Jump to content

A moment


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

If you had asked me that question 25 years ago, my answer would have been very different than it is today. At this point in my life, I lack the burning desire essential to take any position of awesome responsibility. So that would kind of eliminate, "Leader of the Free World."

I believe that anyone seeking the presidency forms a covenant with the American people, and the world really, to be an honest, informed, decisive, compassionate leader who takes responsibility for his actions (or inactions). As fragile human beings that is a monumental task and recent history shows us that many of our leaders fall short of this paradigm. History will judge each by how far and how often he has fallen short. If there is any justice in this world, George W. Bush's presidency will be judged harshly in the annals of the American story. He has let us down more often than not.

He absolutely should be judged harshly, although he has managed to live most of his adult life escaping criticism for his many failures. He's been bailed out of one disaster after another, from his "precocious" college days to his AWOL National Guard duty, oil company CEO (that went belly up, too), professional sports team owner (he walked away from that one with things in tatters). Now he's got Rove calling the shots, and it's Rove who's managed to get him elected first as Governor and then President. (Although he wasn't REALLY elected President, but that's a story for another day.) It's sad and it's frightening that this ill-prepared man is the leader of the free world. Really frightening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He absolutely should be judged harshly, although he has managed to live most of his adult life escaping criticism for his many failures.  He's been bailed out of one disaster after another, from his "precocious" college days to his AWOL National Guard duty, oil company CEO (that went belly up, too), professional sports team owner (he walked away from that one with things in tatters).  Now he's got Rove calling the shots, and it's Rove who's managed to get him elected first as Governor and then President.  (Although he wasn't REALLY elected President, but that's a story for another day.)  It's sad and it's frightening that this ill-prepared man is the leader of the free world.  Really frightening.

I really wish Kerry, or better yet Dean had one the election, just to burn your a**.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, if Bush had made his pitch for the Iraqi invasion based on a humanitarian premise i.e. the killing of the Kurds, I could almost forgive him. But that is not what he did. He used the politics of fear and LIED about the presence of weapons of mass destruction; and then he and his cronies underestimated the resourcefulness of the opposition. So as the administration tells us, "We're workin' hard and makin' progress," the death toll of both Americans and Iraqi nationals rises at a higher rate every day.

Yeah, you're doin' a heck of a job, Bushy!

Bush made the pitch over a year before the invasion. The UN wasn't listening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you had asked me that question 25 years ago, my answer would have been very different than it is today. At this point in my life, I lack the burning desire essential to take any position of awesome responsibility. So that would kind of eliminate, "Leader of the Free World."

I believe that anyone seeking the presidency forms a covenant with the American people, and the world really, to be an honest, informed, decisive, compassionate leader who takes responsibility for his actions (or inactions). As fragile human beings that is a monumental task and recent history shows us that many of our leaders fall short of this paradigm. History will judge each by how far and how often he has fallen short. If there is any justice in this world, George W. Bush's presidency will be judged harshly in the annals of the American story. He has let us down more often than not.

And exactly what politician has ever made or lived up to that covenant? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you had asked me that question 25 years ago, my answer would have been very different than it is today. At this point in my life, I lack the burning desire essential to take any position of awesome responsibility. So that would kind of eliminate, "Leader of the Free World."

I believe that anyone seeking the presidency forms a covenant with the American people, and the world really, to be an honest, informed, decisive, compassionate leader who takes responsibility for his actions (or inactions). As fragile human beings that is a monumental task and recent history shows us that many of our leaders fall short of this paradigm. History will judge each by how far and how often he has fallen short. If there is any justice in this world, George W. Bush's presidency will be judged harshly in the annals of the American story. He has let us down more often than not.

Come on now talk about fantasy land. Even "Honest Abe" lied to justify the Civil War. He probably didn't give a rat's a** about the slaves it was just a popular reason to demonize the south and rally the north.

His true goal, and what makes him one of our greatest Presidents, was his foresight in wanting to preserve the Union at all costs. However, this was not as popular a battle cry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Curious don't post anymore, or if you must post at least stick to kissing Realist's a**, you just don't get it do you!

No, I guess I don't "get it". I don't kiss anybody's ***, including yours, and I'll continue to post whenever and about whatever I'd like. Agreeing with someone's point of view is not the same as kissing ***. Didn't your mother ever teach you anything?

Now, tell me, who the hell is JRR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid for my children and the future. This situation with these eastern people is a real problem. Imagine cutting a mans head off on vidio so the world can see. I'm scared to think that we were attacked and we must worry about how these people are treatd! We all know they are willing to die and don't care who they bring along with them. Keep in mind that some day you or your husband,child, mother, father,might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This world can be a very mean place at times and we are in those times right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ever question why Bush directed his wrath at Iraq and not North Korea. Kim Jong-il made no secret of the fact that his country was testing nuclear weapons and withdrew from the international disarmament talks. You don't consider that a more eminent threat than Iraq?

Why were international disarmament talks necessary? I thought Jimmy boy took care of that, in fact earned a Nobel Peace Prize.

And it's imminent, not eminent, since you always correct everyone else, thought I needed to instruct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast

>>Really, did they get to see everthing? What did Sadam use to kill all of those Kurds with? Can the stuff be moved, destroyed, hidden. See if you can grasp this: It's a friggin' giant sand box, it could be anywhere. The fact of the matter is; he developed the weapons and had the facilities to produce it, had large quantities of it stored, he used it on the Kurds, he never allowed any inspectors full access to even his "known manufacturing plants", according to his own scientists he interested in developing nuclear weapons, etc. But I guess the people of Iraq and the rest of the world were better off with him in power.<<

The attack on the Kurds occurred in March of 1988… three years before Gulf War I. Since then, the UN and a myriad of other teams have searched the whole sand box… THEY’RE NOT THERE!! Give it up already. What ever he had was destroyed. Hans Blix to Bush appointed David Kay…. everyone agrees… they are not there… why do you guys keep holding on to this. Let it go.

>>Iraq is as good a place to start as any. Let's see; insane dictator, not beyond using chemical weapons, sometimes for fun, on his own citizens, pours money into the support of terrorism, meets with and supplies aid and comfort to known terrorist agents, etc. Don't you think a lot of nations in that region have begun to sit up and take notice? Even Libya is starting to behave. Nobody said it was going to be easy. I think Bush himself said that this type of war would probably go beyond the next ten years and it may never truly end. Still republicans and democrats voted to go ahead.<<

What are you, Saddam’s accountant? What money and supplies and comfort to ‘known terrorists’? There is no proof of that. What wingnut writer did you get that from? There is a theory that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Tell me, how is the Libya of 20 years ago any different than Saddam’s Iraq of 3 years ago? Not much. However Reagan didn’t go invading Libya and bogging us down in a war we would still be fighting today. So now Libya sees the $ it has been missing and comes around. Gee… is there a lesson here? Saddam like Quadaffi, is no Islamic fundamentalist. He’s a criminal in a business suit (or at least he was). Why did he kill the Kurds? Why did he kill the Shia? Because they were a threat to his power. Tin horn dictators, some of whom we have had as allies, have been doing the same thing for a thousand years. What made Saddam so special?

>>I may not consider it acceptable, it is just reality. It is the nature of the world. Do you think the government, democrat or republican, can release all of the information it uses to make decisions to the public. Some things must remain classified in order for the country to operate. I'm not comparing WWII to Iraq other than to say things are done for reasons not immediately apparent to the public. I'm sure FDR didn't need Pearl Harbor to know that Japan was a major threat to the US. Everything Japan did up to Pearl Harbor screamed that the US was the next target.<<

Ahhh and yes…’the wise old government knows stuff we don’t and they know best … now run along and stop asking questions’… BS! You know damn well that there are very few secrets that stay secret anymore. Do you really believe that something as big as a slam dunk defense of BushCo’s business venture in Iraq would still be a secret? … and you call Liberals naive… sheees!

>>Yeah, yeah, I know. The same old line "I support the troops but not the war". I'm sure the troops appreciate that. It's a funny thing but the vast majority of the troops support the war and feel that it has been worth it. Inferior equipment, inferior compared to what? Even the best equipment is not going to protect every soldier in every situation. One thing for sure, whenever the enemy is engaged, our troops ultimately win. Ask the insurgents or Sadam's "elite troops" if our military has inferior equipment or is not supplied. Like I said before, Bush warned the country that the war on terror would take a very long term commitment and may never really end. I prefer that all of the terrorists go to Iraq to be terminated by our well trained troops rather than have them end up here or in Europe.<<

What soldier is going to say that the war he is fighting isn’t worth it? You’re not exactly talking about an unbiased opinion. Most of our troops are not being killed in traditional military engagements. They are being killed either by suicide bombers or small bands of insurgents who kill and melt away into the general population. We would all just love for the terrorists to go to one central location so we can shoot them but they ain’t. They have bombed London, they have bombed Madrid and they will most likely attack us here again. How is a war in Iraq preventing that? Short answer, it isn’t and it never will.

We can not win the war in Iraq. There will only be peace there when our troops are gone. We never should have invaded to begin with and it is long since time that we should develop an exit strategy. The longer we stay, the worse it gets. The grand neocon scheme of establishing a constitutional democracy in the Middle East is dead for the foreseeable future. At best, the Iraqi’s will sort out their differences in a decade or two. At worst, the country will break up in a bloody civil war .... And they can thank George W. Bush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I guess I don't "get it".  I don't kiss anybody's ***, including yours, and I'll continue to post whenever and about whatever I'd like.  Agreeing with someone's point of view is not the same as kissing ***.  Didn't your mother ever teach you anything?

Now, tell me, who the hell is JRR?

Please, you and Realist are practically lovers!

JRR Tolkien wrote The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. The screen name Radagast refers to a character from the books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And it's imminent, not eminent, since you always correct everyone else, thought I needed to instruct.

You thought wrong, again! Look it up on page 263, Webster's Universal College Dictionary--- eminent: adj. high in rank or status; prominent; of greatest or utmost importance;(which is exactly the intended connotation.) The word "imminent" means forthcoming and is a reference to time not status; as in, "Dawn was imminent."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you would be the only person I know who would use that word in that context.  Then again, you are unique in many of your thoughts, all ill-conceived, devoid of fact, and bitter in nature.

Oh well, then, if no one you know would use that word in that way, then it MUST be incorrect!

Hey, I don't say "imminent" when I mean "eminent". If that makes me unique, then I'm unique.

Link to post
Share on other sites
>>Really, did they get to see everthing? What did Sadam use to kill all of those Kurds with? Can the stuff be moved, destroyed, hidden.  See if you can grasp this: It's a friggin' giant sand box, it could be anywhere.  The fact of the matter is; he developed the weapons and had the facilities to produce it, had large quantities of it stored, he used it on the Kurds, he never allowed any inspectors full access to even his "known manufacturing plants", according to his own scientists he interested in developing nuclear weapons, etc.  But I guess the people of Iraq and the rest of the world were better off with him in power.<<

The attack on the Kurds occurred in March of 1988… three years before Gulf War I. Since then, the UN and a myriad of other teams have searched the whole sand box… THEY’RE NOT THERE!! Give it up already. What ever he had was destroyed. Hans Blix to Bush appointed David Kay…. everyone agrees… they are not there… why do you guys keep holding on to this. Let it go.

>>Iraq is as good a place to start as any.  Let's see; insane dictator, not beyond using chemical weapons, sometimes for fun, on his own citizens, pours money into the support of terrorism, meets with and supplies aid and comfort to known terrorist agents, etc.  Don't you think a lot of nations in that region have begun to sit up and take notice? Even Libya is starting to behave.  Nobody said it was going to be easy.  I think Bush himself said that this type of war would probably go beyond the next ten years and it may never truly end.  Still republicans and democrats voted to go ahead.<<

What are you, Saddam’s accountant? What money and supplies and comfort to ‘known terrorists’?  There is no proof of that. What wingnut writer did you get that from? There is a theory that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. Tell me, how is the Libya of 20 years ago any different than Saddam’s Iraq of 3 years ago? Not much. However Reagan didn’t go invading Libya and bogging us down in a war we would still be fighting today. So now Libya sees the $ it has been missing and comes around. Gee… is there a lesson here? Saddam like Quadaffi, is no Islamic fundamentalist. He’s a criminal in a business suit (or at least he was). Why did he kill the Kurds? Why did he kill the Shia? Because they were a threat to his power. Tin horn dictators, some of whom we have had as allies, have been doing the same thing for a thousand years. What made Saddam so special?

>>I may not consider it acceptable, it is just reality.  It is the nature of the world.  Do you think the government, democrat or republican, can release all of the information it uses to make decisions to the public.  Some things must remain classified in order for the country to operate.  I'm not comparing WWII to Iraq other than to say things are done for reasons not immediately apparent to the public.  I'm sure FDR didn't need Pearl Harbor to know that Japan was a major threat to the US.  Everything Japan did up to Pearl Harbor screamed that the US was the next target.<<

Ahhh and yes…’the wise old government knows stuff we don’t and they know best … now run along and stop asking questions’…  BS! You know damn well that there are very few secrets that stay secret anymore. Do you really believe that something as big as a slam dunk defense of BushCo’s  business venture in Iraq would still be a secret? … and you call Liberals naive… sheees!

>>Yeah, yeah, I know.  The same old line "I support the troops but not the war".  I'm sure the troops appreciate that.  It's a funny thing but the vast majority of the troops support the war and feel that it has been worth it.  Inferior equipment, inferior compared to what? Even the best equipment is not going to protect every soldier in every situation.  One thing for sure, whenever the enemy is engaged, our troops ultimately win.  Ask the insurgents or Sadam's "elite troops" if our military has inferior equipment or is not supplied.  Like I said before, Bush warned the country that the war on terror would take a very long term commitment and may never really end.  I prefer that all of the terrorists go to Iraq to be terminated by our well trained troops rather than have them end up here or in Europe.<<

What soldier is going to say that the war he is fighting isn’t worth it? You’re not exactly  talking about an unbiased opinion. Most of our troops are not being killed in traditional military engagements. They are being killed either by suicide bombers or small bands of insurgents who kill and melt away into the general population. We would all just love for the terrorists to  go to one central location so we can shoot them but they ain’t. They have bombed London, they have bombed Madrid and they will most likely attack us here again. How is a war in Iraq preventing that? Short answer, it isn’t and it never will.

We can not win the war in Iraq. There will only be peace there when our troops are gone. We never should have invaded to begin with and it is long since time that we should develop an exit strategy. The longer we stay, the worse it gets. The grand neocon scheme of establishing a constitutional democracy in the Middle East is dead for the foreseeable future. At best, the Iraqi’s will sort out their differences in a decade or two. At worst, the country will break up in a bloody civil war .... And they can thank George W. Bush.

Oh OK, you're right. Let's do nothing. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...