or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What neocons don't tell you
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What neocons don't tell you - Page 2

post #41 of 209
The endgame of fascism is occupation.
post #42 of 209
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Do people here at AI not realize that islamic terrorism is a blight to humanity?

So you see no problem with 70,000 civillians dead in Iraq because it is those islamic folk who we have a problem with as you see it?

I guess it would not matter if 600,000 civillians or 2 million died in Iraq either in your view.


When do people like you draw the line?

How many dead is too many in your view? Some people from the Right just simply say "Make a parking lot in Iraq". Do you agree with such racist notions?

You sicken me with your lack of regard for fellow human lives. JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WHITE AMERICANS.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #43 of 209
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Poor Saddam, so unjustly treated in this whole affair. I feel so sorry for him.

Ohhhhhhhhhh just take the liberty from your armchair to divert to Saddam and completely FORGET ABOUT all the dead Iraqi civillians.

How lazy and deceptive of you to divert to Saddam when we are talking about the dead Iraqi civillians in this thread.

SHAME ON YOU. Of course you did not have your wife or daughter killed so it matters not to you...

You have food, water and shelter without guns and bombs going off.


Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #44 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Ohhhhhhhhhh just take the liberty from your armchair to divert to Saddam and completely FORGET ABOUT all the dead Iraqi civillians.

How lazy and deceptive of you to divert to Saddam when we are talking about the dead Iraqi civillians in this thread.

Um, Fellows... Frank was directly responding to sammi jo re: Saddam being tricked by Bush 1. \
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #45 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

So you see no problem with 70,000 civillians dead in Iraq because it is those islamic folk who we have a problem with as you see it?

The question is- would those people be dead if not for Islamic terrorism? Probably not. But maybe.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #46 of 209
Thread Starter 
Follow the money, Follow the crooks, and be proud...



Iraq corruption whistleblowers face penalties
Cases show fraud exposers have been vilified, fired, or detained for weeks

One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have been vilified, fired and demoted. Or worse. For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation methods. There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to wish he had just kept his mouth shut.

He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said. He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry employees. The seller, he claimed, was the Iraqi-owned company he worked for, Shield Group Security Co.

It was a Wal-Mart for guns, he says. It was all illegal and everyone knew it.

So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago because he didnt know whom to trust in Iraq.

For his trouble, he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he was classified a security detainee.Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the countrys oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

Despite this staggering mess, there are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle, according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.

If you do it, you will be destroyed, said William Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.



Shameful

Fellows

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430153/
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #47 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

You nailed it...

You see we just can't have that well if that were allowed the US $ could end up in a free fall if others followed suit like Iran and Venezuela etc. etc.

Ohhh but it was about WMD right?

Fellows

NO it was about violating the cease fire.
post #48 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

The question is- would those people be dead if not for Islamic terrorism? Probably not. But maybe.

Or the question could even be: would Islamic Terrorism exist if not for the US?

Certainly Islam did just fine with no terrorism for over 1000 years before the US existed.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #49 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

You sicken me with your lack of regard for fellow human lives. JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WHITE AMERICANS.

Fellows

Get over yourself. The fact that I strongly disapprove of a group of people who want to kill us and knock down our way of life shouldn't sicken you, at all. Millions of people have died in wars fighting for causes that have been far less clear, and I bet I can go down the list and you wouldn't whine and stamp your feet about US involvement in many of those.

There is a cause. You have to shut off your giant ego for a second, and realize that humans aren't perfect. Not even close. To do what we need to do to preserve what has been so far the very enjoyable and successful way of the west, I am willing to accept that there will be casualties on both sides. I believe the west is worth preserving. Look what it has brought humanity. Over the last thousand years the middle east has done very little in regard to science, philosophy, etc, and now it has extremists who want to spread their poison elsewhere.

And please, resist pulling the race card when it's not relevant whatsoever. Use your brain next time.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #50 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Certainly Islam did just fine with no terrorism for over 1000 years before the US existed.

They've have similar groups for years and years and years. Islamic extremism is not new. It's just that it has been a while since there have been crusaders to butt heads with them.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #51 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

They've have similar groups for years and years and years. Islamic extremism is not new. It's just that it has been a while since there have been crusaders to butt heads with them.

OK - name one and give the (pre-US) date.

And please don't reference the official national armies that fought against the Crusaders. Neither the Crusaders nor Islamic armies or any other national army really passes for a 'terrorist cell'.

And btw, the original reference was 'terrorist' not 'extremist' - you could take the most moderate Muslim group that ever existed and they would be 'extremist' to Mr and Mrs Apple Pie.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #52 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

Over the last thousand years the middle east has done very little in regard to science, philosophy, etc,.



Spoken like a true (insert personal assessment of choice here)! Not even having the sense to not add the 1000 years bit...

No, nothing at all...only algebra, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, physics and on and on...

Philosophy:

Quote:
Arab philosophers like al-Kindi, and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Persian philosophers like Ibn Sina (Avicenna) played a major role in preserving the works of Aristotle, whose ideas came to dominate the non-religious thought of the Christian and Muslim worlds. They would also absorb ideas from China, and India, adding to them tremendous knowledge from their own studies. Three speculative thinkers, al-Kindi, al-Farabi, and Avicenna (Ibn Sina), fused Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism with other ideas introduced through Islam.

From Spain the Arabic philosophic literature was translated into Hebrew, Latin, and Ladino, contributing to the development of modern European philosophy. The Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides, muslim sociologist-historian Ibn Khaldun, Carthage citizen Constantine the African who translated Greek medical texts, and the muslim Al-Khwarzimi's collation of mathematical techniques were important figures of the Golden Age.

One of the most influential Muslim philosophers in the West was Averroes (Ibn Rushd), founder of the Averroism school of philosophy, and who is regarded as a founding father of secular thought in Western Europe.

Science:

Quote:
The modern scientific method was first developed in the Muslim world, where significant progress in methodology was made, especially in the works of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in the 11th century.

The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation. Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) wrote the Book of Optics, and he is known as the father of optics for empirically proving that vision occurred because of light rays entering the eye, as well as for inventing the camera obscura to demonstrate the physical nature of light rays.

Ibn al-Haytham has also been described as the "first scientist" for his development of the scientific method and some also consider him the founder of psychophysics and experimental psychology] for his pioneering work on the psychology of visual perception.

Among the achievements of Muslim scientists and mathematicians during this period included the development of algebra and algorithms (see Muhammad ibn M?s? al-Khw?rizm?), the invention of spherical trigonometry, the beginning of modern optics and the development of the scientific method by Ibn al-Haytham, the beginning of chemistry by Geber, and significant advances in astronomy.

These advances included the construction of the first observatory in Baghdad during the reign of Caliph Al-Ma'mun,the first elaborate experiments related to astronomical phenomena by Ab? al-Rayh?n al-B?r?n?, the collection and correction of previous astronomical data, resolving significant problems in the Ptolemaic model, and improved variations of the astrolabe.

Several Muslim astronomers also considered the possibility of the Earth's rotation on its axis and perhaps a heliocentric solar system.It is known that the Copernican heliocentric model in Nicolaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus was adapted from the geocentric model of the Maragheh school in a heliocentric context.

In the mechanics field of physics, early precursors to Newton's laws of motion were developed by Muslim scientists. Newton's first law of motion, the law of inertia, was developed by Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) and Avicenna.]

The concept of momentum and the proportionality between force and acceleration in Newton's second law of motion were first discovered by Avicenna and Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi respectively, while the concept of reaction foreshadowing Newton's third law of motion was discovered by Ibn Bajjah (Avempace). Theories foreshadowing Newton's law of universal gravitation were developed by Muhammad ibn Musa, Ibn al-Haytham, and al-Khazini. It is known that Galileo Galilei's mathematical treatment of acceleration and his concept of impetus grew out of earlier medieval Muslim analyses of motion, especially those of Avicenna[36] and Ibn Bajjah.

Many other advances were made by Muslim scientists in biology (botany, evolution, and zoology), mathematics (algebra, arithmetic, calculus, geometry, mathematical induction, number theory, and trigonometry), alchemy and chemistry, the earth sciences (anthropology, cartography, geodesy, geography, and geology), physics (optics, mechanics, and motion), psychology (experimental psychology, psychiatry, psychophysics, and psychotherapy), and the social sciences (demography, economics, history and historiography, and sociology).

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #53 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Poor Saddam, so unjustly treated in this whole affair. I feel so sorry for him.

Maybe it was inappropriate to use the word "Saddam", when it has been the Iraqi nation and people who got screwed, by Saddam, Kuwait and the west. The mainstream media's habit of equating a government with its people must be catching... How often does one hear about "Italy, Spain, Britain, Australia etc etc" as siding with the Bush Administration... when in reality those nations' people were overwhelmingly against the war; it was their weasel governments who were/are the appeasers.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #54 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh goodie. Another anti-Iraq war thread.

<yawn>

Oh this travisty of bloodshed is boring to you. How sad!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

NO it was about violating the cease fire.


You really haven't been paying much attention to the discussions about this have you?

The only reason this war got off the ground is the percieved threat of WMD.

It's the only reason that matters because with out it Bush wouldn't have got any backing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #56 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh this travisty of bloodshed is boring to you. How sad!

What's really funny is how often many, Many, MANY topics are regurgitated in PO; GW, class warfare, 9-11 conspiracies, racism, Iraq, etceteras. And I wonder why? Perhaps a new piece of information, presented in the hyperbole of the MSM, op-ed pieces, talk radio, and the blog-o-smear, perhaps?

But the real irony is after 6.5+ years of neocon BS, GWB, et. al., notice how almost nobody in PO can now muster up a defense for the neocons and their ilk, BushCo, Inc..

Secrecy and disinformation carry with it a high burden of proof, a high burden of skepticism, a high burden of evidence, something that cannot exist in the BushCo, Inc. realm.

You can sum up the BushCo, Inc. ideology in one acronym, FUD!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #57 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Shouldn't you be loving your enemies?


There is a profound difference between loving one's enemies and being an apologist for their actions.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #58 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You really haven't been paying much attention to the discussions about this have you?

The only reason this war got off the ground is the percieved threat of WMD.

It's the only reason that matters because with out it Bush wouldn't have got any backing.

This video, featuring former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is revealing re. the Iraq war:
Attacking Iraq, divvying up its oil resources and removing Saddam Hussein, was on the table from DAY ONE of the Bush Administration, right after its inauguration in January 2001, some 8 months before the 9/11 attacks. O'Neill tells us also how the Bush campaign platform publicly excluded preemption and very specifically "nation building", but privately, they were intending to do exactly that. Lying is something this crew has done right from the get go. And even more telling, is that the Bush-Cheney team out out the call..."find us a way in which we can do this, namely attack Iraq, and get this agenda into motion".

Persons unknown undoubtedly did their homework and found a way.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #59 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

No. Believe me, when a new leader enters the White House there will be even more discussion on when, how and who will be in charge to clean up the radioactive cesspool that this administration has left behind. Look at any election from any part of the world and you will see that when the parties shift in power there are many who will oppose and criticize their actions.

If we have a Democrat in office, we'll probably never hear the end of it from you anyway.

That honestly depends on what they do. If they propose raising taxes, even more social programs, nationalized healthcare, doing away with the Patriot Act and other programs, lax immigration policies, etc...then yes, I'm going to go batshit. It really just depends on how they govern.

What I'm saying is the hatred of this administration has filled a lot of people's minds for a long time. I just wonder where that energy is going to go at the end of the admin.

Oh, and what cesspool are you referring to, specifically?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

NO it was about violating the cease fire.

It was about much more than that too. It was about the ceasefire, UN resolutions, firing on our aircraft, and 12 years of Saddam basically giving the finger to the international community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You really haven't been paying much attention to the discussions about this have you?

The only reason this war got off the ground is the percieved threat of WMD.

It's the only reason that matters because with out it Bush wouldn't have got any backing.

Patently false. That said, the admin focused on that reason way too heavily. They should have presented all the reasons. And let me tell you, there were plenty.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #60 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What I'm saying is the hatred of this administration has filled a lot of people's minds for a long time. I just wonder where that energy is going to go at the end of the admin.

Obviously to whomever governs next!

Let's see now, I remember a lot of hatred of the Johnson administration, a whole lot of hatred of the Nixon administration, not much hatred of the Ford administration, a fair amount of hatred of the Carter administration, a whole lot of hatred of the Reagan administration, a fair amount of hatred of the Bush (41) administration, a WHOLE LOT of hatred of the Clinton administration, and a WHOLE LOT MORE hatred of the Bush (43) administration.

All I can tell you is that the near term postmortem of BushCo, Inc.™ (circa 2010) is going to make for one extremely funny Mockumentary! With the byline of "A comedy of vast government neocon artists errors."

Do you think that, in part, the number of media outlets, the internet, and particularly the blog-o-smear have anything to do with the relative amount of "hatred" we see today?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #61 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Obviously to whomever governs next!

Let's see now, I remember a lot of hatred of the Johnson administration, a whole lot of hatred of the Nixon administration, not much hatred of the Ford administration, a fair amount of hatred of the Carter administration, a whole lot of hatred of the Reagan administration, a fair amount of hatred of the Bush (41) administration, a WHOLE LOT of hatred of the Clinton administration, and a WHOLE LOT MORE hatred of the Bush (43) administration.

All I can tell you is that the near term postmortem of BushCo, Inc. (circa 2010) is going to make for one extremely funny Mockumentary! With the byline of "A comedy of vast government neocon artists errors."

Do you think that, in part, the number of media outlets, the internet, and particularly the blog-o-smear have anything to do with the relative amount of "hatred" we see today?

I don't know....I think the level of smear directed at Bush is unprecedented. The Right went after Bill Clinton certainly, but the kind of vitriolic attacks we see now? I don't think it was quite that severe.

My second point relates to who is giving the criticism. The Left, in my opinion, will continue to go berserk, because without some act of a God they don't believe in, there won't be a true Lefty elected. Therefore, the hard left's voice will not be represented as per usual. The blogosphere will continue on, in overdrive. But, somehow I doubt they'll have as much fun without being able to compare Bush to Hitler and what not.

Of course, my feeling is that Thompson or Guiliani will win anyway. I think a lot of the ABB crowd will just transfer over their anger to that person. But the boards here at AI? I wonder. I suppose we'll still have seg's anti-religion threads and threads talking about what a mess Bush left. Perhaps that will keep me occupied.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #62 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Spoken like a true (insert personal assessment of choice here)!

Al-kindi - 1200 years ago
Ibn Rusde - 800 years ago
Ibn al-Haytham - 800 years ago

Are you trying to prove his point or rebut him?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #63 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

This thread is for the purpose of thinking...

234.53 9/11's

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 yet look at what is going on with the invasion / occupation.

Your thoughts?

Fellows

I'd have to ask -- how many more 9/11's would the UN sanctions accomplished given the time?

Bush borrowed a lot of the same reasons for keeping the sanctions in place to tip Saddam over, and drive a wedge in the ME -- I think that should becoming more and more clear. Hard sell on the invasion? -- to be sure -- but I don't think we can do the Forest Gump thing, and expect Dabububbbubba to give a speech outline his five year plan to deal with tuurururururururism.

(I think it's clear how badly he miscalculated how easy it would be to drive that wedge, btw.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #64 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't know....I think the level of smear directed at Bush is unprecedented. The Right went after Bill Clinton certainly, but the kind of vitriolic attacks we see now? I don't think it was quite that severe.

First, that's ridiculous. Nothing compares to Clinton's presidency as to how it was villified from the moment he announced he was running and was routinely (and falsely) described as a "draft dodger," to being continuously investigated by independent counsels as president, and ultimately impeached by congress. Nothing that has happened to Bush compares to that.

Second, in the end, what's really important is whether the criticisms are valid and substantive. And on that score, again there's no comparison. Clinton was effectively a "conservative" president. He enacted policies that were widely considered to be appropriate albeit modest. Conservatives looking back on his presidency can hardly point to anything important he did that they can criticize. Deficit reduction? Welfare reform? North Korea? Well Bush is now back to the Clinton policy on North Korea. Not invading and occupying Iraq? Right. The criticisms of him, for all the over-the-top bluster at the time, were all silly: that he had Vince Foster murdered, that he was cheating on his wife, that he did... something in Whitewater.

On the other hand, criticism of Bush focuses on the war in Iraq - almost universally considered to be a terrible mistake - and on substantive questions of civil liberties - things like Guantanamo, the detention without trial and torture of people including American citizens, eavesdropping on US citizens, etc., things that, at the very least, are legitimately controversial among legal experts.
post #65 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

First, that's ridiculous. Nothing compares to Clinton's presidency as to how it was villified from the moment he announced he was running and was routinely (and falsely) described as a "draft dodger," to being continuously investigated by independent counsels as president, and ultimately impeached by congress. Nothing that has happened to Bush compares to that.

First, I'm stating my opinion, nothing more. Secondly...puuhhlease. He was villified because it was apparent to many that he was a liberal, womanizing slickster with no real record. He was investigated as President because of his actions. The Clintons were quite shady with their business dealings, and he brought on the Lewsinsky thing by himself. Sure, we has attacked and the right wing hated him. Don't get me wrong. However, if you look at what's been lobbed at Bush, it's not even close, particularly with the rhetoric. I mean, we have people wishing that assassination attempts were successful. He's been called "brain dead" by at least two members of the US Senate. He's a liar. A warmonger. Hitler. A racist. It's to the point where everything is the man's fault.

Again, I don't mean to downplay how much the right hated Clinton, went after him, etc. But I think it's a new level with Bush.

Quote:

Second, in the end, what's really important is whether the criticisms are valid and substantive. And on that score, again there's no comparison. Clinton was effectively a "conservative" president. He enacted policies that were widely considered to be appropriate albeit modest.

He was forced to the center to win reelection. The driving force behind that was Dick Morris.

Quote:
Conservatives looking back on his presidency can hardly point to anything important he did that they can criticize.

Largest tax increase...on the MIDDLE CLASS...since WWII. National Healthcare attempt. Selling supercomputers to China and nuke reactors to NK. Dealing with terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Failing to respond forcefully enough to attacks. Failure to take bin laden. Blackhawk down....which was perhaps personally his fault.

Quote:

Deficit reduction? Welfare reform?


Republican Congress. Republican Congress. Republican Congress.

North Korea? Well Bush is now back to the Clinton policy on North Korea.[/quote]

NK was the biggest blunder in US policy in perhaps 50 years. Bush is not exactly back to NK. In fact, his administration triangulated them pretty successfully.

Quote:
Not invading and occupying Iraq? Right.

Bombing Iraq and making the same arguments Bush made? Hmmm.

Quote:

The criticisms of him, for all the over-the-top bluster at the time, were all silly: that he had Vince Foster murdered, that he was cheating on his wife, that he did... something in Whitewater.

Well, there is some truth to that, I agree. That said, he was a serial womanizer and may have been guilty of rape. Not quite the same thing as cheating on his wife.


Quote:
On the other hand, criticism of Bush focuses on the war in Iraq - almost universally considered to be a terrible mistake - and on substantive questions of civil liberties - things like Guantanamo, the detention without trial and torture of people including American citizens, eavesdropping on US citizens, etc., things that, at the very least, are legitimately controversial among legal experts.

1. It's not universally anything. It's considered mistake by 99% of liberals. The polls show it to be 60 to 40 overall..a majority but not "universal."

2. OK, but that's the issue. A lot of it is the tone and the rhetoric used. It's the public denouncements of Bush personally by politicians in a time of war. It's these same people opening calling him a liar, people who voted with him in 2002. It's calling him stupid. It's not policy debate for a lot of people. For you it is, but you're not typical...sorry to say.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #66 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That honestly depends on what they do. If they propose raising taxes, even more social programs, nationalized healthcare, doing away with the Patriot Act and other programs, lax immigration policies, etc...then yes, I'm going to go batshit. It really just depends on how they govern.

What I'm saying is the hatred of this administration has filled a lot of people's minds for a long time. I just wonder where that energy is going to go at the end of the admin.

Oh, and what cesspool are you referring to, specifically?



It was about much more than that too. It was about the ceasefire, UN resolutions, firing on our aircraft, and 12 years of Saddam basically giving the finger to the international community.



Patently false. That said, the admin focused on that reason way too heavily. They should have presented all the reasons. And let me tell you, there were plenty.

SDW! Wake up!

I'll say it again for you so maybe you'll understand!

It doesn't matter what they would have said or what you thought. The simple fact is that the only reason the president got the backing he did was the threat of WMD!

Without it the other's in government would have said " We need to see more". You know it and I know it! So without it this war wouldn't have gotten off the ground!

And do you know what else?

Bush knew it!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #67 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW! Wake up!

I'll say it again for you so maybe you'll understand!

It doesn't matter what they would have said or what you thought. The simple fact is that the only reason the president got the backing he did was the threat of WMD!

Without it the other's in government would have said " We need to see more". You know it and I know it! So without it this war wouldn't have gotten off the ground!

And do you know what else?

Bush knew it!

Quote:
Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Hussein, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Hussein. He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks—an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission.

Quote:
Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 to argue in favor of military action. Citing "numerous" anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.

While Powell's oratorical skills and personal conviction were acknowledged, there was an overall rejection of the evidence Powell offered that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in, such as claims based on the yellowcake forgery. The administration is currently under fire for having acted on faulty intelligence. Reports have indicated that Powell himself was skeptical of the evidence presented to him. Powell later recounted how Vice President Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Larry Wilkerson later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."

In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." Mr. Powell's longtime aide-de-camp Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson said that he participated in a hoax on the American people in preparing Mr. Powell's erroneous testimony before the United Nations General Assembly.

Secretary of State speech to the UN

I remember that speech very well as I had watched it live on TV. Had me sold hook, line, and sinker, since I respected him for his military career and leadership during the first Gulf War.

But those stony faced UN delegated didn't buy it one bit, just watching them it was so obvious that they doubted the WMD evidence he presented.

BushCo, Inc.™ what a bunch of 247 effin' LIERS!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #68 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW! Wake up!

I'll say it again for you so maybe you'll understand!

It doesn't matter what they would have said or what you thought. The simple fact is that the only reason the president got the backing he did was the threat of WMD!

That false and once more, unprovable. It's an opinion you hold...nothing more. And even if the assertion was true, Congress saw what Bush saw re: WMD evidence. They made their own judgement. They were wrong, just like Bush was.

Quote:
Without it the other's in government would have said " We need to see more". You know it and I know it! So without it this war wouldn't have gotten off the ground!

And do you know what else?

Bush knew it!

That's not what you've been saying. You've been saying that WMD was the ONLY reason for the war, which isn't true. It was the primary reason, I agree. It was the reason the Administration focused on, which as I've stated I feel was a mistake.

The fact is that we should have invaded Iraq 10 years ago when he kicked out the inspectors. If that didn't do it, the repeated violations of the ceasefire should have triggered it. But gee....we had a President in office who didn't want the political costs of a ground invasion. After 9/11, the Administration decided they weren't going to put up with Saddam anymore. And yes, once again (so you...eh...understand) the primary reason/threat was WMD. But they could have made the case without it.

In hindsight, all they really needed to do was focus on Iraq as a rogue state, violating UN mandates, making threatening statements, praising the events of 9/11, firing on our aircraft, and making the weapons inspectors' job very hard. Had the Admin. coupled that with a statement like "in the wake of 9/11, we cannot let nations like Iraq continue down this path in a critical region of the world," they would have had the support to do it, at least in my judgement.

But by focusing on WMD so intently, they set themselves up for a major problem...being wrong. Now in your mind they were lying, but I don't buy that because whether or not the UN diplomats though so or not, the world intelligence community did. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons. What the admin did was make a political calculation that this would be the easiest way to get support for taking out Saddam. They should have just leveled with us, so to speak. It would have still happened, and they wouldn't have the egg in their faces they do now.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #69 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The simple fact is that the only reason the president got the backing he did was the threat of WMD!

The WMD 'reasoning' was arrived at by consensus within the Admin., and it fitted the bill perfectly: the perceived threat, by an unknowing public, of WMDs being used by Iraq/Saddam against the US was an easy sell, since 9/11 had happened only a few months before, and the US public was understandably jittery.... and easily led. It wasn't the threat of WMDs.. the Admin. knew there were none. The Bush Admin. debated this long and hard to arrive at this consensus. The real reason, according to 9/11 "Commission" head honcho and former Philip Zelikow, was not sellable to the public: the Iraq war was for "the benefit of Israel and its security".

Quote:
Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel, Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell, said Zelikow.

Not only "not a popular sell"... but also a little piece of (probably unintentionally aired) evidence pointing to the symbiotic relationship between the US NeoConservative movement and hardline Zionism.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #70 of 209
Its a waste of time arguing about whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11. We all know they weren't. This is 2007, and we've been there over four years. The focus shouldn't be on why we got in now, it should be how to make it successful in order for the U.S. to leave as soon as its possible. Historians can figure out the 5W's when its over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyrStaIoh-w

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...146880,00.html

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/0...h-of-good.html
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
post #71 of 209
Bla, Bla, Bla...... So far I've heard not ONE solution...How about it? There are consequences to any action. What is YOUR solution? All I've heard is whining about the past.
post #72 of 209
[CENTER][/CENTER]

They're are plenty of solutions, but none that the BushCo, Inc. neocon artists would ever listen to. It will take many, Many, MANY decades to remove the stains and treadmarks these stooges will leave behind in AmeriKKa's and the Middle East's collective shorts!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #73 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

[CENTER][/CENTER]

They're are plenty of solutions, but none that the BushCo, Inc. neocon artists would ever listen to. It will take many, Many, MANY decades to remove the stains and treadmarks these stooges will leave behind in AmeriKKa's and the Middle East's collective shorts!

Oh stop. Just...stop. "Things are a shit hole" is a common portrayal of good libs like yourself. Really, I don't see it that way. I see problems, don't get me wrong. And, I certainly don't agree with Bush on a host of issues. But things are not all bad. We've had a good economy, low interest rates, lower unemployment and no terror attacks in 6 years. That's no accident. Libya gave up it's nuke program. NK has calmed down a bit.
The deficit is shrinking. Taxes are low. So let's have a little perspective here, champ.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #74 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh stop. Just...stop. "Things are a shit hole" is a common portrayal of good libs like yourself. Really, I don't see it that way. I see problems, don't get me wrong. And, I certainly don't agree with Bush on a host of issues. But things are not all bad. We've had a good economy, low interest rates, lower unemployment and no terror attacks in 6 years. That's no accident. Libya gave up it's nuke program. NK has calmed down a bit.
The deficit is shrinking. Taxes are low. So let's have a little perspective here, champ.

This is a neocon "bashing" thread isn't it? And it took me several minutes of hard google image searching to find that Bush as Nixon image.

Besides, these guys just seen to be "The gift that keeps on giving." And if a Democrat gets elected in '08, have at it all you want, it wouldn't bother me a bit.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #75 of 209
Nixon was the guy that got us out of VietNam
post #76 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Nixon was the guy that got us out of VietNam

Really, no kidding? My draft number back then was 287!

So if the US stays in Iraq like we did in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, we'll be their for 50 years minimum, fighting a continuous gorilla war with insurgents, or Sunnis, or Al-Qaeda, or Shiites, or Syrians, or Iranians, ... \

We'll have to have 50K troops minimum, say at $100 B/Year, that's $5 Trillion dollars minimum, that's over and above our already absurd military budget for our peacetime military. \

The US alone will move a minimum of $63 B of arms to the Middle East over the next 10 years, you can bet that total arms sales from all countries inclusive will total several hundred billion dollars over the next 10 years easily. Business will be booming for the US arms and construction industries for sure! \

Chimpy MacFlightsuit already had his premature ejaculation on that aircraft carrier, someone else will have to clean the noecon artist money shots on AmeriKKKa's collective faces!

Oh, and did I mention the eventual draft necessary to fight WWIII? Oh, I see I did mention the last time there was a draft! Get ready to put some black boot polish on your boots boy. \

Let the good times roll! \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #77 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Bla, Bla, Bla...... So far I've heard not ONE solution...How about it? There are consequences to any action. What is YOUR solution? All I've heard is whining about the past.

You're right I haven't heard a solution either. All I've heard is "they'll greet us as liberators" and then "our strategy is to win." If you're talking Democrats' solution, it's very simple: Get out and let them sort it out.
post #78 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

You're right I haven't heard a solution either. All I've heard is "they'll greet us as liberators" and then "our strategy is to win." If you're talking Democrats' solution, it's very simple: Get out and let them sort it out.

Agreed.

The solution for Iraq is to work toward withdrawal. Not toward victory. We just have to swallow our pride on this and take the consequences of the mess we've created.

But the main solution is that next time something like this happens, our senators, from both parties say, "Wait. Before we do this we need an exit strategy. I know you believe there's no way we can fail here. But we need a clear definition of what we want to accomplish, a schedule for getting out when it's accomplished, and schedule for getting out in case we fail to accomplish it over a pre-determined period of time or when set of withdrawal criteria are met. Without such a basic strategy, I will refuse to support this action."

Fool me once (Vietnam)... "Walk on the beach."

Fool me twice (Iraq)... "WMD. Rejoicing in the streets. Mission Accomplished. The surge is working."

Just how fucking foolish do you expect America to be next time?

That's the solution. To learn something. And never, ever let someone like Bush fool us again.
post #79 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

No kidding..... I do not understand people like Mystic...

sadly, many people are easily duped by the Bushes monkeys, Limbaugh, ORiley and Hannity. if not directly, then the peer pressure gets to them...do you want to be the one in a room full of co-workers and managers (the prople that determine raises and bonuses), church groups, or social settings who goes against the group-think? it could backfire...


many people know how bad it is, but they just cant stomach it so they hide behind the flag like cowards in stead of standing up for what is right for America and the world, who now pretty much hates us...Thanks George...

I say in stead of Genna getting married at the White House, she should do it in the middle of Baghdad...if we are "winning" and "peace is taking hold" and "the Iraqies love us" then what could possibly go wrong?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #80 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That false and once more, unprovable. It's an opinion you hold...nothing more. And even if the assertion was true, Congress saw what Bush saw re: WMD evidence. They made their own judgement. They were wrong, just like Bush was.



That's not what you've been saying. You've been saying that WMD was the ONLY reason for the war, which isn't true. It was the primary reason, I agree. It was the reason the Administration focused on, which as I've stated I feel was a mistake.

The fact is that we should have invaded Iraq 10 years ago when he kicked out the inspectors. If that didn't do it, the repeated violations of the ceasefire should have triggered it. But gee....we had a President in office who didn't want the political costs of a ground invasion. After 9/11, the Administration decided they weren't going to put up with Saddam anymore. And yes, once again (so you...eh...understand) the primary reason/threat was WMD. But they could have made the case without it.

In hindsight, all they really needed to do was focus on Iraq as a rogue state, violating UN mandates, making threatening statements, praising the events of 9/11, firing on our aircraft, and making the weapons inspectors' job very hard. Had the Admin. coupled that with a statement like "in the wake of 9/11, we cannot let nations like Iraq continue down this path in a critical region of the world," they would have had the support to do it, at least in my judgement.

But by focusing on WMD so intently, they set themselves up for a major problem...being wrong. Now in your mind they were lying, but I don't buy that because whether or not the UN diplomats though so or not, the world intelligence community did. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons. What the admin did was make a political calculation that this would be the easiest way to get support for taking out Saddam. They should have just leveled with us, so to speak. It would have still happened, and they wouldn't have the egg in their faces they do now.

SDW

Please don't even try to tell me what I've been saying. What I've said all along is that this war didn't have the backing Bush needed without WMD. I don't neeed to prove it. Any more than you need proof to know your hand will be gone if you stick it in a lawn mower while running.

Everyone thought Saddam had weapons because that's what the Bush administration was saying.

If Bush wasn't able to come up with the WMD aspect it would have been business as usual. Containment. Face it SDW. Bush needed that other reason. I don't care how he would have talked to the country. He wouldn't have gotten anywhere. And yes I do know that!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What neocons don't tell you