"President Bush said Tuesday it is clear that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is not disarming his nation and again warned that "time is running out."
ZZzzzzzzz . . . zzzzZZZZZzzzzzz . . .
He's grandstanding at this point, trying to keep himself in the news to bolster his quickly sagging poles. Same old lies, same old tired nonsense that after this last weekend of protests and solidarity among Americans of all stripes, everyone now knows that everyone else agrees that he's just trying to intimidate the American people, not Saddam Hussein.
And if he does go to War, it will be to try to prop up his sinking poll numbers and Americans all know that. And we all know that we all know it together, and that's an important watermark on his administration. It will also be a GIANT MISTAKE on the part of the GOP, as the Republican Party is going to submerge beneath the polls to single digits from an unprovoked, unjustified invasion of Iraq ~ not the other way around.
But more than that, Americans are tired of listening to the news of Bush saber rattling. All talk and no action, strutting about, pretending he's moral when he is about to perpetrate a highly immoral act and make us ALL look bad! Bad form, that.
Are you tired as well of his attempts to alarm the American people?
ed. UBB
[ edited by Borillar on Jan 21, 2003 07:51 PM ]
posted on January 21, 2003 09:20:06 PM new
It's interesting that Reverend Ashcroft said the other day that Saddam could maybe avert a war by leaving the country...it's all so carefully crafted isn't it?
posted on January 21, 2003 10:51:00 PM new
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Yes, it is. They WISH he'd just walk away from power in Iraq! That way, Bush could save face, get great support for his "clever statesmanlike foreign policies" and so forth. In fact, scaring Saddam to death may be what they are really after here.
posted on January 21, 2003 11:20:16 PM new
Borillar, you nincompoop ( - and I say that with the greatest reverence), haven't you been reading Page 18 of your local newspaper? It is delineated therein (or thereabouts) that Our Man Bush is plug-chucking for drilling in parts of Alaska which our very own EPA said we absolutely WOULDN'T do just a mere twenty years ago.
High Exalted Mystic Ruler Bush knows that he's got *some* of the people ready to nuke the entire Middle East, and *some* of the people ready to fight for oil and a whole sh!tload of people who want the U.S. out of Middle East oil and politics altogether.
"Fine," he says, in his smirky fashion. "Let's 'explore' those regions of Alaska that were previously off limits. My Daddy built the pipeline (that pumps nothing and goes nowhere), so, all you fine Americans who drive SUV's, let's see what we can do for you to keep up your standard of living! And we won't have to take any sh!t off those money-grubbing Saudis to do it!"
Do some research into who (which corporations) built that Alaskan pipeline and which ones hold the drilling rights -- should they ever be honored. It reads like a Who's Who of Bush cronies and has led me to believe that this whole "Get Saddam" thing is nothing more than a sophomoric opus to:
A) embroil the present administration in a war that we won't vote Bush out of unfinished ( - and it WON'T be finished come election-time, *if* it gets going)
- OR -
B) get us to DEMAND that we drill/disturb pristine lands we thought worth protecting a mere generation ago in order to make ourselves "self-sufficient" ( - what a crock!)
(Don't groan, Borillar, I'm not "back" -- just passing through.)
posted on January 22, 2003 12:59:55 AM new
Bush has said all along he has proof of Saddam's WOMD programs. So far, he hasn't shown it. Meanwhile, he's ignoring more serious issues, even more serious players in the international terror game.
He won't be able to bluff the Arab leaders. And their supporters, like France, will fall in line too.
Moreover, he's losing support with the American people. If anti-war protests are already drawing hundreds of thousands, what will happen if a war (a protracted, ground war) begins?
Like in Animal Farm, Bush is starting to look like the very thing he claims to be fighting against.
My real fear is that a new 9-11 disaster may be engineered, simply to whip Americans into another frenzy.
I have no love for Saddam. I'd like to see him out. But a war will do little or nothing to end terrorism. Not as long as we're kissing Saudi ass.
posted on January 22, 2003 01:32:42 AM new
Many on here have been concerned that another 9-11 attack may be forthcoming if Bush decides that his numbers are dropping too low. I know that many would point to Saddam if that happened, but anyone with even a modest IQ would conclude that doing so would be in Saddam's worst interests to prove to the American people that he's just that dangerous to us. If it should happen (God forbid!) and the Bush Administration points a finger at Saddam, there will be few to believe him and more than likely many will point the finger at Bush himself once again.
Bush can't hold onto this "war" for much longer. Domestic issues have taken such a back-burner since he was appointed President. In fact, with the regular Republican agenda of cutting off aid to the poor and disadvantaged while shoveling that money into the pockets of the ultra-rich, Americans are getting completely fed up. I sense a real change; a slow burning anger that is rising to the surface, and all Bush needs to do to make it explode is to send our troops into battle. Even if it only takes a day or so to get Saddam to tuck tail and run away, the crime will already have been committed in the eyes of the world and Americans.
posted on January 22, 2003 07:11:05 AM new
Americans see this confrontation with Iraq as a losing battle. Our allies are wondering, "has the United States of America gone insane"? While Bush rachets up the war rhetoric, the war is being postponed until this summer. In the meantime, the economy is being wasted on a wild and crazy rush to war that may not happen???
The allies are not wimping out on Bush. They are simply in touch with reality.
posted on January 22, 2003 01:40:13 PM new
War, war, war. That's all we hear. It's not what we want to hear. We want to hear that Bush has finally decided that his priorities lie here at home. We want to hear that Bush has given a strong economy the top priority -- not pursuing the Bush Family's Private Pet Whipping Boy! Yet, that is what comes out of the White House on a daily basis -- not good news that Bush is finally acting like a President.
Americans all want the same thing, regardless of their political persuasion. We all want our government to work for the Public Good and that's their Job Description by the way. And when our government does not work for the Public Good, we all need to get angry and demand WHY of them. It does no good simply sitting there and blindly supporting any government or official instead of opening up your voice and getting angry.
IS Bush's War for the Public Good? Saddam can not hurt us, even by cutting off the flow of oil from his country. He can't get to us or hit us with weapons. Therefore, he is not a threat to us. Has Saddam broken any more treaties or agreements or failed to meet UN Resolutions anymore than Bush himself has since he took office? No! Therefore, we have no legal reason to go to war with Iraq. Even the morality of a first-strike is highly questionable as it is so anti-American to do that. Where in does Bush's War make for the Public Good?
What Bush's War has done so far is to help wipe out the Stock Market. That equates to lost jobs, lost income, smaller amount of taxes to the US Treasury. Clearly, this Bush's War is against the Public Good in so many ways.
Therefore, no matter what your political persuasion may be, you must conclude that Bush is NOT acting in the best interests of the People of the United States of America! He is NOT working for the Public Good -- which tells you why he was appointed into office for!
So why does he go on TV each day and continue to lie to us and to make the stock market devalue even further?
It's called Sleight of Hand, an old Magician's Trick. By shifting the focus away from an object of interest, you can do what you like with it and few will catch onto the trick.
The problem is, is that not so many people are falling for that trick anymore. The American public is becoming more and more focused on the Public Good. And each time Bush's answer to doing something in the Public Good is to rush even MORE Taxpayer Money into the hands of the Top 1 percent of Americans, even the lamest bush supporter now has his or her doubts. Sorry - Trickle Down Economics didn't work in the 1980's as it was a lie and trying to repackage it and sell it to us again is only for the gullible.
So, I'm tired of Bush trying to distract us away from our problems. For the person out of work looking for a job, Bush's War is such a far-fetched fantasy that the entire Republican party is making enemies much quicker than friends. The question is, is for how much longer will Bush use magician's tricks on us when we clearly see through them?
posted on January 22, 2003 02:35:06 PM new
Bush gave speech today at a company in Chicago that had a backdrop of cardboard boxes for the television audience which had "Made in America" stamped on the boxes. CNBC showed the back of the boxes which had Chinese writing on them. Turns out the employees turned the boxes around and stamped the "Made in America" on them just for the televised speech. It is probably impossible to find a "made in America" container anywhere in the world. Desperate, desperate in deed.
posted on January 22, 2003 03:41:24 PM new
Reamond - While I know you don't support Bush are you saying you also don't support removing Saddam from power?
posted on January 22, 2003 06:25:56 PM new
"Some people I love, mostly Democrats but some Republicans, have taken to asking: Why do people like Bush? ... [T]he American people sense Mr. Bush's humanity. But what they don't get to sense -- and I think this is a major though not consciously thought out part of Mr. Bush's popularity -- is his mess. ... Mr. Bush doesn't bring his dramas and mess with him. He doesn't bring a sack of dysfunction on his back when he enters a room. He keeps his woes, his emotions, his private life to himself. An example of what I'm getting at. He recently fired his Treasury secretary and his chief economic adviser. He wasn't happy with them; he wanted someone else; they didn't leave; he fired them. Boom. Next. If he feels personal bitterness, anger, or arrogance toward them, we don't know. This is wonderful. If it had been LBJ or Richard Nixon firing Paul O'Neill, we'd all still be talking about the personal elements in the marriage gone bad. ... And Bill Clinton's White House was, it hardly needs be said, another hothouse, though of a different kind. But with Mr. Bush things aren't a big emotional drama. He seems stable. This is a relief. You get the impression he's like what he of course was, a businessman. When things work, good; when they don't, change. It's not personal. It doesn't have to be messy. It's not Shakespearean. Which is good. The world is quite dramatic enough. It's good especially at this time to be led not by the emotionally labile but the grounded and sturdy. They can see Mr. Bush is grounded. They're glad." --Peggy Noonan
posted on January 22, 2003 06:55:31 PM new
Linda- I am beginning to lose any faith in Bush in the war on terrorism and the economy. He is starting to look like another Jimmy Carter, and during several parts of his speech sounded like Dan Quayle.
I don't care how "grounded" some think Bush is, I want results. I don't give a whit how many intern BJs were had or how many affairs are had- I want results. This whole "character issue" about Clinton was spurred on by political hacks to gain support from suburban housewives whose worse nightmare is an unfaithful husband, divorce, and poverty. Enough. Clinton was no more immoral or lacking in character than any other president. We need leaders not moralists.
The US had fewer people killed at Pearl Harbor and look at the war effort this country was able to accomplish 2 1/2 years after the Japanese attack. That effort was accomplished by leadership. Bush is nothing more than a Saudi boot licker and a confused man flapping with the polls.
Here we set more than 2 years after 9-11 and we have merely dispersed the Taliban and al Qaeda, and have installed what is becomming another wothless radical islamic government in its place. To even have a strategic land base we had to deliver millions to Pakistan, a country whose population supports Osama bin Laden and has nuclear weapons.
Do I think we should neutralize Iraqis weapons? Yes I do, but we also must sanitize Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan.
The basis for invading Iraq also applies to many countries. It doesn't make much sense to slap Iraq, which by the way is the most secular state in the region, and boot lick the others.
This war on terrorism has turned into a morass and befuddled foreign policy. Until and unless these terrorism issues and threats are settled, our economy is going to be tube city. There is no way a free market world economy can function with the costs and limitations exerted by the security measures we must now take.
posted on January 23, 2003 06:51:32 AM new
Thanks Reamond -
I guess my next question to you would be HOW, in your opinion, should he be dealing with terrorism then? You mention all the other countries, and I agree, and I think that is his long range plan. But are you saying he should be dealing with all these nations you mention all at the same time?
Yes, our economy is in dire straights. Would it be better if we weren't [as you say] boot-licking these other countries leaders? How could we possibly deal with them all at once? And if we weren't 'buying' other countries help, what would happen? America has been 'buying' many countries cooperation for many generations. That's nothing new.
I clearly hear what you and others are saying....but I hear mostly criticism and no offer of solutions that might work any better. No offers of what might work better than what is currently being done.
This isn't at all like Pearl Harbor. There was a country we could focus on. This isn't the same. Your post sounds like you're blaming him for the fact the terrorists left Afghanistan and are now worldwide. And that has created the mess we are now in. If that's a correct 'take' on your view, what should have been done?
________
A lot of posts here, in these different threads, give me the impression that we should do nothing until and unless we are attacked again. We should negotiate with the terrorists. How do you negotiate with those who want to destroy us? Beg them not to do so? Maybe my take is wrong, but that's what I'm getting. I'd ask these same people if they want the USA to become isolationists? Should we withdraw all our funding to all nations and use our money to better take care of our own? Should we withdraw all our military forces, from around the world, bring them all home and let the other nations pay for and take responsibility for their own defense? Should we not then, put our funds into protecting ourselves say from missiles? Protecting ourselves from nuclear weapons that might arrive at our door step soon?
Are we, as a nation, really ready to 'let go' of our life styles? Are we willing to watch our economy further deteriorate by using say 1/2 to 3/4 the oil by products we do now? Won't more people lose their jobs if we do that? North Korea now presents a major problem. Terrorist cells are all over the world. Should we not be setting up national programs to better prepare ourselves to handle another attack? I could go on and on.
What I'm trying to say is this President has many, many heavy issues on his plate. And since I'm not one here who professes to know-it-all or have-all-the-answers I'm much less critical of the job he's doing. I think he's doing the best he can. By that I don't mean him alone....but all the 'experts' [with experience in such matters] he has at his decision making disposal.
posted on January 23, 2003 07:26:56 AM new
What you hear are people saying that we should fight someone who has actually done something to us--not who might, some time in the future, attack us. And after Iraq which nation will Bush set his eyes on.
Well, if you want to start stomping on people for something you think they might do in the future, I think we better stomp the hell out of Germany. After all, Germany started two World Wars in a relatively short space of time, so they're likely to start more in the future, right? And any other country that has nuclear capability should be on our hit list as well--'cause why would they have 'em if they don't plan to use 'em, right? Oh, what the hell. Let's just carpet bomb anyone who dares to criticise us--if they aren't with us, they must be against us...
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 23, 2003 10:21:34 AM new
>And after Iraq which nation will Bush set his eyes on.
The "palistinians" I would venture. After he has erased some of the shame from his father's record and settled that old family score with Saddam, the cooperation of Isreal not to strike back at Saddam will once again cause the USA to lean over backwards in favor of Israeli policies.
posted on January 23, 2003 10:47:51 AM new
bunni - I do understand your concerns and how you are looking at this possible war. And history may very well prove you right.
But from day one Bush labeled the axis of evil countries. What is happening in NK right now [or worse] is exactly what I think we'll be dealing with in Iraq if they are not forced, in some way, to get rid of their WOMD. Both Iraq and NK will sell their NW to anyone that has the money. The decision to stop more nuclear proliferation was a UN decision. The countries that are not living up to this 'world' referendum have to be made accountable and stopped.
If the UN is going to only make policies and not enforce them, then I agree with those who ask what good are they anyway. If they pass sanctions and no one gives the consequences any 'teeth' what good are they? It then becomes nothing more than a 'chat' session.
If we follow your philosophy, we would have to eliminate every country in the mid-east based on what they might do to us in the future. How about Israel? Sharon didn't follow Bush's directions before, when he said, enough is enough. How about Pakistan, India, Iran, Korea, ....hell, you could fight for the rest of your life with that attitude.
posted on January 23, 2003 11:37:37 AM new
Helen - I have stated many times, that yes...this process to root out terrorism will probably go on for years. I don't expect a quick, simple solution. There isn't one. Other than to do as some suggest...sit and wait for our nation to be attacked in a serious way and then HOPE there's not so much destruction done that we're no longer able to do anything to defend ourselves.
And you too, keep making this a Bush only issue. It's not, imo. I have pointed out to you a couple of times that Hillary supports this action....and gave her support to the decision to let this be the President's decision. You laugh it off and say you don't agree. Fine...but the point IS that Bush wouldn't have this power IF the Congress hadn't given it to him. In doing so, they were agreeing with his decision to handle this...one way or the other. So, he's NOT standing alone. Your representatives supported this decision.
posted on January 23, 2003 11:42:47 AM new
Bush's original policy statement was fine- destroy the terrorists and the people that harbor and support them. The problem is that he is unable to carry it out.
Sooner or later Iraq will have to be dealt with, as will N Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to go after Iraq while boot licking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
The biggest element that has led to destructive world wars is unfinished wars, that is, to fight and "win" a war but fail to bring the enemy to its knees and make real changes.
That is why we had bloody and destructive WWII, and that is why we are now facing off YET AGAIN with North Korea and Iraq. We will also have more battles in Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Unless and until we are willing to level enemy countries as we did in WWII, and then re-build them, we will be a target for terrorists attacks from now on. It will ruin our economy, as well as the world economy, and it will destroy our way of life.
War, if practiced correctly does resolve problems. If not practiced correctly, it merely delays the day of reckoning and demands a much higher price in lives and property.
The Commander-in-Chief is unwilling or unable to find or recognize our enemies and is unwilling or unable to destroy them.
Those demanding peace at any cost will be howling out the other side of their mouths when the bad economy and loss of civil rights starts to hit home.
You know what is far worse than a war ? Certainly losing a war, but so is living in powerless poverty is a police state. And that's our destiny if the terrorists aren't hit and destroyed.
But before anyone blames Bush for the comming police state, we must recognize that whoever is president would have to follow the same path for security. The alternative is to be an even easier target and having people blown up every other day.
However, I will concede that being the unipolar world power since the demise of the USSR is new territory. There is literally nothing on the other side of any US push. Clear resistence is a necessary element in the exercise of power, and there currently is nothing on the other side.
posted on January 23, 2003 12:16:31 PM newThe problem is that he is unable to carry it out. Do you think he knew this when he gave Afhganistan the choice to turn BinLaden over? I don't. This situation has been different than anything our country has experienced..except, as you say what we did to Japan. He has made changes like trying to go after the funding of the terrorists, offering HUGE rewards for their capture, etc.
Terrorists are being arrested and jailed. Enough of them? No. But it's a start.
Reamond I think I'm in agreement with what you're suggesting. But don't believe it will ever happen. NO president would have the 'balls' to do that again. The nation [and world] now appear to not even want to remove Saddam. And the one's who appear to agree that removing Saddam is necessary, they don't want anyone 'hurt'. Well people die in wars and innocents get 'hurt'. How many complained when we started bombing Afghanistan that we were 'cowards' fighting from the air, rather than on the groud? Not for one minute giving any thought to the fact that to do so would put more of OUR soldiers more at risk to lose their lives. But, who cares about our soldiers? Let's be 'fair' to the country that supports our destruction. Right.
This country won't support what you're [I believe] suggesting. Their opinion: Let the terrorist nations aquire all the NW [etc] they want. Let them sell it to all who have made their goal in life to destroy our country....etc.
I still don't think this is a Bush [only] issue. It's my belief that even a democrat president will find all these issues very tough ones. And that president will have to make hard calls and live with those decisions.
But you know what kills me the most? When I read the news and some low life like Saddam is telling the world...'See even the people of the US support me and not their president'. Makes me want to puke.
posted on January 23, 2003 12:24:51 PM new
The real bottom line is that war is the only thing Bush has to peddle. 9-11 saved his butt and as long as he keeps the US scared and paranoid he's on top. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 23, 2003 01:11:28 PM new
bunni - Just to better understand. Are you against any war, or just the one in Iraq?
And I believe that what any president is doing will decide whether he is re-elected or not. If the majority don't support any president's actions, then out he'll go.
But I do think many here overlook the fact of the past November elections. If the majority of the nation was so against the Bush administration's stance on terrorism I believe we would have seen more Democrats elected than we did. I think the Nov. election results spoke volumes as to the support the President has. Forget the polls, look at how the elections went. If his support ebbs, then it ebbs and more democrats will be elected.
But if you're saying that Bush caused 9-11 to make him more popular, I don't agree. Or if you're saying that this 'on going' work to stop terrorism is to get more votes, I don't agree. IMO, he's doing what he thinks needs to be done to prevent another such occurance.
Please share how you think Clinton might have reacted if 9-11 had happend only a year earlier? Clinton has stated he thought of/worried about nothing more than BinLaden.
posted on January 23, 2003 02:03:22 PM new
9-11 should be strongly "peddled" by any setting president.
We were attacked, had thousands murdered, 4 planes destroyed, two world class buildings destroyed, as well as part of the Pentagon. The ongoing terrorist situation is also destroying our economy.
It doesn't make any difference who is president when it comes to destroying enemies. The responsibility comes with the office, not the individual, or party in office.
Bush can be defeated at the next election, but it will require a War Democrat.
The majority of Americans overlooked the economy in the last election, and will overlook it again PROVIDED Bush is able to prosecute the war to some semblance of progress.
Lincoln had a far worse record on civil rights, and the institution of the draft caused major riots, not to mention the thousands of war casualities, but he was re-elected via his firm and clear vision of victory, and delivering victories, even small ones.
I can no longer buy into the fade that this war is "different" or more challenging than any other. The current war is always seen this way. What we are faced with is nothing compared to what Franklin Roosevelt faced- a 2 theatre war with our Pacific fleet sunk or crippled in Pearl Harbor, and the savage defeat of our first excursions into N Africa against the Germans.
The Bush administration refuses to tell the truth about oil-- and I don't mean some silly a## conspiracy theory--- I mean that our country, as well as the industrialized world, is hoplessly dependent on foreign oil over which we have less and less control.
I have no qualms about securing oil supplies, but not by boot licking countries such as Saudi Arabia, which pours millions into terrorist hands.
posted on January 23, 2003 07:52:54 PM newbunni - Just to better understand. Are you against any war, or just the one in Iraq?
I am against the one in Iraq--and any other one we instigate simply because of something that nation might do in the future. To me, that isn't the American way of doing things.
But if you're saying that Bush caused 9-11 to make him more popular, I don't agree.
No, I didn't say that. I said that 9-11 saved his butt. Because if you will recall he was getting more & more unpopular because of all the crap he was pulling in his first months in office--hell, he even took off 3 months during his first 6 months in office! Then comes 9-11. People are angry as hell, and scared and wanting to kick butt. Bush, with the help of decent speechwriters, rallies the nation. His popularity turns around--he has the highest approval rating of just about any President we've ever had. He goes after Osama bin Laden, which was a GOOD thing. But then...
if you're saying that this 'on going' work to stop terrorism is to get more votes, I don't agree. IMO, he's doing what he thinks needs to be done to prevent another such occurance.
When the hunt for bin Laden petered out, Bush's popularity began to fall again. People started paying attention again to what he was doing on the domestic front & didn't like what they saw. SUDDENLY, out of nowhere, Bush begins ranting that Saddam Hussein is now the number one evil we have to face. Saddam hadn't even been on our radar screens for years--hadn't made any moves outside his own country. But all of a sudden the US just can't tolerate his existence? The government does its best to keep us all in a state of turmoil, constantly releasing warnings of threats which turn out not to be threats at all. Using this turmoil to distract the public from the passage of laws that ever more encroach on our civil rights. Using McCarthy-era tactics to make it sound un-American and unpatriotic to even worry about civil rights. And all along, Bush is beating the wardrum on almost too many fronts to keep track of. Several months ago I stated my belief that we will find ourselves without allies if he keeps this up--and whatever Bush & his ilk believe, we can't make it without allies in this world.
Please share how you think Clinton might have reacted if 9-11 had happend only a year earlier? Clinton has stated he thought of/worried about nothing more than BinLaden.
What the hell does Clinton have to do with the price of milk? As you point out, 9-11 happened a year after he left office. Why is it when anybody talks about what Bush is doing TODAY, people pop up and say "yeah, well, Clinton... when Clinton has nothing to do with what is being discussed? What's the matter? Can't Bush stand on his own merits? Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
