(Somewhat ON Topic) Trouble for Bush?
Clay Heery
We went to a theater here in Palos Verdes, aside from the obvious reason (it
was close by), but because PV is such a Republican stronghold, the Democratic
party doesn't even put up ANY candidates for local elections, so the theater
would figure to be relatively empty.
Wrong.
It was packed, and the end of the film brought a round of sustained applause
(about four minutes worth -- not as long as Cannes -- but I'm sure Moore won't
object).
And these were the same people that Bush refers to as his "base."
--C.
"Fool me once, shame on ...uh, uh...YOU. Won't get fooled again."
--GWB
Dena Jo
> We went to a theater here in Palos Verdes, aside from the obvious
> reason (it was close by), but because PV is such a Republican
> stronghold, the Democratic party doesn't even put up ANY
> candidates for local elections, so the theater would figure to be
> relatively empty.
>
> Wrong.
>
> It was packed, and the end of the film brought a round of
> sustained applause (about four minutes worth -- not as long as
> Cannes -- but I'm sure Moore won't object).
Thank you for going to the trouble to post that. That's so
encouraging! And on this day of days.
> "Fool me once, shame on ...uh, uh...YOU. Won't get fooled again."
> --GWB
He's such a fucking moron.
--
Dena Jo
In a newsgroup, it takes a lot to make me swear
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Have I confused you? Go here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/emailme.htm
pinknebulous
"Clay Heery" <clay...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040704160541...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> My wife and I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday.
>
> We went to a theater here in Palos Verdes, aside from the obvious reason
(it
> was close by), but because PV is such a Republican stronghold, the
Democratic
> party doesn't even put up ANY candidates for local elections, so the
theater
> would figure to be relatively empty.
>
> Wrong.
>
> It was packed, and the end of the film brought a round of sustained
applause
> (about four minutes worth -- not as long as Cannes -- but I'm sure Moore
won't
> object).
Moore means less (votes) for Bush.
pink
"Less is Moore."
*
clay...@aol.com (Clay Heery) posted:
Trouble for Bush.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Paulo Joe Jingy
> And these were the same people that Bush refers to as his "base."
Kerry would probably be ahead by a million points if he would just quit
saying "Me too, but more so!", every time he's asked about Iraq.
Has he already forgotten what pulled him even with Bush in the first place?
(Hint for Kerry: Opposition to the Iraq war, remember?)
Azul Funk
In my relatively short but definately deeply chaotic career as a political
junky, I've yet to be able to answer the eternal chicken and egg question:
Do the voters influence the polls, or the polls the voters?
Regardless, I've found moneylines and pointspreads to be far more accurate
than impos reid. The gambling community has a hell of a lot more at stake.
Pinnacle sports has it billed as a close race for president, Florida and an
interesting over / under on the senate:
http://www4.pinnaclesports.com/guestContestLines.asp?ContestType=Politics
The republicans are still slight favorites in Florida and for President. You
see, the gambling community thinks with their money. There's only one way to
win a bet on a fixed race. As near as I can tell, the voting inconsistencies
in Florida (still run by governor Jeb) haven't been fixed.
Movie or no movie, this one's going to turn out the way they want it to.
A.Funk
"Clay Heery" <clay...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20040704160541...@mb-m16.aol.com...
nmstevens
If only it was that simple. The fact is -- it's quicksand. Of course,
when we're *not* in it, it makes sense to say, "Hey, let's not step
into that pit of quicksand."
But now we're in it, and getting out isn't so easy -- diplomatically,
militarilly, or politically.
What do you do -- come into office and just pull all the troops out,
and leave the country to its own devices? To fall to pieces, to
crumble into a potentially disastrous civil war that would potentially
leave it in the hands of a government far more repressive, radical --
and radically anti-American than was there before? And if that
happened -- who would take the heat -- who would take the blame? Not
the absent Bush -- but the present Kerry.
And if you stay, and try to sort out the disaster -- trying to make a
disastrous bankrupt policy work -- against all odds -- more troops
die, more kidnappings, more atrocities. More civilians die.
And in between that rock and that hard place -- what are the
alternatives? The U.N.? Oh, yeah -- they're just lining up to come on
in and have their people kidnapped and beheaded. Nothing quite like it
to garner popular support on the home front.
NMS
Jacques E. Bouchard
news:a8f80314.04070...@posting.google.com:
> What do you do -- come into office and just pull all the troops out,
> and leave the country to its own devices? To fall to pieces, to
> crumble into a potentially disastrous civil war that would potentially
> leave it in the hands of a government far more repressive, radical --
> and radically anti-American than was there before? And if that
> happened -- who would take the heat -- who would take the blame? Not
> the absent Bush -- but the present Kerry.
I dunno Neal, seems to be a lot of countries in the world in far
worse situations, and it doesn't seem to bother the U.S. too much. Of
course, they have no oil.
jaybee
RonB
> If only it was that simple. The fact is -- it's quicksand. Of course,
> when we're *not* in it, it makes sense to say, "Hey, let's not step
> into that pit of quicksand."
>
> But now we're in it, and getting out isn't so easy -- diplomatically,
> militarilly, or politically.
>
> What do you do -- come into office and just pull all the troops out,
> and leave the country to its own devices? To fall to pieces, to
> crumble into a potentially disastrous civil war that would
> potentially leave it in the hands of a government far more
> repressive, radical -- and radically anti-American than was there
> before? And if that happened -- who would take the heat -- who would
> take the blame? Not the absent Bush -- but the present Kerry.
This is why Bush Sr. and his advisers kept us from going into Baghdad
in 1991. They had enough sense to *know* that the fall of Saddam
*would* result in chaos and civil war. It was a given.
So what's our solution? To continue to attempt to hold disparate groups
together, via a strongman dictator, or let the Iraqis sort out their
own problems? Because, to be quite honest, our presence in Iraq is not
helping the Iraqis, it's only pouring fuel on the fire.
It's time for Kerry to step up to the plate and say -- "Bush screwed
up. He's botched this thing so badly that our only choice is to get the
hell out of there. Besides, this was *not* an internationally legal
war. We had no right to go into Iraq in the first place."
> And if you stay, and try to sort out the disaster -- trying to make a
> disastrous bankrupt policy work -- against all odds -- more troops
> die, more kidnappings, more atrocities. More civilians die.
>
> And in between that rock and that hard place -- what are the
> alternatives? The U.N.? Oh, yeah -- they're just lining up to come on
> in and have their people kidnapped and beheaded. Nothing quite like
> it to garner popular support on the home front.
You're right, the moron Bush and his mouth-breathing advisers have
screwed up big time -- but it's time to jettison the whole stupid
experiment and save American lives, money and, eventually, restore
United States diplomatic credibility -- which can't get much worse
right now.
There's an old saying -- "sending good money after bad." It's time to
cut our losses and get the hell out of there. We, eventually, figured
that out in Viet Nam -- hopefully we can get to that a point a little
quicker this time.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
pinknebulous
"RonB" <ronbN...@bliz.org> wrote in message
news:Xns951D9E3E47654...@130.133.1.4...
> On Mon 05 Jul 2004 03:17:36p, nmstevens, wrote:
>
> > If only it was that simple. The fact is -- it's quicksand. Of course,
> > when we're *not* in it, it makes sense to say, "Hey, let's not step
> > into that pit of quicksand."
> >
> > But now we're in it, and getting out isn't so easy -- diplomatically,
> > militarilly, or politically.
> >
> > What do you do -- come into office and just pull all the troops out,
> > and leave the country to its own devices? To fall to pieces, to
> > crumble into a potentially disastrous civil war that would
> > potentially leave it in the hands of a government far more
> > repressive, radical -- and radically anti-American than was there
> > before? And if that happened -- who would take the heat -- who would
> > take the blame? Not the absent Bush -- but the present Kerry.
How can Kerry be blamed for trying to solve a problem he never created? Bush
looked for solutions externally by attacking Iraq, but it's time to solve
the *internal* problems that allowed terrorists to infiltrate our country in
the first place. I think Kerry's VP pick is critical to a successful ticket.
>
> This is why Bush Sr. and his advisers kept us from going into Baghdad
> in 1991. They had enough sense to *know* that the fall of Saddam
> *would* result in chaos and civil war. It was a given.
Exactly.
>
> So what's our solution? To continue to attempt to hold disparate groups
> together, via a strongman dictator, or let the Iraqis sort out their
> own problems? Because, to be quite honest, our presence in Iraq is not
> helping the Iraqis, it's only pouring fuel on the fire.
Exactly.
>
> It's time for Kerry to step up to the plate and say -- "Bush screwed
> up.
And, "How many more American soldiers and innocent lives must be sacrificed
for a war based on a false premise/misinformation? Where are the WMDs?" But
he'll probably never say it, lest he be accused of running a "dirty"
campaign.
> > And if you stay, and try to sort out the disaster -- trying to make a
> > disastrous bankrupt policy work -- against all odds -- more troops
> > die, more kidnappings, more atrocities. More civilians die.
Exactly. Approximately 2,700 Americans died in the 9/11 disaster. How many
American soldiers have died during the course of the war? Bush has
essentially placed more Americans--soldiers, journalists, company
employees--in the hands of terrorists, instead of less. Not to mention the
innocent Iraqi children/people killed or maimed in the process. Seems
completely illogical to me.
pink
Azul Funk
Azul
"woops,.."
"Azul Funk" <spamatyo...@bigroundtittiess.org> wrote in message
news:NtgGc.105175$E84.83661@edtnps89...
geoff alexander
Yep. Now that we're in, for all the wrong reasons, we have no choice
but to stay in for all the right ones. Kerry can't protest our
presence there because he has no choice but to continue it, or further
damage the U.S.'s standing in the region. What Kerry needs to learn,
and learn quickly, is that he has to take the god damned gloves off,
and keep them off until that lying p.o.s. is out of office.
G
geoff alexander
What about Iraqui lives? Don't they count? If we just bug out, we'll
be setting the stage for massive, multi-party civil war which, as we
know, can create years of casualties, sickness, and famine, which will
be leveraged by Muslim religious fanatics for years to come to
motivate more attacks on America. No, the moral, and the practical
thing to do is to stay there, rebuild, try and create a functioning
Democracy. The alternative is simply horrifying.
G
RonB
> What about Iraqui lives? Don't they count? If we just bug out,
> we'll be setting the stage for massive, multi-party civil war which,
> as we know, can create years of casualties, sickness, and famine,
> which will be leveraged by Muslim religious fanatics for years to
> come to motivate more attacks on America. No, the moral, and the
> practical thing to do is to stay there, rebuild, try and create a
> functioning Democracy. The alternative is simply horrifying.
Sorry, but who has killed and tortured more Iraqi civilians -- the
Iraqi rebels or the United States armed forces? The best solution is
for us to get the hell out of there and let the country break up into
natural religious or tribal divisions -- it was just another British
attempt at forming a country by drawing lines in the sand anyhow. The
reason we won't get out is that it will make it harder for us to
control the oil in the region. Iraqi lives have nothing to do with it.
The Iraq civil war is a given. It was the natural result of ousting a
strongman dictator that held an artificial country together by force.
Our only real choices are either to get the hell out of the way, or try
to stop the civil war by "out brutalizing" Saddam. Our influence in the
Middle East is a joke. We are seen merely as a proxy for Israel. We've
even reverted to Isaeli tactics, both in the methods we use to torture
Iraqi prisoners and in the way we lob missiles into towns that we don't
have the will or strength to take on the ground.
There is nothing to save in Iraq. The incompetent assholes in the Bush
administration have destroyed any hope of our being a "positive
influence." We can either stay and become lightening rod for Arab
resistance, or get out, claim our real goal was to oust the Butcher of
Baghdad and try to do damage control. The sooner we come to that
realization, the better. And that's where Kerry should be coming in.
Alan Brooks
"RonB" writes:
> It's time for Kerry to step up to the plate and say -- "Bush screwed
> up. He's botched this thing so badly that our only choice is to get
the
> hell out of there. Besides, this was *not* an internationally legal
> war. We had no right to go into Iraq in the first place."
And when the international crimes tribunal declares Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Rove and Ashcroft International Criminals, Kerry will have to
round 'em up and turn 'em over.
This could really clear up the nation's Bush problem.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- A fair trial and a quick execution.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
The most disconcerting thing about Sadam's first day before the judge
was when he said, "George Bush should be tried as a war criminal," or
words to that effect. Who expected reasonable logic from Hussein?
Crowfoot
nmst...@msn.com (nmstevens) wrote:
Too true. Maybe the only way to do this is to help the puppets run an
election immediately, before Iraqi anti-Americanism (justified, IMO)
pushes everybody over there firmly into the Islamist camp; and then get
the hell out and let them muddle on as best they can.
Thing is, the chaos we see now was bound to come at some point; when the
dictator dies, if there isn't another "strong man" ready to take over
immediately, civil war and dissolution follows (and if there is, then it
just gets postponed to when the successor dies). Dictators in regions
like the Middle East and Eastern Europe usually run multi-ethnic
"nations", and their dictatorship is one way of holding things together
against the entropic forces of mutually abrading ethnicities. Take away
the dictator (see Jugoslavia and Tito) and at some point thereafter,
ethnic groups try to overcome and or pull away from each other, which
generally leads to civil war. You see it now in parts of Africa, too
(Nigeria, for example -- I saw the process starting there, back in '61),
where it's a typical post-colonial pattern. The stresses that cause
civil war are created by drawing national boundaries shutting mutually
antagonistic groups in together in one "nation" in the first place.
But, given the incredible naivete, ignorance, and plain simple
mindedness of most Americans, no matter who's in charge when the whole
thing breaks down into chaos resulting in an Islamist state, that
President will carry the can for it.
SMC
--
Crowfoot