What a hypocrite!!

[Boreas]

GWB and Condoleeza Rice are going around saying that Russia has no business interfering in the affairs of other countries. How rich!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7563452.stm

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/15/georgia-russia.html

GWB has some nerve!

He actually said:

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," he told reporters at the White House. He said Georgians have cast their lot with the free world and "we will not cast them aside."

So, bullying and intimidation are not acceptable tactics for Russia, but they are for the current admin and Iraq???

Please, someone explain how this is different from Bush invading Iraq. As far as I am concerned, he is NOT the ambassador of peace and civility he pretends to be right now. :mad:

What a hypocrite!

[krcNY]

I am in total agreement with you Boreas.

I cannot wait until 1/20/09 when he is gone. He is such an embarassment for us.

[Boreas]

He is such an embarassment for us.

I am glad you said that. I almost called him a goof, but I thought it might be unseemly for a non-American. ;)

Never-the-less, he does lack credibility.

[alfredr]

Yes, when I heard that, my thought was. "Look who's talking!"

[usmc1]

Here, from the September '08 Vanity Fair, Editor's Letter, an excerpt measuring the fool's hubris.

“Your eminence, you’re lookin’ good!,” Bush bellowed when he met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican in June. A few weeks later, at the G-8 Summit in Japan to discuss climate change, he exited with an air punch and a cheery “Good-bye from the world’s biggest polluter!” The remark was met with stony silence by the other attendees, who didn’t seem to appreciate this attempt at hilarity from a man whose nation consumes a quarter of the world’s oil. The president’s vaunted ability to assess others in high office was also on display during this trip. After gazing into the eyes of Dmitri A. Medvedev, he pronounced the new Russian president to be “a smart guy.” They say that opposites attract, and the two really did seem to hit it off.

Oh yeah. On his way out at the G-8, right after his stupidly crass remark, he did a "terrorist fist bump" with an aide.


The complete article is here:

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o></o>http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/09/graydon200809

I just don't think it leaves any Bush supporter any room at all for how Senator Obama is going to conduct foreign policy--hell, Billy Carter could've..., no forget him, Dan Quayle, could have done better than this that's been happening for eight years.

[LamontCranston]

The US Administration's response this week to the Georgia / Russia conflict made me uncomfortable. It was almost like every quote was designed as doublespeak. It could have been anyone else commenting on the US in Iraq.

Stupid. And why is it the US who always has to wade in? The French Prez was doing a fine job. Why can't GW keep his mouth shut and let a few days pass? :(

And why's it OK to put a missile base in Poland but not in Cuba? Is my paycheck paying for that too? Stupid.

[Boreas]

usmc, GWB got a lot of Canadian media attention when he called Stephen Harper "Steve". It was seen as disrespectful, especially for a world leader.

GWB really does not present well in public. :surprised:

I have always had a hard time listening to Bush. It took me a long time to figure out why this is. It is not his accent. It isn't even the fact that he mangles words. Jean Cretien mangled words and managed to sound articulate on occasion. :rolleyes: No, GWB comes across as VERY authoritarian and patriarchal. He is also VERY condescending. When you hear clips of him talking about Russia this week, he sounds like an authoritarian father chastizing his disobedient child.

GWB is the leader of the US. He is not the leader of the world. Butt out. :mad:

*stepping off my soapbox now. :o

[usmc1]

usmc, GWB got a lot of Canadian media attention when he called Stephen Harper "Steve". It was seen as disrespectful, especially for a world leader.

GWB really does not present well in public. :surprised:

I have always had a hard time listening to Bush. It took me a long time to figure out why this is. It is not his accent. It isn't even the fact that he mangles words. Jean Cretien mangled words and managed to sound articulate on occasion. :rolleyes: No, GWB comes across as VERY authoritarian and patriarchal. He is also VERY condescending. When you hear clips of him talking about Russia this week, he sounds like an authoritarian father chastizing his disobedient child.

GWB is the leader of the US. He is not the leader of the world. Butt out. :mad:

*stepping off my soapbox now. :o

Yeah, and when was the last time some strange guy came up behind you at a public function and gave you a shoulder massage? Never? Too bad Angela Merkel can't say that, after the groper in chief got her. I'll never forget that look on her face. A combination of repulsion, and physical pain, with her nose wrinkled as though she had caught a whiff of flatus.

It would be laughable if the situation were not so dire.

[florida-david]

Yes, GWB should butt out of this Russian situation since -once again- we (America) helped create the problem by training the Georgian troops. Has any other country around the world seen this irony and commented on it? I can't imagine that this two-faced attitude is not creating more of an international scene.Maybe the good-will of the Olympics is masking our embarrassment. In this country, GWB is still doing bad things for women's rights and the environment right up to the last mintue of his reign of terror. He's not done yet driving the US forther out of our world leader position. The US has been sliding out of our world leader role for years (we did that when we started shipping our factories to Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, India, and now China). Our stupid business leaders happily gave our leadership role to these other countries in order to reap maximum profit for the CEO's and investors. It will take an honest, good hearted president (not McCain, he's just an older Bush) to return America to a world leader of integrity...

[hm0504]

usmc, GWB got a lot of Canadian media attention when he called Stephen Harper "Steve". It was seen as disrespectful, especially for a world leader.

...

*stepping off my soapbox now. :o

Boreas, your line above reminded me of this paragraph from Eric Margolis
(http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2008/07/kicking_sand_in.php):


The world leaders dined on caviar as they earnestly discussed hunger and the global food crisis. They agreed to do something about global warming by 2058. That’s real courage and leadership.

`Yo Harper,’ called out President George Bush, beckoning Canada’s prime minister to come meet the president of Nigeria. Stephen Harper now joins Britain’s late, unlamented former PM Tony Blair in being treated like a White House car jockey. Bush’s arrogant public behavior towards two of his most faithful followers says a great deal about the importance of America’s `key’ allies to Washington.


And please feel free to get on your soapbox any time! :-)

[Boreas]

LOL Albinus! I love the American informality. I think that it has helped to make the world a little more relaxed. GWB does not do it well. Perhaps he means well, but he does come off like a crass, rude person when he does this. :surprised:

I woke up to his voice again sounding like the authoritarian father telling off his naughty Russian son to behave. It is a yucky way to wake up!

I read (am reading?) Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". I thought of this yesterday and wondered if this is yet another crisis that will be used to push through unpopular policies. I sure hope not. David, you may find the book interesting since your post alludes to this concept.

[hm0504]

A couple of articles that summarize why the "Georgian" conflict, like the "Cuban" missile crisis, is really a U.S./Russia conflict:

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Harris_Michael/2008/08/15/6460231-sun.html

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/08/17/6476596.php

As the articles say, a key thing the Georgian conflict represents is, if I may be uncharacteristically blunt, a kick in the n*ts to President Bush. Bush has frequently said history will judge him well. As unlikely as that may seem to many of us, it is quite clear that both those on America's right and left see Bush as having, thus far, have been clearly made a fool of by Russia in Bush's closing days as President. Part of the problem is that the Georgian conflict makes Bush's failures in Afghanistan, Iraq (don't worry, "it'll cost 2 Billion and we'll be out in 6 weeks"), Lebanon, etc. plain to see.

The question is will Bush and his neocon friends do something "interesting" to try and save his legacy.

[Qikdraw]

Well those articles certainly explain that it was Georgia that attacked first, something just not said at all here in the US. In fact if you listen to Rice, Bush or McCain you'd get the idea that it was Russia that started it. Not only that but the talking heads on TV are parroting that line as well.

[Naturist Mark]

Well those articles certainly explain that it was Georgia that attacked first, something just not said at all here in the US. In fact if you listen to Rice, Bush or McCain you'd get the idea that it was Russia that started it. Not only that but the talking heads on TV are parroting that line as well.

"Attacked first" depends on your viewpoint. There has certainly been a long series of Russian provocations (Russian "peacekeepers" have been occupying the two provinces for nearly 15 years, and have been issuing Russian passports to their residents), and those provocations have increased since Georgia became a candidate for NATO membership, and the site of new and proposed oil and gas pipelines that would challenge Russia's control over Western Europe's energy supplies. On August 8 Saakashvili fell into the Russian trap.

It does rather challenge the imagination to conceive what Saakashvili's government thought Georgian troops could possibly have achieved.

-Mark

[LamontCranston]

It does rather challenge the imagination to conceive what Saakashvili's government thought Georgian troops could possibly have achieved. Billions for "humanitarian aid and military training" from the the deep-pocket Americans seems a worthy goal.

And I get a kick out of the general ignorace of recent history, as if Georgia wasn't assimilated by the USSR Borg for decades.

The roots are deep and GW should leave it alone and meanwhile help a place like Darfur. Wait... did someone mention an oil pipeline.. ? :eek:

[florida-david]

Those articles are the exact sort of news that Americans need to see and have been absent (at least from what i can tell) in the U.S. media. Let the brainwashing continue as the Bush administration hides the truth and Americans are too stupid to question their leadership even when it has been shown that this administration lies. Thanks for the great articles...


I will look into Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". I could use a good book to read....

[Boreas]

Naomi Klein's book is very good. It also has information in it that is very maddening. You might want to read it in small doses! :surprised:

[nuovonudo]

GWB really does not present well in public. :surprised:

I have always had a hard time listening to Bush. It took me a long time to figure out why this is. It is not his accent. It isn't even the fact that he mangles words. Jean Cretien mangled words and managed to sound articulate on occasion. :rolleyes: No, GWB comes across as VERY authoritarian and patriarchal. He is also VERY condescending. When you hear clips of him talking about Russia this week, he sounds like an authoritarian father chastizing his disobedient child.

GWB is the leader of the US. He is not the leader of the world. Butt out.

boreas,

you probably know or could guess that i like bush 43 very much. so i won't spend a lot of time defending that allegiance here. i am a catholic christian first, a conservative second (NOT a republican), and a bush admirer third. bush has not been the president i'd hoped him to be (i.e., another ronald wilson reagan). for example, why bush didn't start using the veto pen until the last year or two just mystifies me. he has in effect presided over the largest expansion of federal spending (and concomitant power and interference in daily living) of any president since at least lyndon johnson, if not f.d.r. for me and other conservatives, that has been a major, major disappointment.

but i believe that overall he has been good for america and for the world (world "opinion" often to the contrary notwithstanding). in particular he has taken on the islamofascists bravely and stoutheartedly (often against opposition even within his own political party) in the war on terror (note i did NOT say the "war in/against iraq" as that is not an accurate term).

the result? well, i'll leave it to folks like christiane amanpour and the myriad leftist news "reporters" out there to give you the bad news. the GOOD news is that (1) the violence has been steadily declining overall in iraq and afghanistan; and--especially important to americans-- (2) there has not been another islamofascist terrorist attack on american soil since the horror of 11 september 2001.

and btw, for decades now, folks in america and abroad have referred to the president of the u.s.a. as the "leader of the free world," inasmuch as the holder of the office presides over the government of the largest and most powerful "free" country on the planet (as opposed to, say, communist china . . . ). one may disapprove of how bush 43 has handled that responsibility, but the presumption does not originate with g.w.b.

now, to steer this conversation back to the topic as originally posted, is george w. bush a hypocrite? well, . . . probably, in that we ALL are at least somewhat hypocritical. (you show me someone, anyone, on this forum or for that matter on the planet who is perfect and i'd like to meet him/her! if she's single i might want to marry her!) but i'd suggest that president bush is no more hypocritical than the media darling obama; and at least bush's public statements are consistent and don't have to be parsed.

just my two cents (american) for what it's worth.

update: i DID get to read the intro and part of chapter 1 of the klein book "disaster capitalism." and while i totally, completely disagree with her (left-leaning, goofy) premises, i find that she is an amazingly skilled writer and her book makes an interesting read. had i not attended the "evelyn woodsky school of slow reading dynamics" back in my college days (hahaha--a reference to a very old s.n.l. skit) i probably could finish the book a lot sooner. tho' hopefully i shan't have to wait for another nude vacation to read more!

regards,
--andy

[Boreas]

Thanks for your feedback andy. I always appreciate hearing what people like about GWB. You seem to be a smaller group these days.

I agree, most of us can be called a hypocrate at least once in our lives. I hold the leader of the free world to a higher standard. I do not agree with the war in Iraq (shocked I know you are surprised at that. ;)) and I believe that he acted as a bully interfering with another country in such a manner. Therefore, calling Russia on its bully tactics to me is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Of course, history will determine what type of leader Bush really was (has been?). His legacy is what will matter now.

As for Naomi Klein, I am still working on it. Let me know how it progresses for you.

As for me reading Rush, I admit that I have not mustered up the courage yet. Stay tuned.

[hm0504]

nuovonudo, the levels of violence in Afghanistan are increasing dramatically [1]. The Taleban (in my view, largely due to the pointless invasion of Iraq which took America's eye off the ball) are doing very well and this isn't just coming from so-called left wing journalists, this is coming from the top military brass [2a][2b] -- Bush has been a godsend for the Islamists and Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, the tactic of decreasing violence, at least temporarily, in Iraq by paying off people not to attack Coalition troops [3] will not be as successful in Afghanistan.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/record-level-of-violence-in-afghanistan-767580.html

[2a] http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/related/89590
[2b] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7570856.stm

[3] http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/07/29/anbarshakedown/

[Navigator]

...in particular he has taken on the islamofascists bravely and stoutheartedly

....(2) there has not been another islamofascist terrorist attack on american soil since the horror of 11 september 2001.




What do Islam and fascism have in common that causes the right to merge the words into "islamofascist"?

[Fitz1980]

What do Islam and fascism have in common that causes the right to merge the words into "islamofascist"?

Well I'd say that overly religious people tend to have a lot in common with fascists in general. The greatest achievement of our free, secular (a dirty word according to Bill O'Reilly) society has been separating religion from policy. Of course plenty of people take their religion so seriously that they want to make laws that force the rest of us to conform to their narrow beliefs about how to live I would call fascists.

[narod]

I hate to wish part of my life away, but the next 5 months can't pass fast enough for me. The sooner GWB is out of office, the better.

[Naturist Mark]

What do Islam and fascism have in common that causes the right to merge the words into "islamofascist"?

Fascism is a political system where corporate and state power are intertwined. Contrary to popular belief Nazi Germany is not the best example of a fascist state - better examples are Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. Today's best examples are Russia and China (where communism survives in name only). The United States where the wishes of corporations routinely over-rule the needs of the voters, and 30,000 lobbyists use "pay to play" to access the levers of power is not far behind. Read about the 14 Points of Fascism (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm).

Islamic fundamentalists are not clamoring to establish corporate states. They are clamoring to establish theocratic states.

The most salient fact you should take away is that almost everyone who utters the ridiculous nonsensical "islamofascist", is in fact a proponent of a more fascist state right here. As if fascism will protect us from Islamic terrorism.

-Mark

[Navigator]

Fascism is a political system where corporate and state power are intertwined.

Islamic fundamentalists are not clamoring to establish corporate states. They are clamoring to establish theocratic states.

The most salient fact you should take away is that almost everyone who utters the ridiculous nonsensical "islamofascist", is in fact a proponent of a more fascist state right here. As if fascism will protect us from Islamic terrorism.



Exactly. A+ answer. You even beat me to referencing the 14 points.

Nuovonudo?

[IDNude]

Please, someone explain how this is different from Bush invading Iraq.

The leader of Georga isn't a lunitic with with 10 years of UN sanctions that weren't working who was mass killing his own people and activly developing weapons of mass destruction (he developed anthrax by his own admission). I've wondered...how many 10 of thousands of people need to be killed before it's considered mass destruction?

The question is, how do you think it's the same?

[hm0504]

The leader of Georga isn't a lunitic with with 10 years of UN sanctions that weren't working who was mass killing his own people and activly developing weapons of mass destruction (he developed anthrax by his own admission). I've wondered...how many 10 of thousands of people need to be killed before it's considered mass destruction?

The question is, how do you think it's the same?

I wouldn't call anthrax (which apparently shows up more frequently than one might expect in U.S. hotel rooms) a weapon of mass destruction. Btw, even the Whitehouse finally admitted Saddam hadn't been developing WMDs.

And, of course, there is the embarassing statistic that Iraq has been far more dangerous for the average Iraqi under Bush than under Saddam.

If the West can justify invasion based on human rights abuses, why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia or didn't we invade Turkmenistan while Niyazov ruled it (probably one of the most insane authoritarians in the history of the world).

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6XK-yGi7NA

[Boreas]

Fascism is a political system where corporate and state power are intertwined. Contrary to popular belief Nazi Germany is not the best example of a fascist state - better examples are Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. Today's best examples are Russia and China (where communism survives in name only). The United States where the wishes of corporations routinely over-rule the needs of the voters, and 30,000 lobbyists use "pay to play" to access the levers of power is not far behind. Read about the 14 Points of Fascism (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm).

Islamic fundamentalists are not clamoring to establish corporate states. They are clamoring to establish theocratic states.

The most salient fact you should take away is that almost everyone who utters the ridiculous nonsensical "islamofascist", is in fact a proponent of a more fascist state right here. As if fascism will protect us from Islamic terrorism.

-Mark

Good job. The Canadian judge adds another A+ to the score. :)

[Boreas]

The leader of Georga isn't a lunitic with with 10 years of UN sanctions that weren't working who was mass killing his own people and activly developing weapons of mass destruction (he developed anthrax by his own admission). I've wondered...how many 10 of thousands of people need to be killed before it's considered mass destruction?

The question is, how do you think it's the same?

See hm's response.

[hm0504]

One might also add that the regions in question had been acting as independent states for about a decade and were 70% Russian -- essentially Georgian land but populated for generations by Russians. Georgia was attempting to militarily reintegrate the states against the will of the states' population and Russia stopped them to (a) protect its population and (b) clearly inform other neighbouring states that Russia does not like it when you get too snuggly with the West and if you do, there will be consequences.

Iraq, though led by your garden variety of dictator, on the other hand, was no meaningful threat, was not 70% populated by Americans, and was an enemy of Islamism. America went in for Iraq's oil.

[LamontCranston]

Georgia was attempting to militarily reintegrate the states against the will of the states' population and Russia stopped them to (a) protect its population and (b) clearly inform other neighbouring states that Russia does not like it when you get too snuggly with the West and if you do, there will be consequences. Generalities. And now that we're in a new century there's no reason really to consider the recent past. :rolleyes:

All I know is that there is WAY more than meets the eye, there is LONG deep and embedded history, and GW Bush and his advisors are largely ignorant of most of it.

And I am QUITE sure that there's no *******' way that ANYONE will be posting missiles of any kind 150 miles from the U.S. border.

First time in my life I'm starting to sympathize with the black pieces on the board. White just moved his knight to a new square and blundered.

[hm0504]

Geez, the Russians don't even want anti-missile missiles posted across from their border:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7573409.stm

Of course, thanks to ballistic missile subs, one doesn't really have much choice about how close the missiles are.

You know, I'm beginning to think the Cold War might be back on again.

[Naturist Mark]

One might also add that the regions in question had been acting as independent states for about a decade and were 70% Russian -- essentially Georgian land but populated for generations by Russians. Georgia was attempting to militarily reintegrate the states against the will of the states' population and Russia stopped them to (a) protect its population and (b) clearly inform other neighbouring states that Russia does not like it when you get too snuggly with the West and if you do, there will be consequences.

Iraq, though led by your garden variety of dictator, on the other hand, was no meaningful threat, was not 70% populated by Americans, and was an enemy of Islamism. America went in for Iraq's oil.

To be fair, the reason the two regions were 'autonomous' is because Russia invaded them with 'peacekeepers' 15 years ago. Part of the reason that the ethnic Russian populations of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is so high is because so many ethnic Georgians were ethnically cleansed from the regions during the 90s.

And note the irony that right on the northern border of Georgia is Russia's province of Chechnya.

McCain's long relationship with President Saakashvili - nurtured by McCain foreign policy advisor and paid lobbyist for the Georgia government Randy Scheunemann has fueled speculation that McCain - who reportedly speaks with President Saakashvili several times a day - may have encouraged the crisis in order to advance his campaign. Others suggest the neo-con cabal have sprung it as an early October Surprise (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/13/EDCD129NI4.DTL). The Russians blame Dick Cheney (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4535173.ece).

-Mark

[Pete Knight]

Geez, the Russians don't even want anti-missile missiles posted across from their border:
Goodness me, why ever not, you'd think it would make the Russians feel safe from rouge states.
The US says the system will protect the US and Europe against missiles from "rogue" states such as Iran.
Of course Poland is ideally located to fend of attack from Iran.

What is Dubya thinking off, this will escalate the arms race and result in a build up of weapons of mass destruction and huge profits for arms manufacturers, ooh yeah, now I see!

Pete Knight

[sdson]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the great article on 14 Points of Fascism. The current administration can proudly state they meet the criteria. Have we American's had enough of this yet?
The outcome of the next election will tell the tale.

[hm0504]

Goodness me, why ever not, you'd think it would make the Russians feel safe from rouge states.

...

Pete Knight

Yeah, but what about the bleu states. ;-)

[Edmontonnudist]

Russian Army was already there,on peacekeeping duty when the Geogian Army attacked them!

For the Truth go to www.infowars.com Alex Jones is a TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT!

[usmc1]

Russian Army was already there,on peacekeeping duty when the Geogian Army attacked them!

For the Truth go to www.infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com) Alex Jones is a TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT!

If the shouted phrase "TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT" doesn't scare the crap out of you, the site's ads for Aloe Ease Colon Cleanser will finish that task!

[brazhunter]

the site's ads for Aloe Ease Colon Cleanser will finish that task!

Campaign commercials do the same thing.

[Naturist Mark]

Russian Army was already there,on peacekeeping duty when the Geogian Army attacked them!

LOL, yeah, Russia's peacekeepers invaded Georgia 15 years ago to peacefully keep Georgia from reclaiming its own territory from armed insurgents.

Don't let either side feed you crap about being innocent. Georgia has been the victim of naked Russian aggression ever since it seceded from the Soviet Union. Ossetian, Abkhazian and Adjari separatists within Georgia have been at odds with the Georgian government for the same period - which the Russians exploited.

Saakashvili is the great neo-con hope in the region. The Bush administration has become so close to him, and been so generous to Georgia's ambitions to become a major player in Europe, joining the WTO, trying to join NATO and the EU, because they see him as one of their own. A proto-fascist whom they proudly proclaim as a great example of democracy, who rigs elections Bush style, and furthers the Bush Oilmen's regional ambitions.

In 2004 Saakashvili succeeded in quashing the separatist government and removing the Russian military from the southwestern Adjara Autonomous Republic - which had became autonomous under its former strongman Aslan Abashidze with the 'assistance' of Russian troops. It was probably his success in regaining sovereign control over that rebellious region that led Saakashvili to believe he could do the same in South Ossetia.

-Mark

[hm0504]

Mark, many thanks for your insightful, witty, and excellent posts.

[nuovonudo]

nuovonudo, the levels of violence in Afghanistan are increasing dramatically [1]. The Taleban (in my view, largely due to the pointless invasion of Iraq which took America's eye off the ball) are doing very well and this isn't just coming from so-called left wing journalists, this is coming from the top military brass [2a][2b] -- Bush has been a godsend for the Islamists and Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, the tactic of decreasing violence, at least temporarily, in Iraq by paying off people not to attack Coalition troops [3] will not be as successful in Afghanistan.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/record-level-of-violence-in-afghanistan-767580.html

[2a] http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/related/89590
[2b] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7570856.stm

[3] http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/07/29/anbarshakedown/

hm, thanks for the links; i confess that i haven't yet read them (having vacationed last week in florida has meant playing catch-up at work since i got back, so c.f.f. time is extremely limited). since you kindly went to the trouble of finding these links and then putting them in your post, i shall return the gesture and read them---i hope to do so before next monday.

for now i will limit my response to taking issue with the conclusion stated above that Bush has been a God-send for the islamists/jihadists. Hard to agree with that since so many of the islamofascist-terrorists have been killed by u.s. and coalition forces in the two theaters (afghanistan and iraq). but i see the point that you are making (at least i think i do...)

regards,
--andy (nuovonudo)

[Qikdraw]

hm, thanks for the links; i confess that i haven't yet read them (having vacationed last week in florida has meant playing catch-up at work since i got back, so c.f.f. time is extremely limited). since you kindly went to the trouble of finding these links and then putting them in your post, i shall return the gesture and read them---i hope to do so before next monday.

Welcome back from your vacation Andy! I hope you had a good time.

for now i will limit my response to taking issue with the conclusion stated above that Bush has been a God-send for the islamists/jihadists. Hard to agree with that since so many of the islamofascist-terrorists have been killed by u.s. and coalition forces in the two theaters (afghanistan and iraq). but i see the point that you are making (at least i think i do...)


I have to agree with hm in that in this 'war on terrorism', the terrorists are winning. Yes we have killed a lot of them, but terrorist attacks have risen and terrorists have gained more and more recruits. I don't disagree with teh concept of a war on terrorism, but I don't think it could have been run any worse than it has. And no, I am not blaming the troops on teh ground, its the politicians who have refused to listen to the commanders.

I also disagree with the term 'islamofascist', it simply is not accurate at all. I believe Mark has pointed this out before.

[usmc1]

"The Rich are very different from you and I!"

The fact that he doesn't "recollect" how many houses he owns, is just the latest reminder that John McCain doesn't understand what most Americans are going through right now. It was recently reported that he wears $520 shoes on the campaign trail—more than some families pay each month for food or rent.

This past week, McCain and Obama were asked what constitutes "rich." Obama said, "If you are making more than $250,000, then you are in the top 3, 4 percent of this country...You are doing well." McCain answered, "I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?

Which becomes especially cruel when one knows that many, many older Americans have to do without critical medications because of increased costs when they slip into the Plan D "donut hole".

And poor old, "I'm an only child", Cindy H-Mac, who would have us believe that she is the Maven of Arizona Charity, doesn't know that charity begins at home, has spent decades of denial regarding her half-sister living in Phoenix. Of course, none of the homes McCain owns are in "that" neighborhood, so I guess it is becomes easy to forget one has a sister.

I guess though, the sister got off easy, I thought these sort ate their young!

[hm0504]

I have to agree with hm in that in this 'war on terrorism', the terrorists are winning. Yes we have killed a lot of them, but terrorist attacks have risen and terrorists have gained more and more recruits. I don't disagree with teh concept of a war on terrorism, but I don't think it could have been run any worse than it has. And no, I am not blaming the troops on teh ground, its the politicians who have refused to listen to the commanders.

...

First (to nuovonudo), there were next to no Islamists in Iraq in 2003 because pro-secular Saddam was in the habit of killing them. Once the U.S. invaded, al Qaeda made a largely failed attempt to install a chapter there, though the roots of a Shia-based Islamism (thanks to Bush) are doing quite well.

Afghanistan is a different story because significant parts (that is, in the tens of millions) of the population there and across the border in Pakistan are quite amenable to Islamism -- killing a dozen Islamist here and there makes little difference when they have pools of hundreds of thousands with thousands more available every year. Though it would have been tough anyway, due to the focus the U.S. unnecessarily put on Iraq, support for the Taleban within Afghanistan does appear to be growing. The ugly fact is that in wars on terror like that in Afghanistan, you have to win hard and you have to win fast and you have to stay winning. By getting into the quagmire in Iraq, Bush squandered the early NATO success in Afghanistan, and dropped the war-on-terror ball which the Taleban and Al Qaeda have gladly picked up.

[usmc1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103691.html

Sorry ma'am, we're not buying, we're just trying to get an idea of what we'd like to have when our ship comes in.

When's that?

Oh, I'd say sometime between now and never! You see, we've fallen into the Medicare coverage gap, and used the money to buy some gas to get out of the apartment today so we could see first hand how the top 2% live.

Oh yeah, it's really nice, but I don't think I could afford to cool it in these Arizona summers, what with energy deregulation--right now we only use the AC on days that the temperatures is above 115--rest of the time we just strip down and hose each other off out on the balcony.

Huh? Yeah sure, we got sore heads that complain, but I tell them that when they turn down their rap music we'll put on some clothes.

Move it? Oh, ok, I forgot about that little oil leak, I'm sure you can replace that adobe brick stuff.

Oh not adobe? Imported from where? Dang, don't that beat all.

Got little crosses in each one...how about that.

Look, we'll need you to give a push to get started. Battery's bad, but we're going to take the Missus's money for her water pills this month and buy a rebuilt battery, and then get some white bread and bologna for Sunday dinner. C'mon over, you's be welcome, we usually spring for something special like grape kool-aid on Sunday.

Nice place though, I'll think I'll tell our rap-playing neighbors to swing by and take a look. Me and the missus could use an uninterrupted cool down.

[IDNude]

I wouldn't call anthrax (which apparently shows up more frequently than one might expect in U.S. hotel rooms) a weapon of mass destruction. Btw, even the Whitehouse finally admitted Saddam hadn't been developing WMDs.

We'll have to disagree on this one. Anything that has the potential to kill thousands of people is a weapon of mass distruction. Not to mention the mustard gas Saddam did use on the Khurds or the hundreds (thousdands?) of people he and his sons killed each year just for fun. Exactly how many tens of thousands of people have to die for something to be considered "mass".

See hm's response.

Ummm.... ok. But he didn't answer the question. You wanted an explanation why these events were different. My question was why do you think they are the same thing? I'm just trying to figure out how you think these are similar events and that somehow Bush is a hypocrite.

I hadn't followed real close what happened in Georgia and since you had such a strong opinion about it I assume you've done a lot of study of both events and am interested to hear your opinion of the similarities of the two events.

[Naturist Mark]

Weaponized Anthrax is a biological weapon. The natural anthrax found in soil and tracked into motel rooms is not weaponized.

The classic definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction is ABC: Atomic, Biological, Chemical - sometimes called NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) or CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear)

Weaponized Anthrax qualifies.

[usmc1]

Poor John and Cindy Mac, they're falling short on the American Dream of two cars in every garage. Used to be one car (the dream) but the Republicans changed that..now it's two cars in every double garage.

So the Macs have 7-homes, they should have 14 cars--and they've only got 13. Think one of those homes has only a single-car garage and they don't want to have to park out on the street?

One wonders if Cindy's (I'm an only child) sister has more than one car?

(CNN) — Democrats eager to portray John McCain as out of touch with average Americans and as a flip-flopper seized on a report Sunday the Arizona senator and his wife, Cindy, own more than a dozen cars — including several foreign-made automobiles.

A Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/160091) published on the magazine's Web Site Sunday said registration records show the McCains currently own 13 cars — two of which are foreign-made: a Honda and a Volkswagen. That appears to contradict the Republican presidential nominee's past statements (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0QRapvB9xc) he only buys cars made in America. (Cindy McCain also drives a Lexus and daughter Meghan owns a Toyota Prius, but neither are registered to the McCains.)
Newsweek also reported Barack Obama owns one car: a Ford Escape Hybrid.

In a quickly-arranged conference call organized by the Democratic National Committee, United Auto Worker Union President Ron Gettelfinger — an Obama supporter — said the registration records show McCain is not being truthful with Americans and undermining autoworkers.