PDA

View Full Version : Americas' dislike of investigations.



nAz
08-28-2007, 10:48 PM
Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday August 22, 2007 12:15 EST
The enduring myth of Americans' dislike of investigations

In discussing Congress' low approval ratings yesterday, I noted that Bush followers and media pundits simply invent facts about these ratings that are plainly false. In particular, they repeatedly claim that Congress' low approval ratings are due to its excessive investigations of the administration -- which, they never tire of telling us, Americans do not like -- as well as Congress' failure to co-operate with the President in a bi-partisan way. That is a pure expression of conventional Beltway wisdom.

On cue, former Bush official Peter Wehner, writing on the Commentary blog, asserted that these negative Congressional polling numbers reveal that "Democrats are paying a high price for their hyper-partisanship. They appear angry, zealous, and vengeful, far more interested in investigations than legislation." Right-wing blogger McQ cited as one reason for the unpopularity that Democrats "spent all their time investigating marginal, and to most Americans, unimportant things while accomplishing nothing of importance."

Glenn Reynolds linked to this post conclusorily mocking my analysis of Congress' unpopularity by suggesting that Congress has investigated far more than most Americans want. And Reynolds himself then added: "YEAH, THAT'S THE TICKET: Why's Congress polling so badly? Because they haven't launched enough investigations. Uh huh."

All of these "analysts," making the same point (one heard frequently on television), have one thing in common: namely, not one of them cited a single piece of evidence, poll, or anything else to support their claim that Americans dislike investigations and/or that Congress is unpouplar due to too many hearings or too much obstructionism. Instead, they just literally make that up and then say it without having any idea if it's true.

Many people who assert that Americans dislike investigations of the President are just slothful; they sit around hearing television and newspaper pundits repeat this cliche -- which they do endlessly -- and then uncritically absorb and repeat it. For others, it is just a matter of extreme self-absorption; they reflexively assume that their own opinions are always the same as what "Americans believe." Thus, because they themselves don't like Congressional investigations of their Leader or think that the specific scandals are insignificant, they just assume, and then assert, that most Americans share this view.

But the overriding attribute evident here is a willingness to believe things about the world based not on evidence or reality but on what they want the world to be. They don't want George Bush investigated, and thus, they simply want to believe that Americans dislike investigations (exactly the same way they wanted to believe things were going well in Iraq, so they were, and reports to the contrary about "violence" and "civil war" were media fabrications).

Thus, they didactically assert, over and over, that Congress is in trouble for investigating Bush too much even though that claim is overwhelmingly contradicted by the actual evidence:

CNN poll, August 30-September 2, 2006:

Do you think it would be good for the country or bad for the country if the Democrats in Congress were able to conduct official investigations into what the Bush Administration has done in the past six years?

Good - 57%

Bad - 41%

Unsure - 2%

______________

From Rasmussen Reports, July 12, 2007:

Have there been too many investigations of the White House, not enough investigations, or about the right amount of investigations?

Too many - 32%

Not enough - 39%

About right - 19%

______________

From the USA Today poll, March 23-25, 2007:

14. Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter [the U.S. attorneys firings]?

Yes, should - 72%;

No, should not - 21%

15. If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides -- [ROTATED: invoke "executive privilege" to protect the White House decision making process (or should they) drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated]?

Invoke executive privilege - 26%;

Answer all questions - 68%

16. In this matter, do you think Congress should or should not issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath about this matter?

Yes, should - 68%;

No, should not - 24%

______________

From Rasmussen Reports, July 12, 2007:

Is Congress really seeking information about the firing of U.S. attorneys, or is Congress simply seeking to harass the White House?

Seeking information - 43%

Harass the White House - 32%

The only ones who oppose investigations are the 30% who support the administration in all circumstances. But Americans generally want investigations and oversight of the President; they overwhelmingly favor investigations of the U.S. attorney scandal; and substantial numbers believe that Congress in general is investigating too little.

This lazy, corrupt practice -- whereby commentators simply assert as fact cliches they hear without having any idea if they are true -- is quite common among our media pundits, among whom it is virtually an Article of Faith that Americans dislike Congressional investigations of the President. They repeat that over and over. Bush followers, wanting it to be true, then do the same. None of them ever bothers to see if what they are saying has any basis in reality. It just never occurs to them to do that.

The fact that, as Gallup itself noted, Congress' low approval ratings are due almost exclusively to unusually high levels of Democratic anger at their own Congress further bolsters the conclusion that Congress is so unpopular due to their failure to stand up to the administration.

The same is true with regard to Congressional efforts to stop the war. Beltway analysts frequently speak of the danger to Democrats from "over-playing" their hand by "obstructing" the President's war policies too much, even though polls show exactly the opposite is true:

From Rasmussen Reports, July 2, 2007:

Have the Democrats in Congress done too much to change President Bush's policies in Iraq, not enough to change President Bush's policies in Iraq, or about the right amount?

Too much - 26%

Not enough - 53%

About right - 13%

Think about how devoid of intellectual integrity a person must be in order to run around pronouncing that "Americans believe X" or "Americans dislike Y" without engaging in the slightest efforts first to determine if what they are saying is true. This is one critical reason why there is such a large and growing gap between the Beltway and the views of Americans. There are all sorts of Beltway platitudes like this about what "Americans want" that are the opposite of reality. Thus, the more our Beltway elites repeat and adhere to those platitudes, the more that gap grows.

-- Glenn Greenwal

wolfdancer
08-28-2007, 11:44 PM
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is under scrutiny for his relationship with a contractor who helped oversee a renovation project that more than doubled the size of the senator's home.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., acknowledged that his phone number appeared in records of a Washington-area business that prosecutors have said was a front for prostitution.
And now Sen. Craig has his own problems to deal with......however the right has already compared this to Bill Clinton's affair.
When they stop the investigations into corruption...then we'll know Bush/Cheney will have defeated the Constitution.

Gayle in MD
08-29-2007, 06:22 AM
Good post Naz.

[ QUOTE ]
None of them ever bothers to see if what they are saying has any basis in reality. It just never occurs to them to do that.
<hr /></blockquote>

Good description of a few of the righties here, for sure. Interesting, also, that the nutty, roughly 30% in this country, are represented in those numbers.

Bush's statements in the last two weeks have surely been a commentary to his incredible ability to distort reality, in a way which masks how own illegal involvment, and results of his failed policies.

Now, he's back to the mushroom clouds, but takes no responsibility for his role in the very de-stablization of the M.E., and the results, which have given Iran's nut, a whole new and bigger set of, ah hem, nuts.

Democrats say they will go forward with the DOJ/Rove/Meyers/Bush/Gonzales investigations, and according to statements, and e-mails already uncovered, if they continue, we will learn what kind of supreme court we have, and whether or not it represents the same currupt political slant, applied illegally, which we've already observed in this administration's DOJ, other agency manipulations, and dishonesty regarding Iraq. Gonzales' positions on torture, and the Geneva conventions, and wire taps, have already been struck down by the supreme court.

Our country has been damaged by this administration. Democrats must continue on their quest to expose the sources of that damage. I think the majority of Americans now see through this bunch, and also through their candidates for 08, all but one, just as bad, if not worse, than what we've been watching with Bush et al.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
08-29-2007, 07:47 AM
It's funny how afraid they are of Hillary. Porky Pig, aka Karl Rove, is about to watch his house of straw get blown away! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Bobbyrx
08-29-2007, 03:10 PM
quote: "The fact that, as Gallup itself noted, Congress' low approval ratings are due almost exclusively to unusually high levels of Democratic anger at their own Congress"
<font color="red">I think it would also be fair to say that GWB's ratings are so low because of the high levels of conservative anger at who was supposed to be "their own" president. Most "righties" like myself sure don't agree with how he has handled much of anything, but I just can't see myself supporting a liberal candidate. Which raises the question.....why should one vote Democratic in the upcoming election? What do they have to offer? ....No answers that include BUSH or last 8 years or Pubs etc. will be accepted.....</font color>

nAz
08-29-2007, 09:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> quote: "The fact that, as Gallup itself noted, Congress' low approval ratings are due almost exclusively to unusually high levels of Democratic anger at their own Congress"
<font color="red">I think it would also be fair to say that GWB's ratings are so low because of the high levels of conservative anger at who was supposed to be "their own" president. Most "righties" like myself sure don't agree with how he has handled much of anything, but I just can't see myself supporting a liberal candidate. Which raises the question.....why should one vote Democratic in the upcoming election? What do they have to offer? <font color="#666666"> well if you feel that way you should not vote for any republic candidates especially guliani since he and most of them think bUSH has donbe a great job. </font color> ....No answers that include BUSH or last 8 years or Pubs etc. will be accepted.....</font color> <hr /></blockquote> <font color="#666666"> I still have not made up my mind, ron Paul looks pretty appealing
to me but still not sure about him, as for the Demos I think Hilary could do a good job better then the current prez. hmmm i truly believe she could bring back integrity and honor to the White house.
I just have to ask myself was i (and the country) better off with B. Clintons 8 years or with bUSH, and if i was shouldn't i vote for someone who was part of that great era? hmm Maybe gore will run.

question for you why should i vote republican next year?</font color>

wolfdancer
08-29-2007, 09:46 PM
question for you why should i vote republican next year?

nAz, we would consider that seditious....don't sell your soul,
your vote.. especially not for another phony tax cut.... and risk eternal damnation.....

Gayle in MD
08-29-2007, 09:50 PM
I predict only 30% in this country will vote Republican, and you know why! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

That is, if Bush and Cheney don't get us all blown up before hand. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

wolfdancer
08-29-2007, 10:18 PM
I can't even see them getting 30% of the vote. Besides the avowed Democrats, many Republicans feel they have been mislead by this admin.....I can't imagine what it must feel like to have your 19, 20, yr old doing multiple tours in Iraq...like playing Russian roulette...and that's only part of the problems, albeit the major problem...in going down this primrose path we have been lead on.
Bush would be in Texas now, playing cowboy, if it wasn't for this war, he never would have gotten reelected (sad fact is he never really was).His whole second campaign was based on his pledge to rid us of both the Saddamites and the sodomites....he's still battling one of those factions, while the other has joined sides. The only thing that could swing the vote to the right...would be another attack on U.S. soil, and people's fears that we would be weaker with a new party in charge (forgetting of course, that the war President was in charge when the last attack occurred.
Gee, I hope this post is perceived as P.C.
...I mean I wouldn't want to like, hurt anybodies feelings...
disclaimer:
I loves big Brother...not sure about Cheney though....

Bobbyrx
08-30-2007, 11:52 AM
So far the only answer is that Hilliary could bring back integrity and honor to the White house. I not sure when that actually was. That's not quite enough for me yet. What do they offer the country besides "We're not Bush"

nAz
08-30-2007, 11:04 PM
so far that is better then any Rep contender... so who is your choice?

DickLeonard
08-31-2007, 07:35 AM
Bobbyrx the Country needs the Orkin Man. No Repubican will clean[take] out the Garbage and the Trash. The country needs to return a total Democratic house and Senate and return this country to 3 branches of Government.

This form of Govt we now have is one step below Hitler's. All we need is another attack for Bush to try to grab the Presidency for life. Even tho he is doing everything in his Power to provoke an attack.####

Bobbyrx
08-31-2007, 11:28 AM
I'm a long way off from deciding that, with over a year to go, but I still don't think I am going to vote Democratic. I can go along with them on most environmental issues but socialized medicine, border issues (both parties suck), national security, taxes and the economy, I don't agree with what the Democratic candidates seem to want to do. Bush is not running again thank goodness so i'm not going to decide based on what he has done (or mainly not done) over the past 8 years. I want to know what someone WILL do and not if they are like or not like Bush.

Gayle in MD
09-04-2007, 05:24 AM
Fine, then vote Republican again, and you'll have perpetual war, more horrendous debt, and even greater chasm between the rich, and the middle class. Hell, let's just all go out and vote for murdering gay people in the streets, again, and bring back the back alley abortions, to hell with our Constitution, and Bill of Rights, just put another Republilcan dictator in office, and get those sweat shops rolling.

You voted for a bunch of criminals, who have detsrtoyed our Constitution, and run this country into dangerous debt, redistributed wealth to the richest of the rich, ruined what was left of our educational system, left our people to die, without their up-dated equipment, in a civil war, to benefit their corporate cronies, and lied to Americans for seven years, and you can't bring yourself to vote democratic?

Maybe, you will learn to love our country, it's values, our Constitution, and our Bill Of Rights, more than you hate democrats.

You need to do some research, as usual, and discover for yourself all the crooked, illegal actions of Bush and Cheney, both before and after they illegally won the White House. Republican are so full of it, when their backs are against the wall, they haul out another actor. Guess they think, jeeze, the country is beginning to see through us again, time to get a real professional out there, someone who gets paid for fooling people, we need another actor.

Pahleeeze! Giuliani? You're not satisfied with corporate fascists running the country, you want something a bit more mafioso?

Republicans don't have a single good candidate, and you've witnessed six years of Republicans destroying the country, but you're ready to vote another one into the White House? Unbelievable! The nutty thirty percent, is alive and well, and ready for fascism to run this country right into a third world dictatorship.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

SKennedy
09-04-2007, 08:28 AM
Gayle! You sure can get fired up first thing in the morning! Chill out and enjoy your coffee. The election is over 1 year away and I suspect (afraid) a democrat will win and maybe you can be happy for at least 4 years. I can't even remember if I'm a Republican or Democrat, or could care less, until after I drink my 4th cup of coffee.

Gayle in MD
09-04-2007, 08:53 AM
I had my coffee hours ago. I got up at five. I've finished my 5 mile run, washed and folded two loads of laundry from the boat, and read three news papers. I'm battle ready! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Did you see Bush in Iraq? Left our soldiers standing, waiting for him, for over an hour. Pace, made the mistake of allowing questions. Among the first questions, when are we going to get the up-armoured HumV's? When can we go home?

More Iraqis were killed than in the same month last year. In fact, this has been one of the bloodiest months, with the number of Iraqis leaving the country, having doubled. Bush goes over there and points to one samll part of Iraq, and starts declaring the surge is working.

The man is an idiot! We've got to get him out of office, pronto, before he launches nukes in Iran. He's framing reasonable, non-disillusional thinking, by calling it Politicians afraid of poll numbers. Meanwhile, our troops are being slaughtered, while Maliki screws around over there, doing nothing.

BTW, have you ever researched George Bush's life pre-White House? Dick Cheney's? Their friends are making a fortune off this war. Do you think that's just a coincidence? Do you know how much of their money came from screwing over the average joe? Dumping stocks. Bilking tax payers our of their money for building a stadium in Texas, of which they ultimately have no ownership?

Now, people, our people, are literally dying, to make George Bush, and Dick Cheney, and their corporate fascist friends, richerm and Bush's statements regarding how he expects to spend his time after he leaves office, are all about being leisurely wealthy, and nothing but time on his hands, while collecting money for speaking appearances, which I'm sure will be paid for by the nutty 30%, the only ones in this country dumb enough to pay money to listen to an idiot talk.

I want our people out of Iraq, now. I'm sick and tired of Bush's lies. He's repulsive. As soon as these Sunnis in Anbar Province know that their fears of the radicals have been managed, with out help, they're going to turn right around and kill our people again. This is an exercise in insanity. No Arab, or Persian, is going to prefer killing their own, to killing us. We're arming radicals, and paying off Bush's idiotic ideas, with the blood of our youth. We need to bring them home, now. Everyday, more will be maimed, and dead, for what?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
09-04-2007, 08:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Fine, then vote Republican again, and you'll have perpetual war, more horrendous debt, and even greater chasm between the rich, and the middle class. Hell, let's just all go out and vote for murdering gay people in the streets, again, and bring back the back alley abortions, to hell with our Constitution, and Bill of Rights, just put another Republilcan dictator in office, and get those sweat shops rolling. <hr /></blockquote> You really are a piece of trash.

eg8r

wolfdancer
09-04-2007, 10:34 AM
Amen!!!, sister Gayle.....
I see Eg is "trash talking" again...
I guess if one has nothing of value to add to a discussion,
nothing to counter any of the "charges"...a little name calling then, soothes a fragile Ego.
It's on record how much the personal wealth of those two has increased since they stole the election....not included however are any??? Swiss b.a.'s...or any "annuity" deals that may mature after they exit, shamefully, from the W.H.
I hope there's an interim period before the new President moves in...to air the place out...
There was a program on over the weekend on rebuilding N. O.
If you thought the fema trailers were a joke....you should see the earthen levees they keep building and rebuilding...that "collapse" after each rainfall, I guess.
And no one knows if the pumps will work since they have never been tested...that was a sweetheart deal that can be linked back to one of the Bush Brother's....but I'm sure they all share in the booty....
As Papa George said "you can't fault the boys for trying to make some money"
Maybe so, but if you dig deep enough...you could arrest them....Speaking of money, it seems it's damn near impossible to wade through the paperwork to get some that's been allocated for rebuilding homes......you can bet though,
if you know the right politician, it's clear sailing....
Well, I'm off to Reno to invest the SS check in the slot machines there...and play a little Golf

Bobbyrx
09-04-2007, 11:26 AM
So now I need to learn to love the country?.......deep breath..........
ahem, and good morning to you too!! I know it's hard to understand but again I'm looking for what the Democrats have to offer besides wer'e not Bush. I don't see where I mentioned hating Democrats or any Republican candidates or being for sweat shops and back alley abortions or any of the usual stuff mentioned. If you look at the above posts, I'm looking for what the Democrats have to offer besides not being Bush (and "isn't that enough" has already been taken.) No sarcasm here or anything. I'm trying to see the light. You mention education. It seems that public education has been and is for the most part a failure (especially in our state where the head of the A.E.A. runs the state). The Democrats seem to favor the same old government run system. What are they going to do if elected? Just an example of what I'm looking for.
Thanks and have a nice day :

Bobbyrx

working to change the tone

SKennedy
09-04-2007, 12:13 PM
OK, so you really are like my wife and run 5 miles....and you do own a boat! I have a boat also, but it's probably smaller than yours (16 ft aluminum duck hunting boat with 40 HP outboard). Someone had mentioned about your boat previously, but it's hard to tell sometimes when it is "put on."
As for Bush....I'm a Texas Rangers baseball fan (gosh that hurts to admit) and know a little about the old and new stadium, etc. You can't hold Bush accountable or responsible for that. The folks in that area voted on the stadium. Bush was at one time a part owner in the Rangers, but only a small, minority owner. The spin about him forcing the populace to fund his new stadium is utter and complete nonsense. Now, we're building a new stadium, in the same area, for the Dallas Cowboys. And no, Jerry Jones has not forced the citizenry to pay for it. Things just don't work that way around (down) here.
And a note to Ed.....come on Ed, we can be nice to those who disagree with us on politics, etc. Yes, Gayle is passionate about her opinions but at least she is passionate about it and has given it thoughful consideration (even if she is not as logical as us - LOL). Granted, I would never vote for the current crop of democrats currently running. And although I disliked Clinton and did not agree with him on almost everything, I can never remember having downright hatred for the man. However, some of these democrats seem to hate the man (Bush) himself. Hate, in any form, can't be a good thing. Respect, however, should work both ways......
Just a side note: you guys hear about the spiders working together here in East Texas to build a large web? I actually went and saw it Sunday afternoon. Later when I read newspaper and website news articles about it, I could not believe the amount of exaggeration and outright lies being told about it. It is an interesting site to see and in its own right is quite compelling and sdoes not need the hperbole. My point...the media just can't help themselves. It's all about entertaining any more. It's not about relaying accurate and truthful information. And this point just doesn't apply to spider webs. It's about everything, and applies to all media.

SKennedy
09-04-2007, 12:16 PM
P.S.
I do like Gayle's platform though about murdering gay people in the streets.....maybe Romney can add that to his platform.....

Deeman3
09-04-2007, 12:18 PM
Bobbyrx,

You have gotten an answer, Bush is bad. That's all that's required of the democratic candidate and about all you will get.

Its probably more of a case of let our crooks steal a while as yours have done it for a while now. What ever happened to Pelosi and the first 100 hours or whatever? I suppose Bush has had her imprisoned and tortured her until she gave up those ambitions. Or is she just happy to have that redorcorated office and is waiting for the Democratic candidate to burn down Bush?

Accusations of criminal activity by Bush and Cheney and not being able to bring them to justice? The best they can do is drive out an incompetent Hispanic AG and blast a perverted Senator? What did they do when Barney Frank was outted? Nada.

Bush is now saying we can, perhaps, pull out troops and not a single congratulations? No, he didn't call for it until he felt we might be making progress but now listen to the un-mistakable sound of democrats getting ready to now find Gen. Petraus incompetent if he does not advise we are not making progress.

I agree the war has been mismanaged but GWB has no chance of having the left see anything except what hate makes them see in the near future (until Nov. 2008).

Still no plan from the left. Just hate the Republicans....

eg8r
09-04-2007, 01:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And a note to Ed.....come on Ed, we can be nice to those who disagree with us on politics, etc. <hr /></blockquote> Then... [ QUOTE ]
However, some of these democrats seem to hate the man (Bush) himself. Hate, in any form, can't be a good thing. <hr /></blockquote> It sounds like you are talking about the same person in the quotes...Gayle. The only way to meet anyone else with as much unsupported hate is to read the democratic underground.

If she was simply disagreeing then I would agree with you, but that is not the case. I like your approach to her (nicer than just dragging feet across the ground trying to rub Gayle (oops, I meant the poop) off your shoe) but that soon will wear off.

eg8r

eg8r
09-04-2007, 01:15 PM
Prepare yourself for another rant and forever being labeled as a homophobe. Gayle likes to play these games and you will soon see.

eg8r

wolfdancer
09-04-2007, 01:15 PM
Bush bad...Dems good!!!
Nancy is tied up with the Tuna fish crisis.....
Don't forget your incompetent AG was appointed by GWB, as well as a few other of his more questionable choices.....
AND why now...at this time...is GWB claiming we can pull out some troops?
AND After 6 years of warfare...shouldn't we be making some progress?
I agree though with your hate statement....I disliked Nixon, Johnson immensely....but not sure hate is a strong enough description for my feelings re: one GWB.
And while you might believe we are making progress there...some of us are still trying to figure out why we are there....and is Iran next?
I don't care who we elect next time..the damage has been done already, the coffers have been emptied, and this country will not recover in my lifetime....

Gayle in MD
09-04-2007, 01:49 PM
You can't hold Bush, or Cheney, accountable for anything, at all. They refuse to answer questions about their past, and present, and deep six, with unprecedented Presidential actions, everything they do that is illegal, like the secret oil deals between Cheney, and the Oil Companies.

From John Dean's book, Worse Than Watergate.

When questioned about his business dealings, Bush bristles at the suggestion that his family name and father's prominence were significant factors in his business success (or stated differently, in repeated saves from serious business financial failures). But one need only look at his record, which he has been unable to bury, to see that such was not the case. Bush had only one business success in his entire career; the rest, which he will not discuss, were a string of failures. Virtually every reporter who has examined Bush's business career has found that his father's influence was pervasive and decisive. "Bush's entire business career was built on little more than the kindness rich men often bestowed on the children of powerful politicians," Richard Cohen concluded after his investigation at the Washington Post , Byron York, an investigative writer for the American Spectator (not exactly a Republican-host8ile publication), similarly concluded that "if one superimposes a timeline over the Bush career path, one sees that his rise in business coincides with his father's rise to the highest levels of government...But it may be that provided no evidence of wrongdoing emerges-there's little more to say than the obvious: Of course Bush benefited from his connections, but that's just the way the world works." There is, however, more to say, because there is evidence of wrongdoing.

Bush's claims about his one successful venture with the Texas Rangers are well known. He used it to run for governor and featured it prominently in his 1999 campaign biography, in which he recounts how he was working on his father's 1988 presidential campaign when he had a call from Bill DeWitt Jr.., a Cincinati businessman. He leaves out the part about how four years earlier, DeWitt (a Yale and Harvard graduate like himself) bailed him out of his first business venture - Arbusto (Spanish for "bush"), later renamed Bush Exploration. After going through millions, in 1984 the Arbusto/Bush Exploration operation had one asset left - the unsucessful son of the vice president of the United States, Bill DeWitt merged Bush's company into Spectrum 7. With Bush serving as chairman and CEO, Spectrum 7 quickly failed. But another oil-exploration company, harken Oil, was eager to have George W. Bush's name on its board. George Siros, a part owner of Harken, who was not active in managememt of the company but was aware of its activities later told Washington journalist David Corn, "We were buying political influence. That was it. {Bush} was not much of a businessman."
David Rubenstein, the cofounder and managing director of the Carlyle Group, a group of top level former Washington officials who until recently touted Bush's father as one of their high-profile advisers, has shared an account of Bush as a director. In 2001, Rubenstein gave a public speech to the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, not aware the event was being recorded.

Rubenstein explained that in 1991 one of Bush's friends said, "Look, there is a guy who would like to be on the board [of Caterair]," an airline-catering company the Carlyle Group had just acquired from Marriott. Rubenstein continued, "[So] we put [Bush] on the board and [he] spent three years. Came to all the meetings. Told a lot of jokes - not that many clean ones. And after a while I kind of said to him, after about three years, you know, I'm not sure this is really for you. Maybe you should do something else. Because I don't think you're adding that much value to the board. You don't know that much about the company." (Of course, the punch line to this story is that Bush did do something else - he became the president of the United States. Rubenstein said that he has not "been invited to the White House for any things.") Savvy business people such as Rubenstrin know talent when they see it, and Bush didn't have it.

At Harken, Bush was relieved of day-to-day management responsibility but still served on the board of directors. So when Bill De Witt called in 1988, during the campaign, who can really doubt he was looking for a bit more of that magic Bush name? DeWitt, whose family once owned the Cincinnati Reds baseball team, told Bush when he called that he had heard from others in baseball that the Texas Rangers might be for sale. This could be a natural for you," Bush quotes DeWitt as telling him. It was, for Bush loves baseball and, as a mater of fact, just happened to know the owner of the Texas Rangers, Eddie Chiles, a longtime supporter of his father. Chiles's widow has said that when Eddie learned of Bush's interest, he didn't want to deal with anyone else. This fact made Bush instrumental to the deal. But neither Bush nor DeWitt (apparently) nor the other potential partners Bush rounded up had the $86 million that Chiles wanted to sell his ball club. According to the Wall Street Journal's account (which differs significantly from Bush's autobiography), following "a pattern repeated through his business career, Mr. Bush's play did not quite make the grade." Rather, "Baseball Commissioner Peter Ueberroth stepped in, brokering a deal that brought Fort Worth financier Richard Rainwater together with the Bush group. Mr. Ueberroth's pitch to Mr. Rainwater was that he join the deal partly 'out of respect' for President Bush." Also brought in was a successful Harvard MBA, Edward "Rusty" Rose III who'd made his millions in the nasty business of short selling overvalued companies). It was agreed that Rusty would crunch numbers and run the club's finances, and Bush would be the front man. The deal went through, and Bush had his baseball team while DeWitt and the others could now further leverage the presence of the president's son. Their next step was to get a new stadium built. The stadium would turn out to be the source of the money Bush made with the Texas Rangers, and making that money would involve a fair bit of very dubious wheeling and dealing with public money.

Karen Hughes describes the spin placed on the deal in Bush's autobiography. It is called "a public-private partnership, in which the Rangers put up part of the money to construct a new stadium, and the citizens of Arlington would put up the rest, using a half cent of the sales tax allocated for economic development" - an arrangement Bush says he was "comfortable with...so long as taxpayers of Arlington knew all the facts and were allowed to vote on the proposition." Bush says this "Ingenious plan" was embraced by "another big thinker, the mayor of Arlington, Richard Greene." But keep your eye on the shell covering the part of the deal "in which the Rangers put up part of the money to construct a new stadium."

According to the American Spectator, it was, in fact, nothing short of a bait and switch on Texas voters. Bush and his partners were to receive $135 million from the city of Arlington, of an estimated $189 million needed to build a new stadium. "Arlington Mayor Richard Greene aggressively promoted the deal," the American Spectator reported, by explaining the alleged benefit to the city, justifying the half cent sales tax and promissing that "the Rangers would put in $30 Million 'up front, like a down payment on a house,' to get the deal going." Not until voters had overwhelmingly approved the deal was it revealed that "the Rangers would not produce the money up front, rather over time, in the form of a $1-a-ticket surcharge, paid by the fans. And the Rangers who would pay $5 million a year in rent for twelve years, (or 60 million), could then purchase the stadium at the end of their lease - for nothing! So for every dollar Bush and his fellow partners put into the stadium, they got to take more than two dollars back from every Arlington taxpayer. And the money that Bush and his new business associates put in was actually money they garnished from inflating the prices paid by Ranger fans for tickets. At the end of the day those fans and the city would not have a single asset to call their own.

In addition, Bush and his partners arranged for the state of Texas to condemn the land around the stadium so it could be commercially developed, another sweet deal for the Rangers partnership. Remarkably, most of this information was ignored during the 2000 presidential campaign, although the American Spectator; which ferociously investigated Bill and Hillary Clinton's business affairs (under a grant from Richard Mellon Scaife) for years, thought "a healthy inquiry [of Bush's business affairs would be] a good thing." It never happened. Both Richard Greene, and William De Witt, were later given appointments in the Bush administration, the FIAB, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

To participate in the Rangers deal, Bush borrowed $500,000 from the United Bank of Midland Texas, where he had earlier served as a director. It appears he collateralized this loan with his shares of Harken stock, which had about the same value. (He had been given 212,000 shares of Harken when it acquired Spectrum 7, plus he had acquired additional shares through a special offering to directors.) Harken paid Bush an annual consulting fee that ranged between $42,000 and $120.000 (dropping when he was off working on his father's campaign, which would have paid him as well, or certainly covered all his expenses - again, he will not discuss or reveal such matters). In `1989 amd 1990. when Bush was working on the Rangers deal, he was still on the board of directors of Harken, as well as being on the board's audit committee. In June 1990, he sold 212,140 Harken shares at $4 each in a private transaction for $848,560 (The private purchaser has never been revealed, and the stockbroker who handled the transaction refuses to discuss it. The broker has not yet received a federal appointment, but anything is possible in a second Bush administration.) Eight days after the sale, Harken reported a $23.2 million loss, and the share price fell to $2.37. Bush used his proceeds to pay off his half-million dollar loan and pocketed almost $350,000 from the deal. Bush parlayed his Rangers investment into a staggering $14.5 million when he sold his interest in 1998.

Did Bush take advantage of his insider information when selling his harken stock? Of course he did. But when the Securities and Exhange Commission looked at the transaction and Bush's late filings of his insider trade, they said no enforcement action was called for against him, nor did any U.S. attorney convene a grand jury to look at the potential federal offenses. Of course, all those people worked for his father. Incredibly, Bush actually touts the fact that he was not charged as evidence of his exoneration, which is like O.J. saying the fact that he is free proves he did not murder his wife.

Many of the facts surrounding Bush's sale of his Harken stock remein buried, and Bush has stonewalled all efforts to find out more. If this information could withstand scrutiny, it would have been spread out for all to see. The SEC chairman had been appointed by Bush's dad and was also a partner from the law firm of James Baker, Bush senior's White House chief of staff and later sectretary of state. Bush's attorney during the SEC investigation just happened to be a former partner of the lead SEC investigator. The lead investigator at the SEC into Bush's Harken trade just happened to be Bush's former personal attorney who had helped put together the Texas Rangers deal. These conflicts of interest- or worse - troubled no one. Notwithstanding these serious problems and less than satisfactory results from Freedom of Information Act inquiries, Bush's stonewalling has kept the truth hidden.

This I can say after having gone through the available record. With the exception of the Texas Rangers deal, which screwed lots of little people but otherwise appears clean, Bush's business background has remained buried in order to conceal either sleaze or stupidity, or both. Bush the businessman would not qualify to sit in any president's cabinet, and it is even doubtful he could withstand an FBI investigation background check, which you need to work for a president but not to be president.

Few potential presidents could carry the baggage Bush does - filled with dirty laundry - right into the Oval Office with no one stopping to check it. Now, with the powers of the presidency, he is even better able to keep his past hidden. And with Dick Cheney as a partner, Bush found more than a soul mate, for Cheney is a man more secretive than Bush, as well as a wonderful mentor in the workings of government secrecy and stonewalling. Cheney has shown his mettle in refusing to reveal important information about his precarious health throughout the 2000 campaign, and as his condition has deteriorated as vice president, his secrecy has become only more pronounced - now at the risk of the nation.

I spent many years in the merger and acquisitions business, including over five years studying accounting and taking business courses. I have examined and/or participated in countless business transactions. Though I have retired from the world of commerce, I mention this because I believe by experience and training I am fully qualified to talk about Bush's and Cheney's dubious business affairs.

<font color="red">I might add, that Mr. Dean' work is filled with chapter notes, and quotes from other respected journalists. Of course, I'm aware that those from the right can justify anything and everything, atleast the nutty 30 %, who put this crook in office. The chapters on Cheney, and Bush, and the things they have done while in office, are much more disturbing than what I have quoted here, from Mr. Deans' comprehensive and fact filled, well documented work.

Gayle in Md. </font color>

Bobbyrx
09-04-2007, 02:08 PM
............getting ready to cue the Jeopardy music............................

Gayle in MD
09-04-2007, 02:40 PM
Do Tell us why he should be given a chance at anything&gt; have you done any reading about him, Deeman, other than what you read in Willian Kristol's right wing rag?

Have you siudied the statistical information, which proves that only the top one and a half percent are accumulating wealth, and advancing, since Bush took office.

You agree, that he sould pretend to institute programs for schools, and then defund them?

You think it's OK for him to lie us into a way? And then continue to spin the facts to suit his egotistical, twisted ideology?

I suppose you think going into Iraq, was a smart move? Do you even know how much debt this man has put our country into, how many are dead, and lives ruined? I suppose you think all of this was done because George Bush, and Dick Cheney, had bottomless compassion for the Iraqi people? Give me a break. Look at the mess he has made out of everything. I guess if a Democrat had performed this miserably, you'd be looking for some good to report ot us?

George Bush is the worst president in history. He is hurting this country. If it makes you feel better to accuse me of being full of hate, have at it, but then look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you aren't angry about the outrageous harm he has caused, to us, and to Iraqis.

If you can't see through this bunch, after all this time, and all their lies, and all their crooked deals, and lost and wasted money, that's your lookout. But don't sit there and tell me that my anger is misplaced. It is Patriotic and appropriate, and further, where is yours?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
09-04-2007, 02:52 PM
I feel sorry for the next president. No president has ever inherited such disasterous consequences. Bush should be impeached, now, and Cheney with him. We have a bunch of partisan idiots, in this country, that would sooner give up all their rights, and line up for the chains, than admit that they are uninformed and their thinking is unreasonable.

Most people can see the difference between Bush, and other presidents. The man can't put two cohesive sentences together. Iraq, is not improved, it's worse. How damn long are these nuts in this country willing to see our people die due to an incompetent idiot in the White House.

It's disgusting! It is they, who are blinded by their hatred, of gays, of women, of what they precieve as liberals, and of Democrats, and especially of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who stand head and shoulders above George and Laura Bush. George Bush couldn't begin to grasp the intellect of people like the Clinton's, anymore than they southern styled intellectuals can grasp Bush's ignorance. Too bad they can't crunch the numbers on the economy. They don't think debt, is important. Selective reality, I call it.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Deeman3
09-04-2007, 03:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Bush bad...Dems good!!!
Nancy is tied up with the Tuna fish crisis..... <font color="blue"> NOt forgetting that at all. </font color>
Don't forget your incompetent AG was appointed by GWB, as well as a few other of his more questionable choices.....
AND why now...at this time...is GWB claiming we can pull out some troops? <font color="blue"> I think he has made the "push" and, perhaps, the progress he has seen has told him that we can begin to consider cutitng back on troops if it continues. Certainhly that would be what he said, "That we will not pull out until we believe success is attainable by the Iraqis." Would we rather him not make such a determination if appropriate. You know he does not give a hoot politically. He would have ahd a much easier time if he basied his decisions on the polls.</font color>
AND After 6 years of warfare...shouldn't we be making some progress? <font color="blue"> Have not even some democrats now said we are making progress? </font color>
I agree though with your hate statement....I disliked Nixon, Johnson immensely....but not sure hate is a strong enough description for my feelings re: one GWB.
And while you might believe we are making progress there...some of us are still trying to figure out why we are there....and is Iran next? <font color="blue"> Naw, we will leave Iran to Obama, he's the only one who has indicated he'll attack them. Funny, no large outlash at him over that statement. </font color>
I don't care who we elect next time..the damage has been done already, the coffers have been emptied, and this country will not recover in my lifetime.... <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Shuck, don't lose faith. Hillary will patch things up post haste, Bill Clinton said so this weekend and is was not on Fox News that I saw it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

Gayle in MD
09-04-2007, 03:06 PM
If you're interested in hatred, just tune in the Republicans. They hate everybody, gays, liberals, democrats, scientists, women, blacks, the poor, and everyone who isn't a poor mistreated Iraqi. they don't seem to notice that it is Iraqis, that are killing our troops, the same way they don't notice that Bush is paying for their tax cuts, by borrowing money, their kids and grand kids are going to have to pay for.

Why do you think Cheney had his meeting with the american Oil companies, in secret, and refuses to give up the transcripts?

Why do you think that Bush used illegal methods to deep six his Dad's presidential papers, along with Reagans information regarding Bush Sr.? Why has he arranged in advance to pardon himself for crimes?

Better yet, why don't just one of you righties on here tell me how damn long you are willing to see our people die, and be maimed, for Iraqis, that want to kill us? Answer me that one question. And why should they die when they don't even know why the hell they're there?

I've talked to thousands of them. You righties don't have a clue about how they feel, and George Bush can stage all the props, and Hoorahs and Hoowahs he wants, but they want out, and he doesn't even provide them with what they need to have a half a chance of surviving. Why aren't you angry about that? Why aren't you angey that he lied us into this war? Why aren't you angry about our people dying due to his incompetence?

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
09-04-2007, 03:18 PM
Gayle,

You wrote at least a few thousand words since my statement above and never did anything but say exactly what I said. Your self admitted hatred was not the issue I raised, but the democrats response is exactly as I said, as is yours. I don't say your hatred is il conceived, particularly, just that you are not making any recommendations beyond getting rid of GWB and all republicans. Exactly my point.

What do we do? Let's, once again, point out how evil GWB is! How creative for smarter than the rest beltway insider.

If a Democrat had performed this badly, as you say. I might be offering alternatives, not just calling names and acting as if all southerners had somehow outsmarted me on many occasions.

Gee, duh, those dumb Floridians dun stole our votes again, heck, what will we ever do? They did it twice! Fool me once, fool me twice, awe shucks, what was GWB was supposed to say? /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

SKennedy
09-04-2007, 03:45 PM
As per Gayle
"It's disgusting! It is they, who are blinded by their hatred, of gays, of women, of what they precieve as liberals, and of Democrats, and especially of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who stand head and shoulders above George and Laura Bush. George Bush couldn't begin to grasp the intellect of people like the Clinton's, anymore than they southern styled intellectuals can grasp Bush's ignorance. Too bad they can't crunch the numbers on the economy. They don't think debt, is important. Selective reality, I call it."

Let's see now.....I'm a southern styled intellectual? Are you sure you meant for the words southern and intellectual to be in the same sentence? You speak about Bill Clinton...where was he from? And I hate gays and women? And libs and democrats? All this because I vote Republican and because I am conservative? Wow! Your logic and ability to reason is truly remarkable. And, I think I'll pay an extra dollar next time I buy a Ranger ticket. While some can complain about the Ranger stadium deal, I really don't think the majority of locals in Arlington are complaining about it. Of course, they're local, southern-styled intellectual yocals and obviously need someone of true self-styled intellect to tell them if they are happy, unhappy, if they make enough money, what type of food to eat, and how bad the USA is relative to the good countries of this world. Daaay OHHHHH! Tell Chavez hello for Cindy and those 2 black dudes...one that sings the Day Ohh! song and the other one in Lethal Weapon...I'd have remembered their names, but you see I'm a southern bigot and don't bother to remember black folks names!!
And I'll say one thing for you...you are smart to start laying the groundwork already for Hillary's failures her first and only term in office....she failed because she inherited a mess from Bush...she was doomed to fail...and those stupid people have now elected a Republican in 2012!! Don't you see Gayle? That was Bush's plan from the start!! Mess up for 8 years, we elect Hillary for 4, she can't fix his mess but she get's blamed for it, and we elect another Republican (Jeb Bush) for 8 more years. Do the math (as you are an accountant)...16 years of Republican administration (the Bush boys' era) for the cost of 4 years under Hillary? Yeah! That's the ticket...

Your previous Post about Bush was at least somewhat lucid and devoid of emotional hysteria and steroetypes, but it's all wasted when you post something like this. You proved Ed exactly right in his earlier post today.
(By the way I am not a bigot...Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte) Cindy Sheehan..just some sweet lady who bought some property in Crawford, Texas just so she could be close to Bush and become a southern-styled intellectual. She didn't make it...poor thing sold her place in Crawford to become the next majority leader. You go girl....(personal opinion...I think she's gay...I know she had some kids, but I still think she's gay....don't forget I hate gay folks too! - still like to watch "Men in Trees" though....I rationalize that what's her name is now with a man. If she is still gay....I thought you were born that way?.....she sure is a good actress.)
One more thing....Wilma vs Betty? (Betty)...Hillary vs Laura? (Definitely Laura). Right guys?

Deeman3
09-04-2007, 03:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> If you're interested in hatred, just tune in the Republicans. They hate everybody, gays, liberals, democrats, scientists, women, blacks, the poor, and everyone who isn't a poor mistreated Iraqi. <font color="blue"> How can you say republicans hate gays? Just because we might not think they should be giving marriange is not hate. You continue to try to tie the two together. It does not wash. Besides one of our most senior Senators is apparently gay. </font color> they don't seem to notice that it is Iraqis, that are killing our troops, the same way they don't notice that Bush is paying for their tax cuts, by borrowing money, their kids and grand kids are going to have to pay for. <font color="blue"> My parents paid for WWII, I paid for Vietnam. My grandkids will just have to fork over for Iraq. Like yours, mine can afford it.</font color>




Better yet, why don't just one of you righties on here tell me how damn long you are willing to see our people die, and be maimed, for Iraqis, that want to kill us? <font color="blue"> If all Iraqis wanted to kill us, all our soldiers would be dead.</font color> Answer me that one question. And why should they die when they don't even know why the hell they're there? <font color="blue"> Strange, oddly, they seem to know why they are there better than you. Yes, I know you can point out some who are mad at being deployed so long and rightfully so. However, if there is such a mass dissatisfaction why have we not had the hundreds of thousands of ex-soldiers who are now safely back home cover the grounds in Washington like was done in the Vietnam era if they are so urgently against this war? Are you overplaying this dissatisfaction? Are you saying the mainstream press would ignore a mass demonstration by ex-soldiers? Would NPR not show up? Are they afraid of GWB or is it that only a few hundred or thousand would show up? </font color>

I've talked to thousands of them. You righties don't have a clue about how they feel, and George Bush can stage all the props, and Hoorahs and Hoowahs he wants, but they want out, and he doesn't even provide them with what they need to have a half a chance of surviving. <font color="blue"> You, no matter how nobile, are no the only person to have contact with soldiers, both well and wounded. </font color> Why aren't you angry about that? Why aren't you angey that he lied us into this war? Why aren't you angry about our people dying due to his incompetence? <font color="blue"> I am angry that he has not prosecuted this war vigorously enough to send a stronger message to the Insurgents and the terrorists. I am angry that this is only a political football to you and many others to get your hatred across. Do I believe that GWB's intensions were pure in every way going into this war? No, but they never, ever are!!!.

If, for any reason, Iraq turns out to be a good thing for the Iraqis and us, in the long run. It will hurt you more than anything and that is sad. You will continue to play up the injured and dead and make any political hay out of anything the GWB does. You would not and never will give him credit for anything as we did for Clinton even in his tough times. You will continue to cut and paste tons of stuff and never answer any questions. Great strategy for the real intellectuals in this country. It may work but many will still know it as what it is, a strategy of throwing enough trash and hopeing the volume will stick.

I am open to argument but the hate makes me shutter to think of how everything will be addresseed by the left in the future. No plan, just noise and complaints.</font color>

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

cushioncrawler
09-04-2007, 09:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>...... Incredibly, Bush actually touts the fact that he was not charged as evidence of his exoneration, which is like O.J. saying the fact that he is free proves he did not murder his wife.....<hr /></blockquote>Gayle -- It would/could be "like", if OJ woz prezident.

But, there iz another difference, Simpson didnt murder anybody, Simpson did it. madMac.

Gayle in MD
09-05-2007, 07:39 AM
You're post, as usual, is full of personal insults. I don't aim anything I say at you, personally. To accuse someone of hatred, because their opinion about George Bush, his incompetence, his lies about his hidden agenda, and all those who have lost their lives due to it, is different than yours, is about as reasonable as the rest of your arguments. For example, your belief that we're distracting alQaeda, in Iraq, and therefore no attacks since 9/11, is completely ridiculous, IMO. Suggesting that those who speak out against a President who lies our country into war, and lies throughout the operation, do not want to see some long lasting good result after creating such devastating consequences for Iraqis, and American soldiers, is typical republican demonizing tactics, with no relationship to my views, or wishes, no4r to the reality at hand.

To me, the laws, and international agreements, which have been broken by Bush et al, meant something important in the arena of foreign affairs, and American values. There are many, many statesmen, historians, and scholars who say that the results of Bush's illegal and immoral actions, will never be overcome, and that the loss of respect for America, will continue to create dire circumstances and loss of respect for our country, for generations to come.

Your party, wrought with Evangelical wrath for gays, has not improved their plight, to say the least. I see the hypocracy of the Republican Party, which markets itself as pious, Godly and above the fray, yet replete with closet gays, who thrash out against the gay population, calling them sinners, while tapping their feet in restrooms, cruising for homosexual encounters, I dare say, reminicient of the Bush Sr., Newts and Barrs of the Clinton bashing days, who had their own mistress, and quiet abortions, to hide. If you think for one minute that everyone up there didn't alreqady know about Craig, and Foley, for example, you are quite mistaken. Also, if you think they have even begun to acknowledge all the others, in the so called family values party, who are still hiding their boyfriends from their wives, you are ill informed. However, the connection between religious attempts to suggest that homosexual people are perverted, is linked to your party, and is at the heart of phychological problems manifested in the minority of homosexual people who display less than desirable activities, IOW, if they were not demonized by organized religion, and had a healthier self-esteem, and greater acceptance from society, such things would not be happening. Goes back to the sentiment of live, and let live, which should be the goal of an educated population, which has a view of acceptance, rather than religious demonization and division.

What makes you think we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers back home? They're mostly all still there, against their will in large measure, and being deployed for fifteen month stretches, which some in the Military have already said will have to be extended for even longer periods of time, if Bush gets his way. Let's just forget about the fact that our presence in Iraq, is the core of the complaint by Arabs, of all distinctions, and insulting to their religious beliefs. Screw their philosophy. forget that these actions lead to terrorism, in the first place. Let's just continue to pour vinigar in their wounds, why bother to work toward any diplomatic efforts to removwe the grudge, just go on in with the bombs and the guns. Another example of ignorant Noeocn, Big Balls, Republican Philosophy, which adds to the strife around the world, and the hatred of our country. War, as a last resort, has now been replaced by the Neocon dream of unending war. Big improvement! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If there is a group in this country known for throwing trash, it is your party, and those here who had a field day over Bill Clinton's private sex life, were certainly proof of that, you among them. You folks are adept at minimizing all of Bush's documented lies and law breaking, torture and removal of Habeas Corpus, politicizing the DOJ, Attorney General who lies on the Senate Floor about breaking the law, Bush's history of insider trading and bilking taxpayers for personal gain, just to name a few of Bush's criminal activities. You rail against those who find his behavior, clearly illegal and harmful to America and Americans, disgusting, accusing them of hatred, and of harboring bad wishes for our country. Certainly not pertinent to the discussions at hand, nor is it a reasonable way to debate, but the typical Republican reaction to anyone who speaks out against all the lies and damage, and points out the unconstitutional activities which have been thoroughly documented by many far more educated on the subject than you, or I.

I find Bush repulsive. Reading the excerpts from this new book, his present plans to lecture his way to more millions, fattening up his coffers, as he put it, after he has left our people without proper equipment in the middle of a civil war, is repulsive, to say the least.

Our folks are dying because of his incompetence, and he's sitting around in the oval office, planning for his lecture circuit as the War President, and the millions he can scarf up later, after much more blood is shed. Positively repulsive, IMO, but surely, doesn't bother you?

It isn't about me, or you, it is about the worst president in history, and his inhumane intentions to use our troops in a personal quest to clean up his legacy of failure. It isn't about me, it's about our troops, and the failure of the Republican majority, to hold this man accountable from the outset, when it became obvious to all those who cared enough to pay attention, that his occupation in Iraq, was replete with incompetence. Therefore, I hold Republicans, and their politicizing of our system of checks and balances, accountable for all those whose lives were lost during a time when there could have been some gains in Iraq, and many lives, brains, eyes and limbs saved. I hate that scenario, and so should you. It is a real disgrace, and your party, along with their southern Evangelicals who demonized all those who spoke out against the blatant incompetence displayed, must bare the responsibility for the heart breaking results.

I suppose when one hasn't seen them first hand, on a weekly basis, the results are less than real. It's easy to lash out against others who have, and have spoken out, but it doesn't change the reality, that your man Bush failed to protect these people, and failed miserably to see that they atleast had what they needed to address the illogical and inhumane demands he has placed upon them throughout this illegal occupation for regime change, and oil. To be angry over that, is not political partisanship, or hatred,... it is patriotism, and respect for our troops, something which your party, and your president, failed miserably to address, provide, or to even take a stand against.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
09-05-2007, 08:14 AM
Why are you so hooked on the word, hate?

For once, admit that Democrats do have plans. Deomcrats, were the ones who increased the pay for our soldiers, and Bush, vetoed it. Democrats, were the ones who exposed the failure of this preasident to provide decent training, equipment, and rest, for our troops. Democrats, are the ones who insisted on oversight, benchmarks, and other accountability of an incompetent administration. Democrats, are the ones who exposed the effort to politicize the entire Department of Justice, by a crooked Attorney General. Democrats, have stood for our troops throughout this insane occupation in Iraq. Democrats have accomplished more in less than a year, than Republicans in six. Democrats, have not been lamed by corruption, over ten Republicans are either under investigation for serious crimes, or gone.

I'm sick and tired of the way you suggest that the ability to be crooked, as in election fraud, is an admirable trait, and proof of intellectual accomplishment. It isn't. It's corruption at it's worst.

The day I worry about being out smarted by the southern style evangelical idiots in this country, you have my permission to have me comitted. I don't view all southernors the same way. Only the Evangelical nuts, fall into that category, although the desire of those who practice organized religion, to try to dictate to all others according to their own personal religious beliefs, is completely absurd, and narcissistic. The effort to overlay prayer in schools, gay rights, and a woman's right to control her own body, over much more pressing issues of an election, it complete ignorance, IMO. It is not only archaic, and unamerican, but ignorant, in that we have many more pressing issues with which to concern ourselves. Viewing their ideology, in that regard, certainly does not increase my respect for them, nor should it, IMO. In fact, they're being used, politically, by Rovarian political tactics, and then made fun of by the same man, and his associates in the White House, who laugh and call them "Looney Nuts", behind their backs, although I don't hear you protesting when he says it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
09-05-2007, 08:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
other than what you read in Willian Kristol's right wing rag? <hr /></blockquote> jGayle does not believe anything from a right wing rag and no one else believes anything from her left wing rags. Looks like nothing has changed.

eg8r

Deeman3
09-05-2007, 08:46 AM
Yes, nothing has changed....

Vapros
09-05-2007, 09:03 AM
Deeman, I'm seeing a slight change. Gayle still gives the same answer to every question, but I think it's getting longer.

eg8r
09-05-2007, 09:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you're interested in hatred, just tune in the Republicans. <hr /></blockquote> Why are you so intent on blaming others. If we are interested in hatred we will keep reading your posts. [ QUOTE ]
...just tune in the Republicans. They hate everybody, gays, liberals, democrats, scientists, women, blacks, the poor, and everyone who isn't a poor mistreated Iraqi. <hr /></blockquote> You make OBL proud.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-05-2007, 09:48 AM
That's right, nothing has changed, Bush is still defying the odds, fooling some of the people, all of the time. The surge has failed. The Sunnis turning against AlQaeda, had nothing to do with more troops, it was about giving them arms, removing our troops, and turning them loose to protect their own, against al Qaeda, just as John Murtha said long ago..."The troops should be withdrawn to the periphery, away from the sectarian civil war. The Iraqis will take care of the alQaeda." And they did.

Deciding whether George Bush has won or lost the war depends strictly on definitions of purpose. There is no doubt, as shonw in Paul Bremers recent disclosure of his letter to Bush, and Bush's response to him, regarding an issue as important as disintegrating the Iraqi Army, that bush was completely removed, and remote, from the policy, and decisions after the occupation, and that he failed miserably to lead with any effectiveness, but until we see whether BushCo can manipulate Maliki or someone else Bush prefers into passing the hydrocarbon law for the benefit of Exxon, Texaco, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell et al., amounting to a majority interest in 81% of Iraq's undeveloped oil, we won't know whether he's won or lost. I'd call this the Single Benchmark Theory. The permanent bases and the world's largest embassy are the future infrastructure to make this confiscation feasible. Maliki is dragging his feet on this as he waits, determined to outlast Bush. Bush, with the feckless support of co-opted senators like Carl Levin, threatens to replace him with reliable CIA thug Allawi, who will work to get this deal through, something Maliki refuses to agree to, and Bush has never cared about whether democracy in Iraq, that's a neocon fantasy. Bush's benchmarks are purely financial and intended for the benefit of his "base," the fat cats who run the oil biz. Too bad you guys voted in someone who had no intention of doing anything to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but instead, has destablized an entire continent, wasted trillions, and invested in a future of more of the same. It's about the oil, and Bush's cornies, and that's all it's ever been about. Perpetual war, and perpetual money for them, paid for with the blood of American soldiers.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
09-05-2007, 09:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You're post, as usual, is full of personal insults. I don't aim anything I say at you, personally. <hr /></blockquote> You like to cast your insults in the face of all Republicans and conservatives, we just like to point our your lies and let you know you were the one that typed them.

Without reading the rest of your duplicated rant, my guess is you will have once again ignored every sentence of Dee's that ended with a "?".

eg8r

eg8r
09-05-2007, 09:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That's right, nothing has changed... <hr /></blockquote> Look we all agree. I had to stop there because I don't believe jGayle (the left wing rag).

eg8r

Deeman3
09-05-2007, 10:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Too bad you guys voted in someone who had no intention of doing anything to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but instead, has destablized an entire continent, wasted trillions, and invested in a future of more of the same. Gayle in Md.

<font color="blue"> And your side is going to solve it all by giving my family money not to grow soybeans but grow enough corn to make Ethenoyl, requiring all the airable land in the continental U.S. just to produce 21% of our needs. Ask Nancy about that one. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
09-05-2007, 10:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Cindy Sheehan..just some sweet lady who bought some property in Crawford, Texas just so she could be close to Bush and become a southern-styled intellectual. She didn't make it...poor thing sold her place in Crawford to become the next majority leader. You go girl....(personal opinion...I think she's gay...I know she had some kids, but I still think she's gay.... <hr /></blockquote>

Is this what you call lucid and devoid of hysteria and steriotypes?

Hey, did you see Bill Maher last friday? He played the clip from the Miss South Carolina contest, then followed up with Bush's painful attempt to answer the question, what is a sovereign nation. They were equally clueless, and obviously stupid.

As for hysteria, the right is adept at providing plenty. If I recall, it was hysteria, which enabled George Bush to lead all of you into thinking that our most pressing threat after 9/11 was Saddam. NOT! That he had WMD's, NOT! That he had ties to al Qaeda. Not!

Fortunately, Bush can't fool all of the people, all of the time, and that fact that drives you righties up the wall, and promotes all the demonizing of all those who see through the Republican/Neocon agenda, and know about the secret deals they made with Isreal, promising to go after Syria, and Iran, just after we breezed through Iraq, only Bushy Boy, couldn't pull it off. Just like he never sucessfully pulled off anything on his own in his whole life, including impregnating smile/nod Laura, who is presently nursing a pinched nerve, from seven years of smile/nod illogical support.

All the insults you throw out are pointless. they don't change reality. they don't end the war. And, They don't prevent the truth from continuing to emerge, and expose your party, and your president, for their gros failures, and inept governing.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
09-05-2007, 10:19 AM
My side, doesn't exist. I change my party when I see that I'm supporting the wrong people. Democrats have long been the party that made efforts to reduce our dependency on oil, all the way back to Carter, who did in fact, reduce our barrels per day by a huge amount, the exact reduction escapes me at the moment, but he certainly didn't
occupy a Middle East country, under the guise of big bad wolf, for the true purpose of regime change, using trumped up intelligence, in order to take their oil for his Oil rich cronies, and mask the envrionmental requirements of the planet, in order to do so.

Even if one doesn't buy the whole global warming ideology, the simple limitations regarding availability of oil, worldwide, call for change, and an end to the on-going dependency on Oil. Bush, has gone in the opposite direction, hence, Cheney's secret deals, have to be deep sixed. Bush has set this country back twenty years.

But, alas, you folks don't care about pressing issues, do you? It's all about sex, and prayers, and marriage licenses...I rest my case. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Deeman3
09-05-2007, 10:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> My side, doesn't exist.

But, alas, you folks don't care about pressing issues, do you? It's all about sex, and prayers, and marriage licenses...I rest my case. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Gayle, You are the one who keeps bring up sex, prayers and the rest. Most of us think sex, prayers and marriage liscenses are not the major issues ofd the day. Was Clinton's BJ a major issue when it occured? Yes, but leave that puppy alone. We made fun of the situation but, as I recall, did not want him killed or maimed. Most of us thought the impeachment was a waste of time but we did give him some credit for doing some good.

We could go back and make case after case of Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam or of many other democratic war mongering if it would serve a purpose but it will not. I may be wrong but I think the only war the republicans ever got us into was the two Iraq's and the Civil War. What does that matter? What are we now going to do? What alternatives to mideast oil are being offered? Corn oil? Stuff that will use up the very savings it makes in fertilizer, and transportation? Electric cars? Plug it in a ignore where the elecrticity come from? Get real. When you don't have the iol to power your boat or heat your home, you won't give a crap about where it comes from, will you? As long as you are free to bash Bush and offer little concrete solutions, it's o.k.

Let's play friendly. They really couldn't want to cut our heads off, could they? We just have not talked them down enough. Anyone can be reasoned with. Bull!</font color>

Gayle in MD
09-05-2007, 11:18 AM
Gayle, You are the one who keeps bring up sex, prayers and the rest. Most of us think sex, prayers and marriage liscenses are not the major issues ofd the day. <font color="red">There were certainly your parties main issues of the day in 2000. </font color> Was Clinton's BJ a major issue when it occured? Yes, <font color="red">there goes yo0u argument, in your own words, since the nawer should be no, it wasn't a major issue, and it crippled our country at a time when Clinton was trying to address terrorism, and launching his own war on terror, and in fact was accused of "Wagging the Dog" by your party... </font color> but leave that puppy alone. We made fun of the situation but, as I recall, did not want him killed or maimed. <font color="red">I know of no one here who has ever called for Bush to be killed or maimed. these are the kind of flippant, accusatory statements that you, and other Republican, make all the time, which stand in the way of accomplishing any real debate. </font color> Most of us thought the impeachment was a waste of time but we did give him some credit for doing some good. <font color="red"> I've never heard you, or any other Republican here, say anything good about either of the Clinton's. Must have missed that? I don't think so. </font color>

We could go back and make case after case of Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam or of many other democratic war mongering if it would serve a purpose but it will not. <font color="red">Eisenhower was the president who put our people in Vietnam. Regardless, we were taught a lesson about guerilla war fare, staying too long in an unwinnable situation, and interfering in other countries' civil wars, but alas, Bush threw that all out, and here we are again. Kennedy was not going to escalate the war in Vietnam. His intention was a draw down. Some say he was asassinated because of it, by war profiteerers. </font color> I may be wrong but I think the only war the republicans ever got us into was the two Iraq's and the Civil War. What does that matter? What are we now going to do? What alternatives to mideast oil are being offered? Corn oil? Stuff that will use up the very savings it makes in fertilizer, and transportation? Electric cars? Plug it in a ignore where the elecrticity come from? Get real. When you don't have the iol to power your boat or heat your home, you won't give a crap about where it comes from, will you? As long as you are free to bash Bush and offer little concrete solutions, it's o.k.

<font color="red">I see that Democrats have a history, as I said, beginning with Jimmy Carter, of trying to address our dependency on foreign oil, and on fossil fuels, and on improving the environment. They haven't had secret meetings with the US oil cartel, and they haven't used solviet styled censorship against scientific studies, made by NASA Scientists, who we pay to research the issue. We don't have all the answers yet, but voting for the party which covers up and lies to us, is certainly not a step in the right direction.

You make fun of tree huggers? But believe me, cutting down the rain forest, and promoting more dependence on foreign oil, by promoting perpetual war, surely isn't the correct direction. We need a leader, who will work to create an all out effort by Americans to energize this country, in the direction of making a difference, by making sacrifices, and cutting our energy usage. I assure you, it will not be your party that leads the way in that effort. </font color>
Let's play friendly. They really couldn't want to cut our heads off, could they? We just have not talked them down enough. Anyone can be reasoned with. Bull! <font color="red"> If one studies the history of terrorism, one will discover that it was the Reagan administration which planted the seeds, and both the Bush's who exascerbated it. Clinton, was caught in the middle of their pro business coddling of corporate fascists, who don't give a damn about anything but the bottom line. Who put the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia? who failed to take out Saddam when we had a plyable reason to do so? Your party is offering not one single opportunity for a positive change in our policies, four incompetents, Giuliani, we know about his poor judgement, McCain, about as pro war as you can get, and has backed the resident idiot all the way, thompson, a former lobbyist for the most corrupt industry in America, and Romney, a complete flip flopper if ever there was one. We are NOT better off now, than we were with Clinton leading this country, and all his efforts to get bin Laden, have been dismantled by George Bush, and the neocons, who demonized Clinton's efforts to rid the world of terrorism, using their usual dirty slander, and the neocon right wing press, to discredit him.

I don't like the methods of your party, their continuous lies, and arrogant pompous "GODLY" cover for their repulsive tactics, their very well documented usage of bribes when they are in power, and their attacks on others, while doing the same damn thing in secret. I see nothing Christian, Godly, or American, about them, in general, although I do have praise for some of them, like Gordon Smith, and a few others, who had the courage to speak truth to power, a very few others. I'm not thrilled with Democrats, mostly because they have not instituted impeachment proceedings on Bush and Cheney, and ouyr constitution, has been severely damaged by this secret administration, and their abuse of power. hence, I ma doing as I usually do, voting for the least bad contender. I do not, however, nor will I ever, agree with you that our present circumstances with dealing with the likes of bin Laden, are only improved by bombing and killing Arabe, and stealing their oil, as we occupy their countries. Nor, do I support the Neocon philosophy that we should become dictators of the world, and launch perpetual war. this is their platform, and they run your party. They were the ones who pushed for this occupation which turned out to be totally un-necessary. We should have psent the last seven years, seeking out and finding terrorist cells, around the world. Using diplomacy to encourage Muslim outrage against terrorism. Providing assistance to the suffering, improving our intell8igence capabilities, and removing bin Laden, and destroying al Qaeda's foot hold in the Pakistani Afghanistan region, NOT INVADING IRAQ AS OCCUPIERS! We need to get rid of Republicans, and remove neocons from a position of power, before they get us all blown to smitherines, and nothing is more important than that. That won't be easy, since the and their Jewish cabal own the American Press, but we must make the effort. We have already seen what happens when think tanks, full of neocons, like the AEI, gain power, and take over our foreign policy. They were all wrong, about everything. People like Peter Galbraith, were correct. Unfortunately, he was not heeded, and there were many others, people you would probably paint as liberals, OMG, the demon word, who called it right, but were rendered completely ignored, by the right wing press. America need a leader, who is respected around the world. Too bad Clinton can't run again. He is certainly loved and respected all over the world, as was Kennedy, and to this day, so is Carter. BTW, as you tout Bush's ability to ignore polls, I'll remind you that doing so, is basically saying F-U, to the rest of the country. Why you find that so admirable, is beyond me. When the rest of the world does not believe, trust, or respect the President of the United States, it certainly is not a plus in foreign affairs, IMO, and when the country believes the President is out of touch with reality, there is usually a damn good reason. Some of us DO, READ Books. Unfortunately, our president is not one of them.

Gayle in Md.</font color>

SKennedy
09-05-2007, 11:32 AM
My comments about Cindy were tongue-in-cheek. I was being sarcastic by portraying myself in the view you have of me as a gay hating, woman hating, black hating conservative. Of all the posts on this topic, your recent posts would indicate that you are the one who hates and stereotypes the most. You are at one extreme, and I grant you there are others on the right that are also on the extreme. I think most of the conservative christians posting here are not extreme, full of hate, and guilty of the things you advocate about us. I am a christian, and there are plenty of so-called "christians" out there I do not like or agree with. Are all democrats the same? Are all liberals the same? Of course not. But according to your posts, southerners, christians, republicans, and conservatives are all the same....a bunch of retards! (Can I say that word? - Just kidding Gayle not really asking about use of the word here as I never worry about being PC) One thing you have made abundantly clear, we will never get you to reason and consider things out in a normal, rational discourse.

Bobbyrx
09-05-2007, 11:36 AM
still searching for the personal insults your post was filled with....................................I'll probably find one about the same time I get an answer to what the Democrats have to offer besides not being Bush...

eg8r
09-05-2007, 11:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
One thing you have made abundantly clear, we will never get you to reason and consider things out in a normal, rational discourse. <hr /></blockquote> It took you 72 posts to notice what you were told in the beginning. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I know, everyone wants to go on their own and figure it out themselves.

eg8r

Deeman3
09-05-2007, 12:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
One thing you have made abundantly clear, we will never get you to reason and consider things out in a normal, rational discourse. <hr /></blockquote> It took you 72 posts to notice what you were told in the beginning. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I know, everyone wants to go on their own and figure it out themselves.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Ed,
Forgive him. I have gone a few thousand posts in my three incarnations here and still have not learned my lesson. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

It will take a lot more convincing than I am capable of to reach a women who, unlike us poor southerners actually reads those book things. Bush made a snide comment a few years ago to a reporter that he did not read in regard to a critical article and she has been using that ad nasium ever since when just yesterday, NPR reported Bush had finished his 87th book this year and is a voratious reader of history. She takes Bill Maher's comedy act as real news and turns every stupid evangelical act from history into a painting of all of us. She accused me of name calling and I will become one. She is a bigot. Maybe a PC bigot but certaianly one against anything Southern except Bill Clinton and certainly a bigot against Christians. Note: I did not call her a nut. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SKennedy
09-05-2007, 12:58 PM
We lost in Vietnam because it was unwinnable due to guerilla warfare? Guerilla warfare was used by Washington during the Revolutionary War and used by calvary units during the Civil War, etc. That is not why we lost that war. Politicians would not let us win the war. We had the means, money, men, equipment, etc. to easily win the war, but we didn't have the desire politically to do what was necessary to win....so, we gave it away.

SKennedy
09-05-2007, 01:01 PM
You are right Ed. You too Deeman.

Deeman3
09-05-2007, 03:32 PM
Steve:

I imagime the majority here see you, me, Vapros, Ed and a few others huddled in prayer asking our God to bring wrath down upon gays, unwed mothers and heaping negative vibs upon the poor of the world, right? We obviouly are maing a concerted effort to gain personal wealth from the misery of others both here and abroad. We are much too busy, apparently, trying to raise the average temperature of the earth to be as carbon neutral as the more enlightened here, who, by insinuation, have only nobile moral intentions and are really, politically neutral. They just want those altruistic, benevolent democrats to show us how to tame and soften the hostility of the middle east despite the sorid fact that the actions of republicans and their ilk had the audicity to place two large capitolistic buildings and one military target right in the path of a few of the planes these people of peace were forced, by oppressive circumstances, to take...well, you know the rest. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Gayle in MD
09-06-2007, 11:18 AM
That's your version, and matches the neocon version. The fact is, as Robert McNamara has stated, and is documented in the documentary, Fog Of War, we could never have won in Vietnam. It was a guerilla ground war, and as their leader stated, to McNamara years later, they would have fought until the last man dropped. It was a stupid war in the first place, another civil war that we had no business putting our noses into, and the domino theory, just as Bush's present BS about Iraq, didn't happen.

As I have written before, I think Mr. McNamara just may know more about Vietnam, than any of you war mongers from the right. You also probably know little about the documents from the AEI, and their neocon agenda of perpetual war, beginning with Iraq, and then Iran and Ssyria, as they have promised Isreal.

Bush's friends, the Saudis, however, are never mentioned, eventho they have spent more money, and sent more fighters into Iraq, than anyone else. You recall Saudi Arabia, right, the place where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from?

Too bad. You guys are just full of opinions and insults, but very little scholarly knowledge. Amazing, how you all settle on the skewed information that Bush spreads around, instead of our own agencies, which are always opposite from his delusional version, and also from the right wing press, which he pays to tell you whatever he wants you to think. Kind of like your pasters, who scruff up you money, and live like kings. Let's just forget history, and the connection between organized religion, and nearly every horrendous war ever fought.

gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
09-06-2007, 11:58 AM
LMAO...yeah, our scholars, who voted for Bush, twice. The British said it best, "How Can Forty Million People Be So Dumb?"

Thank God George has us fighting them over there, so we won't have to fight them over here, and as Deeman believes, they're so distracted with Iraq, we haven't been attacked again, thanks to his brillian leader/decider. Not distracted enough, however, to prevent them from launching more attack since we've been in Iraq, than ever before, though. Not enough to prevent them from plotting against us from Germany? Gee, How'd they ever find the time away from the Civil War in Iraq, to manage that? Or all the other successful attack against other countries.

There have been more terrorist bombings all over the world in the last six years than at any other time. More terrorists indoctrinated into alqaeda's murderous ideology, than ever before. You guys voted for the man who emboldened the terrorists, and increased their ability to recruit. Facts, are the enemy of the right. when they can't deal with the truth, out comes the insults.

Sheep are dumb, and they stink. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Vapros
09-06-2007, 12:09 PM
You can usually tell when you have struck a nerve with Gayle. Her next post will begin with LOL or LMAO.

SKennedy
09-06-2007, 01:10 PM
Guerrilla ground war? What a load of crap as to why we lost. All we had to do was move our soldiers out of the area and drop those terrible nasty bombs that are real decisive about ending wars. Just ask the Japanese about them. We decided not to do that, and that decision, along with other political ideologies, is why we lost that war. It was not from guerilla warfare and their desire to fight until the last man was dead. We could have accommodated them on that last part.
Were you one of those greeting our returning soldiers from Vietnam by hurling insults and spit? My vote is no....even Gayle's not that far off.

As to "the British said it best"....was that the entire British population? Maybe it was just their immigrants? Do they vote in our elections? Do you think I care what they think? Been to England lately? If so, just how close to utopia is it? I wonder if the British quote your sentiments about their government and quote you as "The Americans say..."

By the way, as a southerner (Texan) it is logical, as you assert, that I'm not very bright. However, I am trying to rectify that situation by reading and I did manage to read a portion of a book last night. Just as you would suspect, I quickly became confused....something about "green eggs and ham?" Hey, as a southerner I like eggs (double yolks with some hog or squirrel brains mixed in) and smoked country ham full of salt with some biscuits and cream gravy, but green eggs? Gotta go...that durn Daisy Duke is calling me again...she just won't let me be.

Gayle in MD
09-06-2007, 01:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
All we had to do was move our soldiers out of the area and drop those terrible nasty bombs that are real decisive about ending wars. Just ask the Japanese about them. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Thanks, for proving my point. As long as the bombs are dropping, and innocent people are being blown up, you can justify it, eventho we had no business interfering in their Civil War. As for your assertion that we could have won the war in Vietnam, I suppose you think also that Iraq will soon be a democracy?

Your opinion on Vietnam, is far flung from other Military and DOD opinions, documented in many books. Unfortunately, Republicans believe that if winning a war calls for obliterating an entire society of innocent people, then that is what we should have done. Typical Republican/southern styled thinking. It's all about getting the opportunity to fire off your big guns. No need to contemplate the wrong or right of the situation, if the bombs are driopping, Republicans are happy.</font color>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

SKennedy
09-06-2007, 02:29 PM
The only point proven is that you jump to conclusions. I have never advocated we should drop nukes and kill innocents (but I will add that war is ugly, and the uglier they are, maybe the less of them we'll have). I just said that was why we lost the war and we could have won it if we really wanted to win it. I've never advocated dropping nukes, but they have served their purpose and may again some day. I believe they do deter war.
And vietnam was a civil war? Are you sure or is that your convenient opinion? I guess Korea was too? Is that the liberal take on war these days...if civil war, let them duke it out on their own....always? Think about that now.
And, I've never supported obliterating an entire society (just those who don't think like me..just kidding), and I don't think I've led any rational person reading these posts to believe that would be true by my postings.
And in your previous post you guote a North Vietnemese officer and also a documentary? Since when are documentaries always accurate? Ever hear of Michael Moore?
As for military and DOD opinions....I was in the service, so does my opinion count? I also went to one of your schools in the northeast (Philly - what i call NE) near your area and took quite a bit of military history, including 2 classes from a guy considered the foremost expert on military history in the US (Russell Wiegley). He disagrees with you and wrote books to that end. He taught at one of the more liberal institutions in the country... And speaking of Civil Wars and the South...for the record he also believed if Stonewall Jackson had been with Lee at Gettysburg not only would the south have won the battle, but they would have immediately marched to D.C, taken the primarily unquarded capital, embarrassed the north, and the war would have been over. Do you know how many Americans were killed in that Civil War compared to both world wars, korea, vietnam, and both gulf wars? So, was the north wrong to fight that war? Were both sides wrong in trying to enlist foreign help? Was one society trying to obliterate another? In a way, yes!
For the record, I don't advocate war. However, in reality sometimes you have to fight....and not with a bunch of words, especially against evil people. Believe it or not, bad people are really out there. Is that why you live on a boat? To avoid them? Ever cruise off the northeast coast of Africa without weapons or some type of armed escort? Like some of these folks on here have been trying to tell you....some people just want to harm you and your way of life harm. They just want to kill you. Period! And it's not southerners or conservatives.
When my son was younger I told him fighting was wrong and that I could never stand a bully. However, I also told him to defend himself. Sometimes he also defended the underdogs from bullies by standing up to bullies. They always backed down without a fight when they knew he meant business. If they don't back down then you better back up your stand and the quickest most efficient way possible to avoid injury to others (even your enemy), but mostly to yourself and those you love. The real world is that way. Diplomacy is nice and preferred, but only works with reasonable people. The fact that there are miserable people in this world who despise me and my way of life is not my fault and I refuse to feel guilty about it. If they are serious about getting help to improve their life, then I'm all for helping, but not by someone taking from me to give to them against my will, or by them deciding to take it away from me.

SKennedy
09-06-2007, 02:32 PM
Dr. Phil wants to study further your comment "fire off your big guns."

Gayle in MD
09-07-2007, 12:36 PM
You've certainly shown me how very informed you are. Your professor must certainly know more than the President of Vietnam, quoted in the documentary, saying vietnam, was a civil war.

You also buy the Bush BS about terrorists hatin us for our freedom. BULLSH**, they hate us and others in the weat because the Brits, and now we, have tried to occupy their part of the world, and steal their oil, for one thing. bin Laden hates us because the Saudis turn to the US, instead of to him, for protection after the communists ran their country in the ground trying to get their oil, just as we're doing, now.

Yes, Vietnam, was a civil war. Also, only George bush and his followers would try to compare what we've don in Iraq, to our previous wars, I or II, or our own civil war, or Revolutionary War. No comparison. We occupied Iraq, for purely selfish purposes. We haven't done those people any big favors, or they wouldn't be leaving the copuntry by the droves. Sure Saddam was a brute, but they did have water, food, and their children weren't all suffering from severe psychological problems due to the violence. Do you have any idea how many Iraqis are now refugees, are homwless, are displaced.

PAHLEEEZE...save me from having to read Bush's Bull about what the Iraqis owe us for all the good we've done over there. You're a typical right wing BAH BAH BAH....Bush F-ed up the whole thing. he's made verything for us, much worse, and much more dangerous, with complete support from the Republican party, and the war mongers on the right, the kind who still try to insist that we could have won the war in Vietnam, knowing that we lost over 58,000 people over there.

You've lost any credibility with me, at this point. Bush, doesn't even know the difference between APEC and OPEC, and is nothing but an embarrassment to our country. Those of you who are still out there sucking up the propaganda the White House is running, need to educate yourselves, and that doesn't include the White House version of the situation in Iraq.

Good God, after all the proof of their continuous, extreme lies about this war, and you're still sopping it up.

Like I, and literally hundreds of foreign affairs experts both here, and in other countries, try to tell all of you right wing nuts, we should be focused on the people you refer to, who do want to kill us, and who our own 16 national security agencies say are our biggest threat, alQaeda, not some un-necessary idiot campaign for the corporate fascist American Oil Cartel, and those at the AEI, who are heavily invested in oil, but against those radical Islamist Terrorists, who are growing in numbers, thanks to George Bush, taking his eye off the ball, and making a huge mess of the entire Middle East. Iraq, WAS NOT A THREAT, bin Laden IS!

Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time...now YOU, are being robbed, to pay for an un-necessary war, that George bush, and the rest of his liars, lied you into...in a country, and for a people, 70% of whom believe that it is good to kill Americans. Only fifteen percent of the violence in Iraq, is alQaeda, the rest is sectarian violence, and Shiia agains Sunni, Shiia against Shiia...DO SOME READING. This is not Vietnam, just as dumb as Vietnam was.

/ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif


/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Sheep are dumb, and they stink!

SKennedy
09-07-2007, 09:38 PM
what is APEC?

Gayle in MD
09-08-2007, 07:08 AM
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.

eg8r
09-08-2007, 07:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You've certainly shown me how very informed you are. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, read no further. Once Gayle starts out with this it means that she believes her book reading events have given her more insight than anyone else. No one is as informed as jGayle.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-08-2007, 08:06 AM
If watching Bush and Cheney, lie, for six years, and initiate the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with a complete blank check from Republicans to do so, and create the mess they have made in the Middle East, while refusing to abide by the laws of this country, isn't enough for you to "Get it", I suggest that you go back and review the documentation from literally dozens of people in the CIA, State, Defense, and special forces. They have written their first hand experiences, the factual history, usually after resigning in protest over illegal, deceiteful, and unlawful actions taken by this administration. The fact is that Bush, Cheney and Rice, were warned over and over about the coming al Qaeda attack. They refused to heed the warnings. Hence, 3,000 Americans died on 9/11.

They followed this with an illegal pre-emptive attack, and occupation of a sovereign country, by creating their own, flawed intelligence, in an area of the world which expert after expert, warned them not to create kaos, and refused to honor the Geneva Conventions, which our country had honored for decades.

Their promise, after they failed to take actions of any kind to heed and take seerious the warnings of the coming attack on our soil, was, "The people who brought down these buildings are all going to hear from us", George Bush. Instead, they lied about their intentions, and occupied Iraq, leaving the promised effort to get bin Laden, in the desert dust, and puzzling expert after expert with an illogical occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and was considered no pressing threat.

Their poor judgement, and incompetence, has created a completely de-stabalized Middle East, just as they were told, put our country into trillions in debt, much of it owned by a communist nation, broken our Army and Marines, emboldened our most threatening and dangerous enemy, and throughout, the vast majority of the Republican Party, has helped them to lie about the results, and continue to mask the dire results.

In the last 04 election, Kerry said, this is the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. IMO, it is obvious, he was right. Saddam had no WMD, no connection to al Qaeda, and had not attacked the United States on our soil.

Al Qaeda and the taliban have now re-constituted and expanded. Joe Biden said over a year and a half ago, that Iraq should be partitioned into three, or four independent sects, with a central government to oversee the equal distribution of oil resources among the citizenry. Al Anbar Province had instituted their turn around, before this surge began, but bush tries to tie it the his "Surge" IOW, time and time again, Bush has shown his incompetence and deciet.

Your party, is responsible for the fact that bin Laden, is still free, still plotting, and the organization, due to Bush's distraction with Iraq, not our pressing threat after 9/11, has allowed al Qaeda, our true threat, to grow, and franchise, all over the world. Democrats, have stated, long ago, that this distraction in Iraq, which they WERE lied into, along with the rest of us, was the wrong decision, and have instituted the methods which are now holding George Bush to accountability, which Republicans failed to do for six years.

If you can't see by now, the results of poor judgement, dishonesty, corruption and incompetence in the policies of the Republican party, and the huge costs to our country, our reputation in the world, the huge debt to pay for illogical tax cuts during an un-necessary war, the massive deciet, the blank check Republican Congress, who refused to institute their obligation to provide a "Check" to an authoritarian styled, un-american administration, which ignores the laws of this country, and divides our country by demonizing those who have had the courage to speak out against their lies, I really don't think you are capable of making any decisions based on logical deduction, and reasonable ability to connect the dots.

Bush accused Clinton of Nation Building when he was running for office. What do you think we're doing now? Generals were standing around, scratching their heads, when they began to realize that Bush was determined to invade Iraq. Our most informed CIA agents, special bin Laden Unit, and many foreign operatives, knew, and warned him, that this was not a logical move, nor would it serve our country to put anything at all ahead of smashing al Qaeda right then, and killing bin Laden.

If you can't see by now, how completely wrong Republican decision making, and Republican support for said decision making, and their inept actions, then you never will.

For any rightie, who supported this administrations policies, to accuse anyone who has stood against them, of partisanship, is completely laughable!

If Iraq, became a total democracy, which is NEVER going to happen, occupying it as Bush did, when he did, would still amount to the worst American Policy decision of all times.

To say that Democrats have no plan, is a lie. Biden's plan, is actually now Bush's plan. Murtha's plan, is now Bush's plan. Both plans, were stated long ago, by both men.

I hope, that when bin Laden executes this horrible coming attack, likely in Washington D.C., and my family and I are all dead, maybe, those of you who have supported this complete distraction away from America's true threat, and the emboldening of our true enemy, bL, and Al Q, might finally be able to grasp my appropriate, on-going anger and disgust at Republicans, Bush, and those of you who have defended them, and their repulsive lack of action, against our enemies, both foreign, and domestic.

Democrats have a plan. You partisan sheep, refuse to heed, or acknowledge it. The Party of Denial, and distraction, has no business running this country. If you can't see the proof of that, do some reading, there's plenty of documentation available.

Gayle in Md.

SKennedy
09-08-2007, 12:46 PM
Obviously, she didn't catch my humor in the post "WHat's APEC?" She rambled on and on and that's my only response? I thought it funny, but even more so that she actually replied. I guess she does believe that stuff about us southern republican hicks being very uneducated. All hail "Gayledom!"

Gayle in MD
09-08-2007, 02:29 PM
"She",? Atleast I know who I'm posting to.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

FYI, I love the South, and in fact, I vacation one month a year in North Carolina, and own property there. Their voting judgement, in the last two elections, however, was for ****, as evidenced by their overwhelming votes for Little Bushy, the idiot in the White House, who has eats with his mouth wide open, and full of food, and picks his nose at baseballs games. Apparently You believe everything you are fed by Faux News, and you party....your posts are proof of that. Chip off the old block? Your Mom?

eg8r
09-08-2007, 09:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"She",? Atleast I know who I'm posting to.... <hr /></blockquote> You really are a laugh. Just sit back and watch, I will lay out the breadcrumbs so you can find your way back...

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jGayle responding to SK:</font><hr> You've lost any credibility with me, at this point. Bush, doesn't even know the difference between APEC and OPEC, and is nothing but an embarrassment to our country. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SK:</font><hr> what is APEC? <blockquote><font class="small">Quote jGayle:</font><hr> Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SK referring to a previous post in this same thread:</font><hr> Obviously, she didn't catch my humor in the post "WHat's APEC?" She rambled on and on <blockquote><font class="small">Quote lamest come back ever, jGayle:</font><hr> "She",? Atleast I know who I'm posting to.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you tell us you read, but I am beginning to wonder just how many times you actually read the same book before you ever figure out what the heck the author was trying to say.

Thanks again for yet another laugh.

eg8r

SKennedy
09-09-2007, 11:35 AM
You "love" the south (NC) and vacation here for a month each year? How condescending?
Well....I urinated in the Delaware River once.

SKennedy
09-09-2007, 01:42 PM
I knew exactly who I was posting to. I think most everyone else did also. Quit taking everything so seriously! You'll never get out alive if you do.
Have a good Sunday Gayle!

Gayle in MD
09-10-2007, 08:02 AM
Not at all. I enjoy the people down there. I wouldn't buy property somewhere if I had a low opinion of the locals. I just think their political views are distorted, kind of like yours... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif