Bush article in 'Rolling Stone'
POSTED BY: aussay
UPDATED: Saturday, April 22, 2006 19:24
VIEWED: 8079
PAGE 2 of 6
Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
First of all, I think most experts agree that the war is not going all that well.
Only the experts on TV. The mainstream media only interviews experts that favor their side of the story. For example several of the so-called six Generals are on record as having completely contradictory opinions within the last year and after they left the military. Yet they are not even questioned on their former statements and their former positions are generally ignored by the media reporting the story.
Quote:
We have evidence that suggests that we were going to war no matter what (british documents). Now, I agree we don't know the validity of this, which is why you HAVE AN INVESTIGATION! I never called for Bush's impeachment (try reading and stop being a moron). All I'm asking for is an investigation.
Actually you mentioned impeachment of Clinton and then said there should "at least" be an investigation of Bush thus implying that you an impeachment option. There is no corroboration of the British documents and the source is tied to the left wing international anti-war crowd.
Quote:
yes, if the president declassifies something then he isn't accountable for releasing classified info - however, you have to wonder about the movites. If his motives were intimidation or saving his political behind, then, I think he should be held accountable for abuse of power.
The Supreme Court has disagreed with you. A President' motives for the exercise of his privilage is not relevant. The Clinton pardon of Mark Rich is a good example. The Supreme Court ruled that a pardon can be given for ANY reason, even political (I suggest that the court's rulings are so broad that it includes bribary...but that may be taking it too far.)
Quote:
All I'm saying is the people need to be aware of what officials are doing - and we need to keep the power in check. The constitution is written that way and I think that is the way it should be.
We agree on this. Aint that somethin?
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Only the experts on TV. The mainstream media only interviews experts that favor their side of the story. For example several of the so-called six Generals are on record as having completely contradictory opinions within the last year and after they left the military. Yet they are not even questioned on their former statements and their former positions are generally ignored by the media reporting the story.
I think you need to examine the situtation a bit more. Experts all over have issues with the way the war is being handled. There have been concerns in both parties and on the left and right with how things have been handled. You make a blanketed statement that the war is going well - yet you have no evidence of this. Then you attack me for disagreeing and say I have no evidence - don't be a hypocrit.
Quote:
Actually you mentioned impeachment of Clinton and then said there should "at least" be an investigation of Bush thus implying that you an impeachment option. There is no corroboration of the British documents and the source is tied to the left wing international anti-war crowd.
I admitted there is no solid validity to the British documents you doofus. That's why you investigate them instead of just dismissing them.
Also, don't assume to understand my implications. I was simply comparing one action against a president to the inaction against another. I don't necessarily think we should impeach Bush (but if we find he did anything illegal then we do otherwise we don't), but I do think we should investigate to understand the job he is doing. We don't know what has happened until we investigate - that is how you gather information and learn things - you should try it.
Quote:
The Supreme Court has disagreed with you. A President' motives for the exercise of his privilage is not relevant. The Clinton pardon of Mark Rich is a good example. The Supreme Court ruled that a pardon can be given for ANY reason, even political (I suggest that the court's rulings are so broad that it includes bribary...but that may be taking it too far.)
The motives might not be criminal, but the people decide who runs the country and we have a right to try and understand those motives. Besides, I'm not sure your understanding of the issue is all the complete. Motives play a huge part in law (involuntary manslaughter v. murder...)
QUOTE]
We agree on this. Aint that somethin?
Its a miracle! Of course, by agreeing to that you sort of give validity to my other arguments and in a way undercut your own...
Good luck.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Only the experts on TV. The mainstream media only interviews experts that favor their side of the story. For example several of the so-called six Generals are on record as having completely contradictory opinions within the last year and after they left the military. Yet they are not even questioned on their former statements and their former positions are generally ignored by the media reporting the story.
I think you need to examine the situtation a bit more. Experts all over have issues with the way the war is being handled. There have been concerns in both parties and on the left and right with how things have been handled. You make a blanketed statement that the war is going well - yet you have no evidence of this. Then you attack me for disagreeing and say I have no evidence - don't be a hypocrit.
Quote:
Actually you mentioned impeachment of Clinton and then said there should "at least" be an investigation of Bush thus implying that you an impeachment option. There is no corroboration of the British documents and the source is tied to the left wing international anti-war crowd.
I admitted there is no solid validity to the British documents you doofus. That's why you investigate them instead of just dismissing them.
Also, don't assume to understand my implications. I was simply comparing one action against a president to the inaction against another. I don't necessarily think we should impeach Bush (but if we find he did anything illegal then we do otherwise we don't), but I do think we should investigate to understand the job he is doing. We don't know what has happened until we investigate - that is how you gather information and learn things - you should try it.
Quote:
The Supreme Court has disagreed with you. A President' motives for the exercise of his privilage is not relevant. The Clinton pardon of Mark Rich is a good example. The Supreme Court ruled that a pardon can be given for ANY reason, even political (I suggest that the court's rulings are so broad that it includes bribary...but that may be taking it too far.)
The motives might not be criminal, but the people decide who runs the country and we have a right to try and understand those motives. Besides, I'm not sure your understanding of the issue is all the complete. Motives play a huge part in law (involuntary manslaughter v. murder...)
Quote:
We agree on this. Aint that somethin?
Its a miracle! Of course, by agreeing to that you sort of give validity to my other arguments and in a way undercut your own...
Good luck.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Darn you Bill Gates and your Internet Explorer!!! Sorry for the double post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I heard it was a hatchet job. ...If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt. Perhaps the measure of Republican Presidential greatness is how much the Democrats dislike them. ]
what a crock.....people, conservative, liberal, indifferent...should be able to understand that when an elected official lies through his teeth in order to futher his own misquided agenda, he is a bad leader, period. Bush has lied his way into a war that has done nothing for the good of the U.S. or Iraq....and he continues to lie everyday. He should be held responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children who had no part in the attack of 9-11. Bush and his minions had plans to invade Iraq long before 9-11 and that event was all they needed to begin their unjust and immoral war.
So, as you say Hero, if it is the Democrats who recognize the failings of a president, perhaps we should all listen a little more carefully to what they say. I happen to agree with them on the point about Bush being a bad president. I do not agree with everything the Dems. preach.
I do know this, I have lived in this country for 50+ years, and never have I seen such corruption and dishonesty from an administration. I'm talking about harmfull corruption - not just hiding sexual indiscretions (which have no affect on national security).... I've read the article and I have to agree with its conclusion. The gap between conservatism and progressive liberalism is at such a level that there may never again be a middle ground in this country. And, that's where we need to be. We need to find a neutral point where everyone can at least be comfortable with one another. I really dislike having to disagree with people who should be my friends - I only see this president and his administration tearing this nation apart more and more each day, and I have concluded that this is what they want. They want to divide this country to keep the citizens fighting with each other while they persue any agenda they please.
As a nation, we should stay together. That will make us strong. Not tearing down your neighbor because he didn't vote for bush or for kerry - I honestly don't see anything good coming from this administration.
Bush has my vote - for worst president of all time. And yet, I still have a few more years to kick around. Perhaps a new contender is just over the horizon....
peace
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I remember correctly, Lincoln was only a "Republican" for 8 years of his life. He ran under the National Union ticket in 1864.
And the terms Republican and Democrat meant something entirely different them.
One day.
One mission.
One army of Browncoats.
On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave!
Nathan doesn't know it yet, but I am his one true love! Is that weird? 
(he will believe, he will believe)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I failed to make the point I wanted to make in the last post.
I don't buy the "Democrats hate Bush" logic... the way I see it is, they, and I, hate what Bush has done to this country.
Bush would have you believe that to say anything negitave about his presidency is tantamount to being un-American. Bullshit.... Desent and rebellion is what this country was built on.
Bush has taken what good will that had been built by previous administrations and pissed it away. He is bad for the country.
But, I don't hate the man. Hell, I have a ranch myself and I would really like for George to come over and help clear some brush. It seems to be something he enjoys and perhaps it is the one thing he might be good at.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JMB9039:
You can delete the contents of one post, and get FireFox ( http://www.firefox.com/) or Opera ( http://www.opera.com/).
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Actually it was an empty promise, not a lie. Bush promised to fire anyone in his administration who "broke the law". Since he declassified the info and authorized its release, no law was broken and his promise was not a lie.
Sounds like quibbling over what the definition of 'is' is.
Quote:
They only listened in on international calls where one party was a know terrorist.
How do you know that? There's no oversight whatsoever, so you don't know jack about who's getting spied on. Hoover pulled the same crap. At least Hoover wore a pretty floral bonnet when he did it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If you want to compare Bush to past Presidents, Bush is REALLY hated by the Democrats. So were Lincoln, Reagan, and the first Roosevelt.
H
Umm, you might want to look up the overall effect these presidents had on the nation.
Lincoln, contrary to popular belief, was a politician at heart (and a little crazy on top of that). Lincoln didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves. If he did, slavery would have been the issue from the start, rather than a people's right to go their own way. As it was, slavery didn't become the issue until 1863, with the emancipation proclamation. The proclamation itself was a purely political move (not to mention a farce. It "freed" the slaves in the Confederacy. too bad the Confederacy was a foreign country at the time. It also completely overlooked slaves being held in states that stayed loyal to the Union). Britain and France were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy as its own country. Both Britain and France had outlawed slavery, however, so Lincoln used that to twist the goals of the war to favor his side (hmmm, sound familiar?). Lincoln was also the one that instituted the draft.
The first Roosevelt was a blatant Imperialist. His Imperial ventures in Latin America planted the seeds of the modern resentment of the "Colossus of the North" in Latin America.
Reagan was in office for 8 years, and in that time managed to turn the U.S. from being the largest creditor nation in the world to being the world's greatest debtor (The truly astonishing thing is that Bush's spending has surpassed Reagan's, when we can afford it even less.).
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME