0
   

The US, UN & Iraq III

 
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 03:00 pm
Vietnamnurse wrote:
Actually, "Hate Radio" aka Rush Limbaugh had some very nasty comments about Chelsea Clinton's appearance. Chelsea never gave the press any ammunition while she was in the WH and under close scrutiny. The twins, who never actually lived in the WH, got less than what they deserved with their conduct. People that know them from their private school in Texas know the real stories.
this may be as much as sign of the times as based on political bias. If people weren't interested in this kind of dirt, the media wouldn't waste their time digging it.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 03:30 pm
In the Crossfire: Are Bush twins fair game for media?

I thought this article (transcript) was interesting as it features former Clinton adviser, Paul Begala, standing up for the position that the Bush girls ought to be left alone by the media.

And I thought chivalry was dead. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 03:46 pm
What the twins do is between them and their families. The press IMO is to damn intrusive into the private lives of elected officials and their families.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 04:15 pm
I heard that, unlike Clinton, they didn't exhale
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 05:41 pm
It depends on the context, fellows.

For example, Henry Hyde's affair with a young lady became relevant only after his anti-Clinton/Monica morality tirades, but then it was relevant as a matter of hypocrisy. Or, if Gingrich gambled away several millions, fine, but when it is Bill Bennett, it does become relevant for the same reason.

The Bush brothers, running campaigns and forwarding policies which are decidedly anti-drug, where at least the President (and likely both of them) have drug and alcohol histories, and where they seem to be quite content to send black kids to jail for many years for doing the same things they have themselves done (and PLEASE don't say the coke history is unproved - it would be too naive for words), then when their own children are doing these same things, then your arguments for privacy become considerably less compelling.

Chelsea would have been pilloried for a drug incident. It would still be fodder for anti-democrat rants, just as Monica remains. But she's an ethical, hard-working kid and didn't get in trouble.

The contrast between Chelsea and the twins, and the contrast between what Republicans say about 'family values' and what actually turns out to be the case, is newsworthy.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 06:01 pm
The contrast between Chelsea and the twins, and the contrast between what Republicans say about 'family values' and what actually turns out to be the case, is newsworthy.
------------------

None of the three young women are in elected office, and none are responsible for the political platforms of their parents' parties. Their personal lives are only newsworthy to gossip rag readers. They have nothing to do with American politics.

Why am I not surprised the spawn of Hill and Bill is considered by the usual suspects here to be above normal, human behavior. Yeah, and the Dems don't recieve lobbyists or accept dirty money, either. Ppphht.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 06:31 pm
d
Sofia said:

Quote:
Ppphht


Furball?? Very Happy Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 07:02 pm
Uncommonly creative and astute.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 07:20 pm
Craven de Kere,

One enjoys analogies and one also likes to use at least one per post even if one is one too many. They are often great persuasive devises especially for myself being a hands-on visual type.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2003 11:47 pm
sofia

You'll recall I'm Canadian. I have no affiliation with any political party or group in the US and never have had.

But your country is not only influential, it is also very interesting to watch in operation. The ever-present danger for a party which engages as much in prosciption (we think x is bad, so everyone ought not to do x) as does your Republican party, particularly in its evangelical incarnation where personal liberty is mistrusted because people just aren't wise or godly enough to make correct choices, is that its own failings are put in high relief - big letters spelling HYPOCRISY.

So, the travails of James Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart and Bill Bennett or the Bush boys and their kids serve the very useful purpose of encouraging humility where it hadn't been resident.

As to the press behaving badly...well, you guys now have 90% of your broadcast media controlled by five corporations (soon to become worse). What the hell do you expect will happen? Democracy? Comfort of the afflicted and affliction of the comfortable? Responsible reportage or bottom line decisions with bottom feeder ethics?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 12:10 am
d
oil oil oil oil
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 12:28 am
I'll say goodnight on this one




Ellen Goodman
Washington Post Writers Group
05.16.03

The 'we won' bandwagon
Demanding WMD evidence spoils America's victory party

WASHINGTON -- I know the defining image of victory over Iraq will forever be the flight-suited president landing on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. Nevertheless, I have been carrying around a far less telegenic postscript to the conflict.

What haunts me is an offhand remark of a congressional aide in a New Yorker piece about missing weapons of mass destruction. The man said that he didn't think their absence would "sway U.S. public opinion much." After all, he said, "Everyone loves to be on the winning side."

I can't let go of this, because I'm afraid he's right. I don't think the question is whether we'll find such weapons, or how many or how lethal. The question is whether it matters.

This week a new CBS/New York Times poll showed that almost two-thirds of Americans know we haven't yet turned up a cache of biological or chemical weapons. Nearly half believe the White House overestimated their existence and two-thirds of those believe the administration did so deliberately.

But here's the kicker: The majority of Americans believe that even if we never find the tons of lethal stuff we were told existed, it's OK. The war will have been worth it. It doesn't matter why we dunnit as long we wunnit.

Is it the pleasure at seeing Saddam toppled, which I share? Is it the unearthing of mass graves? Or is it that everyone loves to be on the winning side?

To raise questions about the original justification for invading Iraq is, I am well aware, to be as welcome as the skunk at the victory party.

But what did we say our reason for war was again? Wasn't it the Iraqi threat?

In October, Condoleezza Rice warned, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." In January, the president's State of the Union address talked about tons of munitions, thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum toxin. In April, Ari Fleischer described weapons of mass destruction: "That is what this war was about."

Well, the imminent nuclear alarm was something of a scam. And now, the U.S. search team is getting ready to leave Iraq without having found a smoking gun or solid evidence of WMDs.

We're told alternately that they were destroyed or deterred or hidden or smuggled to Syria. That may be so. But for the moment it's hard to find what we were preventing or pre-empting in this preventive, pre-emptive war.

And while we are on the subject of slippage, in his speech at sea, the president made yet another connection between the Twin Towers and the regime change: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001."

Where was the reminder that there is still, no matter how many times it's said and no matter how many people believe it, no verified link between the hijackers and the Iraqis?

Everyone wants to be on the winning side. To hold the winner to some standard of truth has come to seem quixotic. It's as impolite as remembering that Al Gore won the popular vote. It's as quirky as demanding footnotes on myths.

I am by no means sorry to see the end -- presumably -- of Saddam. But does success mean never questioning how you were conned into conflict?

We have become tolerant, even appreciative, of spin skill. We've been conditioned by a compassionate conservative who wants Clear Skies legislation and to Leave No Child Behind while enacting a tax cut for the rich that will be "helping American families." When this White House issued updated excuses for the flight-suit photo-op, most criticism went to its critics. But when is the spin so fast that it melts into lies?

I'm not much for ranting, but I have a lifetime habit of journalism. The newspaper, they say, is the first draft of history. They also say that the winners get to write history. There's inevitably a conflict between the reporter and the mythmaker.

For the past week, my profession has been in an uproar over Jayson Blair, the young New York Times staffer who fabricated stories out of plagiarism, imagination and lies. The fury comes from those of us who spend long nights on the phone with editors, fact-checking and second-sourcing, and sometimes sweating out corrections.

But what is the price to be paid by the politicians who cut and paste the truth? Who is there to demand a correction for the sales pitch for war?

The president landed safely at sea and his approval ratings float in untroubled waters. Everybody loves to be on the winning side.Author's url
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 04:31 am
Gelisgesti wrote:

But what did we say our reason for war was again? Wasn't it the Iraqi threat?

...for the moment it's hard to find what we were preventing or pre-empting in this preventive, pre-emptive war.
...does success mean never questioning how you were conned into conflict?
...when is the spin so fast that it melts into lies?


I hope responsible elements in the media never lose sight of this.
I am ashamed by the British part in it.
It was, and is, a lie, a con, an illegal, immoral act, and those responsibe, including Blair of course, should be tried in an international court.

Goebbels, Eichmann, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Milosevic, Rumsfeld, Blair, Bush
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 05:28 am
On Fox yesterday, (Yes, I watch Fox to see what the opposition is doing.) there were two editorials, both had the same message-
Well, we haven't found those WMD's but is that so important? We got a bad guy.

This from the Network which was nearly purple in the face about the danger from Iraq only four months ago. The lesson here is that you can claim anything, and later just switch messages and go on whistling down the street. The rubes will just go on believing.

Call your Congressman today and ask for a full examination of the events leading to this war.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 05:51 am
d
Mctag, I try not to post an entie article if I can help it but this one had so much to say .

This is how a despicable person defiles the trust given them by a people that have no other choice but to beleive them.

We have been had and continue to be had. I only wonder if the supeme court is proud of the person they elected.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 06:47 am
d
George W. Bush's Resume

BuzzFlash Note: Now available as an email-attachment-friendly PDF.

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Kelley Kramer

I recently had an email exchange with a right-winger from my local newspaper, and of course the war with Iraq came up pretty quick. But he said something in defense of George Bush that really surprised me. In defense of the attack on Iraq he said 'between Hussein and Bush, Hussein is the bad guy'.

My first response was ... So your guy is better than a third world dictator, Wow! what an accomplishment! Does he put that on his resume?

And with that in mind, I started wondering ... what would a George W. Bush resume look like exactly?

Listed below is what I came up with,

Best!

Kelley Kramer

-------------

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

*

Ran for congress and lost.
*

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
*

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
*

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.




The rest of tthe story ...
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 07:28 am
d
No light in the Afghan tunnel
Posted: May 13, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 David H. Hackworth

Operation Enduring Freedom - launched in Afghanistan a month after 9-11 - is now officially over. But despite Pentagon spin to the contrary, our casualty count from that war-torn land won't be winding down anytime soon.



http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32546
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 08:00 am
McTag

I share your outrage that we should have gone along with the illegal American attack on Iraq.

But did we really have a choice?

The Americans were desperate for British support on Iraq so they could refer to "coalition" forces and not just American.

I think we forget sometimes just how little scope we have for independent action on foreign affairs. Last time we tried it was Suez when the Americans pulled the plug on us.

Of course our politicians never mention it, but I suspect the secret clauses in UKUSA agreements over the years effectively make us an associate member state of the Union, responsible for internal affairs perhaps, but duty bound to help Uncle Sam when the chips are down. I think any Prime Minister of any party would have taken us to war in Iraq alongside the US - or resign and be replaced by one who did.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 08:09 am
d
The problem is noT the UK or the USA ....
IT'S THE GWB
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2003 09:19 am
Geligesti -- I was thinking along the lines of Ellen Goodman's article yesterday when I was stuck in traffic behind a car with a flag-bedecked bumper sticker reading "PRIDE IS POWER." This reminded me of two experiences. The first was driving, driving, driving on a long flat desert (and deserted) highway in Mexico which had a pothole here and there and about every 10 kms. a warning sign about men working -- sign had the outline of man with shovel digging. No men working in sight, so I assumed that some bureaucrat believed the sign itself would work magic, get the work done. The second was an experience as a volunteer in an elementary school and the shock of finding out that competition was no longer permitted because some kids' pride would be hurt if they didn't win.

PRIDE IS POWER is a Mexican road sign -- you don't actually need real pride if you have the bumper sticker or the motto. Americans no longer need to actually accomplish something to have pride in accomplishment. You only have to SAY you won the "war" in Iraq and then, of course, pride follows. The Bushies have got that down pat. The concept itself (oh, fellow liberals, join me in hanging heads in shame) comes right out of the '60's -- no child left behind in the self-esteem con job. We did it, they are capitalizing on it. Big time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/21/2025 at 03:26:40