posted on March 6, 2003 05:43:03 PM new
I turned it off. Bush. His speech/Press Conference that he was giving. He blatantly ignored questions, obfiscated, and outright lied. Now, with less than a straight face, he stated that "force is a last resort" and that "Saddam is making us use force" -- sort of like "He's hitting my Fist with his Face!" But what galled me the most and made me turn him off was when he kept stating that Saddam was going to attack the United States and that he (Bush) wasn't going to wait until that happened. What a jerk! The Flea is preparing to attack an elephant, which could kill the flea with just a fart! We have enough nukes to vaporize the surface of this planet five times over, biological and chemical weapons to ensure that life won't regain a foot hold for millions of years anywhere on the planet, and enough ships, airplanes, tanks, troops, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other assorted weapons in our aresenals to overcome all of the other nations onthis planet combined at the same time -- and he's worried that Saddam is stupid enough to attack us?? No! He's worred that people will learn how much he thinks that we're the stupid ones!
posted on March 6, 2003 06:19:42 PM new
He didn't say anything new at all. Same old stuff about how they've had twelve years to disarm.Blah,blah,blah. Nothing new, nothing convincing at all. No real response to why other countries don't agree with him.
I was hoping someone would ask him about why they've had this plan in the works since way before 9-11, why they want to change the whole of the Middle East to suit themselves. I would have liked to hear his answer to that. I would like to know why he felt he'd hit the trifecta when 9-11 happened. I know the answer to that already...because it gave them the perfect opportunity to put this long time plan into operation.
Sickening.
Glad to hear he prays for peace. Maybe God will answer his prayer and do us all a favor.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Mar 6, 2003 06:20 PM ]
posted on March 6, 2003 07:14:31 PM new
Same stuff, different day...He tried to link 9/11 to Iraq over and over but was never able to tell how Iraq is such a threat. North Korea was called a "regional issue".
He seemed to be sedated, maybe in an effort to counter his wild cowboy image - but that's impossible. His message, continues to be to hell with the rest of the world. To hell with Russia and China and France and Germany and all the other countries that will not support this massacre.
Questions were clearly scripted and answers were not straightforward. Helen should have been there.
I just hope that if there is a God in heaven that he listens to the Pope and not George Bush. LOL!
posted on March 6, 2003 07:34:31 PM new
nuclear, new-klee-er, new-clear, NOT NUKE-YOU-LER for god's sake!!!
Sorry, it just gets me...english is my second language and I can pronounce it just fine..maybe he says it that way so Charlie Daniels will know what he's talking about
posted on March 6, 2003 08:02:30 PM new
Sedated... LoL Helen! Sure, I guess if they can supply the military with 'safe' amphetamines, they can give the President something to make him feel confident as well.
posted on March 6, 2003 08:06:46 PM new
cheapshot to whom? Charlie Daniels? Maybe so, I don't actually know whether he can correctly pronounce the word or not. I know for a fact that Mr. Bush cannot. Listening to the most powerful man in the world butcher the English language just bothers me, that's all.
posted on March 6, 2003 08:13:23 PM new
And I'll wager that none of you would back Pres Bush if another terrorist attack on U.S. soil happened tomorrow.
You would blame it on American imperialist agression.
"It is not the conservative psyche that needs analysis. Conservatives were right in the Cold War -- so right that liberals are pretending they were with us all along -- and they are right about Iraq. It is Leftists who need to account for their consistently disgraceful positions throughout the Cold War and into the War on Terror." --David Limbaugh
posted on March 6, 2003 08:31:36 PM new
Robin Well-said.
I agree with Helen about the sedation; I thought that after the State of Union also. And I don't think the practice is all that uncommon. I've had friends who were physicians talk about selective use of uppers and downers in the profession; I'm sure that politicians probably use them also.
But beyond that, I think that Bush is now fully aware that he has placed himself in a position from which it's almost impossible to move unscathed. The UN has been playing a successful game of containment. Blair's now renouncing any ownership of the oil rights and control of the protectorship and rebuilding process. Many voices from the conservative elements as well as the liberal and moderates ones have been subtly warning that they expect real democracy to be carried through. But those aren't exactly what some corporate supporters and buddies want. He's going to lose political and personal support at this point no matter whether he goes with the UN or alone. I think that that's his great concern at the moment and it could work to the benefit of the Iraqi people after Saddam's gone. JMHO.
posted on March 6, 2003 08:45:21 PM new
A new poll ,according to MSNBC ,has an unknown Democrat candidate with 48% of the votes and Bush at 44% . Next presidential election, of course.
He had better start paying attention to the people of this country and their very real concerns about out of control deficit spending and the bad economy..not to mention the more than half that are not for the war under these circumstances.
If another 9-11 happened tomorrow it wouldn't be a 9-11 it would be 3-7 .
Would I blame it on Bush and an Imperialistic America? I would blame it on our wishy washy foreign policy in the ME that has done nothing to endear us to the people there.I would blame it on the lack of interest we seem to show in solving the Palestinian problem. Since people all over look to us for leadership then I would wager we also have to expect that they look to us when things fail.
posted on March 6, 2003 09:06:45 PM new
profe51 is absolutely right. Bush's pronunciation of nuclear is ignorant and uneducated. NOW let's start a thread about the mispronunciation of REE ULL TER (IT IS NOT REE-LUH-TER). And SHER-BET , NOT SHERBERT. IT'S ONE-R SHERBET.
I wish I knew why listening to Bush is so physically distressing to me. I'm a Democrat, sure, but Bush the First and Reagan didn't affect me this way. It's painful to watch this man who seems like a puppet, five words at a time, no inflection, pause, then five more words. etc.
posted on March 6, 2003 09:07:15 PM new
Borillar...and the "fleas" that commandeered those planes on 9/11..what of them?
I have read your posts and marveled at your relentless cant. All of which bespeaks either a profound ignorance of history or a particularly virulent streak of political partisanship...my guess being an unhealthy dose of both.
You are so self-righteously glib when you speak of an America oligarchy ( or oil-garchy, as I assume you would prefer)and their grand plans of empire.This is nothing more than a rehash of the "Hidden Hand"..."Club of Rome"..postulates that, at various times in history, serve to bolster your type of back-of-the-bar, "big picture"
harangues.
In another post, you trumpet the PNC cabal you stumbled upon (with the help of a holder of no less than a high-school teaching certificate). From this specious bit of not-news, you extrapolate a tin-eared, historical Gotterdammerung that posits the US, in all of its undertakings, as being held hostage by Bush, the Republicans, the elite, the moneyed, etc.,etc..
All of which, you seem to believe, points squarely at the very reason we are going to war with Iraq...Empire, hegemony, whatever.
This is so utterly sophomoric, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
There is absolutely nothing to the charge that we are about "empire building" in the Middle East or elsewhere.
What we are doing is part of a now century long effort to undue the enormous harm each of the European powers and their subalterns( each in their own time...from Portugal to Belgium, from Spain to France, Russia & Germany..and yes, Britain) have wrought across the entire globe in their calculus of empire.
It was their relentless press for colonization and subjugation that drew the map of the world; from Africa & South America to the Middle East, China , Southeast Asia...each and every state, each arbitrary border and self-serving demarcation...every one a blatant manifestation of their thirst for territory and hegemony. And it was into this morass, as the 20th Century dawned, that we stumbled as a nation; naive, self -involved and deeply suspicious of foreign adventure by both inclination and charter.
What we ended up accomplishing was, in sum, the saving of civilization from its wholesale destruction by the two great totalitarianisms of Fascism & Communism. We did so with no road map, no practical experience equal to the enormity of the task.
Was it done altruistically? Absolutely not! Physics does not recognize altruistic systems; nations, peoples & societies thrive or perish based upon their ability to control and exploit (oh, that awful word) resources. The rant of the streets and the hand wringing in the vestibules of power not withstanding; to misunderstand the nature of conflict as a legitimate tool for maintaining order (even rescuing it ) is the folly of those for whom the lessons of history are antiseptically parsed.
posted on March 6, 2003 09:17:35 PM newA new poll ,according to MSNBC ,has an unknown Democrat candidate with 48% of the votes and Bush at 44% . Next presidential election, of course.
ABB
The public is often slow to catch on to what's really happening but they're not stupid. They tend to think that political issues won't really affect them, a form of naievte I guess. But eventually issues begin to catch their attention, they begin to pay attention, to ask themselves questions, and to think. That that's happening in the midst of an almost 24/7 propaganda blitz, is very encouraging.
posted on March 6, 2003 10:17:36 PM new
Colin, I doubt you even understood most of pandoras post. You probably figured out a few words enough to know it was pro Bush.
posted on March 6, 2003 10:38:12 PM new
What is it that makes us get on the moral high horse over a person's use of words, we call them all sorts of names because they insulted our integrity, and yet we don't see the taking of lifes as insulting, or the overthrowing of another nation's leadership.
pandorasbox "exploit (oh, that awful word) resources."
That's right pandora, humans are all just collateral.
Morality sure is a funy thing.
posted on March 6, 2003 11:16:51 PM new
>Borillar...and the "fleas" that commandeered those planes on 9/11..what of them?
I read your incoherent rant pandorasbox. I suggest that you try posting when you haven't been drinking or on drugs or whatever it is that has brought you to the condition whereby you have written just a pointeless diatribe. I have no problem replying to questions put kindly to me; however, I can't see anything that you wrote that really asks anything. Ergo, rhetoric.
When Colin said, "pandorasbox, Thanks for the eloquent post. And right too the point." he wasn't being polite, BTW.
posted on March 7, 2003 03:01:19 AM new
pandorasbox,
I especially like that you wrote your piece in the magniloquent, archaic and harangue style of borilla.
Yes I had to look up many of those words. Not ones I use at all.
Like I said: Thanks for the eloquent post. And right too the point.
You forgot pompous, aristocracy, egocentric and Nutcase.
posted on March 7, 2003 04:35:58 AM new
Like I've said in other posts, I think Bush should stop concentrating so much on a nation that I don't believe has the capabilities of striking the US and turn his attention to a country I believe does: Korea. I, too, turned his speech off right smack dab in the middle of it. He talks in circles, doesn't completely or honestly answer questions posed to him and has absolutely nothing new to say. Same old, same old.
I suppose I lean more toward being a Democrat than anything else. Although, I don't vote on anyone solely based on their political affiliation. That would not be responsible voting. This past election was a joke. It was a matter of voting for the lessor of two evils, I guess you might say. The more evil one won. No insults intended to those who voted for him. I respect each one of your right to vote for who you believe in. I may not agree, but that's a-ok.
Roadsmith
This Bush affects me exactly the same way. I cannot stand the way he talks, the way he looks or the way he thinks. Bush, Sr. and Regan annoyed me, but not nearly to the extent this man does. I think my problem with him started with the way the elections were held. No funny stuff going on there.
posted on March 7, 2003 05:11:54 AM new
Cheryl,
The face of war has changed drastically in the last 10 years. It's no longer the ones with intercontinental missiles that are the only ones that can attack us. We are at war with Terrorist, not just al-Qaida but groups you haven't even heard of yet.
Today a person with a attache case can do just as much damage as a missile.
We are more open to assault now then at anytime in history.
We are a great Nation and we have enemies for things we've done both real and imagined.
When you find that unusually shaped mole on your skin, you go to the doctor and find out what it is.
If it's a cancer you take care of it now. You don't wait till it spreads.
posted on March 7, 2003 07:20:20 AM new
I see your point and I agree. It's not that I don't think Hussein is a threat. Iraq however is not the threat. It is the man, not the people. If you think he's bad, his son is worse. Even Hussein himself is afraid of him. This has become a heated debate in my household. I live with two men; one is his 40's and my 19 year old son. They say blow Iraq off the map, a common comment by most MEN I know. I say assasinate Hussein, get rid of the man and spare the innocents. They say you can't assisinate Hussein that's illegal and it's murder. So, I ask, "What is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children?" Their answer: "Collateral damage." Any way you look at it or whatever you choose to call it, collateral damage is murder.
There has to be a better way, is all I've been trying to say. Would you like to look an Iraqi orphan (who now has to resort to begging in the streets) in the face and say, "Sorry we blew your parents to smithereens. They were collateral damage."?
Your opinions about going to war are read, are understood and are contemplated. But, no matter what position you take, the fact of the matter is when we blow away innocent people who's only crime is having been born in Iraq we, as a nation, become murderers in the eyes of the world, a label I'm not anxious to have placed upon me. If that doesn't breed even more contempt for our great nation, I don't know what will. I would rather be known as a peacemaker than a war monger.
We killed innocent people in Afghanistan. Did we get bin Ladden? What makes you think we'll get Hussein?
Cheryl
Edited because my fingers type faster than my brain thinks. LOL
posted on March 7, 2003 09:18:28 AM new
We bombed the hell out of Afghanistan,and still fighting daily scrapes.The enemy is still there,and the women are still tortured,and wear their burkas.
The tribe leaders are now commiting acts against the citizens,the taliban had in place.
Be careful of what you wish for.
