aiming to consolidate control of his administration, drive out recalcitrant (read: establishment) elements, and make the permanent government heel, especially at the CIA and State Department. He's kept his White House staff intact, from political adviser Karl Rove to speechwriter Mike Gerson to budget chief Josh Bolten, as a kind of headquarters cadre. The White House aides who've departed, such as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and counsel Alberto Gonzales, were dispatched to take over Cabinet agencies.

Mr. Bush's agenda is post-Reagan in its conservatism, which means it's more far-reaching and thus more threatening to the establishment. Mr. Bush would not only reform Social Security and allow individuals to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in financial markets, he would also revamp the entire federal tax code and fill the Supreme Court with judicial conservatives. And those are only his domestic plans. In foreign affairs, Mr. Bush would make aggressive efforts to spread democracy around the world the centerpiece. The foreign policy élite s aghast."

---

The balance of the article, which is strongly conservative, can be found on this page. It essentially describes Bush as a bold insurgent, an unusual piece of positioning. I do not support the viewpoint of the author, myself, but I think he is intelligent and is doing a good job of saying what he sees. I don't understand, given the departure six cabinet members, how he can say that Bush has kept his cadre intact. But I'll cut him some slack on that issue.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 09:26 PM

HTC:

Thanks for a most interesting article. Assad Homayoun is an interesting feller, a man who was succeeding under the Pahlavi regime and would therefore like nothing more than to resurrect a similarly secular regime that took pride in its Persian legacy. Who can blame him for that?

I understand that those who do not approve of the war may seem to you to be supporting the evil of fanatacism, but from my point of view our fanatacism has rushed us into a war chosen at the wrong time, fought in the wrong place, and started for unclear and in some ways misguided reasons. Above all, my objection is to the violence that the decision to go to war has suddenly brought down on innocent heads, especially those crippled and killed and ruined by calamity directly caused by war fighting. What we support is not the extremes of Msulim fanatacism -- who do you think we are? -- but the ineluctable advanced of reason and communication among reasoning people as the ultimate power of any social deal.

As for Bush's position about Iran, it is tricky, but I think his best bet is to inspire the community of nations to send Iran to Coventry if she acts anti-social.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:29 PM

Just pointing out the things that Bush is trying to eliminate by declaring Iran, Iraq and N Korea the Axis of Evil.

Other people bitch about everything he does and try to discredit him at every turn, therefore supporting such evil things.

If he does anything about Iran he is wrong. If he does not do anything about Iran he is wrong.

This has been orchestrated by Iran and others with the unwitting help of Bush haters:

The re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush significantly affects the entire strategic balance in the Middle East, and particularly with regard to Iran.

The Iranian and Syrian governments, in particular, plus many nominally non-state, transnational players � such as al-Qaida, HizbAllah, and the like � geared much of their strategic posturing over the past few years to removing the Bush Administration in the U.S. This created its own dynamic, but, having failed, the positions and policies of these entities will now evolve.

HTC

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 07:31 PM

Well, obviously the flaws of fanatic Muslim practices are just the same as various perspectives on the current American government, right? There must be a link anywhere -- and if anyone can find a link that isn't there, it's a fanatic Bushian.

I take it your purpose in posting the above was to create hatred toward Muslims, Homey?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 06:15 PM

Amos who puts his personal digs onto his posts, objects to the practice.

A 14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th, after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan.

HTC

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 04:35 PM

It is evident from the similarity in your HTML constructs and your spelling that one of you feels it necessary to use multiple identities, perhaps in order to hide from a two-way communication. Tsk, tsk. That's self-defeating.

I am not "biggoted" in any way I know of. I am definitely opposed to many of the things President Bush stands for. But that's a matter of rational policy. I think he may be mentally unsound, but that is merely a hypothesis. Comparing me to a person accused of Klan-like racist remarks is quite unfair, but not surprising -- it is the kind of inaccuracy that typifies your contributions to this thread, often inserted solely for the purpose of insult or abuse.

The purpose of this thread is to gather for viewing salient perspectives concerning Bush and his administration from others, wherever they may be found.

If you would like to start a separate threat to call me names in, feel free to give that a shot.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 12:08 PM

Is Amos as biggoted as John Sylvester?

The Faith Based Leadership Council (FBLC), a coalition of more than 200 black clergy and members of the faith-based community, wants the Mid-West Family Broadcasting Group to dump the WTDY-AM host for last week referring to Rice as "Aunt Jemima" and Powell as "Uncle Tom.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Harpo
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 11:25 AM

This great article proves that it's time for Amos to jump on the bandwagon with the normal people:

November 23, 2004 -- WASHINGTON — President Bush is heading into his second term, with his job approval rising to 55 percent, a new poll shows.

Bush's post-election bounce and growing public support come at a time when 72 percent of Americans say the country is deeply divided, according to the nationwide Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll.

Bush has been seen as a polarizing president, but his job approval is at 55 percent while disapproval is down to 42 percent — his best job rating since last January, when he was still riding the boost from Saddam Hussein's capture.

In one noteworthy finding, Americans oppose, by more than 2 to 1, a constitutional amendment to let a foreign-born U.S. citizen like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger run for president.

Harpo

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 09:28 AM

Curious what a personal stance you lot seem to take. Why is that?

Perhaps you approve of bloodletting in various forms. I dunno. In any case look for more biased lying left wing pinko liberal swill from this pinko commie punk America hater in the near future.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Opie
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 10:05 PM

Amos in it up to his neck:

Liberal War against Conservatives a Quagmire

O

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 09:47 PM

Amos feels a certain kinship to this Bush hater:

An Exchange on HBO's On the Record with Bob Costas, May 9, 2003.

Michael Moore: "What happened to the search for Osama bin Laden?"
Bob Costas: "Obviously they're pursuing Osama bin Laden as we speak."
Moore: "Really? You believe that?"
Costas: "Yes."
Moore: "You do believe that?"
Costas: "Sure. And if they could find him, and perhaps they eventually will, they'd be gratified by that."
Moore: "You don't think they [the U.S. government] know where he is, huh?"
Bob Costas (astonished): "You think they know where Osama bin Laden is and it's hands off?"
Moore: "Absolutely, absolutely."
Costas: "Why?"
Moore: "Because he's funded by their friends in Saudi Arabia! He's back living with his sponsors, his benefactors. Do you think that Osama bin Laden planned 9/11 from a cave in Afghanistan? I can't get a cell signal from here to Queens! Alright, I mean, come on, let's get real about this. The guy has been on dialysis for two years. He's got failing kidneys. He wasn't in a cave in Afghanistan-"
Costas: "You think he's in Saudi Arabia?"
Moore: "Absolutely."
Costas: "Not Afghanistan, not Pakistan?"
Moore: "Well, could be Pakistan but it's, he's under the protective watch of those who have said put stop to this because-"
Costas: "Including, at least by extension, the United States? He's under the protective watch of the United States?"
Moore: "I think no, I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is and I don't think we're going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon."

JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 09:38 PM

Amos needs to spew his bush hatred on NPR. They welcome propagandists there.

NPR Paints Fullujah as "Holy Resistance" Against U.S. "Genocide"

WVB

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Werner
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 09:31 PM

Amos will shit his britches over this one:

The Yellowcake Con

the Butler report vindicates President Bush on the allegedly misleading "16 words" regarding uranium from Africa

WVB

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 09:31 PM

Amos

It's just that I find this all so frivilous. While you are looking for ways to detest a president who will be around 4 more years at the will of the people, I am just going to continue to have fun with the whole concept of how an intelligent person like yourself can waste his life.

So here we go again...............



























































































































































































































































































































































































































I love pussy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 09:19 PM

Andy Rooney? You do me great honor - a very funny man:

---

"Second year Fletcher student Jeremy Harrington asked Rooney to "skewer people outside our borders," to which Rooney deadpanned, "There's bound to be a conservative in every crowd."


Rooney responded by referring to the American failure to win the support of Iraqis and the world community in the Iraq war. He said the United States started the war "for good reasons," but he did not think the rest of the world agreed.


"We are in such a leadership position and I just don't feel we are leading as well as we could," he said. "We should try and sell ourselves, and try to convince the Iraqi people - with something other than guns - that we are here to help."


Rooney said he thought Iraq was "an ignorant society, not to be critical of them," a remark which was questioned later in his speech. Rooney defended the comment, saying that it is difficult to sell democracy in a country where few have access to the media and illiteracy is high, but acknowledged that "my attitude of the Iraqis is typical of the America I am complaining about."

He said Christian fundamentalism is a result of "a lack of education. They haven't been exposed to what the world has to offer."


Rooney said he also could not understand how "men who work with their hands voted for George Bush," and again attributing the phenomenon to a lack of education. "The labor force is conservative," he said. "How in the world did that happen?"


Rooney said that he hoped Bush's re-election would give him the "confidence" to end the war in Iraq. "I think if George Bush said tomorrow, 'I was wrong, I ask for an apology,' I bet the American people would thank him, and they would like him," he said.

---

Thanks, man.

As for old fart, hey, you came to the right website! The place is crawlin' with 'em!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 09:16 PM

Spending Bill Held Up by Tax Provision


Measure Lets Panels Examine Returns; Repeal Is Planned

By Dan Morgan and Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 23, 2004; Page A01

A $388 billion government-wide spending bill, passed by Congress on Saturday, was stranded on Capitol Hill yesterday, its trip to the White House on hold as embarrassed Republicans prepared to repeal a provision that could give the Appropriations committees the right to examine the tax returns of Americans.

Top GOP lawmakers disavowed the provision, expressed surprise that it was in the bill, and blamed both the Internal Revenue Service and congressional staffs for incorporating it into the omnibus spending package funding domestic departments in 2005.

(From the Washington Post)

My, how embarassing!! How do you suppose that got in there?!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Poindexter
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 09:09 PM

Amos and this old fart are like two peas in a pod:

There's no question they wanted to run it because it was negative towards Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 08:58 PM

Amos will surely fall for this one:

Arafat is alive, the only question is where

Z

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 08:54 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 08:13 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/opinion/23tue2.html

A nEw York Times Editorial:

Dispensing with legislative niceties like holding hearings or full and open
debate, President Bush and the Republican Congress have used the cover of a
must-pass spending bill to mount a disgraceful sneak attack on women's
health and freedom.

Tucked into the $388 billion budget measure just approved by the House and
Senate is a sweeping provision that has nothing to do with the task Congress
had at hand - providing money for the government. In essence, it tells
health care companies, hospitals and insurance companies they are free to
ignore Roe v. Wade and state and local laws and regulations currently on the
books to make certain that women's access to reproductive health services
includes access to abortion.

---

Slimy, huh?:

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 07:24 PM

The International Herald Tribune has some thoughtful comments by Ed Morris on the Bush Administration's current war.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 07:19 PM

From a posting to a Democratic site:

"Here's your ethical superiority


Today, House Republicans decided that since their ethics-challenged leader Tom Delay stands a real chance of being caught by their own ethics rules, it would probably be best to change them before they actually had to abide by them. So they did. Republican members of the House changed a rule put in place to show their "ethical superiority" in the early 1990's that forbade Republicans from serving in leadership positions if indicted for a crime that could put them in jail for more than two years.


Delay is at the center of a campaign finance scandal that has already led to the indictment of three people, so Republicans certainly had reason to worry. But instead of standing up and truly showing some type of ethical conscience, Republicans changed the definition of what they felt a leader should embody. No longer is a Republican leader held to a standard that says: "if you're indicted, you're not qualified to lead us." They're now held to a standard that says: "if you're indicted, we'll take thirty days to decide if the indictment was warranted, and even then we'll probably let you stay around."


It's amazing what happens when the ethically bankrupt are in control of their own ethical standards."

Posted by Josh McConaha @ 08:52 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 06:07 PM

DougR:

Don't put words in my mouth, young feller. I said they were popular views, not evidence. The only thing they evidence is what people are thinking. First the people who are writing them, and second, an indeterminate percentage of their readers.

I finds it curious that so many qualify as detesting Bush. Maybe he's despicable?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 12:34 PM

Amos, your post of 22 Nov. 11:52: Again, you offer "evidence" based on news stories or editorials or columns from newspapers who clearly detest Bush. That's hardly an argument to offer without bias.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 12:06 PM

Where is the terrorist raining camp in Afghanistan with the aircraft to practice a hijacking in? Is there one anywhere in the middle east besides Iraq?

There are satellite photos of the aircraft to prove that it was and still is there. Did Saddam let Al Qaeda train there? While not conclusive, the majority of the evidence indicates he did.

If you conspiracy aficionados want to get really torqued up, there are people in the US and Canaduh that claim the US government flew the jet liners into the towers and the Pentagon to create an excuse to attack Iraq for the oil. You can join that group of "enlightened" individuals.

Zack

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 08:15 AM

Thanks for the kind thought, Boab. Given the analytical level and the irrational site appearing from some of the militantly minecephalic sorts in this part of the jungle, it is tempting.

The presence of Salman Pak has never been definitive, although it is the only indirect evidence that Iraq may have trained someone to hijack an airliner. When and where that hijacking occurred is not something anyone has been able to say. I don't understand why more was not made of Salman Pak amongst the Bushites during the rampup, when Bush was steering the nation deliberately into war while lying about his intentions and pretending no such decision had been made. Remember that?

There was a wonderful radio humorist who used to pretend he was a super-illiterate redneck and deliver diatribes against anything that crossed his sights. He ended every rant with the invocation, delivered in a heavy Georgian accent, "Whake Up, Amurrica!". He was just kidding of course. The death toll in Iraq, the creep corrosion undermining free speech, the insidiious contravention of free assembly, the invasive overtones of a fascistic reign, all prove that it is possible to get used to anything, as long as it doesn't disturb your peanut butter.

Some of us, anyway.

According to recent polls a small but clear majority of Americans believe that the Administration falsified the case for going in to Iraq and that their conduct of the invasion has harmed the war on terrorism.

Maybe "Whake Up Amurica" isn't too far off. You can't put all the people to sleep all the time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 04:12 AM

Amos---retire my friend. The piss pedlars are ganging up on you, and all others have decided that you're valiantly trying to swim in molasses.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 03:14 AM

Who got the 500th post then? I missed it!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: DougR
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 12:41 AM

Amos: "The Arizona Sun." What's that? Mainstream media? I don't think so.

If your refrences include those with the reputation of the "Arizona Sun" I fear they are still suspect.

But if spending the next four years dwelling on the loss makes your day, so be it. Enjoy!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Zack
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 12:29 AM

Here is a perfectly adorable article that proves Amos is a totally deranged sick little puppy:

The investigator picked by the CIA to replace David Kay as head of the U.S. team in Iraq hunting for weapons of mass destruction has told British reporters that he saw terrorists training near Baghdad in airplane hijack techniques resembling those used in the 9/11 attacks.

In a November 2001 account to the London Observer, Charles Duelfer, the former No. 2 United Nations weapons inspector who was appointed Thursday to head the U.S.'s Iraq Survey Group, corroborated the testimony of Iraqi military defectors who said they helped train radical Muslim recruits to hijack U.S. airliners aboard a Boeing 707 fuselage parked at the terrorist training camp Salman Pak.

At the time the London Observer reported:

"Duelfer said he visited Salman Pak several times, landing by helicopter. He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors. The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counter-terrorist training."

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter,'" Duelfer told the Observer.

"I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq," he added.

A month later Duelfer told USA Today, "We reported [the Salman Pak hijacking drills] at the time, but they've obviously taken on new significance" after the 9/11 attacks.

It's not clear whether part of Duelfer's new mandate as head of the ISG will be to pursue evidence tying Iraq to 9/11.

Duelfer told the Associated Press that CIA Director George Tenet assured him he wanted one thing: "That is the truth, wherever that lay."

Z

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 12:23 AM

Case for Iraq War Stronger Than Ever

U.S. satellite photos confirming the existence of a Boeing 707 fuselage that Khodada and his partner say was used as a hijacking classroom. U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who was tapped on Friday to succeed David Kay, corroborated their account.

A May 7, 2003, decision by Manhattan U.S.
District Judge Harold Baer, . . . The account of former CIA Director Woolsey, whose testimony was summarized by Judge Baer thusly:

"Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway."

JJ

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 11:52 PM

Here is a lovely list of excerpts from all over the world of writers viewing various aspects of the Bush administration. The Toronto Star, The Guardian, The Irish Review, The Boston Globe, the Economic Policy Institute, the New York Times, Yahoo News, and many others. I would say "popular views" is a fair description.

Have a look and decide for yourself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 11:13 PM

Johnjohn:

I commend you for at least offering a partially coherent assertion that might have some substance to it. Your colleagues could profit from a study of the difference.

But let me point out that each of the voices that seem to come out of the woodwork on this thread are asserting singular opinions. No-one has offered me any facts to counter the various points that have been made in the links I have provided.

Martin, your contributions are so frivolous and so irrelevant and meaningless that by rights they ought to be deleted, as they are obviously only there to make the thread hard to read. Your conclusions about my attitudes and so on are even worse -- groundless, ill-formed, ill-mannered and boorish, obviously the deep thoughts of a brutish mindset.

Stay well, it may be all you have going for you.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
From: GUEST,Johnjohn
Date: 22 Nov 04 - 10:39 PM

This quotation explains why people like Amos defeat their own purposes:

"For the first time in my life I voted for a Republican president. Maureen Dowd's Nov. 6 column, "Don't look for healing, reconciliation from this bunch," was offensive to me. I have two sons-in-law who are on active duty (one in Afghanistan) facing the reality of jihad every day, and her casual use of the term demeans their service.

Dowd should realize that one of the reasons many former "blues" went "red" is the result of her (and others like her) over-the-top inflammatory remarks. Never have I read such disrespect directed toward our leaders. Four years of "stupid, liar, cuckoo clock, deserter" was all this former blue voter could stand. Somehow, there must be a standard of decency applied to disagreement."

DIANE WOODARD
Houston Texas

Civil discourse needs a layer of grace
"Maureen Dowd's Nov. 6 column, "The red zone, a blue puddle," insulted anyone who values balanced journalism. Before Ms. Dowd next sits at her keyboard she should avail herself of a sense of proportion and a cold shower.
    Cape Codders gave 43 percent of their votes to George Bush, and the conservatives I know are neither "imbeciles" nor right-wing vulgarians trying to hijack the republic. We hope to hold the line on taxes, trim the bureaucracy, protect the homeland with a muscular foreign policy and restore a whiff of morality to the public square without imposing a faith-based doctrine on our fellow citizens.
    Most of us are civic-minded souls who pay our taxes, attend church and rake our leaves like everyone else. Some of us even hold some liberal views such as supporting gun control, a safety net for the disadvantaged and equity for women in the workplace. We do not demonize John Kerry or his supporters. And we wish both sides would provide a layer of grace over our civic discourse.
    We applaud the "Healing the Body Politic" session sponsored by the Cape Cod Interfaith Alliance but think it sad that our civic life has come to that."

    FRANK TIVNAN
    East Dennis

JJ