Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BushBacker

A Win For Bush

Recommended Posts

If we don't impeach, do we have any standards for our President? Are our presidential performance expectations so low that we will never impeach due to possible dissension?

Besides, this didn't seem to bother the republicans when they tried it on Clinton.

Impeachment might be painful but in the end there will be a big sigh of relief. Look at it as an operation, painful but you're getting rid of something rotten.

That's the sad part of this fiasco. Our country is so divided over Bush's mess it would be crippling to impeach this idiot.

But you're right, they impeached Clinton because he lied to the grand jury about having an affair with "that woman." But we don't talk about impeaching the current president about commiting illegal wiretaps, illegal detentions, and other felonies.

Impeachment or not, this Bush is probably the black sheep on an otherwise proud dynasty. I don't know Jeb that well, but he seems more intelligent and comptent than his older brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not asking you to believe everything that he says in his book. All I am saying is that no matter how many of the books are written about Iraq, their content is the same.

No, it isn't.

The Edsall formula holds. The book for which Bush was interviewed directly goes easy on Bush; many on the left complained that Woodward had sold out to the administration.

"After the fawning hagiography Bush at War (wherein we were assured Bush had taken out the Taliban), and the deceptive evenhandedness of Plan of Attack (wherein we see the plan implemented, and the end of major combat operations), State of Denial, the third book in this putative trilogy, has been heralded as a return to the fold."

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2006-11/express/woodward-at-war

"Any look at a new Woodward book necessarily gives at least a nod to his signature style, which, in Joan Didion's famous essay, holds that Woodward's "rather eerie aversion to engaging the ramifications of what people say to him" produces "books in which measurable cerebral activity is virtually absent." It's not an unfair criticism by any means, and one held by many of Woodward's critics."

http://www.cjrdaily.org/politics/woodward_as_easy_target.php

We blew it in the beginning.

You're avoiding the issue of what to do about Iraq now.

I am not a great lover of Woodward or any other Author for that matter. But simply dismissing a content of a book on the word of an interview with someone else may not be right also.

As I said in my previous message, it doesn't take long for the stuff in Woodward's books to make their way into the news. There's typically no need to read the book unless one doesn't want to miss out on his journalistic spin.

I'd love to see the facts from the book--that's why I'm inviting you to present them in your argument (if you've even got one).

It's extraordinarily hard to win a libel suit against a journalist. The law is stacked in favor of free speech even if the speech isn't true (the plaintiff must demonstrate "malice" on the part of the author).

Stop dancing around the issue. Either present an argument (borrow from Woodward as much as you like), or proceed in building your shrine to Woodward (in which case you might not want to be bothered by such outside activities).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we don't impeach, do we have any standards for our President?

That depends on what you propose to impeach Bush for.

Most don't really have any clear idea, and those who do seem to have a clear idea tend to not know what they're talking about.

Are our presidential performance expectations so low that we will never impeach due to possible dissension?

Some consider wartime a sensitive time to impeach. Thus, Lincoln can suspend Habeus corpus and FDR can intern U.S. citizens in concentration camps but the nation stays mostly unified (there was considerable criticism of Lincoln, however, but more related to the poor early outcome of the Civil War).

Besides, this didn't seem to bother the republicans when they tried it on Clinton.

You're right. I can't even remember what war we were waging when Clinton was impeached.

Impeachment might be painful but in the end there will be a big sigh of relief. Look at it as an operation, painful but you're getting rid of something rotten.

There will be a big sigh of relief in Madrassahs all over the world, and radical Islamists will have received confirmation that their methods will work.

Democracies are ultimately too weak to oppose them in an asymmetrical war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bern
That's the sad part of this fiasco.  Our country is so divided over Bush's mess it would be crippling to impeach this idiot.

But you're right, they impeached Clinton because he lied to the grand jury about having an affair with "that woman."  But we don't talk about impeaching the current president about commiting illegal wiretaps, illegal detentions, and other felonies.

Impeachment or not, this Bush is probably the black sheep on an otherwise proud dynasty.  I don't know Jeb that well, but he seems more intelligent and comptent than his older brother.

I agree. Their Father and Grandfather did pretty well and Jeb does have a pretty good rep in FL. Shame he didn't become president. Could have, should have ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bern
There will be a big sigh of relief in Madrassahs all over the world, and radical Islamists will have received confirmation that their methods will work.

Democracies are ultimately too weak to oppose them in an asymmetrical war.

Never underestimate democracies. That's when the human spirit works best and you get ten times more innovation, effort and strength from the people than you would ever get in a dictatorship. Hitler and Stalin had contempt for democracy. They too said democracies are too weak to oppose them. And, yet great as their military machines were, we know what happened to their governments.

I don't know about the regular brain washed masses in the Madrases. But the fundamentalist Islamic leaders are highly intelligent and they'd wish for Bush to be our president for life.

It's all about our world influence and the power we project in the world. They'd love to reduce it to nothing and Bush has certainly helped to start the reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scooter Fibby
Impeachment or not, this Bush is probably the black sheep on an otherwise proud dynasty.  I don't know Jeb that well, but he seems more intelligent and comptent than his older brother.

Unfortunately, stupidity, arrogance, and pig-headedness are not impeachable offenses.

A cantaloupe seems more intelligent than Jeb's brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scooter Fibby
There will be a big sigh of relief in Madrassahs all over the world, and radical Islamists will have received confirmation that their methods will work.

Democracies are ultimately too weak to oppose them in an asymmetrical war.

Oh, you mean the fundamentalist Islamic schools that are heavily financed by Saudi Arabia, the same source as 15/19 9/11 hi-jackers? The same country whose leaders Bush holds hands and waltzes through the Rose Garden with while he invades countries with no ties to 9/11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
Unfortunately, stupidity, arrogance, and pig-headedness are not impeachable offenses.

No, but wiretapping Americans without a warrant is.

When you come right down to it, however, 'high crimes' are essentially whatever Congress says they are. I believe Bush could be impeached but there is virtually no chance that he would be convicted in the Senate. Therefore, with less than two years to go before we're rid of him anyway, what's the real point? The whole process would very likely take longer than that.

It would nice to expose him for the lying criminal that he is, but we have bigger things to worry about at this point in our history ... like trying to fix the damage he's done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never underestimate democracies. That's when the human spirit works best and you get ten times more innovation, effort and strength from the people than you would ever get in a dictatorship.

You should consider my comments in context.

Hitler and Stalin had contempt for democracy. They too said democracies are too weak to oppose them. And, yet great as their military machines were, we know what happened to their governments.

I don't know about the regular brain washed masses in the Madrases. But the fundamentalist Islamic leaders are highly intelligent and they'd wish for Bush to be our president for life.

It's all about our world influence and the power we project in the world. They'd love to reduce it to nothing and Bush has certainly helped to start the reduction.

It's the influence of liberals that will diminish US power in the world, perhaps fatally.

Watch as the Democratic presidential hopefuls fall all over each other trying to articulate a response to Iraq and terrorism.

It's going to be funny (except for the tragedy likely to follow).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, you mean the fundamentalist Islamic schools that are heavily financed by Saudi Arabia, the same source as 15/19 9/11 hi-jackers?

Those and the ones that currently exert political control in Iran. The Shiite radicals and the Sunni radicals are two sides of the same coin.

Both will be encouraged by the display of US weakness demonstrated by the American political left (not to leave out wavering conservatives like Warner).

The same country whose leaders Bush holds hands and waltzes through the Rose Garden with while he invades countries with no ties to 9/11?

Confused accusations are second nature to you.

The dominant forces in the Saudi government are relatively progressive. The Saudi people are far more militant than their government, though the government has elements that sympathize with the radicals.

Liberal ditzes like to forget all about that and paint partnership with the Saudi leadership as support of terrorism.

It's very amusing, since on the one hand they say they want diplomatic solutions, and on the other hand they want to play some sort of diplomatic hardball that has no practical chance of success.

The solution in dealing with Saudi Arabia is ... _________________?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You should consider my comments in context.

It's the influence of liberals that will diminish US power in the world, perhaps fatally.

I never heard Dubya described as a liberal but he has certainly managed to diminish US power and reputation in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Looter Fibby
It's very amusing, since on the one hand they say they want diplomatic solutions, and on the other hand they want to play some sort of diplomatic hardball that has no practical chance of success.

Of course! It was much more sensible to go off on a poorly planned invasion of a country that was not an imminent threat and make a real cock-up of the region.

You have one, inflated, undeserved, high opinion of your pompous ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but wiretapping Americans without a warrant is.

The president has a very strong argument based on his Article II powers in light of the AUMF granted by Congress.

Moreover, the details of the surveillance program are not widely known. It is likely that something like probable cause has preceded any actual wiretaps, and congressional oversight of the program has been solicited (in that members of Congress were informed and updated about the program).

It's like Clinton forming a congressional committee to discuss with them his plans for testifying in the Jones case. :o

When you come right down to it, however, 'high crimes' are essentially whatever Congress says they are. I believe Bush could be impeached but there is virtually no chance that he would be convicted in the Senate. Therefore, with less than two years to go before we're rid of him anyway, what's the real point? The whole process would very likely take longer than that.

The Bush-haters want blood. That's the point.

Props to you for your relative restraint, of course.

It would nice to expose him for the lying criminal that he is,

The respective complaints, when described and exposed to the facts, seem awfully strained.

but we have bigger things to worry about at this point in our history ... like trying to fix the damage he's done.

You mean raising taxes, or rehabilitating al Qaeda?

Just wondering. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
It's the influence of liberals that will diminish US power in the world, perhaps fatally.

Watch as the Democratic presidential hopefuls fall all over each other trying to articulate a response to Iraq and terrorism.

It's going to be funny (except for the tragedy likely to follow).

It would be hard to imagine how any President could do a better job of lowering respect for the US around the world than W has. Just to make sure he remains the best at it, he keeps digging.

The Democratic candidates do not disagree that we have to get out of Iraq before the entire outhouse blows up in our face ... they only disagree on how long it should take.

I don't see you quoting the NIE anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest a propud american
The Edsall material did not pertain to agreement/disagreement but to Woodward's credibility in general.

If you think that Woodward is completely reliable or if you believe that he is the sole conduit of accurate information concerning Iraq, then you are fooling yourself.

And you're still invited to go back and answer the arguments I made without trying to refer me to Woodward's book.

As I said earlier:  if there's material you want to introduce from Woodward's book in answer to my arguments, then do it.

If you were fair-minded, wouldn't you stack up the White House claims against Woodward's to see which provided the overall stronger explanation, instead of simply trusting Woodward to get it right and taking White House criticism as a verification of Woodward's accuracy?

Come to think of it, what is is that "we already know" according to you?

Silly me for believing Woodward's colleague and poker opponent over somebody who reads his books. 

Thomas Edsall was a reporter with the Washington Post for like 30 years.  He provided a balanced view of Woodward, with the caveat that Woodward's journalism has some weaknesses.

You'd know that if you read the interview.

Hmmm.  Why don't I just join your game?

Just go to the website and read the interview for yourself.  But also remember that Thomas Edsall is a successful senior political reporter for the Washington Post, and he is bound to know more about Woodward's methods that somebody who just picks up Woodward's books and reads them.

I guess I could mention that Edsall left the Post to take a position at the Columbia journalism program (the most esteemed such program in the nation).

And give some further consideration to actually answering my arguments instead of ducking into the Woodward bomb shelter.

Bryan, I am not trying to avoid your question but am not quite finished reading the book and will be going out of town so I might not be back on for a couple weeks. And then I will be glad to go over the similarities with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
The president has a very strong argument based on his Article II powers in light of the AUMF granted by Congress.

Moreover, the details of the surveillance program are not widely known.  It is likely that something like probable cause has preceded any actual wiretaps, and congressional oversight of the program has been solicited (in that members of Congress were informed and updated about the program).

None of that means a damn in a court of law. Did he, or his minions, get approval from a FISA judge? If not, they have a large constitutional problem..IMHO, of course.

It's like Clinton forming a congressional committee to discuss with them his plans for testifying in the Jones case.  :excl:).

What does that have to do with violating an American citizen's Constitutional rights?

The Bush-haters want blood.  That's the point.

Props to you for your relative restraint, of course.

The respective complaints, when described and exposed to the facts, seem awfully strained.:huh:).

I've been involved in politics and government far too long to hate anyone simply because I disagree with them. However, how 'strained' the complaints of Mr. Bush's mass murder or mass negligent manslaughter in Iraq really are will, likely, never be known to a court of law. My feeling is that when all the known facts are assembled at some future date they may want to dig Bush up and hang him just on principle.

You mean raising taxes, or rehabilitating al Qaeda?

Just wondering.  :)

Now, now Byran ... you're better than a knee jerk retort like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be hard to imagine how any President could do a better job of lowering respect for the US around the world than W has. Just to make sure he remains the best at it, he keeps digging.

The Democratic candidates do not disagree that we have to get out of Iraq before the entire outhouse blows up in our face ... they only disagree on how long it should take.

Wait until the primaries get rolling.

And pay more attention to Biden.

I don't see you quoting the NIE anymore?

I like to vary my sources.

If you think you've got a point to make, feel free to remove the mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course!  It was much more sensible to go off on a poorly planned invasion of a country that was not an imminent threat and make a real cock-up of the region.

So we go from dealing with Saudi Arabia now to dealing with Iraq back then?

What did I tell you about addlepated liberals changing the subject as a favorite technique?

You have one, inflated, undeserved, high opinion of your pompous ass.

I haven't offered any opinion at all about myself.

I've simply dealt in the facts and pointed out the deficiencies of liberal "thought" on the ME foreign policy.

You haven't suggested any alternative plan, either. All you do is mock the mission in Iraq when the topic was Saudi Arabia.

Now that's pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never heard Dubya described as a liberal but he has certainly managed to diminish US power and reputation in the world.

Other nations criticize you more when you're powerful. The examples are legion.

Europe wants its European Union to compete with the United States economically. They prefer a weaker United States both economically and militarily.

Any other allies you want us to S**K up to by being weak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Replyin' to Pointless Bryan
So we go from dealing with Saudi Arabia now to dealing with Iraq back then?

What did I tell you about addlepated liberals changing the subject as a favorite technique?

You just can't get on the point, can you? There was NO reference to Saudi Arabia in the quoted statement but reference to the fact that we invaded a country that was not an imminent threat and made a real cock-up of the region, mostly due to the shoot from the hip mentality of this administration.

Why don't you stop wasting bandwith with stupid responses to what you imagine was said.

Addlepated? Here's a deal for you. If you can get the cowboy to say that three times fast with his foot in his mouth I'll vote for him, rumor has it he's decidered to run for president again. After all, in BushWorld the Constitution is merely suggestive and not law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stop the Stupidity
Other nations criticize you more when you're powerful.  The examples are legion.

Europe wants its European Union to compete with the United States economically.  They prefer a weaker United States both economically and militarily.

Any other allies you want us to S**K up to by being weak?

I hardly think the world's only remaining SuperPower is viewed as powerful when after four years its CinC can't manage to pacify and stabilize a small country like Iraq with the world's most powerful military.

If they prefer a weak Aerica they're certainly getting a weak American leader.

Weak in foreign policy

Weak in historical knowledge

Weak in long term strategy

and

EXTREMELY WEAK in leadership ability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BushBacker
You just can't get on the point, can you?  There was NO reference to Saudi Arabia in the quoted statement but reference to the fact that we invaded a country that was not an imminent threat and made a real cock-up of the region, mostly due to the shoot from the hip mentality of this administration.

Why don't you stop wasting bandwith with  stupid responses to what you imagine was said.

Addlepated?  Here's a deal for you.  If you can get the cowboy to say that three times fast with his foot in his mouth I'll vote for him, rumor has it he's decidered to run for president again.  After all, in BushWorld the Constitution is merely suggestive and not law.

Bryan, I have to commend your patience dealing with these intellectually inferior Bush haters. Your posts are factual and on point but they're lost on this 90 I.Q. bunch. I can see you enjoy sparing with them and I have to laugh at some of their stupid retorts.

Have you ever stopped to wonder what the source of all this anger is ?? I have a theory: I think they're so unhappy and dissatisfied with their lives, careers, social standing, etc., that they blame Bush bacause they can't (or won't) place the blame where it really belongs; on themselves.

Anyway, good job ! Don't beat them up too much. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan, I have to commend your patience dealing with these intellectually inferior Bush haters. Your posts are factual and on point but they're lost on this 90 I.Q. bunch. I can see you enjoy sparing with them and I have to laugh at some of their stupid retorts.

  Have you ever stopped to wonder what the source of all this anger is ??  I have a theory: I think they're so unhappy and dissatisfied with their lives, careers, social standing, etc.,  that they blame Bush bacause they can't (or won't) place the blame where it really belongs; on themselves.

  Anyway, good job !  Don't beat them up too much. LOL.

So very LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Bryan, I have to commend your patience dealing with these intellectually inferior Bush haters. Your posts are factual and on point but they're lost on this 90 I.Q. bunch. I can see you enjoy sparing with them and I have to laugh at some of their stupid retorts.

  Have you ever stopped to wonder what the source of all this anger is ??  I have a theory: I think they're so unhappy and dissatisfied with their lives, careers, social standing, etc.,  that they blame Bush bacause they can't (or won't) place the blame where it really belongs; on themselves.

  Anyway, good job !  Don't beat them up too much. LOL.

Ooooooooooooooooo. an endorsement from BushWanker, now THERE's something I can take as FACT, just like dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.

Your theory, like you, is full of crap. I'm unhappy that we have such an incompetent, arrogant, pig-headed president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest It's a Conspiracy!!&
Bryan, I have to commend your patience dealing with these intellectually inferior Bush haters. Your posts are factual and on point but they're lost on this 90 I.Q. bunch. I can see you enjoy sparing with them and I have to laugh at some of their stupid retorts.

  Have you ever stopped to wonder what the source of all this anger is ??  I have a theory: I think they're so unhappy and dissatisfied with their lives, careers, social standing, etc.,  that they blame Bush bacause they can't (or won't) place the blame where it really belongs; on themselves.

  Anyway, good job !  Don't beat them up too much. LOL.

Bush, BushWanker, Bryan, and Bullsh*t, they ALL start with B. coincidence? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...