Some W love

[CheeseHusker dos]

good read - and applicable to far more people than W

http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

[xyzzy]

On Apr 26, 8:15 am, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> good read - and applicable to far more people than W
>
> http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

I've always throught he was smrat. He outdebated Ann Richards, for
example. But really his image problem is that he is inarticulate. I
know that inarticulate doesn't equal dumn, but to a lot of people it
does. Also, the author is exactly right that Obama's verbal stumbles
get overlooked. I kept pointing them out during the 2008 primary when
Hillary basically owned him because she is much sharper and more
articulate.

I also think the way Bush's White House was run was partially
responsible for him being inarticulate. He was in large part
surrounded by a bubble of yes men and seldom questioned publicly.
They may have had intense internal debates but publicly he was seldom
challenged. All his town halls were canned, and the famous memo
requiring every TV in every room of any hotel suite be tuned only to
Fox News are examples of that.

However what was really telling to me was the time a liberal smuggled
himself into one of Bush's canned town halls and challenged him
directly on Iraq. Bush suddenly brightened and he was very articulate
and convincing in his response to the guy, after stumbling and aw
shucking through the previous responses that day. Personally I think
the guy awakened his competitive instinct and sharpened him in an
event he was sleepwalking through up until then. I thought at the
time, Bush needs more of that. It would be good for debate and good
for his public image.

[CheeseHusker dos]

well put

[Hoover]

Obama seems articulate when he uses his teleprompter

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

On Apr 26, 9:37 am, Hoover <Hoov_Hoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Obama seems articulate when he uses his teleprompter

I love the photo of Obama speaking in a 2nd grade classroom and he has
to have 'prompters. I don't care if it is 'shopped, the fact that it
seems plausible is enough.

[xyzzy]

On Apr 26, 10:49 am, "Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger"

<damonhy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't care if it is 'shopped, the fact that it
> seems plausible is enough.

Cut it out, Hugh.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

I resemble that remark...

[Michael]

He was asked by a journalist about his invasion of Iraq, and he his response (repeated by many others) is that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein. But is this true for Americans who lost family members in that war? Is it true for Iraq, which has become essentially a kleptocracy? And, the world might be better off without some people in the world, but that's absolutely not a justification for killing them.

Not smrat.

[the_andr...@yahoo.com]

I think that's a very simplistic view of the Iraq war and outcome. People fail to acknowledge that Saddam was killing his own people and had already invaded another country.

I have friends and neighbors you spent time there during and after the war and to a man they all agree that while some things are imperfect Iraqis are much much better off than before. And they say that not from their own perspective but from what the Iraqi people have told them.

Afghanistan that may be another question.

[Michael]

It's not just imperfect in Iraq right now. It's a war-torn state of checkpoints and violence. It's so bad no one knows how to fix it. For the sake of argument, let's say that killing Hussein was justified based on his killing of the Kurds and others (which is the point that W and his supporters want to make). The aftermath of the invasion was marked by ineptitude, egotism, and ignorance on truly grand scales.

[michael anderson]

On Friday, April 26, 2013 9:06:15 AM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:

> On Apr 26, 8:15 am, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote: > good read - and applicable to far more people than W > > http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/ I've always throught he was smrat. He outdebated Ann Richards, for example. But really his image problem is that he is inarticulate. I know that inarticulate doesn't equal dumn, but to a lot of people it does. Also, the author is exactly right that Obama's verbal stumbles get overlooked. I kept pointing them out during the 2008 primary when Hillary basically owned him because she is much sharper and more articulate.

this is laughable...Hillary didn't 'own' Obama in debates for the most part. We know this because after those debates, again for the most part, Hillary's numbers didn't improve relative to obama's. In evaluating how someone did in the debate, that is the only metric we have to go by.....trying to guess about who was a winner/loser by some other way is stupid. And in fact, such an argument is only made by those who picked the losing side and are trying to justify their position(but my candidate was so much better in the debates!)......

[the_andr...@yahoo.com]

On Apr 26, 11:39 am, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 10:19:19 AM UTC-5, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I think that's a very simplistic view of the Iraq war and outcome.  People fail to acknowledge that Saddam was killing his own people and had already invaded another country.
>
> > I have friends and neighbors you spent time there during and after the war and to a man they all agree that while some things are imperfect Iraqis are much much better off than before. And they say that not from their own perspective but from what the Iraqi people have told them.
>
> > Afghanistan that may be another question.
>
> It's not just imperfect in Iraq right now. It's a war-torn state of checkpoints and violence. It's so bad no one knows how to fix it. For the sake of argument, let's say that killing Hussein was justified based on his killing of the Kurds and others (which is the point that W and his supporters want to make).

Again. That is not the only reason. Nor was "killing" him the goal.
It's repetitive arguments like this that make any discussion
impossible.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Michael" <michael...@gmail.com> wrote

----

I remember a ton wingers arguing Iraq could never be another Vietnam.
HAW HAW HAW! They've all disappeared or started lying.

I've long argued W is far from stupid. But Iraq was a big mistake with
no plan for what to do after we rolled over Iraq's incompent army. Who
is going to pay for all this crap? Besides the dead Americans -- I don't
fucking care about who is killing the Iraqis if I have to pay for it -- the
war on Iraq is a significant part of why we are sequesturing right now.

Hussein did awful things, but the region is worse now.

And, instead of 'yes' men, I think Bush was the 'yes' man. He wasn't in
charge on 9-11. He may have understood his advisors, but I think this
was one administration where it was truly an administration, with the
president as the figurehead.

Or, why was the post-invasion plan so non-existent? Because no one
advised Bush about it.

--Tedward

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

<the_andr...@yahoo.com> wrote

> > I think that's a very simplistic view of the Iraq war and outcome. People fail to acknowledge that Saddam was killing his own
> > people and had already invaded another country.
>
> > I have friends and neighbors you spent time there during and after the war and to a man they all agree that while some things
> > are imperfect Iraqis are much much better off than before. And they say that not from their own perspective but from what the
> > Iraqi people have told them.
>
> > Afghanistan that may be another question.
>
> It's not just imperfect in Iraq right now. It's a war-torn state of checkpoints and violence. It's so bad no one knows how to fix
> it. For the sake of argument, let's say that killing Hussein was justified based on his killing of the Kurds and others (which is
> the point that W and his supporters want to make).
<
<Again. That is not the only reason.

True, some reasons were fabricated on what in hindsights looks like
a pile of bullshit.

--Tedward

[Cornelius Cornelius]

On Apr 26, 4:19 pm, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"

<the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think that's a very simplistic view of the Iraq war and outcome.  People fail to acknowledge that Saddam was killing his own people and had already invaded another country.

And? Does the US invade every country that kills it's own people or
invades other countries? Should the US accept invasion from another
country given it's invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

> I have friends and neighbors you spent time there during and after the war and to a man they all agree that while some things are imperfect Iraqis are much much better off than before. And they say that not from their own perspective but from what the Iraqi people have told them.

And? There are loads of countries in the world worse off then Iraq
circa 2003? Shall the US invade all of them as well?

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

That's a bogus analysis. It's easy to identify bad things that are happening. It is nearly impossible to determine the bad things that didn't happen.

Doug

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

How many of those countries have invaded their neighbors, or are regularly sponsoring terror activities, or made an attempt of an ex-president's life?

Doug

[Cornelius Cornelius]

On Apr 26, 8:57 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
wrote:

Russia? When shall we invade them?

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

You're confusing Russia with the Soviet Union.

Doug

[xyzzy]

On Apr 26, 3:57 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
wrote:

I think I can do 2/3. Since pre-invasion Iraq was only guilty of 2 of
the 3 of the things you list above that must be the standard:

Sudan
Ethiopia
Russia
Rwanda

Just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I bothered to do some
serious research I could come up with a bunch more.

[Cornelius Cornelius]

On Apr 26, 9:23 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>

Perhaps on your third point, but not the other two. And your points
are pointless anyway as none are valid reasons for invasion.

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

Since when was splitting a country invading a neighbor?

>
> Russia

Russia has invaded no one. The Soviet Union did, but not Russia.

>
> Rwanda

???

>
>
>
> Just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I bothered to do some
>
> serious research I could come up with a bunch more.

Pre-invasion Iraq was guilty of all three.

Doug

[xyzzy]

On Apr 26, 4:30 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>

wrote:
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 3:25:36 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 3:57 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, April 26, 2013 2:28:17 PM UTC-5, Cornelius Cornelius wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 26, 4:19 pm, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > > <the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think that's a very simplistic view of the Iraq war and outcome.  People fail to acknowledge that Saddam was killing his own people and had already invaded another country.
>
> > > > And? Does the US invade every country that kills it's own people or
>
> > > > invades other countries?  Should the US accept invasion from another
>
> > > > country given it's invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?
>
> > > > > I have friends and neighbors you spent time there during and after the war and to a man they all agree that while some things are imperfect Iraqis are much much better off than before. And they say that not from their own perspective but from what the Iraqi people have told them.
>
> > > > And?  There are loads of countries in the world worse off then Iraq
>
> > > > circa 2003?  Shall the US invade all of them as well?
>
> > > How many of those countries have invaded their neighbors, or are regularly sponsoring terror activities, or made an attempt of an ex-president's life?
>
> > I think I can do 2/3.  Since pre-invasion Iraq was only guilty of 2 of
>
> > the 3 of the things you list above that must be the standard:
>
> > Sudan
>
> > Ethiopia
>
> Since when was splitting a country invading a neighbor?

Ethiopia invaded Eritrea after recognizing its indepedence.

> > Russia
>
> Russia has invaded no one.  The Soviet Union did, but not Russia.

Georgia is no one?

> > Rwanda

Invaded Congo.

> > Just off the top of my head.  I'm sure if I bothered to do some
>
> > serious research I could come up with a bunch more.
>
> Pre-invasion Iraq was guilty of all three.

No. Pre-invasion Iraq was not guilty of sponsoring terrorism. Maybe
you have your timelines confused because our invasion of Iraq laid out
a welcome mat for Al-Qaeda, but Saddam's Iraq was no more an sponsor
of terrorism than they were a holder of WMDs.

[Cornelius Cornelius]

On Apr 26, 9:30 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>

wrote:
> On Friday, April 26, 2013 3:25:36 PM UTC-5, xyzzy wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 3:57 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, April 26, 2013 2:28:17 PM UTC-5, Cornelius Cornelius wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 26, 4:19 pm, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > > <the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think that's a very simplistic view of the Iraq war and outcome.  People fail to acknowledge that Saddam was killing his own people and had already invaded another country.
>
> > > > And? Does the US invade every country that kills it's own people or
>
> > > > invades other countries?  Should the US accept invasion from another
>
> > > > country given it's invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?
>
> > > > > I have friends and neighbors you spent time there during and after the war and to a man they all agree that while some things are imperfect Iraqis are much much better off than before. And they say that not from their own perspective but from what the Iraqi people have told them.
>
> > > > And?  There are loads of countries in the world worse off then Iraq
>
> > > > circa 2003?  Shall the US invade all of them as well?
>
> > > How many of those countries have invaded their neighbors, or are regularly sponsoring terror activities, or made an attempt of an ex-president's life?
>
> > I think I can do 2/3.  Since pre-invasion Iraq was only guilty of 2 of
>
> > the 3 of the things you list above that must be the standard:
>
> > Sudan
>
> > Ethiopia
>
> Since when was splitting a country invading a neighbor?
>
>
>
> > Russia
>
> Russia has invaded no one.  The Soviet Union did, but not Russia.

Georgia says hi.

> > Rwanda
>
> ???
>
>
>
> > Just off the top of my head.  I'm sure if I bothered to do some
>
> > serious research I could come up with a bunch more.
>
> Pre-invasion Iraq was guilty of all three.

What is your arbitrary statute of limitations here? Iraq invaded
nobody after we first invaded them in 1993.

[Cornelius Cornelius]

So between us we've refuted two of the three. I guess it really does
come down to "they tried to kill my daddy."

[xyzzy]

On Apr 26, 4:23 pm, Emperor Wonko the Sane <d...@sorensensdomain.net>

Tell it to the Heritage Foundation.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/31/georgia-and-russia-the-occupation-too-many-have-forgotten/

[Cornelius Cornelius]

On Apr 26, 1:15 pm, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> good read - and applicable to far more people than W
>
> http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

Let me try and get back on topic. I did enjoy the article, and as
much as I disliked Bush, I don't think anyone could be elected and re-
elected if they weren't intelligent. My big issue is with his "aw
shucks" demeanor. Perhaps it endeared him to some, but it's not
really what I look for in a leader, especially one trying to claim
he's one of us when he was effectively American royalty.

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

Hussein bragged about offer $25k to the families of suicide bombers. This was well before the invasion. There was plenty of other smoke, For example, who gave the World Trade Center Bomber a house after he escaped to Iraq? His sponsorship of terror is not in question.

> Maybe you have your timelines confused

Another irony meter destroyed.

because our invasion of Iraq laid out
>
> a welcome mat for Al-Qaeda, but Saddam's Iraq was no more an sponsor
>
> of terrorism than they were a holder of WMDs.

Doug

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

It's spelled "none," not "two."

Doug

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

True enough. I guess I'm one of the "too many."

Doug

[Wolfie]

"Emperor Wonko the Sane" wrote

> Hussein bragged about offer $25k to the families of suicide bombers.

Plenty of Saudis, including members of the Royal Family,
have given financial support to Palestinian bombers.

> For example, who gave the World Trade Center Bomber a
> house after he escaped to Iraq?

You have a funny way of spelling "under arrest". And that's
according to the FBI, CIA, and Bush Administration release of
internal Iraqi documents.

> His sponsorship of terror is not in question.

Terror against Israel; sure. And I wouldn't have
complained if the IDF had went and fought their
own war.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Emperor Wonko the Sane" <do...@sorensensdomain.net> wrote in message news:9fd7c9ac-44ad-4432...@googlegroups.com...

You mean like Libya? Also, I did not know Iraq sponsored terror activities.

--Tedward

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Wolfie" <bgbd...@gte.net> wrote

>> Hussein bragged about offer $25k to the families of suicide bombers.
>
> Plenty of Saudis, including members of the Royal Family,
> have given financial support to Palestinian bombers.

Plus he has a funny definition of "regularly sponsoring terror activities".
Hussein did hate Israel but did not sponsor the terrorist groups, he
just rewarded acts against Israel after the fact.

Here's a fucking clue: Hussein was running a SECULAR country, for
which he had absolutely no use for radical islamic jihadist, unless of
course Israel was involved.

The invasion of Iraq has done more for the jihadists than just about
anything. If Saddam had had a secret plan for it all to fall out this way
and was willing to die for it, it was pure evil genius.

--Tedward

[Michael]

This was YOUR reason -- he was "killing his own people". Also, I didn't say killing Saddam Hussein was the goal and neither did W. W said when asked: the killing was justified; the world is better off without Hussein. That's his response to the entire Iraq question. And I agree, it's repetitive: W and his team have stated it many many times.

[Futbol Phan]

On Apr 26, 2:28 pm, Cornelius Cornelius

Exactly. We're gonna need a military of 20,000,000 people. This "Iraq
is better off now" argument is such bullshit; can't believe it's still
being trotted out to justify that horrific mistake. And it's a
mistake that keeps on giving, with the news yesterday that military
suicides outnumbered active duty-related suicides in 2012.