Nobody to match Bush
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
In your next post are you going to revert to standing up for objective, non-partisan discussion?
If I were to tell you that I found your rhetoric repulsive and contemptible, not to mention stupid, would you then accuse me, as you have elsewhere accused others as well as me, of trying to squelch debate or of indulging in Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity/whoever exaggeration and name-calling?
On the basis of nothing but your own assertions, probably your mood today, you've just accused Bush of committing the highest crimes imaginable for a President - I guess short of genocide (is that next?) - and yet you have the gall to set yourself above the extreme rightwingers who accused Clinton of merely conventional felonies.
If you believe that the war in Iraq was fought for Bush's "bloodlust" and his pursuit of "fun and profit," then you are, of course, free to state your opinion, but your hypocrisy is as blatant as your willingness to forget the events that riveted Bush and the American populace on dangers from overseas that they were previously happy to ignore.
Bush will NOT be re-elected. He may even lose in a landslide. Barring a miraculous economic recovery, the finding of WMDs in Iraq, the capture of Saddam, and the capture of UBL.
So far, he is O for 4.
Peace,
Rs
This capper to your wishful political prognostications sums up the current Democratic "platform" (they still may find something more credible, one can always hope): We may not have the slightest idea what to do about anything in the world, least of all on the security issues which most Americans gave primacy after 9/11, and the public generally neither trusts us nor likes us, but, if things go badly enough and we can get people to focus on isolated trumped-up issues, maybe with the help of the mass media, then people will turn to us in confusion and desperation. Now, if only we can find someone "charismatic" enough to carry this empty, dreary, dangerous, and dishonest strategy, maybe we can win...
War,
KF
Symposium: Bushâs Decision to Go to War. Was it Justified?
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 4, 2003
As the controversy over the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq escalates, so does the criticism of President Bush and his decision to go to war. Was the liberation of Iraq by American forces a legitimate course of action? FrontPage Symposium is pleased to host a debate on this issue. To criticize the war, we are joined by Peter N. Kirstein, a professor of history at Saint Xavier University in Chicago and a specialist on the atomic bomb and current nonproliferation issues. He wrote "American Swagger in a Dangerous Nuclear World," History News Network, (George Mason University, 2003); and Stanley Aronowitz, a veteran political activist, cultural critic and a distinguished professor of sociology at the City University of New York. To defend the war, we are joined by Victor Davis Hanson, currently a visiting professor of military history at the US Naval Academy and author of the new book An Autumn of War: What America Learned from September 11 and the War on Terrorism; and Cliff May, President of the anti-terrorism think tank Foundation For the Defense of Democracies.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8746
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 4, 2003
As the controversy over the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq escalates, so does the criticism of President Bush and his decision to go to war. Was the liberation of Iraq by American forces a legitimate course of action? FrontPage Symposium is pleased to host a debate on this issue. To criticize the war, we are joined by Peter N. Kirstein, a professor of history at Saint Xavier University in Chicago and a specialist on the atomic bomb and current nonproliferation issues. He wrote "American Swagger in a Dangerous Nuclear World," History News Network, (George Mason University, 2003); and Stanley Aronowitz, a veteran political activist, cultural critic and a distinguished professor of sociology at the City University of New York. To defend the war, we are joined by Victor Davis Hanson, currently a visiting professor of military history at the US Naval Academy and author of the new book An Autumn of War: What America Learned from September 11 and the War on Terrorism; and Cliff May, President of the anti-terrorism think tank Foundation For the Defense of Democracies.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8746
Interesting spin on King George Bush's agenda here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0604-01.htm
Here is an excerpt:
"Kings would never again be allowed to govern America, the Founders said, so they stripped the president of the power to declare war. As Lincoln noted in an 1848 letter to William Herndon: "Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our [1787] Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0604-01.htm
Here is an excerpt:
"Kings would never again be allowed to govern America, the Founders said, so they stripped the president of the power to declare war. As Lincoln noted in an 1848 letter to William Herndon: "Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our [1787] Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."
Quote from Error 404:
A bit harsh (the entire post), but certainly not completely inaccurate.
That Bush is worshipped by "20 somethings" is just amazing to me.
Here I am in my 50's. Bushes tax cuts and policies actually work nicely for me on a personal basis. They benefit me financially in more than a couple of ways. Yet still, I think for the country on the whole, he just flat out is a disgrace. And is making a disgrace of our country along with himself.
People hated Clinton for his abhorrent moral behavior. The religious right came up with murder and drug-running conspiracies about Clinton. (As they would have with anyone who did not pander to their cause, as Bush does).
People hate Bush for his arrogance. Was Clinton arrogant? Yeah, he thought he could get away with having sex on the job. And lied about it. OK, he was probably not the first guy, or even the first president to do this. But did he go to war for fun and profit? No, he wasn't quite that arrogant.
But Bush.....what American President had such blood-lust? Hell, even that SOB Johnson agonized over Vietnam. So did the slimy Nixon.
Bush has made the Presidency into a "for profit" business. (Like he needs the money anyway).
Here is my prediction. People will vote with their pocketbooks and by watching the debates. Next year, the voters will ask themselves if they are better off now than they were before Bush was in office. And they again will see the "deer in the headlights" brain dead Bush in debates. There will not be another Gore. No one else could possibly be capable of winning the debates, winning the popular vote, and losing the election (and his own state because of bad judgement alone). The guy had less personality than MrMarket, and less charisma than Max401. The Democrats will not let the same mistakes happen again. Now they know what they are up against. Finding a qualified and charismatic candidate can't be impossible. The only thing impossible is not to find issues with which to pound Bush into the ground. Deeply.
Bush will NOT be re-elected. He may even lose in a landslide. Barring a miraculous economic recovery, the finding of WMDs in Iraq, the capture of Saddam, and the capture of UBL.
So far, he is O for 4.
Peace,
OK, we disagree. But why bother talking about issues?
I sign off with "Peace"
You sign off with "War".
No need to discuss issues. No need to debate. No need to separate policy from parties. Men from politics. No need to be reasonable about a thing.
Kymer, until now, I disagreed with a lot of what you have said, and agreed with a lot as well. I always respected you.
But now you say that accusing Clinton of murder and drug running is ok, because they are "merely conventional felonies".
Whatever. I can't do this.
Anyone who signs off "War" is beyond reasoning with. I will debate politics with reasonable guys like AAA, Hapaboy, and Doubter on the right. And if need be, I will debate with guys like Alfonso and Bungrider on the left if I find issue with what they have to say. Or Optional777 ( but I rarely seem to find anything to disagree with him about).
But no longer will I engage you in any argument, disagreement, or debate.
"War" did it for me. You want to regain credibility? Join the military. My son did. And I encouraged him to. And I sincerely hope he will be a part of deterrence to war, not a participant.
Hope to see your next post originates from someplace you can preach "war" and be part of your solution. Until then, you have lost all credibility with me.
RS
I think he is 1 for 1. He identified the major enemy of our interests and he beat the living shit out of them. Finding the WMD's or not finding them can be argued about and Bush can look good because of the time allowed for hiding them and the area, Iraq is the size of California!! I always thought it was a joke having those 70 to 100 inspectors looking for something in Iraq, material for Saturday Night Live or Monty Python like the "hide and seek around the world" episode.
Max
Assuming Hussein was one of our major "enemies" why was this never mentioned in Bush's campaign for the presidency?
He became an overnight enemy and threat after 911 only? On what basis did he suddenly become an enemy, when all we heard as a justification of war was what he had done pre Bush's Jr.'s presidency as reason to make him the "enemy de jour."
It is inconsistency of policy and thought, as Bush had every right to strictly enforce security measures the day he became president to protect us from our enemies. He didn't. You can blame Clinton for his lax security measures, but how does that exonerate Bush from his maintenance of the status quo? Apparently he too did not see any great enemy to national security to sufficient to step up security.
He only responded to 9/11, so clearly he is not a man of vision, but a man of reaction....and in my opinion, a man of over-reaction....not balance and vision.
Yeah, right, try to climb back on your high horse. Helps to ignore almost everything I wrote other than how I signed off, doesn't it? You made one exception - a willful misreading of my comparison of your comments regarding Clinton to your comments regarding Bush. Did I say or imply that "extremists" (that was the word I used) were justified in laying their charges against Clinton? No, I accused you of laying even worse charges against Bush, and on no basis other than your own opinions.
Guess what, RS, I'm too old and unfit to be of much use to the military, but that doesn't really matter, because, after 9/11, like many of my fellow citizens I've recognized that you don't have to be wearing a uniform to be on the front lines. Signing your post "peace" is cute - nice little blast from the past, a dose of wishful thinking attached to a semi-covert assertion of political affinities, a way to imply that those who disagree with you have some lesser appreciation for human life - but we are at war. We have real soldiers in their real uniforms really fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, to name just two places where men and women are actively putting their lives at risk so that you can I can conduct these comfortable exchanges.
You state a decision to decline debating with me. I haven't noticed you even starting to do so. I see you stating whatever position happens to gratify you and your pretentions at whatever moment, but I don't see consistency or content.
I signed my statement "war" because I feel no hesitation about making intellectual war on hypocrites and blowhards, people who like to pose as reasonable, congenial men before their next blast of empty partisan invective; because I've made no secret of my belief that we are at war with enemies who deserve to be fought, and that fighting them is something to be proud of if we choose to attach any emotion to the job at all; and because, I say again, we are at war, whether you or we like it or not.
Open your eyes,
KF