TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- And the Shrub shall speak in all his hypocracy

And the Shrub shall speak in all his hypocracy

From CNN:

"President Bush was scheduled to headline rallies in the battleground states of Pennsylvania and Ohio while Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry and his running mate were to host rallies in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Bush appeared Saturday in Canton, Ohio, and was later to move on to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Kerry and Sen. John Edwards spoke at a campaign event Saturday in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, and were later expected in Wheeling, West Virginia.

Polls show that voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania are about equally split between the two candidates. A Republican has not won election to the White House without winning Ohio, which has 20 electoral votes -- likely key to any victory. Pennsylvania has 21 electoral votes.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush touted the nation's economy, pointing to his tax cuts as a prime source of economic gains.

"Because of my policy of strengthening the economy while enforcing spending discipline in Washington, we remain on pace to reduce the deficit by half in the next five years," Bush said. (Full story)

On Friday at a rally in Springfield, Missouri, Bush told cheering supporters, "There'll be big differences in this campaign. They're going to raise your taxes; we're not.

"We have a clear vision on how to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world," Bush said.

"They somehow believe the heart and soul of America can be found in Hollywood. The heart and soul of America is found right here in Springfield, Missouri."

"After 19 years in the United States Senate, my opponent has had thousands of votes but very few signature achievements."

"He and his running mate consistently opposed reforms that limit the power of Washington and leave more power in the hands of the people," Bush said"

--- Cannon fodder for the masses indeed, who believes this B.S. coming out of Shrub's mouth is besides me. What spending discipline has he enforced in Washington, more than enough threads on this forum covers that detestable lie. I'm sure he has a clear vision to win the war on terror and bring peace to the world, that is why so many national guard and reserve troops are being sent over to Iraq to bring about that wonderful peace and security that we all see taking place, Right?

The heart and soul of America is in Springfield not Hollywood, well oops what was I thinking. Seeing how all us Americans must have felt that we identified with Jennifer Anniston, Ben Affleck, P-Diddy, etc. How many state senators have signature achievements through simply voting, I don't see that by casting a vote what signature achievements they can attain as though no other votes matter. Bush is one to talk about the power of Washington not being limited, what exactly is he doing with that executioner of his in John Ashcroft to limit the power of government and leave more power in the hands of the people. If this is what people are hearing in the MidWest, then my goodness.

I would love the opportunity to debate Bush, because he is truly one of the dumbest presidents ever in American History, and I am a history major so I've studied quite a few. Cannot believe that people cheer for that dribble coming out of the Shrub's mouth.

it's still hard for me to grasp the concept of these presidential candidates getting cheered on like rock stars. Is demagoguery the only skill required to get into the white house? Bush has already proved intelligence is not a prerequisite

Re: And the Shrub shall speak in all his hypocracy

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan "Because of my policy of strengthening the economy while enforcing spending discipline in Washington, we remain on pace to reduce the deficit by half in the next five years," Bush said.

Gotta love that logic. "You can tell I'm a good economic manager because of the way it's only gonna take me 5 years to rectify my horrendous economic management in the past". I'd be a lot more impressed if you hadn't let the deficit escape that far in the first place, George.

quote:

Bush is one to talk about the power of Washington not being limited, what exactly is he doing with that executioner of his in John Ashcroft to limit the power of government and leave more power in the hands of the people. If this is what people are hearing in the MidWest, then my goodness.

Quite correct. No government responsible for anything as oppressive as the PATRIOT Act (which apparently wasn't oppressive enough given that they tried to pass a second one through) has any right to criticise another political party for being pro-big government. He's obviously trying to woo the rightist voters from both ends of the authoritarian / libertarian axis (by throwing people in prison without charging them on one day, then accusing the Democrats of opposing small government on another) but I sincerely hope that you self-professed libertarians see through this tripe. If Nader's going to start fracturing the leftist vote then we need Badnarik to start fracturing the rightist vote. Bush obviously believes that it is the government's right to intrude on the lives of its citizens, so why not send him a message by voting for the Libertarians?

quote:

would love the opportunity to debate Bush

Looking forward to the Kerry / Bush debates, but I get the feeling that with Kerry's mystifying intellectual abstractions and Bush's child-like stupidity, they won't be able to understand a word of what the other is saying. Should be fun.

quote:

Bush is one to talk about the power of Washington not being limited, what exactly is he doing with that executioner of his in John Ashcroft to limit the power of government and leave more power in the hands of the people. If this is what people are hearing in the MidWest, then my goodness.

Egad. Melodramatic much? Ashcroft the executioner? Your simplistic overstatements make you sound childishly angry. Remember what I said about BDS on a prior thread somewhere? I stand by it, since you seem intent on proving me right.

quote:

No government responsible for anything as oppressive as the PATRIOT Act (which apparently wasn't oppressive enough given that they tried to pass a second one through) has any right to criticise another political party for being pro-big government. He's obviously trying to woo the rightist voters from both ends of the authoritarian / libertarian axis (by throwing people in prison without charging them on one day, then accusing the Democrats of opposing small government on another) but I sincerely hope that you self-professed libertarians see through this tripe.

I would vote libertarian if they weren't so cluelessly naive on foreign policy. Your statements about the USA PATRIOT act suggest you're not too keen on history or context. Portions of the act are absolutely vital for our security, in breaking down the walls that existed between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The invasions of privacy are nothing new; the same powers are granted for law enforcement to fight the drug war for example. I oppose all of these rights to search, however if you view the USA PATRIOT act (which was passed by Congress, this isn't only Bush) as particularly dispicable and furthermore not worth renewing in at least some form, you're hopelessly clueless.

quote:

I would love the opportunity to debate Bush, because he is truly one of the dumbest presidents ever in American History, and I am a history major so I've studied quite a few.

Ha ha. Get an MBA from Harvard and get back to me.

.

quote:

Looking forward to the Kerry / Bush debates, but I get the feeling that with Kerry's mystifying intellectual abstractions and Bush's child-like stupidity, they won't be able to understand a word of what the other is saying.

From Kerry's acceptance speech.

quote:

Now I know there are those who criticize me for seeing complexities � and I do � because some issues just aren't all that simple. Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn�t make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn't make it so.

I love how his method of showing that he takes nuanced approached to complex issues is to spit out overly simplified one-liner nonsense. Neither of the candidates are particularly skilled communicators, the presidential debates should be a bore. The VP debates should prove a little more interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by tupsox Ha ha. Get an MBA from Harvard and get back to me.

Yeah because well all know how impressive it is to graduate with a "gentleman's C" from the University most notorious in the world for rampant grade inflation - in possibly the very easiest field of study, no less! In a list of intellectual accomplishments that ranks right up there with not getting your hand stuck in your colon while you wipe your ass.

quote:

Originally posted by tupsox I would vote libertarian if they weren't so cluelessly naive on foreign policy.

"Cluelessly naive"? They're non-interventionalist (like Bush claimed to be during the 2000 election campaign) and anti-UN (like Bush has been throughout his presidential term). Surely most criticisms of Libertarian foreign policy can be applied equally to the foreign policy of the Republicans (and to a lesser extent, the Democrats)? What is it specifically about Libertarian foreign policy that strikes you as "naive"?

quote:

Your statements about the USA PATRIOT act suggest you're not too keen on history or context.

The history or context of what? The sacrificing of freedom for the illusion of security? I think that viewing the act in an historical context - where freedoms have so often been surrendered to national governments to fortify domestic security - only stengthens the case against implementing it in the first place. In what historical context are these abuses against privacy and civil liberties justified?

quote:

Portions of the act are absolutely vital for our security, in breaking down the walls that existed between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The invasions of privacy are nothing new; the same powers are granted for law enforcement to fight the drug war for example.

I don't think that many people are arguing that the PATRIOT act contained no parts useful (or, indeed, necessary) to fight the war on terror effectively, but the question is why these parts of the bill were packaged with parts that were at best unnecessary and at worst direct abuses of governmental power. I'm sure you've read the criticisms, but the right to incarcerate without laying a charge, to tap phones without probable cause, to raid homes without a warrant and so on, just serve to erode the sanctity of the individual and thus the basis of all Jeffersonian democracy. You Americans had to fight hard to win the rights that protect you from your own government and the PATRIOT act just eliminates many of these implied rights (such as privacy, presumption of innocence etc.).

You might be able to successfully make the case that these laws make it slightly easier to catch terrorists, but I'm asking "at what cost"? If, as you claim, you would vote for a Libertarian ticket sans the foreign policies, why do you accept the PATRIOT act - in its current form - as beneficial to the US?

quote:

I oppose all of these rights to search, however if you view the USA PATRIOT act (which was passed by Congress, this isn't only Bush) as particularly dispicable and furthermore not worth renewing in at least some form, you're hopelessly clueless.

You're right in saying that congress passed the act, but they weren't the ones that devised it. It was rushed through without being read or debated upon properly (amid the anthrax scares) and I doubt that it will be successfully renewed when it expires. There will probably need to be new legislation passed to make up for the "necessary" bits of the act, but hopefully this time it is debated upon properly and the big brother provisions don't make it into the new bill.

So, in a way, I do believe that it would be worth renewing in "some form", but that form just happens to be one quite different from the one it takes now.

quote:

What is it specifically about Libertarian foreign policy that strikes you as "naive"?

When dealing with a totalitarian ideology such as Islamo-fascism, simply fortifying and playing defence isn't enough; we need to take the fight to them and destroy the ideology at its source, and also destroy any forces that would help them in their cause. Otherwise, you will wind up with some combination of a policy of appeasement (which has pretty poor historical results), or complete isolationism, also with poor historical results. To illustrate my point, I'll bring up the container ship issue that Kerry spoke of in his speech. Even if we could check every container in every ship (an impossible task if we didnt want to decimate international trade), what good would be accomplished by uncovering, say, a nuke thats already on our soil, or in our port? We need to ensure that it never gets there in the first place.

re: PATRIOT act:
I said I oppose the search/seizure rights granted by the PATRIOT act; I merely stated that in context they are nothing unique compared to all sorts of other invasions of privacy allowed by US law, and therefore shouldn't be used to support all this Bush=Hitler nonsense. Beyond this point, I'm not sure where we disagree. Whatever rights we've given up at home in the "War on Terror" have been very mild by any standard; I would tend to argue still too much, but I'm merely asking for some perspective here.

quote:

In what historical context are these abuses against privacy and civil liberties justified?

Potentially during war time. For example, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. In contrast, the war on terror is not (yet) a war that threatens the nation's existence.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Yeah because well all know how impressive it is to graduate with a "gentleman's C" from the University most notorious in the world for rampant grade inflation - in possibly the very easiest field of study, no less! In a list of intellectual accomplishments that ranks right up there with not getting your hand stuck in your colon while you wipe your ass.

I suppose you attended Harvard Business School and thus can speak authoritatively on such matters?

Assignment #1: When did Ivy League grade inflation take place? And when did Bush earn his undergraduate degree from Yale?

On a somewhat related note, I suppose we could compare Bush's college record to Al Gore's, and determine that they were surprisingly similar (though Gore got several more Cs and a D, plus daddy Senator, to his name).

Assignment #2: What was George HW Bush doing while W was in school? This was a tad before his career in the CIA, as VP and president...

quote:

Assignment #2: What was George HW Bush doing while W was in school? This was a tad before his career in the CIA, as VP and president...

Ok I'll answer it....in '64 when W started at Yale, HW got creamed in an election for Congress. However by 1968, when W graduated, HW did win election. This all weakens my point a little, so ignore it

quote:

Originally posted by tupsox Egad. Melodramatic much? Ashcroft the executioner? Your simplistic overstatements make you sound childishly angry. Remember what I said about BDS on a prior thread somewhere? I stand by it, since you seem intent on proving me right. I would vote libertarian if they weren't so cluelessly naive on foreign policy. Your statements about the USA PATRIOT act suggest you're not too keen on history or context. Portions of the act are absolutely vital for our security, in breaking down the walls that existed between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The invasions of privacy are nothing new; the same powers are granted for law enforcement to fight the drug war for example. I oppose all of these rights to search, however if you view the USA PATRIOT act (which was passed by Congress, this isn't only Bush) as particularly dispicable and furthermore not worth renewing in at least some form, you're hopelessly clueless. Ha ha. Get an MBA from Harvard and get back to me. . From Kerry's acceptance speech. I love how his method of showing that he takes nuanced approached to complex issues is to spit out overly simplified one-liner nonsense. Neither of the candidates are particularly skilled communicators, the presidential debates should be a bore. The VP debates should prove a little more interesting.

I have made many posts and commentaries linked to the Bush administration, but yet you keep locking into the concept of "melodrama" if you are capable of defending the Bush administration then please do so, instead of applying your "BDS" theory because by that token I could easily accuse you of being a blind, ideological, fanatic obsessed with maintaining a conservative in power based simply on the reason that he is one, to say so of course would be pretty dumbed down and foolish, kind of like your BDS theory that has no merit as a political argument. I guess every Democrat that wants Bush gone and speak strongly against him must have "BDS"? Sure.

You speak of the clueless naivety of libertarians, ah one second but you must be confused with the Bush administration's blind obsession with pursuing a foreign policy of invading Iraq without giving too much concern as to wether or not the information used was thorough, accurate and ultimately worthy of invading a foreign country as though we were the judge, jury and executioner of others. Seems to me like your flawed BDS theory is applicable to George W. Bush as well, except he and his administration had an Iraq Derangement Syndrome

Funny that you mention "parts" of the Patriot Acts are necessary for our security what happened to the rest of the other parts of this document that George Bush and his administration was able to manipulate through Congress on the back of the 9/11 tragedy, just like the authority to go to war in Iraq, keyword being "authority" How it was used was up to the Bush administration and George Bush himself. Anyone voting against any of these documents at the time they were being pushed through Congress would have been slammed, deemed un-American and probably accused of being Euro sympathizers as became the norm in America during the whole Iraq debacle. Thankfully people have wisened up in Congress after seeing the true nature of the Bush government and the Patriot Act as is will not see the light of day unless changes are made.

If an MBA from Harvard makes you capable of intelligence and possessing the power of oratory discussion, then how do you explain the stuttering, pauses, and slangs utilized by Bush in speaking to the nation or in answering questions from reporters. Apparently Harvard must have failed him miserably indeed.

Sorry to burst your bubble but your last statement must be the funniest of all "love how his method of showing that he takes nuanced approached to complex issues is to spit out overly simplified one-liner nonsense" could have sworn that you were referring to Bush "Saddam Hussein was a menace, Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, Iraq is a grave threat, America is stronger because of my actions in Iraq, Together Iraq, Iran, North Korea, these nations constitute an axis of evil, I saved the best for last, you're either with us or against us" and you talk about spitting out overly simplified one liner nonsense. Ouch. Trust me John Kerry has nothing on the Bush administration when it comes to doing this. Little good that Harvard MBA did Bush in leading the greatest nation.

quote:

but yet you keep locking into the concept of "melodrama"

Maybe because I think talk and insinuation of Bush as a tyrannical dictator are a bit melodramatic.

quote:

I guess every Democrat that wants Bush gone and speak strongly against him must have "BDS"?

Nope.

quote:

You speak of the clueless naivety of libertarians, ah one second but you must be confused with the Bush administration's blind obsession with pursuing a foreign policy of invading Iraq without giving too much concern as to wether or not the information used was thorough, accurate and ultimately worthy of invading a foreign country as though we were the judge, jury and executioner of others.

Actually Bush was fairly skeptical of the CIA ("This is all you've got?"), but Tenet assured him that the WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk". One can make the very legitimate and defensible argument that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but this BUSH LIED!!!111 nonsense that you seem to peddle is, well.....melodramatic

quote:

Funny that you mention "parts" of the Patriot Acts are necessary for our security what happened to the rest of the other parts of this document that George Bush and his administration was able to manipulate through Congress on the back of the 9/11 tragedy, just like the authority to go to war in Iraq, keyword being "authority" How it was used was up to the Bush administration and George Bush himself. Anyone voting against any of these documents at the time they were being pushed through Congress would have been slammed, deemed un-American and probably accused of being Euro sympathizers as became the norm in America during the whole Iraq debacle. Thankfully people have wisened up in Congress after seeing the true nature of the Bush government and the Patriot Act as is will not see the light of day unless changes are made.

Ah yes, I remember the massive nationwide campaigns to brand Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich as un-american traitors. Oh, wait a sec...
See, this is what I'm talking about. Their "true nature". "Manipulate through Congress". This language is absurd. Care to back up your claim that the Bush administration "manipulated" the bill through? Care to try to demonstrate to me how the Ashcroft Justice Department has wrongfully abused powers granted them by the USA PATRIOT act?

quote:

If an MBA from Harvard makes you capable of intelligence and possessing the power of oratory discussion, then how do you explain the stuttering, pauses, and slangs utilized by Bush in speaking to the nation or in answering questions from reporters. Apparently Harvard must have failed him miserably indeed.

Bush is a lousy speaker. That fact alone doesn't make him an idiot.

quote:

Sorry to burst your bubble but your last statement must be the funniest of all "love how his method of showing that he takes nuanced approached to complex issues is to spit out overly simplified one-liner nonsense" could have sworn that you were referring to Bush

You completely missed my point: Kerry was self-importantly trying to explain how much of a positive trait it is to be nuanced and see complexities, then followed it up with inane, simplistic one-liners. An analogous situation might be if Bush said "I take very complex views of the important issues of our day; very few things are black and white. It is often necessary to see shades of gray. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

quote:

Saddam Hussein was a menace, Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator

Would you care to argue these facts?

Let's not forget that Gore failed out of Divinity School. I mean seriously...DIVINITY SCHOOL???

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Let's not forget that Gore failed out of Divinity School. I mean seriously...DIVINITY SCHOOL???

Hey, I'll take a guy "falling from grace" any day over a guy who believes that God talks through him:

http://lancasteronline.com/pages/news/local/4/7564

I guess those who disagree must be treasonous. After all, people who disagree with what President Bush says and does aren�t disagreeing with Bush, they are disagreeing with God. Who but those controlled and deceived by Satan would disagree with God?

I guess I can also appreciate a guy who has God on his side and influences his decisions (directly or indirectly, who the hell knows anymore?) for war:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

Funny, all the time I was a devout Christian, I prayed relentlessly to God on a myriad of things. I really believed he answered me in a number of different ways, but I'm just astounded that God tells Georgie all these things. You'd think that Jesus would tell him otherwise:

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=5333

quote:

Originally posted by tupsox Maybe because I think talk and insinuation of Bush as a tyrannical dictator are a bit melodramatic. Nope. Actually Bush was fairly skeptical of the CIA ("This is all you've got?"), but Tenet assured him that the WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk". One can make the very legitimate and defensible argument that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but this BUSH LIED!!!111 nonsense that you seem to peddle is, well.....melodramatic Ah yes, I remember the massive nationwide campaigns to brand Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich as un-american traitors. Oh, wait a sec... See, this is what I'm talking about. Their "true nature". "Manipulate through Congress". This language is absurd. Care to back up your claim that the Bush administration "manipulated" the bill through? Care to try to demonstrate to me how the Ashcroft Justice Department has wrongfully abused powers granted them by the USA PATRIOT act? Bush is a lousy speaker. That fact alone doesn't make him an idiot. You completely missed my point: Kerry was self-importantly trying to explain how much of a positive trait it is to be nuanced and see complexities, then followed it up with inane, simplistic one-liners. An analogous situation might be if Bush said "I take very complex views of the important issues of our day; very few things are black and white. It is often necessary to see shades of gray. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Would you care to argue these facts?

I do not accuse Bush of being a tyrannical dicator instead I accuse him of being a man whose ideologies and advisors have led him down a path that bodes very bad for America's role as a global leader long after he is out of office.

Could have fooled me, after all your BDS theory couldn't only be applicable to me, Michael Moore, and the Hollywood elite.

You seriously believe that the Bush administration would have been able to put forth the Patriot Act and pass it had Congress had the time to examine all the details in it, you surely cannot believe that they were acting without the influence of what took place on 9/11. Wonder why so many questions about it exists now. How about the detention of individuals who were kept in confinement for months in some cases, some were deemed illegal and deported after that and some were released. Even U.S. citizens were not immune, the Supreme Court had to remind Bush recently that U.S. citizens cannot be detained indefinitely without charge. You're right though Ashcroft and the Bush administration haven't done anything wrong, after all these individuals were traitors, treasonous and deserved what they got, your rationle is the reason why I weep for America's path. When people can be detained indefinitely in a so called democracy and we see nothing wrong with that. Wow!

So George Tenet is the fall guy and Iraq was a mistake now life goes on. Whether Bush lied or not about Iraq I believe that many in this forum would agree that in politics things aren't always black and white, but exists in shades of gray as you highlighted so I hold him and his administration responsible for leading the nation into a war that seems to have a very weak rationale when examined. You choose to overlook it, I choose not to. If I am melodramtatic, then you are ideologically blinded.

As for your Kerry point it has me You state that Kerry is trying to be complex and nuanced but uses simplicity but then you are saying that Bush is simplistic and he lets people know that upfront, I'm guessing, if not what is he. I must be missing some point as to this reasoning hence my confusion.

As for Saddam is a menace, Saddam is a mass murderer, Saddam was a brutal dictator. It is in the context that Bush uses them as his rationale for the Iraq conflict now that he has no claims to weapons of mass destruction left to allude to in his speeches. By his token the U.S. should be preparing for massive ground assaults into Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, and the list goes on. He is a simpleton defined. If he utilizes this logic to defend a misguided war as you admit to yourself and I quote you "One can make the very legitimate and defensible argument that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do" then he fails to understand that it simply is not strong enough reason to launch a full scale invasion of a nation. Fact remains the primary factor was weapons and they have not been found, no drones, no mobile labs, no nuclear blueprints, no biological and chemical stockpiles, so what exactly is being defended again as reason for the war and ultimately the platform of the Bush administration. Refresh my memory please.

quote:

Could have fooled me, after all your BDS theory couldn't only be applicable to me, Michael Moore, and the Hollywood elite.

John Kerry, for all his faults, does not have BDS. Howard Dean does. Michael Moore's got something fierce.

quote:

You seriously believe that the Bush administration would have been able to put forth the Patriot Act and pass it had Congress had the time to examine all the details in it, you surely cannot believe that they were acting without the influence of what took place on 9/11. Wonder why so many questions about it exists now.

Obviously 9/11 influenced the passing of the PATRIOT act. I'm asking you to provide any sort of proof of wrongdoing by the Bush administration. You imply a sinister conspiracy.

quote:

You're right though Ashcroft and the Bush administration haven't done anything wrong, after all these individuals were traitors, treasonous and deserved what they got, your rationle is the reason why I weep for America's path.

And now we find ourselves back on the topic of melodrama.

quote:

So George Tenet is the fall guy and Iraq was a mistake now life goes on. Whether Bush lied or not about Iraq I believe that many in this forum would agree that in politics things aren't always black and white, but exists in shades of gray as you highlighted so I hold him and his administration responsible for leading the nation into a war that seems to have a very weak rationale when examined. You choose to overlook it, I choose not to. If I am melodramtatic, then you are ideologically blinded.

WMD was never my rationale for removing Saddam (I've always viewed this from the broader, big-picture neocon/objectivist perspective, so the physical weapons themselves aren't the largest looming long-term threat), so its not a matter of overlooking it. Furthermore, I fail to see any evidence of lying or intentional deception on the Bush administrations part; they acted based on 1)the available intelligence, 2)their beliefs on how to alleviate the perceived threats.
You've also succumbed to those who would re-write history if you believe WMD was the only issue raised by the Bush administration to justify military action:

quote:

Fact remains the primary factor was weapons

See, I just disagree with you on this one. This is a pretty key, fundamental difference between us.

quote:

By his token the U.S. should be preparing for massive ground assaults into Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, and the list goes on.

I would agree on North Korea, which is more similar to Saddam's Iraq, perhaps a bit more evil but less intertwined with our primary enemy of Islamo-fascism.

quote:

Originally posted by tupsox John Kerry, for all his faults, does not have BDS. Howard Dean does. Michael Moore's got something fierce. Obviously 9/11 influenced the passing of the PATRIOT act. I'm asking you to provide any sort of proof of wrongdoing by the Bush administration. You imply a sinister conspiracy. And now we find ourselves back on the topic of melodrama. WMD was never my rationale for removing Saddam (I've always viewed this from the broader, big-picture neocon/objectivist perspective, so the physical weapons themselves aren't the largest looming long-term threat), so its not a matter of overlooking it. Furthermore, I fail to see any evidence of lying or intentional deception on the Bush administrations part; they acted based on 1)the available intelligence, 2)their beliefs on how to alleviate the perceived threats. You've also succumbed to those who would re-write history if you believe WMD was the only issue raised by the Bush administration to justify military action: See, I just disagree with you on this one. This is a pretty key, fundamental difference between us. I would agree on North Korea, which is more similar to Saddam's Iraq, perhaps a bit more evil but less intertwined with our primary enemy of Islamo-fascism.

While I was no Howard Dean fan I must admit he was one of the first to call out George Bush on his relentless pursuit of Iraq. He established the platform for questioning if this administration was truly pursuing the right priorites.

My sinister conspiracy is that the Patriot Act served to enable as I pointed out in my previous post, the arrest and detention of non-Americans and Americans on American soil for indefinite periods of time without being charged and given representation until deemed so by the Bush administration. You seem to not want to talk about this even though I have mentioned it before.

If you call my questioning the detention of American citizens without any charge or lawyers as setting a bad precedent for our nation melodrama then it's obvious you fail to care much about what America should stand for. In the name of fighting terrorism lets lower our conduct to the likes of China and many of the developing world corrupt leaderships. Is that okay?

WMD may not have been your rationale but it was certainly the one that Colin Powell was using in speaking to the United Nations leading up to Iraq, visual displays and all before the world. How quickly one forgets. The Bush administration cannot defend their strongest reason for the Iraq war and neither can you, hence you shy away from it as not being significant.

While you may agree that North Korea should be treated like Iraq, you fail to understand that the administration lost their biggest strength before the Iraq war, the support of the international community as a whole. Sorry but the Coalition of the Willing just doesn't cut it considering how many have upped and left Iraq. Spain, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Phillipines, the Ukraine is about to. Notice a trend or are these countries insignificant yet they were touted by Bush as sign of international cooperation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...t_coalition.htm This is what serves as our sign of strength internationally in Iraq, quite pathetic when you look at the numbers, 90% of the effort is U.S. responsiblity and no new nation is willing to partake. We are indeed stronger and I am the one suffering from BDS There are no spins that can be put on the facts about Iraq. As President when you invade a nation be sure that the results are not what we now see on a daily basis in Iraq. Your position is to simply downplay the significance of Iraq, must be the lack of all those Islamo-fascists there, oh that's right they are there now in higher numbers than one could ever have imagined.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.