As offensive as it was at the time, he decided to go one better and bump this old thread with this post:
You fucking cretin. Upwards of five thousand people are dead, and you use it as an excuse to gloat how you think you made some kind of point? Should Bush not hunt down the terrorists? Maybe you think they should go free?
What kind of asinine reasoning allows you to think that Gore would have been able to stop the attacks? Does he have magical powers that I didn’t know about? These attacks have been in planning for years possibly, definitely before Bush was elected, yet you seem to think that Gore’s magical protection shield would have saved the WTC. How about you let go of the election long enough to find your brain? I think it ran down the inside of your pants legs the last time you opened the orifice you use to communicate.
“Fucking cretin,” used in this context, is an insult to the fucking cretins of the world, all of whom want nothing to do with curious george, who is far too idiotic to qualify as one of their number.
curious george, how dare you suggest that an attack that’s been in the planning stages for over a year, at the very least, had anything to do with Bush being President? How dare you demean the importance and depth of this absolute tragedy by injecting your worthless opinions?
Certainly Bush is not the perfect President. It’s clear he doesn’t have the Reagan or Clinton ability to connect with the nation. But dammit, the man has heart. He’s cried real tears over this. Of course, so would Gore, were he President - so would McCain, so would Nader. But this callous murder of our people had nothing to do with Bush. it was the act of a man, or men, with nothing but emptiness where in others beat hearts.
And you - you, who would trade upon this event, and this pain, to score some empty point in your distaste for a politico… have you no shame, sir? Have you, finally, no shame?
Whatever umbrage you take–and yours smells of self righteous partisanship–with Mr. George’s analysis, he has this right, now matter how naively he put it:
“Also, I think Bush dares terrorists to attack, with his shootin’, rootin’ tootin’ Texas cowboy style. He is a hawk, not a man of peace.”
The unilateral pursuit of a “missile shield” (a very costly techno-chimera designed as much to enrich the plutocracy as to protect us), and other policies, have destabilized the world’s power structure, and the second rate fool who you laud under the guise of piousness for the dead, is the true “fucking cretin”. What a choice irony that your scatalogical diatribes sound like the product of cretins.
Bush is the venal product of the latest, greatest abrogation of democracy, and to hear him speak of freedom and anything alluding to suffrage makes me ill. Bush didn’t precipitate the WTO horror, but he is the presidential equivalent of it. He has scarcely begun to reap the misery we will be forced to sow. Jam that in your rightwing pipe and smoke it.
Considering that some of the hijackers had been living in this country for several years, they were acting more like Soviet-style “moles.” Long before Bush was even considered a candidate.
And if you want to sling some responsibility around, try Clinton as well, who did very little regarding Saddam and bin Ladin.
But this is risking taking curiousgeorge seriously, which is more than he deserves.
Wow, between Chronolicht and curious george we see a flabbergasting display of the moron left. I really don’t know what to say. I think it’s impossible for anyone to simply arrive at such stupid ideas without willfully blinding themselves to reason.
Chronolicht, you’re acting like a damn idiot, too. For anyone to straight-faced declare President Bush, in office 8 months, responsible for the worst single terrorist attack in modern history, is blatantly full of horse-shit. Osama bin Laden through his worldwide organization has attacked U.S. interests around the world for at least the last decade, and I’m sure you know this. SMD, initially called SDI, was begun under Reagan in the early 80’s, and research and development continued through Bush-41 and Bill Clinton. I realize you can’t stand the truth, but there it is. To claim that Bush is responsible for a paradigm shift in world opinion in the relatively short time in office is patently absurd, and indicative of your inability to reason intelligently and honestly.
“In a democracy, people usually get the kind of government they deserve, and they deserve what they get… [The President] represents that dark, venal, and incurably violent side of the American character almost every other country in the world has learned to fear and despise.”
-Hunter S. Thompson, speaking of Richard Nixon’s election in “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972”
Chronolicht, take your rabid partisanship–which you have the gall to accuse others of–and cram it up your ass. Though I doubt there’s room for it with your head in there.
And, yeah, it looks like curiousgeorge has a serious case of anal-crainium as well. Are these shitheads really stupid enough to believe they get political points for this drivel?
“Chronolicht, you’re acting like a damn idiot, too. For anyone to straight-faced declare President Bush, in office 8 months, responsible for the worst single terrorist attack in modern history, is blatantly full of horse-shit.”
You are right and I can not find where anyone on this thread said that. Please point out where this was said.
The point is that the Shrub’s foreign policy engenders more hatred and fear, rather than giving “them” any reason to think that they have a chance. Pesch has a very salient point as well. Clinton was no hero to those who value peace and freedom either. Both sides of the aisle are populated by clowns more worried about being reelected than dealing with the issues which confront us all. It is facile to think that I value the Democrats brand of imperialism either.
“Osama bin Laden through his worldwide organization has attacked U.S. interests around the world for at least the last decade, and I’m sure you know this. SMD,initially called SDI, was begun under Reagan in the early 80’s, and research and development continued through Bush-41 and Bill Clinton. I realize you can’t stand the truth, but there it is. To claim that Bush is responsible for a paradigm shift in world opinion in the relatively short time in office is patently absurd, and indicative of your inability to reason intelligently and honestly.”
It is your reasoning that is faulty. You see this in a typical, dualist fashion. You claim to be following history so closely but the administration of the SDI/SMD program has hardly been contiguous and evenly funded through the last four administrations. Just because I revile Bush doesn’t mean that I liked Clinton.
WTC. Right, right.
Poor Furt. Maybe you can rub a little compassionate conservatism on your wounded psyche.
Hey idiots, have you forgotten that they first tried to bring down the WTC when Clinton was President, and failed only because their truck was a few extra feet away from the main supports? Fifteen feet closer, and the WTC would have come down 8 years ago, with much more loss of life because there would have been no time to evacuate it.
I expect partisans to try and use this event to score ‘points’, what I didn’t expect was for you to also be so stupid.
Amazing that a man, who is so obviously stupid, has changed the world in a mere 8 months! Pray tell, what planet-shaking policies has Bush implemented that have so altered “the world’s power structure” in such a short period of time? You didn’t answer this question when NaSultainne asked, so I’ll ask again.
Thanks, but no. As a libertarian, I am far from right-wing. Unless, I suppose, legalizing drugs and protecting a woman’s right to choose, for example, is “right-wing” in your pitiful little mind.
This is all too obvious. For starts, Bush rejected the Kyoto environmental treaty, the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The ABM and NTB treaty abrogation resulted in Russia and China forming new political alliances, and China is now on a campaign to build up its nuclear weapon arsenal. Bush also gave the green light to Israel’s campaign of assassination by missile, which enraged the Palestinians into a new wave of terror attacks.
Bush has demonstrated again and again that he is a complete novice at international relations. His actions are perceived as insults to the international community. Thus, the US was kicked off of important committees in the United Nations. The Bush administration’s handling of the UN Antiracism meeting was appalling.
It can be convincingly argued that Bush is responsible for a major shift in world political alliances. Terrorists seek out the weaknesses of their enemies. I can just hear the conversations at terrorist HQ:
Bush on CNN: “Our missile shield will stop rogue nations from attacking the US.”
bin Laden: “oh yeah? It won’t prevent my terrorists from hitting their targets. I think I’ll give the green light to my sleeper agents.”
I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Or perhaps you never will. And that is what is most appalling about this thread. The disgusting demonization of opposing points of view is something I’d expect from the Taliban, but not from Americans. Knock it off.
Somehow, I feel that significant context is missing from this paragraph. Unfortunately, I am not a CSPAN/MSNBC junkie, and thus cannot intelligently rebut Chas E.
Are there any conservatives on the board who would care to field this? Why did the President reject these treaties if they were so “obviously” good for America (I guess)? What were his motivations? I am – right now – confident that these treaties somehow compromised our nation, even though I don’t have the specifics of each treaty at my fingertips.
I appreciate the considerate response, bordelond, and in fact, you’ve hit a key argument here. Yes, there is a ton of context we could add to this situation. Americans are now forced to reevaluate our position with the international community. Did the treaties Bush now rejects add to international stability, or did they just take regional conflicts and lock them in place? Were our treaty sacrifices of certain weapons advantages good for global geopolitics, or did the battleground move elsewhere while we weren’t paying attention? Are we now forced to enter regional conflicts before they enter the US? Do we now always have to think globally when acting locally? I don’t know. But we’ve got to deal with it.
Chas E, you may have misunderstood me a little bit. I meant “what was the context of Bush rejecting those treaties?” I am a staunch conservative, and I pretty much assume there was good reason for the US to not ratify those treaties – even if I myself am not briefed on what those reasons are.
I’ll take a stab at it: through conservative eyes, Kyoto would somehow handicap our nation’s industry, right? The ABM and NTB treaties would copmromise our nation’s defense, right?
I just can’t accept that Bush rejected these treaties solely because he is stupid or imcompetent – after all, if the ratification of those treaties was such a no-brainer, his copious network of advisers would have indicated that to the President. All those advisers can’t be collectively stupid, uninformed and incompetent. So what angle were Bush’s advisers working? That’s what I want to know.
Also, it seems to me a stretch that rejection of those treaties had much to do with the WTC bombings, which had been in the works long before the Kyoto, ABM, and NTB treaties were even drafted. I don’t see a connection.