|
Post by farmboy on Aug 27, 2004 12:56:57 GMT -5
???I think we have opposing views on the "Who got us into this War?" issue that are both at least somewhat correct. To get this country into a war you have to have far more than one person or group to take the action. However, I believe that one person who had access to the needed political power to gather different interests and concerns and get into the conflict had a personal vendetta to satisfy....and that one person is not GW but rather Daddy Bush . Not finishing the first war with Iraq contributed greatly to his 2nd election failure. Daddy's political power got GW into the job and I'm certain he carries considerable influence on what GW thinks and does. GW even said publicly that one sign of the Evil of Saddam was "He tried to murder my daddy!!" ....and he hangs tight onto Saddam's confiscated pistol in the oval office citing it as "government property"!!
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Aug 27, 2004 13:31:50 GMT -5
Farmboy, Welcome to the fray! A couple of quick points, though: 1. GHWB lost the election over a couple of things. a. Didn't take Clinton seriously until it was too late. b. had to eat his own words with "Read my lips..." c. Let Clinton define the agenda with his "It's the economy stupid" d. Looked at his watch during a debate. e. called Clinton/Gore clowns and was raked through the coals. f. Never answered the priority policy question: Boxers or briefs which lead to a generational gap in his campaign. ;D
2. Bush I made it clear what his objects/goals were for Gulf War I. He wanted Sadam out of Kuwait and for Saudi Arabia to not be threated with Scud missle attacks. If he changed his goals/objectives midway, people would have rightfully accused him of misleading us to get into a conflict. Sort of what they are trying to do now only there really wasn't anything misleading about our objectives. Bush II wanted Sadam out of power and he succeded.
and he hangs tight onto Saddam's confiscated pistol in the oval office citing it as "government property"!!
I'm really not sure what this means. Are you saying that the "actual" gun that Sadam owned is sitting in the Oval Office on display so Bush can show it off? If true, that has got to be the lamest thing I've ever heard. I would tend to doubt that it is true, however. A couple more quick points here. Lots of people think Bush is an idiot because he doesn't speak well in front of a camera. I've never met the man so I can't speak to that. But I will say that he went to Yale. I'll even give you that his father got him in. (as an aside, how many firemen, policeman, politicians {read Kennedy's} do you know that only got their jobs because their father, uncle, brother helped them get it?) But he did apply, got into and graduated from Harvard Business School. Not only would his father not be able to secure that spot, the grad school would still have to jusify not letting someone else, with possibly more merit, in. It's possible that his dad made some of it happen, but there's just no way he could have graduated except on his own. Not only that, but he did learn to fly a fighter jet. I don't know much about flying or planes, but I do know that they will not let an "average" Joe train and fly a fighter jet. It takes intelligence...plain and simple. If you don't believe that then go down to your local National Guard office and ask them if you can fly one of their planes (/sarcasm). I also think that a lot of people thought Clinton was this brilliant guy and I think it has more to do with his public speaking than what he actually said. If you READ his speeches, not only are most of them boring but they really don't tell you what he believes. I'd rather have a guy who says what he says (a guy like Alan Keyes or James Traficante) and believes it than a guy that says whatever fits the bill for where he is and doesn't mean it (Clinton and Kerry). But that's just me I guess. ;D
Bill L
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Aug 27, 2004 15:25:07 GMT -5
Hoy Hoy Just a quick note. There was a law suit concerning Kent State, William Kuntzler, the guy from Harvard in the O.J. case ( I can't for the life of me remember his name right now), several other big name att. and my lawyer the late great lawyer Reese Davis sued James Rhodes for wrongful death. Unfortunatley due to expense (Rhodes legal fees were picked up by the state of Ohio, he was governor) the case was settled out of court.
As far as the Carlyle group, Haliburton, Bush various oil exploration cos. pushing the war in Iraq. As you say there is no proof that the Saudis caused the war but it is public record that the Saudis invested over 1 billion dollars to bail out companies with Bush ties. Even without proof this kind of investment surely raises speculation of a quid pro quo being understood by the principles. Also, the various tactics the Bush's have used (deleting any mention of the Saudi's involvement in the 9/11 report under the guise of national security for example) also raise serious questions.
Note to BillL: Glad to see you can't spel either I don't feel so stupid. Maybe we can all get together next May 4 in Kent, Ohio for that drink and gab fest. Think we can get the Feat to play.
Peace j ashley
|
|
|
Post by farmboy on Aug 27, 2004 15:49:20 GMT -5
;DOK BillL....take a look at the May 30th, 2004 USAToday which reported that the actual pistol that was in Saddam Hussein's possession when he was caught hiding in the spider hole was presented to GW in the White House and is now kept by him in a small study adjacent to the Oval Office!!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 27, 2004 19:48:05 GMT -5
Heya Bill, I said "groupS". You said "group". No, my dislike of Bush and the consequences of his so called "leadership" does not make me a candidate for anger management...yet. Be it the Santa conspiracy, or of global proportions a lie is "to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive". Granted my believeing in Santa at 4, is a far cry from Bush jeopordizing the security and future of the nation. And...Buffalo Bush does have Hussain's pistol in his office as a trophy. A $200 billion trophy. Peace.
|
|
|
Post by Tipi on Aug 28, 2004 8:40:48 GMT -5
Wait a minute! What happened to Santa!?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Aug 28, 2004 9:22:47 GMT -5
This response is to a couple of things Bill said a few messages up in the thread (we'll dismiss Santa ... sorry Tipi ... and the pistol issue, which seems to have been settled)
The REAL reason for the first Gulf War is buried kind of deeply (pun intended) in the confusion (purposely?) spread over changing loyalties and alliances. Halliburton owns the patent on lateral drilling .... you know, put an oil island out in the Pacific and everyone thinks you are drilling vertically when in fact you are drilling horizontally and sucking the oil out from under the city of Long Beach (hence, the city is subsiding, and THUMS has to pay a sizeable sum of money to pump water back into the cavity to help keep the city afloat). It's the public perception that most matters (much like a Swift Boat Veteran's statements doesn't matter if it turns out eventually to be a lie, what matters is the first perception). So ... Halliburton (and Halliburton subsidiaries) built many oil islands out in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Kuwait. Yes, they were sucking oil out from under Kuwaiti soil ... but they also were sucking Iraqi oil, too. Saddam Hussein made repeated (and escalated) requests to have the practice stopped. It wasn't. He invaded.
Now, he was smart enough (Don Corleone smart) to know not to bite the hand that fed him, so his "enemy" wasn't the U.S. So, Bush I had a little more on his plate than just getting Saddam out of Kuwait. And you must remember that Bush I was a Director of the CIA, and knew EXACTLY what deals and goodies we had delivered to Saddam, what promises we had made (and possibly broken), and how many troops we had trained and armed (to fight the Iranians and ... perceived at the time ... the Russkies).
Bush II has more on his plate than just getting Saddam out of Iraq. We are speaking of an articulated plan for strategic control of the Middle East in anticipation of the ultimate showdown with China (and possibly India) ... members of this Administration have published their plan, it is not "secret" (except in its implementation) and it involves an America that wages pre-emptive strikes because they are in our interest to do so. Never mind ideology or even idealism ... this is cold, ruthless analysis (that may or may not be correct) and we are moving down a path to selective domination of areas of the world that we define as important to our security.
In the old days, this was called agression (or imperialism).
Finally, Bush's idiocy has nothing to do with his bad camera presence. I really can't believe that you don't think powerful daddy's can not only get their kid INTO a prestigious university (or a cushy National Guard position), but can KEEP them in the university. This ... George II ... is a man who is proud to inform us that he was a "C" student (and then create a national "reform" program that hits C student kids over the head with a stick) who happens to have a C from Yale. I suspect his attendance at Yale was very similar to his attendance in the Air National Guard. He was given a baseball team to destroy. He was given an oil company to destroy. In all cases, he was bailed out by friends of his daddy.
And who surrounds him now?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 28, 2004 11:23:15 GMT -5
Wait a minute! What happened to Santa!? He's OK! He's just layin low up north waiting to see what happens in November. Cheech & Chong explained it once in a story, but I can't remember it all. We'll keep you updated on his whereabouts. Don't worry.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 28, 2004 11:38:01 GMT -5
and he hangs tight onto Saddam's confiscated pistol in the oval office citing it as "government property"!! I'm really not sure what this means. Are you saying that the "actual" gun that Sadam owned is sitting in the Oval Office on display so Bush can show it off? If true, that has got to be the lamest thing I've ever heard. Lame as it is, a small token of his lameness. Scott H, An excellent piece. I did not know that Halliburton owned the patent on horizontal drilling! Hmmm, that has some answers within it, even here in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Aug 28, 2004 16:54:49 GMT -5
BillL In reply to your comment that your sure there was no intention to hurt anyone at Kent State. If you look at the circumstances surrounding the National Gaurd involvement there are only two conclusions possible. Either our politcal leaders made so many mistakes in thier choices that they should be in a remedial reading class or thier intention was that someone was going to get hurt (I believe the later). I can show you a statue on the KSU campus that has about a dozen bullet holes, the statue is only about 3 foot wide, so the field of fire on the campus that day must have been holy hell.
You can't believe that the war in Iraq is started for the material advancement of a small group? What do you think most wars are fought for? War is almost always for one group to take the money, assets, or power (these are usually the same) from one country or group to another. It is also not unusual to cloak these motives in altruistic clothes.
"Oh her toes were so pretty And her lies so sweet" Thank You LG
Peace j ashley
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Aug 28, 2004 16:58:53 GMT -5
Tipi
Don't worry Santa is o.k. He just came to my house, got drunk, and I haven't been able to get rid of him since. He'll be O.K. when he sobers up but Mrs. Clause is getting pissed.
Peace jashley
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Aug 29, 2004 10:01:47 GMT -5
One thing that is missing from this campaign -- with the exception of barbs thrown by the usual late-night talk-show hosts -- is a sense of humor. Well, I have a remedy. Even if you love the encumbant President, you gotta love what ACT (America Coming Together) and Will Ferrell offer in a behind-the-scenes look at "White House West". It may be the best commercial you'll see this election. Check it out at whitehousewest.com
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 29, 2004 10:11:33 GMT -5
Tipi Don't worry Santa is o.k. He just came to my house, got drunk, and I haven't been able to get rid of him since. He'll be O.K. when he sobers up but Mrs. Clause is getting pissed. Peace jashley Jashley, Are you sure this guy isn't "Otis" from Mayberry, dressed as Santa? I've seen that happen before.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Sept 4, 2004 9:22:50 GMT -5
Did anyone check out the Will Farrell parody of George "Down Home" Bush? Pretty good stuff, if you ask me ...
So ... I now have to admit that even though I am going to vote for Kerry, it is only by holding my nose and ignoring the fact that a whole lot of what he stands for remains fairly repugnant to me (and pretending that maybe he will do something about it). For one, I am not so sure I am happy with his position on the war in Iraq. He doesn't want to end it ... in fact, he seems to be ratcheting up his stance on "terror" in general, seeing if he can out-tough Bush on issues related to "security" and the "war on terror". He makes no proposals for working to end inequity in the world, unequal distribution of wealth or resources amongst the people of the world, or even of promoting self-determination and/or democracy in all those places whose undemocratic practices provide US with the resources we "need".
He doesn't seem to express too much opposition to the movement to standardize our kids (and the teaching profession) through the rigidly imposed one-size-fits-all approach to assessing school performance entitled No Child Left Untested (but lots being "left behind"), and seems to feel the only problems with it are a lack of funding. I am not sure that reinstating tax rates on the top 2% of the population is going to have much affect on the centralization of power in fewer and fewer hands ... have you noticed, by way of example (in case this is necessary) • that your Chevron (and probably Texaco) bill now comes as a "ChevronTexaco" bill (or that Unocal -- Union Oil, for those unfamilar with its name change -- also is Shell; or Mobil is BP), or • that what used to be PacBell is now SBC (Southern Bell) ... meaning that the 12 "baby bells" created when AT&T got broken up for violating antitrust laws have now been reduced to just 5, who supposedly are competing against that other "independent" corporate giant -- AT&T • or even that Enron (which has changed its name, too, though I have forgotten it) continues to operate and no one has yet to come to trial despite the fact that it deliberately manipulated California law to its advantage -- or that it colluded (yet to be proven, of course) with other energy providers to essentially bankrupt the state, which in turn led to the demise of Gray Davis and the rise of the Governator who ... perhaps not coincidentally ... turns out to have a rather cozy financial relationship with (get this) Chevron • etc.
I doubt very much if a liberal aristocrat from New England really cares too much about reigning in the power-brokers who are offsourcing on the one hand, fighting to hold back minimum wage on the other, and attempting to mold public education into a farm-system of their own device (even if there really are NO jobs for college graduates) ... why don't CEO's who outsource positions move to Sri Lanka or Thailand or Hong Kong themselves? ... why are "foreign-licensed" companies that do business in the U.S. (and have corporate buildings or even headquarters in the U.S.) exempt from paying taxes?
... Incidentally (and I digress) ... I just listened to a KPIG "commercial" for a company that promises to help you outsource yourself so you can get a job ...
Anyway ... the liberal/conservative dance we seem to currently be engaged in is a nice distraction from increasing concentration of power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. I will vote for the liberal because he describes a world that is a little closer to the world I envision is best to live in ... but poverty will remain even if he gets elected, and nothing will really be done to empower people to take control of their own lives and to end the cycle of poverty in this country ... or to deal directly with one of the root causes for the declining quality of life (for most of us) -- overpopulation.
Just my vent on a Saturday afternoon
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Sept 4, 2004 9:39:38 GMT -5
Oh ... this is a ps to the above listed vent (because I forgot to put it in its proper place).
I cannot ever ever vote for George Bush, a man so rooted in the existing power structure that even when he has rare moments of honesty (note the near tears he shed during his acceptance speech when he spoke of talking to wounded soldiers or to the families of people who have died in this "war on terror" which ... to his credit ... I believe was a sincere expression of his emotion) you know that he is doing so in a way calculated to gain something. It is the soul of an alcoholic standing there in front of us ... and, while there is nothing inherently "wrong" with alcoholism or alcoholics (we have had several president's thusly afflicted, and a large number of our fellow Americans have some sort of addictive disorder -- perhaps even this strong urge to "stay connected" via the internet is MY expression of the same need), I find it hard to stomach anyone who substitutes one craving for another and is adamant that their vision is the ONLY one. And those are just the "personal" reasons I mistrust Mr. Bush, things that sidetrack me from the initial statement I made about being embedded in the system. You must rememeber that his daddy was Director of the CIA before becoming Vice President, and then President, and one does not direct the CIA because you are an "open", "objective", "independent" thinker. There's lots that members of the Bush family know about Middle East policy (for one) that can never be said out loud (just as there is LOTS that can be said about Manuel Norriega and Panama that never HAS been said ... remember that guy? ... the one that has so conveniently just "disappeared" from public view ir accountability? -- or, for that matter, Agosto Pinochet)
But I wander (again). The other problem I have with Bush's approach is that he recognizes all the problems I noted in the previous post, but does not see them as problems. HIS idea (or, perhaps more accurately, the ideas of the people who surround him) is to make the rich and powerful even more rich and powerful, because they obviously know what they are doing. From their successes, more limited successes will trickle down to the less well-advantaged -- if they are equipped well-enough to take advantage of the scraps that fall off the table. Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism is back, in a BIG way, but no one talks about it. This at the same time that the right-wing christian mono-thinkers move to take scientific darwinism OFF the table, or that the President (oops ... those that surround him) pervert the scientific process itself in order to "prove" that their social agenda is the correct one.
Scary times. Still scary if Kerry gets elected, but at least a little more sane and honest.
|
|