It’s easy as apple pie to villify the French. Much harder to do that with our well-loved, language-sharing British brothers. I believe Tony Blair backed Bush on the war because he honestly shared the same delusion as Bush that it was the right course of action, not because he secretly thought it was a bad move but was afraid of consequences and repercussions from the Yanks.
This is primarily because the British troops are responsible for the Shiite south, where the population is still supportive of the political process (i.e., supportive of majority politics that keeps them in charge of the Sunnis) and the removal of the regime that had kept them underheel (or under dirt) for many decades. Roughly the same situation as for American troops in Kurdish areas, where there is little unrest except where there is conflict with Sunni populations, such as in Mosul. The Brits are widely praised for their soft-handed approach, but the American military takes it on the chin because mostly they’re the ones standing in the middle of the civil war in the center of the country.
Anyway, GWB defies the laws of physics by sucking and blowing at the same time.
Everyone who has heard this and other tidbits of Bushlogic should be horrified. But wait, what is this - the fact that for every 300 hours of Rush and co. being broadcast on the daily radio shows, only 5 hours of “liberal” information is being put out there. Why? Because radio stations are owned by huge corporations, who are all in bed with GWB and his family and friends. If you are interested, read the article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the recent Vanity Fair. It is well-written and chock full of inside info. Like the fact that once a week, the media people are told which words to punch in their newscast all week - “It was a bold move by the President.” “In a strong show of support, the Transylvanian
government sent 3 soldiers to Iraq.”
The question is not “are we paranoid” but “are we paranoid enough”? That one goes both ways, I think.
I agreee with a slight caveat. We need to define “right course of action.” IOW, if its taken to mean neocon dreams as defined by the PNAC agenda, yes, indeed, I do think that both Blair and Aznar, bought into the illusion and bet heavily on coming up roses once the hurdles (read: reality) were cleared. Meaning that there was a lot of political and economic capital to be made by betting on Bush’s surreal USA.
The US consolidates its status as the world’s sole hyperpower and England/Blair and Spain/Aznar bask in its reflected glory.
Because it has to do with a little thing called truth and integrity and not ideologic, insular, party line, solidaritous, robotic behavior. I do believe it is obvious that there are some who simply don’t share those values–of truth and personal integrity. You can protest that charge all you like, but actions are what count here. The words are hollow.
insular? Wow. I’d say your comments prove a real thick insular universe.
Moving on…
I haven’t had a chance to read through all the posts yet, but has the word impeach come up yet?
The congressmen that are asking for an explanation from the president used words like lack of “integrity” and “misleading facts” in reference to the admins’ representation of Iraq to congress. A first class impeachable offense. I believe those words are even used specifically within the protocol for impeachable offenses. Purposely misleading congress, as well as personal (or collective) character issues unbecoming of the office.
And other business…
Does anyone still feel like vigorously defending the idea of a ‘liberal’ press? There is NO such thing as teflon concerning these presidents. Nothing sticks when nothing is thrown. If you through enough mud, something will always stick. If you throw small amounts or none, there’s plenty of time to wipe it off.
I am in complete argeement with debaser here. Bricker bashing is truly funny. What’s the point. If he is making an argument that is ludicrous or not even addressing the issue, then why does he draw so much attention. Bricker may be a great guy and all (I have no idea, not around enough to), but his ‘totem’ argument was clearly and summarily dismissed without a reply (unless you count ‘I don’t reply to gabage’ as his reply. btw, what the heck. I didn’t see the garbage. huh???) and therefore his arguments have been dismissed. There’s nothing wrong with a counterargument. Problem is there has to be one. Without one, the response should be toward the original and nothing else. I don’t mean to sound preachy, but this whole diversion–read digression–seems odd. Why let someone without evidence detract from the issue. It almost seems as if the crowd doesn’t have enough conviction in its own ideas to allow the ‘noise’ to quiet of its own accord. Debaser must be right. It is a case of Bricker bashing. Chest puffing. I’m sorry, but Bush provides plenty of ammo to have a full chest, we don’t need to scream at one of his soldiers (just working on more righteous indignation?). Let the soldier be the soldier and you do your job. It’s clear there are no conversions here. IMHO.
Well, yes, you do indeed sound quite “preachy,” because as someone who has actually read the whole thread, I find that absolutely nothing that Bricker has posted has gone unrebutted – including copious facts and cites that, not surprisingly, have been totally ignored. OTOH, I’ll note that the topic that has gone all but ignored by our steemed friend Bricker and the rest of Bush’s army of drones, is the original question put forth by the OP. Not like he is the only one asking it:
Should the highly steemed Bricker, care to stop beating around the Bush and tackle the issue at hand head on, I’m all ears. But as long as his only defense continues to be directly drawn from The School Of The Three Blind Monkeys, scorn is all he is getting from yours truly. Nothing else he deserves, IMNSHO.
I think, elucidator, why the dog won’t bark is because it won’t do any good. And I say this will all sadness. Even when Bush’s approval ratings fall to the 40s and 30s, even if a majority of Americans call for action, I don’t think anything will happen. The Republicans control all - even if a majority called for impeachment, it would never go through because there aren’t enough Democrats. And so nothing will change, and we’ll have to continue with this clown for three more years. Three more long years. Three more hopeless, depressing, horrible years in which we see the name of our good and beloved country increasingly besmirched as Bush and his cronies drag it through more and more mudholes.
For what it’s worth, the article was printed in the L.A. Daily News. It was buried in the back, among the other “unimportant” minor articles. Something of this seriousness should have been front page stuff.