Great post Faust. You know, I see that video of Rumsfeld and from all the research that I've done, all the videos that I've seen, I can only say that it's quite representative of all the lies, distortions, exaggerations that consistently and continuosly have come out of the current administration.It just puzzles me how some people can be so oblivious to reality and so quick to dismiss anything that doesn't fit their partisan or ideological zealotry.
The "with us or against" BS is alive and well in this country.
Very interesting stuff, especially coming from someone who was a political appointee under both reagan and bush 41.
With so many members of the admin speaking out and saying the same things about the inner workings of the admin, it's amazing that people still support it.
"Your country" is not the same thing as "your president."
Disapproval with your president is not the same as approval with despots.
America is not JUST, ALWAYS, a force for good.
Your point of view is nationalist, and this always leads to blood.
I agree, but what I am pointing out is that some seem to choose to take the side of, let's say, Iraq/SH before or even excluding US views. Assuming that Bush/US is automatically wrong, as if no matter what Bush/US does it is for wrong motives.
I would venture to say that overall the US has done more for so many in it's brief history than any nation in a long while. I think that is just facts.
I don't think that the US can do no wrong, but overall we as a people have made positive contributions to the world.
[B]I agree, but what I am pointing out is that some seem to choose to take the side of, let's say, Iraq/SH before or even excluding US views. Assuming that Bush/US is automatically wrong, as if no matter what Bush/US does it is for wrong motives.
This is such utter crap.
Criticizing administration actions and policies does not mean that I "choose to take the side of Iraq/SH". You sound like some stereotypical Bubba mouthing off about how much he hates "those damn commie hippie Saddam-loving liberals".
Criticizing administration actions and policies does not mean that I "choose to take the side of Iraq/SH". You sound like some stereotypical Bubba mouthing off about how much he hates "those damn commie hippie Saddam-loving liberals".
"For us or against us", huh?
Fill in Iraq/SH with the whatever you want.
Let me put it to you this way:
If you find yourself in the cross-hairs of a terrorist that hates the US for being the US (bathist, Al-Queda, hammas, former Iraqi holdout etc.), your trying to understand their reasons for hating you or even thinking that you understand, will not help you. I think it is them against you no matter what you do unless you join them. I am not sure how else you can look at it. It is a classic good vs. evil scenario.
Oh yeah, this whole thing has gone way past just criticizing Bush's policies. I really hate hearing people say "It is patriotic to criticize", while they feel it is only Bush that deserves criticism. I am not sure patriotic is the term I would use.
It would be really cool to hear an ex-administration offical saying these things---but not selling a book.
-Too bad Gary Aldrich couldn't get an interview on 60 minutes.
I think that in both recent cases, O'Niel and Clarke, neither is actually the author of the books . . . and neither is actually getting ANY money for them . . . I know for a fact that that is the case with O'Niel . . . and I am pretty sure that Clarke did not write the book that has his account of the matter
I think that in both recent cases, O'Niel and Clarke, neither is actually the author of the books . . . and neither is actually getting ANY money for them . . . I know for a fact that that is the case with O'Niel . . . and I am pretty sure that Clarke did not write the book that has his account of the matter
but somehow I don't think that he would cut off half his arm (meaning his whole relationship to the Conservative political machine) just to make a few bucks. Authors don't make that much . . . and he's a Harvard Prof .. . makes decent dough . . he's not a desperate check-out clerk eyeballing the automation machines . . .
I actually thought O'Neil was pretty cool---there was this one pissing contest with a congressman/senator in a congressional hearing over "who grew up poorer". He cleaned house.
On the his firing---I hated to see him go. But ---Paybacks are hell.
I still think that he's cool . . . and I also think that in both cases they are saying what needs to be said . . . . your refusing to accept any possibility that this administration is anything other than hunky-dory, despite all of the incredible evidence is . . . .how do I say it without getting banned . . . sad
I mean, even conservatives are second guessing . . .
Hell, even Mel Gibson expressed his doubts about this admin's ideas about Iraq
I mean its starting to get just plain silly to pretend that everyting was on the up-and-up . . . .
If you find yourself in the cross-hairs of a terrorist that hates the US for being the US (bathist, Al-Queda, hammas, former Iraqi holdout etc.), your trying to understand their reasons for hating you or even thinking that you understand, will not help you.
But what if you're in the cross-hairs of a terrorist who hates the US for its long-standing foreign policy in the middle east (Baathist [which is actually a political party], al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.)? Would understanding why they hate us help then?
Quote:
I think it is them against you no matter what you do unless you join them. I am not sure how else you can look at it. It is a classic good vs. evil scenario.
The reason so many of us refuse to reduce the situation to "good versus evil" is that so little in the world breaks down that way. It's reductive, and is usually a means by which people try to make sense of an increasingly complicated world.
Quote:
Oh yeah, this whole thing has gone way past just criticizing Bush's policies.
No. It hasn't. If Bush had policies I liked, I wouldn't criticize him beyond his public speaking and his smirk.
Quote:
I really hate hearing people say "It is patriotic to criticize", while they feel it is only Bush that deserves criticism.
1) They only say that because people like you call them unpatriotic when then do it.
2) Bush is in power.
You're trying to use a line of argument that the right used for many moons: the rhetoric of oppression. Liberal media. Liberal news. Liberal this. Liberal that...the true conservative voice of America isn't being heard! Well, look. The right now controls ALL THREE branches of government. Most mainstream news media is centrist if not conservative. There is a VAST NETWORK of VERY POPULAR conservative radio programs.
You cannot keep a straight face and play the oppression card anymore. The new line of argument is "Democrats are stupid and hate America."
Quote:
I am not sure patriotic is the term I would use.
I'm sure it's not. And if you use it on me, I'll accuse you of enjoying watching our brave young boys get shot at and blown up. Or of taking pleasure in the bombing of Iraqi civilians.
I mean, even conservatives are second guessing . . .
hmmmmmm
The Bush administration is a political machine just like any other. I just have trouble taking their spanking from the "usual suspects" (sans Aldridge). (in an election year)
Originally written by Condi in the Washingtion Post
The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.
During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.
This is from (according to Clarke) the NSA that "couldn't spell' al-Qaeda?
Comments
The "with us or against" BS is alive and well in this country.
Hook, line and sinker.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Was it right that the UN passed resolution 1441 if they "knew" there were no WMD's?
This has to be answered as urgently as the lack of WMDs found in Iraq.
(The current admin has questions to answer as well.)
Very interesting stuff, especially coming from someone who was a political appointee under both reagan and bush 41.
With so many members of the admin speaking out and saying the same things about the inner workings of the admin, it's amazing that people still support it.
Originally posted by Harald
"Your country" is not the same thing as "your president."
Disapproval with your president is not the same as approval with despots.
America is not JUST, ALWAYS, a force for good.
Your point of view is nationalist, and this always leads to blood.
I agree, but what I am pointing out is that some seem to choose to take the side of, let's say, Iraq/SH before or even excluding US views. Assuming that Bush/US is automatically wrong, as if no matter what Bush/US does it is for wrong motives.
I would venture to say that overall the US has done more for so many in it's brief history than any nation in a long while. I think that is just facts.
I don't think that the US can do no wrong, but overall we as a people have made positive contributions to the world.
Originally posted by NaplesX
[B]I agree, but what I am pointing out is that some seem to choose to take the side of, let's say, Iraq/SH before or even excluding US views. Assuming that Bush/US is automatically wrong, as if no matter what Bush/US does it is for wrong motives.
This is such utter crap.
Criticizing administration actions and policies does not mean that I "choose to take the side of Iraq/SH". You sound like some stereotypical Bubba mouthing off about how much he hates "those damn commie hippie Saddam-loving liberals".
"For us or against us", huh?
Originally posted by FormerLurker
This is such utter crap.
Criticizing administration actions and policies does not mean that I "choose to take the side of Iraq/SH". You sound like some stereotypical Bubba mouthing off about how much he hates "those damn commie hippie Saddam-loving liberals".
"For us or against us", huh?
Fill in Iraq/SH with the whatever you want.
Let me put it to you this way:
If you find yourself in the cross-hairs of a terrorist that hates the US for being the US (bathist, Al-Queda, hammas, former Iraqi holdout etc.), your trying to understand their reasons for hating you or even thinking that you understand, will not help you. I think it is them against you no matter what you do unless you join them. I am not sure how else you can look at it. It is a classic good vs. evil scenario.
Oh yeah, this whole thing has gone way past just criticizing Bush's policies. I really hate hearing people say "It is patriotic to criticize", while they feel it is only Bush that deserves criticism. I am not sure patriotic is the term I would use.
Go ahead, lean in a little closer and listen very, very carefully.
QUESTIONING THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT REGARDING TERRORISM DOES NOT MAKE ME A LOVER OR SUPPORTER OF ANY TERRORISTS.
edit - font size - sorry all!
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Please get the peanut butter out of your ears, and listen closely.
Go ahead, lean in a little closer and listen very, very carefully.
QUESTIONING THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT REGARDING TERRORISM DOES NOT MAKE ME A LOVER OR SUPPORTER OF ANY TERRORISTS.
I did not say you were anything so relax. I said some people seem to be that way, to me.
Deep cleansing breaths... in....out.
Sheesh
Font size too.
Thanks guys,
Fellows
-Too bad Gary Aldrich couldn't get an interview on 60 minutes.
Originally posted by dmz
It would be really cool to hear an ex-administration offical saying these things---but not selling a book.
-Too bad Gary Aldrich couldn't get an interview on 60 minutes.
I think that in both recent cases, O'Niel and Clarke, neither is actually the author of the books . . . and neither is actually getting ANY money for them . . . I know for a fact that that is the case with O'Niel . . . and I am pretty sure that Clarke did not write the book that has his account of the matter
Originally posted by pfflam
I think that in both recent cases, O'Niel and Clarke, neither is actually the author of the books . . . and neither is actually getting ANY money for them . . . I know for a fact that that is the case with O'Niel . . . and I am pretty sure that Clarke did not write the book that has his account of the matter
Richard Clarke definitely wrote his own book.
but somehow I don't think that he would cut off half his arm (meaning his whole relationship to the Conservative political machine) just to make a few bucks. Authors don't make that much . . . and he's a Harvard Prof .. . makes decent dough . . he's not a desperate check-out clerk eyeballing the automation machines . . .
On the his firing---I hated to see him go. But ---Paybacks are hell.
I mean, even conservatives are second guessing . . .
Hell, even Mel Gibson expressed his doubts about this admin's ideas about Iraq
I mean its starting to get just plain silly to pretend that everyting was on the up-and-up . . . .
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you find yourself in the cross-hairs of a terrorist that hates the US for being the US (bathist, Al-Queda, hammas, former Iraqi holdout etc.), your trying to understand their reasons for hating you or even thinking that you understand, will not help you.
But what if you're in the cross-hairs of a terrorist who hates the US for its long-standing foreign policy in the middle east (Baathist [which is actually a political party], al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.)? Would understanding why they hate us help then?
I think it is them against you no matter what you do unless you join them. I am not sure how else you can look at it. It is a classic good vs. evil scenario.
The reason so many of us refuse to reduce the situation to "good versus evil" is that so little in the world breaks down that way. It's reductive, and is usually a means by which people try to make sense of an increasingly complicated world.
Oh yeah, this whole thing has gone way past just criticizing Bush's policies.
No. It hasn't. If Bush had policies I liked, I wouldn't criticize him beyond his public speaking and his smirk.
I really hate hearing people say "It is patriotic to criticize", while they feel it is only Bush that deserves criticism.
1) They only say that because people like you call them unpatriotic when then do it.
2) Bush is in power.
You're trying to use a line of argument that the right used for many moons: the rhetoric of oppression. Liberal media. Liberal news. Liberal this. Liberal that...the true conservative voice of America isn't being heard! Well, look. The right now controls ALL THREE branches of government. Most mainstream news media is centrist if not conservative. There is a VAST NETWORK of VERY POPULAR conservative radio programs.
You cannot keep a straight face and play the oppression card anymore. The new line of argument is "Democrats are stupid and hate America."
I am not sure patriotic is the term I would use.
I'm sure it's not. And if you use it on me, I'll accuse you of enjoying watching our brave young boys get shot at and blown up. Or of taking pleasure in the bombing of Iraqi civilians.
Take your pick.
Originally posted by dmz
It would be really cool to hear an ex-administration offical saying these things---but not selling a book.
-Too bad Gary Aldrich couldn't get an interview on 60 minutes.
So are you saying we should not believe a guy who had a 30 year career in the Reagan, Bush I, Bush II Republican admins. because he wrote a book????
Just admit it dude. Nothing could ever keep you from not voting for Bush ,nothing.
Originally posted by pfflam
I mean, even conservatives are second guessing . . .
hmmmmmm
The Bush administration is a political machine just like any other. I just have trouble taking their spanking from the "usual suspects" (sans Aldridge). (in an election year)
Originally posted by Gilsch
Just admit it dude. Nothing could ever keep you from not voting for Bush ,nothing.
First and formost I am not, a "dude".
Second, you are assuming that I voted, and will vote for, Bush.
Originally written by Condi in the Washingtion Post
The al Qaeda terrorist network posed a threat to the United States for almost a decade before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Throughout that period -- during the eight years of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the Bush administration prior to Sept. 11 -- the U.S. government worked hard to counter the al Qaeda threat.
During the transition, President-elect Bush's national security team was briefed on the Clinton administration's efforts to deal with al Qaeda. The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals. In response to my request for a presidential initiative, the counterterrorism team, which we had held over from the Clinton administration, suggested several ideas, some of which had been around since 1998 but had not been adopted. No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration.
This is from (according to Clarke) the NSA that "couldn't spell' al-Qaeda?