Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Same here. Wink

0 Replies

We don't need to bash Bush. He's doing a good job all by himself - and his administration. More good news from Reuters.
************
A Newsweek magazine poll released on Saturday showed Bush's job approval rating sinking to a record low for his presidency, 42 percent. The poll said 57 percent of Americans disapproved of his handling of Iraq.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
As has been said before,by others more eloquent then me,I have no problem with legitimate complaints about President Bush.
Its the silly,illogical,shrill,nonsensical charges that annoy me.

Ah, like all that crap about Clinton that the right-wing still whines about, huh?

Gotcha.

You will not find ANY site where I have whined about Clinton.
I didnt agree with his policies,and I made that known to anyone that listened.BUT,I have never bought into,and have condemned,any attack on him as a person.
His policies were bad enough to provide enough for discussion,I refused to be drawn into attacks on him personally.

As for your claim that all the charges against Bush are accurate...do you really believe that he has OBL in custody already,and is waiting for the right time?
Do you believe that he is planning on an attack right before the election,with WMD,here in the states,to divert attention away from the election?
Do you really believe that he allowed,knew about,and planned the attack on 9/11?
Do you really believe that he is personally responsible for the murder of Nicholas Berg?
I can go on with charges that have been made against Bush,but you get my point.
If you really believe all those charges,then you need some help.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

You will not find ANY site where I have whined about Clinton.

No, but you will find plenty of Republicans that did and continue to do so. Hell, Rush Limbaugh is still whining about Clinton every chance he gets.

Quote:

As for your claim that all the charges against Bush are accurate...do you really believe that he has OBL in custody already,and is waiting for the right time?

Probably not, although I don't think for a moment he'll ever "find" Osama. I think he knows exactly where he is and always has. We're going to find out that Bush knew a hell of a lot more about 9/11 than has ever come out. I just hope it's before November.

Quote:

Do you believe that he is planning on an attack right before the election,with WMD,here in the states,to divert attention away from the election?

He announced on his first day in office that he was going to get Saddam. Amazing how he found the opportunity, isn't it?

Quote:

Do you really believe that he allowed,knew about,and planned the attack on 9/11?

Damn straight. Things have been far too convenient for my taste. After a while, all the coincidences start pointing to someone having advance knowledge.

Quote:

Do you really believe that he is personally responsible for the murder of Nicholas Berg?

Unknown. We still don't know why Berg was in Iraq. If it is true that American troops had him and told him to leave, I find it hard to believe that he would have been given a choice. He would have been put on a plane home, with or without his permission. There are a lot of things about the Berg case that don't make sense and the Bush administration is doing their best to hush it all up.

Quote:

If you really believe all those charges,then you need some help.

Oh really? We'll see. All that counts is the truth and it will come out one way or the other. We're now seeing that Bush and Rumsfeld knew, far in advance, that these abuses were going on. We're finding out that Guantanamo detainees are suffering the same abuses. The truth is coming out, slowly but surely.

0 Replies

http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/nscoverstory.htm

And from the same issue of the Newstatesman, another aspect of the decline of that once great liberal democracy into neo fascist militarism.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
You will not find ANY site where I have whined about Clinton.

No, but you will find plenty of Republicans that did and continue to do so. Hell, Rush Limbaugh is still whining about Clinton every chance he gets.

Quote:
As for your claim that all the charges against Bush are accurate...do you really believe that he has OBL in custody already,and is waiting for the right time?

Probably not, although I don't think for a moment he'll ever "find" Osama. I think he knows exactly where he is and always has. We're going to find out that Bush knew a hell of a lot more about 9/11 than has ever come out. I just hope it's before November.

Quote:
Do you believe that he is planning on an attack right before the election,with WMD,here in the states,to divert attention away from the election?

He announced on his first day in office that he was going to get Saddam. Amazing how he found the opportunity, isn't it?

Quote:
Do you really believe that he allowed,knew about,and planned the attack on 9/11?

Damn straight. Things have been far too convenient for my taste. After a while, all the coincidences start pointing to someone having advance knowledge.

Quote:
Do you really believe that he is personally responsible for the murder of Nicholas Berg?

Unknown. We still don't know why Berg was in Iraq. If it is true that American troops had him and told him to leave, I find it hard to believe that he would have been given a choice. He would have been put on a plane home, with or without his permission. There are a lot of things about the Berg case that don't make sense and the Bush administration is doing their best to hush it all up.

Quote:
If you really believe all those charges,then you need some help.

Oh really? We'll see. All that counts is the truth and it will come out one way or the other. We're now seeing that Bush and Rumsfeld knew, far in advance, that these abuses were going on. We're finding out that Guantanamo detainees are suffering the same abuses. The truth is coming out, slowly but surely.

Yor righ,the military did know about the abuses months ago.They issued a press release in January,saying the allegations had surfaced,and were taking action then.People had been relieved of command,criminal investigations were underway,and congress had been told.
There was no public outcry,and congress didnt get involved,till those photo's were released.
So,the claim hat the military hid the abuse's is just wrong.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,the claim hat the military hid the abuse's is just wrong.

The Pentagon directly requested CBS to not broadcast the images and break the story.

In fact, the Pentagon makes no effort to conceal that they attempted to hide/delay this story and there's even an officially stated reason: to prevent American soldiers from dying in a tricky time.

In short, the claim that the military attempted to hide the abuse from the public is factual and can be verified through their own admission if you just look.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
So,the claim hat the military hid the abuse's is just wrong.

The Pentagon directly requested CBS to not broadcast the images and break the story.

In fact, the Pentagon makes no effort to conceal that they attempted to hide/delay this story and there's even an officially stated reason: to prevent American soldiers from dying in a tricky time.

In short, the claim that the military attempted to hide the abuse from the public is factual and can be verified through their own admission if you just look.

But,they did tell congress,and they were investigating and taking action.
The claim that they did nothing is what I am saying is incorrect.
Why did the public need to know?
That was an internal investigation,that congress DID know about,and the army DID issue a press release stating what was going on and what they were doing.
I have no problem with the army asking CBS to sit on the story.The press sits on stories all the time.

0 Replies

The real issue is that most in this administration and the top brass in the military knew about the abuse of prisoners many months ago, and they did nothing to stop it, because we know it continued not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan. We have also learned that the torture they used were too sophisticated for the low ranking enlisted men to have developed on their own. There is great shame for Muslim men to be seen naked - especially by women. Nobody is going to convince me that those low ranking soldiers established the rules of torture - and to take pictures of them to be used as blackmail.

0 Replies

I agree with you, CI.

0 Replies

Oh dear, I hope I haven't hurt Mr. Blatham's feelings when I mentioned that the major media is definitely not right wing. I referenced the two most important papers in the USA, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Perhaps they don't get those papers up there in Vancouver but if Mr. Blatham wishes, I will be glad to quote articles pulled from the New York Times which are reproduced in almost every major paper in the country almost every day.

I am sure that not even Mr. Blatham would call the New York Times and the Washington Post conservative leaning.

But Mr. Blatham says that he doesn't want to get into an argument on this matter since I would not come off as very knowledgeable or very thoughtful.

I am quite sure that I would come off as more knowledgeable and thoughtful than anyone who flatly declared that there was never an article concerning the Montreal Police Strike in the Oct. 17 1969 issue. That article exists but the much more thoughtful and much more knowledgeable Mr. Blatham says it does not.

"Falsus in Unum, falsus in omnia"

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Sam, If you consider Shakespear "light reading," I'll have to bow my head in shame.

Sam took Bartlett's Book of Quotations, instead of the Bard. However, the scenery was delightful and she enjoyed watching the livestock during the daytime drive down. Being spring, there were hundreds of young calves and several spindle legged foals in pastures along the way.

On the way back, she kept two kinds of tallies. She counted live deer along the way or "roadkill" deer on the side of the road. She's considering starting an association for people that do these kinds of counts.

0 Replies

Wiyaka, What's the name for a woman bard? Wink

0 Replies

Bardess? Crone? Grandma? A poetess, is the best I can come up with.

0 Replies

You're trying too hard; it's still "bard." Wink

0 Replies

Really? I learned something today? Shocked

WOW!!! Thanks for the information. Now, I don't have to learn anything else for the rest of the day. You see, I believe a person should learn something each day. Very Happy

0 Replies

I don't try to limit myself to one new information per day. I'm too far behind for that kind of luxury. Wink

0 Replies

CI,

Behind whom? Shocked

0 Replies

Information, my dear, information.

0 Replies

Mark Morford, sfgate.com, just a few pieces:

Quote:

Word has it Bush probably didn't hear the actual details, of the specific brand of U.S.-made hoods or of the rape techniques employed, because, as everyone knows, Bush is a "big-picture guy" who likes only the general Cliff's Notes overviews of world events and can barely find Baghdad on a map and can't really handle too many simultaneous thoughts. <snip>

It is the eternal Bush conundrum. How to appear sort of blank-faced and ignorant of the true atrocities your administration commits so as to avoid any sort of direct accountability, and yet still pretend to be a savvy, aware, tough-guy leader who gets things done and takes no bull and launches unprovoked wars on anything that stands in the way of his dad's portfolio. <snip>

It's always felt like a bit of a grand ruse, Bush's Forrest Gump-style dunderheadedness, a clever (if entirely plausible) way to deflect much of the responsibility for his regimes's carnage, all designed to make the nation believe that this guy simply couldn't be all that bad because, well, he just ain't all that bright. <mo snip>

Any major moves now -- like firing Rummy, or Wolfie or Uncle Dick, or even apologizing for all the Saddam-grade rapes and tortures -- would make Dubya appear contradictory or unstable or inconsistent, which is exactly the mass illusion he simply must maintain right now lest his approval rating drop even farther, to where it finally matches his IQ. Whoops, sorry. Cheap shot. See how easy it is?

0 Replies

Does "Bush bashing" bother you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know