Bush: Mandela is dead

[segovius]

I'm not sure what to say..... there's so much one could and yet, and yet..... (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/bush-mandela/)

It is not immediately apparent whether President Bush actually thinks Mr Mandela is really dead but even if not, it is not really true is it?

One 'Mandela' was killed last week for opposing al Qaeda and how many more have been killed by the Islamists? Who exactly does Bush think is getting killed out there?

Random civilians for sure but also religious leaders, University Professors and Intellectuals....

It's a fairly disgraceful attempt to blame EVERYTHING on Saddam. Ok, he was an 'evildoer' - we get that.

But he is the one who is dead - and he is not killing the Mandelas or anyone else now...

To suggest that Iraq is taking such a long time to recover because of Saddam is a new low I think.

[@_@ Artman]

If anyone gets confused with me calling Bush a retard let me clear this up, from now on I will only mention him as a retard, monkey or moron. It's what he deserves for the last 7 years and next 16 months.

[Flounder]

Well, if want to take his opinion as true at face value, and all the Mandela's were killed, it seems like something the administration should have realized beforehand, huh?

Nothing like simultaneously trying to shift the blame while further exposing the utter cluelessness you had when invading in the first place.

[segovius]

Well, if want to take his opinion as true at face value, and all the Mandela's were killed, it seems like something the administration should have realized beforehand, huh?

Nothing like simultaneously trying to shift the blame while further exposing the utter cluelessness you had when invading in the first place.

It doesn't make sense though on any level....Mandela existed because of the Apartheid regime....it would be an oxymoron to imply that the Mandelas do not exist because the regime is brutal and that they would be more of them if the regime was 'normal'.

Besides, as I remember, there were a hell of a lot of right-wingers who were calling Mandela a 'terrorist' at the time.

[@_@ Artman]

It doesn't make sense though on any level....Mandela existed because of the Apartheid regime....it would be an oxymoron to imply that the Mandelas do not exist because the regime is brutal and that they would be more of them if the regime was 'normal'.

Besides, as I remember, there were a hell of a lot of right-wingers who were calling Mandela a 'terrorist' at the time.


Waitaminnit...

It makes sense.

1 - Mandela was inspirational in ending separatism in South Africa.

2 - Iraq is loaded with separatism.

3 - With reference to Iraq, where's the Mandela?

4 - There isn't one.

5 - Bush: "Saddam killed all the Mandelas."

That's called an analogy.

No one like Mandela has stepped up from Iraq because of the social decay and executions cultivated by Saddam's regime.

Which "right wingers" were calling Mandela a terrorist? Curious...

[segovius]

Waitaminnit...

It makes sense.

1 - Mandela was inspirational in ending separatism in South Africa.

2 - Iraq is loaded with separatism.

3 - With reference to Iraq, where's the Mandela?

4 - There isn't one.

5 - Bush: "Saddam killed all the Mandelas."

That's called an analogy.

No one like Mandela has stepped up from Iraq because of the social decay and executions cultivated by Saddam's regime.

Which "right wingers" were calling Mandela a terrorist? Curious...

But the point is that there was no separatism under Saddam. Sure he killed political opponents but that is not quite the same thing.

The separatism - ie Sunni vs Shi'i - is a product of the occupation.

And as I said, there are 'Mandelas' - one got killed last week. They don't get reported or supported until they get killed but that is a different issue. Surely Sistani could in time be a 'Mandela'.

Mandela was widely seen as a terrorist - which technically he was as he was jailed for an attempted bomb attack (incidentally it was the CIA that informed the Apartheid regime of his whereabouts enabling them to arrest him) - until the South African regime fell and he was released.

Link to one site that claims he still is a terrorist (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/EM269.cfm)

And another.... (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_146312.html)

And the ANC was on the US list of Terrorist Groups (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10159/).

African National Congress (ANC)

Just twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela sat in prison and black South Africans were forbidden from even spending the night in their country's largest cities. U.S. officials helped justify dealings with the apartheid government by pointing to the ANC's place on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

[@_@ Artman]

But the point is that there was no separatism under Saddam. Sure he killed political opponents but that is not quite the same thing.

The separatism - ie Sunni vs Shi'i - is a product of the occupation.

And as I said, there are 'Mandelas' - one got killed last week. They don't get reported or supported until they get killed but that is a different issue. Surely Sistani could in time be a 'Mandela'.

Mandela was widely seen as a terrorist - which technically he was as he was jailed for an attempted bomb attack (incidentally it was the CIA that informed the Apartheid regime of his whereabouts enabling them to arrest him) - until the South African regime fell and he was released.

Link to one site that claims he still is a terrorist (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/EM269.cfm)

And another.... (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_146312.html)

And the ANC was on the US list of Terrorist Groups (http://www.cfr.org/publication/10159/).

Well that cleared that up. He's an idiot. :D :smokey:

[sammi jo]

Our president speaks. Oh my. If his was a genuine presidency, and he was doing an "average" job performance compared to other modern day presidents, then his weird outbursts could be regarded as quite comedic, even endearing. But being someone who has authorized so much destruction and global bloodletting, it is almost impossible to see the funny side of anything to do with this administration ... and I'm someone who sees the funny side of almost anything... really. I reckon Mr. Bush is on some variety of medication; I cannot see how anyone in their right mind could be so... downright stupid and utterly misinformed.

[screener]

Our president speaks. Oh my. If his was a genuine presidency, and he was doing an "average" job performance compared to other modern day presidents, then his weird outbursts could be regarded as quite comedic, even endearing. But being someone who has authorized so much destruction and global bloodletting, it is almost impossible to see the funny side of anything to do with this administration ... and I'm someone who sees the funny side of almost anything... really. I reckon Mr. Bush is on some variety of medication; I cannot see how anyone in their right mind could be so... downright stupid and utterly misinformed.

Yet, almost a third of Americans think he's just terrific.

Why?

I don't get it.

SDW, enlighten me.

[Fellowship]

Our president speaks. Oh my. If his was a genuine presidency, and he was doing an "average" job performance compared to other modern day presidents, then his weird outbursts could be regarded as quite comedic, even endearing. But being someone who has authorized so much destruction and global bloodletting, it is almost impossible to see the funny side of anything to do with this administration ... and I'm someone who sees the funny side of almost anything... really. I reckon Mr. Bush is on some variety of medication; I cannot see how anyone in their right mind could be so... downright stupid and utterly misinformed.

I watched his press conference today and thought exactly the same things. He kept "trying" to be cute and funny with members of the press and it came across like he was under such pressure he just had nothing to grasp ahold of but to attempt to be cute and funny between questions as if to make the mood lighter in the room.

I really found it shitty of him when he said he would not comment on the one question about Israeli action in Syria and if it worried him. He kept saying he would not comment on it and his left eye had a substantial amount of twitching.

The entire press conference came across as a waste of time with this guy running the show.

It just seems like America could do so much better :no:

Fellows

[Northgate]

Waitaminnit...

Which "right wingers" were calling Mandela a terrorist? Curious...

That would be Dick Cheney in '86.

[@_@ Artman]

That would be Dick Cheney in '86.

Cheney and Mandela: Reconciling The Truth about Cheney's Vote (http://www.commondreams.org/views/080300-102.htm)



When Rep. Dick Cheney voted against a 1986 resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela and recognition of the African National Congress, Americans did know this man had been waiting decades for his freedom. In a larger sense, so had all black South Africans. The tenets of American democracy -- one man, one vote -- were denied to the majority of citizens, along with the most basic economic and educational needs.

Yet Republican vice presidential candidate Cheney still defends his vote, saying on ABC's This Week'' thatthe ANC was then viewed as a terrorist organization. . . . I don't have any problems at all with the vote I cast 20 years ago.'' What, then, does this tell us about what information Cheney considers before he takes a decision? And what the long-term consequences are likely to be, and on whom?

[segovius]

Actually it is quite interesting because it proves one thing: that the definition of 'terrorist' or 'good guy' depends solely on the propaganda machine.

If they wanted to have kept portraying Mandela as a terrorist they could have. They just switched sides because they saw the South African regime was falling.

Similarly with the Sauds for example, they are 'good guys' but if necessary could be transformed into 'human rights abusers' and 'evildoers' at the drop of the hat.

Even OBL was once a 'good guy' fighting the Russians. Not he is a 'bad guy'.

It really doesn't matter what you really are - in fact some of the most genuinely evil people in the world are called 'good' and are in charge of whole countries - but rather what it benefits the power-possessors to label you for their own benefit.