News Our President is delusional, does that bother anyone?

[Evo]

No more discusion on this...PERIOD. This is off topic. If this thread doesn't get back on topic, it will be locked. (this was written prior to EHI's post) EHI, your post is acceptable, nit-picking over how to take a single commandment is not.

 

[Astronuc]

I am most troubled by what Bush believes, because as president he can command the military - and at the moment this means a lot of people are being killed - and many more are suffering.

It is not clear that Bush has a clear grasp on reality, or perhaps his reality is so fundamentally different than mine.

I bothers me that he, Cheney, and Rumsfeldt seem to be able to casually accept the death and suffering of so many, when they themselves would never put themselves at risk.

As far as I can tell, the militant actions of the Bush administration indicated a callous disregard for human life, and that seems in sharp contradiction (even antithetical) to a doctrine of peace and love.

 

[pattylou]

perhaps his reality is so fundamentally different than mine.

I think that's true.

There is a consistency in his behavior, as far back as the eye can see. This is one reason he appeals to a certain segment of the population (he is a "straight shooter").

Further, since his actions are consistent, it seems his view of the world must be consistent, and in that sense it is his reality that differs from the reality some of us hold to be "real.".

Reality is a difficult subject in any event. People define reality differently - we agree (mostly) that there is an objective world more or less separate from us... I can't seem to get a handle on driving this last point home. Maybe I'll edit this last paragraph later. It has to do with confused definitions from one person to the next, across the board.

 

[arildno]

It is not difficult to seem consistent to the dumbest sections of society if you have, and express, simplistic thoughts.

Anyone with a more nuanced and reflective personality will seem inconsistent in their behaviour to the same section of society.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Yes, his reality is more fundamentally different than a WHOLE-WHOLE BUNCH of millions of people within our country and whether or not he's consistant is irrellavent. If he weren't, the spin would say he's a "dynamic leader unafraid to make a change or think outside of the box." What we have here is a total difference in social classes and the way those in the more priveledged arenas think. What I hear is "let them eat cake...because we tell them to, and why shouldn't they? We are the elite and the masses want to be like us because we are powerful and no one controls us so they'll do what we tell them and if they don't like it we'll just say that all evildoers hate cake and it will make Amerika strong".

Boom-Pow-Surprise! Hoooooooooooooo!

 

[pattylou]

It is not difficult to seem consistent to the dumbest sections of society if you have, and express, simplistic thoughts.

His actions are consistent as well - everything about him is consistent - how he has landed about every position he's bee in, how he responds to adversity, his rhetoric, it's all consistent.

By your argument dummies are more likely to win an election simply because they don't confuse the uneducated in the population. But I don't think that history shows this.

Anyway, I was just trying to say that I don't think he is delusional in the men-with-white-coats sense. I think he sees the world radically differently than others. Who knows - maybe during his upbringing (as a son of GHWB) the cold war mentality really affected him so profoundly that he is incapable of thinking in any other way than aggressive and unprovoked defense ... along the lines of "if we wait for proof it will be too late."

This mentality is completely opposed to the alternative I hold: "If we don't wait for proof we are screwing ourselves royally."

But it doesn't make his mindset clinically loony - just paranoid.

 

[Skyhunter]

It would appear that Eisenhower would have agreed that Bush is delusional.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are:Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
November 8, 1954

Bush did predict in 1978 that the Social Security system would crash in 10 years. He wasn't one of the Texas oil millionaires that Eisenhower was referring to, but I can't help but think that he was/is influenced by them.

 

[arildno]

By your argument dummies are more likely to win an election simply because they don't confuse the uneducated in the population. But I don't think that history shows this.

No; because "dummies" as you call them, lack the capacity for rhetoric, powerbroking and lots of other qualities necessary to be successful.
This is quite different from espousing simplistic, political ideas.

Anyway, I was just trying to say that I don't think he is delusional in the men-with-white-coats sense.

Neither do I.

I think he sees the world radically differently than others. Who knows - maybe during his upbringing (as a son of GHWB) the cold war mentality really affected him so profoundly that he is incapable of thinking in any other way than aggressive and unprovoked defense ... along the lines of "if we wait for proof it will be too late."

This mentality is completely opposed to the alternative I hold: "If we don't wait for proof we are screwing ourselves royally."

But it doesn't make his mindset clinically loony - just paranoid.

Agreed; he's in the grip of hysteria, the main reason for which is, IMO, that he seriously believes that dividing humans into good guys vs. bad guys is an intelligent attitude, through which we may "understand" the world.
You won't, that line of distinction is simply too dumb to be useful as an analytical tool.

 

[Astronuc]

Bush did not get where he is on his own talents (or lack thereof). Without Rove and the party machine, he'd been hanging out in Texas or sitting on some corporate board somewhere.

Certainly his family has connections, and he has used them well.

The problem is that too many voter voted for him, and too many didn't vote.

 

[pattylou]

The problem is that too many voter voted for him, and too many didn't vote.

And ... that we use machines to count (80% of?) our votes, machines made by companies run by staunch conesrvatives, and that don't always have a paper trail. When there was an outcry about this, Blackwell and others like him opposed any investigatio into the issue as strongly as they could.

I don't think it is the voters' fault, Astronuc, or turnout (2004 saw the best turnout in history.) If I choose to not vote in upcoming elections - it will be because I am convinced that the voter matters less than the machine.

I don't think Bush won. Like you said, he isn't qualified.

 

[Astronuc]

I think the problem in the last election was the lack of choice. Too often people vote for the least of two dislikes. That is no way to have a democracy, but unfortunately that is the system that professional politicians like, and which Bush and other wish to export to the rest of the world.

When neither choice is acceptable to a majority, democracy fails in fulfilling its potential.

 

[loseyourname]

It would appear that Eisenhower would have agreed that Bush is delusional.

How so? Eisenhower said that anyone who tried to abolish social security was stupid. 1) "Stupid" does not mean "delusional." 2) Bush tried to privatize social security, not abolish it.

 

[Skyhunter]

How so? Eisenhower said that anyone who tried to abolish social security was stupid. 1) "Stupid" does not mean "delusional." 2) Bush tried to privatize social security, not abolish it.

Eisenhower said this in a letter to his brother. And I admit it is a stretch from stupid to delusional. When someone adheres to a belief despite evidence to the contrary, that is by definition delusional.

Even though the Social Security system did not crash in 1988 as Bush predicted, he has clung to the notion that unless it is privatized it will crash. The evidence just does not support this conclusion. Therefore he is delusional. More accurately he wants to force the events to conform to his narrow view of reality.

 

[EL]

I think the problem in the last election was the lack of choice. Too often people vote for the least of two dislikes. That is no way to have a democracy, but unfortunately that is the system that professional politicians like, and which Bush and other wish to export to the rest of the world.

When neither choice is acceptable to a majority, democracy fails in fulfilling its potential.

I have allways wondered about this. How does it come there are always just two candidates (at least in practice), who both have about the same opinions? How come there have never been any strong third, or fourth, or fifth candidates? (Or have there been?)
Is that simply because in US you need a ****load of money in order to get your voice heard?

 

[pattylou]

I have allways wondered about this. How does it come there are always just two candidates (at least in practice), who both have about the same opinions? How come there have never been any strong third, or fourth, or fifth candidates? (Or have there been?)
Is that simply because in US you need a ****load of money in order to get your voice heard?

Perot - only 13 years ago.

He got 23 percent of the popular vote. People *wanted* him.

Clinton and Bush senior split the rest of the vote; I don't think either of them got a majority of the popular vote.

As far as why - Perot was independently wealthy and sunk an incredible amount of money into his campaign - and did well as a third candidate. Most people don't have the means to do this.

 

[Astronuc]

Is that simply because in US you need a ****load of money in order to get your voice heard?

Unfortuantely too many people believe that, but is simply not true. One simply has to roll up one's sleeves, stand tall, speak honestly and people will listen.

 

[EL]

Perot - only 13 years ago.

He got 23 percent of the popular vote. People *wanted* him.

Clinton and Bush senior split the rest of the vote; I don't think either of them got a majority of the popular vote.

As far as why - Perot was independently wealthy and sunk an incredible amount of money into his campaign - and did well as a third candidate. Most people don't have the means to do this.

Yeah, I remember him now (although I was quite young at that time). Anyone who has managed to get a significant amount of votes without "buying" them?

 

[EL]

Unfortuantely too many people believe that, but is simply not true. One simply has to roll up one's sleeves, stand tall, speak honestly and people will listen.

...Example?

 

[Astronuc]

Well Jesse Ventura (who became governor of Minnesota) started talking, people listened . . .

In the end however, I think he may have collect campaign contributions, but I am not sure.

Let me see if I can find other examples.

 

[ron damon]

hmm... when you speak with someone you try to find common ground, ways to relate to them, so when speaking with a representative of a culture of strong religious convictions, such as Palestine, one could very easily be drawn into making references to god or faith.

That being said, it is clear that Bush haters have a mind already formed, and any such snippets will only feed their mania.

Why don't you try to be a little fair sometime, just to see how it feels?

 

[EL]

Well Jesse Ventura (who became governor of Minnesota) started talking, people listened . . .

So you're telling me there is at least some hope...

Actually I was more thinking of the presidental election.

 

[arildno]

So you're telling me there is at least some hope...

At least if you are a multi-millionaire former WWF-star.

 

[EL]

At least if you are a multi-millionaire former WWF-star.

That's not included in my "hope"...

 

[BobG]

I have allways wondered about this. How does it come there are always just two candidates (at least in practice), who both have about the same opinions? How come there have never been any strong third, or fourth, or fifth candidates? (Or have there been?)
Is that simply because in US you need a ****load of money in order to get your voice heard?

There periodically are strong third party candidates. Perot in '92 as someone else mentioned. George Wallace ran strong in the South in '68. Strom Thurmond ran strong in the South in 40's or 50's.

There's two reasons it doesn't happen more often.

1) It takes money and organization to conduct a major nationwide campaign. Having supporters in every state to arrange places to appear is as important as the money to travel around the country and to buy TV, radio advertisments, posters, etc.

2) All too often, a strong showing by a third party candidate just throws the election to which ever candidate the third party supporters despise most. The 2000 election was so close that even the meager number of Nader supporters that would have voted Democratic would have changed the outcome. Most Perot supporters probably would have preferred Bush over Clinton. Most Wallace supporters probably would have voted Democratic (never mind the fact that by '68, the Democratic Party no longer reflected the views of the Southern white voter - it still would have been agony for many of those people to vote Republican).

Both are generally trying to be the "Electric Grandmother" (short story by Ray Bradbury). They make generic statements that every listener can interpret as representing their own views. For a candidate to actually reveal what they plan to do if elected is considered a near-fatal blunder.

 

[pattylou]

...when speaking with a representative of a culture of strong religious convictions, such as Palestine, one could very easily be drawn into making references to god or faith.

That being said, it is clear that Bush haters have a mind already formed, and any such snippets will only feed their mania.

Why don't you try to be a little fair sometime, just to see how it feels?

Have you gone through the posts here, to see how many liberal Americans actually believe that Bush was speaking literally?

 

[Gokul43201]

hmm... when you speak with someone you try to find common ground, ways to relate to them, so when speaking with a representative of a culture of strong religious convictions, such as Palestine, one could very easily be drawn into making references to god or faith.

Wake up mister ! It's one thing to say "May God be with you !" and an entirely different thing to say "God has chosen Me to kick some butt."

 

[arildno]

hmm... when you speak with someone you try to find common ground, ways to relate to them, so when speaking with a representative of a culture of strong religious convictions, such as Palestine, one could very easily be drawn into making references to god or faith.

That being said, it is clear that Bush haters have a mind already formed, and any such snippets will only feed their mania.

Why don't you try to be a little fair sometime, just to see how it feels?

People like you simply don't get it:
To say that one is on a mission from God, i.e, that you are on some sort of holy quest, is THE MOST UNFAIR FORM OF ARGUMENTATION POSSIBLE.


So yes, I'm treating Bush fairly, that is, how he DESERVES TO BE TREATED on basis of his own rhetoric&actions.

 

[Skyhunter]

hmm... when you speak with someone you try to find common ground, ways to relate to them, so when speaking with a representative of a culture of strong religious convictions, such as Palestine, one could very easily be drawn into making references to god or faith.
That being said, it is clear that Bush haters have a mind already formed, and any such snippets will only feed their mania.
Why don't you try to be a little fair sometime, just to see how it feels?

And why should we try to play fair with neocons?

"Bipartisanship is another name for date rape,"

They will just take advantage.

There was a time when people from all over the political spectrum could meet and talk and agree to disagree. That ended with the rise to power of Newt Gingrich, then Tom Delay, and now George Bush with Karl Rove.

You rant on about Muslim terrorists, and how they must be treated differently than any enemy we have faced before. Well I feel the same way about neocons.

With the politics of personal destruction practiced and promoted by these ilk, do you really think we are just going to let our guard down?

I believe them when they say they want to destroy me. You should believe that they do not have your interest at heart either. They are about seizing power and they are doing a very good job of it.

 

[Brad_1234]

Eisenhower would support president Bush today

It would appear that Eisenhower would have agreed that Bush is delusional.
Bush did predict in 1978 that the Social Security system would crash in 10 years. He wasn't one of the Texas oil millionaires that Eisenhower was referring to, but I can't help but think that he was/is influenced by them.

A couple of problems with the argument here, its common knowledge the social security system will go broke because the baby boom generation is retiring. BB generation refers to the post world war 2 increase in family size; I recall in the 1990s that Al Gore spoke about the SS system was going broke and we must fix it, Clinton set out to tell everyone its got to be fixed. Its also called the 3rd rail.

The other problem is that Bush would never abolish SS. In order to save peoples money, he wants to privatize part of it, Well I mean authorize privatization where YOU get to choose if you want it privatized or not. Its what Govt employees get to do now and its worked for years. Democrats LOVE to claim the SS system is their own invention, so when Bush comes up with this great plan? They advertise he wants it closed down, toss poor folks on the street, or if you recall the DNC commercial? Bush would push the elderly lady in a wheelchair down the stairs. That was a few years ago?

But democrats say yes, the SS system will lose money, and in years ahead, was it 2015 or 2020 that SS recipients would take a cut of 25%

Now if I had said Bush wants to cut SS benefits by 25% ? I would be pummelled with tomatoes and insults. I believe it was California Sen Fienstein (D) who commented the 25% cut in SS benefits is nothing, no big deal, nobody will notice.[paraphrased] (in a 2003 interview on Hardball?)

 

[Anttech]

WMD in Iraq? Let's define our words, if there was even a trace amount of wmd, there would "BE" some quantity greater than zero. To say an item exists doesn't imply its quantity. The stockpiles of anthrax and other wmd were not found, but materials that qualify as wmd were found. The left scoffed in the news media saying "well they look like old weapons". Publicly we never located the infamous stockpiles, inspectors did find some small amounts of the term "wmd".

didnt anyone pick up on this? It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Bush did use an argument as empty as this... So according to you Bush didnt lie to his people, and in fact there were WMD in Iraq, although none were found, but traces of anthrax were found, and there was some gossip on the grape vine out there in the middle east that perhaps Saddam might be cooking up some?

Bushes staff tried to show the world how Iraq was in violation, and by the rules make the case for harsher sanctions or war. During the 3 month delay? We saw peace protesters saying No war! and Stop bothering Iraq! Oil for $ and blood $ for oil or whatever. Where was the outrage over Saddams brutalities? The left should have demanded the US invade and topple Saddams regime.

So if the "Right" of American politics is so humain, and caring enough to wage war to rid a dictator, why hasnt it done this in Zimbabwe? Is it because Mugabe didnt try and kill Bushs daddy? Or perhaps there isn't enough ecconomical benefits... I could go on...

 

[SOS2008]

didnt anyone pick up on this?

I asked for a source (evidence) for this and a few other claims, but it never has been provided.

 

[Astronuc]

So you're telling me there is at least some hope...

Actually I was more thinking of the presidental election.

Well, I never claimed it would be easy, and someone would likely have to start at the local level of county executive or state representative/senator, and then try move to Governor, Congressman or Senator, then on to president.

However, I think someone clever and intelligent, sincere and honest, might just catch peoples attention, especially if the candidate requested that people not make donations to his or her campaign, but rather invest the money locally in schools, libraries or some other educational institution.

That then might just get folks attention.

Such a candidate may lose elections, but at least the message gets out.

Ultimately, I would like to see someone who asks - where is all this Federal spending (and state spending) going. I would like to see some accountability, which for now seems wholly lacking, in the Bush administration and Congress.

And furthermore (while I have built up a good head of steam ), how is it that Congresspersons can call upon a president to help their campaign, or vice versa, and then provide for "checks and balances" on the executive branch, which is a fundamental principle of the US government. The answer is - that just doesn't work. Congress is not sufficiently checking this president at all.

 

[Skyhunter]

A couple of problems with the argument here, its common knowledge the social security system will go broke because the baby boom generation is retiring. BB generation refers to the post world war 2 increase in family size; I recall in the 1990s that Al Gore spoke about the SS system was going broke and we must fix it, Clinton set out to tell everyone its got to be fixed. Its also called the 3rd rail.
The other problem is that Bush would never abolish SS. In order to save peoples money, he wants to privatize part of it, Well I mean authorize privatization where YOU get to choose if you want it privatized or not. Its what Govt employees get to do now and its worked for years. Democrats LOVE to claim the SS system is their own invention, so when Bush comes up with this great plan? They advertise he wants it closed down, toss poor folks on the street, or if you recall the DNC commercial? Bush would push the elderly lady in a wheelchair down the stairs. That was a few years ago?
But democrats say yes, the SS system will lose money, and in years ahead, was it 2015 or 2020 that SS recipients would take a cut of 25%
Now if I had said Bush wants to cut SS benefits by 25% ? I would be pummelled with tomatoes and insults. I believe it was California Sen Fienstein (D) who commented the 25% cut in SS benefits is nothing, no big deal, nobody will notice.[paraphrased] (in a 2003 interview on Hardball?)

I think you should check your facts. What you call common knowledge is usually the talking points you get from whatever propaganda outlet you subscribe to.

Myth #1: Social Security is in crisis and facing bankruptcy.
Even if Congress were to leave Social Security untouched, the program would be able to pay currently guaranteed benefits in full until 2042, according to the program's trustees. Thereafter, about 70 percent of promised benefits could be financed. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is even more optimistic: it projects that, without changes, Social Security will be able to meet its obligations in full until 2053, after which about 80 percent of benefits still could be paid for. Even under those worst-case scenarios, decades from now the system would be far from "bankrupt," "flat-out bust," or "broke," which imply that no resources would be available to pay any benefits. At that time, workers and their employers still will be contributing payroll taxes to finance benefits for retirees.
So Social Security is facing a long-term financing problem, but it is far from a "crisis" by any definition of that word. And the problem is much less immediate and threatening now than in the recent past, even though no changes have been made to the program. In 1997, Social Security's trustees had projected that the program's trust funds would last only another thirty-two years and would be depleted in 2029. Those forecasts have improved steadily-largely because of stronger than expected economic growth-so that the trust funds now are expected to remain sufficient for thirty-seven more years.
Like a doctor who recommends "watchful waiting" while a patient becomes healthier, Congress should think twice before performing radical surgery on an enormously successful program that appears to be getting better with age.

http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=507

Raising the minimum wage would help the fund tremendously, raising the wage cap would solve the problem. Personally I would reduce the percentage rate and remove the cap entirely. Make those who benefit the most from the American dream help pay for the security of those who work all their lives and are not able to become millionaires.

The biggest threat to social security however is Bush's privatization plan and the outsourcing of American jobs.

 

[Grogs]

Perot - only 13 years ago.
He got 23 percent of the popular vote. People *wanted* him.
Clinton and Bush senior split the rest of the vote; I don't think either of them got a majority of the popular vote.
As far as why - Perot was independently wealthy and sunk an incredible amount of money into his campaign - and did well as a third candidate. Most people don't have the means to do this.

That number for Perot (23%) in the 92 election is quite a bit lower than it could have been. He was polling up in the mid-30% range, IIRC, when he announced he was dropping out of the election. Right before the election he said 'hey, I changed my mind' and popped back in. Had he stayed in, he might have had a shot at winning it (although not likely.) As it was, since his policies were more similar to Bush's than Clinton's, his re-entering the race played a big factor in getting Clinton elected. Sadly, that seems to be the only noticable effect from 3rd party candidates in my lifetime: getting the person whose views are furthest from their own elected (think Nader in 2000.)

And furthermore (while I have built up a good head of steam ), how is it that Congresspersons can call upon a president to help their campaign, or vice versa, and then provide for "checks and balances" on the executive branch, which is a fundamental principle of the US government. The answer is - that just doesn't work. Congress is not sufficiently checking this president at all.

That knife cuts both ways though. We have mid-term elections coming up next year for 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House. Those politicians who had all the photo-ops gripping and grinning with the President in 2004 (or 2000 for the Senators) know that this could come back to haunt them if the President is polling poorly in their district. I think we're already seeing evidence of this from the congress. Some hard-line members who always voted the President's wishes are going against them more frequently.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, since the thread is somewhat back on point...

Russ has spoken!
Mother Teresa, what a silly hippy...

The problem with the Nobel Peace Prize is that it happens on a schedule. If no one of the level of Nelson Mandella or Mother Theresa did anything interesting recently, the givers of the award have to dig deep into their personal opinions (read: biases) to decide who to give it to.

Nelson Mandella almost single-handedly ended apartheid in South Africa. Are you seriously meaning to say that Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter had as much of a positive impact on the global geopolitical scene?

And of course the conservative consensus is all that matters.

There is a word for that. Starts with a "d". Dang, I can't remember it, but I know it's important...

This is the same shove it down your throat approach by conservatives that has so divided this country. Their staunch belief that they, and only they know what is right.

I would be awfully disturbed to learn that democrats don't think they know what is right and would not try their best to futher those policies when elected in our democracy (there's the word I was looking for!). Is that what you are trying to say?

I call it the absolutist trap. When you believe in absolutes, you blind yourself to other possibilities.

This has nothing to do with absolutism. When Clinton was elected, he immediately started on correcting the biggest problem facing our nation at the time (the question of what to do about gays in the military). He had an opinion and he worked hard to get that opinion turned into law. That's the whole point of being elected to a public office!

Once again, I'm struck by the incredible irony of Democrats utterly discarding the very principles the Democratic party is supposed to be founded on (freedom and democracy) when their practical ideas are not favored. The willingness to compromise basic ideals when they aren't working for them to achieve the practical goals, more than anything, is why I'll never be a Democrat. Yes, in that way, Republicans are more ideology driven: Republicans (politicians notwithstanding - they are the same on both sides of the aisle) will not compromise such principles even if it means that every now and then they lose.

 

[Brad_1234]

didnt anyone pick up on this? It honestly wouldn't surprise me if Bush did use an argument as empty as this... So according to you Bush didnt lie to his people, and in fact there were WMD in Iraq, although none were found, but traces of anthrax were found, and there was some gossip on the grape vine out there in the middle east that perhaps Saddam might be cooking up some?

So if the "Right" of American politics is so humain, and caring enough to wage war to rid a dictator, why hasnt it done this in Zimbabwe? Is it because Mugabe didnt try and kill Bushs daddy? Or perhaps there isn't enough ecconomical benefits... I could go on...

See, this is what suprises me. Saddam has outdone Adolf Hitler in crimes against humanity, yet the "left" would give him the benefit of doubt... and reject the 15 member UN security councils resolution, and keep trying NOT to see any wmd violations against a monster who used wmd on civilians. Prove it, what's so bad about Saddam? his using illegal oil sales to fund terrorism?

What about Saddams financing wmd programs in north Africa and yellow cake uranium? Oh, right, see Joseph Wilson and his wife printed a story saying they didnt see any nuke deals, therefore there were none. The same logic was used with wmd in Iraq, we haven't found any as of yesterday, therefore none ever existed. Even when they were used by Saddam.

From the general theme of president Bushes discussion of war in Iraq, including the main formal address to the Nation before the war, the one the liberal media blacked out, and the next day started in with articles "Mr Bush, why won't you tell us anything about this Iraq situation?" But from what the president said, we saw violations from the first gulf war surrender agreement, linked Saddam to wmd production and financing terror, etc etc, we don't even need to have more proof, only reasonable cause. The average person would only need to have reasonable doubt Saddam had wmd? war.

The thing about "Bush lied"? That was all hysterical and amusing DNC propaganda. The word for 'lied' was not the same one Webster or any dictionary writers ever knew about.

Why don't we topple other world dictatorships? Wow isn't it obvious? Even when a mass murderer like Saddam has 17? UN resolutions, the uproar over enforcing the UN decision there? There is no way the left/liberal world would tolerate toppling other dictators, it just isn't fair.

With Iraq using illegal oil sales to fund terror? After 911 this is intolerable.

 

[russ_watters]

Why don't we topple other world dictatorships? Wow isn't it obvious? Even when a mass murderer like Saddam has 17? UN resolutions, the uproar over enforcing the UN decision there? There is no way the left/liberal world would tolerate toppling other dictators, it just isn't fair.

I call that "The Clinton Doctrine". Yes, I kow, that's a little unfair as belligerent isolationism (tm) has been around since the Monroe Doctrine, but Clinton took it to new heights with his actions regarding Somalia and Rwanda. It is Clinton who is responsible for the doctrine that we should not take down dictators for purely humanitarian reasons unless they are too close for our sensitive eyes to ignore (Yugoslavia, Hati). And even then we should only do a half-assed job at it (again, Yugoslavia, Hati) and hope luck bails us out (again, Yugoslavia).

Bush Sr. sent troops to Somalia. Clinton removed them because of his weak stomach. You guys (not you, Brad) ask the question, but you are the answer! You ask the question as if you expect the answer to be that Republicans have weak stomachs too, but we don't. Should we go after problems like Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Ivory Coast, the Sudan, etc.? You're damn right we should! I already explained why Clinton didn't, but why didn't Bush go into the Sudan? He choose to go after a bigger fish and we don't have the resources to go after all of them at once. But don't play it as if you really think we should have gone into the Sudan - its just another stick to beat Bush with. If that were important to liberals, Clinton would not be the liberal hero he is.

Reporters interviewed troops leaving Somalia as to how leaving made them feel and were utterly perplexed at the disgusted responses they received. They simply could not fathom that when it is your job to fix problems, it is an insult to be ordered to stop when the problem becomes difficult. The SecDef (iirc) was forced to resign for not adequately equipping the troops, but that was only half the problem. Clinton himself compounded it instead of fixing it by removing the troops instead of just sending equipment and reinforcements.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

So if the "Right" of American politics is so humain, and caring enough to wage war to rid a dictator, why hasnt it done this in Zimbabwe? Is it because Mugabe didnt try and kill Bushs daddy? Or perhaps there isn't enough ecconomical benefits... I could go on...

Zimbabwe is a democracy (LOL), and Mugabe just kept stealing the elections through fraud and intimidation. Would be kinda hypocritical for Bush to invade Zimbabwe, then...

The problem with the Nobel Peace Prize is that it happens on a schedule. If no one of the level of Nelson Mandella or Mother Theresa did anything interesting recently, the givers of the award have to dig deep into their personal opinions (read: biases) to decide who to give it to.

Ahh, so you're saying sometimes they get it right..

Nelson Mandella almost single-handedly ended apartheid in South Africa. Are you seriously meaning to say that Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter had as much of a positive impact on the global geopolitical scene?

...and sometimes they get it wrong? And of course you are the self-appointed judge of when they get it right, and when they get it wrong..? Thank goodness you're impartial and objective then. Your opinion would be irrelevant if you were partisan.

What about Saddams financing wmd programs in north Africa and yellow cake uranium? Oh, right, see Joseph Wilson and his wife printed a story saying they didnt see any nuke deals, therefore there were none. The same logic was used with wmd in Iraq, we haven't found any as of yesterday, therefore none ever existed. Even when they were used by Saddam.

Yes, finding WMDs is usually a pretty good sign that they exist NOW, not just remembering he had them a while back. You can't ban someone from driving, then throw them in prison because they were known to drive before they were banned. That's stupid.

But from what the president said, we saw violations from the first gulf war surrender agreement, linked Saddam to wmd production and financing terror, etc etc, we don't even need to have more proof, only reasonable cause. The average person would only need to have reasonable doubt Saddam had wmd? war.

Saddam was known to break UN resolutions several times after they were imposed. There's television footage of Iraq having to remove weapons AFTER the UN found them breaking those resolutions. I agree. That is called evidence.
However, this is not the same as the Bush administration 'linking' Saddam to WMD production or 'financing terror'. THAT is called a sales pitch.

The thing about "Bush lied"? That was all hysterical and amusing DNC propaganda. The word for 'lied' was not the same one Webster or any dictionary writers ever knew about.

No, if you start from the assumption that the President always tells the truth, then everything he says would, in your view, be found under 'T' for truth, along with 'tarradiddle'.

Why don't we topple other world dictatorships? Wow isn't it obvious? Even when a mass murderer like Saddam has 17? UN resolutions, the uproar over enforcing the UN decision there? There is no way the left/liberal world would tolerate toppling other dictators, it just isn't fair.

Some people, nationalists who truly believe their country is all-great and their leader infallible, would agree. However, other people might look at the American government and think it a force of evil, both to its own people and to foreign countries. A reasonable person might then think that perhaps one f---ed up country judging another is a bad idea. The fact that the US does not have a policy of overthrowing dictators (though it has a good track record of installing them) might also be reasonably interpretted as meaning that the Iraq war had nothing to do with eradicating dictatorial government.

With Iraq using illegal oil sales to fund terror? After 911 this is intolerable.

Proof positive that Bush was right: say 'Saddam' and '9/11' together often enough, and people will assume they're linked. Not so deluded after all, then.

 

[Anttech]

See, this is what suprises me. Saddam has outdone Adolf Hitler in crimes against humanity, yet the "left" would give him the benefit of doubt...

I would like to see proof of this.. Maybe your views are so intune with Hitler’s that it would be Self-defamatory for you to admit that this statement is grrroooossssslllyyyy wrong..
I hope you take that as an insult, becuase at least that would show that you have some integrity

According to most Human Rights watch dogs Saddam killed less people in his reign of terror than has been killed since the start of the Iraq War...Hitler Ordered the Holocaust. Or will you deny this happened?to Quote Hitler "The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one."

 

[Grogs]

See, this is what suprises me. Saddam has outdone Adolf Hitler in crimes against humanity, yet the "left" would give him the benefit of doubt... and reject the 15 member UN security councils resolution, and keep trying NOT to see any wmd violations against a monster who used wmd on civilians. Prove it, what's so bad about Saddam? his using illegal oil sales to fund terrorism?

There's a *huge* difference between believing that Iraq didn't constitute enough of a threat to conduct a preemptive strike and saying Saddam is a good guy. It seems to me that you're insinuating that one equates to the other.

What about Saddams financing wmd programs in north Africa and yellow cake uranium? Oh, right, see Joseph Wilson and his wife printed a story saying they didnt see any nuke deals, therefore there were none. The same logic was used with wmd in Iraq, we haven't found any as of yesterday, therefore none ever existed. Even when they were used by Saddam.

Again, you seem to be arguing with a strawman. Who is it that's saying Iraq *never* had a WMD program? I think that we have pretty clear and convincing proof that they did at one time. The question is was there a WMD program at the time we invaded?

Bush Sr. sent troops to Somalia. Clinton removed them because of his weak stomach. You guys (not you, Brad) ask the question, but you are the answer! You ask the question as if you expect the answer to be that Republicans have weak stomachs too, but we don't. Should we go after problems like Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Ivory Coast, the Sudan, etc.? You're damn right we should! I already explained why Clinton didn't, but why didn't Bush go into the Sudan? He choose to go after a bigger fish and we don't have the resources to go after all of them at once. But don't play it as if you really think we should have gone into the Sudan - its just another stick to beat Bush with. If that were important to liberals, Clinton would not be the liberal hero he is.

Russ, if the question of 'why haven't we invaded Sudan instead' were made in a vacuum, I'd agree with you that it's unfair. But it didn't just appear from nowhere. During the pre- and early invasion stages, we were constantly bombarded with 'WMD's' as the justification for going to war with Iraq. When the huge arsenal of WMD's failed to appear, that justification magically changed to 'bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq.' *That* is what leads to the 'why not the Sudan' question.

 

[vanesch]

Should we go after problems like Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Ivory Coast, the Sudan, etc.? You're damn right we should!

I'd say that you only should do so when you have a solution to bring ; when there's a problem and your intervention can solve it. In Iraq, quite foreseeable, the opposite happened: the intervention created a problem. A big one, that no-one knows how to solve. The problem that was there was rather small: a local dictator who lost his military muscle, and didn't have much to do with another annoying problem originating in the region: some islam radical terrorism. Yes, he had been a bad boy, yes he was a dictator etc... but he was only a problem to his own population and even they managed.
Your "solution" brought in the biggest terrorist propaganda campaign ever started in the ME, a country on the border of civil war, and such a hatred for everything western that you'll have a theocratic domino effect.
I'd say, only intervene when you know what you're doing. Clearly, over there, you guys didn't know what you were doing.

 

[Smurf]

Should we go after problems like Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Ivory Coast, the Sudan, etc.? You're damn right we should!

Uhhh. no, you should mind your own ****ing business for once.
Maybe (and only MAYBE) you should go in when asked by both sides of a conflict to help with peace-keeping. and even then it should only be under an impartial flag like the UN.

 

[faust9]

Uhhh. no, you should mind your own ****ing business for once.
Maybe (and only MAYBE) you should go in when asked by both sides of a conflict to help with peace-keeping. and even then it should only be under an impartial flag like the UN.

Someone posted w/out think things through. Ok, we have a genocide going on in Durka-Durka-Stan. The Durka-Stanies are native but in the minority to the Humpty-Dumpties. The Humpty-Dumpties decide to eliminate the Durkas. The Durkas ask for help. The Humpties don't. So, by your reasoning we should just step back and let a genocide occur because the Humpties don't want help(they are killing Durkas just fine w/out outside assistance).

Are you pro-genocide Smurf?

 

[vanesch]

Are you pro-genocide Smurf?

Well, it surely is ecological

 

[Informal Logic]

I find the "police of the world" premise to be of concern. There are other options to world problems, such as N. Korea and involvement of neighboring countries (China, Japan, etc.), or UN peacekeeping missions, etc. Why is it even the question whether the US should intervene or not, as if these two options are all that there is? Bush may not be delusional, but the neocons around him are, and other people who have fallen for this thinking.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why is it even the question whether the US should intervene or not, as if these two options are all that there is?

Well, they kinda are the only two options: any particular thing that could happen would fall into one of these two categories, né?

 

[Informal Logic]

Well, they kinda are the only two options: any particular thing that could happen would fall into one of these two categories, né?

Suppose there were no other options (though of course there are), why is the US responsible for all the ills of the world? Why not expect other countries such as China and Japan to share in responsibilities? This was the direction of our foreign policy until Bush started listening to the likes of Wolfowitz, and the neocon dream of taking over the world.

 

[Hurkyl]

Intervening is orthogonal to responsibility. Whatever happens in, say North Korea, it could either be said that U.S. intervened or the U.S. did not intervene. This is independent of the question of whether the U.S. is responsible for what happens in North Korea. But now it's clear that you were referring to responsibility in your previous post, thanks.

 

[russ_watters]

Uhhh. no, you should mind your own ****ing business for once.

I'm sorry, I'm a compassionate conservative I can't watch a million people get hacked to death by machettes(Rwanda) without wanting to stop it. More than that, I have a moral obligation to stop it if I can. In fact we all have a legal obligation to do so: it is written into the UN Charter (the Genocide Convention) that the word "genocide" compells the UN to act.

For Rwanda, everyone in the west refused to use the word on the floor of the UN. But genocide is what it was. For the Sudan, Colin Powell did use the word and the UN refused to follow its own laws and did nothing.

Maybe (and only MAYBE) you should go in when asked by both sides of a conflict to help with peace-keeping. and even then it should only be under an impartial flag like the UN.

Smurf, Rwanda was a UN brokered peace agreement and there were UN-flagged peacekeepers on the ground when the fighting started. The UN pulled them out!

Sickening, Smurf.

edit: Here is what the UN has to say about Genocide:

Article I: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. [Gencide Convention]

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm

The UN also failed in its responsibilities regarding Yugoslavia. The nations of the west went outside the UN to stop the genocide there after the UN refused to act.

 

[Brad_1234]

I would like to see proof of this.. Maybe your views are so intune with Hitler’s that it would be Self-defamatory for you to admit that this statement is grrroooossssslllyyyy wrong..
I hope you take that as an insult, becuase at least that would show that you have some integrity

According to most Human Rights watch dogs Saddam killed less people in his reign of terror than has been killed since the start of the Iraq War...


Hitler Ordered the Holocaust. Or will you deny this happened?

QUOTE]

Do you want proof, or do you want to criticize the proof itself? I realize that many folks don't have time to search for details. But I point out the left leaning networks don't discuss the crimes Saddam committed. Perhaps if his trial begins? Those crimes will be made public and perhaps then you may have a different pov.

Deny Hitler ordered the holocaust? I not only DONT deny it, I used it for comparison sake. Saddam is rumored to have murdered more than Hitler, the trials should give numbers for the history books.

Its interesting if you were compassionate for people killed in the "Iraq invasion" Yes, war is terrible, but do you prefer to capitulate with terrorists? Live under oppression and say being a slave is good enough? Well not everyone would agree. I recall in US history, the flag that was considered for national use has the quote "live free or die". But in todays age of liberalism, that kind of radical thinking is outlawed from public schools? I'd bet they don't teach that particular flag exists, or that it represented how people wanted freedom.

Do you have similar compassion for Israeli people who have had to suffer homocide bombers? And note since Saddam is out of power how those bombings declined? Because Saddam was linked to those murders, paying cash to families of the bombers with money from illegal oil sales.

You asked if I denied the holocaust against the Jewish people, do you?