Jeb in '08
George P. in '12
I'd say she may never watch TV again
Someone, about ten pages or so ago, wrote the following in reference to Iraq: "Do you really think "sovereign" is an apt adjective for a country ruled by a gang of thugs who would torture and perhaps murder any citizen who dared to an express an opinion other than agreement? "
Being ruled by a gang of thugs who abhor dissenting opinions and have been know to use torture to achieve their goals idoes not disqualify a nation from being "sovereign".
But that description ......... are you kidding ?
How sad that some people cannpt see the appalling resemblance this description bears to our very own country. We're not quite there yet, but we're well on the way.
angie wrote:Someone, about ten pages or so ago, wrote the following in reference to Iraq: "Do you really think "sovereign" is an apt adjective for a country ruled by a gang of thugs who would torture and perhaps murder any citizen who dared to an express an opinion other than agreement? "
Being ruled by a gang of thugs who abhor dissenting opinions and have been know to use torture to achieve their goals idoes not disqualify a nation from being "sovereign".
But that description ......... are you kidding ?
How sad that some people cannpt see the appalling resemblance this description bears to our very own country. We're not quite there yet, but we're well on the way.
What's sad is that there are people out there with so little appreciation for their good fortune of being born in a civilized country that they'd compare rogue behavior by an isolated group of Americans perpetrated against presumed terrorists
to the systematic rape, torture and murder that was sponsored by the mass murderer of millions for the horrible crime of dissention in Iraq. Here's a hint for you: that little blurb you just posted would subject YOU to the rape of your family in front of you prior your rape and murder in front of them if you were in Saddam's Iraq. If you can't see the stark, atrocious difference between your plight and theirs,
that is what's truly sad.
Disagree with our chosen solution to the problem till your heart's content
but use your head before comparing apples to mass murdering monsters like Saddam Hussein.
i _ _ watched _ _ almost _ _ all _ _ of _ _it...
DontTreadOnMe
R---U---A---Glutton----For----Punishment???
More like: can_ _ i _ _ get _ _ you _ _ another _ _ bourbon?
Some Comments from around the world
By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A23
AMSTERDAM, Jan. 20 -- As foreign governments pondered their reactions to President Bush's inaugural speech Thursday, newspapers around the world reported it with particular emphasis on the religious tone and Bush's 27 references to "freedom" in the United States and abroad.
Bush painted a vision of "an America that propagates freedom, democracy and prosperity around the world," an article on the Web site of the French newspaper Liberation said. "The problem is that with this speech, one has the impression of having heard it a thousand times, and no longer believing it."
It added: "Not all the world strongly wants this 'freedom a l'americaine.' It's only necessary to look at Iraq."
France, which was among the staunchest opponents of the Iraq war, remains critical of the continuing U.S. military presence there despite recent efforts by President Jacques Chirac to mend ties. Chirac is reportedly planning a trip to Washington sometime before Bush makes his next trip to Europe on Feb. 22 -- a trip that will take him to Belgium and Germany, but not France.
The French daily newspaper Le Monde, in its Web site edition, noted that Bush "made several references to God." European leaders normally do not mention religion in their public statements.
In Madrid, the capital of another country opposed to the war, the daily newspaper El Pais used the word "freedom" in English as the first word of its online report and called it "the word most often used by George W. Bush in his inaugural speech."
The newspaper said that Bush "wanted to deliver a conciliatory message to his allies after four years in which the United States' aggressive foreign policy has enjoyed scant support in Europe."
In Britain, the London Times newspaper said: "Although evangelical in tone and florid in its rhetoric, Bush's 20-minute speech appeared to confirm signs that America will adapt a less unilateral foreign policy over the next four years."
In some of the first reaction from world leaders, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan, a key Bush ally, told reporters Friday: "He has accumulated experience as a leader of a leading country and a leader of the world for the last four years. I have high hopes that he will continue to actively contribute to world peace and stability under the principle of international cooperation."
Takeshi Igarashi, a professor at Tokyo University and an expert on U.S. politics and diplomacy, said: "It was very clear the speech was from a wartime president. It was more like a speech by a pastor than a president. . . .
"But he didn't mention any actual policies at all. He cried out his ideal but shied away from facing problems that lie there. I actually think he may not have any measures to deal with the issues, that he is lost and still trying to find ways."
In Mexico, some reaction was skeptical. "What I'm hearing and what I'm feeling is 'more of the same,' which in the case of Mexico means 'more of nothing,' " said Gabriel Guerra, a political analyst in Mexico City. "We are not on the list of priorities. We are not even on the radar screen."
Guerra said that despite Bush's public pledges to press the U.S. Congress for immigration reform, Mexico's top foreign policy priority, he expected no substantial action from Bush. "I don't think immigration reform ranks anywhere near his top priorities -- the Middle East, Social Security reform or tax reform," Guerra said.
Agustin Gutierrez Canet, spokesman for Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, was more upbeat about the prospects of immigration changes being enacted during Bush's second term. "We have been observing carefully the interest of President Bush in promoting this agenda," Gutierrez Canet said. "We are optimistic that this agenda will be carried out in the months ahead."
In China, the official New China News Agency reported the speech without comment.
Several hours before the speech, an audio recording was posted on a radical Islamic Web site purporting to be the words of Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian who is orchestrating attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces in Iraq. He said that insurgents were winning their struggle against the "tyrant America."
And More
Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies
U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24581-2005Jan20.html?referrer=email
The pseudo-president aspires to be a pseudo-pastor as well.
We're getting ersatz goods priced as authentic merchandise... BAMBOOZLED!
Hurray for the "pseudo-president". Some of us like him, faults and all. Much better than the alternative!
cjhsa
There is no accounting for some peoples taste. I guess you go for baloney.
Yeah, me too, DTOM, me too.
au1929 wrote:cjhsa
There is no accounting for some peoples taste. I guess you go for baloney.
Better than bending over for the little french Kerry salami.
Salami? Are you sure it's not a Vienna sausage?
quote="OCCOM BILL":
What's sad is that there are people out there with so little appreciation for their good fortune of being born in a civilized country ......
Though I do not need to defend my love of country to you, it is precicely because I love and appreciate my country that I feel the way I do about the thugs who now occupy the White House. The comparison stands, they abhor dissent, they subvert elections, they dictate morality, etc
.... that they'd compare rogue behavior by an isolated group of Americans perpetrated against presumed terrorists
..
rogue behavior? or behavior encouraged if not dictated by those at the top. And also, would we want our guys treated like that if they became prisoners and were "presumed" to be terrorists?
... to the systematic rape, torture and murder that was sponsored by the mass murderer of millions for the horrible crime of dissention in Iraq.
Saddam was despicable, but I do not believe for one minute that's why we invaded. We were in bed with him for years, when it suited us, and all the while he was mistreating his people horribly, as other dictators are doing even now, yet we're not invading their countries. Being opposed to the unwarranted invasion of Iraq does not equate with condoning Saddam's actions, no matter how often you repeat it.
If you can't see the stark, atrocious difference between your plight and theirs, that is what's truly sad.
I noted the difference, and also the similarity.
Disagree with our chosen solution to the problem till your heart's content
Thanks for permission to disagree. What I disagree with, however, is not the solution (or lack thereof), but the stated "problem", the causus belli. There was no legitimate reason for invading Iraq, no imminent threat, no proof of connection to 911. What there was was oil, and a pre-911 plan to invade Iraq to get at that oil. Americans et al ought not be dying for that oil - just my opinion which, as you stated, I'm still allowed to have, right ? at least for now.
Quote:Hurray for the "pseudo-president". Some of us like him, faults and all. Much better than the alternative!
Yes, if you're an idiot. Imagine having a leader who actually thought for a change. Maybe we'll find out soon enough.
Angie,
Why did we drop the atom bombs on Japan?
So, I get called an "idiot" and Dookie is still on the baord. Hmmmm.
