The Great Politics Thread (Split from Campaign Thread)

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

moniker (from other thread)

The thing was if he did nothing he was criticized. If he did anything he was criticized. It wasn't about policy, it was about the country, it wasn't about anything other than they HATED Clinton. And that's all it was.


This is why I really tried to be open to Bush when he was elected. I did not want to be a rabid hater of the president just because I didn't vote for him, I wanted to give him a chance to be the "uniter". I was even tricked by his Iraq justifications, in particular, Colin Powell's talk did me in. I think this is part of the reason I'm now so furious at Bush - he abused my trust. And I don't think I will ever forgive Powell for knowingly leading us astray - but I don't think he forgives himself, either.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

beastie wrote:moniker (from other thread)

The thing was if he did nothing he was criticized. If he did anything he was criticized. It wasn't about policy, it was about the country, it wasn't about anything other than they HATED Clinton. And that's all it was.


This is why I really tried to be open to Bush when he was elected. I did not want to be a rabid hater of the president just because I didn't vote for him, I wanted to give him a chance to be the "uniter". I was even tricked by his Iraq justifications, in particular, Colin Powell's talk did me in. I think this is part of the reason I'm now so furious at Bush - he abused my trust. And I don't think I will ever forgive Powell for knowingly leading us astray - but I don't think he forgives himself, either.


Oh, Powell says his speech is a "blot" on his record. I remember my parents going to get duct tape and plastic sheets and I still rib them about that. The country was in a state of panic and hysteria -- really. Ripe for whatever Bush said. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt... but I still wasn't convinced. I was, quite frankly, at that time, more concerned about North Korea than I was Iraq.

After the decision to go in was reached though I tried to support it. I mean, I didn't really know what else to do? I remember sitting in front of the t.v. scared to death, anxious, knowing our troops were going in. It infuriates me NOW to know that American public was preyed upon during a moment of weakness.

I don't like to be too critical of the war or actually go into it in general. It makes me uncomfortable for many reasons. Yet, I do have definite opinions on it -- just hesitant to air them really.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Coggins,

You're full of hot air. You already know this evidence exists. that's why you preemptively declared it wouldn't matter if it were so. You own words screwed yourself on this topic, you're now just blowing hot air and smoke in the hopes of diverting attention from that fact.

At any rate, the fact that Bush wanted to invade Iraq even before he was elected has been testified to by both Paul O'Neill and Mickey Herskowitz. And, of course, this doesn't even deal with Bush's ties to the neocons, Project for New American Century, who had been plotting the war as well.



To see John Hindraker deconstruct this partisan fabrication, go here:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.a ... 14F1C53DE6

But even better is this;

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... FE1226CCE2

Special attention should be paid to the following:

If this came as news to Secretary O’Neill, he had no place in any Cabinet. But O’Neill has backpedaled from this charge, saying, "People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.” Apparently, if the leftists want to blame anyone for the radical doctrine of preemptive regime change, their ire should rest upon Bill Clinton.


Beastie's contention here is, as I already knew, part of the Goebbels-like wall of deception thrown up by the American radical Left, a demographic which is now the mainstream base of the Democratic Party. Beastie won't follow the intellectual pedigree to its source because she knows what this will reveal about her own sympathies and views. Of particular interest is the paranoia laced conspiracy theories revolving around a small group of JEWS in the administration who happen to be CONSERVATIVE JEWS and who happen to by partial to the spreading of Democracy and democratic institutions.to extremely dangerous and unreasonable medieval barbarians in the Middle East. Whether their ideas are, in the end, feasible, remains to be seen, but these are questions for reasonable intellects, not fevered paranoid leftwing hysterics like Beastie who see a Jewish (read NEOCON) conspiracy to conquer the Middle East for Exxon. Of course, all of this is being done for Israel so they can conquer, victimize and dominate, once and for all, the poor, dispossessed and oppressed "Palestinian people".

Go ahead. Google search Paul O' Neill, and look at the company you will be keeping. Commondreams. The Nation. Indymedia. The Daily Kos. Sites dedicated to showing a connection between Bush, the Nazis, and the Bavarian Illuminati. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree with Bush in an intellectually mature, reflective, and substantive manner. The Left, for the most part, has long ago rejected that paradigm and the classic western standards of civil, critical debate, and hence, the paranoia, character assassination, and feverish search for Neocons and other lumpen class enemies under every bed.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Well of course there will be Bushies attempting to deflect this charge, and of course his critics will capitalize on it. But the Project for New American Century's stance was clear, and also clear is the fact that Bush made these people his most influential advisors.

You're pathetic to try and spin this as some bigotry against a group of JEWS, by the way. Pathetic and desperate.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Oh, Powell says his speech is a "blot" on his record. I remember my parents going to get duct tape and plastic sheets and I still rib them about that. The country was in a state of panic and hysteria -- really. Ripe for whatever Bush said. I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt... but I still wasn't convinced. I was, quite frankly, at that time, more concerned about North Korea than I was Iraq.



Oh PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE Moniker. We had just been attacked and 3,000 innocent Americas killed on our own soil. What hysteria? Within a year at least half the country had forgotten it. It took a full year to get into Afghanistan and get the retaliation under way. What panic and hysteria are you talking about? Funny, I don't remember any such thing, not even a faint hint of it.

Wishful revisionism of this kind destroys credibility as fast as lightning. WE WERE ATTACKED ON OUR OWN SOIL WITH CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES! There should have been something near hysteria, but there was not.

And the reason there was little if anything resembling "hysteria" is because many of us have simply become to anesthetized by our seemingly endless peace and prosperity to really even care about something like 9/11. If it didn't really effect our pocketbook or the upcoming summer vacation at Disneyland, why worry?

Good heavens Moniker, going to war to protect and defend us against our sworn enemies is one of the last things government is doing that's actually in the Constitution. Indeed, that's the primary function of government. The real reason so many are against the war is really cultural; many of the American people, after generations of uninterrupted wealth, prosperity, leisure, peace, and the pursuit of the good life, just don't want to be bothered with it.

Its such a hassle.
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Yes, coggins, let's just ignore the inconvenient fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I still support invading Afghanistan - I just wish that Bush hadn't immediately diverted sources to his real target, Iraq. If we had put the manpower and money that has been spent (and largely wasted) in Iraq on Afghanistan instead, I imagine things would be going far better there today.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Well of course there will be Bushies attempting to deflect this charge, and of course his critics will capitalize on it. But the Project for New American Century's stance was clear, and also clear is the fact that Bush made these people his most influential advisors.

You're pathetic to try and spin this as some bigotry against a group of JEWS, by the way. Pathetic and desperate.



Who on earth cares whether the Project for the American Century had influence on the Bush administration's policies? WHO CARES and WHAT ON EARTH DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? This is a mainstream think tank staffed by some of the best minds in public policy and Political Science. Oh, and most, or all of them, happen to be Jewish. Many also happen to be what David Horowitz might call "second thoughters"; former leftists who were mugged by reality at some point in their lives.

The Heritage Foundation had a huge influence on Reagan, as did George Gilder. So what? Methinks its just the ideological leanings of these individuals that bothers you, but the fact remains that in the present leftist demonology, "neocon" is a code for Jewish conservatives who are pro-Israel, pro-American, and believers in the projection of American military power to protect its security and interests (including its allies) abroad.

This drives leftists into stark staring spitting rage, as it strikes at the very heart of much of their world view. Nonetheless, conspiratorial cabals of "neocons" in smoke filled star chambers has been pretty much the beginning and end of the left's intellectual arsenal when articulating criticism of the war.

Its a group of pro-Israel Jews who have hijacked the administration in the name of supporting Israel (closet Zionists all) and taking control of Middle Eastern oil fields for Bush's friends in the oil industry. Actually, this kind of histrionic navel gazing was well represented during the Vietnam war as well, and by many of the same people. With the Left, its really all a matter of knowing the ideological drill and assuming the position. That's why the Left is so easy to undo intellectually in debate: their positions are predictable, and one can prepare for them the same way for different issues even in different eras.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

beastie wrote:Yes, coggins, let's just ignore the inconvenient fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I still support invading Afghanistan - I just wish that Bush hadn't immediately diverted sources to his real target, Iraq. If we had put the manpower and money that has been spent (and largely wasted) in Iraq on Afghanistan instead, I imagine things would be going far better there today.



You're first claim may very well have precious little to do with reality:


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... 96771539D6

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/p ... 8rwsbj.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 8wqxma.asp

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr ... FF7F84A443

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Re ... ECEBB84D54

That's just warming up, but good enough for the present.

The reason resources are so limited are due almost solely to his predecessor, but Bush has not taken the necessary steps to remedy the problem. The U.S. military is, without any equivocation, too small. Bush and both houses of Congress have to share accountability for this state of affairs.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Somehow I knew, I just knew, that coggins would insist that Iraq really did have something to do with 9/11 after all.

You've jumped the shark, coggins.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Given how the "higher Father" has always supported genocide of tribes on the "chosen people's" land,



Ah hah...

Care to track down the intellectual pedigree of that claim for us Beasite?
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
Post Reply