|
13 Sep 01 - 02:00 PM (#549004) Subject: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: M.Ted This AM, on CSPAN, I heard a tearful, nearly hysterical woman whose niece was in the WTC, say that GW Bush has managed to systematically alienate the rest of the world and that, if he wasn't president, we wouldn't have been attacked. Later, while eating a my lunch at a North Carolina Style BBQ, I heard others discuss the same idea, adding that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks, and that he was getting back at Bush because of what his father had done, and that this never would have happened if the Senior Bush had gone in and taken Hussein out in the first place-- I know that we have enemies, I know we have ignored them to a great degree, and that we should have been better prepared than we were. I also know that I don't really know why what happened happened, or what led up to it, and that I may not ever really know. However, after the initial shock, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, people begin pointing fingers, and the President of the United States, even in times of crisis, is no longer immune to criticism--Any and all thoughts are welcome-- |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:09 PM (#549017) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Lonesome EJ Some people would witness a nun being mugged and blame it on the Catholic Church because of the Inquisition. I didn't vote for the President, but he is the President, and he seems to be doing a pretty good job in an extraordinary situation. If Sadam is involved, he'll reap at the very least what he has sown. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:10 PM (#549018) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: kendall It is well known what I think of the Bushes. It would be so convenient to blame them for this horror show, but, alas, it just aint true. It's not just the cutback in funding, the other problem is, those gangs are extremely difficult to infiltrate. Plus, we have had an aversion to associating with low lifes. Maybe now we will get real. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:11 PM (#549020) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,X-Ed GW ain't even been in office a year. WHY HAVE WE EVER BEEN ATTACKED?! There are those who hate freedom and prosperity I guess. BUT WHO KNOWS, WHO CARES. It happened. If anyone is to blame it is Billy Boy Clinton. He sat back getting oral pleasures as terrorist attacks went on against the U.S.A for 8 years of HIS watch. Debate that! How about the U.S.S. Stark? How about 2 U.S.Embassies in Africa, just to name a few. There were many more. Good ol' Ronny avenged the deaths of 20(?) U.S. servicemen that were killed in a bar in Berlin back in '86. We ain't heard from Col. Kaddaffi since. Clinton is to blame. He has single handedly killed national pride and readiness. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:17 PM (#549029) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Justa Picker No. The terrorists are to blame. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:20 PM (#549035) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: mousethief This is in the same bucket as those people who are attacking random Arabic-speaking or Islamic people. People need something to lash out at, and they find the wrong target and lash out with all their might. For this woman, it was Bush. For some people (alas!) it is their fellow citizens who happen to be Arabic and/or Islamic. It's an unfortunate and misguided way to deal with the grief we all feel. Alex |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:31 PM (#549045) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: jmdornan We as a nation can not start pointing fingers at home, it has happened let's deal with it in the most swift and educated way. I did not vote for bush, and do not like most of what he stands for, but he has earned a bit a respect from me for not jumping on the first accusation, and trying to bring the right people to justice. IF we keep our wits about us we wiill cme out on top of this even stronger. If we start to point and accuse the terrorists have won in the most detrimental way by dividing us. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:32 PM (#549046) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: annamill I don't know... I just read an article on CNN about this man's grudges against the US and he has held them for some time and has orchestrated several attacks on our guys and gotten away with it. Go here (I can't do blue-clicky things) and read for yourself. Then answer me this question.. If he has done all these things to us and others, why is he still around to cause Tuesday?? http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/262/default.asp?realname=CNN&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecnn%2Ecom%2F&frameid=1&providerid=262&uid=44175 Please respond and let me know how you feel about all this happening prior to Tuesday. You tell me. Who's at fault?? Love, annamill |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:34 PM (#549049) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Amos America was not targeted because it represents freedom; that is absurd. It is perceived as the strong ally of Israel. Palestine wishes fervently to push Israel back into the sea. They have wished for this since 1945. It is probably not remembered that the vast majority of the land that is Israel, excluding the Gaza strip and West Bank, was uninhabitable desert when it was bought up in 1914-1928 under the efforts of Balfour and Rothschild as a solution to the eternal problem of a home nation for Jewish people everywhere. It was arid desert, and it was willingly sold. When the nation of Israel was formed, if memory serves, Arabs resident on the land were invited to stay and help build the nation. Many preferred to leave. The Isralis have built a nation from a desert on land that was bought and paid for originally; the repeated efforts over the last fifty years by Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, etc to rid themselves of their neighbors have only yielded military and territorial losses under conditions of war for the initiators -- not once but three times or more. There is no explanation for the desire to "get rid of Israel" and to do so would only cause a serious recidivism in the ability and economy of the region. But the obsession continues. A |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:50 PM (#549062) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR No, Bush is not to blame. I guess we really should not be too surprised that it did happen in view of other terriorist attacks we have suffered over the past seven or eight years. The only difference is the devistation took place on American soil, and the loss of life is so much greater. We live in such a free society, and move so freely from one place to another, it is not surprising either that the Terriorists were successful in high-jacking the airliners. We have just lost a way of life I suspect. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why bin Laden, who has been indicted for terriorist crimes against the U. S. has not been captured long before this. If the U. S. can put a man on the moon, we should be able to capture that outlaw. DougR |
|
13 Sep 01 - 02:57 PM (#549072) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: M.Ted Unfortunately, in the midst of crisis, people do point fingers, though, and generally at their favorite non-crisis targets--In times of crisis, others tend to join in demonstrations of anger which they would otherwise ignore---
|
|
13 Sep 01 - 03:26 PM (#549093) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow No obviously Bush isn't to blame for wehat's happened. He'll have to carry the responsibility for whatever happens next, and I don't think any same person would envy him that. It's frightening looking at him though. He just does not look up to it. And I'm not saying that because I disagree with his politics, but because he looks like a like a terrified learner driver at the wheel of a runaway vehicle.
When the nation of Israel was formed, if memory serves, Arabs resident on the land were invited to stay and help build the nation. Many preferred to leave. This is not really the time to get into debates about Palestine and Israel, Amos. But perhaps that sentence needs to be balanced. "Preferred to leave" needs to be put in the context of, for example, what happened at Deir Yassim - and that link is to an account written by an Israeli who grew up in a Zionist family. "Preferred to leave" is the kind of language Milosevic used in relation to Kosovo. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 03:44 PM (#549109) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Bob P But doesn't it really work that the current bad guy is really just that? Like hollywood's box office heroes, who the top guy actually is inconsequential. Whether it's Cruise or Ford means nothing. It's the state of the movie industry that's important. Whether it's Komeanie, Who's sane, or Beenladen is similarly nothing. It's the state of the Terrorism industry that's important. If you think that Cruize or Ford are critical to the health of the movie industry, that's nuts. If you think one of dem arabicidiots is critical to the health of the terrorism industry, that's nuts too. Remove "Bin" and a lookalike will pop up-fast a webwindow. The only certain thing is that we'll all trust each other a bit less, and flying will (hard to believe, I know) be less enjoyable; perhaps this time a whole lot less enjoyable. But we'll put up with it and cast blame on some fallguy. Until memory fades; which it always does (curbside checkin bans and federal airmarshalls are both hold overs from the last go-round).
|
|
13 Sep 01 - 05:35 PM (#549228) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Bill D I have read these threads for 3 days now, and all I am really sure of is that I have a better list of who I would and would not care to live next door to....... |
|
13 Sep 01 - 05:45 PM (#549243) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Sorcha Of course he will. Whoever is President at the time of cisis recives blame as well as whatever kudos there are to be had. Goes with the territory. Meanwhile....
I'm not exactly "fed up" but I am emotionally exhausted and tired of the war-mongering, hate mongering, trolling and flaming. Not only here on Mudcat, but also in the media.
I have heard all the news reports and recieved all the e mails I want on the subject for a few days-- I need space to think and I can't do that when the subject is worn out until we have hard news. I am tired of hash and re-hash just for something to say. I am tired of being emotionally and visually assaulted by something I have done everything I can do about. If you don't hear much from me for a few days, go look in the Lyr Req threads. That is where I will be. Not in any of these others. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 05:48 PM (#549246) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Justa Picker Doug R, (I cannot, for the life of me, understand why bin Laden, who has been indicted for terriorist crimes against the U. S. has not been captured long before this. If the U. S. can put a man on the moon, we should be able to capture that outlaw.) If and when, there is irrefutable and absolute proof that Bin Laden was the mastermind, I am in complete agreement that he and his henchmen should be hunted down like dogs and either extradited to the U.S. to stand trial, or terminated on the spot, as to save taxpayers the expense of a trial, and deprive the media of sensationalizing the story. BUT, just how to you propose we get our hands on him? I am sure like Sadam, Arafat and others who are constantly looking over their shoulders, he changes locations every couple of hours. We have no reliable ground intelligence in Afghanistan to enhance our technological tracking capabilities. Further, I cannot see the Taliban extraditing him, nor any of the neighbouring countries which border on Afghanistan allowing U.S. and Nato troops on their soil as a staging platform. Keep in mind there are several Russian republics, as well as Pakistan, China and Iran bordering it. Cruise missles aren't gonna do it...and I'm extremely skeptical that any sort of ground invasion will have anything but disatrous consequences for the U.S. and Nato. Do they honestly think they can "surgically" do, what the Russians failed to do over an 8/9 year protracted period? I want to see whoever is responsible for Tuesday dealt with, but frankly I cannot even fathom at this point how it will successfully be undertaken, nor what incentive could possibily be offered to the Taliban to extradite him willingly. Can't reason with fanatics. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 05:50 PM (#549251) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow Flying. We're due to go on holiday in a couple of weeks time. At least we can be sure that the security checks will be a lot more thorough than they are sometimes - and it won't be an internal American flight of course, which is something else to try to reassure myself.
Personally I'd like to find an airline that made all its passengers strip before boarding, and lent them pyjamas to wear for the flight. That even might make flying more enjoyable. But I'd far sooner go by train.
|
|
13 Sep 01 - 06:03 PM (#549266) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,Hille Bush isn't to blame - this had probably been planned for years (altho' Saddam Hussein is probably enjoying the discomfiture of the son of the man who bombed him). However, on a slightly different note I just read this in the Daily Telegraph: "...America is seeking to assemble political support from Nato, The UN Security Council and Mislim countries for the "war" against terrorism. President Bush's father used the UN successfully to give moral authority to the war against Iraq but it is unclear how the UN will be involved in this crisis. Last night the General Assembly opened its annual meeting in NY, but it may be harder for the President, widely depicted as a "unilateralist" who tore up international commitments on climate change and arms control, to get its support" So, not to blame obviously - but might Bush have shot himself in the foot? |
|
13 Sep 01 - 06:07 PM (#549273) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow might Bush have shot himself in the foot? Not if he was aiming at it... |
|
13 Sep 01 - 06:13 PM (#549286) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: MAV Well, well, well,
WOW! What a discussion, I just can't believe it, and believe it or not I have nothing to add.
Thanks folks, I'll be slipping quietly away I guess.
**************************************************
Sorcha, go soothe and comfort your mind body and soul, one can only tolerate so much stress.
McGrath;
Personally I'd like to find an airline that made all its passengers strip before boarding, and lent them pyjamas to wear for the flight. That even might make flying more enjoyable
Especially if they were all tall buxom models eh?
(Sorry)
mav out
|
|
13 Sep 01 - 06:24 PM (#549298) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Amos My aplogies for drawing simplistic conclusions without enough homework. I have tried fro days to understand the real roots of the battle between Palestine and Israel and I confess I am baffled. I don't usually buy superficial explanations, but I'm in the market for a good one, as long as it will hold water! A. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 06:27 PM (#549303) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR BillD, ya' never know, we might ALL be good neighbors! McGrath: clean your Telly tube. Most folks over here that are commenting on American TV seem to feel George W. is doing a pretty good job, and don't appear to see the weakness in his appearance you have noted. He can't be blamed for this thing, but I'm sure he is aware that he will be held accountable for how he handles things from here on out. Mav: you got nothing to say? I'm apalled! I do like your idea about the pajamas though (assuming the passengers on the plane are all as you described them). Hille: from reports on Television I've seen "W" seems to be doing pretty well in gaining cooperation from other world leaders. I dont' know what you are seeing from your vantage point, of course. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 06:29 PM (#549308) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR The Wall Street Journal poll just came out. Bush has 80% approval rating, McGrath, for the way he is handling this crisis. Clean your TV tube, friend! DougR |
|
13 Sep 01 - 06:31 PM (#549313) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Armen Tanzerian I'm sure come three years from now, certain goose-stepping Bushites will be claiming that anything wrong is still Clinton's fault. But to get a slightly more sane view, here is what an actual journalist, headquartered in Jerusalem has to say:
...a few cell-phone threats from Osama bin Laden had prompted President Bush to withdraw the F.B.I. from Yemen, a U.S. Marine contingent from Jordan and the U.S. Fifth Fleet from its home base in the Persian Gulf. This U.S. retreat was noticed all over the region, but it did not merit a headline in any major U.S. paper. That must have encouraged the terrorists. Forget about our civilians, we didn't even want to risk our soldiers to face their threats.
Reagan got 240 Marines killed by leaving them in a ridiculously vulnerable spot in the Middle East, Clinton got chased out of Somalia. But neither one of those men would have allowed his "handlers" to fly him anyplace but straight back to Washington after an attack like this. Regardless of the hastily-concocted cover stories, what the world saw was a confused puppet reading from cue-cards, instead of the leader we need. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 06:44 PM (#549331) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: kendall Ex ed, how far back do you want to go? Here is a fact for you. None of this caper could have been pulled off if the Sky Marshals had not been dis banded by the Nixon administration. Mark my words, they will be back. We are so good at locking the barn door after the horse is stolen. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 06:53 PM (#549346) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Nemesis DougR - as you say he's doing a good job with World leaders - even Ghaddafi has condemned this - apparently acts of retribution are acceptable but random acts of mass destruction aimed at innocent people are not. Equally a lot of them could be thinking "Oh, shit!" However, the UN is a different kettle of fish (altho' it shouldn't be) |
|
13 Sep 01 - 07:01 PM (#549354) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: kendall Hey Doug and MAV, I'm a little surprised that neither of you have commented on the fact that I passed up a chance to piss on GWB. Especially when certain of us are still living in the past and blaming Clinton. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 07:04 PM (#549360) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: MAV Damn it,
I'm trying to slip quietly away. But neither one of those men would have allowed his "handlers" to fly him anyplace but straight back to Washington after an attack like this
NEITHER DID HE!!!
How would you know? The US has never been attacked in modern times. The White House and Air Force One were targets and this type of action is well known to be the S.O.P. in case of an act of war on US soil.
The President WAS back in DC that very day. The Secret Service have their standing orders and that entails keeping the President alive.
The President has unanimous support from the Congress, 85 or so percent approval poll numbers and even the backing and support of President Clinton.
mav out |
|
13 Sep 01 - 07:10 PM (#549372) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Gareth Will Bush be blamed ? - probably. Should Bush be blamed ? - No ! From this side of the Pond (East) the fact that Af'stan is not flat and black and glowing in the dark (at the time of posting) gives us some hope that cool and level heads are still in charge. I am no great lover of Bush, but to critisize him or his advisors, for putting the man under protection against a perceived threat is not cowardley, its common sense. A politically decapitated nation at this time endangers us all. Gareth |
|
13 Sep 01 - 07:11 PM (#549377) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Gareth Will Bush be blamed ? - probably. Should Bush be blamed ? - No ! From this side of the Pond (East) the fact that Af'stan is not flat and black and glowing in the dark (at the time of posting) gives us some hope that cool and level heads are still in charge. I am no great lover of Bush, but to critisize him or his advisors, for putting the man under protection against a perceived threat is not cowardley, its common sense. A politically decapitated nation at this time endangers us all. Gareth |
|
13 Sep 01 - 07:38 PM (#549405) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: M.Ted The CIA agent who ran the American operation in Afghanistan, and who was Bin Laden's handler, was interviewed by Dan Rather last nite--he said that, while he is evil, and there is every justification for getting rid of him, Bin Laden isn't the mastermind that he is portrayed as being--He said that, as the Taliban have denied BL's involvement, it will be easy to act against them, as long as BL is the guilty party, but he is skeptical that BL is the final answer--He also said, a bit obliquely, that we should remember that "if you strike at the King, you have to kill him."-- |
|
13 Sep 01 - 07:56 PM (#549434) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: toadfrog Gee, of course, Bush should not be blamed, any more than it was right to blame Jimmie Carter for the economic problems of his time. People did, though. One thing, though. We need a leader now who can unite the American people, and forge close ties with foreigh countries, especially the one our sensible friend McGrath lives in. And we have an ultra-partisan leader who specializes in dividing people, and who steadfastly stiffs and ignores our allies. Maybe he will now change his ways and do a fine job from here on in. But his past record isn't good. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 08:11 PM (#549446) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: BH This was planned a great time prior to Bush achieving (by the courts) the Oval office. I do, however, believe he did want to get back to DC and show leadership---which is difficult when you call the terrorists--"folks". The real problem is with our complacency and trying to do security on the cheap as opposed to El Al. Never--Never a hijacking. I have been at Ben Gurion airport---you get out on time---but you are damned well searched. And, on the plane---a contingent of armed(well hidden behind a curtain of 20 or so seats)---what we would call (and were supposed to implement years ago) Sky Marshals with weapons. The time=---sadly---has come. It came years ago. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 08:12 PM (#549448) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: CarolC Past actions aside, I was heartened today when I saw Bush speaking at a press conference or something. It looks like the man is having to grow up pretty fast. And I saw some of the man's humanity showing for the first time (in my experience), when it looked like it was all he could do to keep himself from breaking down and openly weeping. Maybe there is hope for this country. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 08:49 PM (#549483) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow Honest it's not politics. I was looking at the box and seeing Bush and then seeing Colin Powell. I'd feel a whole lot safer if the latter were in charge.
In historical terms it seems to me that you've got Coolidge at a time you need a Roosevelt. Either Roosevelt.
The best hope I can see is that Bush seems to give the impression of a man who is aware of his limitations and is willing to delegate. I remember what Churchill said of Attlee. "A modest man - with much to be modest about." (Which wasn't fair on Attlee - maybe it'll turn out not to be fair on Bush.)
|
|
13 Sep 01 - 08:55 PM (#549490) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: kendall It wasn't that long ago that if you traveled by stage coach, you had a man up on the high seat with a loaded shotgun. History does repeat itself. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 10:02 PM (#549542) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: InOBU Well, seems to me that the boy has not spent much time in DC since he was elected. When this happened, he was reading to kids, something usually done by first laddies. If we had a president in the oval office, perhapes when he was told the large number of hijackngs, he would have scrambled jets. Obviously one would not shoot one down just because it was hijacked. But as they were all converging on places like NY and DC, one would be at the ready, then, after the first hit, one had 15min. to decide to do the terrible thing - to shoot it down to save others... Well, the dim witted boy, kept reading to the kiddies. Do I blame him, no. I do wish we had a full time president with more sence though. Larry |
|
13 Sep 01 - 10:28 PM (#549568) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Paul from Hull Hmmmm.... InOBU, I cant say I've been greatly impressed by Bush, nor was I by his Father when he was in Office... I'm with McGrath when he says that he would feel better were Colin Powell in charge. My point is, however, that I think you are maybe judging GWB a little harshly when you suggest that he is a 'part-time President. For all he doesnt LOOK good to me, if you see what I mean, I think he has shown good judgement in the last day or so, under what might seem to be heavy pressure from public opinion to strike back swiftly. He does well to wait & let more & more backing & International support come flooding in. (Just the opinion of one Brit who probably doesnt know enough about Bush to be entitled to comment) |
|
13 Sep 01 - 11:06 PM (#549599) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Toad: catch up. GW is uniting world leaders. You got television? BH: Ditto. Kendall: Hey! How about the two of us becoming "Flying Marshalls?" I've ALWAYS wanted to ride on a stage coach! We could have a ball, and we are in the latter stages of life anyway (also the ladies would probably love us in our dashing uniforms). Geeze, you don't suppose they would make us wear civvies do you? Larry: you are a sweet man. God Bless. McGrath, Paul: time to make out your wish list for "next time" but face it, Bush is boss. :>) DougR |
|
13 Sep 01 - 11:14 PM (#549608) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: catspaw49 I think we are all fortunate to have Colin Powell where he is. This man, regardless of any politics, is a leader. I gotta' say that Dubya' is making some right moves coalition-wise and if he can pull it off and get past the "kill 'em all and sort it out later" crap, then he will do himself well as a statesman. Time will tell. I think the comment that "he's growing up fast" was appropriate. I throw this out for the opinion it is.........I saw a major change in his attitude and in his face after he toured the Pentagon. He saw the burn victims in the hospital today and again I think I saw womething different. Tomorrow he may be in New York and perhaps the sight there will continue the process. I only hope that he still relies on Powell who obviously knows that it will be a marathon and not a sprint to end terrorism. I also saw Bill Clinton on the streets of New York today, talking with the people with the pictures of their loved ones. Bill looks good.....but the pain in his face and the compassion were quite real. I was glad to see him out there since he has no poltical ax and the folks on the street were encouraged by him too. If Bush had real sense, he'd enlist Clinton's aid as his representative in New York........Good for New York and good for GW, but i doubt that he can get passed the past....He may not be politically or personally mature enough to ask Clinton for something like that. Perhaps I'm wrong...... We are all to blame for this because we have never put the emphasis on stopping the terrorism that has been escalating for forty years. The problems with the FAA have been well documented too, but we allowed the FAA to lean towards promoting aviation rather than safety. More to the point, we have elected to promote our own agendas rather than build a true world peace which would have started the process we are starting now thirty years ago. Hindsight is perfect and perhaps we can now plan for the future and then forecast the result.....and look at that result with that perfect vision of hindsight. We need to act wisely, not quickly, and we need to be sure the result is worth the effort we will have to give. Spaw |
|
13 Sep 01 - 11:22 PM (#549619) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Paul from Hull *G* |
|
13 Sep 01 - 11:26 PM (#549620) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll 'Spaw.Clinton does indeed have several political axes to grind. One is his legacy. It is in great need of repair. The other is Hillary's run for the Presidency in 2004 (you heard it here first, folks). This is GREAT advance PR. His face may well have showed pain, but I keep remembering Ron Browns funeral service, the video of him coming out of the church laughing, and the tears as soon as he say the cameras. troll |
|
13 Sep 01 - 11:33 PM (#549626) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll This from Neal Boortz. No citation. A DIFFICULT DECISION "We hear this morning that the Clinton Administration knew the exact location of Osama bin Laden in December of 2000. Now you will remember that Clinton made one military attempt to wipe out bin Laden earlier in his administration. Sadly, the attack failed. So --- here was another opportunity right at the end of his administration. But it was an opportunity not acted upon." Maybe the pain was guilt. troll |
|
13 Sep 01 - 11:35 PM (#549630) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Bert Hi Kendall, I noticed that you passed up the chance to piss on GWB, 'cos I feel exactly the same. I hate the smarmy so and so, but this wasn't his fault. In fact I think he's handling the situation quite well. |
|
13 Sep 01 - 11:43 PM (#549641) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: catspaw49 That bullshit troll.......I buried my best friend a few years ago and at any given time you'd find me laughing or crying. Clinton is making strong statements backing Bush and Bush would do well to do the same. Spaw |
|
13 Sep 01 - 11:44 PM (#549642) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Peg I don't blame the guy for what happened. I do think it is a shame that he flew from bunker to bunker during the first twelve hours of the crisis. I do not believe for a second that Air Force One was targeted; I think that tidbit was fabricated to explain why the president was flying around like a chickenshit. Clearly the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was headed for Washington, but the White House is a much more likely target than the presidential jet... I also wish he would offer more leadership along humanitarian lines. He needs to speak definitively and swiftly to the American people about the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim violence that is occurring. He needs to declare that this is unacceptable. I have not heard him do so, though his dad did make some comments about it this morning.
|
|
14 Sep 01 - 12:06 AM (#549659) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll You have your opinion,'Spaw and I have mine. Nowhere in my posts did I mention that Bush had said anything about EITHER of the Clintons so I'm not sure why you saw fit to include that tidbit in your rebutal.
Peg. Have you considered that the terrorists thought that Airforce One would fly straight to Washington when the news of the WTC was given to the President. Why else did the last plane fly nearly to Cleveland before turning back if not to arrive at Washington just as the Presidents plane got there. Why risk getting shot down by waiting if the White House was the real target. It would make much more sense to hit it at the same time as the Pentagon. troll troll |
|
14 Sep 01 - 12:11 AM (#549661) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Peg Troll; I suppose anything is possible. But I believe the Pentagon was targeted to be hit an hour after the first jet crash because it was thought the President would be in the situation room at that time...and the thwarted attack on the White House itself would perhaps be in hopes the President would make an address from the Oval Office. I have a feeling if these terrorists knew the president was going to be in Sarasota Florida they would have hit that, too...not because they hate George Bush but because assassinating the President would be just their style... like destroying the White House.
|
|
14 Sep 01 - 01:03 AM (#549696) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll They should have known he was there. It was common knowledge. I don't think the situation room is on the side they hit. Anyone? Hitting the White House would have had great symbolic value. I can't believe that they would have squandered a plane on the off chance that he would be in the oval office. The level of their coordination and intelligence (info) would indicate otherwise. troll |
|
14 Sep 01 - 01:20 AM (#549705) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Peg: had the President been in the Situation Room he would have been in the White House, not the Pentagon (or perhaps I'm confused about your post). Troll: don't pick on Peg. She has a beautiful voice. As to GWB not flying directly to D.C. from Florida, the job of the Secret Service is to protect the president. Evidently they felt it was too dangerous for him to return directly to Washington. According to reports I have heard, the SS wanted him to go to a bunker somewhere here in the West. He over-ruled them and insisted that he return to Washington. Sometimes one's personal animosity for a public figure (my weakness was Clinton) gets in the way of common sense, I think. DougR |
|
14 Sep 01 - 01:27 AM (#549709) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Oh, and Kendall, I just assumed you didn't dump on "W" because you are bucking for an Ambassadorship to some exotic country in the Southwest Pacific. Someplace where the ladies wear grass skirts, nothing on top, and you would dine nightly on roast suckling pig with all the fixins. DougR |
|
14 Sep 01 - 07:43 AM (#549849) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: kendall Doug, if they would guarantee me that position, I would promise not to piss on the shrubbery again! |
|
14 Sep 01 - 08:16 AM (#549862) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Skeptic Troll, And the CIA, through Pakistan, funded and trained bin Laden. George Sr. made the point that the reality of foreign policy is that sometimes you have to deal with people you don't like. A little damage control maybe? There is and will be plenty of blame to go around. None of it overly constructive. W has the responsibility. Whether he carries that out directly or through skillful delegation, as HST said, the buck truly stops in the Oval Office. What becomes the benchmark are results. As to Mr. Boortz: So what? George Sr never did strike at him and was also , as I recall, around when the CIA was shoveling money at him. (And at Saddam come to that). Reagan refused to acknowledge on his watch that Saddam was practicing genocide against the Kurds and actively supressed evidence of same. (Which had to send a confused message to certain groups in the mid-east). BTW, hs anyone heard or seen any comment from Saudi Arabia in the news? Regards John |
|
14 Sep 01 - 08:26 AM (#549873) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll Skeptic. You're being logical again. I'm gonna tell Mom. troll |
|
14 Sep 01 - 08:35 AM (#549881) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: catspaw49 Hey....troll? Sorry my friend....I just got a bit nutsy there and you were in the line of fire. I should have simply said that perhaps we can agree to disagree as friends often do. And speaking of disagree.......I find it really incredible that this attack would have been so well planned and yet would have picked Air Force one as a target. Reports coming in seem to believe that is indeed the case, or at least something along those lines. The Capitol Building, the White House....both are recognizable targets, as was the Pentagon (which may have been a secondary)......It's one thing to fly a big jet into a large building, but to try to either intercept or hit AF1, even on the ground in hopes of killing the President? If that was the case and the planning, then it was there worst idea and out of character with the rest of this attack...........just an opinion, Spaw |
|
14 Sep 01 - 08:39 AM (#549885) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow As you say Doug, "Bush is boss", you're stuck with him, we're stuck with, got to manage with him, and hope he comes through.
But, for all the polls, which of course will always rally in support of the man in the hot seat at a time like this, I can't help thinking most Rpublicans must wish they'd put a different Republican in this terrible position of responsibility. Including I suspect George Bush most of all.
|
|
14 Sep 01 - 10:20 AM (#549940) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Peter K (Fionn) Got to agree with McGrath, DougR - I've seen plenty commentators expressing unease about the way Bush comes across. I don't care much for Powell myself, but he is so obviously the better man that it's embarrassing. Likewise the NY mayor. But if a guy can get to be president just because of who his daddy was, that's the risk you take. He's winning international support, rightly, but that's because he's reading the right prompt cards. But there's no question of him being given carte blanche, by Britain or the rest of Europe, if only because of disquiet at his sheer lack of experience. Ok, it's not his fault he's only been in office eight months, but it's sure as hell his own fault that he was a drunken lout for most of his adult life.
|
|
14 Sep 01 - 10:23 AM (#549942) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll 'Spaw, does this mean I can still borrow your lawn mower? troll |
|
14 Sep 01 - 10:46 AM (#549969) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Jim the Bart Bush is not to be blamed, but the attitude that he has displayed since taking office is truly at the heart of what happened on Tuesday. The belief that America can and should act based solely on it's own interests, as if what takes place in other parts of the world cannot touch us, has earned us the sort of enmity that led to Tuesday's acts of terror. We cannot afford to let this lesson slip away amid our horror, and sorrow, and awakened patriotism. We are - and always have been - just one more part of the world. When we refuse to even acknowledge the suffering in other parts of the world added to, if not caused, by our pursuit of "the good life", we should not expect empathy from those who face terrorism on some scale every day of their lives. When we let hubris (overweaning pride) become our nation's public face, we are daring the gods (and devils) to respond. Blaming Bush (or Clinton, or Reagan, or whoever)achieves nothing. It simply gives us a convenient way to avoid facing the fact that our leaders reflect us. All we've wanted for decades was cheap oil and a booming economy - and not to be bothered by the taudry details of how what we consume effects the rest of the world. As great as this country is - and I still feel that there is none better - this cultural myopia is a serious flaw in our character. If any good comes out of this, let it be that we begin to work toward becoming the nation that we imagine ourselves to be. |
|
14 Sep 01 - 10:49 AM (#549977) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: catspaw49 Yeah troll, just after you cut my grass. Spaw |
|
14 Sep 01 - 11:07 AM (#549995) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll In your dreams, bucko. In your dreams. troll ***Coming Nurse!*** |
|
14 Sep 01 - 11:09 AM (#549997) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: M.Ted In some ways, it may be good that Bush is not very eloquent or dynamic, because it means that we don't expect it from him--Our American public figures tend to be preoccupied with projecting image, appearance, and noble sentiments--Once they have got the 10 or 15 seconds of air time, and everyone has decided that they conveyed whatever was appropriate, they go on to something else. Bush is wooden and unexpressive, and not very good at thinking on his feet. He must realize that it isn't possible for him to "spin" his way through difficult situations, and that he can't rely on his own impulses--Perhaps this is a good thing, because in a lot of ways, we got to where we are because our politicians talked too much, and acted too fast--
|
|
14 Sep 01 - 11:24 AM (#550012) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: LoopySanchez It's sad that people can't hide their political prejudice at a time like this. Admit it, most of you would be criticizing Bush regardless of what he did during the hours following the attacks. I guarantee you that if he'd been at the White House within minutes after the first two planes were crashed, you'd all be saying "That moron Bush is leader of the free world and doesn't have any more sense than to fly back to what could be the next target on the terrorists' list!" But since he chose instead to Move to two secure military installations during the time at which all remaining planes in the air were being diverted to the closest available airports, and didn't return to Washington until late that afternoon, you choose to essentially call him a coward. I sense a lot of European socialists who just still can't quite hide their prejudices at a time of crisis for our nation. They still have to insert jabs about Bush "reading the right words from his cue cards", etc... It's almost as if someone will have to take time out to slap them silly, shout "Gore lost, we're at war, and you'll have plenty of time to ridicule Bush after we have the heads of the terrorists responsible for these actions." If not one single Democrat in congress has stepped foward to criticize the President during this time, I'd think that's the least I could expect from a message board full of left-wing folkies. Guess I was wrong. Shame on me... Now, I openly invite everyone to go ahead and further prove my point for me by flaming me for the next day or two. I won't expect too many from the Euro-catters... they'll likely be busy trying to figure out where to spend the 50 BILLION DOLLARS America just handed out to keep their economies stabilized. |
|
14 Sep 01 - 01:43 PM (#550090) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Gareth Oi ... LoopyS Not all of us pinko lefties in the UK take that attitude ! (See previous post) Gareth |
|
14 Sep 01 - 01:48 PM (#550098) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: mousethief I am a vocal critic of Bush's stand on the environment, labor, tax cuts -- you name it. But I think he should have gone to NORAD (the defence bunker deep under the ground somewhere in the midwest) and waited it out. Taking the long way home, as he did, was far from foolish but a well-thought-out precaution. I understand his returning when he did, and think it was a noble gesture, but dangerous. Thankfully, it didn't prove disastrous. I see nothing to criticize so far in what he has done since 9/11. Alex |
|
14 Sep 01 - 02:30 PM (#550153) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow It's all academic, you're stuck with him anyway, as I said. As MTed said, so long as he is aware of his limitations and works within them, there could be advantages. Someone once said that the trouble with peopl who feel comfortable being war leaders is that they can be a bit too comfortable with it and look around for wars to be comfiortable in.
Whereas Bush looks very clearly like someone who is more comfortable when there's no war around. I hope he gets to be comfortable again as soon as possible. |
|
14 Sep 01 - 02:43 PM (#550160) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: M.Ted Loopy Sanchez is one of the most persuasive arguements against freedom of speech that Right Wing has ever come up with-- |
|
14 Sep 01 - 02:57 PM (#550173) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Bill D some people don't seem to realize that there are times when the Secret TELLS the president where to go and when it's been deemed safe again. Bush showed no cowardice...and I have no doubts about his genuine concern and compassion for the victims...I just would rather not trust his decision making process and his image as 'leader' and comforter in these times! As much as I was appalled with Mayor Guiliani in the past...HE has been the public figure to look up to in all this...Bush would do well to study him.... |
|
14 Sep 01 - 03:32 PM (#550191) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,Common sense Formula: The state of Israel + U.S. aid = permanent resentment and attacks by radical Islamic states. Any U.S. President who assumes that the state of Israel has the right to exist and then acts accordingly is going to draw the wrath of militants or opportunists who use the Palestinian situation to further their own agendas. A series of humiliating defeats by a small number of Israelis is something that many Arabs will never forget. This is a no brainer folks, either we withdraw support for Israel or we simply accept the fact that some friendships are rather costly. |
|
14 Sep 01 - 04:22 PM (#550231) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Greg F. Spaw: A plan to hit Air Force One with a 757, either on the ground or in the air, is about as likely to succeed as the missile shield defense fantasy. Or as our friends across the pond might say:"Pull the other one, its got bells on." Best, Greg |
|
14 Sep 01 - 04:36 PM (#550243) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,Get Real Sorry Bush-Bashers but what he did was textbook SOP. Instead of wasting your time arguing the point, why don't you just call a local office of the Secret Service and ask them. That should shut you up.... |
|
14 Sep 01 - 04:41 PM (#550248) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: LoopySanchez Ah, M.Ted, you certainly pointed out all the errors in my post with that one-line zinger, didn't you? Do you use that one on other occasions when you've been left with no verbal ammo to use upon being presented with fact? I guess it's much easier to say that my words should be banned than to actually point out where they're wrong...I'd guess that you can't, because you know I speak the truth about several on this message board who will attack anything and everything that isn't in line with a 100% leftist (or "centrist" as it is known to leftists) way of thinking, regardless of whether thousands of Americans lay missing in the rubble after multiple terrorist attacks as they're typing their smug little opinions and observations about our leader. If you'll keep in mind that I'm not entirely right wing, M.Ted, you'll understand me and my words better. If I were a true right winger, I'd be all for shoving religion, Christianity in particular, down everyone's throats, which I'm not. I'd be all for quarrantining AIDS patients on one end of an island somewhere, but I'm not (interestingly, that's exactly what Cuba does, but I digress). I'd be for allowing capitalism to pave the way for penalty-free pollution, clear-cutting, and other environmental abuses, but I'm not. I'd be for locking up non-violent drug offenders, but I'm not...If my assigning political labels to their cheap shots caused them to be offended, then let us consider this debate a draw, and return to the real issues at hand. If Bush comes up soft on the terrorists or shows the first real signs of cowardice, I will be the first person to take issue with him. If someone will remind me later, I have actually composed a rather interesting pair of lists I came up with that point out the major flaws in both major parties' ways of thinking, but I'll save that for another time in which politics is worth discussing. In the meantime, please understand that my earlier post is in response only to those who have yet to understand the necesssity in everyone putting aside the petty differences to unite in the common goal of winning the first war of this milennieum in quick fashion, with as few non-terrorist casualties as we can manage. |
|
14 Sep 01 - 04:54 PM (#550259) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Armen Tanzerian The Secret Service does not and cannot tell any president what to do, and their advice has been respectfully declined or ignored several times in the past. I believe there was an instance of this right after Reagan's shooting. George W. Bush could have easily said "Thanks for your input. Now get me a fighter escort, we're going back to Washington." Reagan or Clinton, very sharp politicians who thought for themselves, would have immediately understood the symbolism. |
|
14 Sep 01 - 05:15 PM (#550284) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST There is a difference between symbolism and acts of stupidity that could leave a nation without its leader in a time of crisis. I can't recall a president ignoring such SOP during a crisis of this magnitude. The logic I am hearing here is like accusing Colin Powell of cowardice just because he did not march at the head of the ground troops in Desert Storm. |
|
14 Sep 01 - 06:10 PM (#550341) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow I don't think the suggestion is cowardice, it's more perhaps that he isn't his own man. That when the security experts say no, as they always must tend to, he didn't have the confidence to overule them.
If that's true it mightn't be wholly a bad thing. I once read a book about riving by an experienced teacher. He said the the strongest reprimand he ever gavce pupils was to ask them to pull ove rto the side of the road and say "You are driving with a degree of confidence that your present level of ability does not justify."
I'd hate to see Bush driving with a degree of confidence his present level of ability does not justify. So maybe we should be grateful if he is maybe a bit diffident at times.
Here is an article about all this from today's Guardian - and here is a lengthy current discussion on their website - on whether he's up to the job |
|
14 Sep 01 - 06:15 PM (#550348) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: M.Ted Loopy, I really have a hard time taking your political views very seriously-they are an incoherent mishmosh of catchphrases and political babble--they generally add up to nothing, and I pretty much take them that way. The thing that I do take seriously is the offhanded class/race.and religious bigotry that you try to pass off as enlightened opinion. There are a lot of things that you have said in the Mudcat forum that mark you not as a conservative, not as a libertarian, but as a prejudiced and spiteful hatemonger-- Your rant above is typical--you put words in peoples mouths and attack them for things that no one has said but you-- In my day I've come across racists, bigots and hatemongers from all parts of the spectrum, from the Sparticists on the left to the John Birch Society on the right, and your text comes from their books-- |
|
14 Sep 01 - 06:23 PM (#550353) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Guest, I so desperately wish you had identified yourself, because I so wholeheartedly agree with you and I hate to agree with anonymous guests. I'm going to just assume that you are, indeed, a guest. Greg: the Secret Service evidently doesn't agree with you. Kendall: yeah, but would you vote for your new boss next time around? DougR |
|
14 Sep 01 - 06:23 PM (#550354) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,Frank Here's the problem. Bin Laden's following grew during the Gulf War because many of the Arab people were convinced that the US was only protecting the oil interests and did not care about them. The ruling faction of the Arab Republic has been despotic, autocratic and neglectful of it's people. Many are quite poor. Not everyone is a sheik. These people were iniated into a perversion of the Muslim religion because they thought it would help them. This is why there is a terrorist network in thirty countries headed by Bin Laden today. When Bin Laden went to Afghanistan, he brought many Arab followers with him . Our culpability (lack of concern for many of the poor people in the so-called Third World) will have to be looked at if there is to be any cessation of this ungodly terror. Trying to stop terrorism by bombing countries is like trying to smash a fly with a steamhammer. The development of alternative energy sources being explored would have reduced our addiction for oil. This might have stopped the need for a Gulf War. This might have circumvented the problem of the alienation of the poor Arab community. How did Bush Sr. (the oilman from Odessa Texas) stand on the issue of protecting oil? Frank
|
|
14 Sep 01 - 06:28 PM (#550362) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow I just had a look through that discussion thread in the Guardian I gave a link to. In spite of everything I thionk we do this kind of thing a lot better - largely thanks to Max's website design.
PMs perhaps, M Ted and Loopy?
|
|
14 Sep 01 - 06:58 PM (#550394) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Gareth I had the honour of a couple of beers with our local (Caerphilly) Member of Pariament tonight, Wayne David. He was hot foot from the Emrgancy Commons debate. Not much that I can add that is not covered in the public prints - but the aceptance is, there but...! went part of central London. At our Labour Party meeting tonite a 3 minutes silence was held. Loopy S - some of our members work in Tower Blocks, as well as "Tower". Many of our members fly as passengers. I have no doubt that from what Wayne said, both inside and outside the meeting, that the resolve of H M Government is to ensure that those responsible will be brought to justice - possibly sumary justice - but justice. And that the "carpet" bombing of Afghanistan villages will not be succesful in that aim. Gareth |
|
14 Sep 01 - 09:12 PM (#550477) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,chip2447 Sorry, if I'm repeating, but I haven't had time to read the entire thread. I heard a timeline of one of the "suspects" earlier today. He was living in the US and taking flying lessons and refresher training on flight sims in early 2000... This had been planned long before. |
|
14 Sep 01 - 09:49 PM (#550494) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) I don't like Bush, but luckily with our system of government, Congressional leaders, Cabinet officers, military leaders and others all have a voice and certainly contribute to any actions he may call for.The terrorists must be stopped, but they are only a symptom of the situation that exists because of the unfeeling actions of the western world. This has been addressed on several threads. This one is about blaming Bush. He is merely the last of a series of leaders who have approved stupid policies over many years that have earned the United States the emnity of millions of people. Leaders of the major European nations are equally at fault but luckily for them they have a lower profile. |
|
14 Sep 01 - 10:03 PM (#550499) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll Sorry MTed, but you don't come off as the soul of tolerance and understanding for the other guy's point of view either. I just reviewed the enitre thread and found only one post where Loopy stated an opinion and I found nothing that could be classed as class/race OR religious bigotry. He did put several statements of his opinions in quotation marks; eg....You'd all be saying;"That moron Bush..." Many people use this device with varying degrees of sucess. This hardly constitutes, in my view, a reason to abolish free speech. It DOES constitute a shining example of the logic fallacy; argumentum ad hominem; discredit the man and you discredit his argument. Just because a man is wrong much of the time, it does not mean that he is wrong all of the time. Even a blind pig will find an acorn if he roots long enough. Loopy's other long post was mostly an answer to YOUR post and,in my opinion he acquited himself fairly well. You have, in the past, posted some reasonably intelligent ideas. Go get some rest. Name calling serves no good purpose and alienates everyone. Loopy, cool the rhetoric. Feelings are running high right now. You can make your points in a less vehement way and still get them across. Keep this up and one of you is going to say something you'll regret. Apologizing is not an easy thing to do and crow tastes awful. As I know all too well. troll |
|
17 Sep 01 - 02:10 PM (#552425) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: LoopySanchez I thank you Troll, for your latest post. You took a very even-handed approach to calm the discussion MTed and I had begun. Our debate over political philosophy and false-labellings of racism can continue at a later time when politics actually matters. For anyone that cares, I added my two cents to the "Attacks on Arab-Americans Must Stop!" thread.
|
|
17 Sep 01 - 02:21 PM (#552440) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: LoopySanchez I do question, however, the "blind pig finding acorns" implication, suggesting that my opinions are less valid because they are voiced less often in this forum. Admittedly, I tend to be more vociferous and long-winded in my posts than most; I often have to, since I usually end up addressing several points at once, figuring that they will never be questioned by anyone else. I'm not perfect, far from it in fact. But as the lone dissenting opinion in this forum when it comes to politics, I do the best I can. |
|
17 Sep 01 - 02:38 PM (#552459) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll Loopy, you are hardly the "lone dissenting opinion" on the forum. There are more of us than you realize. My "blind pig' reference was not aimed at you but rather at the assumption that someone with whom you disagree must, of necessity, always be wrong. It's up to each of us to check the facts every time, especially if we find ourselves in disagreement with the posters point of view. Again, sorry if you thought it was aimed at you. It wasn't troll |
|
17 Sep 01 - 03:59 PM (#552543) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow Today George Bush declared in so many words that this is "a crusade against evildoers".
Crusade. Just think for a moment what that word means to Arab and to Muslims generally.
Only two explanations. The first would be that either George Bush, or whoever put those words into his mouth, is actually trying to alienate Muslims and make it harder for them to support whatever America does.
The other is that he is so monumentally stupid that he is a danger to all of us, and he is out of control.
In either case he is doing the one thing that the terrorists of last Tuesday must have hoped he would do. Saying that has very likely cost the lives of some Americans in the weeks and months ahead.
This isn't about politics. Oh yes, I don't like Bush, and I've always been astonished that so many people seem to find him likeable, and I don't like his politics either, but that's not the point.
I am certain that, if I had been an American and had voted for Bush, and if I admired his politics, and liked him enormously as a person, I would feel no different about it. Angry, scared, and betrayed. If I employed someone who made a grotesque mistake like that in a life and death situation like this, I would sack him or her immediately. |
|
17 Sep 01 - 04:05 PM (#552552) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: kendall Isn't it awful what they did to Marie Antoinnette? |
|
17 Sep 01 - 04:19 PM (#552562) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow A long time ago kendall, but comparable in stupidity. |
|
17 Sep 01 - 04:21 PM (#552564) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll Naw. She deserved it. Stuck-up little snob. troll |
|
17 Sep 01 - 04:36 PM (#552583) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow Deserving isn't anything to do with it. Stupid is. |
|
17 Sep 01 - 04:40 PM (#552587) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: M.Ted Loopy, I am sorry for lambasting you--when I get upset, I tend to go overboard, and this has been a bad week. We have family who live near the WTC--my sister-in-law's husband was missing for a while--he was trapped in the street below, and barely escaped the collapse--and, if not for a Dr.s app't, she would have been in the bldg--my wife and several family members knew Father Mike (the NYFD chaplin)--and several close friends have family members and co-workers missing-- Troll, Loopy tends to wind up and run off, which, as I see above, is a habit that he is aware of, rather than an indication of sociopathic tendencies--I was talking about comments that he has made in other threads that annoyed me. When I get wound up, I tend to unload stuff I've saved up, not necessarily germaine to the immediated discussion, possibly in a manner similar to the way that Loopy does--He acquits himself of my concerns, both admirably and directly in the ATTACK ON ARAB AMERICANS MUST STOP THREAD--
|
|
17 Sep 01 - 06:46 PM (#552673) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll M.Ted. No problemo. troll |
|
17 Sep 01 - 07:20 PM (#552700) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Still nit-picking I see McGrath. As I said in another thread where you brought up the issue of the word, "crusade", I really don't think the Arabs are going to like us anymore or any less because of Bush's use of the word. I guess if they object to it we will be hearing about it on the news. So far, I've heard nothing. DougR |
|
17 Sep 01 - 07:43 PM (#552718) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Armen Tanzerian From Bush's press conference of yesterday:
And this is a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. Now, this crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.
Whether the American media picked up on it or not, the word will have much more resonance in Europe and Britain, as McGrath has already demonstrated. In any case, when the whole thrust of the American message is that this is not a religious ussue (Bush visited a mosque today), it seems an incredibly dumb reference, and one that Islamic terror factions could use to engender sympathy. But I think most of us here in the States are simply watching to see what the national leadership does. If they can rise to this enormous challenge with a carefully-planned offensive that actually works, we will forgive them some flubbed lines.
|
|
17 Sep 01 - 09:35 PM (#552818) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Peg Bush is now calling for catching bin Laden "dead or alive." Despite the fact that the guy has denied his involvement. Now I must say I am pretty convinced Osama is the figurehead responsible, the mastermind, the ringleader. But what has happened to due process? To justice? Catch the guy, try him, punish him. But do it within the confines of law. To baehave like militants or barbarians now does not undo what was done, nor does it improve our prospects for future peace.
|
|
17 Sep 01 - 09:44 PM (#552825) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Armen Tanzerian Yeah, I found that "dead or alive" reference, which Bush volunteered, to be pretty un-presidential. Anyone else would have let some reporter mention "dead or alive", which certainly would have happened, and then replied "whatever means are necessary", or something a little more diplomatic. |
|
17 Sep 01 - 09:51 PM (#552830) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Ebbie I suspect that Bush is so cliche-driven that he doesn't even realize that the phrases have literal meanings. Take 'dead or alive'- he quotes the WANTED posters from the old American west, but the concept is urging someone to kill bin Laden, because it is easier to kill and haul in a body than it is to shepherd someone to the authorities. As Peg says, the man has not been found guilty, in fact, denies it. Suppose someone does 'bring him in' and then later it is conclusively determined that he was not responsible for this latest atrocity. Is that acceptable to us? I find myself hoping that Bush is only a figurehead in the administration, embarrassing as that would be. I'm hoping that those with actual power are quietly working behind the scenes in a statesmanlike way. Ebbie |
|
17 Sep 01 - 10:08 PM (#552846) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Amos Well, you also need to notice that there is a difference between justice and war. Under justice, a suspect is prosecuted until the evidence convicts him, or finds him not guilty, based on a regulated process. A war is prosecuted without reservation until the acheivement of "a more amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy". (Klausewitz). There is no such thing as just war, although some wars are mopre justified than others perhaps. Nor is there such a thing as war-like justice. A |
|
18 Sep 01 - 06:50 AM (#553068) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow Somtimes I probably do nit-pick, Doug. Not this time. It really is a deeply offensive and dangerous word to have used in this context, and the fact that he could have used it is frightening.
Muslims who support "a Crusade" are open to the charge of being traitors. It was an extraordinarily insensitive word to use at this time. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 07:55 AM (#553088) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Airto Back in the seventies, the then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Liam Cosgrave addressed the United Nations and called on Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences "in a proper Christian manner". His advisors pointed out the incongruity beforehand, suggesting it wouldn't go down too well with either party. He conceded that might have been true, but that it would go down very well with the voters of Dun Laoghaire (his home constituency). The rest of the world needs American presidents to rise above that sort of parochialism.
|
|
18 Sep 01 - 08:04 AM (#553095) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: CarolC Been away from this thread for a while. Bartholomew, I just want to say that, in my opinion, your post is among the finest posts I've seen on the subject of what happened last Tuesday. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 08:08 AM (#553099) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow Esopecially the last sentence in Bartholome's post:
If any good comes out of this, let it be that we begin to work toward becoming the nation that we imagine ourselves to be. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 08:45 AM (#553119) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,just a nobody Oh this is just getting classic. I have heard that Bush is a Chickenshit, that we are to blame, that Bin Ladin should go free (after all he did deny his involvement), and nitpicking about choice of words. Bush being chickenshit. Personally I have a strong admiration for him, and I didn't vote for him. He has made himself a target. Do you think this is not so? He shows up to examine each site, a place filled with possible dangers, from people or environment. He did exactly what I would have expected any president to do in this situation. Gather together all of the information, from a safe location. That does not make him a coward, it does make him a responsible person, knowing what sort of fury this nation would pitch into if something happened to it's president. Our blame because of Palastine? Get over it. Seriously, no I mean it... People love waving that banner around. Because we are so uncaring about the conflict, people are going to attack us? Please, this needed no excuse, and to provide a scapegoat is insulting. If they wanted to make a point about that there would have been many other effective ways to have done so. Bin Ladin's claim of "I didn't do it." Do I care, nope. This man is not some John Doe on the street, being fingered for a mugging. This is a man that HAS ATTACKED, HAS THREATENED, the United States. But Peg, I suppose your'e right, he didn't do this one... so lets just let him go. Please! This man has done horrible things and made the mistake (three weeks prior) of saying that there would be an unprecedented attack against the US. Hmmm.. perhaps it was a misquote, perhaps he was just ranting, perhaps he is a prophet? Or, perhaps, just on a wild chace, he knew something about this attack. Due process, it is a wonderful word when we don't wish to get our hands dirty. Our hands are already dirty, if Bin Ladin wanted to prove his innocense. He would have turned himself in. An Islamic court would try him, and may even let him go. The US would not attempt to attack him while in custody of a court. That would have a potentially disasterous backlash. Picking and choosing words. Personally, I was glad when I heard bush say 'Dead or Alive.' It is the measure of this nation's resolve. Should he have chosen words more carefully, sure... let's see how about.... "If the Taliban would please, talk to Bin Ladin and find out if he did this. I mean, he has alot of people nervous, he has said very, very mean things about us and we just want to know that he is sorry. So, please tell him to give us a call sometime so that we can discuss this like adults." I prefer Dead or Alive. let him and the world know the measure of our resolve, and let there be no misunderstanding of our anger. Respectfully, Nobody |
|
18 Sep 01 - 09:33 AM (#553136) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: CarolC GUEST, just a nobody, I do think we need to choose our words wisely. For the reason that if we don't, we can make it more difficult for the Muslim countries who want to help us to be able to do so. We need all the help we can get. If we let our anger make it more difficult for our friends and allies to help us, we only hurt ourselves. Not Bin Laden. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 09:49 AM (#553146) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,just a nobody CarolC, I agree, we need to choose our words carefully, something I am not prone to do really well. I guess I am rather upset that it seems people are more than willing to criticize our leaders. I think people have a right to do such things, but at the same time they need to put themselves in the position of our leaders. I don't think any of the people condemning Bush have really paused to think, what would they do in his position. Bush is facing something that no other leader has faced in this country. It is easy to say, he is doing something wrong, but I don't see anyone saying what the right way is (unless it is only from a partisan point of view). Maybe that is why I am more than a little irritated. Hope you did not take offense. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 10:04 AM (#553151) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: CarolC No, I didn't take offense. And I think I can understand where you're coming from. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 10:52 AM (#553180) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: InOBU Hi nobody... at times like these,... i for one... would like a president with a triple digit IQ... Larry |
|
18 Sep 01 - 11:11 AM (#553197) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,just a nobody Larry Ahhh, I love that one. So, what is his IQ? Do you know? or is it just yet another opportunity to slam the president? Besides, you think that triple digits would make the person respond better? Nope, we would be just as likely to have someone fly off the handle and do something truly screwed up. God I love partisanship. Any other good ones larry? Maybe a president with a bigger dick, a president with more muscle mass, how about a darker hair color? Sorry to seem so short, maybe I misread your post, but it just seems that many seem willing to jump the leaders of this country, without any good ideas of their own. I have some faith that they do know what they are doing. I may not like everything that is done, but I refrain from petty insults, against our leaders, as many here seem to love. No offense meant, especially if I misunderstood the attitude your post was meant to carry. Nobody |
|
18 Sep 01 - 11:49 AM (#553226) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Nope, Nobody, you didn't misread it. That's just Larry's way of re-emphasising that he doesn't approve of our President. He doesn't know what Bush's IQ is, and I seriously doubt anyone on the Mudcat does. That's not really the point though. There is nothing GWB could do that would meet Larry's approval other than to resign. :>) I haven't seen you around the Mudcat much, Nobody. Perhaps I have just missed your posts. Anyway, you need to know that if you espouse the Liberal POV, you can say anything you like, and expect to receive a great deal of support for whatever you say. Why? Because Liberals are charitable, caring people. Conservatives, on the other hand, are tolerated on the Mudcat (probably because they can't shut us up) but do not expect much support for their views. Why? Most Mudcatters are Liberals. I don't know what your political philosophy is but you seem to lean toward the conservative POV, and I thought a bit of forewarning might be in order. DougR |
|
18 Sep 01 - 01:53 PM (#553319) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: LoopySanchez M.Ted, Having felt my emotions run the gamut living some 1500 miles from ground zero with no friends or relatives near the attcks, I can only imagine that those emotions must be multiplied by a thousand in your case. I'm sure my overreactionary posts only made things worse. While I don't apologize for my patriotic feelings, I do apologize for the manner in which I expressed them, and for only stirring things up more by doing so. I didn't take the time to focus my argument on the specific areas of specific posts I wanted to call into question, and it must have read as a much more vicious and blanketed rant than it was intended to be. I thank you, Troll, and everyone else for the civility you've shown, and promise to try to breathe deep and count slowly to ten before clicking the submit button in the future. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 02:18 PM (#553340) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,just a nobody DougR I have noticed a tendency for several posters to lean toward the libral ideals. I don't really have any affiliation myself, other than what makes sense. I can't side with one or the other because you have extremists on both sides. Perhaps I do lean more to a conservative side. I think it balances out since my wife is a liberal. I don't expect for people to agree with what I say, but I hope that they (as I do) pause to think about what is said here. I don't agree with what I see, but I do stop and think as to why I do not. Larry just needs to get some help. I would hope that politics as usuall would end in the light of what has happened. But... as per the usual... I stand corrected. I've been around, I just never posted. I look up lyrics for the most part, but when this happened I really needed a place to vent, and to mourn without bringing it into work... whoops that's where I'm posting from... :) and without alienating my friends with comments that they may not agree with. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 02:18 PM (#553341) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Midchuck Amos sayeth: ...there is a difference between justice and war. Under justice, a suspect is prosecuted until the evidence convicts him, or finds him not guilty, based on a regulated process. A war is prosecuted without reservation until the acheivement of "a more amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy". (Klausewitz). There is no such thing as just war, although some wars are mopre justified than others perhaps. Nor is there such a thing as war-like justice. All true. The problem is that we find ourselves in a situation that can't be treated as either a war or a criminal justice issue. A war requires a known enemy. We can't very well fight a war against the entire Muslim world. All but three or four out of any given million Muslims are innocent. So we can't fight until we find out who's involved that isn't dead already, and where they are. To do otherwise - aside from the total unfairness involved - would simply make enemies of all of the Muslim world that isn't mad at us already - which was exactly the terrorists' goal. And the criminal justice system only works - even as imperfectly as it does - within a given country, or at least between countries that have clear-cut extradition agreements. In this case neither model works. We have to design a new one as we go along. That's why we're all so confused, on top of grief. Peter. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 02:21 PM (#553347) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll When you get a handle on it,Loopy< pass it alone. There are several here on the forum who shoot from the lip on ocassion. Not ME of course. HEAVENS no. ALL my posts are very carefully thought out, concise, statements concerned only with the education and edification of my fellow man. troll***Yeah.Right!*** |
|
18 Sep 01 - 02:24 PM (#553349) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll That should have read " pass it ALONG." PROOFREAD FOOL! troll |
|
18 Sep 01 - 02:39 PM (#553368) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,Wordsmith The word crusade may be construed as having the same meaning that it did in the Middle Ages. However, it is much less "loaded" in current common usage. I have heard of crusades against hunger, AIDS, illiteracy, etc. As someone said earlier, the Arab world does not seem to be reacting negatively to its usage, rather its the folks on this board with a partisan axe to grind. As for Georgie's "Dead or Alive Statement," my impression (based on some knowledge of Western history) is that it is used in reference to criminals/suspects for whom deadly force could be legally used in the course of apprehending them. Considering that Bin Laden has been a primary suspect in various acts of terrorism (and in fact hasn't he already been indicted for some), I don't find anything outrageous in Bush's statement. But then again, i am not in the camp of people who continue to judge Bush on according to their exaggeration of his words rather than his deeds. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 05:55 PM (#553521) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: InOBU Hi gang... actualy, Bush's IQ was published in a newspaper as 91. As to dead or alive, without a living person, in court, there will always be questions. As the United States A.G. said, (paraphrasing) we will have to relax the objections to the use of foriegn agents attached to the CIA, well wasn't ben laudin one of those our CIA once used? I don't know, I just think at times like these, great nations should act with wisdom and deliberation, not to run in where many have already jumped off the cliff. Cheersmdears, Larry |
|
18 Sep 01 - 07:44 PM (#553545) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Larry: Bush's IQ is 91? It appeared in local newspapers? You are referring, I believe, to a cartoon strip that appeared in newspapers. "Doonsbury," drawn and written by that great fair minded cartoonist, Gary Trudeau (sp?). That was exposed as a hoax weeks ago, and the cartoonist has apologized (sort of)! Catch up, IBOU! :>) DougR
|
|
18 Sep 01 - 08:49 PM (#553577) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: CarolC GUEST, Wordsmith,
In fact, the concern for Bush's choice of words does concern people in Muslim nations. Not because they necessarily feel offended, but because they can serve to cause dissention between different factions within those countries, which could cause serious problems for them, as well as for us. My sources are panel members from various Islamic countries on PBS' News Hour With Jim Leherer, as well as panelists on other news related programs. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 08:57 PM (#553583) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Troll Thanks for the sources Carol. Larry, Doug is right; the whole I.Q. thing was a hoax. The "Institute" that released the information doesn't exist. There was a thread about it but I don't recall the title. troll |
|
18 Sep 01 - 09:05 PM (#553588) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR CarolC: You can read my capitulation to "problem" related to the use of the seven letter word (I don't dare write it) on ...I believe the "Fly the Flag" thread, or maybe the last thread Spaw started on the attack, if you're interested. I mean the fact that you got your information on NPR should bring an end to the subject, right? DougR |
|
18 Sep 01 - 09:13 PM (#553593) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: CarolC DougR, I already responded to your post on that thread.
I'm beginning to wonder which you are more concerned with... the good of this country and its citizens, or being right. I can't speak for you, but for myself, I would like to help to bring about a better understanding of what is needed in this most desperate of situations. I don't see how this can happen without dialogue. |
|
18 Sep 01 - 11:45 PM (#553677) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR And I salute you, CarolC. Obviously I care nothing for my country, otherwise, I would agree with everything you, and and those who think like you believe. Right? I don't agree with 99.9% of your positions, politically, but I don't, for a minute, question your love for your country, or the sincerity of your belief. Of course I guess I could argue that what I believe IS best for the country, but what would be the point? DougR |
|
19 Sep 01 - 12:01 AM (#553681) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Armen Tanzerian Gee, Douglas, someone tries to support the far-fetched idea that the use of the word "crusade" might just be a little counter-productive by saying she saw actual testimony to that fact from actual Arab panelists on the Newshour With Jim Lehrer, but that's not good enough?? Where do you suggest we get our news? Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Paul Harvey, and Pat Robertson? |
|
19 Sep 01 - 12:05 AM (#553686) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: CarolC DougR, I don't understand why you are singling me out for what comes across to me as a rather strange effort to shut me up. I'm hardly the only person participating in these discussions. |
|
19 Sep 01 - 12:47 AM (#553693) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Ah, Armen, I have already capitulated (you obiviously haven't read all the threads on this) I'm a dunce, obviously! It was on NPR, so it's got to be right! Right? Anyone with any sensibility at all knows that NPR is a totally unbiased news source, right? Words are more damaging than bullets, bombs, and airlines loaded with innocent people right? I probably won't satisfy you, I know, but let me make my position clear on the subject (I thought I already had). Over 5,000 people from over 60 countries lost their lives in the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Arguing over a word seems, to me, a pretty trifle thing. So if you, Carol, McGrath, Lonesome E. J., or anyone else who seems so hung up on this word would be happier to have me say that Bush shouldn't have used that word, Okay! HE FUCKING WELL SHOULDN'T HAVE USED IT! Ok? I have never used such language on the Mudcat, I don't think, but in light of what has happened, the concentration, by so many people on a simple word misused, just boggles my mind. If all of us were so perfect. What a wonderful world it would be. DougR P. S. CarolC.: Please accept this as my reply to your post above. Thanks. |
|
19 Sep 01 - 01:01 AM (#553697) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: CarolC DougR, I don't think anyone really cares whether or not you are willing to agree with some of us about whether or not Bush should have used that word.
I would like to point out that my reference to the subject in question in my post of 18-Sep-01 - 08:49 PM, was not adressed to you all, but to GUEST, Wordsmith ...unless you are GUEST, Wordsmith, in which case it was addressed to you. In either case, I don't understand how my having an opinion that differs from yours makes me deserving of the rather snide tone that you have begun to adopt with me.
|
|
19 Sep 01 - 01:31 AM (#553716) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Carol: I'm sure no one does gives a tinker's damn what I think, on any subject. Most of you would probably be very happy to be just talking to yourselves. Opposing views? Perish the thought. I never took your remarks on the subject personally myself. I did direct personal replies to your postings on some subjects because I did not agree with them. That doesn't mean I don't like you, don't respect your views or anything else. I will refrain from doing so in the future. Obviously, you are more comfortable not having your views challenged. Okie dokie. Now. As to the "C" word. How can I make it more clear than I already have in several threads that I capitulate? That I was wrong? That the President should have not used the "C" word? That by the very mention of the "word" Bush ran the risk of starting WW III? Whatever you suggest, I will do. How about 40 lashes? DougR
|
|
19 Sep 01 - 01:38 AM (#553720) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: CarolC DougR, I really don't think anyone is trying to tell you that you aren't entitled to hold you own opinions. Just as I would hope that you would not think that I am not entitled to my own opinion. The fact that other people hold opinions that are different than yours s not necessarily an indication that we think you are not entitled to yours. My statement that I don't think people care whether or not you are willing to agree with some of us is certainly a pretty good indication that I am not telling you you have to change your opinions. It simply doesn't matter if we hold differing opinions. What matters is how we treat each other. |
|
19 Sep 01 - 01:51 AM (#553727) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: Lonesome EJ Doug, Relax, buddy. We're on the same side. I've said many times that I thought the President was doing a good job in a tough situation. I also said I thought use of the C word was a mistake, and apparently the White House agrees since they issued a statement retracting it. I will, at this juncture, return to full, unmitigated support of the administration, at least until he says something else I find objectionable. McGrath can also relax, free now of the strange sensation of being in agreement with me. :>} LEJ |
|
19 Sep 01 - 02:18 AM (#553739) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Yep, LEJ, you're right! CarolC; Smaaaaaaaaaaack! DougR |
|
19 Sep 01 - 06:53 AM (#553799) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: InOBU Hi Guys, I will get back to the lawyer who gave me the information about Bush's IQ... By the way... do we know if in the retraction, we found out if Bush's IQ was higher or lower???? Cheers, Larry |
|
19 Sep 01 - 09:51 AM (#553913) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow President Bush has apologised for calling this a Crusade, and the White House has issued a formal statement about it, and you have agreed that it was a mistake, I can't see why you are getting so upset about it Doug.
I'm relieved that it was a mistake, and that the White House have said so, because I was worried that it might even have been intentional and an indication of the way they were thinking about things. Or that even if it was a mistake they'd brush it aside, and give a propaganda card to people on both sides trying to turn this into a war against Islam. (And see this thread as a mild emough example of what I'm talking about.)
It wasn't nit-picking. But it would be if I kept on about it now. Back in the seventies, the then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Liam Cosgrave addressed the United Nations and called on Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences "in a proper Christian manner". It occurred to me, when I read what Airto wrote there, that unfortunately perhaps they may have taken Cosgrave's advice. |
|
19 Sep 01 - 10:38 AM (#553947) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,Wordsmith CarolC's point is well taken and I am pleased to see someone citing actual sources to support their statements. However, I would like to point out that the tone of the Arab panelists was that the word Crusade had the potential (i.e. it might) to create dissension within certain (perhaps extremist) factions. That is a far cry from the extreme stance that some folks were taking when they said that use of the word would inflame the entire Islamic world. Furthermore, my interpretation of the Bush "apology" was that he was sorry if people chose to interpret it as something other than its modern usage implies. Look folks, obviously his choice of the word was not the best decision. However, my beef is with the people who take a minor episode like this and try to spin it into a broad condemnation of a man whose reaction to terrorist acts is, thus far, better than we have seen in recent years. . |
|
19 Sep 01 - 03:52 PM (#554232) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR And, McGrath, were I to comment on your comment, it would be additiional nit-picking. :>) DougR |
|
19 Sep 01 - 04:00 PM (#554246) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,Rush is Right If Clinton was still president, you wetbrains would not be raising hell over his choice of words. Why don't you just admit that your assaults on Bush stem from your inability to deal with the fact that people in your party were too fucking stupid to fill out an election ballot correctly. |
|
19 Sep 01 - 04:21 PM (#554268) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,just a nobody You are a bigger man than I am DougR... I will comment on McGrath's comment. Maybe not the same comment but what the hell... who's nitpicking... oh.. I am... :) 'Back in the seventies, the then Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Liam Cosgrave addressed the United Nations and called on Israelis and Palestinians to settle their differences "in a proper Christian manner". It occurred to me, when I read what Airto wrote there, that unfortunately perhaps they may have taken Cosgrave's advice. ' Elegant and well put McGrath... Very moving.. Very narrow minded and showing the exact intolerence that everyone says we should not be showing. The best thing I have heard was a Sunday School teacher. He told me that his children were asking about what had happened and basically he needed to try to put things into perspective for them. He said 'This act was not just hijacking planes, but it hijacked the Muslims as well. There are those that will now veiw all Muslims as terrorists. That is wrong, just as it is wrong for others to judge christians based on corrupt leaders that use God's name for personal or political gain, or David Kiresh." I hate it when sunday school teachers go spitting that sort of seething hatred to young ears, don't you. Think about it for a moment McGrath. I defend no ones individual religion. But I will defend religions that needlessly come under attack by blind and hypocritical comments such as your own. Or should we follow your example and hate Muslims because of what a handful have done? I hope you would say no... but since it is obvious you believe that such blanket and condemning statements are fine, I am not so sure... Lets play a little game shall we? I like to call it McGrath logic. African Americans should not trust police because of incidents like the Rodney King beating. Whites should not trust blacks because there have been black on white crimes. No one should trust Muslims... look what just happened. No one should trust Christians, look at that bloody history. No one should trust the government, they have lied to us before. We should not trust businesses. After all, some have actually hidden things from the public. We should never trust people, as children many have lied... Ahhh.. what a wonderful world that would be. Thank you McGrath for showing us a little more into your world. Blanket statements directed at groups as a whole are dangerous toys. Expect that sooner or later they will be turned back at you. Just a nobody My son one time lied to me... should I continue to love him? or care about any child... after all some do lie. I hope that the length of this post did not bother people. And the flame was well intended. It is not a personal attack against you McGrath, but it seems that when people say that bush needs to watch what is said, maybe you should too.... |
|
19 Sep 01 - 04:35 PM (#554275) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,just a nobody Guest, Rush is Right: Please, i log in here as a Guest myself. I don't like the name you are giving us. if you don't agree with them, make your points as to why? Attack their points and views with counter views... don't just attack them in general... Just a nobody I hate politics as usual. I know I may get mean spirited and jump on an idea with viger... but I don't just break it down to insults and cursing... |
|
19 Sep 01 - 04:50 PM (#554283) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,Rush is Right Evidently you are not smart enough to get my point, so I will draw you a picture. Much of the resentment toward Bush is sour grapes stemming from the election. That is the only reason why a lot of chumps here choose to make a mountain out of a molehill about everything that Bush does. ITS PARTISAN POLITICS IN A TIME OF NATIONAL CRISIS!! |
|
19 Sep 01 - 05:13 PM (#554295) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,just a nobody Ahh.. god how could I have missed your point with such vivid words as 'wetbrains' and 'stupid fucks'... silly me I must have missed your point entirely until now. Besides, I find it odd that you would attack people on thier politics during a national crisis for attacking peoples politics during a national crisis. Hmmmm... Perhaps, my friend, I got your point, but pointed out that there were better ways to deliver your ideas. Rather than bring about more seperation in the parties. I am not a large fan of rush... in fact.. I don't care for him at all really. But the times that I have heard him he brings his points up with much more elegance than you did. Sorry you took offence. |
|
19 Sep 01 - 05:20 PM (#554301) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,Rush is Right If you are going to make a serious effort to debate me, at least try to avoid misquoting me. As for "attacking," there is a difference between the rabblerousers who seek to de-stabalize Bush thru partisan attacks and those such as myself who point out the flawed nature of such attacks. |
|
19 Sep 01 - 05:37 PM (#554320) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow You presume too much Nobody. I'm a practicing Candle (Cathoioc that is) myself, which is why I feel entitled to make a comment like that. We ought to know better, and pay more attention to the beam in our own eye is the underlying thought behind the quip.
With the way Christians have been treating each other in Ireland for the past 30 years it's a valid enough point to make. And I know that religion's got nothing to with the devision and the trouble in Ireland. No more than it really has in the Holy Land.
And Rush, it's a good idea to read the threads before pontificating about them. As said specifically in an earlier post on the thread: "I am certain that, if I had been an American and had voted for Bush, and if I admired his politics, and liked him enormously as a person, I would feel no different about it. Angry, scared, and betrayed." In fact if it had been Clinton who'd said it I'd have been even angrier, because I'd have been certain that he knew exactly what he was saying, and therefore would have meant to alienate Muslims.
|
|
19 Sep 01 - 05:46 PM (#554329) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: McGrath of Harlow For Cathoioc read Catholic. |
|
19 Sep 01 - 09:29 PM (#554495) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: GUEST,just a nobody Rush: Right... And you point out the flaws by calling them wetbrains and fucking stupid. Ok... when you learn how to debate rather than name call... you come right back and join the rest of the crowd. Disagree is one thing, and everyone has the right to the opinion they have. Your first post here did nothing to debate, only insult. Your post did nothing to show the flaws in someones thoughts, only to insult. I know... it was all metaphoric or some crap... bottom line is, any point you wanted to make was lost behind your insults. Make your points by showing flaws in thier arguments, not by showing that you can do a really good job at insulting them. Mcgrath: I didn't really care what your faith is. You can see that your quip about christianity is just as insulting to some. I was merely pointing out that before you run Bush into the ground, you should look at your own words under as close a scrutiny. I have no debate that you feel the words should not have been spoken by Bush, but the attacks and insinuation that those words caused irreputible damage was grossly unfounded. I found a way to show (in your quip about Christians) that just about anything can be exagerated and have more meaning put into it than there should be. I do think that Bush is under much more scrutiny, due to the close election. And I do see that there are people here, and elswhere that are looking for anything to bash him with. Rush did not make that point real clear in his first post, but living in Florida I can tell you the tension runs high in Democratic areas. I would just hate to see people judging the President because they were upset that he won. Sorry about the length. Just wanted to make sure you knew, I presumed nothing abo9ut you, and meant no offense. I took only one quote and ran with it to emphasise my point. I do appologize that it looked like I was targeting you personally, I too should watch what I say sometimes. I still like my world full of.... Nobody... |
|
19 Sep 01 - 09:29 PM (#554496) Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed? From: DougR Hmmm, McGrath, I thought maybe you had started a new religion! :>) DougR |