Just One More Dig

[shostakovich]

Recently we have been shocked and awed by the steady stream of poor decisions by the president. We shouldn't be, as the following list demonstrates.

Arrogant
Separated
Stupid
Hypocritical
Obstinate
Lying
Error-prone

That should explain it.

[OperaTenor]

Let's not forget -

Greedy
Vain

[Shapley]

Alright, I've had enough!

What I'm seeing here is a group of people who are so upset over losing the election that they will resort to whatever level of name calling to insult the current occupant of the White House. Everything this President does is seen as another symptom of his failure. Characteristics that you were willing to overlook in the previous occupant are somehow egregious in the character of this one.

We're supposed to believe that his pronunciation of the word 'nuclear' is somehow worse than the same pronunciation when used by at least three of his predecessors.

We're supposed to believe that his lowering of taxes on the wealthy is worse than President Clinton's lowering of taxes on the wealthy (repeal of the 'luxury tax', March 1993)

We're supposed to believe that his breaking of a campaign promise (prescription drug benefit) is worse than President Clinton's breaking of a campaign promise (middle class tax cuts). In fact, President Bush has delivered a prescription drug benefit, just apparently not the prescription drug benefit everyone hoped for.

We're supposed to believe that President Bush's failed nomination of Harriet Myers is somehow worse than President Clintons failed nomimations of Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, et. al.

We're supposed to believe that President Bush's warrantless searches are worse than President Clinton's warrantless searches (Aldrich Ames). And that his violation of civil rights are worse than President Clinton's violation of civil rights up to including murder-by-proxy (Ruby Ridge, Waco, TX)

We're supposed to believe that his getting us into war in Iraq because of violations of UN resolutions is worse than President Clinton's allowing Iraq to violate those resolutions in the first place.

We're supposed to believe that this President's secrecy is somehow worse than President Clinton's secrecy (Health Care Task Force, Whitewater Billing Records, Executive Priveledge).

What I see is a very selective indignation, or a very selective memory on the part of those who would let their hatred for a man stand in the way of respect for their country. The newspapers will spend weeks telling us that the President lied to us, and then poll the people who, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly agree that the President lied to us.

If you've got something impeachable, then bring it on! Don't blame the Democrats for not acting, if you've got evidence that actual, provable offenses have occured, you have a duty and an obligation to deliver them to Congress so that they may begin proceedings to remove this President from office. The fact is, this President will be tried in the press because that's the only place the case won't be laughed out of court.

Now, I've gone and gotten political, even though I gave it up for Lent. It's time to go to confession.

Shapley

Oh, and one more thing, since I have to go to confession anyway: You compain that this President won't apologize for things you think he has done wrong. I think that's admirable. The Previous President was apparently willing to apologize for everything (Monica Lewinsky, Bombing of the Chinese Embassy), even things that were beyond his power (Slavery). In fact, the bombing of the Chinese Embassy was probably one of the few things done right, since technology from a stealth fighter shot down a few weeks earlier had probably found their way into that embassy, ready to ship to the Chinese government).

<small>[ 03-21-2006, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Hey Shap, you left the most important part out.

We're supposed to(and do) believe the current occupant of the Whaite House lied and misled Congress, the American public, and the world into invading a sovereign nation that had not attacked us for reasons we'll probably never truly know, but probably encompassing some or all of the following reasons:

1) Saddam threatened Daddy's life(vain)
2) Oil(greed)
3) Contractor benefit(greed)
4) PNAC agenda(arrogant/vain)
5) He really believed Saddam was conntected to 9/11(even giving him that benefit of doubt, stupid, vain)

How many have died because of this? How many are dying right now? How high will the death toll ultimately be?

I don't call him names because he won the election; I call him names because he's a lying, murderous thug. I call him names because he's dimmed the light of much of what this country's stood for by his murderous aggression and disregard for the sanctity of ALL the people in this world, not just his chosen few. My God, we torture people because of him!

PS. So predictable. Falling back on the "blame Clinton" tack has worn quite thin.

[Shapley]

OT,

Prove it.

President Bush went before the United Nations and the American People and laid out the reasons for war with Iraq. Saddam's violation of the terms of surrender were among them. Saddam's ties to terror were among them. A connection to 9/11 was not among them. New documents released that had been seized in the initial invasion of Iraq are apparently bearing out the connection between Saddam and terrorist organizations, including al Queda. But, the 'conventional wisdom' tells us that that connection did not exist, so the 'conventional wisdom' is ignoring this information. Perhaps this President had information that the 'conventional wisdom' did not, that he would not release for reasons of security.

Is it about oil? Possibly. Everything in the Middle East is about oil. Frankly, it's the only thing over there. However, you automatically equate oil with greed. Where's the connection?

What we have here is a President who does not spend a lot of his time fretting about his place in history. He has set a course for this nation and he is sticking to it. You're mistaking confidence for arrogance.

As I said, if you have provable charges against this President, present them to your Congressman, your Senator, the United Nations or whoever your conscience tells you to. Resorting to name-calling while repeating the lies and misinformation of the left is getting tiresome.

Shapley

<small>[ 03-22-2006, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Tiresome. Good choice of word.

Both or maybe all three or four of you. Reflexive attack/defense, predictable loop, never going to be any agreement.

[Shapley]

Selma,

I agree. I had given up, but the name calling, particularly Shos' hidden expletive, pushed my hot button, again.

I'll try, again, to give up politics for the rest of Lent.

V/R
Shapley

[shostakovich]

Hi Shap. Thank you for noticing.
----------------------------------------------------
Earlier you wrote: "What I'm seeing here is a group of people who are so upset over losing the election that they will resort to whatever level of name calling to insult the current occupant of the White House. Everything this President does is seen as another symptom of his failure. Characteristics that you were willing to overlook in the previous occupant are somehow egregious in the character of this one.

We're supposed to believe that his pronunciation of the word 'nuclear' is somehow worse than the same pronunciation when used by at least three of his predecessors."
-------------------------------------------------------
I'm certainly upset that Bush got elected. He IS a failure. The teeny weeny symptom of much of the failure is his insistence on mispronouncing "nuclear". That is small stuff. Other places where his stubborn clinging to a disastrous path are the big stuff. I am not comparing him to earlier presidents. He stands alone. I attack him alone. He deserves to be tried in the Hague for war crimes. My epithets, however crass, are insignificant compared to the damage he has done. I think my priorities are straight. I have been frustrated by the civility accorded the man. He doesn't deserve it. He gets none from me.

I think war crimes constitute an impeachable offense. I would not call for same, though, while Cheney is in the wings. You once questioned my claims that he actually lied. His response to Helen Thomas was a dodge and 2 immediate lies. "Your assumption that I wanted to go to war is flat wrong" followed by "No president wants war". Both lies. He beat the war drums with conviction while adding an empty "but only as a last resort". "Bring it on " is not reluctance for war. He clearly wanted war from his own mouth.

Also his recent claim that he NEVER connected Iraq with 9/11 has been contradicted by tapes made 2 years ago. If he had to swear an oath for truth before making a speech he would get nailed for perjury. Of course, so would just about every other politician. Now THERE'S a terrific law to pass. Ha, ha.
Shos

[Shapley]

Shos,

Once again, you call a statement I lie with no ability to prove it. You assume that he 'wanted' war, but you cannot know what he 'wanted'. He may well have reseigned himself to the fact that war was inevitable, even if it wasn't, or even that he had committed himself to the cause of war, but that does not mean that he 'wanted' it. You assume what is in his heart, and you cannot possibly know that.

I am not familiar with the tapes made two years ago that you refer to. Most people claiming that he made that connection refer to speeches in which he says "Saddam was connected to al Queda" (An allegation proven by recently declassified Iraqi documents) and "al Queda was responsible for 9/11". Besides which, tapes made 2 years ago would have been made 1 year after the invasion, so unless you believe, as OT does, in retroactive justification, they are meaningless to the discussion.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

I seem to recall two of the major reasons for invading Iraq were a connection with al qaida and weapons of mass destruction. I also seem to recall that officially, the reason was in retaliation for violating some UN resolutions that the UN itself was unwilling to enforce.

My position on WMD before the invasion, which has not changed, was that we should let the weapons inspectors do their job, since they were getting full cooperation. Clearly, the weapons do not exist. We may be able to find out what happened to them, but the fact that they were not used against an invading force certainly is evidence of their absence.

My position on al qaeda before the invasion, which has not changed, is that Saddam and bin laden were not friendly toward each other, not sharing the same religious zeal. Since they had only met once that we knew much about, and that meeting only made both of them realize they had little in common, the connection was tenuous at best.

My position on the UN resolutions before the invasion, which has not changed, is that it's up to the UN to enforce their resolutions. I feel the world would be better off with the UN exposed as the worthless, overpriced, bureaucracy it clearly is.

Saddam, in spite of his previous transgressions, was not seen as a threat by any of his neighbors. It's true he was brutal and someone I would prefer I not share the planet with, but his influence had been severely crippled, and our policy has generally been one to not involve ourselves in other countries' domestic matters unless we perceivdd a threat to our own borders.

But, when we initiated "shock and awe," we threw the defecation at the ventilation and scored a direct hit. It made a royal mess out of things, unintended consequences popping out of the ground like those homemade bombs that keep killing our soldiers and their police. We do have an obligation to clean up the mess, but that may not be possible. This opinion has changed.

My predition for 2010 - a civil war will erupt in an Iraq where we have a small force performing occupation duties. They will be unable to stop the kurds from forming their own nation (much to the consternation of the Turks), the Shiites from allying with Iran, and the oil fields going up in smoke once again. My own opinion is that we should allow such a partioning, even though Turkey will holler. We may have to help Turkey maintain their border, although our reputation for doing that at home is less than stellar.

I hope that opinion changes, too, but for the time being, it stands.

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shap,

The "tapes" refer to several instance where GWB laid dots really close together between 9/11, Saddam and al Qaeda, with the express intent of letting Congress, the UN, and the public connect them without coming out lying directly. It's all well documented and well known; Your not recalling it is simply a matter of choosing to leave the blinders on.

Hi Barfle,

I wish I had been as smart as you when all this started. I trusted the guy and connected the dots he so artfully laid out. I didn't start to question the situation until I saw the Faux News crowd falling all over themselves trying to rationalize: 1) Invading with such a small force, and 2) The failure to find any of the vaunted WMD's.

Regarding civil war, we have two sects within the country killing each other on a daily basis. Like Allwai said, if that doesn't constitute civil war, I don't know what does.

[Shapley]

OT,

So you admit he did not 'lie directly'. You're blaming President Bush, who is branded an idiot, for being such a cunning linguist that he fooled half the Nation and all of the Congress into supporting the war because they 'connected the dots'.

If he's an idiot, what does that make the dot connectors?

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
I wish I had been as smart as you when all this started.

There's a big difference between being smart and simply wanting to see what someone on the ground who was saying "Wait a second, I'm trying to do my job here" could come up with.

And the realization that obl was a religious fanatic and Saddam was just a fairly secular tinhorn tyrant wasn't exactly rocket surgery, either.

Originally posted by ChorusMember:
Regarding civil war, we have two sects within the country killing each other on a daily basis. Like Allwai said, if that doesn't constitute civil war, I don't know what does.

Gotta admit, I don't know how bad this is compared to the Hatfields and the McCoys. I suspect it's worse, but disorganized, so I wouldn't quite classify it as a civil war.

Yet.

[OperaTenor]

A liar is still liar if he manipulates information and distorts the truth to lead others to draw a desired, inaccurate conclusion.

And, since his deceptions, secrecy, and actions qualify him as a criminal, and since criminals tend to be stupid, the "idiot" moniker still sticks.

[speculation] The people who connected the dots, while perhpas being naive, trusted GWB to do the right thing in something so grave as the war on terror, which is nothing more than a grandstanding farcial political tool anymore, thanks to its perversion by GWB.

[Shapley]

Hmmmm! A liar is a liar even if he doesn't actually lie. Fascinating! :confused:

<small>[ 03-23-2006, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

Barfle,
I think the press has distorted the true definition of "civil war" for so many decades that now any slugfests between rival gangs are commonly referred to as "civil wars" whether they are or not - "not", most often is correct.

I certainly haven't seen any of the element or precusors that I would expect in a civil war; political groups pulling out of the government, the military falling apart along sectarian lines, etc.

The other truth about civil war in Iraq that doesn't get much play is how short a real civil war would last, considering the size of the Sunni population. Let's not forget that a civil war is a failed revolution so if there was a civil war in Iraq, wouldn't that mean the current government would succeed?

I must admit that I cannot recall any sectarian civil wars in the past but I haven't look hard for examples. Anyone else know of any?

<small>[ 03-23-2006, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Haggis@wk ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

[quote]Originally posted by Shapley:
[b] Hmmmm! A liar is a liar even if he doesn't actually lie. Fascinating!

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

[quote]Originally posted by OperaTenor:
[b]You're crackin' me up again!

[OperaTenor]

[quote]Originally posted by Selma in Sandy Eggo:
[b] OT doesn't need any more cracks!

[shostakovich]

"Shos,

Once again, you call a statement I lie with no ability to prove it. You assume that he 'wanted' war, but you cannot know what he 'wanted'."

----------------------------------------------------
To me,
not letting the UN inspectors do their job + "I'm a war president" + "bring it on" + a hollow "only as a last resort" + getting a reluctant Colin Powell to embarrass himself (Powell's claim) at the UN = Bush wanted war.

I certainly can tell what he wanted, even if you can't.
-----------------------------------------------------

"He may well have reseigned himself to the fact that war was inevitable, even if it wasn't, or even that he had committed himself to the cause of war, but that does not mean that he 'wanted' it. You assume what is in his heart, and you cannot possibly know that."
----------------------------------------------------
Yes I can. He's actually pretty transparent. He hardly resigned himself, and the war was anything but inevitable.
---------------------------------------------------

"I am not familiar with the tapes made two years ago that you refer to. Most people claiming that he made that connection refer to speeches in which he says "Saddam was connected to al Queda" (An allegation proven by recently declassified Iraqi documents) and "al Queda was responsible for 9/11". Besides which, tapes made 2 years ago would have been made 1 year after the invasion, so unless you believe, as OT does, in retroactive justification, they are meaningless to the discussion."

----------------------------------------------------
I don't see what difference it makes whether he connected Saddam and 9/11 1, 2, or 3 years ago. If he said it, and denied that he said it this past week, he lied. I think Cheney is still doing it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Barfle, the 3-23 10:41 message was word for word perfect in my estimation.