Uh-oh, God's been talking to Bush again.....

[segovius]

Remember this from Bush?

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer)

Well, it seems the Almighty has been on the Batphone again (one day we must really get round to a thread on how atheist wingnuts like Hitchens can decry this sort of lunacy while still myopically supporting Bush and his extremist agenda without a murmur) and issuing further instructions.

This time however (imagine my shock), it seems that it is Iran that the Ancient of Days is scheduling for Jehovahkill through his regent on earth:

In this week’s New Yorker, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh writes that there has been “a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning” for war with Iran inside the Bush administration. Hersh reported that the administration has shifted focus “from a broad bombing attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities to “surgical” strikes again Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere.”

Today, in an interview with journalist Jon Wiener, Hersh suggested that “the president is essentially messianic” about regime change in Iran.

He sees this as his mission. It could be because God is telling him to do it. It could be because his daddy didn’t do it. It could be because it’s step 13 in a 12-step program he was in. I just don’t know.”

Bush Thinks God is Telling Him to Invade Iran (http://bodypolitik.org/2007/10/05/iraq-redux-bush-thinks-god-is-telling-him-to-invade-iran/)

The chilling quotes are drawn from an article in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=240318) which interestingly draws attention to the fact that - Bush and his pal the Creator of the Entire Universe notwithstanding - it is the democrats who are leading the way in the cries for blood-letting.

No surprise there; the Repubs may be right-wing nutters but the Dems are utter scum....at least Bush believes God is telling him to kill - seems the Dems don't really believe in anything....

Or maybe they are both the same thing.

[ronaldo]

Remember this from Bush?



Well, it seems the Almighty has been on the Batphone again (one day we must really get round to a thread on how atheist wingnuts like Hitchens can decry this sort of lunacy while still myopically supporting Bush and his extremist agenda without a murmur) and issuing further instructions.

This time however (imagine my shock), it seems that it is Iran that the Ancient of Days is scheduling for Jehovahkill through his regent on earth:



Bush Thinks God is Telling Him to Invade Iran (http://bodypolitik.org/2007/10/05/iraq-redux-bush-thinks-god-is-telling-him-to-invade-iran/)

The chilling quotes are drawn from an article in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=240318) which interestingly draws attention to the fact that - Bush and his pal the Creator of the Entire Universe notwithstanding - it is the democrats who are leading the way in the cries for blood-letting.

No surprise there; the Repubs may be right-wing nutters but the Dems are utter scum....at least Bush believes God is telling him to kill - seems the Dems don't really believe in anything....

Or maybe they are both the same thing.

I think the dems don't have the balls to stand up to Bush. Our government needs a total overhaul.
As long as God is telling him to do this, then all the wing nuts will think it is ok:devil:

[segovius]

I think the dems don't have the balls to stand up to Bush. Our government needs a total overhaul.
As long as God is telling him to do this, then all the wing nuts will think it is ok:devil:

Well, personally I don't think they want to stand up to him.... in any case, he is more sincere than they are. I have no time for them at all - any of them. He is just an idiot but most Dems are utter scum (did I say that already?).

Anyway, seems I may have been premature in my lambasting Bush here - he has been talking about God again (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58026) and for once (apart from his take on the radicals being responsible for the perception) I agree completely.

I cannot quite believe that he believes what he is saying in the article but if he does then good on him. We are in total agreement.

Here are the main points:

President George Bush has repeated his belief all religions, "whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God" – an assertion that caused outrage among evangelical leaders when he said it in November 2003.

Bush made the statement Friday in an interview with Al Arabiya reporter Elie Nakouzi.

As the president and Nakouzi walked from the Oval Office to the Map Room in the White House residence, Nazouki asked, "But I want to tell you – and I hope this doesn't bother you at all – that in the Islamic world they think that President Bush is an enemy of Islam – that he wants to destroy their religion, what they believe in. Is that in any way true, Mr. President?"

"No, it's not," said Bush. "I've heard that, and it just shows [sic] to show a couple of things: One, that the radicals have done a good job of propagandizing. In other words, they've spread the word that this really isn't peaceful people versus radical people or terrorists, this is really about the America not liking Islam.

"Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that – we had a person blow up our – blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.

"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children – particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East – is an act of somebody who is a religious person.

Good to see that his remarks are alienating and annoying the brain-dead Xian fundie bigots too.

When Bush made similar comments previously, extremist bigot Haggard (the only man who has ever made me look at Dawkins with respect when the latter just stood calmly observing as Haggard tried to have him forcibly evicted from a conversation by neanderthal goons) took some time off from snorting crystal and massaging rent-boys to weigh in with the usual crop of lies, half-truths, moronic ignorance and unbelievably juvenile theological 'thinking':

The Rev. Ted Haggard, then-president of the National Association of Evangelicals, also contradicted the president in a press statement. "The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health," said Haggard. "The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. The personalities of each god are evident in the cultures, civilizations and dispositions of the peoples that serve them. Muhammad's central message was submission; Jesus' central message was love. They seem to be very different personalities."

No they don't - you are just lying, done to much meth or really haven;t read the Bible - try the bits where Jehovah orders the genocide of at least ten tribes and massacres hundreds of thousands of people.

In November 2006, Haggard was forced to resign from NAE following allegations of drug use and sex with a homosexual prostitute.

That's not the bad bit. The bad bit is that he spent his life demonizing gays and telling them they were going to hell.

Back to Bush:

"We are having an Iftaar dinner tonight – I say, 'we' – it's my wife and I," Bush told Nakouzi. "This is the seventh one in the seven years I've been the president. It gives me a chance to say 'Ramadan Mubarak.' The reason I do this is I want people to understand about my country. In other words, I hope this message gets out of America. I want people to understand that one of the great freedoms in America is the right for people to worship any way they see fit. If you're a Muslim, an agnostic, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, you're equally American.

"And the value – the most valuable thing I think about America is that – particularly if you're a religious person – you can be free to worship, and it's your choice to make. It's not the state's choice, and you shouldn't be intimidated after you've made your choice. And that's a right that I jealously guard.

"Secondly, I want American citizens to see me hosting an Iftaar dinner."

"That's a strong message for the Americans," said Nakouzi.

Last year, WND reported criticism of Bush from Wafa Sultan, a native of Syria, who said the president was empowering terrorist leaders whose ultimate aim is for Islamic law to govern the world by proclaiming Islam a "religion of peace."

"I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that," said Sultan. "We came from Islam, and we know what kind of religion Islam is."


I still believe there is a war on Islam and I still believe elements in the US are at the forefront of it. I might just have misunderstimated Bush's role in it though...

Whatever, respect to him for this - and not just because certain people here believe I would never have a good word to say about him. :D

[trumptman]

Instead of BushHate we should rename it BushBlindness. You now have the Congress completely controlled by Democrats. We cannot point ot a single war related vote that has gone different compared to a Republican Congress.

We have a thread where we are discussing Mike Gravel and getting the troops out in 120 days. Why do we have to discuss Mike Gravel? Because none of the top three Democratic candidates for president would commit to having the troops out before the end of their first terms.

In case that wasn't clear, it means they wouldn't commit to having troops out over five years from now.

Maybe it is was a multiparty call because it appears Hillary, Obama, and Edwards were in on the call. Hillary voted for the last Iran measure. Obama ducked it. Edwards wasn't in the Senate.

Nick

[segovius]

Instead of BushHate we should rename it BushBlindness. You now have the Congress completely controlled by Democrats. We cannot point ot a single war related vote that has gone different compared to a Republican Congress.

We have a thread where we are discussing Mike Gravel and getting the troops out in 120 days. Why do we have to discuss Mike Gravel? Because none of the top three Democratic candidates for president would commit to having the troops out before the end of their first terms.

In case that wasn't clear, it means they wouldn't commit to having troops out over five years from now.

Maybe it is was a multiparty call because it appears Hillary, Obama, and Edwards were in on the call. Hillary voted for the last Iran measure. Obama ducked it. Edwards wasn't in the Senate.

Nick

I think it comes down to simple inability to lead and bankruptcy of ideas.

The Republicans have spent nearly a decade 'educating' people to their particular views and were boosted immensely in this by 911 - they were so successful in reflecting what the American people think (a lot of them) that it would take a great effort and/or a political visionary to change the views of the populace.

Whether through laziness, moral bankruptcy or just plain incapacity, the Democrats are unable to do this and so they just steal the Republican's clothes instead.

You guys deserve better.

[trumptman]

There will be a period of time someday where instead of considering Republican ignorant and aggressive, and Democrats enlightented and passive, you will realize that all parties are advocating for their respective views and hold them accountable for such.

You need to realize that neocon, means new conservative. Why is it new? Because it was the OLD Democratic position.

I'll give you a hint... it still is the Democratic position. The World Trade Center was still being bombed during the Clinton administration, and guess what, so was Oklahoma City, Waco and Ruby Ridge. The desire to seek power and control others with it doesn't start and end with Bush. In fact it was so bad during the Clinton administration that we didn't have to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." We were too busy CREATING them here.

Nick

[segovius]

There will be a period of time someday where instead of considering Republican ignorant and aggressive, and Democrats enlightented and passive, you will realize that all parties are advocating for their respective views and hold them accountable for such.

You need to realize that neocon, means new conservative. Why is it new? Because it was the OLD Democratic position.

I'll give you a hint... it still is the Democratic position. The World Trade Center was still being bombed during the Clinton administration, and guess what, so was Oklahoma City, Waco and Ruby Ridge. The desire to seek power and control others with it doesn't start and end with Bush. In fact it was so bad during the Clinton administration that we didn't have to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." We were too busy CREATING them here.

Nick

As much as I despise the Democrats - and that is immensely - what you say is not true.

The Neocon position was never a Democratic one but rather grew out of extremist right-wing conceptions such as those of Strauss.

In effect, NeoConism actually is synonymous with the Straussian position in all respects and always has been from the Reagan era onwards.

[talksense101]

So Segovius, who are you going to vote for?

[segovius]

So Segovius, who are you going to vote for?

Zapatero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Luis_Rodríguez_Zapatero)

[trumptman]

As much as I despise the Democrats - and that is immensely - what you say is not true.

The Neocon position was never a Democratic one but rather grew out of extremist right-wing conceptions such as those of Strauss.

In effect, NeoConism actually is synonymous with the Straussian position in all respects and always has been from the Reagan era onwards.

It is true. I didn't imagine the Truman Doctrine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine)

I would also suggest you look up Neoconservatism itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism)

The Truman doctrine is the seed that grew neoconservatism.

Nick

[segovius]

It is true. I didn't imagine the Truman Doctrine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine)

I would also suggest you look up Neoconservatism itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism)

The Truman doctrine is the seed that grew neoconservatism.

Nick

Did you write the Wiki article....it looks a bit like your style....

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Maybe try this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss) while they are ironing out the disputes and inaccuracies in yours....

Actually I would like to hear your views on why Strauss is NOT the source of NeoCon thought - as must be the case if your argument is correct for Strauss is surely the antithesis of the Truman Doctrine.

Do you have any ideas or thoughts to back up your position?

[SDW2001]

Remember this from Bush?



Well, it seems the Almighty has been on the Batphone again (one day we must really get round to a thread on how atheist wingnuts like Hitchens can decry this sort of lunacy while still myopically supporting Bush and his extremist agenda without a murmur) and issuing further instructions.

This time however (imagine my shock), it seems that it is Iran that the Ancient of Days is scheduling for Jehovahkill through his regent on earth:

Uhh...care to point out that the quote is hearsay? hmmm?

Imagine our surprise Wednesday to read in the Israeli paper Haaretz (online), that Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, meeting recently with militants to enlist their support for a truce with Israel, said that, when they met in Aqaba, President Bush had told him this:






Bush Thinks God is Telling Him to Invade Iran (http://bodypolitik.org/2007/10/05/iraq-redux-bush-thinks-god-is-telling-him-to-invade-iran/)

The chilling quotes are drawn from an article in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=240318) which interestingly draws attention to the fact that - Bush and his pal the Creator of the Entire Universe notwithstanding - it is the democrats who are leading the way in the cries for blood-letting.

No surprise there; the Repubs may be right-wing nutters but the Dems are utter scum....at least Bush believes God is telling him to kill - seems the Dems don't really believe in anything....

Or maybe they are both the same thing.

Oh, and care to mention the second link is pure and utter speculation?

It could be because God is telling him to do it. It could be because his daddy didn't do it. It could be because it's step 13 in a 12-step program he was in. I just don't know."

Case dismissed.

[trumptman]

Did you write the Wiki article....it looks a bit like your style....


You're cute when you are being funny Seg. No I didn't write that article. However I will add it to my list of jokes to attribute to since I've been accused of reading, cribbing or at times even writing everything under the sun.

I'm the universal boogieman. :D

Maybe try this one while they are ironing out the disputes and inaccuracies in yours....

Actually I would like to hear your views on why Strauss is NOT the source of NeoCon thought - as must be the case if your argument is correct for Strauss is surely the antithesis of the Truman Doctrine.

Do you have any ideas or thoughts to back up your position?

As your own link notes....

The Democrats are less inclined than the Republicans to push the war policies favored by the Straussians. Although this reluctance may be due to their preoccupation with social questions at home, the Democrats are less open than the Republicans to Straussian imperia
l projects at the present time, if not necessarily for the future. Moreover, the establishment Right and its Republican organizational structure have become scavengers, living off yesterday’s leftist rhetoric. What Claes Ryn calls the "new Jacobinism" of the neoconservative- and Straussian-controlled pseudo-Right is no longer "new." It is the warmed-over rhetoric of Saint-Juste and Trotsky that the philosophically impoverished American Right has taken over with mindless alacrity. Republican operators and think tanks apparently believe they can carry the electorate by appealing to yesterday’s leftist clichés.[20][21]

I am what your article and many others call a paleoconservative. You and I are not known for our brevity but I will attempt some here since I don't desire to really argue this at depth. We are in agreement on some matters, but you excuse one side as weak, while I simply note they hide their true motives. Also I simply don't get into philosophy as deep as you do, but do study world events and their outcomes which I attribute appropriately, even if I believe it might have gone against the motivations, beliefs or even core of the person who undertook the action.

To make the Truman-Neoconservatism link work, you must be willing to believe that the United States treats terrorism much like it treats communism. As I am sure you will agree, this isn't much of a leap. The Truman doctrine took us from an approach of detente to active containment of communism. Do we not have another domino theory in place with regard to the middle east and terrorism?

It could be argued that this is essentially why the U.S. has not "won a war since WWII. All military activities since then, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc... have been attempts to assist "free people" from "totalitarian regimes" because "they represented a threat to international peace and the national security of the United States." The logic and reasoning at times seems very bent, but it has been applied by both parties. Either way it represents American attempting to impose itself on others to insure the peace. In the past when the United States, fought when attacked, we could properly motivate and facilitate a response.

You hear the same words being spoken by both sides as Democratically lead Congress gives Bush new Iran resolutions.

The Truman doctrine activated Pax Americana, the belief that we must police the world in the interest of our own peace. As various neoconservative critics note, some of the most active advocates for a proactive foreign policy ended up leaving the Democratic Party to become Republicans when the Democrats themselves began infighting over Vietnam. This doesn't mean all those elements left the Democratic Party and the ones that remain are often within the DLC (read Hillary and Bill Clinton) wing of the party.

You'll note that Democrats have never said they would bring all the troops home. The plans are mostly these nebulous abstracts about redeploying them to surrounding countries or more effectively deploying them to fight terrorism abroad.

Now back to Strauss a bit, and again, knowing this is a major area for you, and not for me, you'll have to excuse the loose ends and lack of doctoral dissertation which this could easily cover. I view Strauss as being a means to discard modernity in terms of a perfect society outside of nature but that alone does not make it a neo-conservative idea. As us paleos note, neoconservatism is often taking older liberal notions (compassionate conservatism, no child left behind, pax americana) and putting lipstick on the pig so to speak.

I'll ask you a few questions that I believe clarify thinking in this regard. Who are the people who accept a little genocide as the convenient lie in order to make it politically expedient for us to leave. Who are those who believe that imposing modernity on Iraq is impossible since they people there are to backwards and cannot handle democracy, etc?

I shouldn't have asked those questions, I've already typed as much as I care to type today, but needless to say, a move away or even providing the means to move from individualism in terms of rights, and a sort of artificially imposed, outside of nature egalitarianism, does not automatically default to neoconservatism in my view.

Pardon the dust. There are some corners of my mind with regard to philosophy that I haven't activated in a while. If I got it a bit wrong, be forgiving. I'm coming at you from an angle at which you have the higher ground in terms of study.

Nick

[trumptman]

That article doesn't support your contention that neoconservatives merely support the "old democratic position." It has more to do with how liberalism was an intellectual forebear to neoconservativism, particular in its forward-looking outlook (as opposed to isolationist and reactionary conservatism). It has more to do with similarities concerning how to approach issues rather than similarities concerning the positions themselves. Does that make any sense?

It does make sense Shawn, and the what is beneath that is what Seg is hitting on a bit. There are splits and factions within all political parties. Also it is hard to spit this stuff out and have it quickly make sense.

What is very interesting to me is part of this split shows why Republicans harp at Democrat so much with regard to the "convenient lies" they tell in politics. If you have a philosophy pushing toward true modernism, you shouldn't be caught up in telling the little lies that make up the status quo. (In my view)

When we were going through the civil rights battles, there was an argument for true equality for example that demanded sacrifice, arrests with possibly even jail time, and many court challenges. We did not have calls for reverse racism. We did not have people in private jets and massive mansions explaining how we all should reduce our carbon footprint. Finally we just didn't have arguments for clear double standards in the law.

These things stink of man as a purely political animal or that it is within his nature and natural to order things in such a fashion. Hillary is progressive while accepting from PACs and so forth. It is the little lies to get through the political day. There are elements within each party that do this. They keep certain issues from being addressed, among them trade, immigration, and putting an end to or reducing the need for military abroad for example.

ugh...

Nick

[franksargent]

Remember this from Bush?



Well, it seems the Almighty has been on the Batphone again (one day we must really get round to a thread on how atheist wingnuts like Hitchens can decry this sort of lunacy while still myopically supporting Bush and his extremist agenda without a murmur) and issuing further instructions.

This time however (imagine my shock), it seems that it is Iran that the Ancient of Days is scheduling for Jehovahkill through his regent on earth:



Bush Thinks God is Telling Him to Invade Iran (http://bodypolitik.org/2007/10/05/iraq-redux-bush-thinks-god-is-telling-him-to-invade-iran/)

The chilling quotes are drawn from an article in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=240318) which interestingly draws attention to the fact that - Bush and his pal the Creator of the Entire Universe notwithstanding - it is the democrats who are leading the way in the cries for blood-letting.

No surprise there; the Repubs may be right-wing nutters but the Dems are utter scum....at least Bush believes God is telling him to kill - seems the Dems don't really believe in anything....

Or maybe they are both the same thing.

... the WRONG conclusions or conjectures! :rolleyes:

This is what SH actually wrote;

Shifting Targets (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh)

If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible."

That's the ONLY use of the word "Democrat(s)" in that ENTIRE article! :rolleyes:

[@_@ Artman]

I just find it creepy that our president is having conversations with:

http://www.geocities.com/eds_python/god.jpg

God: Arthur, King of the Britons, your Knights of the Round Table shall have a task to make them an example in these dark times.
King Arthur: Good idea, O Lord!
God: 'Course it's a good idea!

:rolleyes:

[screener]

I just find it creepy that our president is having conversations with:

http://www.geocities.com/eds_python/god.jpg

:rolleyes:

I think it's scary rather than creepy.

[@_@ Artman]

George W. Bush Thinks Christians Are Idiots (http://newsblaze.com/story/20061016225150nnnn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html)

David Kuo, the former deputy director of the White House office of faith-based initiatives, implies that George W. Bush is not fond of Christians. He maintains in his new book, Tempting Faith, that Bush and those around him regularly mock and make fun of Christians, especially Evangelicals. For example, he quotes Karl Rove as saying Evangelicals are "nuts." It was quite common, according to Kuo, for Bush and those around him to look upon Christians as useful idiots.



Tom Delay: "The Second Coming is What I Live For" (http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4000)

Max: How much of an inspiration is the Second Coming in your support for israel?

Tom Delay: Obviously, it's what I live for - I wish it comes tomorrow.

I for one reject these idiotic religious overlords. :mad:

[screener]

George W. Bush Thinks Christians Are Idiots (http://newsblaze.com/story/20061016225150nnnn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html)



Tom Delay: "The Second Coming is What I Live For" (http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4000)



I for one reject these idiotic religious overlords. :mad:

And yet they still hold influence.

Scary.

[Northgate]

There will be a period of time someday where instead of considering Republican ignorant and aggressive, and Democrats enlightented and passive, you will realize that all parties are advocating for their respective views and hold them accountable for such.

You need to realize that neocon, means new conservative. Why is it new? Because it was the OLD Democratic position.

I'll give you a hint... it still is the Democratic position. The World Trade Center was still being bombed during the Clinton administration, and guess what, so was Oklahoma City, Waco and Ruby Ridge. The desire to seek power and control others with it doesn't start and end with Bush. In fact it was so bad during the Clinton administration that we didn't have to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." We were too busy CREATING them here.

Nick

Funny. Now Trumpt thinks himself a centrist. When Republicans controlled EVERYTHING it was hard party line every time of which they could do no wrong. Now it's "there's enough blame to go around."

[southside grabowski]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Tinkerer]

Funny. Now Trumpt thinks himself a centrist. When Republicans controlled EVERYTHING it was hard party line every time of which they could do no wrong. Now it's "there's enough blame to go around."

And?

Even if this analysis were 100% accurate, would anyone consider it a bad thing that someone's opinion changes over time due to a myriad of factors?

When we slam a guy for always towing a party line, and then we slam him for showing some middle ground opinions, what's left?

People's views and opinions change over time, all the time.

[trumptman]

Some people can't comprehend that continually slamming someone and never addressing ideas and thoughts is a classic ad-hom.

Nick