Democrats & Liberals Archives

Spreading Democracy, Bush Style

This is not about almost-straight-shooter Cheney, but about his boss, the real-straight-shooter George W. Bush, the one whose mission it is to spread democracy all over the world. His buddy, Abramoff, worked together with Bush’s right-hand man, Karl Rove, to get that paragon of virtue, the former prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, to meet the president. Though our previous president, Bill Clinton, chastised this Malaysian dictator for jailing opponents and for anti-semitic statements, Bush had his picture taken with him. This showed the world that Bush is serious about spreading democracy.

And whom can we thank for this wonderful turn of events? Jack Abramoff, another nice guy. He contacted Karl Rove and Rove saw that the meeting took place. The meeting happened in May 2002, when Bush praised Mohamad for his "friendship" and "strong support" for the "war on terror."

Abramoff received $1.2 million for the deed.

What did Mohamad, the new democracy recruit, say afterward? He said, according to the L.A. Times, that U.S. was fighting terrorism

"through attacking Muslim countries and Muslims, whether they are guilty or not."

He also said:

"... today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."

Nice, wholesome, democratic ideas. Brought to you through the strong actions of the incomparable team of Abramoff and Rove, helping our dear leader.

We are spreading democracy everywhere, Bush style.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 15, 2006 5:31 PM
Comments
Comment #125586

Two Words:

MONEY + OIL

put together spell: “W”

Posted by: Dave at February 15, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #125588

(Money+Oil put together spells ‘Moil’, or ‘Oiney’)

Actually “jews to rule by proxy” is actually for Muslims a huge policy shift. See Clinton had an Americanized concept of these things, bigotry has to be seen to be discouraged etcetera. Not in Islamic countries this is religion we are dealing with which is by no means a democracy.

I think Mohamad was actually doing a bit of politicking to his countrymen as that take of things sell popularistically in Malaysia to its Islamic constituency (whether he actually believes that actually remains to be seen). It just has a mitigatable message being that the things that are done are by others who the jews connive somehow (like corporations aren’t the ultimate master). Islam is such a ball of crap it really is—the jews are the reasons they are screwed up—oh yeah that must be it! Not that it’s leadership are all walking around in fifth century robes laying down edicts that keep them backwards. It’s typically what psychologists call denial through transference.

Posted by: Translator at February 15, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #125598

“Islam is such a ball of crap it really is…”

It couldn’t be - they worship a meteorite 5 times a day!

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 15, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #125599

Excuse me…I missed the names of the countries that President Clinton delivered from tryanny. I really take offense at all the instant historians who write on this site. Most presidents have to wait at least 30 or more years before an accurate history of their administration can be written. Too many on this site wish to speed up that process into a 30 second sound-bite.
While President Clinton can point to some accomplishments during his 8 years he also made his share of mistakes. And, as I have been often reminded, he was the most brillian president in our country’s history. So, should we not give President Bush a little leeway even though many think he is too stupid to tie his shoes? I am still wondering how he managed to beat Gore and Kerry, two well-known intellectuals. Surely none reading and responding to these emails would suggest that the American public could have been duped twice by the same man. So, let’s allow the “sense of the American Voter” play itself out and be measured again in 2008. Your reasonned and polite response is appreciated.

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 15, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #125607

The whole idea that the right is for democracy is spin,very old spin. Bushco has just adopted an old lie. For some reason,perhaps because people want to believe it,it still sells. Throughout the cold war the US installed and or supported dictators all over the world that had suplanted democracies. To name a few countries: Iran,Chile,Philippines,Panama etc. We even fought a terrible war(Vietnam,see Pentagon Papers) to prevent democratic elections. The evidence is historically overwhelming. The real enemy of democracy has always been the right. It was the right that fought womens suffrage. It was the right that fought the voting rights act. It was and is the right that is the real monster in the dark that threatens all our freedoms. If GB was a true democrat he would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Al Gore and demanded a recount in Florida. If he had and still won he would have had this democrat’s respect.

Posted by: BillS at February 15, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #125610

Nixon was re-elected in a landslide.

I see no reason to be afraid of making judgments. Nixon was a sicko, a paranoid crook, he was seen as one then, and he is still seen as one now.

By most standards, Bush is a terrible president, one of the worse in our country’s history. And I will be glad to spell it out in polite, reasonable terms, with links and sourcing provided. Things would be even worse if the Bush administration couldn’t count on Pat Roberts and other Republicans to prevent investigations into corruption, ethics violations, misuse of intelligence, and more.

Bush won the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina when his campaign smeared fellow Republican John McCain. Does anyone need a recap of the despicably dirty campaign run by Rove and Bush? It’s a nasty topic, no doubt, but once again I’d be happy to provide the background in a polite, reasoned manner. The smearing of opponents has been a calling card of the Bush administration from the days back in Texas.

Ah, but that’s just politics, right? Character does not matter when it comes to the president, right? When it comes to the domestic economy and especially job creation, the president who compares most directly with Bush is… Herbert Hoover.

Many Republicans think Jimmy Carter did poorly with the domestic economy. Most Republicans fail to realize Jimmy Carter- yes, Carter- kicked Bush’s butt seven ways to Sunday when it came to creating jobs.

Jim, a polite and reasoned commentary must reach the objective, verifiable conclusion:

Bush is a terrible president, one of the worst in our nation’s history.

Posted by: phx8 at February 15, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #125628

Here Here!!! I couldn’t have said it better.

Posted by: outraged liberal at February 15, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #125633

Bill S,

Exactly, i guess it could be argued two ways also. One being that it has more to do with military industrial complex and government contract keynesianism. In other words that war is a means of bolstering a rally on wallstreet. Or two, that the more right wing the defacto governments are the less likely they are to follow with the tennets of Communism. I look at Vietnam and see scenario one where it was promised to so many hands that we would dispense weapons somewhere hence create stockpiling to rally markets that it almost had to happen. I remember a vet who I used to work with telling me things like travelling for days to go get a target and then at the last minute when they have it in sights to just stand down and turn back for some rediculous reason. Vietnam was a promise that Kennedy probably would not have stuck with and may account for what happened in Dallas.

But as far as America doing that defacto game it is undoubtedly fact. Why we did that is quite unknown and yet absolutely unconscionable that we should undertake that with our policies. Democracy dominoes was not the likely front I agree. These things are more likely financial trade arrangements that make those third world nations beholden to be our banana republics with a highly exploitable work force. This stuff is not Kool-aid as the right would assume.

Posted by: Translator at February 15, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #125634

To: phx8. You’re judging President Bush in the present and your accessment might be viewed differently by historians who can look back and view the entirety of his term with the benefit of hindsight. Perhaps you are correct, but I am 65 years old and have watched a few administrations over the years. I am old enough to have been around to hear all the comments of the time and now can compare those beliefs with the way history has judged. With the possible exception of President Washington, beloved by all, the naysayers of the time all thought they had it right. Some Presidents who were harshly judged during and shortly after their administrations have been vindicated and are now beloved and honored by many. Your crystal ball is no better than mine and the prudent person, while disagreeing, might remember that quick judgement can lead to serious error. Even President Nixon has enjoyed a favorable review of some of his accomplishments by historians. While making serious mistakes, most will admit that much good for America was achieved by this man.

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 15, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #125640

Jim Martin,

Bush took Iraq out of tyrany and delivered it to chaos, turmoil, economic instability and terrorist landscape. Bush is not fit to do what he did in 2003. I don’t think his attention span is even capable of it, everytime there is a question of what was done. The man obviously is working autopilot as the military does what it does with no participation from Bush in this endeavor, or as little as he can.

This war is in the hands of the US military alone and works of it’s own internal robotics without ethics in engagement that would help us in any diplomatic appeals. When there were the Abu Graib pictures circulating Bush had no idea what they were—why? Because he doesn’t have anything to do with this war except the bogus reasons for starting it and the backlash thereof. So really Bush does much less than the hero-worshipping thinks he does honestly. He makes speeches to masses of preselected soldiers—What a leader, what a phoney conduit to any military action.

You make Bush to be something more than a trust fund shmoe way over his head making what can be only called poor appointments based on who kisses his rearend on everything.

Posted by: Translator at February 15, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #125645

Jim -

I find it kind of sad that some people can only find solstice in the fact that maybe one day Bush won’t look as bad as he does now. I can see to rationalization in this to hold my criticism.

“The winners write the history books.” I don’t think the American public has been involved with writing out history for quite some time.

Posted by: tony at February 15, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #125658

You Bush haters are funny.

It must be tough to live in your world.

Posted by: Jack at February 15, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #125660

One interesting aspect of looking back at Nixon is just how far to the right debate has become in the US. Clinton proposed a national health plan identical to what Nixon proposed. Remember the shrieks.His plan was attacked as being run away socialism. Nixons plan failed to materialize not from right wing opposition but because of the huge expense,both monetarily and politically, from the Vietnam war plus Watergate. That was before the Republicans found out you could just lie and right bad checks for everything.

Posted by: BillS at February 15, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #125661

Translator & Tony,

Did you even read what Jim said?
You couldn’t have…

Posted by: Cliff at February 15, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #125663

Cliff -

Sorry - I’m missing your point. Yes, I read what he wrote. And aside form a typo on my post (can was suppose to read can’t) I think the response makes sense.

Jim is saying that we should not rush to judge Bush. I call BS on that. We’ve allowed 2 parties to run the country as they see fit - for as long as I can rememeber - and I do not know a single instance where we (American people) actually came out of top. I think waiting until the historians get their chance to write their opinions is a pathetic reason to hold back critisism.

Thoughts?

Posted by: tony at February 15, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #125666

Tony,

Jim’s comments even admitted that Libs may be correct on this president. He was offering a historical observation from his vantage point looking back over the years. He never said to hold back criticism, just to think it through.

Posted by: Cliff at February 15, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #125668

Jim,
All post-WWII presidents can be given credit for the defeat of the USSR, and for not blowing the planet to kingdom come. Still, all in all, I think you’ll find it difficult to make a supportive case for Nixon.

Among the postwar presidents, only opinions about Truman have changed substantially. We could quibble about other reputations- for example, Eisenhower has risen in estimation- but it does not require a major re-evaluation.

The performance to date of Bush has been damning. It doesn’t take a crystal ball; the numbers tell the story. This is without even addressing topics such as debt, deficits, 9/11, Iraq, or, worst of all in my opinion, the appalling inaction of this administration despite the growing body of evidence surrounding climate change.

Posted by: phx8 at February 15, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #125690

Paul Siegel,

Truly excellent post. I hope everyone takes time to carefully and “thoughtfully” read your link to Prime Minister Mahathir’s speech. It’s very insightful.

I found the following quotes to be of particular interest:

“In today’s world we wield a lot of political, economic and financial clout, enough to make up for our weakness in military terms.”

“We are up against a people who think. They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also.”

“Of late because of their power and their apparent success they have become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people will make mistakes, will forget to think.”

“They are already beginning to make mistakes. And they will make more mistakes. There may be windows of opportunity for us now and in the future. We must seize these opportunities.”

WOW: “arrogant people, like angry people will make mistakes”!

It’s interesting to realize these statements were made on October 16, 2003!

Me thinks if these are our friends we need better enemies.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 15, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #125693

Phx8

Actually, opinions about most presidents have changed.

As you mentioned, Truman was widely reviled at the time, but now is considered a good president. Eisenhower was thought to be stupid and disengaged when I was in college. Now we know we was just very clever at hiding his moves. Kennedy was a god when I was growing up. Now he is in the charming rogue who was in a little over his head. Johnson was considered vulgar and inept back in the 1960s and there seems little hope of change for him. Nixon is still disliked, but many people now recognize his intelligence. He will never shake the crook reputation, however. Ford I don’t think has changed. Carter has broken in two directions. He was considered a failure at the time by both sides. Lately because of his criticism of the current president, his reputation on the right has sunk, while on the left he is considered a truth teller. Reagan has gone through a major transformation. At the time he was loved by his supporters (and most Americans) but hated and considered an amiable dunce by his detractors. He is now considered a bit of a visionary, since only he and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among all public figures, predicted the fall of Soviet Communism. Bush I has come up in the standings as a person, but not a president. Clinton is a very interesting case. During the middle 1990s many liberals considered him a bit of a traitor because of things like NAFTA and welfare reform. Now they all think they loved him all the time. I think Clinton will eventually end up in the same boat as his hero JFK.

Bush is doing many things that will probably work out and he will get credit. He is remaking the courts, from the Supreme Court to various districts. He may well get another Supreme Court nomination. These years will be seen as the time when the activist courts of the middle and late 20th Century came to an end. History will credit him with a strong response to 9/11 and give him excellent marks on Afghanistan. He will be criticized for early mistakes in Iraq, but seen as a visionary for his push for democracy in the Middle East. His strengthening ties with Japan and India will be seen as great moves and his vast increase of aid to Africa will be seen as enlightened self interest.

When the economy goes bad (and economies always do) people will look back on the 4.7% unemployment and the rapid economic growth we enjoy today as good times and wonder that many people at the time didn’t understand how good they had it.

WHen the Social Security crisis bites in about ten years, people will credit Bush with seeing the problem, but lament that he was blocked in his solutions.


Posted by: Jack at February 15, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #125710

KansasDem, anybody who reads Paul’s post “carefully and thoughtfully” will be doing a lot more than went into writing it.

Mahathir Mohamad’s antisemitic comments are brought to us by Abramhoff, Rove and Bush? Huh?

And this follows how? Because Mohamad, while he was head of state of Malaysia, visited Washington and because Bush praised him for helping with antiterrorism efforts?

And also because Abramoff—an orthodox Jew, by the way—recieved money from Malaysia?

Paul, you’ll notice, has not even bothered to connect any of the dots that would actually allow him to establish any connection between these seperate facts.

At the same time, Mohamad accused the Bush administration of fighting terrorism by “attacking Muslim countries and Muslims, whether they are guilty or not.”

Huh? Did you get that? So Bush is promoting an anti-semite who attacks Bush? Can you follow any of this?

Paul’s comments are just so ridiculous that they doesn’t deserve even the amount of attention I’ve already given them.

Posted by: sanger at February 16, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #125711

Paul,more bologna!That is my thoughtful opinion of your remarks.You can’t make things better without taking chances,the more serious the changes the bigger the chance of problems.The Dems had the chance to do it there way for 30 years and did nothing because they were afraid to make a mistake,so they make an even bigger mistake and do nothing and things get worse.You can ignore the good being done and harp on how it’s taking to long it’s all wrong but history will show President Bush a Brave Man who is not afraid to do something knowing not everything will be perfect.The Dems are sabotaging Bush to get the power back they lost because they are afraid to take a chance.All they can do is whine and point fingers at the bad USA who is killing thousands of terrorists who have killed millions of their own and thousands of good guys who are trying to wrestle the country away form the bad guys and give the good guys who live there!If it weren’t for America and our allies,this whole world would be living under tyranny.If you lived in Iran you’re descension would be justified,but,here in America,it is not.Everything is not like I like it but I want the good guys to win and I’m cheering for them,because I’m too old to join them.I’m not about to demoralize the troops who are risking their life so you and others like you can have the freedom to type your dribble on your computer!If our troops could exclude you and others like you from the freedom you don’t appreciate I’m sure they would,but,being good guys they are fighting for people like you anyway!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 16, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #125718

phx8,

Bush won the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina when his campaign smeared fellow Republican John McCain.

Just because SC went to Bush doesn’t mean that SC actually elected Bush. At least I hope not. As a SC newcomer who has been ‘pass-in though” for about 3 years, I know there are those here who didn’t, and more importantly regret voting for Bush the second time. Who knows - there may be help for SC after all.

Jack:

He is remaking the courts, from the Supreme Court to various districts….

That’s the part that scares me. I don’t think being President entitles him to remake anything. That’s why we have a Constitution.


Posted by: Linda H. at February 16, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #125723
I don’t think being President entitles him to remake anything. That’s why we have a Constitution.

Every president remakes the courts in that they appoint incoming judges to replace outgoing judges.

It is in fact explictly REQUIRED by the Contitution for the President to do this.

Posted by: sanger at February 16, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #125726

Jack,
As you have probably noticed, I can go on and on and on about presidents and their administrations. In general terms I’d agree with your assessments. Bush #41 is interesting. Strictly speaking, the USSR came apart on his watch. He played it carefully and cautiously, but his lack of interest in domestic matters cost him.

Carter is the most interesting. I think his stock will rise as time goes by, not because of actions since his presidency, but because he did better than is generally realized. First, I would argue Carter assumed the presidency at the most difficult time in the nation’s history since Lincoln. Carter- not Reagan, but Carter- kept people believing & participating in the American political process at a time when belief collapsed into complete cynicism. Reagan reaped the benefits, but Carter made a resurgence of belief possible. In addition, the Camp David negotiations were a resounding success, and Carter initiated the Afghanistan policy which was a major cause of the USSR’s collapse. Although inflation and other after effects of Vietnam caused the country fits, Carter’s record on job creation was actually quite good. Conservatives have a bad habit of walking into that particular meat grinder when they attempt to criticize Carter. Imo his greatest failings were his mishandling of the Iranian hostage crisis, and inability to work with Congress.

As for Bush…

He’s remaking the courts. No doubt about that. Here I will have to side with Jim. It’s too early. We’ll see. Personally, I think it would be frightening if the country regressed to the 1890’s version of American justice envisioned by Scalia, but I just can’t believe the others will go along.

Afghanistan is facing a strengthening Taliban movement. The Pashtun in North Waziristan have declared it a Taliban styled Islamic state. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; I think the situation in Afghanistan is much, much worse than we generally believed, and Pakistan-not Iran, but Pakistan- is the biggest danger we face. It’s an American backed dictatorship, and we’ve seen this a hundred times before; the country is one clip of an AK-47 from anarchy, and an extreme reaction to Western interference, only this time, the radicals really will have nuclear weapons.

Posted by: phx8 at February 16, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #125727

RDAVIDC,

“I’m not about to demoralize the troops who are risking their life so you and others like you can have the freedom to type your dribble on your computer!If our troops could exclude you and others like you from the freedom you don’t appreciate I’m sure they would,but,being good guys they are fighting for people like you anyway!”

And you accuse Paul of writing tripe?

Jack,

“These years will be seen as the time when the activist courts of the middle and late 20th Century came to an end.”

Oh please, every time the courts make a decision that the left OR right disagree with they are accused of being activist.
Both the left and the right in this country interput the Constitution in any way that fits their imediate agenda.

“When the economy goes bad (and economies always do) people will look back on the 4.7% unemployment and the rapid economic growth we enjoy today as good times and wonder that many people at the time didn’t understand how good they had it.”

It amazes me that in the last year the economy has done so well, but that individuals haven’t.
Do I need to remind you that last year was the first since the depression that people in this country removed more money from their savings accounts than they put in?


Posted by: Rocky at February 16, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #125732

Jack,Jack,Jack
Where to start?How about the courts/ Bush has not stopped activist courts. Quite the opposite. He has furthured the activist direction already evident in the Renquist court. In particular court userpation of legislative perogitives,threatening the clean air and water acts,states rights(example:California medical marijauna initiative), etc. How more active could they get than allowing politicians to decide about personal procreative choices or that the fourteenth amendment that says citizens shall be treated equally under the law does not apply to some citizens for political reasons.It was an activist court that brought Bush to power in the first place and he has promulgated more of the same. The difference is it is right wing activism. Was Brown vs the board of education an example of an activist court that was out of hand? Roe vs Wade? There are many,a majority in fact, that believe these are examples of the Court holding true to the Constitution.
The economy? Real wages are flat or falling. More people are living in poverty. The infant mortality rate is higher than some third world countries. And the deficit. My God man. There is an economic spurt right now. The rich are doing just fine. They did even better under Clinton even though they paid more in taxes and we had a surplus. We could quibble all night but please consider the long term effects of the deficit. Deficits,when a real economic expansion(not one based on bad checks) commences, suck up capital needed to forward that expansion.There is a finite amount of capital. The federal government becomes the biggest pig at the trough. Deficits also preclude the long planned and best solution to the Social Security problem. Namely,paying back the SS trust fund. One may wonder if indeed that is one reason to run deficits. The right has long held SS in contempt.
Afganistan? We will see. That region has a long history of defeating powerful invaders.I would hope history does not ignore that an “amiable dunce” armed and trained the talaban.
9/11? If history is accurate it will show show an inept adminisration asleep at the switch when it occured that managed to turn what should have been a swift victory into a prolonged conflict mainly to maintain its own power and furthur the imperialist goals of its militarist controllers. Had it not been for 9/11 the Bush admistration would have been a one term presidency characterized by avarice and incompetence. Barely a footnote except for the specious way it came to power.
There now. Isn’t historical speculation fun. To bad so many people have to die needlessly though.


Posted by: BillS at February 16, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #125739

I wish the Supreme Court would overturn Roe vs. Wade already. All this waiting is annoying.

Posted by: Aldous at February 16, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #125740

Sanger,

I fear I may have left out the best quote of all from Mahathir’s speech:

“We must not antagonise everyone. We must win their hearts and minds.”

Based on the use of “hearts and minds” in his speech I conclude that White House staff helped write the speech.

I’m basing that on “cherry picking” the available evidence. I learned that from Bush & Co.

You may prove me wrong. Time has proven there were no WMD. Bush took many moons to admit there were no WMD’s. Expect me to take a bit longer to admit any error regarding my logic or that of Paul’s, and you’ll likely be less disappointed.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 16, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #125742

Aldous
So we can just tell young women not to have sex and if that does not work heres a coat hanger. Get a grip.

Posted by: BillS at February 16, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #125743
Expect me to take a bit longer to admit any error regarding my logic or that of Paul’s, and you’ll likely be less disappointed.

I will definitely not hold my breath waiting for you or Paul to renounce or even distance yourselves from any crackpot theories whatsoever.

If you want somebody to “prove” to you that the Whitehouse didn’t write an antisemitic speech, you’ll be the one waiting—forever. It’s absolutely baseless and absurd.

When has the White House or this adminstration ever shown even the tiniest bit of antisemitic feeling? If anything, the White House is routinely accused of being too close to Israel, and the neoconservatives of being Jewish pawns.

Come on now. Don’t flatter this ridiculous accusation by calling it logic. It isn’t logic. It’s gutter-politics, and if it wasn’t so funny it would be sad.

Posted by: sanger at February 16, 2006 1:47 AM
Comment #125751

“I wish the Supreme Court would overturn Roe vs. Wade already. All this waiting is annoying.

Posted by: Aldous at February 16, 2006 01:22 AM”

I doubt it’ll come down that simple. I expect there will be, and IMO should be, a “whittling away” at Pro-choice “rights”. Many Democrats agree with me for a number of reasons.

Modern science disproves whatever logic Blackmun used to come up with the trimester theory. Somewhere between 16 & 20 weeks a healthy fetus shows response to stimuli that prove there is neurological function. This alone tells me that no abortion should be performed for the purpose of “birth control” beyond the 16th week.

But, us “Libby’s”, have studied history enough to know that when abortion was illegal the law did far less to protect the rights of the unborn than it did to harm girls and women that had nowhere to turn but some back alley med school flunky or worse.

This is a very tough topic and much more complex than my simple mind can properly portray, but one thing I find “odd” is that conservatives who would “end all abortion” are also perfectly willing to “end programs” that help provide disadvantaged children a proper diet.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at February 16, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #125764

Paul,

You’re really really stretching here bud.

Posted by: esimonson at February 16, 2006 2:40 AM
Comment #125765

Sanger,

Check out the Bush quotes here:
*********************************************
“KUTA (Indonesia), Oct 22: US President George Bush said on Wednesday that he rebuked Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the recently concluded APEC summit over his controversial “Jews rule the world” remarks.

In a briefing aboard his Canberra-bound Air Force One, Mr Bush said he had pulled Mahathir aside at the Thailand gathering to tell him personally that he thought those comments were “reprehensible”.

“I said, ‘they’re divisive and unnecessary.’ I didn’t yell at him, I just told him,” the US president told reporters. “You can’t pit groups against each other.”

Mr Bush also worked to find a silver lining in Mahathir’s address, saying: “He said that we need more education, a terrorist ban, which is good, that was positive.”

At last week’s summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Malaysia, Mahathir said: “The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy.”

The outspoken Asian leader, whose comments drew global condemnation and outrage from Western nations, added that 1.3 billion Muslims could not be defeated by a few million Jews.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Monday that Mr Bush had pulled Mahathir aside to denounce his “wrong and divisive” comments. The prime minister fired back a day later, saying that Mr Bush “did not rebuke me”.

“I do not know how people came to this conclusion. He (Bush) did pull me aside to explain to me why he had to make a strong statement against me,” Mahathir said.—AFP”

from: http://www.dawn.com/2003/10/23/int8.htm
****************************************

My translation, ” gee, good buddy I din’t mean ta’ dog ya’ out back there, but ya’ know the American people expect me ta’ stand up, he, he. Ya’ll know we’re freinds, he, he.”

My conclusion: Bush & co. have been in over their heads from day one and they’re at the very least incompetent and more likely compicate in treason.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 16, 2006 2:42 AM
Comment #125776

Sanger & esimonson,

I’m sorry if you believe that Paul is wrong. IMO he is simply right, er, ah, correct, quote:

“President Bush’s remarks today represent a turnaround on the issue for the White House – in May 2002, the President invited Mahathir to the White House and praised him as an ally in the war against terrorism. Mahathir is unrepentant about his remarks about Jews, saying that he was just “stating the facts.” “

from:
http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR02118.html

Still care to play?
Looks to me like Paul did, at the very least, have substantial supporting material for his opinion. And, the “Soaring Siegel” once again avoids extinction!

You can only hope to shoot him down some day.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at February 16, 2006 3:09 AM
Comment #125819

‘It amazes me that in the last year the economy has done so well, but that individuals haven’t.

Do I need to remind you that last year was the first since the depression that people in this country removed more money from their savings accounts than they put in?’
Posted by: Rocky at February 16, 2006 12:53 AM

Any chance you have stats on what they purchased with that money?

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 16, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #125843

People who support the monkey who currently inhabits the White House should read this! Maybe it would do them some good to see the kind of loser they are supporting.
http://blogd.com/bushrecord.html

Posted by: capnmike at February 16, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #125857

Any chance you have stats on what they purchased with that money?

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 16, 2006 07:41 AM

Tasteless food grown by soulless congolomerates.
Oil and Gas at usurious prices from terrorist nations and toady Texas oilmen.
Cheap crap at WalMart, made in China,
All to make them feel better; watching American Idol on their big screen while eating junk food in their almost warm enough over-priced over-mortgaged home as their kids get stupider playing gamecube as practice for when then join our mercenary armies of the future.

Posted by: Dave at February 16, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #125871

Aldous,
Griswold v Connecticut in 1965 recognized the right to privacy. How long before the Supreme Court overturns it? The case concerned contraception. How long before the Supreme Court also bans birth control?

Posted by: phx8 at February 16, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #125873

bugcrazy,

“Any chance you have stats on what they purchased with that money?”

So far all I have been able to find is speculation on the cause.
It would appear that, if the speculation is to be belived, we are spending our money to continue the lifestyles we have become accustomed to, and tommorrow be damned.

Posted by: Rocky at February 16, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #125875

Thanks to all who contributed actual information and reasoned opinions regarding the judging of presidents and their administrations. I remain convinced that the jury is still deliberating on President Bush as all the evidence has not been presented.
I find it disgusting to read some of the comments about this and former presidents. One can be critical and still be rational and civilized. With knowledge comes wisdom and right now we apparently don’t have enough of either. Honestly folks, if some of the rabid writers on this blog ever achieved power the planet would be doomed! How can persons writing such inflamatory lies and outrageous ideas be capable of judging anyone? Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 16, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #125878

BillS, um, I “think” (sarcasm for: “know”) it was Al Gore who wanted to discount the majority of Florida’s absentee ballots, most of which came in from overseas or out-of-state military personnel (such as myself) at the time. So, before you go off on some ignorant, leftist extremist “The libs love rights and the cons hate rights” speech … look your political party in the mirror first. Thank you.

And, as far as the horror of republican lies … is that to include lies to a grand jury while defining two letter words?

Paul S.
You demonstrate, yet again, ignorance of history. Why did we support Iraq in the early 80’s? Is it because we loved Hussein at the time like most liberal extremists like to purport? Obviously not. The major problem in the world at that time was the USSR … you remember, that nation that had more ships, jet, tanks, and submarines than we did. The USSR rolling into a country like Iraq (not unlikely, ref: Afghanistan) to gain a HUGE amount of the world’s energy was a real concern. We had to make sure Iraq was strong because of their oil assets being so close to the USSR border. Assessing Iraq’s civil rights record was not an option at the time.

The war now is the terror war. While we don’t condone Mohamad’s leadership, the U.S.’s ability is NOT infinite. We can’t simultaneously address all evils in the world. Hopefully one day Mohamad will be the biggest evil in the world, but right now he’s small potatoes and we have to address the 400 pound Gorilla (Islamofascism) before we can worry too much about anything else.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #125886

Translator

“Bush took Iraq out of tyrany and delivered it to chaos . . “

Congrats Translator!! You’re now damning our own Revolutionary War, the north’s victory in the Civil War, relieving France from the Nazis, and oh … just about any major military victory viewed by most historians as “won by the good guys”. What did the French papers say for more than a year after VE Day? Check out those papers you “truth” seekers and I’ll think you find they said such things as “Living under the Nazis was better than the chaos we have now”. Ah “chaos” … I love how some people automatically think that term is always denigrating.

So, for starters, Iraq is in good company. But, even though your statement is only damning in your eyes and not history’s eyes, I still disagree to a large extent. Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m not, but I believe Iraq had a higher percentage voter turnout than the USA in their last 2 elections.

So, I guess the USA is in chaos too, right?! As I sit here in my little middle class neighborhood in my little middle class house … I’ll try to keep remembering that.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #125904

“Bush is a terrible president, one of the worse in our country’s history.”

I LOVE IT! Insert any of the following names in your statement and you’ll re-write historical viewpoints from millions upon millions of past and present Americans:

Lincoln (People hated him for hating slavery.)

Grant (People hated him for wanting to spend the nation’s fortune to rebuild the South)

Wilson (People hated him for committing us {finally} to WWI.)

FDR (People thought he was crazy for fighting Japan and Germany at the same time.)

Truman (People hated him for SAVING millions of Japanese and American lives by dropping the Bomb. People hated him for wanting to go back to war so soon and wanting to save at least part of Korea from a North-Korea-like future.)

JFK (People thought he was nuts for standing up to the Russians and possibly sparking nuclear war over little ole Cuba.)

Reagan (People laughed at him when he took office when he notioned that we could stand up to the USSR and win the Cold War. Of course, those same people now claim the event was destiny.)

Bush 41’ (People raged with their “No Blood For Oil” banners against Gulf War I and didn’t think it important enough to disallow a madman from gaining a huge share of the world’s energy.)

… and stay tuned for:

George W. Bush (People mocked him for being stupid and claiming democracy would help ease the radicalism of the middle east. Of course, those same people will eventually claim the event “destiny”.)

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #125912

Ken Cooper
You mean the Democrats wanted to discount absentee ballots mailed after the deadline? I should have some sympathy I suppose. That was before the Reps had enough voting machines to rig. You are living in a dream world. Try turning off talk radio and thinking for yourself.

Posted by: BillS at February 16, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #125913

I can’t resist:

“Paul,

You’re really really stretching here bud.
Posted by: esimonson at February 16, 2006 02:40 AM “

Saith Reed Richards.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 16, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #125928

>>Paul S.
You demonstrate, yet again, ignorance of history. Why did we support Iraq in the early 80’s? Is it because we loved Hussein at the time like most liberal extremists like to purport? Obviously not. The major problem in the world at that time was the USSR … you remember, that nation that had more ships, jet, tanks, and submarines than we did.

ken,

Did you mean to reference our fear that Iran, which had just taken our embassy, withdrawing precious oil from our market, might have been a manace to other middle east oil reserves without a strong Iraq? USSR??? We wanted Saddam to protect us from the USSR???

Posted by: Marysdude at February 16, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #125986

PHX8, It is just too insulting to compare GWBush with Herbert Hoover, who had some redeeming qualities even though he was an old fashioned business oriented Rpblcn, or Nixon, the most liberal Rpblcn ever elected. Bush is no longer an obnoxious drunk, and that is his greatest accomplishment in life. Unfortunately he is now our addle-brained Potemkin president. The legacy of the Bushes will be two wars to protect the oil fields of the middle east. This will be viewed as idiotic by historians who will realize that we should have weaned ourselves from oil before those wars occurred.

Al Gore who wanted to discount the majority of Florida’s absentee ballots,

NO, only the ones cast AFTER election day.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 16, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #125987

Marysdude,

“Did you mean to reference our fear that Iran, which had just taken our embassy, withdrawing precious oil from our market, might have been a manace to other middle east oil reserves without a strong Iraq? USSR??? We wanted Saddam to protect us from the USSR???”

We helped place Saddam in power the same way we helped to place the Shah of Iran, much to the chagrin of the populations of those countries.

From wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Consolidation_of_power

“In 1976, Saddam was appointed a general in the Iraqi armed forces. He rapidly became the strongman of the government. The USA government, through CIA agents, assited Saddam and his party in taking over the running of Iraq. At the time Saddam was considered as an enemy of communist and radical islamist, and even Donald Rumsfeld met with him as part of USA policies against Iran and the Soviet Union in the region.”

The Soviets bitched about the missles we deployed in Turkey as well.
We were trying to create a buffer of “friendlies” that would allow the U.S. to monitor the build up of the Soviet military, and in the process made some questionable alliances.
In order to stop the spread of communism anything was fair game.

Posted by: Rocky at February 16, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #126160

Rocky

Remember 0.47%. That is the amount of Saddam’s weapons contributed by the U.S. The rest is commentary.

Posted by: Jack at February 16, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #126221

Jack,

“Remember 0.47%. That is the amount of Saddam’s weapons contributed by the U.S. The rest is commentary.”

That .47% may have helped keep him there but it didn’t help put him there.

Posted by: Rocky at February 17, 2006 1:25 AM
Comment #126226

Jack,
Sounds like we have a threshold for evil. 0.47%. Since that amount is small enough not to matter, surely we can go ahead and supply Osama bin Laden with the same 0.47%. Perhaps a few crates of Stinger missiles would be enough to bump up to the 0.47% border. Throw in a picture of Rumsfeld shaking OBL’s hand for good measure, maybe provide Al Qaida with a little intelligence on US troop dispositions in Afghanistan… you know… as long as it only helps a teeny weeny little bit.

Posted by: phx8 at February 17, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #126743

Phx8

Many liberals have given up religion and transfered their puritanical impulses to politics. So that means that any taint on the U.S., no matter how small is treated like original sin. Only this sort of belief could make 0.46% (I made a mistake with the 0.47) such a big deal. Beyond that, when you consider the alternative was the Iranian theocrats, a tilt toward Iraq that prevented their victory does not seem out of line.

But to the new secular puritans, anything except perfect grace for the U.S. means hellfire.

Posted by: Jack at February 17, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #127490

>>Many liberals have given up religion and transfered their puritanical impulses to politics.

Jack,

Being religious, like you apparently are, does not mean you are morally superior. Some of the rottenest individuals claim spiritual superiority. I’ve never subscribed to any religion…not when I was foolishly a Republican, nor when I woke up one day a Democrat. Religion is okay, if it’s your bag, but is not necessary for a moral lifestyle. Politics ain’t religion, and religion ain’t politics.

We do have lots of folks who want to mix ‘em, but all that does is make things messier than they have to be, and compromise virtually impossible.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 3:52 PM
Post a comment