Another mindless EOB thread.
Let me add to the mindlessness by asking…what the hell does EOB stand for?
Enenies of Bush
As opposed to the “enenies of Clinton” threads we still hear from right-wingers, two years after he left office. But that’s different, right Scylla?
Cite?
Well, some of us would be perfectly happy if Bush had not “applied” for this horrible job then. At any rate, you are a little out-of-date in regards to the salary, as this cite explains:
I imagine they also don’t have a lot of ordinary expenses like we do for food and shelter while they are in the White House. The pension for former Presidents is not so bad either. (Bush probably doesn’t need all of this anyway since he already has gobs of investment income.)
Not to say that I think that being President is easy. I’d hate it personally. If nominated, I will not run and if elected I will not serve. I would accept a nomination/election to Congress or a nomination to the Supreme Court though.
Part of the problem with having a leader with no working knowledge of the history and makeup of the middle east is that he is prone to using words such as “crusade” to describe our planned actions there.
sixseven, how can you reasonably challenge us to outline a plan for perfection that you have determined cannot exist anyway? May I suggest that you are off-base in your rant? The president is not selling running shoes: Just Do It does not work as a plan for world intervention. It is wholly reasonable to object to plans of action that are ill-informed and very likely to worsen the “world condition.” Since you are worried about Castro and “North Korean president Kim,” should we just attack them as well? We’re not “doing” anything at present in regards to them, surely this is the poorer choice when compared to attacking. We’re not “doing” anything about Libya, China, Somalia, genocide in African countries, Isreal and the Palestinians, conflict over Kashmir, and a host of other places and issues. Come on, Bush - Attack!
Scylla’s gotta point, time to say some nice things about GeeDubya. Balance.
He’s very clean.
He is entirely sincere. No, I mean that. He believes every word he says. When he stood there with Tony the Poodle and said he had total proof that Saddam had the bomb, he believed it. I don’t think he knew that the report he was citing didn’t exist. And then I wondered why he didn’t ever explain that lapse. How could he not, I wondered. How could he stand there and lie like that and not even try to weasel out? And now I know.
He didn’t tell a lie, because he believed it was true. And when the fact was thrust into his attention, he just shrugged and kept on going. Because it doesn’t really matter, he already knows the truth and will not be confused by alternatives. Things you and I think of as “facts”.
Case in point: once again, tonight, he connects AL Queda and Iraq. There is not a shred of evidence that this is the case. Doesn’t matter. He knew within moments after 9/11 that Saddam was responsible. He hasn’t the slightest hint of self doubt. He also talks about that dreadful weapons lab in NE Iraq. Even though reporters have been there and revealed that it is nothing more than derelict buildings. Doesn’t matter.
I don’t think he has ever changed his mind.
And now, God help us, he believes he is a Leader of Men.
Faith based government.
No. I think those would be equally as stupid if they existed. Where are these Clinton hating threads that you speak of? I don’t see them. Perhaps you would provide me some links to them.
Maybe they’ve been bumped off the front page by the six current active idiotic Bush/Republican rants on the first page of GD.
We’ve got Bush, Dick, and Colin running the show, it looks to me like someone’s going to get a good screwing.
Who in this group has any experience with international relations?
Who gives Saddam?
Not in the absence of any known new information that might have caused him to have changed his mind so totally, it doesn’t. Whaddaya got?
If you actually read the New York Times Magazine article which spawned the pseudo-quote that launched this thread you would discover that one of the principal points of the article concerns the disagreement between the Cheney/Pentagon faction and the Powell/State Department faction over the issue of how Iraq is to be governed after the war. The article concludes that the Powell faction has won this particular round because Bush has decided in favor of the State Department plan.
Combine that with this article describing what are, I believe, the pretty well known positions of Powell vs Cheney on the War; namely that Cheney favors an invasion while Powell has favored non-military options. Consider that Cheney appears to have won that particular round because Bush has decided in his favor.
What does it add up to? It adds up to the fact that Bush has surrounded himself with a group of highly competent people who are offering him a variety of views and options on how to deal with affairs and that Bush is the one ultimately calling the shots.
I’m sure that Powell agrees with Bush every time Bush agrees with Powell. What more would you ask?
OK, others have pointed out the problems with relying on information supplied by someone who was not present at the occasion.
The other problem being that Sunni and Shi’ite are not different kinds of Arabs, they are different kinds of Muslims.
Why can’t these people get their slurs right?
Regards,
Shodan
zig, you’re suggesting that Bush does not himself have an overarching conceptual framework within which his staff can operate and hash out disagreements between themselves. Instead, you’re confirming Bush’s lurching between differing factions that he can’t or won’t lead or coordinate. Just look at the confused results.
“A variety of views or options”, offered by these people, well, perhaps I’d best leave that to elucidator and his superior skills at sarcasm. Just this: That “variety” has never seriously included a non-military option (Powell wasn’t part of the decision-making process until he learned to love Big Brother), or even a look at anything other than Iraq as US Problem #1.
Part of the problem with having a leader with no working knowledge of the history and makeup of the middle east is that he is prone to using words such as “crusade” to describe our planned actions there.
sixseven, how can you reasonably challenge us to outline a plan for perfection that you have determined cannot exist anyway? May I suggest that you are off-base in your rant? The president is not selling running shoes: Just Do It does not work as a plan for world intervention. It is wholly reasonable to object to plans of action that are ill-informed and very likely to worsen the “world condition.” Since you are worried about Castro and “North Korean president Kim,” should we just attack them as well? We’re not “doing” anything at present in regards to them, surely this is the poorer choice when compared to attacking. We’re not “doing” anything about Libya, China, Somalia, genocide in African countries, Isreal and the Palestinians, conflict over Kashmir, and a host of other places and issues. Come on, Bush - Attack!
(posted by hetor the Barbarian)
As I said before, if you think you know more than the president, the government, the FBI, CIA, etc. etc, and if you are better informed than they are, I challenge you to join them. I know an FBI man who I’m sure would be happy to give you the information on how to join his team. And we’d all benefit!
Additionally, your “use” “of” “quotation” “marks” of certain words “you apparently” “don’t agree with” “is kind of annoying”
Cheney was Ford’s chief of staff, Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War, and CEO of Halliburton.
Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Don Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, and ambassador to NATO.
Condoleeza Rice was a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Security at Stanford University. She was Director and Senior Director of Soviet and Eastern European Affairs in the National Security Council. In 1986, she was an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations.
In other words, they all have experience in international relations.
Did you need cites on any of this?
Regards,
Shodan
you’d think with all those credentials that they’d have some clue about what they are doing.
Since you feel qualified to declare them all incompetent, I must assume that you have a body of experience that puts the collective credentials of Bush’s advisors to shame. Surely you wouldn’t be so arrogant as to claim they don’t know what they’re doing, unless you’re some sort of reknowned expert in foreign relations - especially when you consider that they’re privvy to a helluva lot more information than you’ll ever be. So, may I see your credentials? Or would you care to withdraw that incredibly assinine cheap shot?
Jeff