Do you think President Bush and his administration are doiing their best? by chrisisall

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I believe- and I hope I don't set off a firestorm - that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, et al have an agenda in mind that has nothing to do with the good of average Americans. I believe they look at us as nothing more than commodities, and have no qualms pillaging the country. In 1996, Rumsfeld was selling nuclear technology to N Korea as a Board member of ABB. Two years later, he was asking for money to contain the threat. How cynical is that? This is just one example, and nothing has changed in the interim.

www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Reed_Rumsfeld-NKoreaNukes.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:18 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

That would depend as to what one would understand their goals to be,

" In the larger picture, they mean to stabilize the region, and stem the flow of terrorism, right? "

If this was their goal, I would call the past two years a huge failure, the stability of the area is very questionable at the moment with possible expansion of the conflict into Syria, and Iran. In addition, other countries in the area Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Uzbekistan among others are increasing in anti US opinion, and the stability of those governments are becoming more questionable. When King Fahd dies, succession could be a big mess. In addition, the governments the US has chosen to ally themselves with conduct themselves with ideals which are contrary to the " stated American values " This has had the effect of driving recruitment for so called terrorist groups. When the Uzbek government cracks down on its population the backlash goes against their government first, then to the US for supporting that government. Hypocritical speechs about promoting freedom, while backing tyrannts has been the orgin of much of the anti-american thought.

" Saddam was a jerk, we can all agree on that. Isn't it that some of us disagree with the methods, or the particular decisions regarding what actually needs to be done as opposed to what doesn't? "

This was the case when the alliance was formed during the first Gulf War and the reason the war stopped at restoring the Emir of Kuwait. It wasn't that anyone in Europe or the middle east liked or wanted Saddam, they just didn't feel a US handpicked " Shah " of Iraq was a better situation. That scenario is much the same now, while there has been an election there, control of who ran, as well as much of the policy that government is allowed to make is questionable, and since the US installed the government which signed longterm Military basing deals, as well as handed out big long term deals to US oil interests, and future government is going to be handcuffed to US policy. The reason there appears to be a lack of exit strategy, is because there is none, you will be there for a very long time to come ( unless like Vietnam or Lebanon or Somalia , you pull out)

I am much more cynical, by using Iraq to control Saudi Arabia ( if civil war throws out the house of Saud, they would need a nearby force to intervene ) threaten and eventually take over Iran ( likely using WMD and terrorism as a reason once again ) the US can control the export of Middle-east oil. By controling Afganistan, the US will soon build pipelines from the former Southern Soviet Republics and the Caspian sea. If one believes Chavez, South American oil will be targeted soon as well.

I don't see control over oil as an end objective, by by controlling exports from these countrys they do have a club to use against the developing economic superpowers of India and China, as well as the EU if they ever get their act together. I know the US preachs open markets and free trade, but being from Canada I would have to point out they only seem to want " free trade " on their own terms, and they are willing to break deals whenever it is to their own advantage.

" but wasn't it all for the right thing, at least in the minds of our leaders? "

That is irrelavant, I mean even Hitler thought his actions were for the greater good of Germany. It is the opinion first of all of the population of the US that has to decide whether this course is right for your country, and then the rest of the planet that will have to decide how to react to what you do next.

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:47 PM

SignyM, I personally tend to have a very 'They Live' way of seeing those in power, I just wanted to explore the possibility that maybe, in thier own twisted way, our and other leaders are trying to abide by the laws of the jungle, while still trying to make this world the 'best possible' jungle it can be.

I may just be trying to make lemonade out of artechokes...

Good to question your view, sometimes, though Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 1:00 PM

Thanks for the post, GinoBiffaroni, views from outside the US usually seem a bit more balanced and informed, soundbites (ie: WMD, Saddam A World Threat) tend to rule in this country, IMHO.

More Americans get thier news from blagh blagh blagh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 6:47 PM

RICKKER

OK heres my two cents.
Back in 2000 I believed Bush to be the worst person to get the job. During the election I remember a news man in Florida talking about how things were going, including a member of the Sherrif's department being two hours late delivering his designated ballat box. Then for four years I listened to him constantly say one thing and do the exact opposite(create jobs in America anyone?) Anyone remember his ratings before 9/11? After it was like he could do no wrong, by doing absolutely nothing right. The only reason he went int Afganastan was because the Taliban were the ones behind the attacks. If we wanted to show the middle-east that democracy was a good thing why not start it there. Why Iraq? OIL! Good old fashion greed. The Bush administration wanted to get their hands on the worlds largest oil reserve. Bush and Cheney have been blatant in their money grabbing and the people love them for it. The vice president's company wins a billion dollar contract to rebuild Iraq and nobody bats an eyelash. They take all the money do no work and tell us they need billions more to get it done? You honestly believe Cheney isn't getting a kickback? You honestly think Bushes oil buddys havent been hauling oil out since day 1? And the price of gas? Shure Saddam was an ass. All those poor Iraqi people he was slautering? Weren't they Muslum Extremist trying to turn Iraq into a muslum state like Iran? Who was responcible for 9/11? Oh yea Muslum Extremist. My two biggest problems with Bush.
1: he is so ready to goto war now but when it was his turn to serve where was he?
2: to create jobs for Americans he gives corporations tax breaks to send jobs overseas?
Money is not the root of all evil. The love of money is. Bush LOVES his money. He thinks it is so important that he believes only a select few whould handle it. Tax cuts for the rich, Tax cuts to corporations to send jobs overseas. All he had to say was tax cuts to keep jobs here and I would have kept some respect for the man.
I have heard that a lot of republicans are mad at George Lucas because they believe he made the emperor and his people seem to be "Bush like."
Well, let me see if I got this right. George had this planned since the 1970s and now you think that the bad guys are modeled after your "hero". Maybe you need to do a little soul searching, maybe you can find the guy Bush and Cheney sold theirs to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 9, 2005 7:46 PM

So... are you saying that the George Lucas should sue the PNAC for plagiarism?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 4:44 AM

SIMONWHO

I think there's a quote from Fry & Laurie that sums my view on the question best:

"Yeah, I think Virginia Bottomley's doing the best job she can. Just a pity that it's crap."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 5:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I believe- and I hope I don't set off a firestorm - that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, et al have an agenda in mind that has nothing to do with the good of average Americans. I believe they look at us as nothing more than commodities, and have no qualms pillaging the country. In 1996, Rumsfeld was selling nuclear technology to N Korea as a Board member of ABB. Two years later, he was asking for money to contain the threat. How cynical is that? This is just one example, and nothing has changed in the interim.

www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Reed_Rumsfeld-NKoreaNukes.htm

Might be more believable if your link article wasn't so obviously biased as to make even Fox News actually look "Fair and Balanced" in comparison.

But I'd really like to know what this "agenda" that you keep talking about consists of; in a bit more detail than 'it's the oil', or 'pillaging the country'.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 5:21 AM

REAVERMADNESS

I think they are doing their best.

Think about that for a minute.

When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not screaming and yelling like everyone else in the car he was driving.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 8:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- Ijust linked to the first article that google pulled up. I apologize for the quality, I could have chosen others but I was on my lunch half-hour and pressed for time.

I'm not sure I can sum up the motives of an entire Administration in one easy package. I think that Bush himself is a mass of walking, mostly unconscious self-contradictions, and the remainder of the Administration both individually and collectively have a mixture of motivations. Providing you with a cast of characters and analysis would require enough material for dozens of doctoral theses or a dozen good books....

some of which have already been written
"Price of Loyalty" Paul O'Neill
"Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" John Perkins
"The Great Unravelling" Paul Krugman
"Blowback" Chalmers Johnson, and even
"Collapse" Jared Diamond

...but oil and money definitely bubble up to the top of the list for many of the major players.

However, and perhaps in a more scientific vein, I could also tackle it by telling you what I can EXCLUDE as motivations by pointing out the contradictions between their stated goals and their means. Any preference?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 9:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Reavermadness- oooh. ouch. touche.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 9:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But I'd really like to know what this "agenda" that you keep talking about consists of; in a bit more detail than 'it's the oil', or 'pillaging the country'.

Geezer, do you think the Bush administration is doing their best? Are they trying to look out for the average American? Are you yourself better off than you were ten years ago? If you went abroad, would you be more respected as an American than you would have been ten years ago?
Use this thread to duke it out with SingyM if you like, heck, highjack it completely if you want, but I'm really interested to know how you stand on this.(I'd understand if you'd like to goof on me a little too, if you respond, I got it coming)

All's fair Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ReaverMadness:
I think they are doing their best.

Think about that for a minute.

There is a kind of ultimate simplicity here that cannot be ignored.

He's a man of few words Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 10, 2005 4:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
"Yeah, I think Virginia Bottomley's doing the best job she can. Just a pity that it's crap."

Well, THAT got me laughing and brightened my day. The end certainly wasn't what I was expecting.

My opinion of Bush & Co. hasn't changed - it's the perfect storm of mendacity.

There's the PNAC people going for American Imperialism; the corporations looking for fat government contracts and, oh yes, the new age of the robber barons; the Rapturites trying to hurry up God's plan for the end of days because otherwise they'd have to wait, like, forever; the general opportunists going along to get along (don't want to be like Shinseki); and the front man GW who laughs at executing people and then calls himself a Christian. All focused together on their one common goal, and braying FREEDOM.

Anyone with a shred of human decency and human integrity got out or was forced out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:33 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
What would you do?

First of all I'd finish the 9/11 investigation. Remember, only the first half was completed. The other half was supposed to come out close to the election, but the chairman said there wasn't enough time to finish and that they'd get to it later - which looks like never. (And to remind you - a large, foreign, deadly and presumably unanticipated attack occurred on US soil - and Bush had to be shamed into an investigation which only got started a year and a half later.)

I would find, charge, try, and if convicted, punish the person/s who 'outed' Valerie Plame to the full extent of the law. He/she/they are a proven security risk to the US.

I would engage with mid-east countries to remind them that the country that penetrates Iraq best gets an advantage over everyone else - and that maybe they have a vested interest in watching the borders, and in watching everyone else watching the borders as well.

I would halt the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq. The US will not be able to control the entire mid-east (it can't even control one country), and militarily over-matched bases there will only create rebellion against the US and anyone associated with it.

I would withdraw troops from Iraq immediately. There is no benefit to anyone to the US staying, and there is no graceful way out. So the only thing to do is is get out - awkwardly, clumsily, abruptly, but out.

I would pressure Israel to return to its original borders. I would recommend that they inform settlers that the government will be withdrawing military and police protection, supplies and utilities; and that while the settlers could stay if they wanted, they would have to provide these things on their own. And vis-a-vis the active interest of the countries in which they were living.

I would re-establish a good working relationship with allies and the UN. Terrorism can't be fought on a battlefield, it must be fought with mutual cooperation of governments.

I would stop supporting dictatorships and corrupt goverments just because they call themselves anti-terrorist. It is as futile as supporting dictatorships was just because they called themselves anti-communist. Look how well that worked in South America (not).

I would forgive all loans and shutter the World Bank and IMF.

I would dissolve nuclear weapons development programs (yes, new nuclear - or 'nukular' - weapons are being actively developed, including 'bunker-buster' nuclear warheads for tactical use) and the 'Star Wars' program.

I would pour money into making the US as energy-independent as possible. The first step would be to vastly improve energy efficiency. The US uses 50% more energy per capita than Japan and Europe - that level of efficiency is a proven, achievable goal even for high-tech first-world economies. Cutting US energy consumption by 1/3 would alter the global US economic and political position for the better.

There is so much more to say, but I have other things to do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 7:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

YEEE HAAA!

Dang, Rue. Are you running for Prez? I'll vote for ya!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 8:15 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Well, not to go into the detail Rue has...

I would FULLY sign on to the ICC..

I would go through the files and expose previous huge friggin errors in sanity... Chile, Iran in 1953, etc

I would see to it Saddam was tried in a public, impartial international court so the world can see him for what he is... and I would see the Americans ( Wolfy and Rummy to start ) who helped him commit the crimes go up as accessories

I would likely take two in the back of the head from the secret service for even thinking about any of this.....

Oh yeah, just to add to the original question

" Do you think President Bush and his administration are doing their best? "

I think Colin Powell did his best, or at least tried to until he

with the admin too much

I think Anthony Zinni tried his best until

with the admin too much

" Looking for a place to happen
Making stops along the way "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Yes, its easy to sit back and nitpick, malign, and insult from the safety of whereever you are. So, if you disagree, let me ask of you this simple question:

What would you do?

...

Did you get all that down? Maybe GW could have a look at this thread. Or have someone read it to him anyway.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 12, 2005 1:25 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:

I believe the results speak for themselves and the current administration has done more for the long term and a stable world peace than any previous to date with the possible exception of President Ronald Reagan.

Before you can have long term peace, you need to have peace. At the rate we are going, all I see ahead of us is longterm war.

As for Bush, Yes, I think he "believes" he is doing his best. The administration "believes" it is doing its best to achieve its goals, both economically and through foreign policy.

Fundamentalist Christian Faith healers believe they are healing the sick when they slap their healees on the forehead. The question is "Are they really?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 12, 2005 3:41 AM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
Yes, its easy to sit back and nitpick, malign, and insult from the safety of whereever you are.

Unbelievable, I get the chance to use two appropriate Fry & Laurie quotes in one thread (although the original name is question is Margaret Thatcher, the exact same principles apply, so I'll just substitute as appropriate):

"Well, of course, he's absolutely right. It is ludicrously easy to knock George Bush, isn't it? It's the simplest, easiest and most obvious thing in the world to remark that he's a shameful, putrid scab; an embarassing, ludicrous monstrosity that makes one frankly ashamed to be American. That's easy, anyone can see that. There's nothing difficult about that. But after tonight, no-one can accuse us again of failing to come up with something to take his place."

*produces a wire coathanger*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:59 AM

Thank you Rue, for the best reply on the thread.
* Presidential-type music starts to play* Ya got my vote.

Campainin' for Rue Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 12, 2005 9:08 PM

RICKKER

This goes back to LYNCH. What exactly has the administration done right? Please tell me. One thing, thats all I ask.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 12, 2005 10:19 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Do you think that The present administration is doing what they believe to tb the correct things regarding the war in Iraq? I mean, nobody believes they are out to do harm, right? In the larger picture, they mean to stabilize the region, and stem the flow of terrorism, right?
Saddam was a jerk, we can all agree on that. Isn't it that some of us disagree with the methods, or the particular decisions regarding what actually needs to be done as opposed to what doesn't?
Some parents tell their kids getting a shot won't hurt, knowing full well that it will, and decide this is best for the child.
The whole WND thing was surely a lie (or exaggeration, at best), but wasn't it all for the right thing, at least in the minds of our leaders?
I make fun some, but I'm really interested to find out how people feel on this. Maybe President Bush and co. feel and truly believe that an imperialistic (in a good way) America with qualified and limited civil rights is the way to go for our economic and physical saftey and security in the future.
I'd like to think that so many dead and wounded to achieve such limited success was not their goal, after all.
Center or Edge, I value your thoughts.

Uncharacteristically serious Chrisisall

YES YES YES!!! Unequivically yessssss

I think Bush and his administration is doing everything in their power to acomplish thier goals, the only thing is their goals are not the ones that they claim

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 3:33 AM

SIMONWHO

The reason why Bush is so hated is that America has a very high standard to live up to. Bush and many of his supporters seem to think that even if they're only slightly better than the psychotic, inhumane, bigotted terrorists, that makes them the good guys.

If America was some tinpot dictatorship, then sure, you could kidnap children, lock them up without charge, torture them (mildly or not, it's still torture), etc, etc and people wouldn't really notice or care. Hey, it's happening in your preferred trading partner (Clinton's judgement) all the time. But you're America. Land of the free. Home of the brave.

Bush is acting like someone who got pushed in a bar and promptly produced a machine gun, firing it wildly into the dark. Compare that to previous leaders, such as Harry Truman, who had the sense and compassion to introduce the Marshall plan, helping those countries that had been at war with America just a few years before. The result? A free and prosperous Europe.

That's the history and standard America now has to live up to. Instead we have an isolationist President, alienating his allies one by one (well, all right, dozens at a time), pushing all the attention away from real issues onto things that really don't matter a damn (constitutional amendments to back up religious beliefs?). There's no hatred for leaders like Olusegun Obasanjo or Lucio Gutierrez because we have such low expectations of them. If people didn't love what America could and should be, they would just shrug it off as another bad ruler in another bad country.

There's about 250 million of you. Seriously, how could George W. Bush and John Kerry be the best leaders available to you?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 4:15 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Bush is acting like someone who got pushed in a bar and promptly produced a machine gun, firing it wildly into the dark. Compare that to previous leaders, such as Harry Truman, who had the sense and compassion to introduce the Marshall plan, helping those countries that had been at war with America just a few years before. The result? A free and prosperous Europe.

Your comparison is poor. Perhaps you need to read a little further about post-war Europe, particularly the parts about the pacifying of Germany by both the Americans and the Brits (the Soviets as well, but unlike the US or Britain, they really were a brutal totalitarian nation.) Pacifying and democratizing a country that has experienced many years of totalitarian rule and political turmoil is not a simple or clean business. We didn’t do it in Europe without getting our hands dirty or making a few mistakes and we aren’t going to do it in Iraq, no matter how loud the anti-Bush camp screams; it’s just not realistic.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 4:27 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:

There's about 250 million of you. Seriously, how could George W. Bush and John Kerry be the best leaders available to you?

Well your half right. I think the Democrats could have put up a much better candidate then John Kerry. Did you see his grades? That fellow's aint got the smarts to run no White House.

Say what you want about Bush, but he got better grades then Kerry and was smart enough to learn to fly planes for the military. Kerry drove a boat, a skill he shares with millions of Americans across the country.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
their goals are not the ones that they claim

piratejenny, you are a Conspract Theorist.
You have a habit of straying to the edge, and not being able to back up your statements with documentation.
This of course does not always mean you're wrong.

Fellow Conspiracy Theorist Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 4:53 AM

Hero, you should complete Andrew's training. He can destroy Bush. Together you could rule the galaxy as father and son.

...couldn't resist Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Say what you want about Bush, but he got better grades then Kerry and was smart enough to learn to fly planes for the military. Kerry drove a boat, a skill he shares with millions of Americans across the country.

H

I also heard he's a good dancer. ....

Not sure if you were going for sarcasm here, HERO, but quote just sounds kinda pathetic as a defense of the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 5:14 AM

Thanks, I'm glad you took it the way I meant it.

I have been seduced by the Goofball side.

You don't know the power of the Goofball Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I also heard he's a good dancer.....

OMG that was great! I didn't see that comin'.
I really did have to wipe tears from my eyes.

Luv a gd laf Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
One thing I do not understand is why the level of such bitter hatred for President Bush and his administration.

It seems to me that people are ready to believe nearly anything negative about them and no amount of evidence supports their positive actions. Its kind of sad in a way.

For me, without going into a three page essay, it's as simple as this. Bush just seems to have went out of his way to be everything Osama bin Laden accuses America of being. Arrogant, greedy, imperialistic - it's as though Osama is formulating GW's policies. He threw away a golden opportunity to use American power to make the world a safer place and has, instead, alienated the very people who could do something about terrorism. He's created the real potential, indeed the likelihood, for many, many years of our nation (and my children) living in a state of perpetual war. The "War on Terror" is bullshit. It's doublespeak nonsense that should have been recognized as such by our weak-kneed press long ago.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 5:26 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Not sure if you were going for sarcasm here, HERO, but quoute just sounds kinda pathetic as a defense of the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

True. But Bush's grades were an issue in 2000 and Kerry's Vietnam service were an issue in 2004. Kerry's grades were not an issue because he didn't release them until this year.

All that might be pathetic, but you can never be certain what the voting public (or at least the media) thinks is important.

Silly issues run the gambit from Hillary's hairstyle to AlGore's personality (or lack therof). But is an issue that ultimately decides the fate of the Presidency (in really close elections like 00 and 04) and the course of nations really silly? Or maybe we all just think a bit to much of ourselves and our so-called educated choices.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 13, 2005 5:48 AM