| Author | Message | ||
     tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5706 Registered: 5-2001 |
George Bush, yesterday in Little Rock
George Bush, three hours later
All I can think of is that there are really two George Bushes, clones or identical twins, and they make speeches without consulting the other one. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7796 Registered: 10-2001 |
 | ||
| Project 37 Citizen Username: Project37 Post Number: 353 Registered: 3-2006  |
Well, another brilliant round of argument deconstruction and insightful analysis from Strawberry. Bravo! | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 2365 Registered: 3-2004 |
Straw thinks better in his pictures than his words which, when he uses them, are value-less and content-free. This use of his trite picture strikes me as funny and on target for some reason. What would we expect Bush to say? Why would we be surprised that he said it? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5707 Registered: 5-2001 |
Lies.
We're not. It's just ridiculous that he can't keep his story straight for even a couple of hours. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 2367 Registered: 3-2004 |
Tom: You should accept the simple reality that Bush is in way over his head. Certain people voted for a Bush league president, and they got him. So did the rest of us. Among the consequences we all have to suffer is his apparent inability to keep two things straight and separate. He has a cluttered, un-orderly mind. Not a great thing for a chief executive. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2059 Registered: 7-2004  |
The more I hear him talk, like in that Brian Williams interview a few days ago, the more I'm convinced he's mentally deficient in some way. Not like, he's an idiot, but that there is something seriously wrong. I've heard rumors of dyslexia, but there has got to be more. There has to be. Just listen to him. (Of course, this mential deficiency is what endears him to most of his supporters...) | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5708 Registered: 5-2001 |
Innis, I'm with you most of the time here, but I don't know what you mean by accepting the simple reality that Bush is in way over his head. Surely you don't mean we should stop pointing it out when it happens. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1486 Registered: 2-2004 |
Put the lid back on the vaseline when you boys are done. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1892 Registered: 9-2004  |
Love this exchange: WILLIAMS: When you take a tour of the world, a lot of Americans e-mail me with their fears that, some days they just wake up and it just feels like the end of the world is near. And you go from North Korea to Iran, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, and you look at how things have changed, how Americans are viewed overseas, if that is important to you. Do you have any moments of doubt that we fought a wrong war? Or that there's something wrong with the perception of America overseas? BUSH: Well those are two different questions, did we fight the wrong war, and absolutely -- I have no doubt -- the war came to our shores, remember that. We had a foreign policy that basically said, let's hope calm works. And we were attacked. WILLIAMS: But those weren't Iraqis. BUSH: They weren’t, no, I agree, they weren't Iraqis, nor did I ever say Iraq ordered that attack, but they're a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorists. Now in terms of image, of course I worry about American image. We are great at TV, and yet we are getting crushed on the PR front. I personally do not believe that Saddam Hussein picked up the phone and said, “al-Qaida, attack America.”  | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7797 Registered: 10-2001 |
 | ||
| Flameretardant Citizen Username: Flameretardant Post Number: 48 Registered: 9-2004 |
Another insightful post from Straw ... it's so sad that he can't do better. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 923 Registered: 5-2001 |
Somebody please say that those quotes from our president are worthy of praise and admiration. And please take the time to explain to the rest of us why they are. If you admire the president, please by all means share why words like these, which seem to be fairly typical of the kind of stuff he says, are worthy of our admiration. Perhaps it's an aquired taste and we can be taught. Teach me, please, how to admire someone who says things like this, so I can be a better American than the poor flawed example I am today. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2061 Registered: 7-2004 |
You have to be a brain-dead ignoramous to not cringe everytime this guy opens his mouth...or be from the South, but that's splitting hairs. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7798 Registered: 10-2001 |
 | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 926 Registered: 5-2001 |
Strawberry just convinced me with a very profound and comprehensive explanation. How could I have never seen it before? I feel almost ashamed. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7799 Registered: 10-2001 |
The old saying, a picture says a thousand words. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 375 Registered: 1-2006 |
I am puzzled by something the President said in today's Salt Lake City speech. Here is an excerpt from p.6 of the NY Times transcript: We will not allow the terrorists to dictate the future of this century, so we will defeat them in Iraq. (Applause.) Still, there are some in our country who insist that the best option in Iraq is to pull out, regardless of the situation on the ground. Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic. But they could be -- they could not be more wrong. If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous. In the first sentence he says we will defeat the terrorists in Iraq. OK, so we are in this war to win? In the last sentence he mentions disastrous consequences if we were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself. OK, so when Iraq can defend itself, does that mean we are leaving? So, does all this mean that defeating the terrorists is equivalent to Iraq being able to defend itself? What exactly are we trying to do? Win a war or wait for some sort of "Vietnamization" process to work in Iraq? Or am I just splitting hairs? Are we fighting to win or just trying to hang on until the Iraqis can take over. I think the answer is important no matter what your opinion on the war. Cheers | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7800 Registered: 10-2001 |
If you need it explained to you at this point I feel sorry for you. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 507 Registered: 8-2004 |
I'm not sure I follow you 3ring but I think you do raise an intersting point. Are we going to leave once the Iraqi's prove themselves to be as incapable of controling the insurgency as we are? What level of competency is going to be considered "Standing Up" when we can't control the situation ourselves? Are we just going throw up our arms one day and say "your mess now". Short of a long term comittment to stay until the country is stable (whether it is one country or three, whether it is a theocracy or democracy), and a drastic change in the top Adminsitration officials to manage that comittment, we are serving no purpose in Iraq other than to fan the flame the insurgency, drain the U.S. Treasury and diminish the strength of our Military. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3020 Registered: 6-2002 |
Are we fighting to win or just trying to hang on until the Iraqis can take over. This administration is "trying to hang on" until its term expires and it becomes someone else's problem. How can we fight to "win" unless we can define winning? Does winning mean no more insurgency at all? When is that likely to happen? On the other hand what do we mean by the Iraqui's "taking over"? Does that mean the government of Iraq, whatever that may be, assuming the same position now occupied by US troops? Doesn't that mean a long-term civil war? Are we just going throw up our arms one day and say "your mess now". Probably. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2062 Registered: 7-2004 |
There will be no pullout under Bush's watch. He's said so. But despite their assertion otherwise, Bush and Co. got, and continue to achieve, what they wanted: chaos. Complete and total chaos, yet with a modicum of ability that they control. So they can steal without interference. Which is what they are doing. All this horseshit from Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush is for further distraction. They are ripping off America, in what is the biggest heist ever perpetrated. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1983 Registered: 10-2005  |
RL, Call me dumb (which I am sure you have no problem doing so) but what is being stolen and how America beinfg ripped off? Hugs & Kisses, SOMAs # 1 Neglient Parent, -SLK | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2039 Registered: 10-2004  |
SLK - our treasury is being given to private contractors in Iraq. Halliburton, KBR and others. The money is not being monitored or audited and the administrations grand scheme to privatetize the war has been an collossal waste of our tax dollars. If you look at who has become far richer in these last 6 years you will be able to see where the crooks are. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7802 Registered: 10-2001 |
Load of liberal can't back this crap up b.s. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 377 Registered: 1-2006 |
Strawberry, You don't have to feel sorry for me, but I wish the administration could do a better job of explaining itself. In his press conference last week, Mr. Bush conceded that Iraq had no WMDs and had no involvement in 9-11. Why then did we invade Iraq? I dunno. In his speech yesterday, Mr. Bush said we will defeat the terrorists in Iraq. He then implied that we would leave Iraq when the Iraqis are capable of defending themselves. Are these objectives coterminous and how will we ever know if they have been realized? Does the lack of clarity in outlining an exit strategy betray a lack of planning and vision from the beginning? It looks that way to me. Cheers | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7804 Registered: 10-2001 |
"Why then did we invade Iraq? I dunno." Maybe some of your friends below can help refresh your memory. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2042 Registered: 10-2004 |
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2063 Registered: 7-2004 |
Whatever happened to that $9 billion that Bush just lost? Ooop! The below was never resolved. Helen Thomas: Profiteering from the Iraq war is not a surprise, especially in light of the Bush administration's pandering to the military-industrial complex. But some Democratic lawmakers are concerned that profiteering may have achieved stratospheric dimensions in the case of the $9 billion that is missing from the sale of Iraqi oil. This money was to have been used for humanitarian aid and reconstruction for Iraq. It seems no one is watching the store. The fund was transferred to Iraqi government ministries, which lacked the proper financial controls, security and staff to keep close tabs on the money flow. Nevertheless, the Democrats would like to prod the Bush administration to show its concern over the loss. You can do a lot with $9 billion, but it's only a drop in the bucket in terms of spending in Iraq. The war there is costing the United States more than $50 billion a year. http://www.wgal.com/helenthomas/4228758/detail.html | ||
| The3ofUs Citizen Username: The3ofus Post Number: 90 Registered: 4-2006 |
Strawberry, why do you love war so much? | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2064 Registered: 7-2004 |
Then there was the extra $12 billion in CASH that's been unaccounted for. Hmm, wonder there that went? http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff06072006.html | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 378 Registered: 1-2006 |
Strawberry, The litany of quotes you provide are interesting, but they prove nothing because they were all wrong. The Clinton administration had many failings, but at least they did not invade Iraq. I will give credit where credit is due. Don't mistake my criticisms of the Bush administration for an affection for the Democratic party. The Democrats have long since abandoned their Jeffersonian roots and morphed into a party of clamorous minorities and hedonistic yuppies who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. At least the Republicans have stayed consistent, i.e. a party of big business and religious zealotry. Not that I have any objections to religion or business. Cheers | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5789 Registered: 10-1999  |
I love those reprints of Administration talking points, like Mr. Strawberry's cut and paste above. They ignore the fact that after every single one of those quoted statements, weapons inspectors went into Iraq. They were there, until President Bush told them to get out, because we were going to invade. So, the question remains, "Why then did we invade Iraq?" And the first quote, from Kerry, is interesting for what was chopped out of it. Here are those statements in context, with the chopped out parts in bold: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html That was not bad advice. Too bad the Administration did not take it. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1987 Registered: 10-2005 |
RL, Counterpunch is your source, OMG... -SLK | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7805 Registered: 10-2001 |
"The Clinton administration had many failings, but at least they did not invade Iraq. I will give credit where credit is due." No, he just spent 8 years crying that Saddam was out to get America and that Saddam was enemy number one..Did he do anything about it? Nah, did he ever do anything about anything? no. Bush's biggest mistake since becoming President was naming allowing Clinton's hand picked CIA chief, Tenet to continue on. That's been the Bush failure, listening to all the faulty intelligence gathered under Clinton. All this said, I did agree and still do with Clinton on his belief that Saddam had to go. Anyone who uses chemical weapons has no place in this world, period. If you don't believe me ask the Kurds. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1989 Registered: 10-2005 |
At least Clinton didn't invade Iraq? Ummm, so I guess launching a couple of missles at a camel's ••• and an empty aspirin factory was his idea of getting business done just as Monica was underneath his desk... -SLK | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1789 Registered: 9-2004 |
SLK, you are right, Counterpunch.. as a source by itself.... is usually worth an "OMG". Lemme see If I an get you another/betterer source.. IS that fair? I seem to remember that story and many more. About 20 billions worth of reports on moneys vanishing thru the IRAQ funnel. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1790 Registered: 9-2004 |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1522983,00.html http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/060806Lindorff.shtml http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060831/REPOSITORY/608 310333 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0730-03.htm | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1992 Registered: 10-2005 |
FOJ- Totally fair and thanks.... Sometimes I take a peek at the right leaning Front Page Magazine website but I would never use it as a reliable source....get my drift? -SLK | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2066 Registered: 7-2004 |
So Scrote, now that the source issue has been settled, care to comment on where you think all this money has been going, and to whom? |
