posted on March 11, 2003 08:17:33 AM new
Its been in the making for 10 years,and not by the reasons we are told.This is a follow up read KRS posted a couple weeks back.
The short version.
posted on March 11, 2003 12:08:48 PM new
junquemama and donny
Those articles were very interesting to read!!! "America's hotbed of commie-pinko-liberalism" LOL!
About the link...sometimes when I paste a link in the message box it looks like donny's link. Maybe you pressed enter after the first [url] and that caused the line break that Irene mentioned.
posted on March 11, 2003 01:28:26 PM new
Junquemama, actually, the posters here may feel more comfortable reading your article. As you probably know, some commie Georgia writers are always playing footsie with the facts.
AND, of course, *they* are hell bent on capturing the world by organizing peace marches. That is so obvious to everyone here.
posted on March 11, 2003 03:07:12 PM new
Okay questions to you good people who are sometimes misguided, imo.
If this has been going on for 10 years or more..would that then mean the Clinton administration was involved in some way? After all Bush has only been in office for the last 2.
Secondly, the writer states that the administration is unconcrned about an exit plan from Iraq. But I've read three different plans myself that are on the table and being 'tossed' around. Did this writer not read those 'suggested' plans? Or is he choosing to ignore them?
I have noticed that Clinton was accused of being big on a 'global plan' which was denied. Now Bush is thought, by some, to be doing the same thing? Or is this more sinister that I could ever imagine?
posted on March 11, 2003 03:52:51 PM new
So, Helen, then since you feel you're not misguided...say so..but answer the questions...if you have answers. If you have no answers, I can understand.
posted on March 11, 2003 04:49:09 PM new
I'll take a shot at it...
No one will remember, but since before the presidential election when there were big discussions here about George Bush's credentials to be president, I said, over and over, it didn't matter what George Bush's credentials are. When people went on and on about how Bush's religious convinctions were leading him to purposefully bring about the end of the world, I yawned. And when pro-Bush people asked the question - "If George Bush is so stupid, how did he gather such a group of well-qualified people for his administration?" I probably didn't even bother to say it again. I'll say it again now. Republican presidents are figureheads. They do not choose their administrations,
their adminstrations choose them. An undergraduate degree in anything doesn't teach you much, but you pick up a few things. This is one of them. There hasn't been a Republican president who was more than a figurehead since Nixon. Since then, every one of them has been, basically, a puppet, chosen by the Republican cadre. The Republican party builds its presidential administration from the bottom up. Democrats do it from the top down. Republicans start with the administration and then find a guy to lead it; Democracts start with a leader and then he builds his administration.
This makes Republican presidencies more effective; you're getting the same guys each time, they all know what their goals are, they're efficient and they have their network in place. It also makes them more predictable. Was anyone scared because he had no idea what this Bush would do? No need to be afraid of the unknown. It's known. It's Reagan plus.
You can look back at the members of Reagan and George Bush's administrations and look at G.W. Bush's administrations, and you see the same guys over and over.
posted on March 11, 2003 05:04:10 PM new
donny,exactly.President Bush was not the first President to try to get Social Security
put in the stock market,Reagan was,he quickly dropped it,because of a strong Democrat voice.They keep trying the same game plan.
posted on March 11, 2003 06:04:08 PM new
WOW!..Some great information there Helen:
White House advisors looking for a "way out" of war with Iraq
By Capitol Hill Blues Staff
Some strategists within the Bush Administration are urging the President to look for an "exit strategy" on Iraq, warning the tough stance on war with the Arab country has left the country in a "no win" situation. "At this point, the United States and Britain does not have the support for passage of a second UN resolution," admits a White House aide.
In addition, Republican leaders in both the House and Senate are telling the Presidently privately that he is losing support in Congress for a "go it alone war" against Iraq.
"The President's war plans are in trouble, there's no doubt about that," says an advisor to House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert. "Some Republican members want a vote on military action and some of those say they would, at this point, vote against such action."
Some White House advisors are urging the President to consider complying with the UN position or to look for other "face saving" ways to avoid war with Iraq.
President Bush, however, is reported to be "hanging tough" on plans to invade Iraq, even though his closest advisors tell him such a move could be "disasterous" politically.
"The President has backed himself and the nation into a corner in a no win situation," says political scientist George Harleigh. "World opinion is against him. Public opinion polls show support eroding among Americans."
Republican campaign strategist Vern Wilson says he is advising his clients to "put some distance between themselves and the President" on war with Iraq.
"When you have former military leaders questioning the wisdom of war, then you have Vietnam and Gulf War veterans marching against the war, when you have Republicans in Congress questioning the President's judgment, it tells me we could have a problem," Wilson said Wednesday.
The escalating loss of support for the U.S. officials has led to an increase of defiance by Iraqi officials, who have yet to live up to promises of increased support and aid to U.N. inspectors looking for the country's suspected weapons of mass destruction.
Taking heart from the split in the Security Council regarding possible military action against the country. and the world-wide protests against war, Iraq has changed from saying that its officials are complying with U.N. demands to asking for a lifting of sanctions instituted against Iraq after it was forced out of Kuwait more than 10 years ago.
"We have not seen any positive moves on the part of Iraq," one U.N. official in Iraq told The Washington Post, while another said, "They are not fulfilling their promises."
U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq in November after the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, a strongly worded document that promised "serious consequences" should Iraq not live up to the stipulations outlined in the document. Those included giving U.N. inspectors unrestricted access inside Iraq and orders to report any interference by Iraq with the inspections.
However, since last Friday, when lead weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammad ElBaradei reported to the Security Council, the United Nations has not seen Iraq carry through on promises to deliver documents about old weapons programs nor have there been interviews with scientists involved with possible weapons technology.
Large anti-war demonstrations were staged in several cities around the world. The United States and Britain are having trouble finding support for anything stronger than additional inspections in Iraq in their Security Council deliberations.
posted on March 11, 2003 09:16:18 PM new
Recognizing the difference between the approaches of the Republican party and the Democratic party in presidential politics since Nixon isn't tripe. It's part of studying Political Science in the sense of scholarship rather than just regular guy political opinings. I do plenty of unfounded regular guy political opinings, but I also earned a degree in this very thing, as well as being named Departmental Scholar at my crappy college. I'm always right!
posted on March 12, 2003 06:46:23 AM new"If this has been going on for 10 years or more..would that then mean the Clinton administration was involved in some way? After all Bush has only been in office for the last 2".
Duh! Clinton, clinton, Clinton.
NO, these people (can't you recognize the names?) were meeting while out of power to plot their scheme for whenever they could regain power. Almost all of them are old and this past election was their last chance to foment their plan, so bush HAD to win. They cooked the election years in advance by payoffs, plotting, and persuasion - ultimately lining up judges, fixing the florida election machine, getting rid of anyone who might mess up the too important plan.
Now they have their one shot to implement their world encompassing dominion. They'll all die either knowing complete failure or convinced that what they have done will stand for a millinium as the greatest empire the world has ever known. They're mad geniuses, deluded patriots, or rich game players who have lost all sense of the fine ideals upon which this country was founded and are prepared to throw out everything we poor minions have struggled toward these two hundred years in order to feel that they win. It's a shame that they're probably no good at chess and someone should have taught then the game of "Oh #*!@", or maybe Hearts.
Frustrated old rich men who believe that they know best what is good for the world. If they had ended up poor you could find them holding forth at any bus station or barber shop in the land.
posted on March 12, 2003 07:01:57 AM new
...looking for a conspiracy they can bond together with. Ahhhh...another conspiracy story. I think some here are so paranoid they check each closet in the house and look under their bed before going to sleep.
posted on March 12, 2003 08:22:15 AM new
... I'm not a conspiracy person. As to the election, I believe that both the Democrats and the Republicans tried to steal it, the Republicans just stole it better.
It was pretty ironic. About a month before the election happened, I'd read that the Bush election team was working up a plan to challenge the upcoming election, but they were anticipating making the other argument; Bush team projections had Gore winning the electoral vote, and Bush winning the popular vote, the opposite of the way it turned out. The Bush election team was gearing up to launch a media blitz, popular protests, and legal challenges to the election for that outcome. I can't remember where I'd read that, but it was some place I'd considered credible, not that that's worth much to anyone but me.
Anyway, you don't need to be a whacked out conspiracist to see that these same guys keep forming the Republican adminstrations, just look back at the Republican adminstrations.
posted on March 12, 2003 08:56:05 AM new
donny - I have always found you, personally, to be more 'fair and balanced' than most who post here...just as I have found Reamond to be the same way. While I have not agreed with all your statements I believe you are one of the very few who can stand back and be objective.....many cannot. It's always some new conspiracy theory with them.
posted on March 12, 2003 09:32:19 AM new
You can find the same patterns and the same people in Democratic administrations. It's just harder to notice since the Dems had only 8 recent years out of the last 23 in the White House. Clinton had people on staff from the Carter and Roosevelt administartion in Warren Christofer.
Yoy will also find policies followed by both parties that come from "think tanks", as well as cabinet members from these "think tanks".
However, what you failed to notice is that these "conspirators" all work for think tanks when out of office. It is a jobs program for these people to keep their resumes from having blank spaces.
...I sure did like donnys artical.Cant put it on the table any better.
snowy
I think some here are so paranoid they check each closet in the house and look under their bed before going to sleep.