Iraqi WMD's non-existence still confounding some buggers! by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I love this list of quotes...treachery.

I only picked a few, the list I found has dozens.

H

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
faced with something going wrong

YOu make it sound like everything was fine with the exception of one little screwup. It's like I SAID BEFORE: When people keep making serious "mistakes", when results conistently miss stated targets (the economy, Medicare drug coverage, rebuilding after Katrina etc etc) either the person is irretrievably stupid and incapable of learning from experience OR their real motives are elsewhere. Hmmm... stupid or devious? Devious or stupid? Any idea which problem to tag the Bush administration with?

Quote:
Actually, I'm not sure that it is. The nature of a conspiracy is that it tries to hide it's true motives. I'm not sure that Al Qaida does. In fact it's very straight forward with it's aims and objectives and most things it does are in support of it's stated aims.

Well, it's a half-conspiracy. The goals are known, the players are not.

Quote:
I think that in order to reduce suspicion about our fearless leaders, you've made an overly broad statement dismissive of ALL conspiracies- which are quire real and DO exist (as docs released by the CIA will prove.)- Signy

I hope that was a joke or you just stepped firmly into Tinhatville.- Fletch2

Someone's had their head stuck in the sand! Here ya go:

Assassination Attempts Among Abuses Detailed
Quote:
Friday, June 22, 2007

The CIA will declassify hundreds of pages of long-secret records detailing some of the intelligence agency's worst illegal abuses -- the so-called "family jewels" documenting a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.
The documents, to be publicly released next week, also include accounts of break-ins and theft, the agency's opening of private mail to and from China and the Soviet Union, wiretaps and surveillance of journalists, and a series of "unwitting" tests on U.S. civilians, including the use of drugs.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR20070621024
34.html

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

Conspiracy theories are a mental coping mechanism,

They can be used that way, yes.
But I grow tired of you black & white clowns* trying to tie everything up in a nice neat package.
Right OR left, all conspiracy OR no conspiracies, war OR peace...

Hey, if you want to be fit, should you eat right OR exercise? Should you avoid getting colds OR broken bones?

Are the Dems OR the Repos jerks?

(* just an expression for humourous effect- not to be taken personally)

Getting my drift? Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:44 AM

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

Folk wisdom

Just b/c you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Even paranoids have real enemies.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- There you go again unable to process new information. As I said before any statements before approximately 2003 are suspect because they did not have UNMOVIC's assessment at-hand.

Fair enough:

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."- Joe Wilson (you know, the fella who supposedly "knew" at this point that Saddam didn't have WMDs), Feb 6, 2003.

"BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?
JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure." Feb 28, 2003

then:

"BILL MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true." also Feb 28, 2003 (and on TV, why it almost seems like Joe, back from his double secret trip to Africa, seems to thinks that Saddam has WMDs).

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." - President Clinton, July 22, 2003.

"Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations."- Senator John Kerry, March 17, 2003 (back when he thought he could be President).

"There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this." General Wesley Clark, January 18, 2003

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President." John Kerry, December 16, 2003 (explaining why he does not have the judgement or credibility to be President)

"I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction." Dick Gephardt, Nov. 2, 2003

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes." Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector, January 27, 2003 (gee, I wonder if he read the report you mentioned...)

It goes on...and on...and then some...

"We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children...Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons." Al Queda Statement, 2002.

H

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The idea that contractors represent some sort of shadow government is pretty unlikely, but it is a new one.
WHAAA???? Where have you BEEN for the last 50 years?

Well for a good number of those years I was a sperm or maybe a protein molecule. For the others I was rational enough not to invent some Leftist conspiracy theory to accuse the defense industry of being some ephemeral ubiquitous shadow government.

There was also kind of a transitional period where I was mostly interested in dinosaurs.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, I just don't know what to say. I'm trying to be polite.

Oh now come on. We both know that you’ll never be able to convince yourself of the conspiracy theories unless you hurt someones feelings or make someone feel humiliated and unimportant. Just call me a lying son of a bitch and get it off your chest.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:17 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
faced with something going wrong
YOu make it sound like everything was fine with the exception of one little screwup. It's like I SAID BEFORE: When people keep making serious "mistakes", when results conistently miss stated targets (the economy, Medicare drug coverage, rebuilding after Katrina etc etc) either the person is irretrievably stupid and incapable of learning from experience OR their real motives are elsewhere. Hmmm... stupid or devious? Devious or stupid? Any idea which problem to tag the Bush administration with? .

I vote for stupid (but I didnt vote FOR stupid)

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

There was also kind of a transitional period where I was mostly interested in dinosaurs.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
I love that- it was priceless!!LOL

Uhhh..heh heh I forgot what the argument was....

Chrisisall...

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:22 AM

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

I thought I'd supply a little levity. It's a game called

SPOT THE DIFFERENCES

Bush's 2002 SOTU, with a few minor changes. See if YOU can spot the differences.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. But, lets not dwell on my recent accomplishments. Lets focus on Afghanistan which is small, far away, and where US media cannot get information.

We last met in an hour or so, maybe a few weeks or so, or something, of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation has comforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, just about saved a people from starvation and freed a country from brutal Taliban oppression, to find freedom under the warlords.

The American flag flies again over our embassy in Kabul. Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay. And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own.

America and Afghanistan are now allies against terror. We'll be partners in rebuilding that country. Unocal will have its pipeline. And this evening we welcome the distinguished interim leader and figurehead of a liberated Afghanistan: Chairman Hamid Karzai, the Mayor of Kabul.

The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school. Today women are free and are part of Afghanistan's new government. Our own female statues are behind a modesty veils. And we welcome the new Minister of Women's Affairs, Doctor Sima Samar.

We have placed large-scale forces on Afghani soil for an indefinite time in our endless search for Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar. Our progress is a tribute to the spirit of the Afghan people, to the resolve of our coalition, and to the might of the United States military. When I called our troops into action, I did so with complete confidence in their courage and skill. And tonight, thanks to them, we are winning the war on terror. The man and women of our Armed Forces have delivered a message now clear to every enemy of the United States: Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on mountaintops and in caves -- you will not escape the injustice of this nation.

For many Americans, these four months have brought sorrow, and pain that will never completely go away. Every day a retired firefighter returns to Ground Zero, to feel closer to his two sons who died there. At a memorial in New York, a little boy left his football with a note for his lost father: Dear Daddy, please take this to heaven. I don't want to play football until I can play with you again some day. It will be a long time before that boy can play with his daddy.

Last month, at the grave of her husband, Michael, a CIA officer and Marine who died in Mazur-e-Sharif, Shannon Spann said these words of farewell: "Semper Fi, my love." Shannon is with us tonight.

Shannon, I assure you and all who have lost a loved one that our cause is just, and our country will never forget the debt we owe Michael and all who gave their lives for freedom.

Our enemies send other people's children into holy war. We are different, somehow.

Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We must be their equals, and more. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world. We also found street maps and tourist guides to restaurants and sights of interest. We are searching to this very day for any evidence that these terrorists possessed weapons of mass destruction or the means to make them.

What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. It has nothing to do with bin Laden or Omar, or even Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps, and so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes but sometimes by governments we need, like Pakistan, Israel, Columbia, and oil-rich Saudi Arabia, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning.

Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested and are awaiting swift and sure punishment and conviction. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large, hiding among and being supported by the people around them. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are. So long as training camps operate, so long as nations harbor terrorists, so long as peoples seek political expression, our freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not, allow it.

Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice expediently, dead or alive. And, second, we must prevent terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.

Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed, and the Colombian right-wing paramilitary -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities.

While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere. We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces to go after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Those eighty bandits will not escape the full presence of the American military. Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia. And we maintain our policy of unrestricted small arms shipments around the world.

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf.

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet before and since September the 11th. But we know their true nature, which is contrary to their apparent nature and to all intelligence information. North Korea, like Pakistan and India, is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror in ways that are unknown to us. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. And though we can find not even the most minute evidence of current involvement, and they have since agreed to resume inspections, we will never allow them to escape punishment.

States with citizens like our own who blow up buildings and mail anthrax, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. They could do a lot of things, and so, we must punish them. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, or even for the merest scrap of evidence, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer, while enemies plot in secret, whispering, stopping when I show up, and staring at me, sometimes pointing, even. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and un-needed terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland; and we will revive our economy.

September the 11th brought out the best in America, and the best in this Congress. And I join the American people in applauding your unity and resolve and self-congratulation. Now Americans deserve to have this same spirit directed toward addressing problems here at home. I'm a proud member of my party -- yet as we act to win the war, protect our people, and create jobs in America, we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans.

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month -- over $30 million a day -- and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare American lives, while bunker-buster and daisy-cutter bombs and carpet-bombing, subdued the entire country, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile, to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment, the best training -- and they also deserve another pay raise.

My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades -- because while the price of massive US military presence around the globe, freedom, and security, is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, wherever we must travel to defend our home soil, we know the US people will gladly sacrifice.

The next priority of my budget is to do everything possible to protect our citizens and strengthen our nation against the ongoing threat of another attack. Time and distance from terror around the world, even against US targets like the Cole, were sufficient for us to feel secure. No longer. Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons. America is no longer protected by vast oceans. We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad, and increased vigilance at home. We are only protected by proactively striking at our enemies.

My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism, emergency response, airport and border security, and improved intelligence, including the historic US Patriot Act, passed to preserve our freedoms. We will develop vaccines to fight anthrax and other deadly diseases. We'll increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters. We will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at our borders, strengthen the security of air travel, and use technology to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the United States.

Homeland security will make America not only stronger, but, in many ways, better. Knowledge gained from bioterrorism research will improve public health. Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer neighborhoods. Stricter border enforcement will help combat illegal drugs. And as government works to better secure our homeland, America will continue to depend on the eyes and ears of alert citizens.

A few days before Christmas, an airline flight attendant spotted a passenger lighting a match. The crew and passengers quickly subdued the man, who had been trained by al Qaeda and was armed with explosives. The people on that plane were alert and, as a result, likely saved nearly 200 lives. And tonight we welcome and thank flight attendants Hermis Moutardier and Christina Jones. It is these alert citizens who will identify those secret enemies of the state, in airports and communities, in homes and families.

Once we have funded our national security and our homeland security, the final great priority of my budget is economic security for the American people. To achieve these great national objectives -- to win the war, protect the homeland, and revitalize our economy -- our budget will run a deficit that small and short-term, so long as Congress restrains domestic spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner while maintaining the tax-cut. We have clear priorities and we must act at home with the same purpose and resolve we have shown overseas: We'll prevail in the war, and we will defeat this recession, and we will retain our budget surplus.

Americans who have lost their jobs need our help and I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. Yet, American workers want more than unemployment checks -- they want a steady paycheck. When America works, America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs. Jobs of any kind, but especially service jobs, which are the foundation of our economy.

Good jobs begin with good schools, and here we've made a fine start. Republicans and Democrats worked together to achieve historic education reform so that no child is left behind. This effort is so important, we managed to do this with almost zero spending. I was proud to work with members of both parties: Chairman John Boehner and Congressman George Miller. Senator Judd Gregg. And I was so proud of our work, I even had nice things to say about my friend, Ted Kennedy. I know the folks at the Crawford coffee shop couldn't believe I'd say such a thing -- but our work on this bill shows what is possible if we set aside posturing and focus on results -- a meaningless photo-op.

There is more to do. We need to prepare our children to read and succeed in school with improved Head Start and early childhood development programs. We must upgrade our teacher colleges and teacher training and launch a major recruiting drive with a great goal for America: a quality teacher in every classroom. We must provide for the Christian religion in the classroom, and Christian creationism in our science.

Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. As outlined in Cheney's Energy Policy, This Congress must act to fund clean-coal research and permit energy development on public lands, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil and more dependent than ever on domestic energy corporations.

Good jobs depend on expanded trade. Selling into new markets creates new jobs, so I ask Congress to finally approve trade promotion, called TP, authority. On these two key issues, trade and energy, the House of Representatives has acted to create jobs, and I urge the Senate to pass this legislation.

Good jobs depend on sound tax policy which I will not address here.

Let me talk about tax relief instead. Last year, some in this hall thought my tax relief plan was too small; some thought it was too big. Many thought it was misdirected toward the wealthy. But when the checks arrived in the mail, most Americans thought tax relief was just about right. It does not take much to satisfy the American people. Congress listened to the people and responded by reducing tax rates, doubling the child credit, and ending the death tax, important for those with estates worth over $600,000. For the sake of long-term growth and to help Americans plan for the future in a way that pretends the bill will never come due, let's make these tax cuts permanent.

The way out of this recession, the way to create jobs, is to grow the economy by encouraging investment in factories and equipment, and by speeding up tax relief so people have more money to spend. For the sake of American workers, let's pass a stimulus package while at the same time responsibly restraining domestic spending.

Good jobs must be the aim of welfare reform. As we reauthorize these important reforms, we must always remember the goal is to reduce dependency on government and offer every American the dignity and security of an average service job.

Americans know economic security can vanish in an instant without health security. I ask Congress to join me this year to enact a patients' bill of rights -- to give uninsured workers credits to help buy private health coverage -- to approve an historic increase in the spending for veterans' health -- and to give seniors a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs.

A good job should lead to security in retirement. I ask Congress to enact new safeguards for 401K and pension plans. Employees who have worked hard and saved all their lives should not have to risk losing everything if their company fails. Through stricter accounting standards and tougher disclosure requirements, while maintaining corporate tax-law, corporate America must be made more accountable to employees and shareholders and held to the highest standards of conduct.

Retirement security also depends upon keeping the commitments of Social Security, and we will. We must make Social Security financially stable despite using the funds to run the government and allow personal retirement accounts for younger workers who choose them so that they too can benefit from holding company stock until retirement.

Members, you and I will work together in the months ahead on other issues: productive farm policy -- a cleaner albeit warmer environment -- broader home ownership, especially among minorities -- and ways to encourage the good work of charities and faith-based groups so government can relinquish its responsibility to these citizens. I ask you to join me on these important domestic issues in the same spirit of cooperation we've applied to our war against terrorism.

During these last few months, I've been humbled and privileged to see the true character of this country in a time of testing. Our enemies believed America was weak and materialistic, that we would splinter in fear and selfishness. They were as wrong as they are evil. The attack barely created a ripple in our materialism.

The American people have responded magnificently, with courage and compassion, strength and resolve and a solid Christmas sales-season. As I have met the heroes, hugged the families, and looked into the tired faces of rescuers, I have stood in awe of the American people.

And I hope you will join me -- I hope you will join me in expressing thanks to one American for the strength and calm and comfort she brings to our nation in crisis, our First Lady, Laura Bush, who I must mention here, lest we forget.

None of us would ever wish the evil that was done on September the 11th. Yet after America was attacked, it was as if our entire country looked into a mirror and saw our better selves. We were reminded that we are citizens, with obligations to each other, to our country, and to history. We began to think less of the goods we can accumulate, and more about the good we can do like patriotic shopping and travel.

For too long our culture has said, "If it feels good, do it." Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's keep on trucking in our SUVs" In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens, we have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. It could be righteous, religious, patriotic, and ready to go to war. We want to be a nation that serves goals larger than self. We've been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass.

My call tonight is for every American to commit at least two years -- 4,000 hours over the rest of your lifetime -- to the service of your neighbors and your nation. Many are already serving, and I thank you. If you aren't sure how to help, I've got a good place to start. To sustain and extend the best that has emerged in America, I invite you to join the new USA Freedom Corps. The Freedom Corps will focus on three areas of need: responding in case of crisis at home; rebuilding our communities; and extending American compassion throughout the world. And I call on our businesses and corporations to help: with better accounting practices.

One purpose of the USA Freedom Corps will be homeland security. With our public health system currently in critical condition, America needs retired doctors and nurses who can be mobilized in major emergencies; volunteers to help police and fire departments; transportation and utility workers well-trained in spotting danger.

Our country also needs citizens working to rebuild our communities. We need mentors to love children, especially children whose parents are in prison. And we need more talented teachers in troubled schools. USA Freedom Corps will expand and improve the good efforts of AmeriCorps and Senior Corps to recruit more than 200,000 new volunteers.

And America needs citizens to extend the compassion of our country to every part of the world. So we will renew the promise of the Peace Corps, double its volunteers over the next five years -- and ask it to join a new effort to encourage development and education and opportunity in the Islamic world.

This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity -- a moment we must seize to change our culture. We are a peace-loving nation that values freedom, fairness, and opportunity for all, but change we must. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know we can overcome evil with greater good. And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace and profit.

All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated, and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police. And we US citizens are now the world's only superpower.

If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning, and tolerance and progress. America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere with exceptions.

No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance. We stand for free and fair voting, and government responsibility to stand for the good of the people.

America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment -- PAX AMERICANA. We seek a just and peaceful and business-friendly world beyond the war on terror.

In this moment of opportunity, a common danger is erasing old rivalries. If that makes sense to you, I bet the rest of this speech did. America is working with Russia and China and India, in ways we have never before, to achieve peace and prosperity. In every region, free markets and free trade and free societies who freely bend to American economic plans are proving their power to lift lives in distant places. Together with friends and allies from Europe to Asia, and Africa to Latin America, we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom and international economic integration.

The last time I spoke here, I expressed the hope that life would return to normal. In some ways, it has. In others, it never will. Those of us who have lived through these challenging times have been changed by them. We've come to know truths that we will never question: evil is real, and it must be opposed. Why are you looking at me like that? Stop looking at me like that. Beyond all differences of race or creed, we are one country, mourning together and facing danger together but benefiting separately. Deep in the American character, there is honor, and it is stronger than cynicism. There is sacrifice, and it is stronger than thought. There is power, and it is stronger than choice. And many have discovered again that even in tragedy -- especially in tragedy -- God is near. I mention God because I think it makes it look like I'm moral.

In a single instant, we realized that this will be a decisive decade in the history of liberty, that we've been called to a unique role in human events. Rarely has the world faced a choice more clear or consequential: If you don't bend to the US, we will crush you.

Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today. We choose freedom and the dignity of every life except if it's in a Texas prison or Afghanistan, which doesn't count.

Steadfast in our purpose, we now press on. We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power. And in this great conflict, my fellow Americans, we will see freedom's victory.

Thank you all. May God bless. Allah be praised!

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:25 AM

Thanks Hero, you proved to me that Washington's got a few more idiots in it than I had assumed...

Learning Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Thank you all. May God bless. Allah be praised!

That's it right there!

I don't remember him thankin' anyone Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Just call me a lying son of a bitch and get it off your chest

I don't think you're lying, that's why.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:21 PM

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

Just call me a lying son of a bitch and get it off your chest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think you're lying, that's why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That reminds me of a quote from 'The Warlock in Spite of Himself' -- 'sometimes in error, never in doubt' (or in this case, perfidy).

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmm, Joe Wilson was not very clear-headed, was he? I guess what I hear when most politcos speak is blah blah blah. But when I heard a whole laundry list of everthing that was wrong with the forged "yellowcake" document it kind of sticks, no matter what other words swirl around it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:06 PM

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

I was going to reply to 'hero' at length, but I'll post this first bit about Joe Wilson

---------------------------------
'hero'

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply ..." comes from an op-ed piece. It may be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040409230230/www.johnkerry.com/honesty/la
_times.html

Needless to say, your quote has nothing to do with the presence or absence of WMD, and neither did the op-ed piece.
-----------------------------------
SignyM
If you read even a fraction of it, you'll see what I mean.

***************************************************************
Never underestimate the power of propagnada and distortion - 'hero'

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
forcing Bush’s poll numbers into the 20’s and pushing Blair out of office?

You know, for the most part, all we want for Bush is what Blair got (or do you think he was treated unfairly?).

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:44 PM

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

I want so much more for Bush - accusation and conviction, after a fair military tribunal at Gitmo. Oh and a firing squad. Just kidding.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
forcing Bush’s poll numbers into the 20’s and pushing Blair out of office?
You know, for the most part, all we want for Bush is what Blair got (or do you think he was treated unfairly?).

I think you missed the point.
But anyway, I like Blair. I read his speeches in the 90s and he was a strong supporter of a hardline position against Hussein even then. Many in the UK didn’t like him because they felt he was too willing to follow the US, but the truth is that Blair was always independent of the US. He had his own ideas about how to deal with Iraq, which Bush would never have agree to before 9/ll. Blair saw the US as the military might to pursue the internationalism he spoke about in the 90s. I don’t know that I would characterize it as Blair was “treated unfairly,” because the UK is a liberal democracy, like the US, and leaders are chosen by the people. But I do get the impression that many people had misconception about Blair that were not fair.

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:29 PM

No, I didn't miss the point; the point you were trying to make was that if Bush could have foreseen where his choices were going to take him, he might have chosen differently (or, something along the lines, given how poorly it worked out for him, clearly he didn't make the choice for his long term benefit (or... maybe I did miss the point ;-)))

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:42 PM

The point was that, it’s not my interpretation of events that could be described as an “elaborate fantasy,” as Chris put it. I’m not the one presuming shadow governments, conspiracies at the highest levels of government that transcend national borders or malicious intentions for which there’s no stated or implied interest.

Also I’m not sure that Bush didn’t see where his choices were going to lead him. Clearly he understood that removing Hussein would be politically risky. He had the benefit of two previous presidencies that were unwilling to take that risk, one of whom was his father. Certainly he had the conversion with someone concerning how difficult it could be if things didn’t go well. Bush is a principled president, and I think he was willing to take that risk because of his principles and his convictions.

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:00 PM

This discussion has caused me to have unhappy thoughts...

~3000 dead in the initial attack of 9/11 --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

from http://icasualties.org/oif/
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3768 as of 9/11/2007
Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths from Jan-06 to date: 35258

Other Coalition Countries deaths: 298

Iraqi security forces and Civilian death calandar year 2005: 8225

We've lost more to the war than the 9/11 attack.
I truly cannot speak to the Iraqi death count.

-----------------
Edit: This is not a response to any particular post; just the whole thread.

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Also I’m not sure that Bush didn’t see where his choices were going to lead him. Clearly he understood that removing Hussein would be politically risky. He had the benefit of two previous presidencies that were unwilling to take that risk, one of whom was his father. Certainly he had the conversion with someone concerning how difficult it could be if things didn’t go well. Bush is a principled president, and I think he was willing to take that risk because of his principles and his convictions.

You may be right; though I do not see Bush as principled as you do. In particular, I am -not- convinced he had confidence the WMD were still present in Iraq.

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:17 PM

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

Reply at length to 'hero'

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply ..." comes from an op-ed piece written by Joe Wilson. Needless to say, your carefully selected quote had nothing to do with the presence or absence of WMD, and neither did the op-ed. It was quite a thoughtful piece about something completely different. The entire document may be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040409230230/www.johnkerry.com/honesty/la
_times.html

The two quotes from Bill Moyers "BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent ..." came from an at-length interview with Joe Wilson that had NOTHING to do with WMD. In fact the quotes were interruptions by Moyers that Wilson was trying to get past. BTW, Wilson's trip to Africa was about yellowcake, not about CBW. Here's the entire interview for anyone interested in the truth: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_wilson.html

The Kerry quote "Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself ..." had nothing to do with WMD. It came from here: http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5722

The Clark quote is from an interview - amazingly enough - actually about WMD (given your previous choices it's refreshingly to the point) found here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html and he was, absolutely and categorically wrong.

Unfortunately I couldn't find the entire text for the next Kerry quote "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein ..." But I need to point out, yet again, it has nothing to do with WMD. I'd like to also mention that currently 70% of Iraqis want the US gone and many are saying they are worse-off now than under Hussein. Those were the good old days - eh ?

Gephardt's quote "I asked very direct questions of the top people ..." doesn't come with an interview from any source. So it's difficult to evaluate. Perhaps someone can find the entire interview.

Now, my favorite is from Hans Blix: "Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes." Poor Blix. He spent so much time and effort repeatedly pointing out that he didn't know one way or the other whether there were WMD, but that his team was there to find out. Then to have some jackass like 'hero' reinterpret his words 180 from his original meaning. Really, 'hero', I don't think you ever found a stooped position too low for you to assume. Oh, and the entire document which was an update to the UN, may be found here: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

***************************************************************
Never underestimate the power of propagnada and distortion - 'hero'

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Bush is a principled president, and I think he was willing to take that risk because of his principles and his convictions.

FINN- Are you sure that you're not mistaking inflexible for principled?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:36 PM

Perhaps it would be better to ask Finn why he thinks Bush is principled?

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Perhaps.

So- FINN- IF you don't mind, why do you consider Bush "principled"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:28 PM

Bush seems to have some principled positions which define his presidency. He obviously believes that lower taxes are beneficial. This is one of his convictions that has demonstrated to be conclusively well applied. The economy has done well to a large degree because of Bush’s tax cuts and tax revenue has increased, again in large part due to Bush’s tax cuts. He also believes in the use of internationalism to promote US security and principles. He called it a “distinctly American Internationalism.” I think the jury is still out of on that one, but clearly there are beliefs that Bush is unwilling to depart, even though in some cases, departing might have been a better political option, particularly for him.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:30 AM

That's a very interesting take; however, he has shown other 'principles' such as a willingness to accept profit for no reason than his connections. To wit, his making a tidy profit off a failed oil company and his sweetheart deal for the baseball club.

I will agree he is capable of taking positions and sticking to them, despite possibly horrific outcomes. And these may be principles. Do you feel honesty and forthrightness are two principles that Bush holds?

In general, if you feel he has 'become' principled in a more generally accepted fashion, at what time do you believe his 'conversion' occurred?

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hmm, Joe Wilson was not very clear-headed, was he? I guess what I hear when most politcos speak is blah blah blah. But when I heard a whole laundry list of everthing that was wrong with the forged "yellowcake" document it kind of sticks, no matter what other words swirl around it.

So you hear what you want to hear and tune out the rest. I see folk (dumbass Defendants) do that all the time up in court.

Its also interesting that Joe Wilson's report to Congress was different then what he said in newspapers and different then what he said on TV and different from what he said in his official reports. His wife has the same problem...thats her story and she's sticking to it (while revising and changing it). But its blah blah blah Bush lied blah blah blah...to you.

H

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BTW, Wilson's trip to Africa was about yellowcake, not about CBW.

So Saddam had Chemical and Biological WMDs, just not yellowcake...

Quote:

The Kerry quote "Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself ..." had nothing to do with WMD.

Yeah...it turns out that back in 2003, before folk started running for elections and such, that even the most anti-war and hard core liberals ackowledged the President's multiple valid arguments for war which included, among MANY other things, his failure to account for his WMD program.

I understand...in 2003 the war was popular, Kerry was required to support it (his only core values involve being an elected official, so he goes with the polls). If the war was popular now I guarrantee that Kerry and Hillary Clinton would support it (she'd have some stump speech about her supporting the war from the very begining)...Edwards probably not, and Obama would be somewhere in between.

Quote:

Unfortunately I couldn't find the entire text for the next Kerry quote "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein ..."

I think it comes from a Senate speech, I'll go back and look for it. Also I would note that just over 80% of the American people would like to see the Congress shipped to permanantly to Iraq part and parcel and be done with them altogether...because they learned the hard lesson that Democrats just make things worse. And 70% of all Iraqis think 1/3 of all pollsters make up 99% of a majority of 80% of the polls taken in the lower 2/3 of the country.

Quote:

He spent so much time and effort repeatedly pointing out that he didn't know one way or the other whether there were WMD, but that his team was there to find out. Then to have some jackass like 'hero' reinterpret his words 180 from his original meaning.

My point was the same as yours. Blix had a mission, to find or account for Iraq's WMD program. He was prevented from doing so by what he and the rest of the un-bribed world considered to be a deliberate effort by Saddam to conceal the truth (which seems now to be an effort to hide his impotence), and not forgetting the four years or so he and his team were prevented from even going to Iraq from 1998-2002.

Blix's statement, that I quoted, reflects the danger of unaccounted for munitions, in this instance 1,000 tons of VX nerve gas (make for a great plot on 24...wait, they did the 'secret nerve gas plot' already).

President Bush's concern was that somehow some of these weapons would secretly be provided to terrorist for use against American targets while providing the source nation with deniability. Hence it was not sufficient to simply not "know one way or the other", not after 9/11.

H

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 3:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I will agree he is capable of taking positions and sticking to them, despite possibly horrific outcomes. And these may be principles. Do you feel honesty and forthrightness are two principles that Bush holds?

I assume.

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
In general, if you feel he has 'become' principled in a more generally accepted fashion, at what time do you believe his 'conversion' occurred?

I don’t know what you mean “principled in a more generally accepted fashion.” Principled means exhibiting habitual devotion to standards of correctness, truth or good behavior. That’s the fashion in which I use it.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Do you feel honesty and forthrightness are two principles that Bush holds?

Yes. Another of Bush's principals is a strong commitment to winning the war on terror. I note for the record that being forthright and honost in time of war is not always a good thing.

For example in June of 1944 the US could have been upfront with Hitler about when and where and how our invasion of France would occur. Instead we chose to lie and create a phantom army around General Patton...a massive deception of the Germans into thinking that the main attack would come elsewhere. At the same time we completely failed to invite Nazi scientists to observe and report our efforts to create the first atomic bomb and then we went so far as to conceal the program from the American people. Shocking (Ike, Roosevelt, George C. Scott should all be ashamed). I note for the record that Winston Churchill spent the better part of the 1930s telling the truth for all to hear and it didn't really get the message across.

Since Bush spent about nine months of his Presidency at peace and then six years at war, I understand the common misconception that the President has been dishonost. Its all relative, I suggest that the President has been as honost as he can be given the totality of the circumstances. He'll be honost again tonight when he addresses the nation...mostly and thats a good thing.

H

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So you hear what you want to hear and tune out the rest. I see folk (dumbass Defendants) do that all the time up in court.

Hero, we're surrounded by extraneous information all the time. A flock of crows isn't relevant to driving, neither is the billboard. We filter info all the time. The trick is to understand what is relevant and accurate. It's not a question of seeing what I want to see, it's a question of seeing what I have to see in order to understand what's going on. I would be happy to try and explain HOW I sort information but (1) it's a long explanation and (2) I don;t think you have any interest in hearing it. So suffice it to say that I was right, I'm often right, and I have confidence in my assessment capability- and none in yours.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I will agree he is capable of taking positions and sticking to them, despite possibly horrific outcomes. And these may be principles. Do you feel honesty and forthrightness are two principles that Bush holds?
I assume.
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
In general, if you feel he has 'become' principled in a more generally accepted fashion, at what time do you believe his 'conversion' occurred?
I don’t know what you mean “principled in a more generally accepted fashion.” Principled means exhibiting habitual devotion to standards of correctness, truth or good behavior. That’s the fashion in which I use it.

Gotcha. I do think this is the core of our difference. I look at much of Bush's history and conclude he is not particularly 'principled'; he does seem to be a consummate 'gamer of the system' (eg: profits mentioned in previous posts). The core trust you seem to have for Bush is not present in me, and I feel for rational reasons.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Bush seems to have some principled positions which define his presidency. He obviously believes that lower taxes are beneficial. This is one of his convictions that has demonstrated to be conclusively well applied. The economy has done well to a large degree because of Bush’s tax cuts and tax revenue has increased, again in large part due to Bush’s tax cuts.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but... FINN, meet me in the "Economy roarrs on Part II" thread because IMHO you have some serious misperceptions.
www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30470.

AFA the Bush "principles": IS a commitment to LOW TAXES a "principle"? I might see it as being ATTACHED to a "principle"- like "getting the government out of your life" or "letting capitalism be capitalism". I think he has a strong ideological bent, but I also perceive that he will do anything to get his way. Perhaps you might think that his ideological bases are "principles" but I don't think they're the same thing as honesty or compassion or other beliefs that we might call "principles".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Gotcha. I do think this is the core of our difference. I look at much of Bush's history and conclude he is not particularly 'principled'; he does seem to be a consummate 'gamer of the system' (eg: profits mentioned in previous posts). The core trust you seem to have for Bush is not present in me, and I feel for rational reasons.

Bush demonstrates himself to be a successful businessman and you somehow find this to be a bad quality? I agree that there is a big disjoint in our respective definitions of what constitutes principled behavior, at least concerning Bush. If someone offers you profit off a failed oil company or a baseball club, would you turn it down simply because this was money based on your connections? I think that if one examines closely and fairly the negative views of Bush, often these views turn out to be more irrational then those holding them initially perceive them.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I don't mean to derail this thread, but... FINN, meet me in the "Economy roarrs on Part II" thread because IMHO you have some serious misperceptions.

I’ve heard the arguments against Bush tax cuts. Many of them, particularly those commonly used by Liberals and Democrats, are based on their own set of serious misperceptions.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA the Bush "principles": IS a commitment to LOW TAXES a "principle"? I might see it as being ATTACHED to a "principle"- like "getting the government out of your life" or "letting capitalism be capitalism". I think he has a strong ideological bent, but I also perceive that he will do anything to get his way. Perhaps you might think that his ideological bases are "principles" but I don't think they're the same thing as honesty or compassion or other beliefs that we might call "principles".

What I perceive is that Bush has certain core beliefs which he holds to devotedly, as opposed to swinging with the political winds.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I’ve heard the arguments against Bush tax cuts. Many of them, particularly those commonly used by Liberals and Democrats, are based on their own set of serious misperceptions.

I'll be happy to debate this in the other thread.

Quote:
What I perceive is that Bush has certain core beliefs which he holds to devotedly, as opposed to swinging with the political winds.

If you were judging politicians only on their "stick-to-it-tiveness" Kucinich, Ron Paul, Feingold and a bunch of other politicians would also be in your list. So clearly Bush's principles- whatever they are- resonate with your pirnciples. So WHAT are those "core beliefs" that resonate with yours?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
and WHAT are those "core beliefs"? Because if you were to just judge politicians on their "stick-to-it-tiveness" Kucinich, Ron Paul, Feingold and a bunch of other politicians would also be in your list. So clearly Bush's principles- whatever they are- resonate with your pirnciples.

I’m pretty sure that I would describe Kucinich, Paul and Feingold as principled. As for whether they would be as principled in a presidency – that’s a different issue. I’m not sure that I view their ideas as realistic, but I would probably describe them as principled right now. The question was why I view Bush as principled, not whether I agree with those principles.

As it turns out, I think I do agree with some of them. Bush seems to believe in the free market and an ownership society. I do too. Bush seems to believe in liberal democracy and America taking a leadership role to export and promote these values. I do too. As for how closely our respective views resonate or whether I think everything Bush has done promote these values as I might – that’s a lengthier discussion.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:48 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m pretty sure that I would describe Kucinich, Paul and Feingold as principled. As for whether they would be as principled in a presidency – that’s a different issue.

Ron Paul is clearly INSANE
Kucinich always was insane, now he's a fucking traitor too...going to Syria, making a speech in front of those America-hating camel-fuckers where he says America was wrong for this and that...fuck him!...he doesn't speak for me or anyone outside his lollipop guild district of idiots in Ohio.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Ron Paul is clearly INSANE
Kucinich always was insane, now he's a fucking traitor too...going to Syria, making a speech in front of those America-hating camel-fuckers where he says America was wrong for this and that...fuck him!...he doesn't speak for me or anyone outside his lollipop guild district of idiots in Ohio.

As I said, I’m not sure their views are realistic. I’m not sure that I would describe Paul as insane, but he is sort of the Republican answer to Kucinich. Also “America-hating camel-fuckers” is probably not how I would describe Syrians either, but I do agree that one of Kucinich’s principles seems to be that American values are not important to promote, which I consider to be a pretty serious blow to any credibility as a leader of this country.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What I perceive is that Bush has certain core beliefs which he holds to devotedly, as opposed to swinging with the political winds.

He certainly sticks to his guns, I'll give him that!

Curious Finn...do you think Bruce Lee could have beaten anyone on the planet in a one-on-one hand-to-hand fight when he was alive and at his best?
(I'll make the relevevence clear on my next post)

Chrisisall

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Curious Finn...do you think Bruce Lee could have beaten anyone on the planet in a one-on-one hand-to-hand fight when he was alive and at his best?
(I'll make the relevevence clear on my next post)

Chrisisall

I have no clue, but I would have to say no anyway, because I'm sure there has got to be some 7 foot Norwegian mountain man, burly African tribal warrior or Detroit longshoreman who would give him a run for his money.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Curious Finn...do you think Bruce Lee could have beaten anyone on the planet in a one-on-one hand-to-hand fight when he was alive and at his best?
(I'll make the relevevence clear on my next post)

Chrisisall
I have no clue, but I would have to say no anyway, because I'm sure there has got to be some 7 foot Norwegian mountain man, burly African tribal warrior or Detroit longshoreman who would give him a run for his money.

Truth is, Lee was great, but his rep will always be bigger than reality.
He was one of the best martial artist around, but plenty could have beaten him (many longshoremen among them).

The relevence here is that a man has a rep, and the rep becomes the man for most of us. Bush's rep among Liberals as an evil asshat IS the man for them. His rep as the principled President IS the man for you. I suspect the real man is somewhere in between.

my take Chrisisall

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:28 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As I said, I’m not sure their views are realistic. I’m not sure that I would describe Paul as insane, but he is sort of the Republican answer to Kucinich.

The guy is basically an anarchist concerning American government...and if we left the Middle East, as he screams we must, and Iran/Al Qaida initiate a bloodbath of our allies, and then drop something nuclear on Israel, Ron Paul wouldn't have a care in the world about any of that. So millions of deaths do not concern him...I think that says enough about this piece of shit.

Quote:
Also “America-hating camel-fuckers” is probably not how I would describe Syrians either

Why not?

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
So millions of deaths do not concern him...I think that says enough about this piece of shit.
Quote:
Also “America-hating camel-fuckers” is probably not how I would describe Syrians either

Why not?

Jong, you is an angry young man, isn't you?

Don't give into th Dark side Chrisisall

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:55 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
So millions of deaths do not concern him...I think that says enough about this piece of shit.
Quote:
Also “America-hating camel-fuckers” is probably not how I would describe Syrians either

Why not?
Jong, you is an angry young man, isn't you?

Don't give into th Dark side Chrisisall

Hey Chris....
I'm not young
I'm not angry
I just calls it likes I sees it....all political correctness or moral equivalencies aside. And the way I see it...the blame America, denigrate America, surrender with humiliation crowd of Americans fall into two categories :
Those with their heads buried in the sand...and
those with their heads buried up their asses.
That t'aint evil pal...just my opinions is all.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I do agree that one of Kucinich’s principles seems to be that American values are not important to promote, which I consider to be a pretty serious blow to any credibility as a leader of this country.

FINN- I know we've been through this b4, but either my memory is bad or I just didn't understand in the first place so: What ARE "American values"?

We had a big discussion about "patriotism". I think we decided that I define it more as republicanism (small r). But you seem to define it more as "love of place" irrespective of what "the government" does. (I still haven't figured out what that means. I'm working on it!) So how does that translate to "American values"? What American values should we be exporting?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:05 AM