Discussion:
''Fahrenheit 9/11' To Be Released In June
(too old to reply)
Rick in Oz
2004-06-02 14:53:40 UTC
Permalink
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1488074/06022004/story.jhtml

Michael Moore's Embattled 'Fahrenheit 9/11' To Be Released In June

Anti-Bush flick to be released in theatres by Lions Gate Entertainment
Corp., IFC Films.

On June 25, U.S. audiences will finally get a chance to see the film that
set the Cannes Film Festival abuzz and Disney's boardroom ablaze when
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is released nationwide.

Miramax Films' Bob and Harvey Weinstein said on Tuesday that the
controversial film will be released in theatres by Lions Gate Entertainment
Corp. and IFC Films. Cable television network Showtime will handle rights
for pay TV. (MTV's parent company, Viacom, also owns Showtime.) The deal was
finalized last week when the Weinsteins bought the rights to the film from
the Walt Disney Co. for around $6 million, according to Reuters.

In early May, Disney refused to allow Miramax to release the film in
theatres, claiming that Disney was not in a position to take sides in a
political debate (see "Michael Moore's Anti-Bush 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Rescued
By Miramax Heads"). IFC Films President Jonathan Sehring explained to
Reuters IFC's decision to back the film, noting that "this film will cause
debate, but that is also what this country is founded on."

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which examines the United States' reaction to the
September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, links the Bush
family to the bin Laden family and other Saudi groups. The film won the Palm
d'Or - the top prize - at this year's Cannes Film Festival.

That the documentary will hit theatres just over five months before the 2004
presidential election is no coincidence. In May, Moore told Reuters that he
hoped his film would influence the outcome of the election. "Everybody knows
who I am and where I stand," he said. "Oh no, I'm not trying to pretend I'm
being evenhanded with Bush."

Sehring said "Fahrenheit 9/11" was originally going to be released on July 2
to 500 theaters, but that the company decided to push the date ahead. The
number of theaters that will screen the film on June 25 has yet to be
determined.
by Alyssa Rashbaum

From Sunny Oz, Rick :)
Proud Keeper of the talented & beautiful Halle Berry.
syvyn11
2004-06-02 17:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Now america can see what a lying sack of shit Michael Moore is.
Post by Rick in Oz
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1488074/06022004/story.jhtml
Michael Moore's Embattled 'Fahrenheit 9/11' To Be Released In June
Anti-Bush flick to be released in theatres by Lions Gate Entertainment
Corp., IFC Films.
On June 25, U.S. audiences will finally get a chance to see the film that
set the Cannes Film Festival abuzz and Disney's boardroom ablaze when
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is released nationwide.
Miramax Films' Bob and Harvey Weinstein said on Tuesday that the
controversial film will be released in theatres by Lions Gate
Entertainment
Post by Rick in Oz
Corp. and IFC Films. Cable television network Showtime will handle rights
for pay TV. (MTV's parent company, Viacom, also owns Showtime.) The deal was
finalized last week when the Weinsteins bought the rights to the film from
the Walt Disney Co. for around $6 million, according to Reuters.
In early May, Disney refused to allow Miramax to release the film in
theatres, claiming that Disney was not in a position to take sides in a
political debate (see "Michael Moore's Anti-Bush 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Rescued
By Miramax Heads"). IFC Films President Jonathan Sehring explained to
Reuters IFC's decision to back the film, noting that "this film will cause
debate, but that is also what this country is founded on."
"Fahrenheit 9/11," which examines the United States' reaction to the
September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, links the Bush
family to the bin Laden family and other Saudi groups. The film won the Palm
d'Or - the top prize - at this year's Cannes Film Festival.
That the documentary will hit theatres just over five months before the 2004
presidential election is no coincidence. In May, Moore told Reuters that he
hoped his film would influence the outcome of the election. "Everybody knows
who I am and where I stand," he said. "Oh no, I'm not trying to pretend I'm
being evenhanded with Bush."
Sehring said "Fahrenheit 9/11" was originally going to be released on July 2
to 500 theaters, but that the company decided to push the date ahead. The
number of theaters that will screen the film on June 25 has yet to be
determined.
by Alyssa Rashbaum
From Sunny Oz, Rick :)
Proud Keeper of the talented & beautiful Halle Berry.
T***@h9ottmail.com
2004-06-02 17:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by syvyn11
Now america can see what a lying sack of shit Michael Moore is.
Such as?
Please post your list of lies. Thank you.
I suspect the lying sack of shit is YOU!
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1488074/06022004/story.jhtml
Michael Moore's Embattled 'Fahrenheit 9/11' To Be Released In June
Anti-Bush flick to be released in theatres by Lions Gate Entertainment
Corp., IFC Films.
On June 25, U.S. audiences will finally get a chance to see the film that
set the Cannes Film Festival abuzz and Disney's boardroom ablaze when
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is released nationwide.
Miramax Films' Bob and Harvey Weinstein said on Tuesday that the
controversial film will be released in theatres by Lions Gate
Entertainment
Post by Rick in Oz
Corp. and IFC Films. Cable television network Showtime will handle rights
for pay TV. (MTV's parent company, Viacom, also owns Showtime.) The deal
was
Post by Rick in Oz
finalized last week when the Weinsteins bought the rights to the film from
the Walt Disney Co. for around $6 million, according to Reuters.
In early May, Disney refused to allow Miramax to release the film in
theatres, claiming that Disney was not in a position to take sides in a
political debate (see "Michael Moore's Anti-Bush 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Rescued
By Miramax Heads"). IFC Films President Jonathan Sehring explained to
Reuters IFC's decision to back the film, noting that "this film will cause
debate, but that is also what this country is founded on."
"Fahrenheit 9/11," which examines the United States' reaction to the
September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, links the
Bush
Post by Rick in Oz
family to the bin Laden family and other Saudi groups. The film won the
Palm
Post by Rick in Oz
d'Or - the top prize - at this year's Cannes Film Festival.
That the documentary will hit theatres just over five months before the
2004
Post by Rick in Oz
presidential election is no coincidence. In May, Moore told Reuters that
he
Post by Rick in Oz
hoped his film would influence the outcome of the election. "Everybody
knows
Post by Rick in Oz
who I am and where I stand," he said. "Oh no, I'm not trying to pretend
I'm
Post by Rick in Oz
being evenhanded with Bush."
Sehring said "Fahrenheit 9/11" was originally going to be released on July
2
Post by Rick in Oz
to 500 theaters, but that the company decided to push the date ahead. The
number of theaters that will screen the film on June 25 has yet to be
determined.
by Alyssa Rashbaum
From Sunny Oz, Rick :)
Proud Keeper of the talented & beautiful Halle Berry.
Botch
2004-06-02 19:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@h9ottmail.com
Post by syvyn11
Now america can see what a lying sack of shit Michael Moore is.
Such as?
Please post your list of lies. Thank you.
I suspect the lying sack of shit is YOU!
In one of his books he fabricated a conversation about speaking with Fred
Barnes...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.a
sp

How about one big sight with all his BS
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

The man is a propagandist not a documentary filmaker, he warps facts,
events, timelines and interviews to spew his crap and when that fails he
just makes stuff up.
used to be shell824
2004-06-02 22:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
The man is a propagandist
So was Leni Riefenstahl .........

_Shell


anonymous posters are cowards
Hans Petter Laberg
2004-06-03 09:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
In one of his books he fabricated a conversation about speaking with Fred
Barnes...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.a
sp
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=19
Post by Botch
How about one big sight with all his BS
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

HPL
Botch
2004-06-03 12:35:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Petter Laberg
Post by Botch
In one of his books he fabricated a conversation about speaking with Fred
Barnes...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.a
Post by Hans Petter Laberg
Post by Botch
sp
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=19
Post by Botch
How about one big sight with all his BS
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
Pure vintage Moore, won't admit that manipulating the timing of events,
using snippets of interviews arranged within the film to reflect his own
version of events and opinions isn't dishonest. He also fails to even
address the other charges of lies in his film and when all else fails,
anyone who criticizes him is a wacko.
Moore's films are tools to further his own political views to call them
documentaries is the biggest lie of all.

Botch
Francine Fishpot
2004-06-03 17:06:36 UTC
Permalink
How you feel about Michael Moore seems to be tied to your politics.
If you think Bush is a worthless warmongering right wing nutjob, Moore
makes sense. He doesn't so much change minds as inspire indignation
and hopefully action in those with doubts about the current
administration's true agenda.
Post by Botch
The man is a propagandist not a documentary filmaker, he warps facts,
events, timelines and interviews to spew his crap and when that fails he
just makes stuff up.
Eh whatever. He's an entertainer with an agenda. If you don't like
his agenda, don't go see his movies. I turn off the radio when I hear
Rush Limbaugh.
ANIM8Rfsk
2004-06-03 18:08:53 UTC
Permalink
<< From: ***@yahoo.com (Francine Fishpot) >>


<< How you feel about Michael Moore seems to be tied to your politics.
If you think Bush is a worthless warmongering right wing nutjob, Moore
makes sense. >>

So you don't care that Moore's a proven fraud and liar, as long as you like the
sound of his lies? Sounds like that's tied more to your intelligence than your
politics.
Botch
2004-06-03 16:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Regardless of his politics, or of those watching his films he should be held
to the same standards as any other documentarian regardless of whether the
subject is baseball, guns or Bush, and called on it when he manipulates the
facts to make a point.
If inspiring indignation is the purpose then you've proven my point and he
should give back the oscar he won.
Post by Francine Fishpot
How you feel about Michael Moore seems to be tied to your politics.
If you think Bush is a worthless warmongering right wing nutjob, Moore
makes sense. He doesn't so much change minds as inspire indignation
and hopefully action in those with doubts about the current
administration's true agenda.
Wilbur
2004-06-03 22:55:19 UTC
Permalink
About Michael Moore -

I'm not sure I can think of a documentary maker worth his or her salt
who DOESN'T have an opinion about their subject - not just Moore, but
Ken Burns, Erroll Garner, whoever made "Harlan County U.S.A."... seems
to me that if you make a documentary you pretty much GET an opinion
whether you had one at the start or not. If you don't you aren't
paying attention to your subject.

And yes, Moore is an entertainer (doesn't anyone here remember "T.V.
Nation"??) and if he manipulates facts... um.. fighting fire with
fire, don't you think?

Oh, and GW is not only a lying, stupid, manipulator of facts... it
sounds to me like he's drinking again. Listen to his last few public
snippets- he can barely get even his twisted sentences out... and he
recently mispronounced "Baghdad" - you'd have thought he'd had enough
practice with that one.

Hey, just an observation. Free country and all.

-Wilbur
Botch
2004-06-03 21:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wilbur
About Michael Moore -
I'm not sure I can think of a documentary maker worth his or her salt
who DOESN'T have an opinion about their subject - not just Moore, but
Ken Burns, Erroll Garner, whoever made "Harlan County U.S.A."... seems
to me that if you make a documentary you pretty much GET an opinion
whether you had one at the start or not. If you don't you aren't
paying attention to your subject.
Purposely changing the timeline, events and facts to support your opinion or
view is the difference between someone like Burns and Moore.
Post by Wilbur
And yes, Moore is an entertainer (doesn't anyone here remember "T.V.
Nation"??) and if he manipulates facts... um.. fighting fire with
fire, don't you think?
I detest Moore, but I agree he can be clever and entertaining that's why
he's able to attract an audience.
As for fighting fire with fire....buying into your premise, then what makes
Moore any better than the person or things he's smearing?

Botch
Sara
2004-06-04 01:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Wilbur
About Michael Moore -
I'm not sure I can think of a documentary maker worth his or her salt
who DOESN'T have an opinion about their subject - not just Moore, but
Ken Burns, Erroll Garner, whoever made "Harlan County U.S.A."... seems
to me that if you make a documentary you pretty much GET an opinion
whether you had one at the start or not. If you don't you aren't
paying attention to your subject.
Purposely changing the timeline, events and facts to support your opinion or
view is the difference between someone like Burns and Moore.
What specific facts did he alter? And if he did, the worst you can say
is that he made a film based on distorted facts or perceptions. Our
president invaded a country, started a war and caused widespread death
and destruction based on distorted and "fictional" facts. Whose moral
infraction is worse and has had the greater impact on the world?
Post by Botch
Post by Wilbur
And yes, Moore is an entertainer (doesn't anyone here remember "T.V.
Nation"??) and if he manipulates facts... um.. fighting fire with
fire, don't you think?
I detest Moore, but I agree he can be clever and entertaining that's why
he's able to attract an audience.
As for fighting fire with fire....buying into your premise, then what makes
Moore any better than the person or things he's smearing?
Not better, but at least equal to. One would think the president might
be held to a higher standard, what with all that power and all.
Post by Botch
Botch
ANIM8Rfsk
2004-06-04 01:46:56 UTC
Permalink
<< From: Sara ***@rr.com >>


<< What specific facts did he alter? And if he did, the worst you can say
is that he made a film based on distorted facts or perceptions. >>

No, you can say he presents flat out lies. And if you don't reallize that, you
just haven't been paying attention.
Botch
2004-06-04 04:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
Post by Wilbur
About Michael Moore -
Purposely changing the timeline, events and facts to support your opinion or
view is the difference between someone like Burns and Moore.
What specific facts did he alter?
There are several sights around listing the things he's lied about,
distorted or screwed with. To pick one, in Bowling for Columbine he showed a
"Willie Horton commercial , attributing it to Bush/Quayle. The only problem
is, the actual Bush/Quayle ad never mentioned Willie Horton, Moore cut and
pasted text from a commerical by someone else into the Bush/Quayle ad.
However the most recent thing he did, ( not including his most recent film
which few have had a chance to see ) is fabricating a conversation with
commentator Fred Barnes and putting it in his book as an actual event.



And if he did, the worst you can say
Post by Sara
is that he made a film based on distorted facts or perceptions.
It makes a difference when he's claiming to be a documentarian and
presenting facts and not just a film purely for entertainment.


Our
Post by Sara
president invaded a country, started a war and caused widespread death
and destruction based on distorted and "fictional" facts. Whose moral
infraction is worse and has had the greater impact on the world?
Well I thought we were discussing Moore, but I would just suggest you look
up what the people in power were saying about Iraq and Sadam around 1998.
Here's a hint, Bush wasn't the first one calling for regime change in Iraq
and claiming they had stockpiles of WMDs.
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
I detest Moore, but I agree he can be clever and entertaining that's why
he's able to attract an audience.
As for fighting fire with fire....buying into your premise, then what makes
Moore any better than the person or things he's smearing?
Not better, but at least equal to. One would think the president might
be held to a higher standard, what with all that power and all.
So one lier should be more believable than another? If you don't like
someone's politics or them personally anything you do or say about them is
justified?

Botch
Magda
2004-06-04 11:20:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:47:35 -0500, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "Botch"
<***@boardermail.com> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :


... Well I thought we were discussing Moore, but I would just suggest you look
... up what the people in power were saying about Iraq and Sadam around 1998.
... Here's a hint, Bush wasn't the first one calling for regime change in Iraq
... and claiming they had stockpiles of WMDs.

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right ?
Botch
2004-06-04 12:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magda
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:47:35 -0500, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "Botch"
... Well I thought we were discussing Moore, but I would just suggest you look
... up what the people in power were saying about Iraq and Sadam around 1998.
... Here's a hint, Bush wasn't the first one calling for regime change in Iraq
... and claiming they had stockpiles of WMDs.
Are you saying that two wrongs make a right ?
Not at all, but to single Bush out as a lier and warmonger for making the
same assertions that the those before him made when provided with the same
info hardly makes sense.

Botch
Magda
2004-06-04 17:48:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:39:10 -0500, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "Botch"
<***@boardermail.com> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :


... Not at all, but to single Bush out as a lier and warmonger for making the
... same assertions that the those before him made when provided with the same
... info hardly makes sense.

What is it, a lie contest ? The bigger liar invades Iraq and never leaves it ?
Botch
2004-06-04 15:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magda
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:39:10 -0500, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "Botch"
... Not at all, but to single Bush out as a lier and warmonger for making the
... same assertions that the those before him made when provided with the same
... info hardly makes sense.
What is it, a lie contest ? The bigger liar invades Iraq and never leaves it ?
First I haven't said Bush lied. Bush's statements about WMD's etc...were the
same things being said by Clinton, Gore, the UN, France, Germany and Russia.
Arguing that the facts didn't justify the war is one arguement, calling Bush
a lier when he was coming to the exact same conclusions as everyone else is
pure partisan BS.
Are you saying EVERYBODY lied?

Botch
Magda
2004-06-04 21:07:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:34:08 -0500, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "Botch"
<***@boardermail.com> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :


... First I haven't said Bush lied.

Saint George would never lie, would he ? :-pppp

Bush's statements about WMD's etc...were the
... same things being said by Clinton, Gore, the UN, France, Germany and Russia.

When did Europe lied about WMDs ??

... Arguing that the facts didn't justify the war is one arguement, calling Bush
... a lier when he was coming to the exact same conclusions as everyone else is
... pure partisan BS.

Calling him an honest man is even bigger BS.

... Are you saying EVERYBODY lied?

How many WMDs have been found to date, please ?
(Need help learning to count up to zero ?)

While we are at it, please note that it's "argUment" and "liAr".
Botch
2004-06-04 19:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magda
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:34:08 -0500, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "Botch"
Bush's statements about WMD's etc...were the
... same things being said by Clinton, Gore, the UN, France, Germany and Russia.
When did Europe lied about WMDs ??
The countries I mentioned were claiming there were WMD's based on the facts
at hand. It's hypocritical to call Bush a liar for coming to the same
conclusion and not them. Their dishonesty came into play when, after
signing multi-billion dollar oil and reconstruction contracts with Sadam,
that were contingent on sanctions being lifted, suddenly changing their
opinion about WMD's and the sanctions.
Post by Magda
... Are you saying EVERYBODY lied?
How many WMDs have been found to date, please ?
(Need help learning to count up to zero ?)
So you're saying Clinton, Gore, the UN, Russia, Germany and France were all
lying about the exsistance of WMDs? They were all claiming Iraq had WMDs
as far back as 98.
Post by Magda
While we are at it, please note that it's "argUment" and "liAr".
Gee thanks for the spelling lesson, I'll remember the spelling everytime I
think "When did Europe lied about WMDs ??" wonderful grammer.

Botch
jfred
2004-06-12 12:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Magda
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 10:34:08 -0500, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "Botch"
Bush's statements about WMD's etc...were the
... same things being said by Clinton, Gore, the UN, France, Germany and Russia.
When did Europe lied about WMDs ??
The countries I mentioned were claiming there were WMD's based on the facts
at hand. It's hypocritical to call Bush a liar for coming to the same
conclusion and not them. Their dishonesty came into play when, after
signing multi-billion dollar oil and reconstruction contracts with Sadam,
that were contingent on sanctions being lifted, suddenly changing their
opinion about WMD's and the sanctions.
Post by Magda
... Are you saying EVERYBODY lied?
How many WMDs have been found to date, please ?
(Need help learning to count up to zero ?)
So you're saying Clinton, Gore, the UN, Russia, Germany and France were all
lying about the exsistance of WMDs? They were all claiming Iraq had WMDs
as far back as 98.
Post by Magda
While we are at it, please note that it's "argUment" and "liAr".
Gee thanks for the spelling lesson, I'll remember the spelling everytime I
think "When did Europe lied about WMDs ??" wonderful grammer.
Uh... that's grammar. ;)
--
jfred~*~*~*~*~*~Habent Abdenda Omnes Praeter Me ac Simiam Meam~*~*~*~*~
~You can sent email to me if you change the 3 zeros to lower case "o"s~
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
How's YOUR linewrap? If using OE, you need http://flash.to/oe-quotefix/
Elaine
2004-06-13 15:16:16 UTC
Permalink
That film should be shown the night before the election on all major channels
without commercial interruption.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
2004-06-13 17:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elaine
That film should be shown the night before the election on all major channels
without commercial interruption.
You think they'd be able to sell a single commercial for that crap?
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

***@XXXXcarolina.rr.com
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
anonymous posters blow
2004-06-14 05:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mortimer Schnerd, RN
You think they'd be able to sell a single commercial for that crap?
Don't tell me; you're a Republican.
Robert Love
2004-06-15 02:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elaine
That film should be shown the night before the election on all major
channels without commercial interruption.
At least the poster called it "film" recognizing that is is NOT a
documentary.
Sali Mali
2004-06-15 11:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Love
Post by Elaine
That film should be shown the night before the election on all major
channels without commercial interruption.
At least the poster called it "film" recognizing that is is NOT a
documentary.
Oh, what's the definition of "documentary" then? A film that
expresses only opinions that Robert Love subscribes to?
MMET572
2004-06-15 13:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Love
Post by Elaine
That film should be shown the night before the election on all major
channels without commercial interruption.
At least the poster called it "film" recognizing that is is NOT a
documentary.
Noun1.documentary - a *film* or TV program presenting the facts about a
person or event


All "documentaries" are "films".

Hope that helps, Bobby.


DFooK

Sara
2004-06-04 21:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Magda
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:39:10 -0500, in alt.gossip.celebrities, "Botch"
... Not at all, but to single Bush out as a lier and warmonger for making
the
Post by Magda
... same assertions that the those before him made when provided with the
same
Post by Magda
... info hardly makes sense.
What is it, a lie contest ? The bigger liar invades Iraq and never leaves
it ?
First I haven't said Bush lied. Bush's statements about WMD's etc...were the
same things being said by Clinton, Gore, the UN, France, Germany and Russia.
Arguing that the facts didn't justify the war is one arguement, calling Bush
a lier when he was coming to the exact same conclusions as everyone else is
pure partisan BS.
Are you saying EVERYBODY lied?
Botch
That is not the only thing he lied about. He and his merry band of
hawks *deliberately and knowingly* mislead the country regarding
responsibility for 9/11 and ties to terrorists for one reason only. To
win over public opinion for an invasion. That is really low. Fact is,
he would have done it without public support, but he didn't want his
precious poll ratings to drop in the course of going after his old
nemesis. What really kills me about all you Bush apologists is the
total refusal to call a spade a spade. The guy wanted to get Saddam to
avenge Poppy. GW has long been known for his penchant to reward
loyalists to the family (some with jobs they were totally ill-equipped
to perform) and his need to punish those going against the family. He
has had a personal need to get Saddam and he's used the whole country
and military to accomplish his goal. Anyone who refuses to see that is
just avoiding seeing what's incredibly obvious. Even his father thought
invading Iraq was a foolish move. GW is the same spoiled brat he's
always been--he's going to get his way no matter what.
Botch
2004-06-04 20:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
First I haven't said Bush lied. Bush's statements about WMD's etc...were the
same things being said by Clinton, Gore, the UN, France, Germany and Russia.
Arguing that the facts didn't justify the war is one arguement, calling Bush
a lier when he was coming to the exact same conclusions as everyone else is
pure partisan BS.
Are you saying EVERYBODY lied?
That is not the only thing he lied about.
Answer the question, when everyone else was claiming there were WMDs were
they lying to?


He and his merry band of
Post by Sara
hawks *deliberately and knowingly* mislead the country regarding
responsibility for 9/11 and ties to terrorists for one reason only. To
win over public opinion for an invasion. That is really low.
What speech did he directly link the 9/11 terrorist attack to Sadam?
If you want to say they linked it to 'terrorism' as a whole I would say
that's accurate. There were terrorist training camps there,Salman Pak for
one. Was the terroists threat enough of a justification for going in?
Taken with everything thing else, I think so.

Fact is,
Post by Sara
he would have done it without public support, but he didn't want his
precious poll ratings to drop in the course of going after his old
nemesis. What really kills me about all you Bush apologists is the
total refusal to call a spade a spade The guy wanted to get Saddam to
avenge Poppy. GW has long been known for his penchant to reward
loyalists to the family (some with jobs they were totally ill-equipped
to perform) and his need to punish those going against the family. He
has had a personal need to get Saddam and he's used the whole country
and military to accomplish his goal. Anyone who refuses to see that is
just avoiding seeing what's incredibly obvious.
I'm no apologist for him or anyone else, what I do see is a blinding hatred
of the man that could only be compared to the people who are rabidly
anti-Clinton, seeing conspiracies right and left. There are so many other
arguments that could be discussed about why Bush should have or shouldn't
have taken us into Iraq instead of ' he did it to avenge his dad'. If you
truly believe that was his motive I would suggest you step back and maybe
take another look.
As for his loyalty, you don't believe in being loyal to your friends?

Botch
Sara
2004-06-07 23:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
First I haven't said Bush lied. Bush's statements about WMD's etc...were
the
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
same things being said by Clinton, Gore, the UN, France, Germany and
Russia.
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
Arguing that the facts didn't justify the war is one arguement, calling
Bush
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
a lier when he was coming to the exact same conclusions as everyone else
is
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
pure partisan BS.
Are you saying EVERYBODY lied?
That is not the only thing he lied about.
Answer the question, when everyone else was claiming there were WMDs were
they lying to?
Yes, if they didn't qualify it with based on intelligence. And starting
a war based on the fallacy is a whole horse of another color.
Post by Botch
He and his merry band of
Post by Sara
hawks *deliberately and knowingly* mislead the country regarding
responsibility for 9/11 and ties to terrorists for one reason only. To
win over public opinion for an invasion. That is really low.
What speech did he directly link the 9/11 terrorist attack to Sadam?
If you want to say they linked it to 'terrorism' as a whole I would say
that's accurate. There were terrorist training camps there,Salman Pak for
one. Was the terroists threat enough of a justification for going in?
Taken with everything thing else, I think so.
Frankly, I don't listen to most of GW's speeches--it's torture. He's
inarticulate, boring and I don't believe half of what he's saying (based
on his facial expressions, I don't think he does either). Reading the
recaps is enough. But even if don't point out one specific speech this
was stated (and frankly, I just don't feel like doing the research right
now, you cannot deny that it was the huge PR rollout that fostered the
lie that two-thirds of the country ended up believing. Just like you
told me to go read web sites to find out the specific lies you claim are
in Moore's film, I'll tell you to go look at sites that itemize Bush's
lies. There never was any proof that Iraq was tied to al Quaeda or
9/11. GW was looking for an excuse to go after Iraq and he jumped on
it. If he wanted to truly go after terrorists or al Quaeda, there were
other countries with far stronger ties to them. The terrorist threat
was not enough justification for going in, or they would have gone into
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Morrocco, as well. This was a personal
vendetta for both GW and the hawks surrounding him. You are ignoring
the psychology of these people and the situation if you don't even allow
for that possibility.
Post by Botch
Fact is,
Post by Sara
he would have done it without public support, but he didn't want his
precious poll ratings to drop in the course of going after his old
nemesis. What really kills me about all you Bush apologists is the
total refusal to call a spade a spade The guy wanted to get Saddam to
avenge Poppy. GW has long been known for his penchant to reward
loyalists to the family (some with jobs they were totally ill-equipped
to perform) and his need to punish those going against the family. He
has had a personal need to get Saddam and he's used the whole country
and military to accomplish his goal. Anyone who refuses to see that is
just avoiding seeing what's incredibly obvious.
I'm no apologist for him or anyone else, what I do see is a blinding hatred
of the man that could only be compared to the people who are rabidly
anti-Clinton, seeing conspiracies right and left.
I'm sure you won't believe me, but I actually do not have a blinding
hatred for GW. I certainly don't like the way he's lived his life, and
do not feel he has the qualifications to be president. He appears to
have no self-motivation; not to do well in school, business or even
life (drunk til he was 40?). His mentality was pretty much that of a
jock, frat boy partier, who occasionally performed for his father and
family (and used their connections to accomplish it). I tend to
respect people who are thoughtful, reflective, articulate,
intellectually curious and enjoys reading books, and I would prefer a
president like that. Doesn't mean I blindly hate him--I just don't find
a lot to respect about him. I also find his penchant for dragging his
own personal religious beliefs into government somewhat annoying.
(e.g., can you imagine if Lieberman had won and talked Judaism all the
time?) Religion is a personal thing--everyone is entitled to believe
what they want and pray or not pray. A national day of prayer is
innapropriate in this country. Preaching about Jesus Christ, his
savior, is also inappropriate.
Post by Botch
There are so many other
arguments that could be discussed about why Bush should have or shouldn't
have taken us into Iraq instead of ' he did it to avenge his dad'.
Yeah, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Post by Botch
If you
truly believe that was his motive I would suggest you step back and maybe
take another look.
As for his loyalty, you don't believe in being loyal to your friends?
Botch
I am a very loyal person and admire loyalty in others. Bush has shown
bad judgment with appointments based more on loyalty, than
qualifications, experience and ability. I don't admire that--it's
leading by emotion rather than objectivity.
Botch
2004-06-07 23:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
Answer the question, when everyone else was claiming there were WMDs were
they lying to?
Yes, if they didn't qualify it with based on intelligence. And starting
a war based on the fallacy is a whole horse of another color.
They couldn't have the info if it wasn't based on intel whether it was
qualified as such as not. As for the second part, there's a difference
between saying a war was started because he out and out lied and he went
into the war because of bad intel.
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
He and his merry band of
Post by Sara
hawks *deliberately and knowingly* mislead the country regarding
responsibility for 9/11 and ties to terrorists for one reason only. To
win over public opinion for an invasion. That is really low.
Frankly, I don't listen to most of GW's speeches--it's torture. He's
inarticulate, boring and I don't believe half of what he's saying (based
on his facial expressions, I don't think he does either).
That kinda says it all doesn't it, you don't like the way he talks or looks
so dismiss him.


Reading the
Post by Sara
recaps is enough. But even if don't point out one specific speech this
was stated (and frankly, I just don't feel like doing the research right
now, you cannot deny that it was the huge PR rollout that fostered the
lie that two-thirds of the country ended up believing. Just like you
told me to go read web sites to find out the specific lies you claim are
in Moore's film, I'll tell you to go look at sites that itemize Bush's
lies. There never was any proof that Iraq was tied to al Quaeda or
9/11. GW was looking for an excuse to go after Iraq and he jumped on
it. If he wanted to truly go after terrorists or al Quaeda, there were
other countries with far stronger ties to them. The terrorist threat
was not enough justification for going in, or they would have gone into
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Morrocco, as well. This was a personal
vendetta for both GW and the hawks surrounding him. You are ignoring
the psychology of these people and the situation if you don't even allow
for that possibility.
You're saying they sold the war to people, I agree, on lies? Don't agree.
Other countries with more connections to Al Quaeda, you bet, does that mean
you would support going to war against those other countries then?
The way Gulf War I ended guaranteed a Gulf War II at some point no matter
who the president was.
I can ignore the the psychology unless you can prove it. That's like the
people who said Clinton was lobbing a few missiles and bombs just to draw
the attention away from his own problems.
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
I'm no apologist for him or anyone else, what I do see is a blinding hatred
of the man that could only be compared to the people who are rabidly
anti-Clinton, seeing conspiracies right and left.
I'm sure you won't believe me, but I actually do not have a blinding
hatred for GW. I certainly don't like the way he's lived his life, and
do not feel he has the qualifications to be president. He appears to
have no self-motivation; not to do well in school, business or even
life (drunk til he was 40?).
Shall we now start listing all the other presidents and politicians who were
drunks, even while in office, never held regular jobs and did horrible in
school?

His mentality was pretty much that of a
Post by Sara
jock, frat boy partier, who occasionally performed for his father and
family (and used their connections to accomplish it). I tend to
respect people who are thoughtful, reflective, articulate,
intellectually curious and enjoys reading books, and I would prefer a
president like that.
Partying frat boy attitude in his past, likely. Got ahead by using family
connections, of course he's the only one who ever did that isn't he? Unless
you personally know him I don't see how you ,in good faith, can make a
judgement on how thoughtful, reflective, intellectually curious, or whether
he's a big book reader, and neither can I? Articulate? His talent at
speaking seems to depend on the forum and whether he's comfortable or not.
How much that bothers people usually depends on if they like him or not.
I like all the qualities you stated, for anyone.


Doesn't mean I blindly hate him--I just don't find
Post by Sara
a lot to respect about him. I also find his penchant for dragging his
own personal religious beliefs into government somewhat annoying.
(e.g., can you imagine if Lieberman had won and talked Judaism all the
time?) Religion is a personal thing--everyone is entitled to believe
what they want and pray or not pray. A national day of prayer is
innapropriate in this country. Preaching about Jesus Christ, his
savior, is also inappropriate.
I don't think anything he's done has been excessive or have seen him preach.
I would have no problem if Lieberman, or anyone of any other faith mentioned
their faith the way Bush has.
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
If you
truly believe that was his motive I would suggest you step back and maybe
take another look.
As for his loyalty, you don't believe in being loyal to your friends?
I am a very loyal person and admire loyalty in others. Bush has shown
bad judgment with appointments based more on loyalty, than
qualifications, experience and ability. I don't admire that--it's
leading by emotion rather than objectivity.
Maybe you're right, what unqualified people has he appointed based on
loyalty?

Botch
Phoenix
2004-06-08 15:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
Answer the question, when everyone else was claiming there were WMDs were
they lying to?
Yes, if they didn't qualify it with based on intelligence. And starting
a war based on the fallacy is a whole horse of another color.
They couldn't have the info if it wasn't based on intel whether it was
qualified as such as not. As for the second part, there's a difference
between saying a war was started because he out and out lied and he went
into the war because of bad intel.
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
He and his merry band of
Post by Sara
hawks *deliberately and knowingly* mislead the country regarding
responsibility for 9/11 and ties to terrorists for one reason only. To
win over public opinion for an invasion. That is really low.
Frankly, I don't listen to most of GW's speeches--it's torture. He's
inarticulate, boring and I don't believe half of what he's saying (based
on his facial expressions, I don't think he does either).
That kinda says it all doesn't it, you don't like the way he talks or looks
so dismiss him.
Good reason enough. The guy can't express a coherent thought. Why are
we supposed to believe he has them? Are we supposed to simply trust the
Republicans?

He looks like a lost little boy behind the podium. That's not a posture
I look for in the leader of my country.
Post by Botch
Reading the
Post by Sara
recaps is enough. But even if don't point out one specific speech this
was stated (and frankly, I just don't feel like doing the research right
now, you cannot deny that it was the huge PR rollout that fostered the
lie that two-thirds of the country ended up believing. Just like you
told me to go read web sites to find out the specific lies you claim are
in Moore's film, I'll tell you to go look at sites that itemize Bush's
lies. There never was any proof that Iraq was tied to al Quaeda or
9/11. GW was looking for an excuse to go after Iraq and he jumped on
it. If he wanted to truly go after terrorists or al Quaeda, there were
other countries with far stronger ties to them. The terrorist threat
was not enough justification for going in, or they would have gone into
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Morrocco, as well. This was a personal
vendetta for both GW and the hawks surrounding him. You are ignoring
the psychology of these people and the situation if you don't even allow
for that possibility.
You're saying they sold the war to people, I agree, on lies? Don't agree.
Other countries with more connections to Al Quaeda, you bet, does that mean
you would support going to war against those other countries then?
It certainly doesn't support invading Iraq, now does it. Chalabi and
the INC told Cheney there were WMDs and a connection with Al Queda. He
got over 100 million of our tax dollars for feeding us this line of
shit.

Why would this adminstration choose to believe a con artist like Chalabi
over all the other information from highly respected sources? Why would
they ignore the warnings by the CIA about the man? Because they wanted
to LIE, that's why.
Post by Botch
The way Gulf War I ended guaranteed a Gulf War II at some point no matter
who the president was.
Bullshit! That's blind justification on your part. Saddam hasn't been
a threat to anyone for almost 15 years.
Post by Botch
I can ignore the the psychology unless you can prove it. That's like the
people who said Clinton was lobbing a few missiles and bombs just to draw
the attention away from his own problems.
What are you trying to say?
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
I'm no apologist for him or anyone else, what I do see is a blinding
hatred
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
of the man that could only be compared to the people who are rabidly
anti-Clinton, seeing conspiracies right and left.
I'm sure you won't believe me, but I actually do not have a blinding
hatred for GW. I certainly don't like the way he's lived his life, and
do not feel he has the qualifications to be president. He appears to
have no self-motivation; not to do well in school, business or even
life (drunk til he was 40?).
Shall we now start listing all the other presidents and politicians who were
drunks, even while in office, never held regular jobs and did horrible in
school?
Sure! And lets discuss their merits! Surely none of them are as
universally incompetant as Georgie. Hell, Grant was a terrible
President, and a horrible drunk, but he could win a battle and knew how
to fight a war.
Post by Botch
His mentality was pretty much that of a
Post by Sara
jock, frat boy partier, who occasionally performed for his father and
family (and used their connections to accomplish it). I tend to
respect people who are thoughtful, reflective, articulate,
intellectually curious and enjoys reading books, and I would prefer a
president like that.
Partying frat boy attitude in his past, likely. Got ahead by using family
connections, of course he's the only one who ever did that isn't he?
And he isn't the first to run every business into the ground that daddy
ever handed to him. Are you saying that the silver spoon background
works in his favor for leading this country? Are you thinking that his
soft National Guard "experience" makes him ready to lead the country
into battle?



Unless
Post by Botch
you personally know him I don't see how you ,in good faith, can make a
judgement on how thoughtful, reflective, intellectually curious, or whether
he's a big book reader, and neither can I?
Except Bush admits he doesn't read newspapers and the only books he
likes are Westerns. So we DO know, don't we.


Articulate? His talent at
Post by Botch
speaking seems to depend on the forum and whether he's comfortable or not.
How much that bothers people usually depends on if they like him or not.
I like all the qualities you stated, for anyone.
So if we make Bush comfortable then he becomes magically articulate? Oh
yeah, that's my job as a citizen - to make my Pres happy and his job
cushy.
Post by Botch
Doesn't mean I blindly hate him--I just don't find
Post by Sara
a lot to respect about him. I also find his penchant for dragging his
own personal religious beliefs into government somewhat annoying.
(e.g., can you imagine if Lieberman had won and talked Judaism all the
time?) Religion is a personal thing--everyone is entitled to believe
what they want and pray or not pray. A national day of prayer is
innapropriate in this country. Preaching about Jesus Christ, his
savior, is also inappropriate.
I don't think anything he's done has been excessive or have seen him preach.
I would have no problem if Lieberman, or anyone of any other faith mentioned
their faith the way Bush has.
Then you're in danger of being hoodwinked by a religious agenda. I
think you should pay closer attention.
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
If you
truly believe that was his motive I would suggest you step back and maybe
take another look.
As for his loyalty, you don't believe in being loyal to your friends?
I am a very loyal person and admire loyalty in others. Bush has shown
bad judgment with appointments based more on loyalty, than
qualifications, experience and ability. I don't admire that--it's
leading by emotion rather than objectivity.
Maybe you're right, what unqualified people has he appointed based on
loyalty?
Ashcroft
Cheney (Has he ever been elected to anything?)
Rumsfeld (surprisingly)
Condoleeza Rice (whose only area of expertise is Russia and Cold War
dynamics.)
Chalabi
Wolfowitz - if he gets the head of CIA

and many many more

bel
Post by Botch
Botch
Botch
2004-06-08 17:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
Frankly, I don't listen to most of GW's speeches--it's torture. He's
inarticulate, boring and I don't believe half of what he's saying (based
on his facial expressions, I don't think he does either).
That kinda says it all doesn't it, you don't like the way he talks or looks
so dismiss him.
Good reason enough. The guy can't express a coherent thought. Why are
we supposed to believe he has them? Are we supposed to simply trust the
Republicans?
He looks like a lost little boy behind the podium. That's not a posture
I look for in the leader of my country.
I don't think any party/politician should be trusted at face value. You see
what you see, quite a lot of people don't agree. At least concede that your
opinion is colored by your hatred of him. Hitler, was a smooth public
speaker, by your standards of competence that would qualify him as
believable and a good leader.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
You're saying they sold the war to people, I agree, on lies? Don't agree.
Other countries with more connections to Al Quaeda, you bet, does that mean
you would support going to war against those other countries then?
It certainly doesn't support invading Iraq, now does it.
Iraq had terroist training camps, or are we ignoring the facility with the a
jet airliner that they used to train hijackers, or the camp up north where
gas experiments were being done, ( remember those tapes of gases be tested
on animals ) or even the guy they're trying to catch now who came to Iraq,
lived there while he got medical attention and just stayed on.

Chalabi and
Post by Phoenix
the INC told Cheney there were WMDs and a connection with Al Queda. He
got over 100 million of our tax dollars for feeding us this line of
shit.
Just like the billions lost in the Oil for food program that was stolen
Post by Phoenix
Why would this adminstration choose to believe a con artist like Chalabi
over all the other information from highly respected sources? Why would
they ignore the warnings by the CIA about the man? Because they wanted
to LIE, that's why.
You mean those same respectful sources that told the UN ,France, Germany and
Russia they had WMDs?
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
The way Gulf War I ended guaranteed a Gulf War II at some point no matter
who the president was.
Bullshit! That's blind justification on your part. Saddam hasn't been
a threat to anyone for almost 15 years.
The fact that he never even lived up to the terms of the end of Gulf I
made it inevitable.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
I can ignore the the psychology unless you can prove it. That's like the
people who said Clinton was lobbing a few missiles and bombs just to draw
the attention away from his own problems.
What are you trying to say?
You cut what she posted, (paraphased)
"The psychology of Bush and his supposed vendetta with Sadam and of the
hawks around Bush couldn't be ignored in regards to going to war"
That in no way shape or form can be proven and is just as silly as the
things that were being said of Clinton at times, such as the 'wag the dog'
accusations.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
I'm sure you won't believe me, but I actually do not have a blinding
hatred for GW. I certainly don't like the way he's lived his life, and
do not feel he has the qualifications to be president. He appears to
have no self-motivation; not to do well in school, business or even
life (drunk til he was 40?).
Shall we now start listing all the other presidents and politicians who were
drunks, even while in office, never held regular jobs and did horrible in
school?
Sure! And lets discuss their merits! Surely none of them are as
universally incompetant as Georgie.Hell, Grant was a terrible
President, and a horrible drunk, but he could win a battle and knew how
to fight a war.
Thanks for making my point, she condemed him because of his past life
claiming he's unqualified.
JFK was hooked on drugs and a womanizer, did he or Ted ever work in the
private sector
Ted K is a drunk, womanizer, and liked to let his quiffs drown while he
saved himself
Grant was a drunk
Truman was a failed business man
Clinton, did he ever work in the private sector? womanizer
Jefferson, slave owner
the list goes on and on and on
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
His mentality was pretty much that of a
Post by Sara
jock, frat boy partier, who occasionally performed for his father and
family (and used their connections to accomplish it). I tend to
respect people who are thoughtful, reflective, articulate,
intellectually curious and enjoys reading books, and I would prefer a
president like that.
Partying frat boy attitude in his past, likely. Got ahead by using family
connections, of course he's the only one who ever did that isn't he?
And he isn't the first to run every business into the ground that daddy
ever handed to him. Are you saying that the silver spoon background
works in his favor for leading this country?
Not at all, but condeming him simply because of it isn't right either.

Are you thinking that his
Post by Phoenix
soft National Guard "experience" makes him ready to lead the country
into battle?
Compared to our last president, you bet.
Post by Phoenix
Unless
Post by Botch
you personally know him I don't see how you ,in good faith, can make a
judgement on how thoughtful, reflective, intellectually curious, or whether
he's a big book reader, and neither can I?
Except Bush admits he doesn't read newspapers and the only books he
likes are Westerns. So we DO know, don't we.
No you don't, you know what they or someone else tells you. But to go with
your thought, Westerns are some lower form literature? What books are smart
enough you?
Post by Phoenix
Articulate? His talent at
Post by Botch
speaking seems to depend on the forum and whether he's comfortable or not.
How much that bothers people usually depends on if they like him or not.
I like all the qualities you stated, for anyone.
So if we make Bush comfortable then he becomes magically articulate? Oh
yeah, that's my job as a citizen - to make my Pres happy and his job
cushy.
Nope it means he's like anyone else, as I said earlier, Hitler was a good
public speaker, so was Jim Jones.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
I don't think anything he's done has been excessive or have seen him preach.
I would have no problem if Lieberman, or anyone of any other faith mentioned
their faith the way Bush has.
Then you're in danger of being hoodwinked by a religious agenda. I
think you should pay closer attention.
Must be a memeber of the ACLU where even acknowledging a religious belief
makes someone a fanatic.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
I am a very loyal person and admire loyalty in others. Bush has shown
bad judgment with appointments based more on loyalty, than
qualifications, experience and ability. I don't admire that--it's
leading by emotion rather than objectivity.
Maybe you're right, what unqualified people has he appointed based on
loyalty?
Ashcroft
Cheney (Has he ever been elected to anything?)
Rumsfeld (surprisingly)
Condoleeza Rice (whose only area of expertise is Russia and Cold War
dynamics.)
Chalabi
Wolfowitz - if he gets the head of CIA
Ashcroft: Senator, Governor, State Attorney General and graduated with
honors from Yale
Cheney : Congressman, white house chief of staff and Secretary of Defense
Rumsfield : former Defense Secretary, white house chief of staff, ambassador
to NATO and congressman
Rice : served as an assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs,
special assistant to the president for the NSA, professor
of political science
Wolfowitz : Dean of John Hopkins school for Internaitional Studies,
Ambassador to Indonesia, Under Secretary of Defense,
Assistant Secretary of state for east asian affairs, his
list goes on for some time

Chalabi, last I saw he hasn't been appointed to anything.
It'd be simpler to just say you don't agree with their views so that makes
them unqualified to hold office. If not, what qualifications do you think
they're lacking? What office, education or job experience could make any of
them more qualified?

Botch
Sara
2004-06-08 22:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Sure! And lets discuss their merits! Surely none of them are as
universally incompetant as Georgie.Hell, Grant was a terrible
President, and a horrible drunk, but he could win a battle and knew how
to fight a war.
Thanks for making my point, she condemed him because of his past life
claiming he's unqualified.
JFK was hooked on drugs and a womanizer, did he or Ted ever work in the
private sector
JFK graduated cum laude from Harvard, wrote his honors thesis on
analyzing the British portion of Munich Pact of 1938, was a war hero and
wrote a book while recovering from an operation. He was articulate,
witty, quick as a whip on his feet during press conferences, and you
want to compare him with the frat boy who got a C average and cannot
give a speech to save his life? Kennedy would never have made a comment
like "JFK graduated cum laude from Harvard, wrote his honors thesis on
analyzing the British portion of Munich Pact of 1938, was a war hero and
wrote a book while recovering from an operation. His diplomacy and
intelligence saved the country from the brink of war, got civil rights
moving, and started the Peace Corps. He was loved and respected by the
international community, as well as this country. He was articulate,
witty, quick as a whip on his feet during press conferences, and you
want to compare him with the frat boy who got a C average and cannot
give a speech to save his life? Kennedy would never have made an
idiotic comment like "I call upon all nations to do everything they can
to stop these terrorist killers, thank you. Now watch this drive". Did
he work in the private sector? No--he was too busy serving his country
and devoting his life to public service. You think buying baseball
teams and failing at business is more admirable?
Post by Botch
Ted K is a drunk, womanizer, and liked to let his quiffs drown while he
saved himself
Grant was a drunk
Truman was a failed business man
Clinton, did he ever work in the private sector?
Again--what's wrong with public service? I thought this is a quality to
be admired, not criticized. Clinton is the perfect example of something
Republicans are so fond of promoting: pulling yourself up by your
bootstraps. He came from a poor, alcoholic and broken home and became a
governor and president (popular one also). Oh, and went to Yale without
the connections. Clinton was self-motivated, intelligent and worked for
where he got--something foreign to GW.
Botch
2004-06-08 20:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Sure! And lets discuss their merits! Surely none of them are as
universally incompetant as Georgie.Hell, Grant was a terrible
President, and a horrible drunk, but he could win a battle and knew how
to fight a war.
Thanks for making my point, she condemed him because of his past life
claiming he's unqualified.
JFK was hooked on drugs and a womanizer, did he or Ted ever work in the
private sector
JFK graduated cum laude from Harvard, ....(snipped a bunch)...
Did
he work in the private sector? No--he was too busy serving his country
and devoting his life to public service. You think buying baseball
teams and failing at business is more admirable?
Post by Botch
Ted K is a drunk, womanizer, and liked to let his quiffs drown while he
saved himself
Grant was a drunk
Truman was a failed business man
Clinton, did he ever work in the private sector?
Again--what's wrong with public service? I thought this is a quality to
be admired, not criticized. Clinton is the perfect example of something
Republicans are so fond of promoting: pulling yourself up by your
bootstraps. He came from a poor, alcoholic and broken home and became a
governor and president (popular one also). Oh, and went to Yale without
the connections. Clinton was self-motivated, intelligent and worked for
where he got--something foreign to GW.
There is nothing wrong with public service, there is something wrong if
you're in your 50's and have never held a real job outside of highschool, I
don't care what party you're in. I'll give anyone, be it Truman or Bush a
higher score for trying and failing than someone who never tried. Being an
elected official should not be someones entire career.
However, the reasons I was hitting on Kennedy and the others was based on
your criticisms of Bush, which appeared, to me, to be based mostly on his
past behaivor, such as his attitude in college or his drinking, when clearly
there are and have been countless numbers of others who held/hold office who
hadn't even attempted to deal with their problems, the Kennedy's being a
good example.
Concerning how smooth a speaker someone is, that's hardly IMHO a realistic
measure for judging someone's competence. It just means their not a good
public speaker.
Like I said, I like the qualities you expressed, for anyone, but not to the
degree where I would discount someone because they weren't as articulate as
I am.

Botch
Phoenix
2004-06-09 04:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara
Again--what's wrong with public service? I thought this is a quality to
be admired, not criticized. Clinton is the perfect example of something
Republicans are so fond of promoting: pulling yourself up by your
bootstraps. He came from a poor, alcoholic and broken home and became a
governor and president (popular one also). Oh, and went to Yale without
the connections. Clinton was self-motivated, intelligent and worked for
where he got--something foreign to GW.
Ironic, isn't it.

Why would anyone who ever worked hard for anything support Bush, who has
been handed everything in his life, and failed at every expectation?

What is it these people have in common with him? Or do they sympathize
with his utter incompetence? Or do they not want a Pres who can out-
think them?

I truly don't understand why anyone would support and admire a man who
can so ably bollix every opportunity ever handed to him, and still come
out on top because daddy's friends will get him out of trouble.

He was handed a country that was doing pretty well and look at what he's
turned it into.

Christ. And they could have given us McCain.

bel
M.L.
2004-06-09 05:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Sure! And lets discuss their merits! Surely none of them are as
universally incompetant as Georgie. Hell, Grant was a terrible
President, and a horrible drunk, but he could win a battle and knew how
to fight a war.
Thanks for making my point, she condemed him because of his past life
claiming he's unqualified.
JFK was hooked on drugs and a womanizer, did he or Ted ever work in the
private sector
JFK graduated cum laude from Harvard, wrote his honors thesis on
analyzing the British portion of Munich Pact of 1938, was a war hero and
wrote a book while recovering from an operation. He was articulate,
witty, quick as a whip on his feet during press conferences, and you
want to compare him with the frat boy who got a C average and cannot
give a speech to save his life? Kennedy would never have made a comment
like "JFK graduated cum laude from Harvard, wrote his honors thesis on
analyzing the British portion of Munich Pact of 1938, was a war hero and
wrote a book while recovering from an operation. His diplomacy and
intelligence saved the country from the brink of war, got civil rights
moving, and started the Peace Corps. He was loved and respected by the
international community, as well as this country. He was articulate,
witty, quick as a whip on his feet during press conferences, and you
want to compare him with the frat boy who got a C average and cannot
give a speech to save his life? Kennedy would never have made an
idiotic comment like "I call upon all nations to do everything they can
to stop these terrorist killers, thank you. Now watch this drive". Did
he work in the private sector? No--he was too busy serving his country
and devoting his life to public service. You think buying baseball
teams and failing at business is more admirable?
You forgot to mention that Kennedy also created the U.S. space
program, which got a man on the moon in less than 10 years from its
inception.
Botch
2004-06-09 03:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.L.
You forgot to mention that Kennedy also created the U.S. space
program, which got a man on the moon in less than 10 years from its
inception.
Kennedy did some good things but creating the space program wasn't one of
them. We already had a space program and ambitions, I believe Ike had more
to do with creating the space program. Kennedy gave the manned space effort
focus , the cold war as well as Kennedy's death kept the program alive, had
he not been killed odds are the moon program would have been canceled
because of it's expense.

Botch
JZA
2004-06-09 01:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Is Ashcroft the one who lost an election to a dead guy?
Not that it would disqualify him for anything but it is one sign
of incompetency.
All of the folks on the list below may have been good at their
previous jobs, but, especially for Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Rice,
they demonstrate the old saying that people rise to their level
of incompetence.

JZA
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Maybe you're right, what unqualified people has he appointed based on
loyalty?
Ashcroft
Cheney (Has he ever been elected to anything?)
Rumsfeld (surprisingly)
Condoleeza Rice (whose only area of expertise is Russia and Cold War
dynamics.)
Chalabi
Wolfowitz - if he gets the head of CIA
Ashcroft: Senator, Governor, State Attorney General and graduated with
honors from Yale
Cheney : Congressman, white house chief of staff and Secretary of Defense
Rumsfield : former Defense Secretary, white house chief of staff, ambassador
to NATO and congressman
Rice : served as an assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs,
special assistant to the president for the NSA, professor
of political science
Wolfowitz : Dean of John Hopkins school for Internaitional Studies,
Ambassador to Indonesia, Under Secretary of Defense,
Assistant Secretary of state for east asian affairs, his
list goes on for some time
Chalabi, last I saw he hasn't been appointed to anything.
It'd be simpler to just say you don't agree with their views so that makes
them unqualified to hold office. If not, what qualifications do you think
they're lacking? What office, education or job experience could make any of
them more qualified?
Botch
Botch
2004-06-08 23:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by JZA
Is Ashcroft the one who lost an election to a dead guy?
Not that it would disqualify him for anything but it is one sign
of incompetency.
All of the folks on the list below may have been good at their
previous jobs, but, especially for Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Rice,
they demonstrate the old saying that people rise to their level
of incompetence.
I think he's the one, not sure, put the dead guy's wife in office. Doesn't
speak to competency, more along the lines of a sympathy vote or they simply
liked the other guy better.
As for the the rest, a lot can be said about the people, but you don't get
those types of resumes by being incompetent.

Botch
Phoenix
2004-06-09 07:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by JZA
Is Ashcroft the one who lost an election to a dead guy?
Not that it would disqualify him for anything but it is one sign
of incompetency.
All of the folks on the list below may have been good at their
previous jobs, but, especially for Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Rice,
they demonstrate the old saying that people rise to their level
of incompetence.
I think he's the one, not sure, put the dead guy's wife in office. Doesn't
speak to competency, more along the lines of a sympathy vote or they simply
liked the other guy better.
As for the the rest, a lot can be said about the people, but you don't get
those types of resumes by being incompetent.
But they can be incompetent at their current jobs....and they are.

No one with Ashcroft's religious prejudice should be holding the
Attorney General's job. I'd say he's a pretty incompetent judge of the
difference between his fantasy religious law and the rights of US
citizens. The man is simply dangerous.

Rumsfeld is trying to run the show alone over at the DoD. Yes, he is
incompetent at doing that, at taking the place of many senior staff whom
he fired. He's incompetent for predicting that it would take less than
50,000 troops to take Iraq, that they could do it with small units and
be in 'n' out in no time. That is classic incompetence. Fire his ass.

Rice has utterly no qualifications for her job. Her specialty is
Russia, specifically the Cold War. Are we trying to turn all Muslims
into Commies? Hmmmm, maybe. Her only area of competence is doing
precisely what everyone wants her to do, and saying all the things that
were later disproved (remember those aluminum rods? "They could only be
used for nuclear weapons!" swears Condi. Turns out they have many
industrial uses.) Okay, so she's competent for her boss's purposes, a
good little puppet, but incompetent for the purposes of truth in warfare
or diplomacy. I see that excellent background somehow prepared her well
for this sour role she plays.

I'll give you Wolfowitz. He's competent, and too damn confident. What
is game is, I don't know, except to play for it's own sake. Much like
Kim Philby, I think that Wolfie is secretly dividing up the map and
relishing his role in it, all the while pretending to be an esteemed
statesman. If you really like criticizing those dedicated to public
service, you might take a closer look at Wolfie and see if he might have
some delusions about how the world is run outside his academic and
government sponging jobs. Do you think a character like him could have
so much power in the private sector?

Cheney is a greedy asshole, whose very refusal to hand over the minutes
of his energy meetings to the GAO makes him an incompetent Vice Pres.
Worse, he thinks he's special, that he doesn't have to follow the law...
or negotiate with foreign countries. For the way the US is plummeting
in the arena of foreign diplomacy, I will blame Dick Cheney and call him
incompetent. Part of the job the executive office is keeping our allies
and making new ones. Why do you think Bush is over in Europe right now
begging for support? Cuz Dick's advise was "fuckem" when we decided to
enter Iraq.

So, no matter what their backgrounds, this is a sorry lot to hang our
future on.

bel
Post by Botch
Botch
Phoenix
2004-06-09 03:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
Frankly, I don't listen to most of GW's speeches--it's torture. He's
inarticulate, boring and I don't believe half of what he's saying
(based
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
on his facial expressions, I don't think he does either).
That kinda says it all doesn't it, you don't like the way he talks or
looks
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
so dismiss him.
Good reason enough. The guy can't express a coherent thought. Why are
we supposed to believe he has them? Are we supposed to simply trust the
Republicans?
He looks like a lost little boy behind the podium. That's not a posture
I look for in the leader of my country.
I don't think any party/politician should be trusted at face value. You see
what you see, quite a lot of people don't agree. At least concede that your
opinion is colored by your hatred of him.
Nope, I won't. I despised Clinton's speeches and refused to watch them
because of their pandering slimy nature. They were absolutely awful.

That said, I loved watching him speak in a dialogue setting. His
press conferences were masterful, his conversations with the public were
riveting. The man was quick and interested and calm. I got the feeling
that he was interested in doing his job.

Bush acts like he'd rather be any where else. How would you feel about
an employee who acted that way? (after all the Pres is our servant.)
How would you judge someone who treated any interaction like it was an
inconvenience for him? What grade would you give an employee who
wouldn't share his master plan (or notes from important policy meetings)
and snarled or whined when asked to produce some results? 'Tell you
what, I'd can his ass.


Liking George or not isn't pertinent. He's not doing his goddamn job!


Hitler, was a smooth public
Post by Sara
speaker, by your standards of competence that would qualify him as
believable and a good leader.
Hitler wasn't smooth at all. Have you ever watched one of his speeches?
He reminds me of some preachers, in an utter rage - a frenzied
ideologue. I find his style just as painful to watch as any Sunday
morning evangelist.

Germany fell for this maniac, this tortured wild gesticulator, which
doesn't say much for them at the time.

I think we'd like to believe that Hitler was a good public speaker
because we don't want to think that our enemies, or <gasp> ourselves,
could become entranced by such a lunatic. But we can, oh god, we can.
Post by Sara
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
You're saying they sold the war to people, I agree, on lies? Don't
agree.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Other countries with more connections to Al Quaeda, you bet, does that
mean
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
you would support going to war against those other countries then?
It certainly doesn't support invading Iraq, now does it.
Iraq had terroist training camps, or are we ignoring the facility with the a
jet airliner that they used to train hijackers, or the camp up north where
gas experiments were being done, ( remember those tapes of gases be tested
on animals ) or even the guy they're trying to catch now who came to Iraq,
lived there while he got medical attention and just stayed on.
Honey, catch up with the news. These are all things that Chalabi cooked
up for the Cheney Corp to dine on.
Post by Sara
Chalabi and
Post by Phoenix
the INC told Cheney there were WMDs and a connection with Al Queda. He
got over 100 million of our tax dollars for feeding us this line of
shit.
Just like the billions lost in the Oil for food program that was stolen
Post by Phoenix
Why would this adminstration choose to believe a con artist like Chalabi
over all the other information from highly respected sources? Why would
they ignore the warnings by the CIA about the man? Because they wanted
to LIE, that's why.
You mean those same respectful sources that told the UN ,France, Germany and
Russia they had WMDs?
Nope. No one would give Chalabi the time of day (he defrauded a bank in
Jordan and was involved in a fiasco that cost thousands of Kurdish
lives.) No one but our Pres and Vice Pres were enamoured of Chalabi's
stories of mobile chemical units, or reactor rods, or weapons hidden
under the waters of the Euphrates, for gods sake.

No one believed a single story from this guy except for this
administration and the New York Times.
Post by Sara
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
The way Gulf War I ended guaranteed a Gulf War II at some point no
matter
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
who the president was.
Bullshit! That's blind justification on your part. Saddam hasn't been
a threat to anyone for almost 15 years.
The fact that he never even lived up to the terms of the end of Gulf I
made it inevitable.
When he didn't live up, we bombed the hell out of him (under Clinton.)
And he had NOTHING to respond with. NOTHING! He was fenced in. The UN
inspectors were right. Scott Ritter was right! There were no weapons!

So, since Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into his palace (which turned
out to have NO WEAPONS) then we engage in this invasion and protracted
occupation that is costing billions of dollars that we don't have. This
is how you want the government to spend your money? On long campaigns
that accomplish nothing? On killing 10 thousand Iraqi civilians for
nothing? On maiming and killing our military for nothing? No
chemicals. No nuclear. No big guns. No biological. No torture
chambers (except our own.) No grateful, liberated Iraqi citizens. No
example of democracy for the Arab world. No means to solve the
Israel/Palestinian problem. No stable source of oil to fill our SUVs
(and tanks) cheaply.

For this shit, you are willing to become a debtor nation who can't
afford to educate its kids or police its cities.

That's a fucking ideological implosion.
Post by Sara
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
I can ignore the the psychology unless you can prove it. That's like
the
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
people who said Clinton was lobbing a few missiles and bombs just to
draw
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
the attention away from his own problems.
What are you trying to say?
You cut what she posted, (paraphased)
"The psychology of Bush and his supposed vendetta with Sadam and of the
hawks around Bush couldn't be ignored in regards to going to war"
That in no way shape or form can be proven and is just as silly as the
things that were being said of Clinton at times, such as the 'wag the dog'
accusations.
Nope. There were plans to invade a docile Iraq long before 9/11, and
plans demanded from the Pentagon immediately after 9/11. Did you listen
to any of the latest hearings before Congress? Did you hear the
nonplussed generals who couldn't figure out why the huge need to attack
Iraq when it was a totally different place that bin Laden controlled?

Bush fired a large number of senior staff at the Pentagon and in the
military because they thought his Iraq ideas were lunacy. Why fight 2
wars... alone? Oh! The Afghanistan thing really isn't important - the
guys who brought down our towers took orders from there (not Iraq) but
that really doesn't matter to Bush. All he wanted was Iraq.

The old guard disagreed vehemently with Rumsfeld's claim that the
operation would only take weeks and 50 thousand troops. Turns out, the
old staff was right.
Post by Sara
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
I'm sure you won't believe me, but I actually do not have a blinding
hatred for GW. I certainly don't like the way he's lived his life,
and
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
do not feel he has the qualifications to be president. He appears to
have no self-motivation; not to do well in school, business or even
life (drunk til he was 40?).
Shall we now start listing all the other presidents and politicians who
were
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
drunks, even while in office, never held regular jobs and did horrible
in
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
school?
Sure! And lets discuss their merits! Surely none of them are as
universally incompetant as Georgie.Hell, Grant was a terrible
President, and a horrible drunk, but he could win a battle and knew how
to fight a war.
Thanks for making my point, she condemed him because of his past life
claiming he's unqualified.
JFK was hooked on drugs and a womanizer, did he or Ted ever work in the
private sector
I think being a public servant makes one ably qualified to continue
being a public servant - like president, say.
Post by Sara
Ted K is a drunk, womanizer, and liked to let his quiffs drown while he
saved himself
That's a debate for another time. I happen to agree with the latest
journalistic investigations about that topic which show that Ted was not
nearly so guilty of the crime made out.

And I appreciate much of what Ted has done as Senator. He knows his job
very well.
Post by Sara
Grant was a drunk
As I stated, and fucking awful president
Post by Sara
Truman was a failed business man
And a member of government for 25 years before he became president.
This failed businessman saved the US more tax dollars while he was
Senator than Bush could even conceive of. Bush treats our money like
it's his personal expense account.

You should have read the article I happened upon the other day, about
the private contractors in Iraq and how much they are costing us, and
how they can refuse to work, sit around the hotel all day and collect
our tax money, if things look slightly dicey. And guess what, any work
they start on, say, a hospital or telephone lines, can be immediately
preempted by something Halburton needs.

This is the policy of a fiscally conservative president? We pay to
destroy a country (that wasn't bothering us) and now we pay to build it
again. WTF?
Post by Sara
Clinton, did he ever work in the private sector? womanizer
Oh Clinton knew the public sector very well, and I respect him for it.
I don't really care who he fucked.
Post by Sara
Jefferson, slave owner
Which is a bloody shame. Too bad this country didn't outlaw slavery
immediately. We would have a 10th of the social problems if we had.
Damn stupid, and something that will haunt this country forever.
Post by Sara
the list goes on and on and on
And you still haven't mentioned a person less qualified to be our
President than George.


bel
Post by Sara
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
His mentality was pretty much that of a
Post by Sara
jock, frat boy partier, who occasionally performed for his father and
family (and used their connections to accomplish it). I tend to
respect people who are thoughtful, reflective, articulate,
intellectually curious and enjoys reading books, and I would prefer a
president like that.
Partying frat boy attitude in his past, likely. Got ahead by using
family
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
connections, of course he's the only one who ever did that isn't he?
And he isn't the first to run every business into the ground that daddy
ever handed to him. Are you saying that the silver spoon background
works in his favor for leading this country?
Not at all, but condeming him simply because of it isn't right either.
Are you thinking that his
Post by Phoenix
soft National Guard "experience" makes him ready to lead the country
into battle?
Compared to our last president, you bet.
Post by Phoenix
Unless
Post by Botch
you personally know him I don't see how you ,in good faith, can make a
judgement on how thoughtful, reflective, intellectually curious, or
whether
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
he's a big book reader, and neither can I?
Except Bush admits he doesn't read newspapers and the only books he
likes are Westerns. So we DO know, don't we.
No you don't, you know what they or someone else tells you. But to go with
your thought, Westerns are some lower form literature? What books are smart
enough you?
Post by Phoenix
Articulate? His talent at
Post by Botch
speaking seems to depend on the forum and whether he's comfortable or
not.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
How much that bothers people usually depends on if they like him or not.
I like all the qualities you stated, for anyone.
So if we make Bush comfortable then he becomes magically articulate? Oh
yeah, that's my job as a citizen - to make my Pres happy and his job
cushy.
Nope it means he's like anyone else, as I said earlier, Hitler was a good
public speaker, so was Jim Jones.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
I don't think anything he's done has been excessive or have seen him
preach.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
I would have no problem if Lieberman, or anyone of any other faith
mentioned
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
their faith the way Bush has.
Then you're in danger of being hoodwinked by a religious agenda. I
think you should pay closer attention.
Must be a memeber of the ACLU where even acknowledging a religious belief
makes someone a fanatic.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Sara
I am a very loyal person and admire loyalty in others. Bush has shown
bad judgment with appointments based more on loyalty, than
qualifications, experience and ability. I don't admire that--it's
leading by emotion rather than objectivity.
Maybe you're right, what unqualified people has he appointed based on
loyalty?
Ashcroft
Cheney (Has he ever been elected to anything?)
Rumsfeld (surprisingly)
Condoleeza Rice (whose only area of expertise is Russia and Cold War
dynamics.)
Chalabi
Wolfowitz - if he gets the head of CIA
Ashcroft: Senator, Governor, State Attorney General and graduated with
honors from Yale
Cheney : Congressman, white house chief of staff and Secretary of Defense
Rumsfield : former Defense Secretary, white house chief of staff, ambassador
to NATO and congressman
Rice : served as an assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs,
special assistant to the president for the NSA, professor
of political science
Wolfowitz : Dean of John Hopkins school for Internaitional Studies,
Ambassador to Indonesia, Under Secretary of Defense,
Assistant Secretary of state for east asian affairs, his
list goes on for some time
Chalabi, last I saw he hasn't been appointed to anything.
It'd be simpler to just say you don't agree with their views so that makes
them unqualified to hold office. If not, what qualifications do you think
they're lacking? What office, education or job experience could make any of
them more qualified?
Botch
Botch
2004-06-09 03:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
I don't think any party/politician should be trusted at face value. You see
what you see, quite a lot of people don't agree. At least concede that your
opinion is colored by your hatred of him.
Nope, I won't. I despised Clinton's speeches and refused to watch them
because of their pandering slimy nature. They were absolutely awful.
That said, I loved watching him speak in a dialogue setting. His
press conferences were masterful, his conversations with the public were
riveting. The man was quick and interested and calm. I got the feeling
that he was interested in doing his job.
Basically your saying he was a smooth talker.

I would suggest a film that came out around the time of the last election,
made by Diane Feinsten's daughter, I think, who was on the campaign trail
with him, gives a picture of how personable Bush can be.
Post by Phoenix
Bush acts like he'd rather be any where else. How would you feel about
an employee who acted that way? (after all the Pres is our servant.)
How would you judge someone who treated any interaction like it was an
inconvenience for him? What grade would you give an employee who
wouldn't share his master plan (or notes from important policy meetings)
and snarled or whined when asked to produce some results? 'Tell you
what, I'd can his ass.
I've had more than one employee that was awkward in talking about their
work, or even with their fellow employee's, never once thought about
demoting or firing them because of it. You're whole complaint seems based
on appearence. He doesn't put out the image you are comfortable with ,
therefore he must be inept.
About not releasing notes and plans, I agree, I'm waiting for Howard Dean,
and Clinton to release the records they sealed.
Post by Phoenix
Liking George or not isn't pertinent. He's not doing his goddamn job!
Of course it matters, you wouldn't be making such a big deal over how he
appears in public if it didn't.
Post by Phoenix
Hitler, was a smooth public
Post by Botch
speaker, by your standards of competence that would qualify him as
believable and a good leader.
Hitler wasn't smooth at all. Have you ever watched one of his speeches?
He reminds me of some preachers, in an utter rage - a frenzied
ideologue. > Germany fell for this maniac, this tortured wild
gesticulator, which
Post by Phoenix
doesn't say much for them at the time.
I think we'd like to believe that Hitler was a good public speaker
because we don't want to think that our enemies, or <gasp> ourselves,
could become entranced by such a lunatic. But we can, oh god, we can.
Hitler knowing what to talk about and how to say it qualifies as a smooth
talker whether he's screaming or not. The man didn't go from the bear halls
to the head of the 3rd Reich without being able to charm people.
Are you actually comparing Bush to Hitler?
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
You're saying they sold the war to people, I agree, on lies? Don't
agree.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Other countries with more connections to Al Quaeda, you bet, does that
mean
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
you would support going to war against those other countries then?
It certainly doesn't support invading Iraq, now does it.
Iraq had terroist training camps, or are we ignoring the facility with the a
jet airliner that they used to train hijackers, or the camp up north where
gas experiments were being done, ( remember those tapes of gases be tested
on animals ) or even the guy they're trying to catch now who came to Iraq,
lived there while he got medical attention and just stayed on.
Honey, catch up with the news. These are all things that Chalabi cooked
up for the Cheney Corp to dine on.
Post by Botch
Chalabi and
Post by Phoenix
the INC told Cheney there were WMDs and a connection with Al Queda.
He
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
got over 100 million of our tax dollars for feeding us this line of
shit.
Just like the billions lost in the Oil for food program that was stolen
Post by Phoenix
Why would this adminstration choose to believe a con artist like Chalabi
over all the other information from highly respected sources? Why would
they ignore the warnings by the CIA about the man? Because they wanted
to LIE, that's why.
You mean those same respectful sources that told the UN ,France, Germany and
Russia they had WMDs?
Nope. No one would give Chalabi the time of day (he defrauded a bank in
Jordan and was involved in a fiasco that cost thousands of Kurdish
lives.) No one but our Pres and Vice Pres were enamoured of Chalabi's
stories of mobile chemical units, or reactor rods, or weapons hidden
under the waters of the Euphrates, for gods sake.
No one believed a single story from this guy except for this
administration and the New York Times.
Let me get this straight ALL the info, EVERYTHING came from Chalabi? So
who's info were the UN, France, Germany and Russia using back in 98 when
they were claiming the exsistance of WMDs?
Two words, Salman Pak .
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
The fact that he never even lived up to the terms of the end of Gulf I
made it inevitable.
When he didn't live up, we bombed the hell out of him (under Clinton.)
And he had NOTHING to respond with. NOTHING! He was fenced in. The UN
inspectors were right. Scott Ritter was right! There were no weapons!
He continually fired on US planes, attempted to assasinate a former
president, kicked out the inspectors, etc...etc....No weapons? I guess
those missiles he fired that reached all the way to Kuwait City, which
violated the range limits set were just illusions?
Post by Phoenix
So, since Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into his palace (which turned
out to have NO WEAPONS) then we engage in this invasion and protracted
occupation that is costing billions of dollars that we don't have. This
is how you want the government to spend your money? On long campaigns
that accomplish nothing? On killing 10 thousand Iraqi civilians for
nothing? On maiming and killing our military for nothing? No
chemicals. No nuclear. No big guns. No biological. No torture
chambers (except our own.)
So now Sadam didn't torture anyone? I give up, if you believe
that...well.....there's no need to go on.

Botch
Phoenix
2004-06-09 07:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
I don't think any party/politician should be trusted at face value. You
see
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
what you see, quite a lot of people don't agree. At least concede that
your
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
opinion is colored by your hatred of him.
Nope, I won't. I despised Clinton's speeches and refused to watch them
because of their pandering slimy nature. They were absolutely awful.
That said, I loved watching him speak in a dialogue setting. His
press conferences were masterful, his conversations with the public were
riveting. The man was quick and interested and calm. I got the feeling
that he was interested in doing his job.
Basically your saying he was a smooth talker.
Much more than that! He was erudite, interested and relaxed. If your
definition of a smooth talking is someone who actually knows what
they're talking about, and can expound on it and explain it coherently,
then I think you might be trying to belittle Clinton's abilities which
were profound.

Not that I like the guy....as though that made a difference, jesus!
Post by Botch
I would suggest a film that came out around the time of the last election,
made by Diane Feinsten's daughter, I think, who was on the campaign trail
with him, gives a picture of how personable Bush can be.
Saw it. Liked the man. Despise him as President. He's out of his
depth.

There are plenty of folks I like who I wouldn't want anywhere near a
position of authority.
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Bush acts like he'd rather be any where else. How would you feel about
an employee who acted that way? (after all the Pres is our servant.)
How would you judge someone who treated any interaction like it was an
inconvenience for him? What grade would you give an employee who
wouldn't share his master plan (or notes from important policy meetings)
and snarled or whined when asked to produce some results? 'Tell you
what, I'd can his ass.
I've had more than one employee that was awkward in talking about their
work, or even with their fellow employee's, never once thought about
demoting or firing them because of it. You're whole complaint seems based
on appearence. He doesn't put out the image you are comfortable with ,
therefore he must be inept.
Have you read anything I've written? My complaints about Bush go far,
FAR, beyond what he looks like while he's reading the teleprompter.

An employee that treated me as arrogantly and insufferably as Bush has
treated us would be fired.
Post by Botch
About not releasing notes and plans, I agree, I'm waiting for Howard Dean,
and Clinton to release the records they sealed.
Post by Phoenix
Liking George or not isn't pertinent. He's not doing his goddamn job!
Of course it matters, you wouldn't be making such a big deal over how he
appears in public if it didn't.
I'm not you darling. I can even criticize those I love. Bush's
appearance in public has nothing to do with whether I like him, it's got
to do with his own discomfort, fumbling, inability to follow a train of
thought or answer a direct question, his sneers, his vacancy, and
finally his look of having completely lost it.

If he can't form a coherent sentence then it's difficult for me to
believe he can have a coherent thought. That's got absolutely nothing
to do with my liking him or not.
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Hitler, was a smooth public
Post by Botch
speaker, by your standards of competence that would qualify him as
believable and a good leader.
Hitler wasn't smooth at all. Have you ever watched one of his speeches?
He reminds me of some preachers, in an utter rage - a frenzied
ideologue. > Germany fell for this maniac, this tortured wild
gesticulator, which
Post by Phoenix
doesn't say much for them at the time.
I think we'd like to believe that Hitler was a good public speaker
because we don't want to think that our enemies, or <gasp> ourselves,
could become entranced by such a lunatic. But we can, oh god, we can.
Hitler knowing what to talk about and how to say it qualifies as a smooth
talker whether he's screaming or not.
Would you call Ernest Angsley or Oral Roberts smooth talkers?


The man didn't go from the bear halls
Post by Botch
to the head of the 3rd Reich without being able to charm people.
Are you actually comparing Bush to Hitler?
No, you are. Look it up, you mentioned it first by saying the opposite
of Hitler was Bush, who can't make a sentence out through his addled
brain. Ergo, says you in your warped logic, Bush could be a fine
intellectual, a great mind, a wonderful statesman if he isn't like
Hitler - the smooth talker.

I never compared them at all, for better or worse.
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
You're saying they sold the war to people, I agree, on lies? Don't
agree.
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Other countries with more connections to Al Quaeda, you bet, does
that
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
mean
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
you would support going to war against those other countries then?
It certainly doesn't support invading Iraq, now does it.
Iraq had terroist training camps, or are we ignoring the facility with
the a
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
jet airliner that they used to train hijackers, or the camp up north
where
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
gas experiments were being done, ( remember those tapes of gases be
tested
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
on animals ) or even the guy they're trying to catch now who came to
Iraq,
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
lived there while he got medical attention and just stayed on.
Honey, catch up with the news. These are all things that Chalabi cooked
up for the Cheney Corp to dine on.
Post by Botch
Chalabi and
Post by Phoenix
the INC told Cheney there were WMDs and a connection with Al Queda.
He
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
got over 100 million of our tax dollars for feeding us this line of
shit.
Just like the billions lost in the Oil for food program that was stolen
Post by Phoenix
Why would this adminstration choose to believe a con artist like
Chalabi
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
over all the other information from highly respected sources? Why
would
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
they ignore the warnings by the CIA about the man? Because they
wanted
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
to LIE, that's why.
You mean those same respectful sources that told the UN ,France, Germany
and
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
Russia they had WMDs?
Nope. No one would give Chalabi the time of day (he defrauded a bank in
Jordan and was involved in a fiasco that cost thousands of Kurdish
lives.) No one but our Pres and Vice Pres were enamoured of Chalabi's
stories of mobile chemical units, or reactor rods, or weapons hidden
under the waters of the Euphrates, for gods sake.
No one believed a single story from this guy except for this
administration and the New York Times.
Let me get this straight ALL the info, EVERYTHING came from Chalabi?
yep, most of it. Oh! And the Friends of Chalabi, the guys who he
coached to give his version so they could receive asylum and nice fat
income in the US, they also backed him up.

If you don't believe me, read the latest New Yorker article on the
fellow. Or do a web search on the British press and their articles
about Chalabi and the INC.

The Cheney/Wolfowitz crew massaged every piece of info from the CIA
through their office of special affairs. Everything was rewritten and
slanted to make the existence of WMD believable.

They wanted this war at all costs, damn the means, damn the rights of US
citizens, damn the deficit.


So
Post by Botch
who's info were the UN, France, Germany and Russia using back in 98 when
they were claiming the exsistance of WMDs?
Two words, Salman Pak .
So? Didn't those countries talk about it in the open? Didn't they
listen to all sides including the UN weapons inspectors and decide on
the prudent coarse since not everyone was to be believed? Good for
them!

And didn't these countries realize that those WMDs couldn't have held up
over the years of decay? Didn't they examine the shipping documents
from their ports proving Saddam couldn't have acquired stable labs for
recreating or storing chemicals or bios or nukes? Sounds pretty damn
smart to me, getting the facts and all. Good for them!
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
Post by Botch
The fact that he never even lived up to the terms of the end of Gulf I
made it inevitable.
When he didn't live up, we bombed the hell out of him (under Clinton.)
And he had NOTHING to respond with. NOTHING! He was fenced in. The UN
inspectors were right. Scott Ritter was right! There were no weapons!
He continually fired on US planes, attempted to assasinate a former
president, kicked out the inspectors, etc...etc....No weapons?
Yeah, no one's delved too deeply into that assassination attempt have
they. Damn, can't even find anyone Saddam actually hired to do the
business. Just going on the word of those well paid Iraqi exiles
again...


Oh, and he didn't kick out the Weapons inspectors. They left, mostly
due to disgust with how Clinton was handling the whole inspections
issue. Look up some interviews with Scott Ritter, who was there, and
find out whey they really left.

So, for these phantom weapons, and this possible assassination attempt,
you're willing to fund this expensive operation we can't afford and
annihilate a country's infrastructure, kill it's citizens, torture it's
citizens and sheep herders, and salute George Bush with love and pride?


I guess
Post by Botch
those missiles he fired that reached all the way to Kuwait City, which
violated the range limits set were just illusions?
And we bombed the shit out of him, didn't we. Why, that sounds so
affordable.
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
So, since Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into his palace (which turned
out to have NO WEAPONS) then we engage in this invasion and protracted
occupation that is costing billions of dollars that we don't have. This
is how you want the government to spend your money? On long campaigns
that accomplish nothing? On killing 10 thousand Iraqi civilians for
nothing? On maiming and killing our military for nothing? No
chemicals. No nuclear. No big guns. No biological. No torture
chambers (except our own.)
So now Sadam didn't torture anyone? I give up, if you believe
that...well.....there's no need to go on.
No, I believe Saddam tortured, but he didn't have all the torture
chambers the Iraqi exiles told us about. Remember the special machine
with wheels that Saddam fed people into? Guess what, it never existed.

You're betting our farm on a shit load of lies sweetie. If you're not
going to wake up now, you'll never admit this mistake in the future no
matter how low we sink.

bel
Post by Botch
Botch
Sara
2004-06-09 22:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Phoenix
That said, I loved watching him speak in a dialogue setting. His
press conferences were masterful, his conversations with the public were
riveting. The man was quick and interested and calm. I got the feeling
that he was interested in doing his job.
Basically your saying he was a smooth talker.
Hey, have you noticed Bush can be quite the smooth talker also? But,
only when he's talking about something he has a grip on--like sports,
his ranch, family & friends, etc. He talks just fine then. No
stumbling or bumbling. When he screws up and sounds like a dolt is when
he is talking about subjects he does not have a grip on -- like his
plans and strategy for foreign affairs, the deficit, the environment,
general analysis and problem-solving involved with being the POTUS. He
just cannot seem to give a thoughtful intelligence response to those
hard questions.
Botch
2004-06-09 21:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sara
Hey, have you noticed Bush can be quite the smooth talker also? But,
only when he's talking about something he has a grip on--like sports,
his ranch, family & friends, etc. He talks just fine then. No
stumbling or bumbling. When he screws up and sounds like a dolt is when
he is talking about subjects he does not have a grip on -- like his
plans and strategy for foreign affairs, the deficit, the environment,
general analysis and problem-solving involved with being the POTUS. He
just cannot seem to give a thoughtful intelligence response to those
hard questions.
You just don't like the answers so you pick apart his delivery. I agree
he's not the smoothest speaker in the world, regardless of the subject. If
delivery is such a tell tale sign of someone's intelligence or interest in a
subject then anyone who is shy or a bad public speaker is stupid.

Botch
Steve Sullivan
2004-06-09 17:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phoenix
When he didn't live up, we bombed the hell out of him (under Clinton.)
And he had NOTHING to respond with. NOTHING! He was fenced in. The UN
inspectors were right. Scott Ritter was right! There were no weapons!
So, since Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into his palace (which turned
out to have NO WEAPONS) then we engage in this invasion and protracted
occupation that is costing billions of dollars that we don't have. This
is how you want the government to spend your money?
Sounds treasonous to me. He wants OUR money spent on Iraqi
schoolchildren, Iraqi Schools, Iraqi Security, Iraqi Hospitals, Iraqi
Schools, while our schools, security, hospitals suffer. You rebpugs
should all be shot for treason.
Post by Phoenix
On long campaigns
that accomplish nothing? On killing 10 thousand Iraqi civilians for
nothing? On maiming and killing our military for nothing? No
chemicals. No nuclear. No big guns. No biological. No torture
chambers (except our own.)
I agree with everything you say except this.
Post by Phoenix
No grateful, liberated Iraqi citizens. No
example of democracy for the Arab world. No means to solve the
Israel/Palestinian problem. No stable source of oil to fill our SUVs
(and tanks) cheaply.
For this shit, you are willing to become a debtor nation who can't
afford to educate its kids or police its cities.
That's a fucking ideological implosion.
Phoenix
2004-06-09 20:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Phoenix
When he didn't live up, we bombed the hell out of him (under Clinton.)
And he had NOTHING to respond with. NOTHING! He was fenced in. The UN
inspectors were right. Scott Ritter was right! There were no weapons!
So, since Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into his palace (which turned
out to have NO WEAPONS) then we engage in this invasion and protracted
occupation that is costing billions of dollars that we don't have. This
is how you want the government to spend your money?
Sounds treasonous to me. He wants OUR money spent on Iraqi
schoolchildren, Iraqi Schools, Iraqi Security, Iraqi Hospitals, Iraqi
Schools, while our schools, security, hospitals suffer. You rebpugs
should all be shot for treason.
Post by Phoenix
On long campaigns
that accomplish nothing? On killing 10 thousand Iraqi civilians for
nothing? On maiming and killing our military for nothing? No
chemicals. No nuclear. No big guns. No biological. No torture
chambers (except our own.)
I agree with everything you say except this.
Yeah, I overstated my case. What I meant to convey is that we haven't
found any of the torture chambers that the Iraqi exiles claimed existed
- the body grinders, the chemical experiment labs and such.

Oh Saddam tortured and murdered all right. All dictators do. But the
graphic descriptions we've been fed are bunk

bel
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Phoenix
No grateful, liberated Iraqi citizens. No
example of democracy for the Arab world. No means to solve the
Israel/Palestinian problem. No stable source of oil to fill our SUVs
(and tanks) cheaply.
For this shit, you are willing to become a debtor nation who can't
afford to educate its kids or police its cities.
That's a fucking ideological implosion.
Big J
2004-06-09 21:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phoenix
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Phoenix
On long campaigns
that accomplish nothing? On killing 10 thousand Iraqi civilians for
nothing? On maiming and killing our military for nothing? No
chemicals. No nuclear. No big guns. No biological. No torture
chambers (except our own.)
I agree with everything you say except this.
Yeah, I overstated my case. What I meant to convey is that we haven't
found any of the torture chambers that the Iraqi exiles claimed existed
- the body grinders, the chemical experiment labs and such.
Oh Saddam tortured and murdered all right. All dictators do. But the
graphic descriptions we've been fed are bunk
Yep, mostly bunk. But even more important, IMO, is that the reason for the
invasion and war was WOMD, not torture or bringing democracy or any of the
other crap that Bush says now.

It was sold on WOMD alone.

Big J

-----




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Phoenix
2004-06-10 08:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big J
Post by Phoenix
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Phoenix
On long campaigns
that accomplish nothing? On killing 10 thousand Iraqi civilians for
nothing? On maiming and killing our military for nothing? No
chemicals. No nuclear. No big guns. No biological. No torture
chambers (except our own.)
I agree with everything you say except this.
Yeah, I overstated my case. What I meant to convey is that we haven't
found any of the torture chambers that the Iraqi exiles claimed existed
- the body grinders, the chemical experiment labs and such.
Oh Saddam tortured and murdered all right. All dictators do. But the
graphic descriptions we've been fed are bunk
Yep, mostly bunk. But even more important, IMO, is that the reason for the
invasion and war was WOMD, not torture or bringing democracy or any of the
other crap that Bush says now.
It was sold on WOMD alone.
Big J
Yes, that's how Bush sold the invasion of Iraq, but many of the
"intellectual" conservative writers didn't talk much about those WOMD.
They mostly twat on about the need for hegemony in the Middle East, and
examples of democracy for all Muslims to follow (while conveniently
forgetting that all our allies in the ME are countries with monarchies
or military dictatorships.)

It's simply astounding that nothing has been accomplished with this
invasion. Absolutely nothing. From top to bottom, not one goal has
been met. Yet the conservatives will believe whatever Rush tells them
to believe - which is "We Won! Go Team! Keep the Coach! Screw the
Losers!"


bel
Post by Big J
-----
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Steve Sullivan
2004-06-10 05:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phoenix
Yeah, I overstated my case. What I meant to convey is that we haven't
found any of the torture chambers that the Iraqi exiles claimed existed
- the body grinders, the chemical experiment labs and such.
Oh Saddam tortured and murdered all right. All dictators do. But the
graphic descriptions we've been fed are bunk
bel
Whats more, whoever we put in power, we will probably know they will be
a dictator. And do the same kinds of things Saddam does. We sent a
diplomat to tell Saddam not to worry about all the hubbub the liberals
were making about him gassing the kurds. True story. Dont have the
link tho (anyone??)
Phoenix
2004-06-10 06:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Phoenix
Yeah, I overstated my case. What I meant to convey is that we haven't
found any of the torture chambers that the Iraqi exiles claimed existed
- the body grinders, the chemical experiment labs and such.
Oh Saddam tortured and murdered all right. All dictators do. But the
graphic descriptions we've been fed are bunk
bel
Whats more, whoever we put in power, we will probably know they will be
a dictator. And do the same kinds of things Saddam does.
Or worse. How about another militant Islamic nation?



We sent a
Post by Steve Sullivan
diplomat to tell Saddam not to worry about all the hubbub the liberals
were making about him gassing the kurds. True story. Dont have the
link tho (anyone??)
That I hadn't heard, but in view of the April Gillespie incident before
Desert Storm I wouldn't be surprised.

bel
Steve Sullivan
2004-06-09 17:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phoenix
You should have read the article I happened upon the other day, about
the private contractors in Iraq and how much they are costing us, and
how they can refuse to work, sit around the hotel all day and collect
our tax money, if things look slightly dicey. And guess what, any work
they start on, say, a hospital or telephone lines, can be immediately
preempted by something Halburton needs.
This is the policy of a fiscally conservative president? We pay to
destroy a country (that wasn't bothering us) and now we pay to build it
again. WTF?
If this fucking loon conservatives didnt notice, OUR country needs
rebuilding. OUR states need the money. OUR schools need rebuilding.
Bush should be tried for treason for spending 100's of billions on Iraq
when it is OUR country that needs it.
Viv
2004-06-09 17:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sullivan
If this fucking loon conservatives didnt notice, OUR country needs
rebuilding. OUR states need the money. OUR schools need rebuilding.
Bush should be tried for treason for spending 100's of billions on Iraq
when it is OUR country that needs it.
THANK YOU!!! Well said!

Viv
OrionCA
2004-06-09 19:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Post by Steve Sullivan
If this fucking loon conservatives didnt notice, OUR country needs
rebuilding. OUR states need the money. OUR schools need rebuilding.
Bush should be tried for treason for spending 100's of billions on Iraq
when it is OUR country that needs it.
THANK YOU!!! Well said!
What's the Gross Domestic Product of the United States?
--
Randi Rhodes, Air America radio host, suggesting
President Bush's assassination to a caller:


R: "Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full
of grace, God is with ou-" [Randi makes the sound of
a blast] ... Works for me."

TITLE 18 Sec. 871. - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency


(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for
conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any
post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing
any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to
inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United
States, the President-elect, the Vice President or
other officer next in the order of succession to
the office of President of the United States, or
the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
President-elect, Vice President or other officer next
in the order of succession to the office of President,
or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Steve Sullivan
2004-06-10 05:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrionCA
Post by Viv
Post by Steve Sullivan
If this fucking loon conservatives didnt notice, OUR country needs
rebuilding. OUR states need the money. OUR schools need rebuilding.
Bush should be tried for treason for spending 100's of billions on Iraq
when it is OUR country that needs it.
THANK YOU!!! Well said!
What's the Gross Domestic Product of the United States?
several trillion dollars. Maybe 10?
ANIM8Rfsk
2004-06-11 00:00:50 UTC
Permalink
<< From: Viv ***@nowhere.com >>


<< THANK YOU!!! Well said! >>

Not really. In fact it was so amazingly stupid, you'd have to be a sock puppet
or mentally deficient to agree with it. But I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt - maybe you're both, brave little anonymous troll.
Phoenix
2004-06-09 20:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Phoenix
You should have read the article I happened upon the other day, about
the private contractors in Iraq and how much they are costing us, and
how they can refuse to work, sit around the hotel all day and collect
our tax money, if things look slightly dicey. And guess what, any work
they start on, say, a hospital or telephone lines, can be immediately
preempted by something Halburton needs.
This is the policy of a fiscally conservative president? We pay to
destroy a country (that wasn't bothering us) and now we pay to build it
again. WTF?
If this fucking loon conservatives didnt notice, OUR country needs
rebuilding. OUR states need the money. OUR schools need rebuilding.
Bush should be tried for treason for spending 100's of billions on Iraq
when it is OUR country that needs it.
Absolutely! And if their were something like justice for this country
against rich sons of oil profiteers, he'd be impeached ASAP.

And they wanted to impeach a Pres for a blow job, yet this ugly,
conniving clusterfuck of an administration is A-Okay by the
conservatives. This country is truly in a trance to the whims of Faux
News and Rush Limbaugh.

bel
Viv
2004-06-09 22:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phoenix
Post by Steve Sullivan
If this fucking loon conservatives didnt notice, OUR country needs
rebuilding. OUR states need the money. OUR schools need rebuilding.
Bush should be tried for treason for spending 100's of billions on Iraq
when it is OUR country that needs it.
Absolutely! And if their were something like justice for this country
against rich sons of oil profiteers, he'd be impeached ASAP.
And they wanted to impeach a Pres for a blow job, yet this ugly,
conniving clusterfuck of an administration is A-Okay by the
conservatives. This country is truly in a trance to the whims of Faux
News and Rush Limbaugh.
bel
I can't believe there are people that still have the nerve to *defend*
what Bush is doing! WTF are they thinking? Oh wait, they're NOT -
that's what's the matter with them. They've got their heads so far up
Rush Limbaugh's ass they can't see anything for all the SHIT.

If we had a decent president doing a good job of running the country
instead of fucking things up the way Dubya is doing, I wouldn't care
if he was getting blown on an hourly basis! That would be HIS
business, not mine.

Viv
OrionCA
2004-06-10 01:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Post by Phoenix
And they wanted to impeach a Pres for a blow job, yet this ugly,
conniving clusterfuck of an administration is A-Okay by the
conservatives. This country is truly in a trance to the whims of Faux
News and Rush Limbaugh.
bel
I can't believe there are people that still have the nerve to *defend*
what Bush is doing!
That's only because you stopped taking your meds and have been
listening to the voices in your head again.
--
Randi Rhodes, Air America radio host, suggesting
President Bush's assassination to a caller:


R: "Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full
of grace, God is with ou-" [Randi makes the sound of
a blast] ... Works for me."

TITLE 18 Sec. 871. - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency


(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for
conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any
post office or by any letter carrier any letter,
paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing
any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to
inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United
States, the President-elect, the Vice President or
other officer next in the order of succession to
the office of President of the United States, or
the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully
otherwise makes any such threat against the President,
President-elect, Vice President or other officer next
in the order of succession to the office of President,
or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Harpie
2004-06-10 17:09:47 UTC
Permalink
I'm glad to see you cite the Federal code for making death threats against
the president. I recall the same thing happening to Bill Clinton; someone
had said if he showed up at a base in South Carolina he should be wearing
body armor (or something to that effect).

I assume you would want that person prosecuted as well.
Post by OrionCA
Randi Rhodes, Air America radio host, suggesting
R: "Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full
of grace, God is with ou-" [Randi makes the sound of
a blast] ... Works for me."
TITLE 18 Sec. 871. - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Phoenix
2004-06-10 19:37:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <caa4l4$f4v$***@news.cudenver.edu>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by Harpie
I'm glad to see you cite the Federal code for making death threats against
the president. I recall the same thing happening to Bill Clinton; someone
had said if he showed up at a base in South Carolina he should be wearing
body armor (or something to that effect).
I assume you would want that person prosecuted as well.
What, a Republican Senator? Never! They're sacred!

No matter what they say or do, we MUST salute Republicans!

bel
Post by Harpie
Post by OrionCA
Randi Rhodes, Air America radio host, suggesting
R: "Yeah.. take him out and you know "Hail Mary, full
of grace, God is with ou-" [Randi makes the sound of
a blast] ... Works for me."
TITLE 18 Sec. 871. - Threats against President and successors to the
Presidency
Viv
2004-06-10 21:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phoenix
I
What, a Republican Senator? Never! They're sacred!
No matter what they say or do, we MUST salute Republicans!
bel
Indeed! There have been some rumblings right here regarding people
talking badly about Reagan now that he's dead and that we should "at
least respect the office of President"; I asked if that would apply
when Bill Clinton dies, or Jimmy Carter for that matter?

No reply at all, to borrow a phrase from Phil Collins...

Viv
Phoenix
2004-06-10 21:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Post by Phoenix
I
What, a Republican Senator? Never! They're sacred!
No matter what they say or do, we MUST salute Republicans!
bel
Indeed! There have been some rumblings right here regarding people
talking badly about Reagan now that he's dead and that we should "at
least respect the office of President"; I asked if that would apply
when Bill Clinton dies, or Jimmy Carter for that matter?
No reply at all, to borrow a phrase from Phil Collins...
Viv
No, they're far to busy jonesing for their lost leadership that never
really was.

And because they're addicted to this feeling of Pride and Authority,
even against all the available facts to the contrary, they'll salute a
dumbass like Dubya.

Hell, Reagan ain't any more special because he's dead. We're a
democracy. We're not supposed to treat our presidents like monarchs
ordained by god. Our specialness, as a country, is we get to slap these
guys around a little bit, mock them, find their weak spots and curse
them, question their policy and make our support matter to them.

Except for Lincoln and FDR, I can't think of a President who would cause
any tears or reverence from me at his passing.

bel
Phoenix
2004-06-10 08:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Post by Phoenix
Post by Steve Sullivan
If this fucking loon conservatives didnt notice, OUR country needs
rebuilding. OUR states need the money. OUR schools need rebuilding.
Bush should be tried for treason for spending 100's of billions on Iraq
when it is OUR country that needs it.
Absolutely! And if their were something like justice for this country
against rich sons of oil profiteers, he'd be impeached ASAP.
And they wanted to impeach a Pres for a blow job, yet this ugly,
conniving clusterfuck of an administration is A-Okay by the
conservatives. This country is truly in a trance to the whims of Faux
News and Rush Limbaugh.
bel
I can't believe there are people that still have the nerve to *defend*
what Bush is doing! WTF are they thinking? Oh wait, they're NOT -
that's what's the matter with them. They've got their heads so far up
Rush Limbaugh's ass they can't see anything for all the SHIT.
It's a matter of trying very hard not to be ashamed. If they looked at
what The Chimp really is, they'd have to admit they made a grave
mistake. They'd rather live in a state of denial and continue to trust
a mental midget and his gang of thieves then ever admit that their all
precious faith is in the wrong people.

Not to mention, they relish their roles as Winners, and any doubt might
make them Losers. Too bad they can't see politics as a flexible thing,
and these politicians can be forced to serve us like they should (rather
than treating their Fearless Leader like some monarch who can't be
criticized.)

bel
Post by Viv
If we had a decent president doing a good job of running the country
instead of fucking things up the way Dubya is doing, I wouldn't care
if he was getting blown on an hourly basis! That would be HIS
business, not mine.
Viv
g***@internet.charitydays.uk.co
2004-06-10 01:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Phoenix
You should have read the article I happened upon the other day, about
the private contractors in Iraq and how much they are costing us, and
how they can refuse to work, sit around the hotel all day and collect
our tax money, if things look slightly dicey. And guess what, any work
they start on, say, a hospital or telephone lines, can be immediately
preempted by something Halburton needs.
This is the policy of a fiscally conservative president? We pay to
destroy a country (that wasn't bothering us) and now we pay to build it
again. WTF?
If this fucking loon conservatives didnt notice, OUR country needs
rebuilding. OUR states need the money. OUR schools need rebuilding.
Bush should be tried for treason for spending 100's of billions on Iraq
when it is OUR country that needs it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Bush's debt is shared equally amongst all Americans, it comes to $24,200 per person.


We are talking about the financial debt that Bush has run-up since he took office.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jfred
2004-06-12 13:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@internet.charitydays.uk.co
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Phoenix
You should have read the article I happened upon the other day, about
the private contractors in Iraq and how much they are costing us, and
how they can refuse to work, sit around the hotel all day and collect
our tax money, if things look slightly dicey. And guess what, any work
they start on, say, a hospital or telephone lines, can be immediately
preempted by something Halburton needs.
This is the policy of a fiscally conservative president? We pay to
destroy a country (that wasn't bothering us) and now we pay to build it
again. WTF?
If this fucking loon conservatives didnt notice, OUR country needs
rebuilding. OUR states need the money. OUR schools need rebuilding.
Bush should be tried for treason for spending 100's of billions on Iraq
when it is OUR country that needs it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Bush's debt is shared equally amongst all Americans, it comes to $24,200 per person.
We are talking about the financial debt that Bush has run-up since he took office.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And Bush, of course, left no child behind when it came to saddling us
all with this incredible amount of debt. We can fight a useless war and
have tax cuts, too! We'll just let the kids pay for it all! Wheee!!!!!
--
jfred~*~*~*~*~*~Habent Abdenda Omnes Praeter Me ac Simiam Meam~*~*~*~*~
~You can sent email to me if you change the 3 zeros to lower case "o"s~
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
How's YOUR linewrap? If using OE, you need http://flash.to/oe-quotefix/
Steve Sullivan
2004-06-05 23:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Well I thought we were discussing Moore, but I would just suggest you look
up what the people in power were saying about Iraq and Sadam around 1998.
Here's a hint, Bush wasn't the first one calling for regime change in Iraq
and claiming they had stockpiles of WMDs.
Why dont you tell us what George Bush had his diplomats tell Saddam,
when their was a furor over him gassing the kurds??
Botch
2004-06-05 21:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Botch
Well I thought we were discussing Moore, but I would just suggest you look
up what the people in power were saying about Iraq and Sadam around 1998.
Here's a hint, Bush wasn't the first one calling for regime change in Iraq
and claiming they had stockpiles of WMDs.
Why dont you tell us what George Bush had his diplomats tell Saddam,
when their was a furor over him gassing the kurds??
I agree 100 per cent, has absolutely nothing to do with Bush jr and the
previous administration, but I think we should have raised a big stink about
the gasing back then.

Botch
AKA
2004-06-06 02:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
Post by Steve Sullivan
Post by Botch
Well I thought we were discussing Moore, but I would just suggest
you look up what the people in power were saying about Iraq and
Sadam around 1998. Here's a hint, Bush wasn't the first one calling
for regime change in Iraq and claiming they had stockpiles of WMDs.
Why dont you tell us what George Bush had his diplomats tell Saddam,
when their was a furor over him gassing the kurds??
I agree 100 per cent, has absolutely nothing to do with Bush jr and
the previous administration, but I think we should have raised a big
stink about the gasing back then.
Botch
Try reading the official report on what Bush and his cabal actually knew
about Iraq and WMD.

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm


WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications
This new Carnegie Report studies what the intelligence community understood
about Iraq's WMD programs before the war and outlines policy reforms
designed to improve threat assessments, deter transfer of WMD to terrorists,
and avoid politicization of the intelligence process.
Botch
2004-06-06 05:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by AKA
Try reading the official report on what Bush and his cabal actually knew
about Iraq and WMD.
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications
This new Carnegie Report studies what the intelligence community understood
about Iraq's WMD programs before the war and outlines policy reforms
designed to improve threat assessments, deter transfer of WMD to terrorists,
and avoid politicization of the intelligence process.
For purposes of this email I read the two page summary and part three of the
report.
Agree with some of it, disagree with other parts ,some of their suggestions
are at best naive, and finally some of the comaparisons they use to come to
some of their conclusions are definately biased or hardly accurate
comparisons. They are also drawing conclusions on what they even admit is
incomplete information because of classified data from both the US, UN and
others.


Botch
E Varden
2004-06-06 15:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by AKA
Post by AKA
Try reading the official report on what Bush and his cabal actually knew
about Iraq and WMD.
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications
This new Carnegie Report studies what the intelligence community
understood
Post by AKA
about Iraq's WMD programs before the war and outlines policy reforms
designed to improve threat assessments, deter transfer of WMD to
terrorists,
Post by AKA
and avoid politicization of the intelligence process.
For purposes of this email I read the two page summary and part three of the
report.
Agree with some of it, disagree with other parts ,some of their suggestions
are at best naive, and finally some of the comaparisons they use to come to
some of their conclusions are definately biased or hardly accurate
comparisons. They are also drawing conclusions on what they even admit is
incomplete information because of classified data from both the US, UN and
others.
In simpler terms, it's full of shit. Once again, SHOW me the WMD,
you pathetic flaghead.


Pe
AKA
2004-06-06 16:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by E Varden
Post by Botch
Post by AKA
Try reading the official report on what Bush and his cabal actually
knew about Iraq and WMD.
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications
This new Carnegie Report studies what the intelligence community
understood about Iraq's WMD programs before the war and outlines
policy reforms designed to improve threat assessments, deter
transfer of WMD to terrorists, and avoid politicization of the
intelligence process.
For purposes of this email I read the two page summary and part
three of the report.
Agree with some of it, disagree with other parts ,some of their
suggestions are at best naive, and finally some of the comaparisons
they use to come to some of their conclusions are definately biased
or hardly accurate comparisons. They are also drawing conclusions
on what they even admit is incomplete information because of
classified data from both the US, UN and others.
In simpler terms, it's full of shit. Once again, SHOW me the WMD,
you pathetic flaghead.
Pe
Just the opposite. The report basically says Bush and the White House cabal
misled the American people into the war with Iraq.

About the Carnegie Report

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/04/schwarz.htm


The Bush Administration "systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and ballistic
missile programs," concluded a January report issued by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace-a nonpartisan research institution, albeit
one far more closely aligned with the Democratic Party than with the
Republican. Not all fair-minded observers would go quite that far. But in
the most generous interpretation possible, it is clear that the President
and his team massaged the truth-even if we allow for significant
intelligence failures generally, as well as for the great uncertainty in the
months preceding the war regarding the status of Iraq's biological-weapons
program specifically
Big J
2004-06-06 17:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by AKA
Post by Botch
Post by AKA
Try reading the official report on what Bush and his cabal actually
knew about Iraq and WMD.
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications
This new Carnegie Report studies what the intelligence community
understood about Iraq's WMD programs before the war and outlines
policy reforms designed to improve threat assessments, deter
transfer of WMD to terrorists, and avoid politicization of the
intelligence process.
For purposes of this email I read the two page summary and part
three of the report.
Agree with some of it, disagree with other parts ,some of their
suggestions are at best naive, and finally some of the comaparisons
they use to come to some of their conclusions are definately biased
or hardly accurate comparisons. They are also drawing conclusions
on what they even admit is incomplete information because of
classified data from both the US, UN and others.
In simpler terms, it's full of shit. Once again, SHOW me the WMD, you
pathetic flaghead.
Pe
Just the opposite. The report basically says Bush and the White House
cabal misled the American people into the war with Iraq.
About the Carnegie Report
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/04/schwarz.htm
The Bush Administration "systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and ballistic
missile programs," concluded a January report issued by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace-a nonpartisan research institution,
albeit one far more closely aligned with the Democratic Party than with
the Republican. Not all fair-minded observers would go quite that far.
But in the most generous interpretation possible, it is clear that the
President and his team massaged the truth-even if we allow for
significant intelligence failures generally, as well as for the great
uncertainty in the months preceding the war regarding the status of
Iraq's biological-weapons program specifically
But do the lies matter? For half of America, they don't.

The horror of 9/11 scared them. The President says comforting stuff. They
feel better. They're not as scared now, so whatever he did and now does is
OK.

It has nothing to do with facts - it's all about the irrational fear of the
fundies and neocons.

But enough of that - now back to the regularly scheduled Sunday morning
Reagan worship.

Big J

-----




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Phoenix
2004-06-06 19:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big J
Post by AKA
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/04/schwarz.htm
The Bush Administration "systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and ballistic
missile programs," concluded a January report issued by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace-a nonpartisan research institution,
albeit one far more closely aligned with the Democratic Party than with
the Republican. Not all fair-minded observers would go quite that far.
But in the most generous interpretation possible, it is clear that the
President and his team massaged the truth-even if we allow for
significant intelligence failures generally, as well as for the great
uncertainty in the months preceding the war regarding the status of
Iraq's biological-weapons program specifically
But do the lies matter? For half of America, they don't.
The horror of 9/11 scared them. The President says comforting stuff. They
feel better. They're not as scared now, so whatever he did and now does is
OK.
Believe it or not, I have heard people who work for right-wing lawmakers
and the Pentagon refer to this as "giving the citizens the right not to
worry about politics."

Yes, I'm serious, they think they're doing a good thing by hiding the
ugliness of what they really do from the public. They've convinced
themselves that people are happier not voting or caring what their
government does. In fact, I've heard it admitted that all the factual
obfuscation and blunt jingoism is just what the public wants - so why
not serve it to them?

I have NEVER heard a liberal or democrat speak in these terms....at
least to me.
Post by Big J
It has nothing to do with facts - it's all about the irrational fear of the
fundies and neocons.
And this misplaced nature of Pride. I've never understood how one can
be naturally proud of the place where one happens to be born. Proud of
achievements, sure. Proud of unique characteristics, yep. But simply
proud because your ass happens to be sitting on US rather than Mexican
soil? Makes no sense, yet our government tries to pump out this reflex,
without criticism or inquiry, with nearly overwhelming hype.

Show me something to be proud of lately, and I'll be proud. Show me a
reason to be proud of any of the Reagan accomplishments, rather than
getting teary eyed and soft for any picture of the man, and I'll figure
out if I'm proud of his representation of this country.
Post by Big J
But enough of that - now back to the regularly scheduled Sunday morning
Reagan worship.
Such a Godly man after all.

Salute the man who mentions God the most!

bel
Post by Big J
Big J
-----
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Botch
2004-06-06 16:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by AKA
Post by E Varden
Post by Botch
Post by AKA
Try reading the official report on what Bush and his cabal actually
knew about Iraq and WMD.
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications
This new Carnegie Report studies what the intelligence community
understood about Iraq's WMD programs before the war and outlines
policy reforms designed to improve threat assessments, deter
transfer of WMD to terrorists, and avoid politicization of the
intelligence process.
For purposes of this email I read the two page summary and part
three of the report.
Agree with some of it, disagree with other parts ,some of their
suggestions are at best naive, and finally some of the comaparisons
they use to come to some of their conclusions are definately biased
or hardly accurate comparisons. They are also drawing conclusions
on what they even admit is incomplete information because of
classified data from both the US, UN and others.
In simpler terms, it's full of shit. Once again, SHOW me the WMD,
you pathetic flaghead.
Pe
Just the opposite. The report basically says Bush and the White House cabal
misled the American people into the war with Iraq.
About the Carnegie Report
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/04/schwarz.htm
The Bush Administration "systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and ballistic
missile programs," concluded a January report issued by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace-a nonpartisan research institution, albeit
one far more closely aligned with the Democratic Party than with the
Republican. Not all fair-minded observers would go quite that far. But in
the most generous interpretation possible, it is clear that the President
and his team massaged the truth-even if we allow for significant
intelligence failures generally, as well as for the great uncertainty in the
months preceding the war regarding the status of Iraq's biological-weapons
program specifically
Who Carnegie is more closely aligned with should be taken into account, but
also is it reasonable to expect an organization that's suppose to be an
endowment for international peace to actually endorse a war?
The report also stated, (to paraphrase rather crudely)..that Iraq was being
looked at through 9/11 goggles.
Considering some of the stretches the report makes to support some of its
conclusions makes it's criticisms of the language the Bush admin used a
little suspect.
But as I said, I didn't disagree with everything in it.

Botch
Botch
2004-06-06 16:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by E Varden
Post by AKA
Post by AKA
WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications
This new Carnegie Report studies what the intelligence community
understood
Post by AKA
about Iraq's WMD programs before the war and outlines policy reforms
designed to improve threat assessments, deter transfer of WMD to
terrorists,
Post by AKA
and avoid politicization of the intelligence process.
For purposes of this email I read the two page summary and part three of the
report.
Agree with some of it, disagree with other parts ,some of their suggestions
are at best naive, and finally some of the comaparisons they use to come to
some of their conclusions are definately biased or hardly accurate
comparisons. They are also drawing conclusions on what they even admit is
incomplete information because of classified data from both the US, UN and
others.
In simpler terms, it's full of shit. Once again, SHOW me the WMD,
you pathetic flaghead.
I love the throwing around of names when you can't make a civil argument.
Reread what I said, I agreed with some of the their conclusions not that the
report was full of shit.
You show me, how when the Bush admin looks at info and reads it as WMDs is
merely lying to start a war, yet when Clinton called for regime change and
said they had WMDs along with the UN, France, Germany and Russia they
weren't lying?

Botch
I
JLplsSS
2004-06-06 19:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Botch
You show me, how when the Bush admin looks at info and reads it as WMDs is
merely lying to start a war, yet when Clinton called for regime change and
said they had WMDs along with the UN, France, Germany and Russia they
weren't lying?
They didn't act on the bad information, Bush did. This rationalization for
Bush's actions don't support his going to war, but rather it shows how arrogant
and impudent he was for doing so.






Donna
My opinions might have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
Botch
2004-06-06 17:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JLplsSS
Post by Botch
You show me, how when the Bush admin looks at info and reads it as WMDs is
merely lying to start a war, yet when Clinton called for regime change and
said they had WMDs along with the UN, France, Germany and Russia they
weren't lying?
They didn't act on the bad information, Bush did. This rationalization for
Bush's actions don't support his going to war, but rather it shows how arrogant
and impudent he was for doing so.
You just made an argument that no else has made, congratulations, everyone
else who hates Bush automatically says he lied, which is what I was
countering. Saying he acted on bad info, ( something which I don't agree
with ) is a more rational argument than spewing out conspiracy theories.
Somebody just plain screwing up is always a more likely occurance than some
grand nefarious plan.
When Sadam's jet fighters are being found buried out in the middle of
nowhere to hide them and he has a history of sending military equipment out
of the country to safe guard it , when even the UN admits Sadam never
accounted for everything, combined with his unwillingnous to comply with the
terms he agreed to at the end of the gulf war, any action against him was
valid. The question is, with his refusal to comply with the UN resolutions
why didn't the other countries act?

Botch
syvyn11
2004-06-03 00:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@h9ottmail.com
Post by syvyn11
Now america can see what a lying sack of shit Michael Moore is.
Such as?
Please post your list of lies. Thank you.
I suspect the lying sack of shit is YOU!
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1488074/06022004/story.jhtml
Michael Moore's Embattled 'Fahrenheit 9/11' To Be Released In June
Anti-Bush flick to be released in theatres by Lions Gate Entertainment
Corp., IFC Films.
On June 25, U.S. audiences will finally get a chance to see the film that
set the Cannes Film Festival abuzz and Disney's boardroom ablaze when
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is released nationwide.
Miramax Films' Bob and Harvey Weinstein said on Tuesday that the
controversial film will be released in theatres by Lions Gate
Entertainment
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
Corp. and IFC Films. Cable television network Showtime will handle rights
for pay TV. (MTV's parent company, Viacom, also owns Showtime.) The deal
was
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
finalized last week when the Weinsteins bought the rights to the film from
the Walt Disney Co. for around $6 million, according to Reuters.
In early May, Disney refused to allow Miramax to release the film in
theatres, claiming that Disney was not in a position to take sides in a
political debate (see "Michael Moore's Anti-Bush 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Rescued
By Miramax Heads"). IFC Films President Jonathan Sehring explained to
Reuters IFC's decision to back the film, noting that "this film will cause
debate, but that is also what this country is founded on."
"Fahrenheit 9/11," which examines the United States' reaction to the
September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, links the
Bush
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
family to the bin Laden family and other Saudi groups. The film won the
Palm
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
d'Or - the top prize - at this year's Cannes Film Festival.
That the documentary will hit theatres just over five months before the
2004
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
presidential election is no coincidence. In May, Moore told Reuters that
he
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
hoped his film would influence the outcome of the election. "Everybody
knows
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
who I am and where I stand," he said. "Oh no, I'm not trying to pretend
I'm
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
being evenhanded with Bush."
Sehring said "Fahrenheit 9/11" was originally going to be released on July
2
Post by syvyn11
Post by Rick in Oz
to 500 theaters, but that the company decided to push the date ahead. The
number of theaters that will screen the film on June 25 has yet to be
determined.
by Alyssa Rashbaum
From Sunny Oz, Rick :)
Proud Keeper of the talented & beautiful Halle Berry.
www.moorewatch.com

among others.
Malev
2004-06-03 14:29:48 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun 2004 17:54:33 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (syvyn11) wrote:

<huge snip>
Post by syvyn11
www.moorewatch.com
among others.
What can one expect from a site that advertises
" free 2004 Buttons Bush-Cheney " ?
Asshole.
JLplsSS
2004-06-02 23:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by syvyn11
Now america can see what a lying sack of shit Michael Moore is.
syvyn11
As opposed to that saintly Bush. He's managed to tell many lies about Iraq
(he's still claiming it's part of his war on terror, yet Al Queda wasn't in
Iraq until Bush sent US there).

He lied about his prescription drug package's true costs to the tune of $100B;
otherwise, it wouldn't have passed the house.

He lied about being a uniter (not a divider) and about being a compassionate
conservative. He's cut veteren's benefits and in moves that hurt our ability
to combat terrorism at home, he's cut first response and CDC funds
significantly.

And did you even read the secret internal White House memo that was published
by the Washington Post? His whole campaign in 2004 is a pack of lies that they
are already planning on reneging on next year.



He lied about showing budget discipline and fiscal restraint and now we are
running record deficits.

The truth is, there are lots of children he has left behind, despite his
promises to the contrary.




Donna
My opinions might have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
ANIM8Rfsk
2004-06-03 01:33:46 UTC
Permalink
<< From: "syvyn11" ***@yahoo.com >>


<< Now america can see what a lying sack of shit Michael Moore is. >>

All you have to do is see his other movies for that.
Otter
2004-06-05 10:18:25 UTC
Permalink
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

Forthcoming film about the filmmaker's repeated attempts to interview
Moore.

Sound familiar?

(not a moore hater, but agree he's getting a little out of control)

-Otter
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...