As Ace once said.
Bush naked…This thread just lost control and rolled over.
From what I’ve read they did exactly that, only they said he was physically and intellectually unfit for office. Its a revered political tradition to point out the shortcomings of your opposition. But, I haven’t made any premature judgements. I’m voicing concerns with decisions Jr. has already made. MSU 1978, did a fine job of pointing them out.
The two important differences are that WWII was a just and neccessary response to an unprovoked aggressor, and the War on Terror is a muddled series of retaliations against guerilla forces reacting to OUR activities in their land. And, whereas FDR was pushing his then unpopular (but now hallmarks of American society) progressive social programs, Bush is pushing Reaganomics part deux, further widening economic inequality in this country which is already at its greatest point since the 1920’s.
I have no doubt he’s heeding that advice. He’s shown a real propensity for digging his heels in when he wants to.
For one who has scant regard for GeeDubya, the fall in his approval rating has some grim implications. Mr. Rove, his eminence greasy, is well aware that the one infallible mechanism for increasing political support is war.
Just and necessary to overthrow Saddam Hussein? Maybe it is. It will be interesting to see what this scientist has to say.
It’s all about political ratings long before the next election. That’s it? C’mon, what if Saddam nuked Tel Aviv? That’s a much bigger problem than sagging approval ratings.
If you really think about it, Bush seriously risks his approval ratings no matter what he does.
If he’s running around naked, it’s no wonder his approval ratings have dipped.
Gee, thanks for sharing that image. Excuse me, I have to go make the Yawn That Splashes. Is there any way we can put up a sign to warn away gay guys? They’d have to gouge out thier frontal lobes.
Hmmmm. I’m assuming that, truth is, I really don’t know, not being gay, and all. Should we call Tucker Carlson and check?
What? Oh, come on, he wears a bow tie, for cryin’ out loud!
Alright Beagle, I think you’ve done all the persuading you’re gonna do with Fox News cites. You might have more luck with the Journal or the Economist.
What’s wrong with that cite? It’s just a recounting of events. I saw the story on CNN this morning, too.
Nothing wrong with the story itself that I caught. But Fox isn’t exactly known for its even handed coverage on the War on Terror.
You’re giving me a mental image of Archibald Cox and Irving R. Levine that I just know is going to keep me up tonight.
Ah, “witless spawn” was not a judgement. Thanks.
The Japanese attack on Pearl was in direct response to what the Japanese saw as US provocations in their land, much like ObL; there was argument at the time that the US had goaded the Japanese to war, either intentionally or unintentionally. there were even allegations that FDR knew it was coming. Sound familiar?
There was also debate that there was no reason, even after 12/7, to go to war with Germany. They had not attacked us, after all, and the connection between the two, other than compatible absolutist ideologies, was unclear.
Again, we now see them as “hallmarks of American Society”; at the time they were debated political issues, exactly as Bush’s plan is.
Good. That puts him in with Churchill and Lincoln, too.
Is Bush a great leader? Ask me in 2050. My guess is no.
But don’t pretend that you are doing anything other than condemning him a priori.
cainxinth:
Please, please, please tell me you’re kidding.
Our activities on Al-Qaeda’s land? What land is that…Saudi Arabia, which we were invited into? Afghanistan, which was never touched by the US until the 1998 Africa embassy bombings?
As for WWII being “unprovoked”…I wouldn’t call Pearl Harbor justified, but the Japanese had more reason to be pissed at the US than Al-Qaeda did.
Sound asleep during history class, were you?
There was no issue about going to war with Germany post-Pearl. In a specutacular display of the strategic brilliance which was his forte, Hitler declared war on the US. He wasn’t obligated to under the terms of the TriPartite Pact (the Axis of Two Evils and a Doofus) but he did anyway. Historians still debate whether this was a) stupid or b) amazingly stupid. The best case that could be made for it was that he was hoping for an Eastern Front between Russia and Japan. Didn’t work.
As to the popularity of the New Deal, it was very popular in the largest sense, except for the rich, who thought it was communistic, and with the communists, who thought it wasn’t radical enough. The conservative forces did everything within thier considerable power to sabotage it, and were, overall, somewhat successful. WWII made this all moot.
As to condemning him a priori a quick perusal of his record as Governor of Texas will give you a good rough indicator of his capacity as a Leader of Men. Of course, a lot of that record has been locked away from public eyes. Inquiring minds want to know, but screw 'em.
Probably. When it happens I’ll know for sure.
Would “puking yer guts out” be distinct from “giggling”?
No, it was a judgment, it just wasn’t premature. Does it take you more than two years to make a character call about a person?
To be honest this is a story I’m not very familiar with. If you’d like to tell me I’d like to hear it. But, if I can dig up my recollection of WWII (which is somewhat out of date) I seem to recall a very different Japan that had been expanding its empire before the war even started, taking Korea, Manchuria, and other parts of China. Like Germany they were aggressively pursuing expansion, but their sphere of influence was in the East.
Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea bear little resemblance to the industrial and military powers bent on world conquest of 50 years ago. Of course you think Shrub is the next FDR, so I guess I should expect just about anything.
Debated yes, but still quite popular among the masses. Tax cuts, even ones that will mostly benefit the wealthy are extremely popular. War too, for that matter. The comparison between FDR and Bush Jr. is stretched so thin it’s transparent.
We’ve gone down this road already, great and terrible leaders alike have shown steadfastness in the face of opposition.
I’m not going to apologize for coming to that conclusion sooner than you.
Kidding? I’m afraid not. But before I start rehashing Blum’s “Killing Hope” (which I really can’t recommend enough) would you mind explaining why Japan had a more valid grievence than Middle Easterners do.
I’d say 883 posts would be sufficient to make a character call about a doper. cainxinth. 
:eek: ouch
I’d be hurt if I wasn’t so secure in my online persona. 
Chill out holmes, I called the President dim, not your mom.
cainxinth:
“Middle Easterners”? That’s a pretty wide bunch of people you’re talking about. You might as well talk about “Earthlings” having a legitimate grievance against the US. If the US actually did something to the detriment of Al Qaeda and its leadership prior to any acts of terrorism on their part, please tell us about it.
As for Japan, Japan was angry at the US (and various allies)because the US was involved in an oil embargo to Indochina, which Japan was attempting to conquer (having already conquered China), in order to help the French, who wanted to keep their South East Asian colonies Japan-free.
Chaim Mattis Keller