Can anyone defend Mr. Bush, now? [Archive]

usmc1

03-02-2006, 04:45 AM

Now we have learned, beyound dispute (on video tape--finally a documented lie, and visual evidence of the fecklessness of this administration), that Bush was fully warned of the devastating potential of Katrina, including the breeching of the levees.

The same levees about which he later said that no one foresaw their failure.

A blatent lie followed by dithering inaction and fecklessness disregard for human life.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/

Now go back to the post 9/11 days when this administration of dry-drunk sociopaths, wet-brained drunks, congenital liars and neo-con hobgoblins demurred and whimpered, "no one could have connected the dots", despite several intelligence briefings and papers through the years which had raised the potential of that very thing: airplanes used as missles.

Indeed, there was an actual earlier attempt, which was thrwarted to hijack an airliner and crash into a nuclear reactor in Alabama.

So another bald-faced lie involving the deaths of innocent people because of the fecklessness of this administration.

Lies, lies and more lies. Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Saddam harbored Al Quida. We know for a fact that Saddam met with Al Quida just prior to 9/11. There was no drinking in the hunting party--well maybe just a beer or two. Lies on top of lies on top of lies.

Iraq is moving toward democracy and we need to stay the course. Lies, and more lies, Deaths and more deaths.

Interest rates are rising, home sales are cooling, inflation is peeking its deformed face from under the covers of the years of prosperity under Clinton. The Deficit is astronomical.

But, we've cut taxes. How are you doing with all that extra money from the tax cuts--higher standard of living?, nicer home?, better schools?, better healthcare?, paid of the bills and mortgage? Just afloat in extra cash from your big tax cuts?

The Medicare drug plan is a freeking disaster. Health care in America is becoming an oxymoron, no one cares that that healthcare is wrecked except those who have no healthcare--which by the way, is an ever growing number, way too many of whom are children.

Illegal wiretaps and spying on American citizens without benefit of due process. Plans to install even more sureveillance cameras on the streets, sidewalks and roads of America.

Jobbing of our vulnerable ports to an Arab nation with very murky ties and verified connections to terrorists, including Al Quida and the 9/11 group--without adewquate oversight and safe guards despite warnings from the Caost Guard and etc. Oh wait, they've had a change of ehart and are now good guys. Lies on top of lies on top of lies.

Sounds like Katrina all over again, warnings ignored! Iraq, warnings ignored!, 9/11, warnings ignored, the tax cuts, warning ignored, deficit spending, warning ignored.

And now, to distract us from all this, they're fanning into hot flamesa the embers of xenophobia, mistrust of outsiders, and incipient racism. Our problems all stem from thos dang old illegal aliens sucking up healthcare, causing crime, and wrecking our public schools. Lies and lies and lies to the gazillionth degree.

Were I a so disposed, I'd say that Bush is the anti-Christ.

So, conservatives and Republicans, and Reagan Democrats, you've gotten what you've always wanted: Your kind of President, your kind of Congress, your kind of Supreme Court, your kind of country.

Tell me please, was it worth it and how can you defend that pathologically evil little punk in the White House?

usmc1

03-02-2006, 04:45 AM

Steve Dallas

03-02-2006, 06:07 AM

I agree. I don't know how anyone who has been paying attention can defend Bush. He is inept and possibly the most corrupt President we've ever had. Allowing the oil companies to write our energy policy, the insurance companies to write the drug program.

You stated that you would almost call Bush the Anti-Christ. In a way he is. Under him, most Christians have turned away from Jesus and what he stood for. Now they seem to be following Yahow, the God of the Old Testiment, who was just waiting to punish sinners. Now, Christianity begins and ends with hating homosexuals and being anti-abortion. As long as you are, you are considered a "moral" person. And since Bush is "moral", it's o.k. for him to cut aid to the poor, give tax breaks to the rich, and spy on people. Never mind Jesus's command to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, etc.. Never mind that Jesus told to "take the beam out of your own eye first"; (examine your own sins before you condemn the sins of others). Never mind that Jesus said "Judge Not and You Will Not Be Judged, Forgive and You Will Be Forgiven.". Now listen to talk radio. Everything is the fault of Democrats, Liberals, and anyone else they don't like. Conservatives, Republican, and anyone they like are perfect and can do no wrong. The greatest threat to Jesus is not secular humanism, it's Christian Fundamentalism. The message of Jesus has been replaced by a hate-filled God.

I have one other question: Why is it that so many Conservatives think that government is bad and the cause of all our problems; unless there is a war involved. Then government is without flaw and anyone who questions the war is unpatriotic?

Sanslines

03-02-2006, 06:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The message of Jesus has been replaced by a hate-filled God. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The message of Jesus comes from churches and the bible itself. Are people so brain dead that they can't resist false messages of religion? As far as caring for the homeless, hungry, etc, I have worked with many good people who personally contribute their time and efforts through programs such as Habitat for Humanity to help the truly needy. It is up to people themselves who are true believers and put those words of caring into actions that will change the situation.

Baremore

03-02-2006, 06:57 AM

I thoroughly dislike Bush and think his administration has been a nightmare for America, but I think it is quite possible to understand what Bush is saying about the levies. Anyone could have predicted there was a ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY the levies, under any number of circumstances, might be breached. After all. they are a manmade structure and subject to weaknesses, both human and physical. It is quite another matter to factually predicte WHEN AND WHERE THEY WILL be breached. I think that is what GWB is saying. Regardless, it was no excuse for the government's pathetic response.

usmc1

03-02-2006, 08:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Baremore:
I thoroughly dislike Bush and think his administration has been a nightmare for America, but I think it is quite possible to understand what Bush is saying about the levies. Anyone could have predicted there was a ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY the levies, under any number of circumstances, might be breached. After all. they are a manmade structure and subject to weaknesses, both human and physical. It is quite another matter to factually predicte WHEN AND WHERE THEY WILL be breached. I think that is what GWB is saying. Regardless, it was no excuse for the government's pathetic response. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to view and hear the video--the warning was rather dire and fairly straight forward, even for a bureaucrat, and Bush's subsequent, no one could have predicted the levees...was quite emphatically contrary to what he had been told. He lied!

nacktman

03-02-2006, 10:17 AM

Simple.

Boreas

03-02-2006, 11:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Baremore:
I thoroughly dislike Bush and think his administration has been a nightmare for America, but I think it is quite possible to understand what Bush is saying about the levies. Anyone could have predicted there was a ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY the levies, under any number of circumstances, might be breached. After all. they are a manmade structure and subject to weaknesses, both human and physical. It is quite another matter to factually predicte WHEN AND WHERE THEY WILL be breached. I think that is what GWB is saying. Regardless, it was no excuse for the government's pathetic response. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I live in north-western Canada; almost as far away from New Orelans as you can get and still be on the same continent. I have never been to New Orleans. Even I knew that there was a potential disaster of monumental proportions before the hurricane actually hit. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

I would expect that the administration of the most powerful country in the world would know even more than I about such things. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

photoart

03-02-2006, 12:43 PM

what about the local officials whoh ignored Bush's admonishment to evacuate. By the time they did that it was too late and people just got stuck in traffic.

jon71

03-02-2006, 01:10 PM

What admonishment? Bush was silent until well after it was obviously a disaster. The mayor and Governor did what little they could to work around a fema and Fed. admin. that was completely asleep at the wheel.

hm0504

03-02-2006, 01:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by photoart:
what about the local officials whoh ignored Bush's admonishment to evacuate. By the time they did that it was too late and people just got stuck in traffic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

New Orleans was a mess at all levels of government. However, where the federal government was supposed to perform, it did not.

R.M.GREENMAN2

03-02-2006, 05:27 PM

Clinton lied about getting some extra-marital action, they tried to impeach him!

Bush lied about WMD's ...many people died
Bush lied about what he knew about Katrina...many people died!

Where are the screams for impeachment now?

Naturist Mark

03-02-2006, 05:31 PM

I'm Taking My Country Back (http://www.1010kxxt.com/audio/takinmycountryback.mp3)

Even country music is deserting the president now, next thing you know they'll be playing the Dixie Chicks agin'

-Mark

UnitedNudists

03-02-2006, 06:37 PM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KATRINA_VIDEO?SI...=2006-03-02-21-00-56 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KATRINA_VIDEO?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-02-21-00-56)

New evidence has surfaced that Bush convinced Blanco the levees were safe.He lied to her and tricked her into believing him. People died due to his lies! Local authorities were misled by the Whitehouse.

barbararuth

03-03-2006, 08:38 AM

Defend Mr. Bush? Has anyone seen Farenheit 911? Defend for what? He is an embarrassment.

nimrod

03-03-2006, 09:31 AM

Could anyone defend him before?

I believe that Bush knew of 9/11 before it happened, it would be his excuse to invade Iraq, even though they would have nothing to do with the bombings.

Call me a conspericy nut if you want, it is just what I believe.

jon71

03-03-2006, 01:16 PM

The downing street papers have in fact proven that Bush had plans to invade Iraq before 9-11. Whether he did know of a hijacking in advance or just used it once it happened all he was concerned about was his own agenda. Personally I don't believe he knew per se but if his administration was even marginally doing it's job he should have had recognized all the red flags flying right and left.

usmc1

03-03-2006, 01:42 PM

More pesky facts about Bush's penchant for lying emerge. Appears he knew more about what was not happening in Iraq than he was telling folks. Or put it even plainer, the little s.o.b. knew he was lying about WMD and so forth in Iraq.

http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/articles/0302nj1.htm

hm0504

03-03-2006, 04:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
More pesky facts about Bush's penchant for lying emerge. Appears he knew more about what was not happening in Iraq than he was telling folks. Or put it even plainer, the little s.o.b. knew he was lying about WMD and so forth in Iraq.

http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/articles/0302nj1.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While it is good to be reminded of some of the history, I didn't see much in the article that was not old news.

What has to be remembered by every American, every day is that when you hear the White House say something like "our underlings never reported these controversies to us", that the White House crushes those who dare to provide information not in conformance with the White House view. As the Colbert Report brilliantly put it, the White House has replaced "making decisions based on facts" with "making facts based on decisions".

Bruce Bartlett writes
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I am also concerned with Bush's cavalier attitude toward federalism and his insistence on absolute, unquestioning loyalty, which stifles honest criticism and creates a cult of personality around him that I find disturbing. As former Reagan speechwriter John Podhoretz, author of a sympathetic book about Bush, has observed, "One of the remarkable aspects of this White House has been the fanatical loyalty its people have displayed toward Bush -- even talking to friendly journalists like me, it's been nearly impossible to get past the feel-good spin."

For example, in 2002, the White House directly ordered the firing of former Republican congressman Mike Parker of Mississippi as head of the Army Corps of Engineers because he publicly disagreed with the administration's budget request for his agency. In 2005, it ordered the demotion of a Justice Department statistician who merely put out some data that the White House found inconvenient. This micromanagement of such low-level personnel is extraordinary in my experience. Columnist Robert Novak referred to this sort of thing as the Bush White House's "authoritarian aura."
[1] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5227215

sw1sweendog

03-03-2006, 08:31 PM

how do you defend a big pile of crap.

Naturist Mark

03-04-2006, 09:22 AM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

jon71

03-04-2006, 10:10 PM

Mark that is priceless. I love it.

nacktman

03-05-2006, 04:22 AM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rofl5.gif great one Mark!

Bob S.

03-06-2006, 01:45 PM

I agree more with what Baremore stated in that Bush wasn't saying that no one had predicted the disaster, but rather that the disaster happened.

To me, it was said more in awe of Mother Nature's power than of any talks before the hurricane.

Also, realize that no one in the pre-Katrina briefing mentioned that the levees could be breached. They mentioned the dangers of them being overtopped.

However, I do agree that no one can defend the govt's reaction.

As I have said before, the Katrina disaster was the result of a total failure of the fed, state, and local govts. And a lack of upkeep of the levee system by all who were responsible for them.

Bob S.

barbararuth

03-06-2006, 03:13 PM

President Bush if the Arabs take control of our ports!

hm0504

03-06-2006, 03:30 PM

Very convincing, barbararuth!

Conor B

03-06-2006, 06:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Also, realize that no one in the pre-Katrina briefing mentioned that the levees could be breached. They mentioned the dangers of them being overtopped. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I believe that the "Hurricane Pam" mock disaster exercise anticipated that the levees would fail, not just be topped:

This from LA's Office of Homeland Security web site, dated July 2004
http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/newsrelated/incaseofemrgencyexercise.htm :

....Some of the water pushed into Lake Pontchartrain would flow through a gap in the hurricane levee in St. Charles Parish, flow across land to the Mississippi River levee and be funneled south into Jefferson and Orleans parishes.

Sean Fontenot, chief of preparedness for the state Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, said as much as 87 percent of the area's housing would be destroyed. That would be the result of a one-two combination of floodwaters and 120-mph winds, said Marc Levitan, director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center.

Bob S.

03-07-2006, 01:38 PM

Yes Conor. "Hurricane Pam" did give a worst case scenario. Unfortunately, no one took it seriously. But "Pam" wasn't a part of the pre-Katrina briefings that we see on tape.

Bob S.

jon71

03-07-2006, 03:16 PM

When it comes to the concerns of everyday American's when was the last time Bush took anything seriously. After all we don't own oil companies so why should he care about us.

sdson

03-07-2006, 07:32 PM

All I can say is "had enough yet?"

Just when you think it can't get any worse something else happens.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think the lies under this administration were far worse than the lies about the "little blue dress" if you catch my drift.

I firmly beleieve that Americans are going to have to regress completely before everyone finally recoginizes how dangerous a situation we all are in with the current administration.

Americans seem to have the attitude that as long as what is going on doesn't directly affect them, then they don't care.

Well guess what? Everyone's rights are at stake: not only the poor; not only the elderly; not only minorities; not only gays and lesbians. It appears that once everyone is affected in some way, then and only then will we challenge the "so called current" leadership under the current administration.

At the rate things are going it looks like we won't have to wait very long for that to happen.

I weep for the future.

Flanudedude

03-08-2006, 05:50 PM

I received this from one of my friends and had to share it with you all. As a conservative Republican, I am tired of listening to the liberal media's constant Bush bashing.You all seem to forget that Clinton had Osama bin Laden in his crosshairs and didn't have the balls to pull the trigger. 911 could have been preveted if he had. You also forget that we have not had another attack in this country because of this administration's actions! I know I am going to get lambasted for my pro Bush stance but I felt I had to give my 2 cents worth. This cute story illustrates my point perfectly and with humor.

The Pope and President Bush.

The Pope is visiting Washington, D.C., and President Bush takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac, sailing on the Presidential yacht, the Sequoia.
They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's hat (zucchetto) blows off his head and out into the water. Secret Service guys start to launch a boat, but President Bush
waves them off, saying, "Wait, wait. I'll take care of this. Don't worry."
Bush then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water and walks out to the Holy Father's little hat, bends over picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard.
He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.
The next morning, the headlines in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Atlanta Constitution, Washington Post, Boston Herald, Buffalo News, Houston Chronicle, Milwaukee Sentinel- Journal,
Minneapolis Tribune, Denver Post, Albuquerque Journal, Los Angeles Times,Sacramento Bee, Fresno Bee and San Francisco Chronicle all proclaim:

" BUSH CAN'T SWIM !!"

jon71

03-08-2006, 06:03 PM

Typical conservative lie. Clinton DID pull the trigger and destroyed some of Bin Laden's chemical weapons plans and the gop APOLOGIZED for it due to partisan politics. Bush has failed every step of the way on national security. Deal with reality.

nacktman

03-08-2006, 07:10 PM

The "Real" Story of the Pope and the shrub.

CharlieMike

03-08-2006, 07:25 PM

But let's talk facts:

WMD's Bill C. said virtually the same thing about Iraq.

Since 9/11, the USA has not been attacked by a sworn enemy of the west, specifically radical muslims.

Bush is dumb, well was admitted to Yale, we any of you? He had better grade average than Kerry. He was admitted to Harvard, were any of you? He graduated from both.

Regarding the port story, Bill Clinton is in favor of it or did he do it only for the money?

Reminder, none of you know anything about Iraq if you read and listen to the US media. If you want to find out what is really going on talk the soldiers who have been there.

Finally, tell me where you want to confront the radical muslims, here or there.

nacktman

03-08-2006, 07:47 PM

Turned down Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Stanford.
Went to Oxford and Cambridge.
Better GPA than the shrub.
Multiple Doctorates.
Simple enough for you.

e.e. cummings member of MENSA.
forty plus IQ points higher than the shrub.
Never capitalized his name.
Plain enough for you.

Iraq had WMDs during the 1980s and 1990s ... they used the ones Ronnie Raygun and the shrub's daddy sold them on their own countrymen and Iran.
They just used them all before the current fiasco and Clinton would not allow them to buy any more.http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/doh.gif

Been talking to the soldiers going to Iraq, been there as an "advisor" during the Raygun regime.
Know about Iraq.

Not attacked since 9/11?
Would not be so sure if you have any sense of the world today.

Don't really need to confront radical muslims "here" or "there", got enough to worry about with the radical christians right here in America.

The shrub can not be defended.
He could never be defended.
He is the anti-christ that the christians are so set on finding. He fits every discription given of the anti-christ (except maybe the oratory skills the anti-christ is said to posess).

jon71

03-08-2006, 08:03 PM

Thanks Nacktman. It's amazing what lengths conservatives will go to in order to defend that failure. Let me add that legacies don't have to be smart to go to Ivy league schools, they just have to be rich.

sw1sweendog

03-08-2006, 08:58 PM

charliemike,i know a little about iraq.i was there for half a year.it was a cluster f--- then and it's a cluster f--- now.bush screwed it all up when we had falugha(sp)surounded with a large amount of insurgents within,bush would'nt take them out ,for fear that the rest of the word would hate us.news flash,they already did.except when were giving them money.the man is a first class moron.just my earnd opinion.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

sw1sweendog

03-08-2006, 08:59 PM

the rest of the world

jon71

03-08-2006, 10:42 PM

Glad you spoke up sweendog. According to Zogby eighty some percent of Iraqis want us out and seventy some percent of current enlisted soldiers want us out too. When troops oppose a war by approximately a 3 to 1 margin what does that tell you?

CharlieMike

03-09-2006, 04:30 AM

Please check your facts, you left out a key word in the 80% survey. The question included the word eventually, but wanted the protection in the short term.

CharlieMike

CharlieMike

03-09-2006, 04:34 AM

Please interate the attacks on American Citizens in the USA.

Please describe when, where and how the Christian right has attacked, killed or otherwise injured Americans.

CharlieMike

Naturist Mark

03-09-2006, 05:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CharlieMike:
Please interate the attacks on American Citizens in the USA.

Please describe when, where and how the Christian right has attacked, killed or otherwise injured Americans.

CharlieMike </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean other than Eric Rudolf, Tim McVeigh, and James Kopp?

-Mark

usmc1

03-09-2006, 05:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CharlieMike:
Please check your facts, you left out a key word in the 80% survey. The question included the word eventually, but wanted the protection in the short term.

CharlieMike </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hit the deck, pal! You've got incoming!

Regarding Christian terrorism and iterating attacks on American Citizens for your enlightenment and edification...

"Violent protests targetting abortion providers and clinics, in the form of arson, firebombing, and vandalism started in the early 1970's in the U.S. Then, as now, most of the violence appears to be the acts of religiously-motivated criminals acting alone. However, recent cases involving the assassination and attempted murder of abortion providers in both the U.S. and Canada have shown that perpetrators appear to be sheltered by a network of sympathizers."

Yep, murder, sniping, fire bombing, intimidation, vandalism, all in the name of baby Jesus..There's one, out of many possible, examples of Christian threats to and attacks on American lives.

Regarding your misuse of Zogby, here from the Zogby site..

Released: February 28, 2006 U.S.
Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006 ·
LeMoyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed” ·

Errr, that's only 20%, by extrapolation there remain 80% saying hell no, we need to cut a chogie. But wait! That's not all!

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

Hey bud, 25% say saddle up and cut a chogie today, 72% say within this year. That ain't eventually by anyone's definition.

But, keep on, it's always a delight to hear from the delusional and dysfuntional 35% who still support the dry-drunk little sociopath in the White House and his coven of neo-con hobgoblins.

sdson

03-09-2006, 07:36 AM

Am I mistaken or is Bill Clinton no longer the President? Yes, I recognize decisions during his administation (as is true of ALL presidents) still affects how we live in America. However, this revisiting of history every blasted time anyone criticizes the current administration is really getting old.

We could certainly break out the history books and find an example of a similar or in many cases worse decisions by a former President. Does using these as a defense for the actions of the current administration absolve it of responsibility? Playing one upmanship gets us nowhere. Let's stay in the present shall we.

Under the current administration this is what I have seen:

We attacked a foreign nation under the pretense of weapons of mass destruction that still have not been found.

We have a national deficit that is spiraling out of control.

We have a medicare prescription drug plan that has created a administrative nightmare where many states have had to incur additional costs to make sure thier residents who need the coverage the most (and were covered before the new "improved" medicare plan went into effect) still have prescriptions so they can survive.

We watched our fellow Americans on television as they wept and begged for assistance for aid from a hurricane that was predicted at least three days in advance.

We have an administration that supports survailance of it's citizens for national security and approves selling off six national ports to the United Arab Emirates yet does'nt appear to recognize this as a potential security threat.

Can I find a historical example of something worse that happened under a different administration? You bet I can, and probably without having to dig too deeply.

So here's the question. Do we shrug our shoulders and say "well Democrats are no better," "Clinton did....," "Ted Kennedy did..." or do we make this administation accountable for their actions?

If we can look back and come up with an example from the past that matches or worse what's happening now and be outraged about it; why can't we be outraged about what's going on now? If we stay in the present, maybe, just maybe we can make a change for the better. Let's learn from history instead of using is as a defense for things in the present we should be questioning.

That's my two cents!

SD

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Typical conservative lie. Clinton DID pull the trigger and destroyed some of Bin Laden's chemical weapons plans and the gop APOLOGIZED for it due to partisan politics. Bush has failed every step of the way on national security. Deal with reality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm0504

03-09-2006, 08:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CharlieMike:
But let's talk facts:

WMD's Bill C. said virtually the same thing about Iraq.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup and Clinton's very effective strategy for containing Iraq, reigning in Saddam, and keeping Iraq stable and free from being a launch pad for Al Qaeda. Today Iraq is exploding, havoc reigns, and Iraq is no longer an enemy of Al Qaeda but a haven for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CharlieMike:

Since 9/11, the USA has not been attacked by a sworn enemy of the west, specifically radical muslims.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There has been no successful attack in the U.S. but there have been devestating ones in Britain, Spain, Bali (aimed at Australians), and elsewhere. It would be fool hardy for Americans (or anyone else) to think that they are somehow safer from Al Qaeda now than they were before 9/11.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CharlieMike:
Reminder, none of you know anything about Iraq if you read and listen to the US media. If you want to find out what is really going on talk the soldiers who have been there.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I'll agree with your first sentence. By and large, the American media did an awful job before the war in educating Americans about Iraq. The situation has improved somewhat since. Interesting, how the vast majority of Iraq war veterans who have turned their attention to politics are now running as Democrats.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CharlieMike:
Finally, tell me where you want to confront the radical muslims, here or there.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, right now most of America's fighting forces are not fighting Al Qaeda but are in the middle of a 1400 year old dispute between the Sunni and Shi'ite sects. Before the invasion of Iraq, NATO was very successful in wiping out the Taleban in Afghanistan. Today, American troops are being pulled out of the war against Islamists in order to try and stabilize Iraq. And the Islamists are making a major resurgence because of it.

shomymojo

03-09-2006, 09:27 AM

President Hillary...all problems solved..LOL

xgsft

03-09-2006, 09:29 AM

*Involentarily shudders*

usmc1

03-09-2006, 10:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
President Hillary...all problems solved..LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't speak for others, but from my point of view your incessantly glib, facile and middle-school like non-sequiters introduced into serious discussion threads lost what little charm and cleverness they once had about ten threads ago.

They do you no credit and make you look silly and superficial.

jon71

03-09-2006, 02:06 PM

We could do a lot worse than President Hillary Clinton. Oh wait a minute, we already are. Bottom line those of us who take national security and the war on terrorism seriously will vote Democratic in '06 and '08. Those who like politicians who talk big and give Bin Laden a pass will vote Republican. Those who want American ports in American hands will vote Democrat. Those who don't care will vote Republican. Those who want to protect veterans benefits (including danger pay) will vote Democrat. Those who want that tossed aside in favor of tax cuts for the rich and kick backs for Haliburton will vote Republican. Does anyone see a trend here?

shomymojo

03-09-2006, 02:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
President Hillary...all problems solved..LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't speak for others, but from my point of view your incessantly glib, facile and middle-school like non-sequiters introduced into serious discussion threads lost what little charm and cleverness they once had about ten threads ago.

They do you no credit and make you look silly and superficial. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> ...Now Stop it USMC1...people will say we're in love....LOL

usmc1

03-09-2006, 02:45 PM

Not anyone with an iota of sense.

usmc1

03-09-2006, 02:50 PM

Hey CharleyMike, more incoming.

Here under the category of listening to the troops and not using the U.S. media:

The Occupied Iraq Insurgency web site reports this veteran's letter to Bush:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m21362

A Veteran’s Letter to the President
“I Return Enclosed the Symbols of My Years of Service”
Joseph DuRocher

Joseph DuRocher was for 20 years the elected Public Defender of Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit, covering Orange and Osceola counties. Since retirement, he’s been writing and teaching law at the University of Central Florida and the Barry University School of Law. He was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy in the 1960s, serving as a Naval Aviator in the Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. On Monday, Mr. DuRocher returned his Lieutenant’s shoulder bars and Navy wings to President Bush, and enclosed the following letter.

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As a young man I was honored to serve our nation as a commissioned officer and helicopter pilot in the U. S. Navy. Before me in WWII, my father defended the country spending two years in the Pacific aboard the U.S.S. Hornet (CV-14). We were patriots sworn "to protect and defend". Today I conclude that you have dishonored our service and the Constitution and principles of our oath. My dad was buried with full military honors so I cannot act for him. But for myself, I return enclosed the symbols of my years of service: the shoulder boards of my rank and my Naval Aviator’s wings.

Until your administration, I believed it was inconceivable that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive and preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to us. Until your administration, I thought it was impossible for our nation to take hundreds of persons into custody without provable charges of any kind, and to "disappear" them into holes like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Until your administration, in my wildest legal fantasy I could not imagine a U.S. Attorney General seeking to justify torture or a President first stating his intent to veto an anti-torture law, and then adding a "signing statement" that he intends to ignore such law as he sees fit. I do not want these things done in my name.

As a citizen, a patriot, a parent and grandparent, a lawyer and law teacher I am left with such a feeling of loss and helplessness. I think of myself as a good American and I ask myself what can I do when I see the face of evil? Illegal and immoral war, torture and confinement for life without trial have never been part of our Constitutional tradition. But my vote has become meaningless because I live in a safe district drawn by your political party. My congressman is unresponsive to my concerns because his time is filled with lobbyists’ largess. Protests are limited to your "free speech zones", out of sight of the parade. Even speaking openly is to risk being labeled un-American, pro-terrorist or anti-troops. And I am a disciplined pacifist, so any violent act is out of the question.

Nevertheless, to remain silent is to let you think I approve or support your actions. I do not. So, I am saddened to give up my wings and bars. They were hard won and my parents and wife were as proud as I was when I earned them over forty years ago. But I hate the torture and death you have caused more than I value their symbolism. Giving them up makes me cry for my beloved country.

Joseph W. DuRocher

Bennn

03-09-2006, 04:45 PM

I have disagreed with most of President Bush's (or call me a conspericy theorist, president Rove's) policies from day 1 and I still do, I voted against him, I am quite liberal, get my news from PBS, DW and the BBC, can't stand CNN or Fox. I cant believe the tax cuts and deficite spending, that kind of fiscal irrisponsability should be enough to warrant impeachment. And he sure as all hell dropped the ball on Katrina. But now I find my self agreeing with him on two points, which is pretty shocking for a liberal like my self.
1. Concerning Iraq. We should have never gone in, in the first place, certainly not with such small numbers. However The current Iraqi government is not nearly stable enough to stand on its own, and the last thing the world needs is a civil war and then the next conservative as Iran government sitting right there with a real festering hate for the west in general. So as painful as it is to see our bothers & sisters and sons & daughters dying, and as much as we should not be there in the first place, pulling out now in my opinion would be the most idiotic move the fools in the white house could make.
2. The now failed DP Ports take over. This just seems like blind xenophobia to me, God forbid we sell control of 6 ports to and to and Arab company (I sure hope everyone can see the sarcasm). DP Ports is a very multinational company, with American born executives, European execs and Arab execs. The ports would have still been operated by American workers and monitered by U.S. security. We have ports operated by China and others, and here we are scarred out of our minds bcause this is an Arab based company (the UAE which happens to be an ally of the U.S. might point out). The worst part of this is now we look like the Xenophobes that some of us (and increasing number of our politicians on both sides f the political aisle) are. If we are going to have a global economy centered around large multi-national corperations (which I have a lot of issues with)then we have to let things like this go, it was thoroughly examined by several government agencies and they all okayed it. If you make the argument that no foreign company should operate our ports I can accept that, but if its for racist reasons singling out one company then I absolutely can not.

p.s. forget Hilary, we need Obama in '08.

Pants are so overrated

curmudgeon

03-09-2006, 07:02 PM

There are plenty of arguments against most of the "points" I see here. I say "most" because I'm not aboput to waste my time actually wading through your boring diatribes. This forum is inhabited almost entirely by left-handed wingnuts, and there is absolutely no point in anyone wasting their time attempting it. There is no more chance that anyone will change your mind than that you will change mine. You think I'm nuts and I think you're stupid and that isn't about to change no matter what either of us says.

You haven't won anything, but rational debate depends on being able to agree on basic starting premises. We cannot even agree on the meaning of words like "lie." The left has adopted the convention that anything that turns out ex-post to be false is a lie. The more traditional meaning of the word is an intentional untruth. There is a world of difference.

jon71

03-09-2006, 07:18 PM

...and of course the right doesn't consider it a lie anytime they're caught.

nacktman

03-09-2006, 07:23 PM

Typical obfuscation and cowardice.

When you haven't a leg to stand on you fall down.
Simple physics.

What cannot be defended is to be descarded.

Conor B

03-09-2006, 08:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by curmudgeon: The left has adopted the convention that anything that turns out ex-post to be false is a lie. The more traditional meaning of the word is an intentional untruth. There is a world of difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, I wish that the left could be so organized as that. The uniform talking points is the brilliant achievement of the right. The right is, at this point, indisputably the home of cohesive messages that, as Bush said, are 'repeated over and over' to 'reinforce the propaganda (Buffalo, 2004).

And Liberal Media? puleeeze. No, please. Please look at the numbers; Visit Media Matters about the liberal bias on the sunday Talk Shows. (What, a majority of right wing representatives during the last four years of Clinton as well as the first four of Bush! But I thought the media was loony left?!!!).

And can any honest person tell me that the Media Liked Al Gore or John Kerry better than GWB?

This example:

Take the first Bush-Gore debate, the event which decided the election. Six different networks took instant polls. Gore won every single poll -- and then your press corps got busy. They decided that Gore's very-troubling sighs were the evening's extremely important Top Story. For the next several days, they played loops of Gore sighing (with the volume cranked), and the polls, they were quickly a-changin'. http://mediamatters.org/items/200410270008

You know that you remember this, because it is burned in my memory.

The right is still playing the outsider card which served them well, but, look yourself in the mirror: you've had the presidency for 18 of the last 30 years. And you cannot say that the government is working better now. And it certainly isn't smaller or more solvent.

BTW, Your reponse to Bruce Bartlett would be what exactly?

usmc1

03-10-2006, 05:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by curmudgeon:
There are plenty of arguments against most of the "points" I see here.

Then trot them out.

I say "most" because I'm not aboput to waste my time actually wading through your boring diatribes.

Then what is your qualification to respond to them if you have not read them? How would you know they're boring unless you've read them? Why respond to them by saying you're not going to respond to them?

This forum is inhabited almost entirely by left-handed wingnuts, and there is absolutely no point in anyone wasting their time attempting it.

Yeah, that describes people like you, trailscout, charliemike, and natural judge and et ux to a T. left-handed wingnuts.

There is no more chance that anyone will change your mind than that you will change mine. You think I'm nuts and I think you're stupid and that isn't about to change no matter what either of us says.

Haven't you figured it out yet? You may think, we know for a certainty.

You haven't won anything, but rational debate depends on being able to agree on basic starting premises.

If we agreed on the premise there would be no debate.

We cannot even agree on the meaning of words like "lie." The left has adopted the convention that anything that turns out ex-post to be false is a lie. The more traditional meaning of the word is an intentional untruth. There is a world of difference.

Here you're blatantly wrong. We know a lie for what it is. Here's one, <span class="ev_code_RED">"We know for a certainty that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". </span> That was one of the lies that has caused the deaths of thousands </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nacktman

03-10-2006, 05:32 AM

Has anyone else notice the resident neo-cons using their tried and failed methods yet again on this thread?

They cannot speak to point, so they bring out the smoke machines and mirrors.
By attacking others (directly and indirectly) they seek to confuse and confound.
Tain't working McGhee!

Reality is just something neo-cons cannot fathom.

You cannot defend the shrub and still be sane.

Naturist Mark

03-10-2006, 06:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The left has adopted the convention that anything that turns out ex-post to be false is a lie. The more traditional meaning of the word is an intentional untruth. There is a world of difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, an intentional untruth is a bald faced lie.

Perhaps he mean an UNintentional untruth?

When I call out lies by politicians and the administration, I based the charge on previously known facts or their own previous statements - not simply on the post-facto knowledge of error.

Thus we know from public statements by Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, prior to 9/11, as well as analysis from Defense Intelligence and other agencies that Iraq was 'contained', was no threat, and had no WMD's. See my lengthy post of this subject here (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/5170011252/r/1370011252#1370011252).

Intentional untruths, and 'changing facts', and 'fixing the facts to fit a policy' are all lies.

-Mark

shomymojo

03-10-2006, 06:37 AM

Bush is a lame duck...and quickly becoming irrelevent...( *see Dubai ports deal)...instead of beating that tired old horse...we really should be focused on 08...thats where the future lies...JMHO

usuallylurk

03-10-2006, 07:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
Bush is a lame duck...and quickly becoming irrelevent...( *see Dubai ports deal)...instead of beating that tired old horse...we really should be focused on 08...thats where the future lies...JMHO </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is one GOOD thing I have seen emerge in the past few weeks, especially with the Dubai deal -- is that there's a new attitude in this country.

Until a few weeks ago, if you criticized the administration, you were accused of being traitorous, "what about our troops", "you liberal pinko Bush hater", etc.

Notice that even the staunchest, most radical, unshakable Bush worshipers now have BACKED OFF.

Oh yeah, I don't want to see Chinese, or British , or French, or German, or anything other than U.S. firms control U.S. ports -- and I think that the Dubai caper got a lot of Americans thinking about that issue.

usmc1

03-10-2006, 09:58 AM

"YOUR HANDS ARE STAINED WITH BLOOD, YOUR FINGERS WITH GUILT; YOUR LIPS SPEAK FALSEHOOD, AND YOUR TONGUE UTTERS DECEIT"
[The Book of Isaiah]

MJ_KC

03-10-2006, 10:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usuallylurk:
Oh yeah, I don't want to see Chinese, or British , or French, or German, or anything other than U.S. firms control U.S. ports -- and I think that the Dubai caper got a lot of Americans thinking about that issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If nothing else, it shined some light on this issue. The fact that this is permitted at all is kind of stupid.

Boreas

03-10-2006, 11:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usuallylurk:
Oh yeah, I don't want to see Chinese, or British , or French, or German, or anything other than U.S. firms control U.S. ports -- and I think that the Dubai caper got a lot of Americans thinking about that issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If nothing else, it shined some light on this issue. The fact that this is permitted at all is kind of stupid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree it is good to have that discussion. I had some misgivings about that deal, and am somewhat relieved that it has been settled.

At the same time, it is odd looking at the issue from north of your border. We are seeing more and more American ownership of formerly Canadian companies, and more and more American companies like WalMart and Home Depot coming into our world. Heck, even our sacred Hudson's Bay Company, Canada's oldest company, was just bought by Americans. It gives us an interesting perspective on your debate I think.

Naturist Mark

03-10-2006, 03:54 PM

usmc1

03-23-2006, 08:34 AM

President Cheney
Garrison Keillor: 'Message to White House co-pilot: Eject now'
Posted on Thursday, March 23 @ 09:51:39 EST
This article has been read 579 times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrison Keillor, Chicago Tribune

A peacock walked past the window as I ate breakfast last Saturday at an old country inn in Albuquerque, his great fan of bejeweled feathers open wide, following a peahen that was pecking around the gravel as if he didn't exist. The peacock appeared to be infatuated, shuffling around, waggling his rump, craning his bright-blue neck, the little doodads on his head bouncing around rather fetchingly, and the peahen kept scratching in the dirt, looking for grubs. Think of Elvis in a silver jumpsuit doing "One Night" at the Sands and the audience studying the dinner menu and trying to decide between the salmon and the baby ribs. Finally he got her cornered up against the window and then he stretched the great fan open to the max and he strutted and stuck out his chest and waved the tail feathers. The lady appeared interested for a while, and then she slipped past him and he deflated in about three seconds.

It was painful for a man to watch this. The peacock's great fan of iridescent blue-green beauty, when it deflates, becomes a feather duster, a street sweeper. You go from Waldemar the Magnificent to Bobo the Groundskeeper.

He reminded you of the president trying to win hearts and minds in Ohio this week, except Mr. Bush's tail feathers have been pecked practically clean by events. It was likewise painful for anyone to watch. As painful as seeing Henry Kissinger at a recent conference on Vietnam say he had no regrets. No president in your lifetime or mine has seen his fundamental competence--his ability to think clearly and manage the government--so doubted by the voting public as Mr. Bush has. This is humiliation of a rare sort.

If Mr. Bush wanted to reverse his slide, he could do it with a phone call to his vice president. Tell him, "Hey, Gunner, I'm sending over your resignation. Sign it and leave the building immediately, and don't take any floppies with you." Mr. Cheney would have a grand mal seizure right there, and be taken away to a sanitarium, and then Mr. Bush could get (1) Newt Gingrich, (2) John McCain, (3) Jeb Bush, (4) Rudolph Giuliani--take his pick. America needs a No. 2 who wouldn't give Americans a coronary if he became No. 1. The top story on the news that night is "Gunner dumped as veep," and a fresh breeze blows through Washington, and the American people perk up and imagine that the Current Occupant is in charge and able to connect the dots.

"Cheney resigns" is the headline for two days, and anonymous White House sources say that Gunner was cut loose because he was blind, deaf and demented on the subject of Iraq. The suspense of Who Will The New Prince Be? occupies us for a week. The pundits and bloggers puff and blow and when finally the new man is confirmed by the Senate and gives a ringing speech about the need to put our differences behind us and all pull together, lo and behold the Subject Has Been Changed and America is no longer standing around the coffee machine talking about what a dope the president is. Nobody uses the I-word (incompetent). We're still buzzed from the big news.

Defeat is inevitable in life, and every [rooster] is bound to meet a hen who isn't interested, and eventually we all go shuffling off to the Old Soldiers Home and plop down in front of the TV set and doze through the shows. We're all destined to fall apart. But you don't have to do it in your 50s when everybody is looking at you. You can fall apart gently and privately. Don't go down hard like former chief executives Dennis Kozlowski or Bernie Ebbers or Kenneth Lay.

I once saw an old Hollywood star eating breakfast in a hotel dining room in Dublin. He was touring in a play that had been reviewed rather gently and compassionately, and here he was with his famous face, grinning at a couple of tourists who came over to ask him to autograph their placemat. Once he was an icon and sex symbol, and now he was 80, an old trouper enjoying his breakfast and smiling at the world. Gerry got to that place, and Jimmy and Ronnie, I think, and George H.W. and for sure Bill has gotten there. People see Bill in public, grinning, and they can't help it, they grin back.

If you want to be beloved, don't wait too long.

Garrison Keillor is an author and the radio host of "A Prairie Home Companion."

nifocinphx

03-25-2006, 07:14 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usuallylurk:

There is one GOOD thing I have seen emerge in the past few weeks, especially with the Dubai deal -- is that there's a new attitude in this country.

Until a few weeks ago, if you criticized the administration, you were accused of being traitorous, "what about our troops", "you liberal pinko Bush hater", etc.

Notice that even the staunchest, most radical, unshakable Bush worshipers now have BACKED OFF.
(snip) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usuallylurk, here's Mark Fiore's March 22nd animated editorial cartoon concerning your comments on March 10th.

Doing the Bush Bash - http://www.markfiore.com/animation/bash.html

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

nacktman

03-25-2006, 05:17 PM

Great link nifocinphx.

usmc1

03-29-2006, 01:34 PM

I swear to God, if the man was not so dangerous and harmful I'd think he was more fun than a barrel full of ebola infected, feces slinging monkies.

Today, he announces to the world that it is all Saddam's fault that Iraq is now in a state of chaos.

Isn't that somewhat akin to the abusine spouse blaming the injured mate for "making me do it"?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/29/bush.iraq.ap/index.html

Then, there's this delightful video about one of GEorgia's finest giving a woman a ticket for a "lewd" bumper sticker that criticized Bush*t.

Only problem was, the law criminalizing "lewd" bumper stickers is non-existant. Overturned by the Georgia Supremes 15 years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/....bumper.sticker.affl (http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/law/2006/03/29/pickard.ga.bumper.sticker.affl)

HeeeeeeHaaaaaww!

I tole ya mon, its too freekin' sad to be really funny--but I'm laughin' anyways.

Boreas

03-29-2006, 01:54 PM

usmc1, you are a smart man. You know things about personality types and such. Bush is acting exactly the way I would expect someone of his personality to respond. Psychopaths never take responsibilty and always blame others. Bush has shown some characteristics of being a psychopath. Of course that is just conjecture since I have never met the man.

Naturist Mark

03-29-2006, 03:33 PM

Bush blames Iraq's instability on Hussein (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/29/bush.iraq.ap/index.html)

Well that just makes sense.

After all, all the problems in the US since February 2001 were the fault of Bill Clinton, and the record prosperity - longest period of economic growth, precipitous drop in crime, and the turning of deficits into surpluses during the 90s was due to the previous 4 years of GHWBush.

The rule is that whatever happens is to the fault or credit of the previous President. Which reminds me, they should have indicted Pappy Bush for the Lewinsky thing.

-Mark

nacktman

03-29-2006, 03:50 PM

Still Boreas, I think the clinical term is Paranoid Schizophrenic with Meglomanical Delusions. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

Boreas

03-29-2006, 04:19 PM

Naturist Mark

04-04-2006, 08:19 PM

Why Libby and Rove lied to the Grand Jury and will be going to jail. <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>The thing about the Plame investigation that never quite seemed to make sense was this: Why would Libby or Rove deliberately mislead the grand jury, risking perjury charges when it wasn’t clear the leak was a crime?
<LI> Thanks to Waas, for the first time, we may now know for a fact that Rove and other Bush advisers viewed the truth about the run-up to war as something that could destroy his re-election prospects. <LI> Congress would have been forced by the resulting firestorm to run a far more aggressive investigation of Bush’s pre-war deceptions – and possibly uncover the smoking gun Waas reports on, among other things. Remember, Libby and Rove testified in early 2004, during the heat of a presidential campaign which Rove himself had apparently concluded was at risk if existing hard evidence of Bush’s deceptions surfaced.
<LI> Libby and Rove sought to minimize the chance of the aggressive congressional oversight that might have resulted if it became known that they’d outed Plame. In short, misleading the grand jury about Plame may simply have been a key piece of a broader effort to get past the election before the truth about the run-up to the war surfaced to sink his campaign. <LI>White House officials, including Bush himself, withheld critical information it had about doubts over supposed evidence of Saddam's nuke ambitions in order to better make the case for war. Then they subsequently discovered that hard evidence existed of that duplicity. Then, anxious that this evidence might surface before the 2004 reelection, they engaged in a relentless campaign to cover up what really happened during the Iraq run-up and to prevent an aggressive congressional investigation until after the election. <LI>it may be only a matter of time before the whole story comes tumbling out. Waas has reported that there’s a piece of paper out there that proves Bush deceived the nation during the run-up to the war. [/list]

The Plame Game (http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11370)

Insulating Bush (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm)

-Mark

nacktman

04-05-2006, 04:54 AM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/doh.gif is all I can say. Don't you just hate it when you're right on such things? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Thanks for the links Mark.

Now, of only that signed confession would come on out even the mindless faithful would "see the light". http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

tick, tick, tick ...that clock just keeps on ticking.

hm0504

04-05-2006, 05:51 AM

From the New York Times "Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says":
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0327-05.htm

nacktman

04-09-2006, 07:04 PM

Nope, there's just no defending something this childish.

usmc1

04-10-2006, 04:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Still Boreas, I think the clinical term is Paranoid Schizophrenic with Meglomanical Delusions. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, but Dry-Drunk, Sociopath works for me.

The phrase "dry drunk" has two significant words for the alcoholic. "Dry" refers to the abstinence from drinking, whereas "drunk" signifies a deeply pathological condition resulting from the use of alcohol in the past. Taken together these words suggest intoxication without alcohol. Since intoxication comes from the Greek word for poison, "dry drunk" implies a state of mind and a mode of behavior that are poisonous to the alcoholic's well being.

OBVIOUS TRAITS Persons experiencing a full-blown DRY DRUNK are, for that period, removed from the world of sobriety; they fail, for whatever reason, to accept the necessary conditions for sober living. Their mental and emotional homes are chaotic, their approach to everyday living is unrealistic, and their behavior, both verbal and physical, is unacceptable.

This lack of sober realism manifests itself in many ways.

1. Grandiosity, put very simply, is an exaggeration of one's own importance. This can be demonstrated either in terms of one's strengths or weaknesses. In either case it is blatantly self- seeking or self-serving, putting oneself at the center of attention, from the "big me" who has ask the answers to the "poor me" whose cup of self-pity runneth over and wants all of our attention.

2. Judgmentalism is mutually related to grandiosity. It means that the alcoholic is prone to make value judgments - strikingly inappropriate evaluations - usually in terms of "goodness" or "badness".

3. Intolerance leaves no room for delaying the gratification of personal desires. This is accomplished by gross confusion of priorities with the result that a mere whim or passing fancy is mistakenly given more importance than genuine personal needs.

4. Impulsivity is the result of intolerance or the lack of ability to delay gratification of personal desires. Impulsivity describes behavior which is heedless of the ultimate consequence for self or others.

5. Indecisiveness is related to impulsitivity in the sense that while the latter takes no realistic account of the consequences of the actions, the former precludes effective action altogether. Indecisiveness stems from an unrealistic exaggeration of the negative possibilities of the action ; so one wavers between two or more possible courses of action, more times than not- nothing gets done.

These conditions, grandiosity, judgmentalism, intolerance,impulsivity, and indecisiveness taken separately or together can lead to the following:

a) Mood swings, which are unrelated to the circumstances to which one tries to link them. Alcoholics zero in on what they want others to think is the cause of the mood swing, when it isn't that at all. More often than not it is something much deeper than the reason given. Inversely it can also be something totally insignificant with no substance at all (e.g. the sugar is too sweet or the donut is too round). Any excuse will do.

b) Unable to demonstrate emotions freely, naturally and without constraint. No emotional spontaneity, no genuine spark.

c) Introspection. A very healthy thing to do is difficult if not impossible for the "dry drunk". It means to look inward to one's examining each thought and desire, which is linked directly to one's attitude.

d) Detachment. Become aloof, display indifference, don't care one way or the other, no special likes or dislikes, they withdraw.

e) Self-absorption- with a tendency to call attention to whatever they have attained. Narcissism which is quite simply self-love. They become pompous asses.

f) The inability to appreciate or enjoy themselves - nothing satisfies. g) Evidence of disorganization, is easily distracted, complains of boredom, and nothing seems to fit.

h) A nostalgia sets in, a kind of wistful yearning for something of the past, such as freedom from care associated (falsely) with drinking, bars, drinking associates, and friends; the music, blue lights, and tinkle of the ice cubes in a glass in the neighborhood saloon.

i) There can be a kind of romanticism, which includes unrealistic valuations of lifestyles and character traits which can be and usually are objectively dangerous to one's sobriety. j) Escapism. Fantasizing, daydreaming, and wishful thinking are very much in evidence in the dry drunk syndrome as the individual slips farther and farther from reality.

Since the abnormality of the alcoholic's attitudes and behavior during the drinking career is generally recognized, the persistence or these character traits after stopping drinking (or the reappearance after an interlude of sobriety) is equally abnormal.
The term "dry drunk" therefore denotes the absences of favorable change in the attitudes and behavior of the alcoholic who is not drinking, or the reversion of these by the alcoholic who has experienced a period of successful sobriety. From these conditions, it is to be inferred that the alcoholic is experiencing discomfort in life.

The self-destructive attitudes and behavior of the dry drunk alcoholic are different in degree but not in kind. The alcoholic, when drinking, has learned to rely on a deeply inadequate, radically immature approach to solving life's problems. And this is exactly what one sees in the dry drunk.

ANALYSIS OF DRY DRUNK BEHAVIOR The alcoholic who rationalizes their own irresponsible behavior are also likely to find fault in the attitudes and behavior of others. Although not denying their own shortcomings, they attempt to escape notice by cataloging in great detail the transgressions of others.

The classic maneuver of the dry drunk is over-reaction. The alcoholic may attach a seemingly disproportionate intensity of feeling to an ordinary insignificant event or mishap.

Antisocial Personality Disorder is also known as psychopathy or sociopathy. Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the feeling and welfare of others. As a clinical diagnosis it is usually limited to those over age 18. It can be diagnosed in younger people if they commit isolated antisocial acts and do not show signs of another mental disorder.

Antisocial Personality Disorder is chronic, beginning in adolescence and continuing throughout adulthood. There are ten general symptoms:

not learning from experience
no sense of responsibility
inability to form meaningful relationships
inability to control impulses
lack of moral sense
chronically antisocial behavior
no change in behavior after punishment
emotional immaturity
lack of guilt
self-centeredness

Characteristics of Psychopath (Sociopath, Anti-social Personality Disorder)

This is a fascinating clinical list. I leave it to you to apply these elements to any politician or talk show host you choose.

1. Glibness/superficial charm.
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth.
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4. Pathological lying
5. Conning/manipulative
6. Lack of remorse or guilt
7. Shallow affect
8. Callous/lack of empathy
9. Parasitic lifestyle
10. Poor behavioral controls
11. Promiscuous sexual behavior
12. Early behavior problems
13. Lack of realistic, long-term plans
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17. Many short-term marital relationships
18. Juvenile delinquency
19. Revocation of conditional release
20. Criminal versatility (Hare, 1986)

(Narcissism also a characteristic)
"It must be remembered that even the most severely and obviously disabled psychopath presents a technical appearance of sanity, often with high intellectual capacities and not infrequently succeeds in business or professional activities for short periods, some for considerable periods .Although they occasionally appear on casual inspection as successful members of the community, as able lawyers, executive or physicians, they do not, it seems, succeed in the sense of finding satisfaction of fulfillment in their own accomplishments. Nor do they, when the full story is known, appear to find this in an ordinary activity."
--H.Cleckley, "The Mask of Sanity"

"Psychiatrists are often helplessly manipulated by the psychopath; just as are the psychopaths other victims."
--Dr. Ken Magid, "High Risk, Children Without a Conscience."

"There are psychopathic personalities in the highest echelons of government, and even within religious hierarchies in America. You can t just assume that a person with the title judge or hospital orderly got there honestly and won t manipulate the hell out of you."
--Personal communication from Psychologist Schreibman to H. Cleckley, 2/10/86

nacktman

04-18-2006, 10:54 AM

Dry-Drunk Sociopath works well, as well.

usmc1

04-18-2006, 02:04 PM

See, I'm not the only person in the world taht thinks the man is barking at the moon insane.

You go cobber, fair dinkum, mate.

Phillip Adams: 'The President is bonkers: Lock Bush away to stop the next war'

With his presidency reduced to a mess, George W. Bush may just decide to lash out wildly at Iran

Phillip Adams, The Australian

WE cannot wait any longer for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Far more efficient to have Bush certified. There is no need for further debate on his mental state. The US President is bonkers.

Having turned the White House into a madhouse, having taken more lunatic positions on more issues than any head of state since GeorgeIII (are they, perchance, related?). GWB needs a long rest and a change of medication. And it shouldn't be too hard to guide him into a padded cell. Just tell him it's the presidential bomb shelter.

Let's examine the symptoms of his mental decline. First, Bush convinced Americans that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. This is something the poor fool might have believed, given a tenuous grasp of geography, history and political reality. He then began to hallucinate about weapons of mass destruction, despite the evidence of Hans Blix and a multitude of others that there weren't any. And he finally organised a tatty little alliance to join him in the silliest war since Vietnam, one guaranteed to recruit terrorists in unprecedented numbers.

Like Vietnam, the Iraq war was launched with presidential lies. Like Vietnam, the Iraq war descended into a moral and military quagmire. And if Iraq seems to be less of a stuff-up, consider this fact: it's taken just three years in Iraq for US deaths to equal the body count after six years in Vietnam.

Little wonder six retired senior generals have joined ranks with the American public in condemning the war, or that the guru of neo-conservatism, Francis Fukuyama, has broken ranks with the likes of Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol in denouncing it. Or that many in the Republican hierarchy have joined left-wing critics denouncing the invasion as a mistake and a failure, calling for immediate withdrawal.

When Bush was re-elected in 2004, this column suggested the President would go on to blast Iran or have the job done by Israeli surrogates. Both scenarios were dismissed as absurd and alarmist. Now journalist Seymour Hersh's revelations of a US plan to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, perhaps with nuclear bunker-blasters, are causing national and international dismay. They've also provoked anger among the Pentagon's highest-ranking officers already enraged by Donald Rumsfeld's stewardship of the Iraq invasion and occupation. Given Rumsfeld's clear contempt for their opinions, they might well feel mutinous should he and the Commander-in-Chief show further signs of strategic insanity. But would that prevent air strikes by the Israelis? Given the sabre-rattling by that ratbag in Tehran, what could hold Israel back?

Bush is attempting to hose things down, but the world recalls his endlessly repeated mantra before the invasion of Iraq. Military intervention wasn't inevitable, just an option.

Now bleeding in the polls with mid-term elections looming, isn't it possible that Bush might go for broke? Double or nothing? A final, desperate throw of the dice?

Condoleezza Rice might join the Pentagon in trying to talk him down. So, one hopes, would Tony Blair and John Howard. But did Bush listen to reasoned argument last time? With a reckless, irrational President, you've the perfect set-up for the tail to wag the dog. As with 9/11, here's an opportunity for reality to follow a Hollywood script.

Last week I discussed this scenario with Fukuyama. His initial response was that Bush's political situation is too perilous for such a tactic, that the US public and its media wouldn't tolerate another Iraq. But bombing Iran's nuclear facilities could be characterised as surgical. It might not need troops on the ground and would certainly seem more relevant to the war on terror than the neo-con adventure in Iraq. Fukuyama conceded that such a strategy was possible.

And that possibility is more than enough. A lame-duck President with the eagle as his symbol once again takes the role of hawk. With his presidency a total mess, what's there to lose? So it's time to certify the President. Yes, you'd have to certify his equally deranged Vice-President as well. And toss in Rumsfeld to keep them company. Along with anyone else in the administration, the Congress, the Senate or the Australian parliament mad enough to think Iraq a sane decision.

© The Australian

Source: The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/
0,20867,18843175-12272,00.html

nacktman

04-18-2006, 05:36 PM

Damn, those Austrailians aren't blind, deaf and dumb after all, oh, wait, that's the administration's position, pardon, senior moment occured there.

(Offical Shrub Administration Position: [insert name of country and/or group here] are blind, deaf and dumb and we can do whatever we want and the people of the world will be thankful and praise us for it.)

Boreas

04-18-2006, 06:38 PM

Yep, dry drunk psycho/sociopath works for me. Don't forget any post cocaine brain damage.

ncnudlady

04-19-2006, 09:28 AM

You mean he had a brain? I have been under the impression he was brainless from the start. Now I see he is just brain-dead.

usmc1

04-19-2006, 02:34 PM

It's official. Rolling Stone has spoken - he's a dunce!

Naturist Mark

04-19-2006, 03:35 PM

The Article: The Worst President in History? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history. [/list]
-Mark

nacktman

04-19-2006, 04:18 PM

Some Historians are already sure he will be remembered as the worst president in United States history.

Not even another cataclysmic event of any order would rally the American people behind the failure that is this administration.

There have been some dim bulbs occupying the oval office but never before has there been one that has been completely out before.

But, hey, he was the first in several catagories to occupy the White House:

First felon (convicted or otherwise) prior to occupation. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/yes.gif

First to speak incoherently (while sober?) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

First 'Draft Dodger' (even AWOL from the National Guard) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif

First to fail to get United Nations cooperation for foreign policies. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

Odds are he is also the first to make the Secret Service want to elimnate him instead of protect him. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

Falcon46

04-19-2006, 06:15 PM

Well this has been an interesting and funny (at times) thread. It's a given that GW isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, however one point hasn't surfaced yet (that I noticed) and I might as well make it... Bush was smart enough to dupe the majority of the American public into voting him into office, not once but twice! So exactly who are the ignorant ones?

Americans are so gullible... that just because someone says something, well... it must be true! Being an American used to be something to be proud of in international circles, lately however I find myself embarrassed. If any good can come from this, I can only hope that America wakes up and takes notice. Corporate Execs and Politicians have been flooding us with B.S. for a very long time and we continue to just roll over and cower. What America needs most is integrity from it's political and corporate leaders, unfortunately there's no money in it.

It doesn't say a lot about us does it? IMHO

jon71

04-19-2006, 06:35 PM

We can only hope that Americans who voted for Bush will learn from their mistake and not repeat it by voting for Bush-like candidates in the future.

nacktman

04-19-2006, 06:53 PM

Falcon there is one error in your posting, bush isn't smart enough to dupe the majority of Americans into voting him into office once much less twice because the majority of Americans didn't vote for him the first time and even less voted for him the second time.

It was chicanery and crimminality on the part of the starboard ala cabal that foisted him upon us first with brother Jeb's help in Florida then with DIEBOLD counting the votes in Ohio.

Americans aren't as gullible as they may appear at times, although the gullability meter bounces back and forth across the scale.

Being an American aboard now is akin to what it was like to be a German aboard just after WW2, embarrasment is the least of the concerns. But embarrassed we are to no end and I would add ashamed.
I for one am glad I can speak several languages like a native so I rarely get accused of being an American when abroad, it is only after they find out that I am a decent human being and accepting of their customs and traditions that people have no concerns about my being "one of them Damn, Americans" when they find out I am an American -- I never had to be concerned when abroad before the shrub and the junta siezed power.

jon71

04-19-2006, 11:10 PM

Good catch Nacktman. Carl Rove may be the second coming of Machiavelli but Bush couldn't be the brains behind a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without help.

nifocinphx

04-19-2006, 11:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The Article: The Worst President in History? (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/2490050014/r/5550084914#5550084914)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush

George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. (SNIP)[/list]
-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not get the link to work for The Article http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

usmc1

04-20-2006, 04:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nifocinphx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The Article: The Worst President in History? (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/2490050014/r/5550084914#5550084914)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush

Just google to Rolling Stone Magazine's site.
George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. (SNIP)[/list]
-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not get the link to work for The Article http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naturist Mark

04-20-2006, 05:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I could not get the link to work for The Article Confused </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fixed The Worst President in History? (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history)

-Mark

usmc1

04-20-2006, 09:52 AM

Greg Mitchell: 'Three more years of George W. Bush: A crisis almost without equal'

Republicans and Democrats alike are starting to face the prospect of what it means to have George W. Bush as their commander in chief for another 33 months -- in a time of war, terrorism, and nuclear intrigue.

Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher

No matter which party they generally favor or political stripes they wear, newspapers and other media outlets need to confront the fact that America faces a crisis almost without equal in recent decades.

Our president, in a time of war, terrorism and nuclear intrigue, will likely remain in office for another 33 months, with crushingly low approval ratings that are still inching lower. Facing a similar problem, voters had a chance to quickly toss Jimmy Carter out of office, and did so. With a similar lengthy period left on his White House lease, Richard Nixon quit, facing impeachment. Neither outcome is at hand this time.

The alarm should be bi-partisan. Many Republicans fear their president's image as a bumbler will hurt their party for years. The rest may fret about the almost certain paralysis within the administration, or a reversal of certain favorite policies. A Gallup poll this week revealed that 44% of Republicans want some or all troops brought home from Iraq. Do they really believe that their president will do that any time soon, if ever?

Democrats, meanwhile, cross their fingers that Bush doesn't do something really stupid -- i.e. prematurely nuke Iran -- while they try to win control of at least one house in Congress by doing nothing yet somehow earning (they hope) the anti-Bush vote.

Meanwhile, a severely weakened president retains, and has shown he is willing to use, all of his commander-in-chief authority, and then some.

No wonder so many are starting to look for a way to shorten or short-circuit the extended crisis period. Republicans demand a true shake-out at the White House. This week at Vanity Fair online, Carl Bernstein is calling for a Watergate-style congressional probe of possible high crimes and misdemeanors. Even Neil Young is weighing in with a soon-to-be-released song that urges, "Let's impeach the president -- for lying."

But rather than push impeachment for partisan reasons, the Democrats will actually put it off -- for partisan reasons. An unpopular president helps their drive for votes in November, and everything else is secondary.

So let's assume, as Nixon might put it, that we do have George Bush to kick around for another almost-three-years. How worried should we be about the possible damage he might inflict -- and what can the press do about it?

Consider Thomas Friedman's column in The New York Times today, and its implications.

Friedman, who still supports the Iraq war, opens by declaring that given a choice between a nuclear Iran and an attack on that country engineered by the White House, he would choose the former. That's how little he trusts the diplomatic and military chops of Bush, Rumsfeld, Condi and Co. He cites "the level of incompetence that the Bush team has displayed in Iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them."

But then he goes on: "I look at the Bush national security officials much the way I look at drunken drivers. I just want to take away their foreign policy driver's licenses for the next three years. Sorry, boys and girls, you have to stay home now -- or take a taxi. ... You will not be driving alone. Not with my car."

The problem -- the crisis -- is that Bush and Co. likely WILL be driving the "car" for 33 more months.

Friedman knows this: "If ours were a parliamentary democracy, the entire Bush team would be out of office by now, and deservedly so. ... But ours is not a parliamentary system, and while some may feel as if this administration's over, it isn't. So what to do? We can't just take a foreign policy timeout."

Perfectly said. Again, the crisis, even if he didn't call it that: "We can't just take a foreign policy timeout."

Friedman, however, is very late in doubting the competence of this crew, and he still backs away from the scary wider view. What to do? he asks. He suggests that Rumsfeld depart, of course, and then he gets into specifics of how diplomacy might work re: Iran. That leaves hanging the reality of Bush continuing to serve as Master and Commander of the Iraq war and all other foreign policy into 2009.

I don't have a solution myself now, although all pleas for serious probes, journalistic or official, of the many alleged White House misdeeds should be heeded. But my point here is simply to start the discussion, and urge that the media, first, recognize that the crisis--or, if you want to say, impending crisis -- exists, and begin to explore the ways to confront it.

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P and author of seven books on politics, media and history.

Naturist Mark

04-20-2006, 04:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But rather than push impeachment for partisan reasons, the Democrats will actually put it off -- for partisan reasons. An unpopular president helps their drive for votes in November, and everything else is secondary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Impeachment is off the table until the next Congress because with the House under the control of the present Republican leadership it is impossible to get an impeachment resolution considered by committee (several have already been introduced (http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0035.html) ), much less come to a vote.

IF the House changes hands in November there is a chance. Assuming we can get the actual votes counted.

-Mark

nacktman

04-20-2006, 07:15 PM

Mark, that is assuming an awful lot to assume we can get the actual votes counted.

missouriboy

04-21-2006, 06:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">First 'Draft Dodger' (even AWOL from the National Guard) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that Bush's administration is a disaster, but with all the real bad things about him, why is it necessary to make up lies about him? He is not the first draft dodger to enter the White House.

Baron Lake

04-21-2006, 10:34 AM

Placing Bush at the head of the draft dodger line may be inaccurate but it hardly qualifies as a "lie". And besides, his position in line is irrelavent. Come to think of it, he should be in a line "up".
With Milosavitch (SP ?) gone there is space for the criminal (and his friends) at the Hague.
b.l.

jon71

04-21-2006, 02:17 PM

Yes, technically Bush is a deserter not a draft dodger. Neither is Clinton btw. Conservatives trot out that lie a lot. He condsidered it and then decided that was wrong. He took his chances, crossed his fingers and wasn't called. Good for him, bad for everyone else who was called. Like Iraq now too many good people died for nothing. We can and I do still respect those who served like John Kerry, John McCain and my own father. They were honorable even if the politicians of the day were not. Bush showed his true color, yellow. He was a coward and a loser then and he remains one today.

nacktman

04-21-2006, 05:53 PM

Techinally the shrub is BOTH a draft dodger and a deserter.

He "joined" the national guard to avoid being drafted then promptly went AWOL ...
Back when I was in olive drab they shot those that deserted their units in time of war.

Yes, Missouriboy, the shrub is the first draft dodger in the oval office and the first deserter as well!

nacktman

04-22-2006, 04:50 AM

Even the Baptists are turning on the shrub!

Naturist Mark

04-22-2006, 06:30 AM

Wow, First Baptist is really really annoyed with Bush.

Naturist Mark

04-22-2006, 06:32 AM

Really Really Really annoyed!

usmc1

04-22-2006, 11:18 AM

That is freeking hilarious. Would someone....

Naturist Mark

04-22-2006, 11:46 AM

uh oh!

jon71

04-22-2006, 01:28 PM

Now that is gospel Mark.

nacktman

04-22-2006, 06:14 PM

That tears it!

The shub is the Anti-christ!

When the Baptists and Catholics agree you know we are in the "End of Days"!!!!!!!!

hm0504

04-23-2006, 05:52 PM

First, we have all those retiring generals saying how much the White House has botched the Iraq war and now we have a CIA retiree accusing "the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it":
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html

The White House must immediately stop anyone who works in the military or CIA or other national security department from retiring until Bush and Cheney do.

usmc1

04-24-2006, 11:00 AM

Sir Mick to Bush,

You remember that rainy evenin’
I threw you out....with nothin’ but a fine tooth comb
Ya, I know I’m to blame, now... ain’t it a shame

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006180696,00.html

No room at the Inn for dry-drunk sociopaths.

nacktman

04-24-2006, 03:47 PM

Way to go, Mick! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

Put'em in their place! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

usmc1

04-24-2006, 04:42 PM

OH Boy, Now we're going to find out precisely how large is the lunatic fringe.

CNN - Today

Bush Disapproval = 60%

Just are absolutely clueless clods and don't know = 8%

Lunatic fringe who still approve = 32%

NudeAl

04-24-2006, 07:41 PM

Totally off topic but yesterday I went to San Onofre beach and while I was down there I saw Marine one fly by low and slow headed south along the coast. I sat up to make sure I was seeing things right and then I wondered if the pres was on board? Just in case he was I rolled over to give him my best side.

usmc1

04-25-2006, 03:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NudeAl:
Totally off topic but yesterday I went to San Onofre beach and while I was down there I saw Marine one fly by low and slow headed south along the coast. I sat up to make sure I was seeing things right and then I wondered if the pres was on board? Just in case he was I rolled over to give him my best side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but consider this Al. Maybe it was Laura looking for one good man. And you concealed....well nevermind, you catch my drift.

usuallylurk

05-20-2006, 08:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Yeah, but consider this Al. Maybe it was Laura looking for one good man. And you concealed....well nevermind, you catch my drift. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look, it's "Homeland Security". When army helicopters fly low over any nudist-naturist gathering -- you KNOW that they have your best interests in mind.

usmc1

10-06-2006, 07:02 AM

Laura Bush bought "Dubya" a parrot for George's birthday.

She told Dick Cheney, "The bird is so smart! George has already taught him to pronounce over 200 words!"

"Wow, that's pretty impressive", Cheney said. "but you realize that he just says the words. He doesn't really understand what they mean."

"That's OK", Laura replied. "Neither does the parrot."

nimrod

10-06-2006, 11:01 AM

I do not know if this belongs here but:
Bush was asked what he thought of the Raiders season, he responded, "They sould stay the course, they are doing a fine job."

usmc1

10-06-2006, 07:27 PM

Here, this is pretty funny too, in its own way.

White House aide with ties to Abramoff resigns

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A key aide to presidential political strategist Karl Rove resigned Friday in the wake of a congressional report that listed hundreds of contacts between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House.

Susan Ralston, special assistant to President Bush, submitted a resignation letter to him less than five weeks before congressional elections in which corruption and scandal are emerging as key issues for voters.

"She did not want to be a distraction to the White House at such an important time and so we have accepted her resignation," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

"We support her decision and consider the matter closed," Perino said.

Critics have pointed to Ralston as evidence that Rove -- and thus Bush -- are possibly closer to Abramoff than the White House has acknowledged. Ralston was Abramoff's administrative assistant at his lobbying firm and, after Bush took office, assumed the same post with Rove.

The House Government Reform Committee last week issued a report saying that based on documents supplied by Abramoff's former lobbying firm, he had 485 lobbying contacts with White House officials over three years, including 10 with Rove. At the time, the White House said it was unclear whether all the listed contacts were legitimate because they were based on sometimes-sketchy information provided by Abramoff himself. (Report details White House-Abramoff ties)

The report also said that Abramoff and his team offered White House officials tickets to 19 sporting events and concerts, and that Ralston was the most frequent recipient.

Ralston's job at the White House involved organizing and coordinating the day's events and messages of the day.

Perino said the resignation of Ralston, who helps organize and coordinate the day's events and message of the White House, follows a White House review of the congressional report.

"Our review of the House Government Reform Committee's report is complete," Perino said. "We expect nothing more after our thorough review. She recognized that a protracted discussion of these matters would be a distraction to the White House and she's chosen to step down. "

All those chickens coming home to roost got on her nerves, ya think?