Democrats & Liberals Archives

Nothing But Grandstanding

President Bush is finally interested in the Israeli-Palestinian problem — after years of keeping his hands off and saying “the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.” This is nothing but political grandstanding.

The idea that Bush will solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem before the end of his term is ludicrous for one big glaring reason: The Palestinian that they are negotiating with, Mahmoud Abbas, does not speak for all -- or even most -- Palestinians. Abbas (and Fatah) runs the West Bank, and Hamas runs Gaza.

Another reason for pessimism is that Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, is negotiating from a position of weakness. His recent military defeat in Lebanon does not inspire the awe in which Israel was regarded during the 1979 negotiations with Egypt after the Yom Kippur War. Olmert has credibility problems both at home and abroad.

No, this is nothing but grandstanding -- and dangerous grandstanding, at that. When these talks fail, Abbas will be in an even weaker position than he is now, potentially robbing the Palestinians of a voice of moderation.

Posted by American Pundit at November 26, 2007 6:31 PM
Comments
Comment #239298

AP

Right on. This is the most incompetent administration ever, both in domestic policy and foreign affairs. A responsible Congress would have impeached both George and Dick a long time ago. Unfortunately, we no longer have any responsible branches of government.

Posted by: mental wimp at November 26, 2007 6:49 PM
Comment #239299

AP… you are correct, of course.

One wonders if for future lame-duck U.S. Presidents, entering the last year of his/her term, trying to ‘broker peace in the Middle East’ will be an early 21st century fad started by Gee-Dub’s predecessor, Slick Willy Clinton, in an effort to boost his/her legacy for future generations… even if they do lack substance?

Both such efforts have been/will be a bit silly, to be sure.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at November 26, 2007 6:53 PM
Comment #239306

Doug,

What are you talking about? Clinton began the process that resulted in the Oslo Accords in 1993. The most successful Middle East negotiations were conducted by Carter, and resulted in the Camp David Accords & a peace treaty between Egypt & Israel signed in 1979.

Bush #41 began the Madrid Conference near the end of his term. It was a good effort with a lot of international cooperation, even if it did ultimately bog down.

The current effort led by Bush is absurd for several reasons, and I think pretty much everyone knows it. Why would the rest of the world sign up for the Bush Neocon/Likudnik agenda? But the incompetence & ineffectiveness of the Bush administration does not mean previous administrations were the same.

Posted by: phx8 at November 26, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #239310

American Pundit, you have so many double-standards and strange premises at work here that it’s hard to know where to begin.

Funny, isn’t it, that after the miraculous achievements of Carter and Clinton, there should be any problems left for Bush to even take on.

If nothing can be done because “Mahmoud Abbas does not speak for all Palestinians” or because Ehud Olmert is a weak leader, then why SHOULD we attempt to do anything? Why didn’t negotiations work when when Arafat and Ariel Sharon, two leaders who enjoyed a great deal of support in comparison to their replacements, were running the show and Democrats were in charge of American foreign policy?

The fact is that the efforts of previous administrations (all administrations—not just Democratic or Republican ones) have failed miserably in this area because there are circumstances in play here which are completely beyond the ability of America or the “international community” to solve.

Also, I somehow doubt that the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel had nearly as much to do with Carter as Egypt’s repeated military defeats at the hands of Israel’s armed forces.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 26, 2007 7:41 PM
Comment #239314

L.O.,
Please. The Yom Kippur War was fought between Israel, Egypt, AND Syria in 1973. The Camp David Accords occurred in 1978, and the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty was signed in 1979.

Egypt regained the Sinai from Israel. In turn, Israel made peace with its largest & most powerful opponent. Both sides needed peace. Neither Egypt nor Israel could afford another war that costly, and neither the US nor the USSR could afford to be brought into direct confrontation in the Middle East.

Posted by: phx8 at November 26, 2007 8:14 PM
Comment #239316
Funny, isn’t it, that after the miraculous achievements of Carter and Clinton, there should be any problems left for Bush to even take on.

YES, Indeed. It’s good to see you all have finally found a sense of humor!


So! Let’s see the stats!

Day 1 First day of the report.
American Pundant

No, this is nothing but grandstanding

Doug Langworthy

Both such efforts have been/will be a bit silly, to be sure.

phx8

The current effort led by Bush is absurd for several reasons, and I think pretty much everyone knows it.

mental wimp

Right on.


OK! There we have it! Day 1 !!! Very Constructive!! It’s a good thing we have Democratics around to really hash out a proposal.



Posted by: Weary Willie at November 26, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #239318

Alot of the stubbornness of the players has to do with age. Many starters are still in the game.

The middle east will outgrow this just as Europe did.


A Preemptive solution is must less costly.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 26, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #239320

Phx8, Israel “lost” the Sinai Peninsula during the few few days of the Yom Kippur war, but by the end of the war they’d crossed the Suez Canal, were only about 60 miles from Cairo, and were only stopped from demolishing the remainder of Egypt’s forces by outside diplomatic pressure. Especially from the US who didn’t want the problems that would have come from Israel occupying Egypt as well as Palestine, and who saw in saving Egypt a chance to force concessions from them—such as recognizing Israel.

However you spin it, Egypt simply did not recognize Israel because somebody asked them nicely. They gave everything they had in the Yom Kippur war and were able to achieve a somewhat favorable diplomatic settlement as the expense of having very nearly been destroyed. No wonder they were willing to negotiate.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 26, 2007 9:11 PM
Comment #239321

a ,

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 26, 2007 9:17 PM
Comment #239324

Pundit,
You are very correct about this administration grandstanding. However, this administration does do other things very well. They divide the country, they scare the country, they appoint totally incompetant people to important positions, and overall have been incompetant.

Is there anyone who can tell me just one thing that this administration has done correctly and not “mucked up?” That is other than lie-lie-lie.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at November 26, 2007 9:43 PM
Comment #239327

L.O.,
The “diplomatic” intervention was the threat of direct intervention by the USSR.

Both the US & USSR did not wish to be drawn directly into conflict with one another.

The Israelis correctly calculated that they could not count on defeating the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, and others forever. They pulled the linch pin from the Arab threat by settling with the Egyptians.

The most successful Middle East negotiations in our lifetime were conducted by Jimmy Carter.

Weary Willie,
There is a lot of work to be done in the Middle East. US policy is in tatters. Bush sided with the Neocons and the Likudniks, and today, we see the results. It will take a long, long time to recover. Sorry that is the way it is, but that is the way it is.

Posted by: phx8 at November 26, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #239331

Phx8, you’re right up to a point. The USSR had a significant interest in the control of the Suez Canal, which western Europe especially depended on economically. They didn’t want it controlled by Israel, a US ally, and were hoping to put a strangle-hold on it themselves. They had previously supported Egypt’s seizure of the canal and supplied arms to Egypt and the other Arab states throughout the Arab-Israel wars.

It’s highly doubtful, however, that they’d have gone to war with either Israel or the United States at that point because their strategic objectives were ALSO going to be lost as a result of an armistice. No matter what, they were going to lose. One effect of the Yom Kippur cease fire, after all, was that Soviet influence over Egypt was supplanted by American influence.

Jimmy Carter did absolutely nothing of importance. All of the important events on the ground had already taken place during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Maybe we’ll see something similar in Iraq someday. A peaceful and prosperous Iraqi state that Democratic administrations can take credit for by simply being in office after events that others have already set in motion.

If the sun comes up under the watch of a Democrat, I’m sure that he (or she) will not fail to take credit for it.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 26, 2007 10:29 PM
Comment #239332
Is there anyone who can tell me just one thing that this administration has done correctly and not “mucked up?

Steal elections.

Jimmy Carter did absolutely nothing of importance.

Carter started us down the road to independence from oil…too bad Ronnie Raygun put us back on the oil trough.

Posted by: Rachel at November 26, 2007 10:39 PM
Comment #239336
Carter started us down the road to independence from oil…too bad Ronnie Raygun put us back on the oil trough.

And what, pray tell, did Carter ever do to start us down the road to independence from oil?

Did he invent some kind of engine that runs on nothing but hot air and liberal good intentions?

Because he sure didn’t do anything else. He definitely didn’t help boost domestic oil production or make it possible to generate more nuclear power. Quite the opposite.

He was good at talking, I’ll give you that. Still is. But so far, not even our best scientists have found a way to make the noises that come out of Jimmy Carter’s mouth (or for that matter, the ego of Bill Clinton) make our cars run or our airplanes fly.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 26, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #239337

I don’t understand, on one thread we argue that the surge appears to be successful, and deserves a limited chance. However, however, however, there needs to be a political resolution for true success in Iraq.

So Bush reaches out for a political resolution elsewhere and the rules don’t apply. Bush is attempting to make a name for himself.

If anyone has been a lame duck, then Bush fits the bill (hahaha I crack myself up). However, there should be general support for any efforts, that come with the power and authority of POTUS. Why would we not hope that POTUS could have some success here?

Posted by: Edge at November 26, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #239339

It is good that Bush has attempted to address this problem. It is humorous considering his previous actions and statements concerning Israel and Palestine. Also it does seem every President tries to address the Palestinian/Israeli conflict eventually.

The dynamics have changed somewhat in this region. Perhaps nothing will come from it. But at least the President is trying something new, diplomacy.

Posted by: Cube at November 26, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #239346

L.O.,
“One effect of the Yom Kippur cease fire, after all, was that Soviet influence over Egypt was supplanted by American influence.”

Correct. The events that created the opportunity occurred under Nixon and Ford. The person who took advantage of the opportunity, and replaced Soviet influence with American influence, was Carter.

Edge,
Sure, diplomacy is a great idea. But in this case, it is a day late and a dollar short. Or maybe 7 years late, and $500 billion short.

The problem is that the Bush administration has pursued a foreign policy nearly identical to Israeli right wing foreign policy. This Neocon/Likudnik policy imagined that if the US and Israel used military power then they could defeat Muslim factions by force, and install democratic regimes which would, somehow, be friendly towards the US & Israel, simply by virtue of being democracies. This miraculous shift was wishful thinking.

Afghanistan. Iraq. Ousting Syria from Lebanon. Democratic elections in Palestine, resulting in victory for Hamas. The US backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Time and time again, as the US and Israel asserted power in the name of democracy (in theory, anyway), both faced the horrifying realization that the vast majority of people in the Middle East detested US and Israeli policies of exerting power, mostly because the underlying motives consistently revealed a deep and disgusting hypocrisy.

When push comes to shove, and when people unfriendly to the US threaten to take power through democratic elections, the US panics. Because under Bush, democracy is not the goal. “Democracy” is merely a means for the US to open markets to multinational economic exploitation and domination. It is a means for establishing permanent military bases.

If democracy were the end, rather than the means, then we will have to accept some highly unpleasant consequences.

In my opinion, we are better off accepting those consequences, because in the long run, backing democracy and freedom and liberty and separation of church and state and, yes, as Jimmy Carter called it, Human Rights; backing that will ultimately pay off.

Posted by: phx8 at November 27, 2007 1:08 AM
Comment #239348

AP, this is not grandstanding. That is strategy. You see Bush is hard into his legacy year. The strategy is this: ‘Restart talks with Bush as mediator. Then, in 5, 10, or 50 years, when there is peace between the nation of Palestine and Israel, Bush and his revisionist historians can trace the success back to Bush restarting negotiations after ignoring the situation for nearly 7 years.

By hook or crook, he is going to leave something positive in his legacy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 27, 2007 2:16 AM
Comment #239352


What I noticed was on the day that Bush started Middle East talks, he abandoned democracy in Iraq.

The one positive thing in his legacy is that it only took Laura six years to teach him to read and speak.

Posted by: jlw at November 27, 2007 3:11 AM
Comment #239354

‘Bush and his revisionist historians can trace the success back to Bush restarting negotiations after ignoring the situation for nearly 7 years.’
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 27, 2007 02:16 AM

Staying out of the way is at times the best strategy.
Pushing people who are not ready to talk - to talk - will not always get the job done. In fact, it can make matters worse if either side comes to the negotiations and is less than honest about agreements they make - because they were ‘forced’ into coming to the table to begin with.
Sometimes it is best to wait for the two sides to decide for themselves that they are ready to talk while saying - ‘When you are ready, I’m here to help.’

Posted by: Marie at November 27, 2007 7:51 AM
Comment #239355

It is good see that Bush is satisfied with futile gestures this time, sparing us another tragic display of incompetence.

In WSJ, Bret Stephens pointed out that Condi Rice is now following in the footsteps of Nancy Pelosi.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010912

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 27, 2007 8:13 AM
Comment #239365

LO
Denying Carters accomplishment is pure partisan nonsense. I am sick of the right always knocking America.Sadat also deserves a tremendious debt of gratitude.He gave his life for peace. Are you going to deny that because he was an Arab ?He and Begin recieved a Nobel Peace prize for their efforts. Are you going to belittle that because Al Gore,another great American, also recieved one?Sickening just how low the right will go.

Posted by: BillS at November 27, 2007 12:05 PM
Comment #239380

I forced myself to watch “Lifeline” last night which featured a day in the life of Barak Obama on the campaign trail in Iowa. I was hoping to discover his appeal now that the polls show him with higher ratings than Hillary. I was disappointed. It seems that Barak’s claim to the Presidency is with his oft mentioned phrase, “I am for change”. Well, big deal, aren’t we all. I kept waiting for the description of that change, but I guess it couldn’t be done in a half-hour. Why is he so popular with libs? What change is he talking about and how will he accomplish whatever “change” is? In his previous speeches and in the debates I have heard him talking about spending big money on more entitlements and his vast international experience based upon living overseas when he was a child. What am I missing here?

Posted by: Jim at November 27, 2007 1:50 PM
Comment #239382

I think your missing a link to the subject of this thread for one thing.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 27, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #239420

Marie, nice comment. Too bad it has no basis in reality or fact. The fact is, the Israel Palestine situation is one which Bush has not engaged in for 7 years except to say he is for a Palestinian State, and therefore, it is one area of foreign policy he still hasn’t bolloxed up, yet. Making it a prime target for his year of legacy effort.

The Israelis and Palestinians did NOT come knocking on the White House door begging for Bush to mediate their disputes. Quite the contrary. Which nullifies your speculation that Bush has honored a well thought out and planned strategy for the Israel-Palestine situation these last seven years.

Making headway between Israel and Palestinians is like making headway between the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds in Iraq. The majority want peace. The majority of each side want the upper hand over the other, out of fear, mistrust, and a history of perceived assaults from the other camps.

If Iraq is any indication, time does not heal all wounds. What is needed are superordinate goals. But, that word is too big and long for the likes GW Bush, so, progress is extremely remote, at best. Superordinate goals are those which adversaries share and desperately want to achieve but, cannot achieve for themselves without the cooperation and assistance of their adversaries.

This concept is as foreign to the Bush White House as the Jedi’s were to the Sith Lord.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 27, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #239446

Jeesh Mr. Remer! That’s about the biggest turd of a response to a very sound suggestion by Marie I’ve heard hit the floor of this esteemed blog site yet!

Staying out of the way is at times the best strategy.
Pushing people who are not ready to talk - to talk - will not always get the job done.
Sometimes it is best to wait…

This is a good time to remind opponents of this president
That “stay the course” did have a constructive endgame attached to it.

GWBush knew he would be ridiculed and hated and he stayed the course against purely domestic political pressure to win a chance at a more peaceful world enlightened by an opportunity to enjoy freedom.

I’m not pulling your leg, folks! George
Bush will be known for his stratagy and Iraq will be a U.S. ally as strong as Germany and Japan.

I think it’s mostly due to the fact that the Democratics have thrown in their best and last and have come up short of results.

It was, and still is a bitter feud, but the worst is over both here and abroad. The facts appear to support the long term stratagy of this President as being sound and that U.S. politics does not drive this debate any longer.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 27, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #239451

Talk about turds.

George Bush’s “stay the course” strategy wasted lives, time and money when all were at a premium.
Security in Iraq could have been had years ago, but no, we had to stay the course.

Dumb as a bag of hammers.

Posted by: Rocky at November 27, 2007 9:00 PM
Comment #239454

WW, Marie’s suggestions could be commendable in a number of situations. Nothing wrong there. Suggesting they were the backbone of Bush’s approach to this situation for 7 years simply bears no resemblance to reality or the facts extant.

The far more plausible explanation is this:

This is Bush’s last year to salvage some piece of legacy in history as having at least started something in a positive direction, while leaving to others the heavy lifting to accomplish it. That is the best Bush has to offer. Better than nothing. And adding something positive to his credit is precisely why the move is being made this late in the game.

To have begun this process earlier would have ended like Iraq, botched or interminably quagmired. One need look no further than Bush’s language and diplomatic absence of proficiency to see that likelihood. Hence, he waits until the last year in office to appear as a prime mover for a process that will take many years after leaving office to complete, if at all.

That’s the ticket. Brilliantly compensatory and Rovian. Oh, sorry, can we still say Rove in this country without being filled with remorse?

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 27, 2007 9:20 PM
Comment #239455

Rocky, I’ve heard that expression before.

Suggesting they were the backbone of Bush’s approach to this situation for 7 years simply bears no resemblance to reality or the facts extant.

..as you see them.

Did you forget GWBush was a contravercial president to begin with? Supreme court and all that?

And the media pounding home the unique circumstance in the election?

And then GUess What!?

We now call it 9/11.

We’re all waving flags until the 2004 election process begins. Then we start waving Ds and Rs and the other side of the world waits and dies while we make up our minds.

Do you know why the rest of the world waited and died while we made up our minds?

It wasn’t because the Democratic Party Leadership started waving gavels around! It was because the Democratic party, once elected, paid for the war as is, as per George W. Bush.

No amount of words can deny that.



Posted by: Weary Willie at November 27, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #239459
George Bush’s “stay the course” strategy wasted lives, time and money when all were at a premium.

Rocky,
How can you say all were at a premium when people get paid to vacume human life into a bag and dispose of them like garbage?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 27, 2007 10:08 PM
Comment #239469

AP,

Good to see you post. I’m actually thinking though that this may be GW’s shining moment. Maybe I should say his second shining moment.

I remember his first address to the nation after 9/11 and he was very human. He didn’t get quite back to that level of humanity but I think his heart is in the right place.

Or maybe I have lived in Kansas too long :>)

Posted by: KansasDem at November 27, 2007 11:47 PM
Comment #239486

WW, no, GW Bush will be remembered as the greatest example of the Peter Principle to ever hold office in the White House. The dictionary will read, Peter Principle - see Pres. George WhadIJusSay Bush.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 28, 2007 4:02 AM
Comment #239500

WW,

“How can you say all were at a premium when people get paid to vacume human life into a bag and dispose of them like garbage?”

So the best you can do is change the subject?

America, and the “coalition” went into Iraq undermanned and under equipped, with no true plan other than to depose Saddam. When chaos broke out and the looting started Rumsfeld’s response was basically “oops”.
Many folks died needlessly because of the lack of a plan, and because in our hurry to take Baghdad we failed to secure what we took on the way (any child that has played “Risk” knows that).
Hindsight is truly 20/20, but we could have been much further down the road to success in Iraq, with much less loss of life, and much less expense, with any plan other than to “just stay the course”.

Posted by: Rocky at November 28, 2007 12:14 PM
Comment #239522

I think “Stay The Course” was to wait until the Democratic party leadership showed what their true motives were.
Stay the course until the democratics were exposed as political opportunists who put the quest for power above the lives of the soldiers fighting in that war.
George Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. He could not have admitted a mistake because the democratics were ready to pounce on any weakness. His only option was to hold his ground until the democratics shot themselves in the foot. Which they did.
Now the lie that got them control of the congress is out in the open and the shameless proclamation that the war was lost is out for everyone to see. The democratics are the ones who have lost and George Bush can now get the job done without the constant undermining of his effort.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2007 4:32 PM
Comment #239526

willie,

“I think “Stay The Course” was to wait until the Democratic party leadership showed what their true motives were.
Stay the course until the democratics were exposed as political opportunists who put the quest for power above the lives of the soldiers fighting in that war.”

I think that is such a ridiculous statement I don’t even know if I can justify it with a response.

Posted by: Rocky at November 28, 2007 5:00 PM
Comment #239543

Did you read the rest of it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2007 7:06 PM
Comment #239544

I did Weary, so let me add to Rocky’s comment with this “What a crock!!”

Posted by: Jane Doe at November 28, 2007 7:11 PM
Comment #239547

willie,

Yes I read the whole thing, and the last part didn’t make any more sense than the first part.

There’s no there there.

Posted by: Rocky at November 28, 2007 8:03 PM
Comment #239550

Rocky, You are absolutely right!
There is no there there. Not anywhere in my post is the word there.
I read the rules :) They did not require the use of the word “there”.

Yes I read the whole thing, and the last part didn’t make any more sense than the first part.

This could be the result of ignorance. An unwillingness to entertain a different point of view!

Ignorance may be to harsh a word. Bias, prejudiced. Those may work.


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2007 8:59 PM
Comment #239554

willie,

Unwillingness to entertain a different point of view???

After the fall of Baghdad this administration sat idly by while ammo dumps sat unsecured. Ammo dumps that probably were the source of explosives for the IEDs that took many more American lives. Sat idly by while the Iraqis rioted.
Sat idly by while parts of Iraq we had already taken, but not secured, fell back into the hands of those that would do our soldiers harm, so that we might have to waste yet more lives retaking those cities.

Biased, yes, you’re damn right I’m biased against the half assed war this administration fought in Iraq.
I am also biased against every blunder and bullshit excuse offered up for the deaths of every American soldier, man and woman alike while we “stayed the course”.
We are the pre-eminent military power on the planet. We have spent 4.5 years, thousands of lives, and untold billions of dollars attempting secure a country the size of California, and it’s still not secure.

Give me a freaking break.

Posted by: Rocky at November 28, 2007 9:27 PM
Comment #239644

President Bush did what he set out to do. He put on the flight suit he was entitled to wear and landed on an aircraft carrier to say the mission was accomplished.

And it was. But the democratics didn’t see it that way. They saw a mistake.

So GW batoned down the hatches against a political war at home and I think his troops did too.

It was the deal of the cards. It would be nice to know who was dealing those cards but I’m just standing up for the decisions of the player, not the dealer.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2007 8:38 PM
Comment #239677

willie,

“He put on the flight suit he was entitled to wear and landed on an aircraft carrier to say the mission was accomplished.”

Yep he did, except that was what is called “grandstanding”, and it looked as silly as Dukakis driving that tank.
Oh, and BTW, we were later to find out that the mission wasn’t accomplished, not by a long shot.

“And it was. But the democratics didn’t see it that way. They saw a mistake.”

So did more than 36 million people around the planet who protested our invasion if Iraq.
But, Bush said he knew what he was doing. Too bad later we all found out he didn’t


Mr Bush also hailed the Palestinian elections as “Democracy” until Hamas was elected. So it would appear he is all for “Democracy” except when it doesn’t go how he wants it.

Spreading democracy around the globe is all well and good, but we don’t get to pick and choose how it works. That’s up to the people in those countries to pick who they want to lead them. I thought that’s what democracy was all about.
If America gets to pick the leaders it wants, it isn’t really about democracy then, is it?
What happens when we find out that the Iraqis want their own form of democracy, and it doesn’t include us?

“So GW batoned down the hatches against a political war at home and I think his troops did too.”

Gee, I thought they were America’s troops, not George Bush’s and they were fighting for all of us, not just for one man’s agenda.

“It was the deal of the cards. It would be nice to know who was dealing those cards but I’m just standing up for the decisions of the player, not the dealer.”

George Bush, and Rumsfeld dealt the hand we are playing with, and now isn’t the time for him to bitch about the cards.

Posted by: Rocky at November 30, 2007 11:08 AM
Comment #239737

George Bush isn’t bitching about the cards. He knew what cards he was getting all along.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #239738

When I inlisted I was presented with a chain of command, not a list of rights.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2007 10:14 PM
Comment #239743

Ever hear the rant threatening to sue George? I gave it to CNN and I think they hosted it awhile ago. Check the url to download. Long but worth a listen. Here it is.

Posted by: ve7kfm at November 30, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #239758

Is that the rant that’s been going on for the last 7 years?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2007 1:26 AM
Comment #240869

CAUTION:

The earlier post by “VE7KFM” was NOT posted by me, Karol F. MADERA, the unique holder of that licenced Canadian radio-amateur call-sign.

Rather, I have reason to believe that it was/is part of a “false flag” disinformation campaign by K3VR, who is a HAMereekan CYBERPATH and more and who has been STALKING me on the WWW and elsewhere for 2+ years….

For a sampling of what hundreds of knowledgeable ~strangers have ~cogently opined, in writing, about K3VR see:

http://members.shaw.ca/karolus/k3vr.htm

and follow the link at the bottom of the page for more….

Karol F. MADERA
VE7KFM

Posted by: VE7KFM at December 17, 2007 12:06 PM
Comment #242298

Golly Karol, why are you so obsessed with this Brian feller? Whyn’t just ask him out for a date if he’s that special?

By the way, love that recording of George admitting he’s a closet liberal. The feller who can’t speak English is an illegal alien, am I right?

Posted by: Tom at January 5, 2008 9:53 AM
Comment #243407

We got a live one! This Karol’s obsessed alright. I didn’t know whether to throw up or call RCMP when I read his homosexual banter about sucking off the FCC and other craziness like the time he was abducted by alien space craft and subjected to assorted anal probes. Just goes to show Canada has its share of nuts too!

Jim

Posted by: Jim Swenson at January 21, 2008 12:59 AM
Comment #243952

For a sampling of what hundreds of knowledgeable ~strangers have ~cogently opined, in writing, about Karol Madera see, Karol’s website and thank you for visiting!

Posted by: Mrak Mrgano at January 26, 2008 10:48 PM
Comment #244579

Judging from this website Karol Madera seems to be an outspoken gay Canadian socialist who hates Americans. He says Bush should be “rendered to the Hague.” Agree or disagree?

Posted by: Urin VanDerslote at February 4, 2008 10:04 AM
Comment #245448

I agree, judging from his website, Karol Madera seems to be an outspoken gay Canadian socialist who hates Americans. He says Bush should be “rendered to the Hague.”

I find the site attributed to Brian Crow (ve7kfm.com) to be much more organized, readable, and well sourced. Madera’s sources are juvenile at best. Madera also seems mentally deranged IMO.

Posted by: Gerry Saelens at February 16, 2008 1:06 AM
Post a comment