TWO MEN DRIVING BUSH TO WAR

Like you, edgar, I just wish I could get off this bus that these guys seem intent to drive off a cliff.

Most regrettably it is HIS war indeed. It does appear
that he is calling in all his markers and pulling out all
the stops for a ridiculous war that will cost billions,
billions that COULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE been spent
on the Americans who PAID IN that money to the feds
in taxes, yet have no representation with respect to
how it shall be spent. This is not OUR war. It does look
as though the original problem the American settlers
had - taxation w/out representation, is a topic STILL
BURNING AWAY TODAY, in 2003.How did such a truly
ridiculous thing be allowed to happen to us. Where did
we go wrong. I want off this bus.

Shucks, I thought it was two of the following three: Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, or Bin Ladin ... no particular order.

Asherman, I like you as an individual. In politics I have to say I will never see your point. It is more than obvious that the Bush agenda is fueled by other than war on terrorism/protecting America. All the wisdom you ascribe to Bush; yet, he barely was cognizant a world beyond his narrow interests even existed before he became pres. He is so obviously a pawn in a much larger scheme, as outlined in the link I provided here.

I know, there are several very smart people on here who seem to ascribe alot of depth to Bush that I just don't see.

Whatyoutalkinboutsnood?

THE GRINCH REVISITED (with thanks to Dr. Seuss) ©2002 Doug Goodkin

The Whos down in Whoville liked this country a lot,
But the Grinch in the White House most certainly did not.
He didn't arrive there by the will of the Whos,
But stole the election that he really did lose.
Vowed to "rule from the middle," then installed his regime.
(Did this really happen or is it just a bad dream?)

He didn't listen to voters, just his friends he was pleasin'
Now, please don't ask why, no one quite knows the reason.
It could be his heart wasn't working just right.
It could be, perhaps, that he wasn't too bright.
But I think that the most likely reason of all,
Is that both brain and heart were two sizes too small.
In times of great turmoil, this was bad news,
To have a government that ignores its Whos.

The link I provided may not tell the tale one hundred percent, but it is very close to it, in my estimation. It is cause enough for me to never vote for another Republican and to be extremely careful IF voting for anymore Democrats.

Here's an article called American Dominance, by Chris Floyd. It talks in some detail about what amounts to a plan for American Dominance in the world - thought up and set up long before September 11. The key players are Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle....very chilling. It was published in the editorial and opinion section on the Bergen Record, one of the two major papers in New Jersey, although that is not its point of origin. It reads like major conspiracy theory, except that so much of it is real.


http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxNCZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5NjM0NDk2NA==

And a cartoon........





http://www.northjersey.com/margulies/

Scary stuff!!!

LOL on the cartoon.

Gosh, Edgar. You are either extremely impressionable or you put more stock in the foreign press than I do.

May I remind you how long "never" is?

Such an approach resembles attempt of Stalinists to "explain" all the horrors of 1924-53 by influence of Stalin's aides: Molotov, Kaganowitz, etc. IMHO, if some person is a national leader (and Mr. Bush is the one by definition), he surely may trust to his advisors, but I cannot even imagine of his having no personal stance of his own on the most important issues, like national security, foreign policy priorities, etc.

Bush has a stance, as any human would. He just had it implanted by the others.

As for the 'never' commment, I had already decided that I would never again vote for even the best Republicans beginning in the re-election days of Reagan. I overstated my conviction on this thread; it is nevertheless a firm commmitment.

What part needs clarifying, Arnold, I mean, max?

Edgarblythe, why do not you assume that Mr. Bush may have certain ideas of his own, not implanted by anyone (well, personal stance is in some certain extent a product of nurture and environment in everyone)? Even if you do not agree with somebody, this is not a reason to consider this "somebody" being a human parrot being able only to dub someone else's thoughts.

Steissd - I have considered your question carefully regarding George Bush the younger (and did you know that there is a younger one yet - son of Jeb Bush, known as "Peach," waiting to be third generation politician?)

These are always opinions, of course, since one is unable to discern the depths of a mind, if one even exists. So the assumption that George Bush has no opinions of his own, nor knowledge, nor ability to make up his own mind, is based on several observable facts. One is the evidence presented by his early years, when thinking, reading anything, making argument, showing awareness of anything outside his own immediate life, did not exist to any noticeable degree. The early signs of his leadership abilities are evidenced by his choice of roles --he was a cheerleader, and had to be chosen for that by a team of his peers. So, supposedly, he was one of a crowd spurring his team to victory by flagging his arms and doing somersaults.

Later, in the business world, he exhibited great signs of leadership by making failures of almost everything he was involved with, although he was usually engaged in some subsidiary role. Even the family's great wealth did not save him from this.

Later, after the republican cabal of Clinton haters (aided and abetted by such notorious republicans as Richard Mellon Scaife, succeeded in harming Clinton (not forever, as it turned out), they were able to set their sights upon Washington. It was obvious to many early on that Bush was chosen because of the name recognition and his eagerness to listen to his father's people, the advisors.

Bush's strong leadership as president is evidenced by his backing and filling on major issues, his vaunting of his ignorance and disdain for anything outside his known world (which is small), and his total reliance on advisors on everything from rush into war to where to stand and where to cast his eye during his less than memorable speeches.

Lastly, his leadership is strongly in evidence by the esteem by which many in the world hold him. When millions march in cities and countries all over the world, what even we here have noticed is that, while much of it is anti-american, a loud voice is anti-Bush.

That's our fearless leader.

I was very aware of the Bush lack of character long before he entered politics. I didn't "suddenly hate him" when he stole the election. I have considered him waste basket material much longer than that.