Looks like Blair has finally seen the light. He beginning to realize that Bush is an idiot and stupid.
Golly Blair, what took you so long?
Quote:19/08/06 - News section
Blair 'feels betrayed by Bush on Lebanon'
By SIMON WALTERS
The alliance between George Bush and Tony Blair is in danger after it was revealed that the Prime Minister believes the President has 'let him down badly' over the Middle East crisis.
A senior Downing Street source said that, privately, Mr Blair broadly agrees with John Prescott, who said Mr Bush's record on the issue was 'crap'.
The source said: "We all feel badly let down by Bush. We thought we had persuaded him to take the Israel-Palestine situation seriously, but we were wrong. How can anyone have faith in a man of such low intellect?"
The disclosure comes ahead of a mini recall of Parliament to allow MPs to vent their fury over Mr Blair's handling of Israel's war with Hezbollah and whether the recent terror plot in Britain was affected by his role in the Iraq war.
Foreign Affairs Minister Kim Howells, who has criticised Israeli attacks on women and children, is to be summoned before an emergency meeting next month of the Labour-dominated Commons foreign affairs select committee.
The highly unusual move to allow a Parliament evidence session during the summer recess mirrors emergency meetings called after the July 7 bombings in London.
The rift between No10 and the White House stems from British anger that Mr Bush failed to do enough to pursue the 'road map' to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, which he approved, at Mr Blair's instigation, on the eve of the Iraq war.
"We have been banging on at them for three years about the need to address the Palestinian problem but they just won't engage," said a senior Government insider. "That is one of the reasons there is such a mess now."
It is understood Mr Blair hopes to undertake a highly controversial one-man mission to the Middle East when he returns from his holiday, including a trip to war-torn Lebanon.
Until now, the Prime Minister has given Mr Bush 100 per cent backing on all foreign policy issues since the Iraq war in 2003. But Mr Blair's refusal to distance himself publicly from the White House's all-out support for Israel's attacks on Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon has enraged Labour MPs and several Ministers.
However, a Downing Street official said: "We believe our best approach is to use our influence with the American government to persuade them of the importance of making progress to achieve peace in the Middle East."
Mr Blair's advisers say his portrayal by critics as Mr Bush's 'poodle' is a travesty and claim he gets results by hammering out their differences in private.
But they do not deny that, behind the facade of public support, Downing Street's patience with Mr Bush has never been stretched so far.
The decision by the foreign affairs committee to stage its emergency debate on September 13 - after Mr Blair opposed calls for a full recall of Parliament - is a further reflection of backbench unrest.
MPs have been demanding that the Government explains its stance on the crisis, which saw Mr Blair back Israel's use of force against Hezbollah militants in Lebanon which has left hundreds of civilians dead and thousands homeless.
Mr Howells will be questioned over the Government's handling of the crisis, which has seen the Cabinet deeply divided over Israel's actions. He will also be asked to update MPs on the latest UN peacekeeping efforts which will see thousands of international troops deployed into a buffer zone on the Israel-Lebanon border.
Labour committee member Eric Illsley confirmed that the committee would take evidence from Mr Howells on September 13. He said: "There has been a public clamour for a full recall of Parliament."
Meanwhile John Prescott has been involved in another foul-mouthed incident over Tony Blair's policy on the Middle East, it was claimed last night.
He is said to have had a heated exchange with Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, one of the few Cabinet Ministers to defend Mr Blair's stance on Israel's war with Hezbollah, when the conflict was raised during a Cabinet meeting and Lord Falconer denied that Ministers had disagreed on the issue.
Mr Prescott, one of the Ministers who led the revolt, allegedly snapped at Lord Falconer: "Of course they f****** did, you were f****** there."
Judgement day coming -- for the neocons
By Patrick J. Buchanan
08/18/06 "WND" -- -- The Democrats are determined to make the election of 2006 a referendum on Bush and the war in Iraq. And, as of now, that is how history will likely record it.
But beneath the surface of the national election, a different plebiscite is being held, within the conservative movement, on the ideology George Bush imposed on Ronald Reagan's party.
What are the elements of Bushite neoconservatism?
First, an interventionist foreign policy, using U.S. power to impose democracy and "end tyranny on this earth." Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are the laboratories and proving ground.
Second, "Big Government Conservatism," as seen in the deficits, the dearth of vetoes, soaring social spending in wartime, the bulking up of the Department of Education and "faith-based initiatives" -- LBJ-style cash grants to pastors and parsons for Social Gospel work, to reap a harvest of gratitude from the pulpits in elections to come.
Third, a La Raza immigration policy, featuring amnesty and a "path to citizenship" for 12 million illegal aliens, pardons for all businesses that hired illegals, and outsourcing of immigration policy to Corporate America to go abroad and hire workers for jobs here Americans cannot take at the wages offered.
Fourth, a trade policy rooted in the belief that it does not matter where goods are produced or whether Americans produce them. What matters is unimpeded global commerce, where the consumer is king and gets all the goods he wants at the cheapest possible price.
On these four mega-questions, Republicans are as divided as they were in the days of Rockefeller and Goldwater. Where the Right unites -- on tax cuts, John Roberts and Sam Alito -- the president has the nation behind him.
Wherever "conservatives" stand -- whether Old Right or neocon, supply-sider or deficit hawk, America First or global democrat, Big Government or small government -- the returns of Bush's policies are largely in and the outcome unlikely to change. And this is why Bush and the GOP are in trouble, and neoconservatism is in the dock.
The altarpiece of the Bush foreign policy is Iraq. American dead are at 2,600, the wounded at 18,000. Three hundred billion dollars has been plunged into the war. Yet, Iraq is a bloodier, more dangerous place than it has been since the fall of Baghdad. One hundred are being killed every day, half of them in the capital. IED attacks on U.S. troops are at record levels -- three-and-a-half years after Baghdad fell.
The Bush democracy campaign brought stunning electoral gains for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. Our ally Hamid Kharzai is today little more than mayor of Kabul, as the Taliban roam the southeast and coalition casualties reach the highest levels since liberation, five years ago.
North Korea and Iran remain defiant on their nuclear programs. Vladimir Putin is befriending every regime at odds with Bush, from Tehran to Damascus to Caracas. Neocon meddling in The Bear's backyard has gotten us bit.
Unless we grade foreign policy on the nobility of the intent, which is how the liberals used to defend disasters like Yalta, it is not credible to call Bush's foreign policy a success. The Lebanon debacle, once U.S. complicity is exposed, is unlikely to win anyone a Nobel.
Bush's trade policy has left us with annual deficits of $800 billion with the world and $200 billion with Beijing. Once the greatest creditor nation in history, we are now the greatest debtor. U.S. manufacturing has been hollowed out with thousands of plants closed and 3 million industrial jobs vanishing since Bush took office.
As for Bush immigration policy, the nation is in virtual rebellion. Six million aliens have been caught at the Mexican border since he took office. One in 12 had a criminal record. In April-May, millions of Hispanics marched through U.S. cities demanding amnesty and all rights of citizenship for aliens who are breaking the law by even being here. Bush and the Senate are in paralysis, appeasing the lawbreakers by offering amnesties and by opposing House demands that the president seal the border before the invasion brings an end to the America we once knew.
While the economy has been running well since 2003, creating jobs, and the markets are performing well, the real wages of working Americans have not kept pace with the portfolios of the clients of Lawrence Kudlow. Industrial states, like Ohio, could be killing fields of the GOP in November.
To the neocon guru Irving Kristol, "The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be ... to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."
With some of us, the tutoring never took, but the neocons surely did convert George W. How's your boy doing, Irving?
Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of seven books.
It is interesting that this indictment of Bush comes from Mr. Conservative, Pat Buchanan. Too bad that Pat shows dishonesty by failing to mention the monstrous tax expenditures for the super rich.
Quote:to convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."
This looks pretty accurate.
Conversion can be a fine thing or a very bad thing, it merely depends on what folks are converted to and, as Isaiah Berlin discusses in "two kinds of liberty", that little matter of doing it 'against their will'.
Let's assume that Buchanan has a good sense of the Kristolian (or Cheney-style) version of neo-conservatism fairly clearly understood. He's well enough experienced and placed for us to grant that a reasonable thesis. What then would be the look of "politics suitable to governing a modern democracy"?
- fear used as electioneering tool
- knowingly false statements offered to citzens whenever convenient
- sustained attacks on an independent press
- immediate removal or even imprisonment for whistleblowers
- unprecedented monitoring of citizens
- fundamental principle of checks and balances attacked or disregarded
- fundamental legal principles for prisoners of war tossed out
- fundamental legal principles for some citizens set aside
- single party rule
- unprecedented secrecy and information control
That's "politics suitable for governing a modern democracy".
Buchanan has a few good ideas, a few good points, but the guy is a bit kooky as well. I am suspicious of his views about the Middle East, including Israel, as others have been in the past. He is correct that Bush is not a true conservative through and through, but Buchanan is hardly the man to clarify it for us.
Intrepid wrote:
Just a reminder that a high IQ, real or imagines, does not make anyone wise. It only means that they have the capacity to learn.
end of quote
I am happy to see that you have accepted the evidence in my post. The evidence is statistical and awaits statistical rebuttal and, of course, not the moronic and unsourced comments from the San Franscican- Dookiestik.
Let us explore your comment further, Intrepid.
A high IQ does not mean that a person is wise. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT SINCE WISDOM PROCEEDS FROM THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF TRUTH. But, of course, what is the truth?
Well, Intrepid, in the USA( as in Canada) we have a procedure for choosing our leaders. The USA has elections every four years for President and every two years for the entire House of Representatives and the Congress. The President, of course, nominates Judges at various levels and the Senate Approves them if they see fit!
That means, of course, that the PEOPLE of the USA have the POWER to select the person who THEY THINK has the WISDOM to lead our country.
I am sure that you are aware of the following:
l. George W. Bush elected President in 2000
2. Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate( CONTRARY TO THE TRADITION THAT THE PARTY IN POWER LOSES SEATS IN THE OFF YEAR ELECTIONS)
3. President Bush re-elected.
Now, of course, you have the right to speak out and make your political points, but you really must understand that since the year 2000, President Bush and his party have been in power.
That may, of course, change in November 2006 but since the Heathrow crisis, the elections are a tossup!
**********************************************************
And as for the comments I made about Canadian Universities, I admit that I did exaggerate slightly. There are some good Universities in Canada, but if you don't know that Yale and Harvard, where President Bush attended are among the best in the world and almost impervious to "Political" considerations with regard to admitting students, you would be exaggerating far far more than I was!
BernardR wrote:Intrepid wrote:
Just a reminder that a high IQ, real or imagines, does not make anyone wise. It only means that they have the capacity to learn.
end of quote
I am happy to see that you have accepted the evidence in my post. The evidence is statistical and awaits statistical rebuttal and, of course, not the moronic and unsourced comments from the San Franscican- Dookiestik.
Let us explore your comment further, Intrepid.
A high IQ does not mean that a person is wise. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT SINCE WISDOM PROCEEDS FROM THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF TRUTH. But, of course, what is the truth?
Well, Intrepid, in the USA( as in Canada) we have a procedure for choosing our leaders. The USA has elections every four years for President and every two years for the entire House of Representatives and the Congress. The President, of course, nominates Judges at various levels and the Senate Approves them if they see fit!
That means, of course, that the PEOPLE of the USA have the POWER to select the person who THEY THINK has the WISDOM to lead our country.
I am sure that you are aware of the following:
l. George W. Bush elected President in 2000
2. Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate( CONTRARY TO THE TRADITION THAT THE PARTY IN POWER LOSES SEATS IN THE OFF YEAR ELECTIONS)
3. President Bush re-elected.
Now, of course, you have the right to speak out and make your political points, but you really must understand that since the year 2000, President Bush and his party have been in power.
That may, of course, change in November 2006 but since the Heathrow crisis, the elections are a tossup!
**********************************************************
And as for the comments I made about Canadian Universities, I admit that I did exaggerate slightly. There are some good Universities in Canada, but if you don't know that Yale and Harvard, where President Bush attended are among the best in the world and almost impervious to "Political" considerations with regard to admitting students, you would be exaggerating far far more than I was!
BernardR,
First, how can I trust somebody that has still not been able to figure out the quote function. That in itself counters your American vs Canadian education. I finished grade 10 with honours and never went to university. You? I worked in management most of my working life and had university folks working for me. None, however, ever went to Yale or Harvard. At least as far as I know.
Secondly, many posters have provided information regarding Bush's university days.
Thirdly, as I have said before. What does Bush's academic achievements, or lack thereof, have anything to do with his ability as a President?
Again, Bernard equates success to getting elected. Forget about his performance as the president, how well he served the American public, etc.
Interestingly, Bernard in a sense brings out the weakness of our system. Our founding fathers certainly erred in its system for determining the president. I understand that they did considered having the senate elect one of its own to serve as the nation's president. This would have been far superior to what we have now, which has brought us the likes of Grant, Harding, Nixon, Reagan, and G. W. Bush.
While the British system has some obvious flaws (in my view), the prime minister is a proven leader of his or her party. And past prime ministers, while imperfect, have as a whole been vastly superior leaders than have our presidents.
Advocate wrote: .... This would have been far superior to what we have now, which has brought us the likes of Grant, Harding, Nixon, Reagan, and G. W. Bush.
Don't forget Clinton. And Carter.
Advocate wrote:
Interestingly, Bernard in a sense brings out the weakness of our system. Our founding fathers certainly erred in its system for determining the president. I understand that they did considered having the senate elect one of its own to serve as the nation's president. This would have been far superior to what we have now, which has brought us the likes of Grant, Harding, Nixon, Reagan, and G. W. Bush.
end of quote
If you think it is not a good system, Advocate, go out there and work to change it--Your fatuous comment about our founding fathers erring in their system for determining the president is not shared by very many people and most of those people are KOOKS!!
Advocate wrote:
Interestingly, Bernard in a sense brings out the weakness of our system. Our founding fathers certainly erred in its system for determining the president. I understand that they did considered having the senate elect one of its own to serve as the nation's president. This would have been far superior to what we have now, which has brought us the likes of Grant, Harding, Nixon, Reagan, and G. W. Bush.
While the British system has some obvious flaws (in my view), the prime minister is a proven leader of his or her party. And past prime ministers, while imperfect, have as a whole been vastly superior leaders than have our presidents.
Sadly Australia's 1999 referendum on becoming a Republic was defeated because it proposed a system where parliament voted for a president (who fulfilled the role of 'head of state' currently filled by Great Britain's head of state (ie QEII) rather than ape the American system (sort of) and have popularly elected president.
As Heinlein said:
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something."
"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
Intrepid wrote:
BernardR,
First, how can I trust somebody that has still not been able to figure out the quote function. That in itself counters your American vs Canadian education. I finished grade 10 with honours and never went to university. You? I worked in management most of my working life and had university folks working for me. None, however, ever went to Yale or Harvard. At least as far as I know.
Secondly, many posters have provided information regarding Bush's university days.
Thirdly, as I have said before. What does Bush's academic achievements, or lack thereof, have anything to do with his ability as a President?
end of quote
Sir- first of all , let me say I am delighted that you have had University people working for you. A University 'education" is not a guarantee of ability to perform in the public or private sector as you are aware. But, I am sure that you will agree, that as one ascends the ladder, the ownership of a certificate that one has performed adequately in a course of studies in a University is USUALLY a sign that one has some basic intelligence and ability to learn.
If you look at the academic credentials held by the American Presidents, you will find that some of them(FDR, Kennedy, Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior) did indeed graduate from high profile Universities like Harvard and Yale.
There is a presumption, not always borne out in fact, that a degree from a top university is a good sign that its possessor may indeed be able to perform well in other venues.
I assure you that a student who graduates from Harvard( mainly because it selects its student body from the "brightest" high schoolers in the world, is, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, usually ready to do well in his chosen profession or job!
I gave you evidence, which you have not rebutted, that President Bush is indeed among the top 20% in the IQ range. This, of course, does not assure success, but I posted it, and his University Scores, to show that the ridiculous comments made by some as to his lack of any ability are merely ignorant remarks.
I assure you, I know that there is no necessary correlation between IQ and/or University attended with the ability to function in the Presidency.
You may be aware that President Carter, who was a disasterous failure as a President, had an outstanding Education in the field of Nuclear Engineering and graduated in the top tenth of his class at the US Naval Academy.
It is common knowledge that William Jefferson Clinton was an outstanding scholar at what is arguably the best Law School in the Country--YALE--and, as the Presidential Historian Dr. Greenstein from Princeton University has written, quote
"Clinton is likely to be remembered as a politically talented underachiever whose White House experience provides a reminder that IN THE ABSENCE OF EMOTIONAL SOUNDNESS, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY IS A PROBLEMATIC INSTRUMENT OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE"
Therefore, President Bush graduated from Harvard and Yale. He is, according to the evidence, in the top 20 % of the Population according to IQ.
So?
You are correct. That does not mean success. The only thing that REALLY means success in our political system is
2000- Bush elected President
2002- Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate despite the fact that the party in power usually loses seats in an off year
2004- Bush re-elected as president.
BernardR wrote:
You are correct. That does not mean success. The only thing that REALLY means success in our political system is
2000- Bush elected President
2002- Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate despite the fact that the party in power usually loses seats in an off year
2004- Bush re-elected as president.
You are a fool if you think Bush's success at being elected reflects the USA's success making the world (or even the USA) a better place.
But for argument's sake I'll go through the inherent flaws in even those three points:
BernardR wrote:
2000- Bush elected President
Well he became president - many, many would argue he wasn't elected. Tens of thousands of black voters in Florida were disenfranchised, purely because they were black (ie more likely to vote Democrat). And the consulting agency he used is now pursuing the same tactics in South American countries, no doubt at the recommendation of the current administration.
BernardR wrote:
2002- Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate despite the fact that the party in power usually loses seats in an off year
2004- Bush re-elected as president.
A completely knee-jerk response to 9/11 and the US's lash out in fear mentality. Bush pandered to the lowest common denominator's lust for revenge as opposed to being a leader and doing what was best for the country. More positively the nation is slowly opening its eyes.
Democracy is so great we have to bomb it into the Iraqis.
I hope you are still on A2K in four years Bernard - because I will be quoting you all over the place to see you squirm. Of course you'll just change your handle. Again.
Let's take those one at a time, Mr. Hingehead--
Bush not elected in 2000? That's funny, I thought the Senate ratified the electoral votes. Do you mean that some left wingers tried to claim that he did not win Florida? Do you have any evidence that he did not win Florida? I defy you to show it.
Then Hingehead wrote:
A completely knee-jerk response to 9/11 and the US's lash out in fear mentality. Bush pandered to the lowest common denominator's lust for revenge as opposed to being a leader and doing what was best for the country. More positively the nation is slowly opening its eyes.
end of quote
You may think it was a COMPLETELY KNEE-JERK RESPONSE TO 9/11, but your opinion is not worth very much since the AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO ELECT THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT--not people who post on these venues after the fact!!
BernardR wrote:Let's take those one at a time, Mr. Hingehead--
Bush not elected in 2000? That's funny, I thought the Senate ratified the electoral votes. Do you mean that some left wingers tried to claim that he did not win Florida? Do you have any evidence that he did not win Florida? I defy you to show it.
Then Hingehead wrote:
A completely knee-jerk response to 9/11 and the US's lash out in fear mentality. Bush pandered to the lowest common denominator's lust for revenge as opposed to being a leader and doing what was best for the country. More positively the nation is slowly opening its eyes.
end of quote
You may think it was a COMPLETELY KNEE-JERK RESPONSE TO 9/11, but your opinion is not worth very much since the AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO ELECT THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT--not people who post on these venues after the fact!!
You are not suggesting that these people are of low intelligence, are you?
Then I hold them responsible for inflicting Bush on us. Happily it seems the majority who voted for him have seen enough to change their minds - if the polls are anything to go by.
And for the record. I marched against the war in Iraq - months before it was launched. So screw your 'after the fact' crap.
Please continue , Hingehead, You are, of course, if you live in a Democracy free to express your concerns. If you are a good citizen, you are almost obliged to express your concerns, but the fact is that when you hold the American People "responsible" for something that has occurred in the past, it is meaningless.
As the poet wrote:
"The moving finger writes; and having writ. Moves on: nor all your Piety not Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a word of it"
BernardR wrote:Please continue , Hingehead, You are, of course, if you live in a Democracy free to express your concerns. If you are a good citizen, you are almost obliged to express your concerns, but the fact is that when you hold the American People "responsible" for something that has occurred in the past, it is meaningless.
As the poet wrote:
"The moving finger writes; and having writ. Moves on: nor all your Piety not Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a word of it"
Pardon me for jumping in, Hingehead.
I just want to remind BernardR that it is HE that has been telling us that the American people are responsible for putting Bush in the Whitehouse. Does he not consider himself as wrong as he considers you? Hmmmm
Be my guest intrepid, I'm stilling mulling over Bernard's statement that you can't be held responsible for something that happened in the past! Why do we have courts? Laws? Prisons? Police?
Is Bernard channelling Homer Simpson? "Well everything looks bad if you remember it."
Maybe that is why he considers Bush to be a genius and good President. e only looks at tomorrow and is hoping for the best. :wink:
