Bush Busted On Pre-scripted Battle Banter (Video)

[mr.Curmudgeon]

TODAY (10/13/05): Bush has 'impromptu' teleconference with troops in Iraq. This event is subsequently exposed as the blatant pre-scripted PR event that it is, then, when asked about it, the WH press secretary lies, to cover it up.




mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

I knew you'd love this one  .

They say it's going to be spontaneous, then it's completely rehearsed in advance  .  You can't believe anything that comes out of the White House.

MSN has a video too (dunno if it's the same):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9686462/ -
"What was billed as a conversation between President Bush and U.S. soldiers turns out to have been choreographed to match the president's goals for the war in Iraq."

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Anybody with half a brain knew this stuff has been staged for years.

The 'Mission Accomplished' banner, his and Cheney's phony "town hall meetings" before and after the election, where all the people are screened, asked to sign loyalty oaths to even get in, then pre-scripted "questions" are fielded from the crowd. This is the Potemkin Administration.

It's just nice to finally see the media decide they've had enough. They've known about this crap for years, but couldn't be bothered to report it. It'd be funny if it wasn't so damn sad and pathetic. Using our troops like props in some sick game of death and destruction.


mrC

[quarterback]

This administration has no interest in doing any 'media event' that isn't scripted or 'rigged'.   

They fully understand the power of the media and how to manipulate it more than any presidential administration before them.   It's never about truth or reality, it's all a big show to these folks and how to get their message out.   They talk about the "media filter" but, in reality, what they're describing as a "filter" is know to most people as "honesty".  The "media filter" is what happens when the truth is spoken.  As far as they're concerned, the only "truth" is what they want people to say and what they want the public to hear.

It's stunning to me that anybody believes anything that comes out of their mouths.  How many times does somebody have to lie before they're recognized as liars?

==

[DrewKaree]

Anybody with half a brain knew this stuff has been staged for years.

Thank heavens you posted this.  I was starting to think Russ Feingold actually CARED about what his constituents have to say in his "Town Hall meetings".

It's as if you believe there actually IS a politician out there who doesn't use this tactic.

[cdbrown]

Go to google
type in failure and select "I'm Feeling Lucky" to see what you get directly linked to
Or you could just do a normal google search of failure to see what tops the list

[ChadTower]

It's as if you believe there actually IS a politician out there who doesn't use this tactic.

Ding.  It's not just Bush, all politicians do it.  It's annoying but you can't pin this on one guy.

[Stingray]

It's as if you believe there actually IS a politician out there who doesn't use this tactic.

Ding.  It's not just Bush, all politicians do it.  It's annoying but you can't pin this on one guy.

I can if I want.

-S

[JackTucky]

Thanks for posting this.  I didn't know politicians stage photo-ops.

Oh, BTW, you want scripted, or unscripted?



Art

[ChadTower]

Be careful, even on foot, he's dangerous on a bridge.

[Dexter]

This stinks of the worst kind of 'rovian' manipulation. I'm glad they were nailed for it and that its getting some coverage. Then again, awol boy was never one for facing soldiers, man to man, was he.

Plastic turkey anyone??

[ChadTower]

If this is the worst thing you can manage to pin on Rove, he has gotten a lot better at hiding his tracks than he used to be.

[Dexter]

If this is the worst thing you can manage to pin on Rove, he has gotten a lot better at hiding his tracks than he used to be.

Nah, that donkey is having enough tails pinned on him as we speak. Good times.....

[Stingray]

If this is the worst thing you can manage to pin on Rove, he has gotten a lot better at hiding his tracks than he used to be.

Nah, that donkey is having enough tails pinned on him as we speak. Good times.....

He's in front of a grand jury at this very moment I believe. Good times.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Thank heavens you posted this.  I was starting to think Russ Feingold actually CARED about what his constituents have to say in his "Town Hall meetings".

This is what bothers me most about you Drew. You're so flippant because 1) You refuse to admit it's wrong, even though you know it is, or 2) You just don't care as much as you want everyone to believe. When backed into a corner, forced to justify your support of what should be a criminal act, you just throw unsubstantiated charges at the other side. What proof do you have that Feingold's "Town Hall meetings" are staged, with pre-scripted questions?

I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility, but I've NEVER seen anything to make me assume it to be the case.

Once again, put up or shut up. Where's the proof? Or are you just so incapable of defending the actions of this administration that they only thing you can do is say, "I bet the Dems do it too"?

Right here, before your eyes and ears, is incontrovertible evidence that Bush partook in a scripted event that was billed as 'spontaneous' both before and after the event took place, and all you can do is sneer at Feingold. Worse yet, it uses men from our armed forces as props to continue to sell and unjust and immoral war. What's up with that? Where's the intellectual honesty?  Are you saying we're all just supposed to accept this kind of blatant propaganda, be it Dem or Republican creating it?

Look, I'm not naive enough to think that there isn't some element of PR in absolutely everything a politician does. But, the levels to which this administration has taken it goes well beyond any normal PR effort, and into something wholly sinister and unAmerican.

mrC

[Stingray]

Worse yet, it uses men from our armed forces as props to continue to sell and unjust and immoral war.

Honestly this is the part that bothers me the most.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Thanks for posting this.  I didn't know politicians stage photo-ops.

Oh boy, more flippant apathetic sarcasm! Good on ya'!

Are you saying a televised, pre-scripted event, choreographed along with U.S. troops, to match Bush's goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution, and using those troops to sell that very war, is akin to a politician simply standing with them in front of the camera?

I would have thought they were entirely different animals, but thanks for removing that distinction. Back to work...Big Brother is watching!

mrC

EDIT: Spelling.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If this is the worst thing you can manage to pin on Rove, he has gotten a lot better at hiding his tracks than he used to be.

Actually, I don't think Rove had anything to do with this, hence the sloppiness. He's a pro at this stuff. But it's perfectly understandable that he'd be slightly out of the picture, what, with facing possible indictments and all.

Rove would *never* have allowed the pre-event rehearsal "feed" to make it out to the media.


mrC

[AtomSmasher]

Everyone knows CNN is a liberal news site who most likely has been looking for anything to make Pres. Bush look bad and this is the worst they came up with?

[ChadTower]

Anyone ever notice that PR stands for Public Relations, and their job is to make everything look positive in their favor?

Just noting.

[Stingray]

It's not like he lied under oath

Only because he's never been under oath.

-S

[ChadTower]

Only because he's never been under oath.

That's not an assumption that can be safely made.

I cannot say I have never knocked up your wife only because I have never met your wife.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Everyone knows CNN is a liberal news site...

You haven't watched CNN much in the last three years, have you? It is not a liberal news organization.

who most likely has been looking for anything to make Pres. Bush look bad and this is the worst they came up with?

Uh, this is newsworthy. Simple as that. CNN didn't get the original news feed, so I'm not sure why you're attributing this as an attack by CNN on Bush. MSNBC got the feed that featured the rehearsal and the rest of the media is reporting on it because it is an important story. Or, to be more specific, the "cover-up" is the story.

QUESTION: How were they selected, and are their comments to the president pre-screened, any questions or anything...

MCCLELLAN: No.

QUESTION: Not at all?

MCCLELLAN: This is a back-and-forth.



mrC

[ChadTower]

Doesn't matter what outlet it is, if the outlet gets a hold of a story like this, they're going to put it out there in their own self interests.  Liberal or right wing outlet, this story would go out.  The difference would be the amount of venom in the reporting of it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The difference would be the amount of venom in the reporting of it.

So far, with this story...it seems that it's being handle fairly objectively. I haven't seen any venom. I guess the thing that bothers me most about this whole ordeal is that things like this even happen in America.

I want purely objective reporting. Not liberal, not conservative.
I want purely transparent politics.

Am I stupid and naive enough to think that'll ever happen? No. So what's the next best thing? Hoping that every time it DOES happen, someone will expose it. After enough exposures, the public will become more aware. Then, maybe, just maybe, it'll be so detrimental to either party (media or politicians) that they'll move away from this sort of behavior.

We are the watchdogs. The politicians are supposed to work for us, not themselves. The media is supposed to help us, not them.


mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

The difference between this and other televised events:

They said it wouldn't be scripted.  Then it was.  And they were busted in the lie.  That's like false advertising or something.

Picture cheech in a dress...

Why should we shrug off lies because "other people did it too"?  I think we should start frying all the idiots in office, repub & dems alike.  Catch them in a lie... let them fry.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

  I think we should start frying all the idiots in office, repub & dems alike.  Catch them in a lie... let them fry.

A-men.
mrC

[Stingray]

I'll drink to that, and pretty much anything else.

-S

[ChadTower]

I want purely objective reporting.

We actually used to have something resembling this.

[Crazy Cooter]

You forgot the conspiracy angle.  The major news outlets are owned by a few select individuals.  They're part of the Bilderberg group:

2005 "Media" Attendees (known so-far):
Donald Graham, chairman of The Washington Post
Norman Pearlstine, editor-in-chief, Time
Fareed Zakaria, editor, Newsweek International

FWIW:
If their crystal ball is right:
Gov. Mark R. Warner -> Democratic Presidential Candidate 2008 (or he'll fall to VP like Edwards did last time - Edwards attended before his Presidential run)

[DrewKaree]

This is what bothers me most about you Drew. You're so flippant because 1) You refuse to admit it's wrong, even though you know it is, or 2) You just don't care as much as you want everyone to believe.

No, the biggest thing you fail to see is that you've never seen me touting his photo-ops as ANYTHING, much less pointing out how cool or uncool they are.  If I didn't care enough to point out his super-sweet photo-ops that drive you to the brink of insanity, how on earth did it ever get into your head that I cared if they were staged? 

When backed into a corner, forced to justify your support of what should be a criminal act, you just throw unsubstantiated charges at the other side.

Backed into a corner?  I'd have had to have actually SHOWN support of what you feel is a criminal act to be backed into a corner.  I merely pointed out that you sound as if you believe there to be NON-staged photo-ops, and used my local communist as an example.  Give you proof?  Playing the naive little waif doesn't suit you well, as even you couldn't be so stupid as to think the "town meetings" that are all the rage in politics lately AREN'T staged.  Does it help you if I say "BY EITHER SIDE".

Or are you just so incapable of defending the actions of this administration that they only thing you can do is say, "I bet the Dems do it too"?

Are you so incapable of common sense that you believe both sides DON'T do it?  What is it you expect me to say?  How about this.  When John McCain and Russ Feingold hold their travashamockery they call a "town meeting", it's ALL a staged photo-op designed to produce some sort of sound bite, news snippet, picture of them glad-handing some sap, or some other "destined to make the news" item.  Does it help you to see me throw a Republican in there, or are you so close-minded as to think I believe ONLY Dems do it or it's some effort to "cover up" what Bush did?

Please, for the love of Pete, show me the mouthful of words you seem hell-bent on shoving down my throat as if I said them. 

Look, I'm not naive enough to think that there isn't some element of PR in absolutely everything a politician does. But, the levels to which this administration has taken it goes well beyond any normal PR effort, and into something wholly sinister and unAmerican.

mrC

But you're willing to act naive and pretend for your argument about why I should be working to cut Bush's heart out with a dull spoon, and then turn around and tell me I need to give you some proof, when you JUST ADMITTED I'M RIGHT?

I don't feel the need to defend ANYTHING Bush has done.  It's not going to matter to YOU one way or another.  "Sinister" and "unAmerican" are words that can't even begin to be taken seriously, and the level of your rhetoric is what makes you someone to be looked at askance, and shake our heads while we walk away.  Hyperbole isn't a tool you like to leave sitting in the toolbox.  We've all just seen it far too often for it to be effective anymore.  You'll just keep sitting in front of your drum set, banging first one, then another as the story of the week changes.  Meanwhile, the rest of us are willing to invest our time when something meaningful happens, instead of paying much attention to the "OMG TEH STORY OF DA WEEK IS HERE" you provide us. 

[ChadTower]

You forgot the conspiracy angle.  The major news outlets are owned by a few select individuals.  They're part of the Bilderberg group:

2005 "Media" Attendees (known so-far):
Donald Graham, chairman of The Washington Post
Norman Pearlstine, editor-in-chief, Time
Fareed Zakaria, editor, Newsweek International

The problem with what you're saying is that it is a theory.  What I have said is proven, historical fact.  I have trouble believing that a small group of individuals is manipulating the entire American media.

[shmokes]

While I think that the staged interview with the troops here is lame, what concerns me is that they said before it that it was not staged.  Then, after it was, in fact, staged and Scott McClellan (spelling) was asked why it was staged he got all kinds of self-righteous with the reporter, asking, "Are you suggesting [that we would be so low as to stage this sort of thing]?"  completely denying it.  I consider the staging itself to be severe spin, which sucks, but I can deal with it.  The claims made about the spin, both before and after, go beyond spin to just plain lying.  I'm not okay with that.

By the way, Drew, why a spoon?

[DrewKaree]

By the way, Drew, why a spoon?

I'd think MrC would want it to hurt as much as possible, so a dull rounded object would seem appropos.

The better question would be "why not a spoon"?

[shmokes]

I know 

I was making a reference to the Sheriff of Nottingham.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'd think MrC would want it to hurt as much as possible, so a dull rounded object would seem appropos.

Add some salt poured on the open wound and you've got it just about right!

mrC

[Tailgunner]

Look, I'm not naive enough to think that there isn't some element of PR in absolutely everything a politician does. But, the levels to which this administration has taken it goes well beyond any normal PR effort, and into something wholly sinister and unAmerican.

mrC

I don't believe this administration has ever timed a cruise missile strike on a pharmaceutical factory to divert the media's attention from a headline story that painted a sitting president in a bad light.

Not that Bush is much better, but the last politician who worked without a net was Dan Quayle. Look where it got him.

[DrewKaree]

Add some salt poured on the open wound and you've got it just about right!

mrC

I'm guessing we still need to add lemon juice and battery acid.

[ChadTower]

I'm surprised he's not salivating and trying to rub his genitals in the wound.

[DrewKaree]

I'm surprised he's not salivating and trying to rub his genitals in the wound.

He's a terrible reader.  He couldn't see any positive outcome from rubbing his Gentiles in the open wound

[ChadTower]

Don't hurt yourself overreaching for that joke.

[DrewKaree]

My back is now killing me softly. 

[ChadTower]

It is a less than competent killer, as you are still posting.

[DrewKaree]

I can't seem to stop this.  Someone beat the Flack outta me

[ChadTower]

his back is killing him softly with his song
killing him softly
with his words
killing soooooftlyyyyyyyy
with his sooooooooooooooooooong

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He's a terrible reader.  He couldn't see any positive outcome from rubbing his Gentiles in the open wound

Hey, Drew, suck my hezbollah's.   

mrC

[ChadTower]

Oy, it's so huuuuumorless.

[DrewKaree]

He's a terrible reader.  He couldn't see any positive outcome from rubbing his Gentiles in the open wound

Hey, Drew, suck my hezbollah's.   

mrC

Kiss my Hamas

[Dartful Dodger]

I am appalled by this pre-scripted thread.

[ChadTower]

If we're taking prescriptions, I like vicodin.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I am appalled by this pre-scripted thread.

Right on cue!!! Perfect!


mrC

[DarkKobold]

I don't think Chad or Drew could ever be scripted. They lack predictability. And by predictiability, I mean....

humor, sense, gonads, strife, and non-partisianship.

[DrewKaree]

I don't think Chad or Drew could ever be scripted. They lack predictability. And by predictiability, I mean....

humor, sense, gonads, strife, and non-partisianship.

I DO have a lovely bunch of coconuts, though. 

[Stingray]

I don't think Chad or Drew could ever be scripted. They lack predictability. And by predictiability, I mean....

humor, sense, gonads, strife, and non-partisianship.

I DO have a lovely bunch of coconuts, though. 

I hope this isn't in refernence to your kidney stones.

-S

[ChadTower]

I don't think Chad or Drew could ever be scripted. They lack predictability. And by predictiability, I mean....

humor, sense, gonads, strife, and non-partisianship.

There comes a point where the term gonads understates the description.  There comes a point where one must start using more accurate terms because the standard term is just not enough.

I prefer grapefruits.

Come check 'em out.

[Havok]

I think we need to get back to the thread topic, namely that Bush sucks.

Hey - how about a new slogan?

"Can't wait for 2008?"

Kinda catchy...

[ChadTower]

So, who do the Dems think is going to actually run?

[Stingray]

I think we need to get back to the thread topic, namely that Bush sucks.

Hey - how about a new slogan?

"Can't wait for 2008?"

Kinda catchy...

-S

[ChadTower]

I can't wait for Bush to be out of there either... but getting Bush out is only half the issue.

[shmokes]

Is negativist a word?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That is the easy half, the half the negativists are focusing on.

Are you OUT of your mind? Of course he leaves in 2008, but he needs to be out of there yesterday. I don't think America can stand another 3 years of that fool.

Easy? There's a Republican house and senate, impeachment will be far from easy.

There is a more important aspect to all of this that people should focus on.

Again, I think holding presidents to account for their failure to our nation is a pretty important aspect. Future leaders need to see the price of hubris and incompetence. But if you're OK with letting Bush off the hook for all the things that supposedly "bother you"...hey, who am I to tell you how to respect and care for your country?

mrC

[ChadTower]

I never said to let him off, but until someone has proven he has committed crimes that are impeachable, I am not going to bother trying to get him out now.  Try to focus on the realistic because we both know (you just SAID it) that with a Republican House and Senate he's not going to be impeached without personally killing someone on live TV.

The practical thing to do is to fight his policy while preparing for his replacement.  If Dems can't prepare for his replacement, when time comes to have a replacement, Dems will be behind the 8 ball again, just like they were in 2004.

Kerry winning the primary surprised nearly all experts.  Why?  Why didn't the Dems' own experts know that was going to happen?  Why were they all so convinced Dean was a shoo in?  When Kerry won, the whole process was thrown for a loop, and they never recovered enough to win.  Focusing nearly all energy on taking Bush down will result in that happening again in 2008 and the price could be (Jeb) Bush for another 4 years.

Could you try posting in a debate without the facetiousness? 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So, who do the Dems think is going to actually run?  We can assume Clinton... who else?  A lot of people I know who are Democrats won't vote for Hillary on principle.

It's three years out...can't even begin to guess who'll be involved. If the price for getting Bill Clinton back into the White House (even as First Lady) is Hillary...I'm willing to deal. I'm not that enthusiastic about her, but we'll see how she does in the primaries.

I'm pretty solid on my desire for Wesley Clark as VP. I thought Kerry should have chosen him as a running mate in '04.

As for Republicans, I won't vote for a Republican on, as you say, principle. They've coddled this administration and enabled one failure after another. They've run the show for the past five years and there is no way they can blame anybody else but themselves. They are a corrupt, incompetent party and they need to be moved as far away from power as is possible. I can only hope that the Dems will do better. Maybe being the minority party will have humbled them come time to lead. I do believe, however, that their is NO WAY any other party could be as corrupt as the current GOP is.

Here's what I think of the possible (R) ticket so far:

Frist = No chance. The conservatives will have to find another lamb to sacrifice to the Dobson-wing of the Republican party.

Guiliani = Weasel. Had tremendous respect for him after 9/11, but he pissed it away once he became Bush's lapdog in '04. I can't forgive Guiliani for blaming the troops for not securing the weapons dump in Iraq (Al QaQaa), even though the Bush administration forced these men to march toward Baghdad before the site could be secured. The explosives stolen from that dump are still being used to kill out soliders, to this day. His subservience to Bush will come back to haunt him if he runs.

McCain = Holds the most promise, but there's no way the Dobson-wing would support him, and without them the Republicans are toast. I don't think he'll be able to distance himself far enough from Bush before '08 anyhow.

Romney =  Waffles worse than Kerry. Don't think he'd hold up under heavy scrutiny. Plus he's a Mormon. The Talibornagains won't have that.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I never said to let him off, but until someone has proven he has committed crimes that are impeachable, I am not going to bother trying to get him out now.

And how, exactly, do you think we'd ever find out about impeachable offenses? By sitting back and waiting? A lot of people have been working very hard to hold Bush and his administration accountable for their failures. Forcing senators to ask the right questions, acting as watchdog and making their grievances heard. Sitting on your hands isn't a solution.

Could you try posting in a debate without the facetiousness? 

Can you post something that bears even a modicum of reality? It just sounds like apathetic apologia to me. I've said it before, but you are apparently too dense or stubborn to get it into your head...BOTH can be done at the SAME TIME. Bush can be held accountable AND we can move the country forward. In fact, the first is essential to the other.

Is this so hard for you to understand? Personally, I think your refusal is based on your defensiveness. To attack the Bush administration is to attack certain aspects of your ideology, since you exhibit conservative leaning politics. It's hard to be critical of oneself, much better to focus on something else.



mrC

[ChadTower]

BOTH can be done at the SAME TIME. Bush can be held accountable AND we can move the country forward.

This gov't can't tie shoes and talk at the same time.  There is no way they can focus on getting Bush out while also preparing a quality successor. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

BOTH can be done at the SAME TIME. Bush can be held accountable AND we can move the country forward.

This gov't can't tie shoes and talk at the same time.  There is no way they can focus on getting Bush out while also preparing a quality successor. 

That's why I'm saying the responsibility falls on us as citizens to make sure that both are happening. Of the people, by the people, for the people...remember?

If enough people are focusing on these tandem responsibilities, there'll be no shortage of resources, solutions and accountability.

Again, you can't have progress without accountability.

I don't have faith in very many things, but I am confident that if the citizenry of any nation can get off it's collective lazy a--, things can be done right. We are in the situation we're in now because people refused to think critically, instead they allowed themselves to be ruled by fear, and had complete "faith" in gov't to protect them. That faith was misplaced.




mrC

[ChadTower]

I don't have faith in very many things, but I am confident that if the citizenry of any nation can get off it's collective lazy a--, things can be done right.

Not going to happen.  Just won't.  If you can't get people to stop doing things they know will kill them with immediacy (e.g. drunk driving, smoking, rampant obesity), there is zero chance they are going to stand up and take on more abstract tasks like governmental reform. 

We can't get a majority of people to show up one evening a year and draw an X in a little box.  How are we going to get them to research issues, keep track of the performance of elected officials, and vote them out of office should they not perform?  They won't show up to elect them in the first place, it is no longer possible to get them to show up, stay vested in the process for years at a time, and then show up again at the end of the term.

[Dartful Dodger]

It's three years out...can't even begin to guess who'll be involved. If the price for getting Bill Clinton back into the White House (even as First Lady) is Hillary...I'm willing to deal. I'm not that enthusiastic about her, but we'll see how she does in the primaries.

This is why the guy you voted for lost last time.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Not going to happen.  Just won't.  If you can't get people to stop doing things they know will kill them with immediacy (e.g. drunk driving, smoking, rampant obesity), there is zero chance they are going to stand up and take on more abstract tasks like governmental reform. 

We can't get a majority of people to show up one evening a year and draw an X in a little box.  How are we going to get them to research issues, keep track of the performance of elected officials, and vote them out of office should they not perform?  They won't show up to elect them in the first place, it is no longer possible to get them to show up, stay vested in the process for years at a time, and then show up again at the end of the term.

I guess I'm being too allegorical, since I agree with your general statement. I don't expect all members of our citizenry to exert this effort. It only takes specific individuals to take these tasks on for them, then disseminate and energize other members of the populace. A general "call to arms" will cull these truly progressive individuals out from the crowd and like a small ripple, local, then state, then federal...political change laps at the shores of Washington. Sure, it's idealistic, but it's also the very spirit of the foundation of America.

How are we going to get them to research issues, keep track of the performance of elected officials, and vote them out of office should they not perform?

Funny that you mention this, as I also see it as the primary problem. Thus, I've been working on a project (as a team member, through donated time) with members of MIT, and private investors, on a program that will encourage participation in our political process, and allow everyday, average Joes to effectively utilize their time addressing the issues they feel compelled to work on.

Think of it as an open-source 'operating system' for the progressive movement. It provides the research, it will eventually track the performance of elected officials, through a system of regional representatives, and more. It will track individual member effectiveness, make suggestions on how to be more limited and efficient (live database of local 'action items') and encourage competition through a merit system. This group has been working on the project for several years now, and I think it holds a lot of promise. It isn't public yet, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

All sounds vague right now, but I can't get into specifics (N.D.A). Drew and DD will use this as a rallying cry to ridicule me, since it bothers them that I work on issues anathema to their own interests, but don't let it be said that I'm not working on solutions to move the country forward...while, AT THE SAME time, working to hold my current elected leaders accountable.

I'm no Thomas Jefferson, but I feel I've donated just enough time and money to be proud of what I do.



mrC

[ChadTower]

I guess I'm being too allegorical, since I agree with your general statement. I don't expect all members of our citizenry to exert this effort. It only takes specific individuals to take these tasks on for them, then disseminate and energize other members of the populace. A general "call to arms" will cull these truly progressive individuals out from the crowd and like a small ripple, local, then state, then federal...political change laps at the shores of Washington. Sure, it's idealistic, but it's also the very spirit of the foundation of America.

Unfortunately, it is the spirit of what America WAS.  You know, before cable TV and VCRs.  Now, the only way you would get the majority of Americans out of their house on any given night would be to shut down television broadcasts that night.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "well, I would have voted, but I didn't want to miss American Idol."

The worst one to hear is "yeah, I didn't vote because I didn't want Gore or Bush, I wanted Nader, and there was no possible way for Nader to win."  How exactly do these people expect Nader, or any third party candidate, to ever win if no one goes out and votes for them?  What if there are 3 million people out there thinking that way?  There probably aren't 3 million, but there are hundreds of thousands more than there were ten years ago, and if all of those people vote now, ten years from now there could be 3 million total.  These people want the two party system to change but can't be bothered to spend 1 hour out of 8760 in a given year to do their part.

All sounds vague right now, but I can't get into specifics (N.D.A). Drew and DD will use this as a rallying cry to ridicule me, since it bothers them that I work on issues anathema to their own interests, but don't let it be said that I'm not working on solutions to move the country forward...while, AT THE SAME time, working to hold my current elected leaders accountable.

Anything that holds elected officials accountable is good to me.  I don't even really care if the process supports viewpoints in conflict with my own so long as it brings in public servants that care about the will of the people and work hard to make it happen.  When that occurs, I consider it my own responsibility to change the will of enough people such that my own will is the will brought forth.  If I can't do that then there is probably a good reason my will isn't the public will and I can accept that the majority is still being heeded properly.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This is why the guy you voted for lost last time.  You're willing to back someone you're not enthusiastic about.

A good healthy dose of skepticism toward our leaders is healthy and essential to the preservation of America. You Bush fanatics can't fathom that, thus we're seeing the problems we're seeing today (Iraq, record deficit, diminished respect for America around the world, corporate largesse, rampant cronyism, corruption throughout government, Plame, Frist, Rove, DeLay).

You put too much 'faith' in your leader, and relinquished your responsibilities as a citizen. You don't deserve a vote.


mrC

[ChadTower]

I am of the belief that much of that stuff has always existed, it's just that Bush is a very extreme example of that behaviour, has had more of it blow up in his face than past administrations, and is far more open about it than anyone before him.

Not that that excuses it in any way, but believing he is the only one to have done any of this is probably either naive or deluded.

[Dartful Dodger]

Not that that excuses it in any way, but believing he is the only one to have done any of this is probably either naive or deluded.

It's more like self preservation.  If the best you can do to promote your team is to bring down the other team, then as bad as your team is, that's how hard you have to try when attacking other team.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Unfortunately, it is the spirit of what America WAS.  You know, before cable TV and VCRs.  Now, the only way you would get the majority of Americans out of their house on any given night would be to shut down television broadcasts that night.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard "well, I would have voted, but I didn't want to miss American Idol."

Always, in the back of my mind, is the nagging realization that a large part of American apathy is brought about by comfort, complacency born of the privilege of living in a modern superpower. The 'Orange Revolution' in the Ukraine (which was, ironically enough, spurred on by conflicting exit polling results) was successful due in large part to the countries socio-economic status and the general disillusionment among the populace. It's unfortunate, but it seems like America is headed toward self-destruction, and only then, once this administration's failed policies hit home, will more Americans be compelled to take their country back.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's more like self preservation.  If the best you can do to promote your team is to bring down the other team, then as bad as your team is, that's how hard you have to try when attacking other team.

Wah!!! The oppressed majority! Give me a break Dartful..."Teams"? There's your problem right there. You're the one whose apparently put party before country.

Would you support Bush if he had made all the same promises, and all the same decisions he's made, yet was a Democrat?

EDIT:

I am not willing to "deal", I want what's best for this my country.

This is another problem you have...it's not *YOUR* country...it's everyone's. Even people you disagree with.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

You are wrong again.

I don't have a problem.

My TEAM won, so it is MY country.

[ChadTower]

It's unfortunate, but it seems like America is headed toward self-destruction, and only then, once this administration's failed policies hit home, will more Americans be compelled to take their country back.

It is not only this administration's policies that have brought this on.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Not that that excuses it in any way, but believing he is the only one to have done any of this is probably either naive or deluded.

When you say "this"...what do you mean exactly?

If "this" equals:

- Sent our country to war with Iraq using faulty intelligence, leading to the needless deaths of almost 2000 American soldiers.
- Refused to acknowledge real intelligence leading up to 9/11.
- Has forgotten about Osama Bin Laden. The one who actually attacked us.
- Attempted to privatize Social Security.
- Promised to AMEND to the constitution to remove liberties for individuals.
- Oversaw the creation of the 'Patriot Act' unduly removing certainly liberties from us all.
- Spent more Federal money than FDR! With NOTHING to show for it.
- Drove the national deficient to record numbers.
- Flew in overnight to sign a bill to save one brain-dead women, yet stayed on vacation for 3 days while an entire American city was destroyed by hurricane.
- Refuses to acknowledge "global warming."
- Believes he's been appointed by God.
- Sanctioned the removal of the Geneva Conventions from modern U.S. warfare.
- Sat back while his minions outed a CIA agent for political retribution, an agent tasked with tracking actual WMD.
- Has cultivated a cultural divide in this country, more severe than I've ever seen before.
- Appoints political cronies to some of the highest positions in the land.
- Oversees a White House that allows the likes of Rove, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Jack Abramoff and Dick Cheney to flourish.

Yeah, I'd say he *IS* the only one to have ever done "this"...so an order of magnitude of pissed-off is called for. You dilute the severity of this administration's behavior by acting as if everyone is as corrupt as the current GOP. Politicians may not be angels, but the implications in your statement are simply not true, and are in fact, (to use your own words) naive, deluded and an unhealthy amount of jaded.

I'm supposed to be the pessimist here, and you're bringing *me* down. Sheesh.




mrC

[ChadTower]

I'm referring to the larger picture. 

Cronyism has always existed, as has nepotism, incompetence, and 100 other things.  It was always hidden before, and much of the venomous reaction to it now is because people think it's new.  It is not.

I'm not going to address the rest of those points, as many of them are completely valid, while some of them are stupid, some of them clearly predate Bush, and some of them are plain wrong.

[Dexter]

- Flew in overnight to sign a bill to save one brain-dead women, yet stayed on vacation for 3 days while an entire American city was destroyed by hurricane.

This one has only clicked with me now that you mention it. Cheers for that Mr. C, it pretty much sums up the administration - pander to the god squad, stuff the needy.

Edit : The onion do it again! Bushes not-so-candid chat

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41845

[Crazy Cooter]

I've taken my Bush-bashing offsite (at least for now):
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I've seen this earlier...gives me great pleasure. I feel like a Saudi Prince!!   


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

I've taken my Bush-bashing offsite (at least for now):
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

Maybe it's the mocho-American attitude I have, but I prefer this Flash file when it had the chick in a bikini.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That one made me feel misogynistic. This one is way more appropriate.


mrC

[JackTucky]

If "this" equals:
- Sent our country to war with Iraq using faulty intelligence, leading to the needless deaths of almost 2000 American soldiers.
- Refused to acknowledge real intelligence leading up to 9/11.
mrC

Care to tell us what your FOR?  We know your against Bush.  Problem is, he won.  TRY and deal.  Please.  Sometimes your funny. I like the funny c more.  But since I don't care for the political C at all, that's not really that much.
 

Art

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Care to tell us what your FOR?

Well, duh?  I'm FOR being AGAINST Bush. Maybe I haven't made it obvious enough. I will try harder.   



mrC

[Sephroth57]

your moms nabbanter

[JackTucky]

Well, duh?  I'm FOR being AGAINST Bush. Maybe I haven't made it obvious enough. I will try harder.   
mrC

Oh, I get it now.

I'm FOR not listening to C being for being against Bush.

Art

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'm FOR not listening to C being for being against Bush.

Seriously, in all honesty, you just don't want to hear anything disparaging about Bush, most likely because you can't defend his actions. I just don't get this mentality.

This thread, in particular, exposes an aspect of his administrations behavior that should roundly be considered deplorable. There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant. Scripting an event and using American armed service-people as props is wrong, whether it'd be a Democrat or Republican in charge.

Furthermore, I am FOR a lot of things:

- Catching Osama Bin Laden
- Continued operations and reconstruction in Afghanistan
- Pursuit of Al-Qaeda
- U.S. Troops leaving Iraq
- Following the 'Powell Doctrine' for foreign affairs
- Outright condemnation of 'Bush Doctrine' of pre-emptive war
- Ending the Global War on Terror as we know it
- Beginning a Global War on Poverty
- Multilateral talks w/ North Korea
- More concentrated multi-lateral effort on a Israeli/Palestinian solution
- Tougher diplomacy with the Saudis
- Giving the reconstruction contracts to local Iraqi firms
- Investigation of no-bid contracts for Halliburton
- Repealing the Patriot Act
- Renewed debate on a re-tooled plan to take it's place
- Medal of Freedom for Bunny Greenhouse
- Reneging the Medal of Freedom for George Tenet and Paul Bremmer
- Transparent voting systems, with auditable paper trails
- Revisiting McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws
- Truly open-ended presidential debates
- Stricter libel/slander laws
- Encouragement of Independent media
- De-corporatization of current media establishment
- Broader Anti-Trust laws
- Enforcing the Geneva Conventions
- Ending corporate welfare
- Universal healthcare
- Higher minimum wage
- Repealing the Bankruptcy law
- More funding for education
- Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
- Protecting and improving Social Security, without privatization
- Closing loopholes for offshoring
- Adding incentives for corporations who stay in country
- Banning tax-havens for the wealthy
- Securing our ports and borders
- Protecting a women's right to choose
- Abortion prevention through proper sex education
- Death penalty
- Stem cell research
- Aids prevention / research funding
- Legalizing prostitution and marijuana
- Strict seperation of Church and State
- Removal of tax exemption status for politically active churches
- Discouragement of Nuclear proliferation
- Funding and researching for securing errant Russian nuclear materials
- Energy conservation
- Global Warming research
- American participation in Kyoto Protocol
- Funding for alternative fuel research, subsidized by oil industry, etc.
- Tougher environmental protections
- Higher penalties for corporate environmental violators
- Accountability in Government
- Bi-cameral representation
- Protection of the filibuster
- Protection of the 60-vote majority threshold
- Line-item veto power at the executive level

Some of these things I have clear ideas on how to implement, others I'm still researching and debating. All of these, however, are (pretty much) being completely ignored by the current administration. Every single one.

Which is why I'm against Bush. He's anathema to every single thing I believe in. Every day he's in office, he does more damage to my interests than any amount of positive effort I could counter with. Never has there been a more destructive character in charge of the gov't than George W. Bush. He makes his father look like the second coming of Jesus Christ. Eroding his support is an absolute necessity in order to then push positive changes through. Nothing will happen while the Republicans control the congressional and executive branches of government.

As his supporters are helped to understand the failure of Conservatism in modern America, so shall other, more practical solutions arise.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

blah blah blah blah...
are you still reading this?
...blah blah blah

The longer your posts are, the less you actually say.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The longer your posts are, the less you actually say.

It's not my fault you're retarded. Blame the doctor that dropped you.

Oh btw, thanks for proving that Bush's victory in the 2004 election was illegitimate, with your earlier post. Because if I follow your "logic" regarding one's enthusiasm for their candidate and said candidates propensity for losing, then it only follows that - given the huge discrepancy in the exit polls for the Ohio vote, the state that swung the election - Bush actually lost and the exit polls were right. Since, the ONLY explanation that has been given for the disparity in the numbers was that Republican voters were less enthusiastic about reporting their vote for Bush and Dems are MORE enthusiastic.

By your logic, that's a lie and Bush stole the vote. I love it when you try to make an argument, at best, you always end up shooting yourself in the foot.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

It's not my fault you're retarded. Blame the doctor that dropped you.

Nice.

[DrewKaree]

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy   I can't WAIT to read the rationalization on THIS point!

Perhaps people would take your points seriously if you weren't guilty of what you charge others of, and your myopic desires prevent you from seeing the truth of that, even when pointed out by people who agree with you. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy   I can't WAIT to read the rationalization on THIS point!

I want to hear you defend the use of troops as political props - for the continued promotion of a war based on false premises and faulty intelligence - first. You know, your smug attitude does nothing to diminish my point. Apparently you're OK with mindlessly swallowing propaganda, let me hear WHY your ok with it?

You keep asking me to defend myself to you, yet, why should I, when you haven't even stated your position.

EDIT: Furthermore, did you even WATCH the video?



mrC

[DrewKaree]

I want to hear you defend the use of troops as political props - for the continued promotion of a war based on false premises and faulty intelligence - first.

First, false premises and faulty intelligence don't belong in the same sentence for your constant harpings.  Either you wish to stick with "BUSH LIED!" or you wish to admit EVERYONE IN THE WORLD had faulty intelligence, including your hero. 

Second, you continue to throw out these little bombs - false premises, criminal act, lies - and speak as if everyone in the world believes exactly as you do, when they DON'T.  You'll naturally point to whatever poll you can pull out of your ass to defend what you see as agreeing with your position, but the reality is that logical and rational people have no reason to believe Bush lied when speaking of what you view as his ONLY reason for going to war.  People (again, logical and rational - hate to have to qualify it, but I know it's necessary with you) aren't so insipidly stupid as to cast aside the fact that NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS THAT AREN'T CALLED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have had the same intelligence or believed the exact same thing the U.S. intel spoke of.

Third, your continued refusal to grasp the intel concept go hand in hand with what I said about your high-minded claim of "integrity, intellect, and relevance".  You're simply yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater at every chance you get. 

I've laid out how I feel about ALL of these photo-ops, you somehow got your panties up in a wad before stating that I was right in my assessment of them, and I'm supposed to explain my feelings on THIS photo-op in some way that will address how YOU view it to be?  You're playing stupid on purpose, because you and I both know I don't see your initial assessment of the situation the same, therefore I COULD NEVER SE YOUR SECOND ASSESSMENT THE SAME EITHER.  There won't BE an answer for your questions, because your questions are wrong to begin with.

You're asking me to explain to you why 1+1 DOESN'T equal 5 because you feel like I'VE been lied to.  It simply makes no sense.

My comment about your claim of a criminal act is in direct relation to the charges you level against another here, and are specific to the words you said.  You have no point to diminish in my eyes, because you have NO POINT!  You started with a flawed premise and ran with it.  I've laid out my feelings on photo-ops, you agree, yet (again, this has to do with the "integrity and intellectual hard work" you claim to champion) you call it mindlessly swallowing propaganda and state that I'm ok with it.  I guess since you agreed with me earlier, we both mindlessly swallow propaganda and are ok with it.  I'm just honest enough to call it ALL propaganda, whereas to you, only the stuff you disagree with is propaganda I guess, right?

See, your dumbass argument works both ways

You keep asking me to defend myself to you, yet, why should I, when you haven't even stated your position.

How thick or lazy are you?  I've stated it.  Did you look?  In case you missed it, I DON'T CARE IF IT WAS A PHOTO-OP - STAGED OR NOT - AND WILL CONTINUE NOT TO CARE ABOUT BLATANT PHOTO-OPS FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF TIME, AD INFINITUM.....PLUS 1!

I DON'T CARE!  That's my position on it.  I've stated it before in this very thread, and I just re-stated it since you were just "testing the waters of intellectual laziness".  I keep asking you to defend your inane statements regarding your views of others when your very words demonstrate you to be guilty of the EXACT SAME THING!  Try to pay attention.  I didn't ask you to defend your position, I asked you to defend yourself from the charges you leveled against yourself without knowing it.

I'd rather watch the butt-zit video than watch the tired caterwauling you provide us with one more time.  Yes, I watched it.  Please tell me that somehow you are able to figure out after re-reading my opinion on the situation again (it's a few paragraphs up above, in case you can't be bothered again) that your video isn't going to make one whit of difference.  You can't be THAT dense that you believe you've got "the smoking gun" that'll make me see your beliefs aren't the Grand Canyon leap of faith I've already said above that I think they are. 

I'm not even arguing your ridiculous point of whether this was staged or not.  I could care less if there's evidence that proves you so wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt that you should be sentenced to death for lying so blatantly....or not.  Pay attention to what's going on.  The argument you have envisioned in your mind isn't what's going on here.

[DrewKaree]

So again....I'll remove my snide banter (can't remove the rolling of the eyes, that's simply asking too much) and I'll phrase it in the form of a question, Alex:

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy?   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Either you wish to stick with "BUSH LIED!" or you wish to admit EVERYONE IN THE WORLD had faulty intelligence, including your hero.

Not a reasonable supposition, Drew.

Anyhow, I have a feeling we're going to find out soon enough how that 'intelligence' came to be. The Plame case seems to have broadened into an investigation of the Niger forgeries and the stovepiping of intel through Cheney's office. But we'll have to wait and see, I'm hopeful justice will be done, but not naive enough to believe it'll truly happen. Irregardless, I believe, honestly and wholeheartedly, that the Bush administration (Bush Lied is a nifty slogan, but it doesn't cover the scope of the crime) manipulated intelligence that they knew was false, and presented it to Congress, the American people and the world and Congress and several other nations acted on this intelligence against (what was once) the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Who bears more responsibility here? Congress for acting without questioning (certainly), or the regime that shoved this fetid intel down everyone's throats? You're tiny mind can't even get around the simple concept of accountability, let alone degrees of accountability.
 

so insipidly stupid as to cast aside the fact that NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS THAT AREN'T CALLED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA have had the same intelligence or believed the exact same thing the U.S. intel spoke of.

NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS weren't pushing that intel as reason enough to go to war Drew. Iraq is a U.S. led operation. Sorry, try again. No more apologia.

Third, your continued refusal to grasp the intel concept

Turn off the right-wing radio, and try researching the Niger forgeries. 16 words baby. Wasn't France that said, wasn't Germany, wasn't Russia, wasn't Paraguay, wasn't Zimbabwe...it was the Good Ole' U.S. of A, lead by one George W. Bush. So bite me, and don't lecture ME about not grasping intel. You're the lame apologist trying to pin it on the rest of the world.

I'm just honest enough to call it ALL propaganda, whereas to you, only the stuff you disagree with is propaganda I guess, right?

Bullsh!t. You haven't proven that, with any other administration, it rises to the level apparent in the video. Maybe it has, and there just isn't proof...but here before you *IS* proof of a disgusting level of propaganda, and somehow everyone is supposed to lie on the tracks and "NOT CARE" just like you. Good on you Drew, you have proven already, that you don't care...you win that argument.

I DON'T CARE IF IT WAS A PHOTO-OP - STAGED OR NOT - AND WILL CONTINUE NOT TO CARE ABOUT BLATANT PHOTO-OPS FROM NOW UNTIL THE END OF TIME, AD INFINITUM.....PLUS 1!

Yet, how odd? You're ranting so I can barely read your post through all your spittle. Don't post if you don't care.

God I can't wait for the death throes of Conservatism to stop...it's disturbing to watch it slowly suffocate on it's own twisted reasoning. 


mrC

[DrewKaree]

Irregardless, I believe, honestly and wholeheartedly, that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence that they knew was false, and presented it to Congress, the American people and the world and Congress and several other nations acted on this intelligence against (what was once) the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Yeah, we manipulated our intelligence, knowing they'd believe us.  It just so happened to be intelligence that agreed with what their own intelligence was telling them.

See?  You and I won't ever get to common ground precisely because you believe every nation was somehow coerced by this crafty administration through some shell game that replaced their intelligence with.....the same thing, only with a "United States" header on top of the paperwork. 

You could care less how illogical it could sound.  Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!  You read "spittle" into something you were so ignorant to, it simply HAD to be blared in order to get it into your head.  Obviously, the tactic worked, because you seem to have grasped it. 

Might we expect you to stoop to our level since you've gotten your answers?  Or is this just another "drop a turd in the punchbowl" move you're perfecting with your outlandish statements you view as "fact"?

So YET AGAIN....ONE MORE TIME!

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy?

Do you view this as a criminal act because you think he lied, and if lying under oath about a hummer is a criminal act, a staged publicity event should be also?  Please continue...oops, my bad....start.....to explain how some staged publicity event devolves into a criminal act in your mind.

I know, it probably is somewhere along the lines of what your definition of a lie is, but I'd like to hear your excuse, since I've fulfilled your request.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You started with a flawed premise and ran with it.

Just because you can't understand something, doesn't mean it's flawed.

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy?   

Allow me to put this to rest...

So your argument is that I have no grounds to claim that it *SHOULD* be illegal? Right? And you're upset because I won't accept "well, everyone does it"....WTF, are you 5 years old? How can you rub so few brain cells together and still be alive? Furthermore, how, in your very twisted world, are the two things even similar, one - arguing that, in a democracy, using propaganda and subsequently LYING about it should be illegal, and two - that *that* somehow amounts to the same level of 'intellectual laziness' as saying, "Well everyone does it!" ?

Drew, sorry, but a spade is a spade and you are NOT as smart as you think you are. You sir, are in fact, a mental midget...a stunted, midget, so small that other mental midgets point at you and laugh. Then they feel sorry for you and give you small bits of food, before sending you back to the bridge you sleep under. It's impossible to avoid ad hominem when your posts are filled with the sort of HUGE disconnects you think you've ingeniously "figgered out" in mine.

Anyhow, back to filling that void between your ears with good, solid facts. Not only SHOULD it be illegal, there's an argument to be made, that it MIGHT, in fact, already be illegal. Since the Commander-in-Chief is essentially covered under the Military Code of Conduct.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice...

907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Wiggle room here is that, were these 'false statements'? What is 'propaganda' if not designed with the intent to deceive? He used the armed forces to push agenda issues on the American public and then lied about it being staged. It's one thing to hold a rally, it's an entirely different animal when you sink to the levels visible in the linked video.

Listen, this may be too much for your fragile mind to grasp, as I'm sure your lord and master Glenn Beck has yet to cover it, but the "Truth in Broadcasting Act" is winding it's way - RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT - through Congress. It seeks "to prevent the government from selling pre-packaged government-created news as the real thing." Now why would they want to do that?? EVERYBODY DOES IT! Furthermore, why, if propaganda shan't be illegal, did we see "last month, congressional auditors conclude that the Education Department had engaged in illegal "covert propaganda" by hiring Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind Act?" Hmmmmm? If it's sooooooo unreasonable to argue that this level of misleading propaganda should be illegal, why did former CIA intelligence analyst Larry Johnson have this to say (?):

"Covert action refers to behind-the-scenes efforts by U.S. intelligence agencies to plant stories, manipulate information and shape public opinion. In other words, you write stories that reporters will publish as their own, you create media events that tout a particular theme, and you demonize your opponent. Traditionally, this activity was directed against foreign governments."

[...]

"Revelations during the past week about the Plame affair make it clear that the Bush administration used covert action against its own citizens."

[...]

"The evidence of the White House effort to manipulate and shape U.S. public opinion is now overwhelming. Just last week, President Bush appeared in a pathetic scripted "dialogue" with hand-selected U.S. troops. We also know that male escort Jeff Gannon Guckert was granted special access to White House press briefings and that pundits like Armstrong Williams sold themselves to the White House. The Bush administration had an organized campaign to manipulate the U.S. media to get its message out."

There are laws covering forgery, libel, slander, and certain acts of covert propaganda...how is it unreasonable to conclude that the type of propaganda witness in the Bush Iraq Teleconference should also, be illegal? (and may, in fact, actually BE ILLEGAL)

Anyhow, feel free to hide your tail between your legs, and/or change the goal posts. Or, better yet, respond with another, oh so American, and completely (not) honorable "I DON'T CARE." I'm not going to spend any more time trying to educate you. Your stubborn and lazy. If you aren't posting complete COPY N' PASTE jobs from whatever wingnut site you frequent, your writing inanities worthy of Marquis de Sade during his last days. It's a waste of my time directing these responses to your sad gotcha' games.

To simplify, PR and propaganda are NOT the same thing. Furthermore, there are levels of propaganda that are beyond the pale and should be illegal. A staged Photo-op is NOT the same as a pre-scripted AND staged question and answer session, promoted as 'spontaneous and unscripted', using the American armed forces as props, during a time of war. And, hey, if none of that makes any sense to you, then just remember....9/11 changed everything! BOO! Go back to bed.




mrC

EDIT: Word fix.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah, we manipulated our intelligence, knowing they'd believe us.  It just so happened to be intelligence that agreed with what their own intelligence was telling them.

YES they DID. AND some of it did agree. But the Bush junta went one step beyond that with the intel, claims of nuclear weapons (then later Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities). Then they went one step beyond all those other nations - ever still... WAR!

You can't seem to separate the fact that, although several other nations (which you haven't named) may have had certain intel (which you haven't pointed to) that was similar, the Bush administration (in collaboration with the British PM) had other bits, "sexed up" to help work over their respective citizenries in order to garner public (and congressional) support for a war. You HONESTLY do not believe the claims of "mushroom clouds" and "massive stockpiles of WMD" had anything to do with pushing America into this war?

See?  You and I won't ever get to common ground precisely because you believe every nation was somehow coerced by this crafty administration through some shell game that replaced their intelligence with.....the same thing, only with a "United States" header on top of the paperwork. 

No. We won't. The rest of the world didn't go to war with Iraq, Drew. Essentially the U.S. and Britain did. I believe the United States, before Bush, was respected enough around the world that they had faith we knew what we were doing. I'm positive that they won't feel that way again...and sadly, our intel may actually be correct (or not manufactured) the next time. This act of "crying wolf" *will* come back to haunt us.

You could care less how illogical it could sound.

It's not illogical Drew, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. You think it's naive and insane that I'd conclude that faulty intelligence was knowingly propagated in an effort to sell an ill-conceived war?

Ok...I think that; after NO WMD's were found, after every single person who questioned this administration in the run-up to the war was sacked, silenced and/or ignored (Shinseki, Zinni, Plame, Wilson, Richard Clark, U.N. Inspectors in Iraq, Mohamed El Baradei of the IAEA), it's naive that you can still believe we weren't knowingly misled into war.

I mean, what the hell would you need to convince you? I can't imagine you want to think your leaders are capable of creating such horrid misdirection (I wouldn't have believed it until they started to push for Iraq), yet, on one hand....you can't help but argue that they do anything but. Why the disconnect? You've got a tape in front of you of some of the most blatant propaganda I've seen this side of the CCCP and the best you can muster is a dig at Feingold? 

Your light years from being able to except that the niger forgeries were knowingly bunk, and that Cheney and Bush got the war they wanted, even though they knew they had to be 'creative' in how they got it.


mrC

EDIT: Small grammar fix.

[DrewKaree]

I'm just honest enough to call it ALL propaganda, whereas to you, only the stuff you disagree with is propaganda I guess, right?

Bullsh!t. You haven't proven that, with any other administration, it rises to the level apparent in the video. Maybe it has, and there just isn't proof...but here before you *IS* proof of a disgusting level of propaganda, and somehow everyone is supposed to lie on the tracks and "NOT CARE" just like you. Good on you Drew, you have proven already, that you don't care...you win that argument.

Anybody with half a brain knew this stuff has been staged for years.

The 'Mission Accomplished' banner, his and Cheney's phony "town hall meetings" before and after the election, where all the people are screened, asked to sign loyalty oaths to even get in, then pre-scripted "questions" are fielded from the crowd. This is the Potemkin Administration.

It's just nice to finally see the media decide they've had enough. They've known about this crap for years, but couldn't be bothered to report it.

Now you're talking about "levels"   Much as you'd wish it to be true, it's never been said by me that anyone's supposed to "lie on the tracks and NOT CARE".  It'd just be nice if you got your panties in a wad when publicity stunts are done by both parties, instead of giving us your selective examples.  Couldn't be bothered to report it?  What, do you rub shoulders with the hoity toity folks and are privy to inside information that no one else can get, or did they....well, yes, I believe they HAVE reported it. 

Good Lord man, you can agree that it happens, but heaven forbid you actually realize that BECAUSE it does, this is a non-issue unless your selectiveness is due to some agenda, and I should give you reams of documents that'll lead you to reiterating "sure, it happens on both sides"

Well, on the plus side, you're starting to admit numerous other nations saw that intelligence as reason enough to BACK that war and SUPPORT that war.  Used to be not too long ago, you were telling us the U.S. was rushing to war alone, with no support.  There's hope for you yet.  Well, unless one of your "feelings" about what's going to finally drag this administration down and lead to its ouster FINALLY comes true for you. 

I should see if Vegas has a line on you so I can throw some money down on your "feelings".  The Powerball Lottery wouldn't have paid so handsomely. 

There is no integrity in stating "everyone does it" or "just stop bashing Bush", that's intellectually lazy and irrelevant.

But somehow, claiming this should be a criminal act is the very height of integrity, intellectual hard work, and relevancy?

Allow me to put this to rest...

So your argument is that I have no grounds to claim that it *SHOULD* be illegal? Right?

No.  My position is as stated.  There's no need for you to read into what you believe I'm looking for, I've laid it out for you.  Stop playing the Howard Dean "hide the salami" game. 

blah blah blah
mindless attacks from a "compassionate" person
blah blah blah

It's amazing that you invariably resort to tactics you whine incessantly about, yet crow about how intellectual your arguments are.  Chad and Seph seem to have started the "your mom" movement.  Are you gonna pull that out too?  Lord and master Glenn Beck?  Do you REALIZE how ridiculous you sound with this crap?  Ya know, it'd be REALLY easy for me to sit here and pick the scabs of your personal issues again until you pleaded "knock it off" but I've tried to keep 99% of our conversations civil.  Why is it when you're at the end of your rope and can't think of anything, you lose all sense of civility and resort to paragraphs of "you suck and you're stupid and you're ugly too"?  Let us know when you're back to the intelligent part of your argument so everyone knows you're done name calling and throwing sand in the sandbox and can join back in the conversation.  Right now your petulance and small-mindedness is tiresome to have to try to draw some meaning or point from.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It'd just be nice if you got your panties in a wad when publicity stunts are done by both parties, instead of giving us your selective examples.

Drew, again, exactly as I said in my initial response to you...it'd sure be nice if you provided an example of something rising to the level present in this case, regarding something as severe as the promotion of an ongoing war effort. If it exists, I haven't seen it. You're assuming I'm only after this case because it's Bush, rather than because it's the most aggregious act of propoganda I've ever witnessed in America, in my lifetime. I can't take you seriously if you're not going to provide evidence.

paragraphs of "you suck and you're stupid and you're ugly too"

(love the paraphrase, I still think mental midget is better)

VS.

"Your continued refusal to grasp the intel concept go hand in hand with what I said about your high-minded claim of "integrity, intellect, and relevance"...How thick or lazy are you?...your dumbass argument works both ways...You're playing stupid on purpose...People (again, logical and rational - hate to have to qualify it, but I know it's necessary with you) aren't so insipidly stupid

Drew........seriously, kiss my pale, hairy arse. No, seriously. You're no better. Just stop acting like you are. It's sad and pathetic. In fact, you ASK for it. I deliver. if you don't want a flame war, don't start one. You'd think you'd have learned by now. But it gets you going, keeps you tingly. You are me and I am you.

I engage in about as much civility as I'm given. My meter goes from 1 to 10 (ok, maybe 5 to 10). You asked for 11. Don't use my responses to Dartful as a barometer, he actually deserves a more severe lashing than I actually give him. When then best he can be bothered to muster is a grunt, or maybe a turdball or two lobbed into a thread, the least I can do is have fun at his expense.

You on the other hand, only tend to pop in when you need a fix. So, meet your pusherman.

I'm your mamma, i'm your daddy
I'm that curmudgeon in the alley
I'm your doctor, when in need
want some coke, have some weed
you know me, i'm your friend
your main boy, thick and thin
I'm your pusherman
I'm your pusherman



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Right now your petulance and small-mindedness is tiresome to have to try to draw some meaning or point from.

Shorter Drew: "WAAAAAAH! You quoted substantive evidence supporting your argument, so I'm going to focus on the hurtful remarks, because I'm incredibly thin-skinned for a guy that throws the first punch."

Anyhow, any particular reason you fantasize about me in panties so often? I wear the ruffled granny-panties if that helps your minds-eye.

Look, if I wouldn't have included the heated invective, you would have just found some other way to avoid addressing the supportive stuff, and I wouldn't have had the fun venting. I've played teddy bear before and you always, invariably, find some other clever way to dodge. Oh, and like I prophesied, goal posts...moved.

Well, unless one of your "feelings" about what's going to finally drag this administration down and lead to its ouster FINALLY comes true for you.

mrC

[ChadTower]

NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS weren't pushing that intel as reason enough to go to war Drew. Iraq is a U.S. led operation. Sorry, try again. No more apologia.

Who does the President go to for approval to declare war?  Which body of government?  When he did that, how did that body respond?  They took a vote, yes?  What was the result of that vote?  Did they agree or disagree that the intel was sufficient to declare war on Iraq?

Do numerous other nations have a legal voice in the actions of the United States government?

When the President puts forth a proposition of declaration of war, and it is approved by the body to which it was presented, how should the responsibility be split? 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

When the President puts forth a proposition of declaration of war, and it is approved by the body to which it was presented, how should the responsibility be split? 

This is a very good question. I really do think there are levels of responsibility here. I think Kerry should be held responsible for his vote, Hillary for her current hawkish stance, etc...but I just can't see the sense in affording them to the same amount of derision as the people who put the whole thing together and sold it to the world as an immediate danger. To use Drew's analogy, the Bush regime has committed the ultimate act of screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Am I really supposed to spread equal blame on those that chose to run?

Congress, the U.N., our allies...they made their decision ultimately based on the refined case for War, as it was manufactured by the leaders of United States of America. If they were presented with doctored evidence and additional intelligence that was knowingly falsified, how can they be equally to blame for trusting in the United States? Isn't that the way the world was supposed to work? Can't it be surmised that this current administration took advantage of that trust?

And now, those that supported and continue to support the war, point their fingers at *them* and say, "See they thought so too!", as if that's a reasonable argument for continuing the debacle in Iraq, or better yet, as if that somehow justifies it in the first place. Doesn't seem like an honest assessment to me.

At the end of the day, how would our country ever function if Congress never had any trust in a sitting President? Sure, I, personally never bought the Iraqi bill of goods, was never convinced they were a threat, and saw the War in Iraq as a horrible distraction from the real War against Al Qaeda. I certainly would have loved to see our Congress men and women question that evidence in more detail before OK'ing this debacle, for I fear that this rush to war, and the collapse of the case for such has undermined this relationship for decades to come.

What happens the next time a president presents the case that some regime is ready to attack us with the imminent threat of "mushrooms clouds on the horizon?" Will Congress balk, will the world be less sympathetic and cooperative? Surely, and at our own peril if the intel is correct.

Lastly, I have seen no evidence to suggest that had anyone else been elected president in 2000, they would have tried to present a case for War against Iraq, after we had been attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11. That is speculation based on several observations.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, other member of AEI and WHIG...they had a hard-on for Iraq LONG before 9/11, for numerous reasons, and it seems to me that it isn't a huge logical leap to suggest that - in an attempt to bolster the case against Iraq - they would have conveniently overlooked evidence contrary to that goal. Nor is it hard for me to imagine them being SO absolutely confident they would find WMD, based on a pre-determined rationalizations, they may have even gone so far as to knowingly pass along bogus intel that supported their theory, in the hopes that, after we were greeted with "flowers and candy", the ends would justify the means. 9/11 provided them an opportunity to shoe horn their desires for war against Iraq, for Pax Americana, and for a footprint in a Middle Eastern oil-rich country, so they took advantage of the world's trust in America to do it. Well, everyone admits there were no WMD. Everyone admits that the intel was flawed, some of it forged, and all of it wrong. And so far for a majority of Americans, along with the rest of the world, the ends do not justify the means.




mrC

P.S. See Drew, Chad presented a respectful, well thought out response...and I responded in kind. I don't expect him to agree with me, nor do I wish to convince him of anything in particular. I am merely stating a point of view based on my own observation of data, as we discuss the topic at hand. He and I have had our heated exchanges, but here, he didn't attack me personally, nor did he insult my point of view.

[ChadTower]

[quote author=What happens the next time a president presents the case that some regime is ready to attack us with the imminent threat of "mushrooms clouds on the horizon?" Will Congress balk, will the world be less sympathetic and cooperative? Surely, and at our own peril if the intel is correct.

It probably won't happen again.  Firstly, this is the first preemptive military action the US has taken.  When you are first to strike there is always the risk of being wrong.  Since the reason we were striking was tiny, mobile weapons, it is still impossible to know if they really had those weapons.  It is very possible the weapons did not exist, but it is equally possible that those weapons are still in hiding or are someplace like Syria now.  Our attack wasn't exactly a sneak attack, giving them ample weeks to hide any evidence that may have existed.  It cannot be completely discounted that some of that evidence could have been correct.  It was certainly manipulated but there is no way to scientifically prove those weapons were never there.

We can, however, prove that they were, with existing evidence.  We know he had chemical weapons at one point.  We have evidence that they possessed them and were willing to use them on their own civilians.

Given a new type of national threat (nonNational and fanatic) that has struck on US soil, a new type of military response was required.  Rather than sit back and wait to be attacked again, and then have to beg other countries to go after the attackers, our country chose to eliminate those threats before being attacked.  It is an extreme departure from US history and a major change in geopolitics.

If this administration had done what it said it was going to do then we wouldn't have all this garbage.  The case was simple.  Go in, get the weapons, leave.  In the process we had to remove Hussein, messy but doable.  Unfortunately, when they didn't find the weapons, they went into spin mode and "liberated" Iraq.  Now, rather than having gone in to protect National Security, we are in to build a new nation.  A nation that doesn't want us and will likely stand against us as soon as we leave... which is why we're not leaving.

The US took a major gamble on a new preemptive doctrine and it failed.

Bush bears much of the responsibility, far more than any other individual, but every Congressman who voted to go to war also bears responsibility.

[Havok]

NUMEROUS OTHER NATIONS weren't pushing that intel as reason enough to go to war Drew. Iraq is a U.S. led operation. Sorry, try again. No more apologia.

Who does the President go to for approval to declare war?

[ChadTower]

Keep in mind, that they were voting based on the "facts" that were presented to them...

Anyone who votes blindly without at least some level of critical thought and outside corroboration is an idiot and incapable of proper service.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The US took a major gamble on a new preemptive doctrine and it failed.

Bush bears much of the responsibility, far more than any other individual, but every Congressman who voted to go to war also bears responsibility.

In total agreement with this point. But where we go from here, and how we each care to address that "gamble", is entirely another debate.

It was certainly manipulated but there is no way to scientifically prove those weapons were never there.

I think, for me (again, I know there is no way to convince people otherwise, at this point)...the larger issue is that, while it cannot be proven they were never there (impossible to prove a negative), it can be proven that there wasn't enough "just cause" or "imminent threat" for war, even if weapons had been used on his own people. That doesn't follow as a threat to the United States. Plenty of countries had engaged in even larger acts of genocide, and there is no march to invade and "liberate" them, nor are they seen as a threat. The fact remains, that Saddam had made no outward attempt to attack our country, nor reconstitute his WMD programs. It was widely accepted before the war, that Iraq's military capabilities had been quite succesfully neutered by sanctions, that Saddam was entirely contained, and that he was not linked to the 9/11 attack in any way shape or form.

Even one step further, I think it could be proven (not sure if it will) that intelligence was doctored in order to ferment the war. Now, I know this call for retrograde accountability bothers you a bit, but I think it's necessary in order to prove, to the American public at large, the continued worthiness of the expenditure of lives and capital in the continued war in Iraq, lest we keep sending our kids over there to die, while continually engendering more terrorists.

I guess I see no benefit to a war without end, and the only means of stopping American involvement in the war (at this point) seems to be to disprove the false premise it is entirely based on.

mrC

[ChadTower]

I guess I see no benefit to a war without end, and the only means of stopping American involvement in the war (at this point) seems to be to disprove the false premise it is entirely based on.

There isn't a benefit, but the consequences of leaving Iraq without a functioning gov't would probably be graver to us than what we are doing.

Without what we've done there to establish a legal gov't, what would have popped up in its place would have been civil war, then a new dictatorship, one with almost 100% certainty to be aggressively hostile to the US.  Probably rightfully so, too, since they would have been put through years of hell as a result of our actions.  That would have led to hostilities that cost far more in US lives than have been spent in Iraq to this point.

Setting them up the way we have really doesn't benefit us, but it does prevent something from popping up that really is a large threat.

Plus, if you consider it a benefit, we have a massive legal military presence in the most US-hostile region in the world.  Iran is neutered so long as we are present in Iraq.

[Dartful Dodger]

There isn't a benefit, but the consequences of leaving Iraq without a functioning gov't would probably be graver to us than what we are doing.

He wont understand this concept.  His hero, Clinton wouldn't have gotten a free ride of US/world peace without Reagan's participation in the cold war.  Clinton had one problem, a hand full of guys tried to blow up the world trade center, but Clinton didn't want to rock the boat, so he just kept the US out of it.

[ChadTower]

Was the bombing of the USS Cole during Clinton too?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There isn't a benefit, but the consequences of leaving Iraq without a functioning gov't would probably be graver to us than what we are doing.

I'm not even sure it's possible while American boots are on the ground there. Any gov't in Iraq needs to be seen as legitimate by both Sunnis and Shia. Kurds were getting their way, either way. Right now, I don't think the majority of either group fully respects the situation.

Without what we've done there to establish a legal gov't, what would have popped up in its place would have been civil war, then a new dictatorship, one with almost 100% certainty to be aggressively hostile to the US.

I think the march is on towards several of those ends anyhow, or is at least more likely with a prolonged American presence, or at the *very least* with the current administration in charge of the effort. They have proven time and again that they are incompetent.

Probably rightfully so, too, since they would have been put through years of hell as a result of our actions.  That would have led to hostilities that cost far more in US lives than have been spent in Iraq to this point.

I think the damage is already done, unfortunately. As my view is we should never have been there in the first place, I can't rationalize the costs (lives/tax dollars) of staying any longer.

Plus, if you consider it a benefit, we have a massive legal military presence in the most US-hostile region in the world.  Iran is neutered so long as we are present in Iraq.

Since 9/11 is has become more clear to me that the real threat isn't state entities, which have a lot to lose in direct conflicts with the United States, but rather the new threat is obviously, amorphous groups planning individual acts of terrorism. Honestly, what would Iran have to gain by threatening us with nukes? They know they couldn't win. They've barely got a grasp on theocracy as it is. If fact, leaving well enough alone, it's *was* highly likely we'd have seen a home-grown democracy within the next several decades. Increased hostilities between the U.S. and Iran would only act to galvanize support for the religious fundamentalist factions there, strengthening the theocrats...and silencing the democratic opposition.

To me, the Iraq War has done serious damage to our interests in the Middle East, staying longer only adds to the damage.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He wont understand this concept.

Do you even know where Iraq is on a map?

Clinton had one problem, a hand full of guys tried to blow up the world trade center, but Clinton didn't want to rock the boat, so he just kept the US out of it.

Clinton is my "hero", he was just a much better president than the current one and came much closer to killing Osama Bin Laden with several cruise missiles than the entire Bush regime has with 150,000 U.S. troops, dozens of military aircraft, vehicles, and other resources, and at a minor fraction of the cost.

Also, just so were are clear...SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK US. ..........ok?


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Clinton is my "hero", he was just a much better president than the current one..
...and at a minor fraction of the cost.

3000+ innocent people is high price to pay for being weak.

Bush is my president, and he is a much better president than your "hero" Clinton.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

3000+ innocent people is high price to pay for being weak.

I'd say it's a high price to pay for ignoring a memo that states, "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The U.S.". Then again Clinton's team did it's best to warn the Bushistas, even after proving the threat by thwarting the millennium bomber...it's not his fault they ignored his warnings.

So what say you when the death toll in Iraq tops the death toll from 9/11? (We're at about 2000 kids right now) Then what say you when the son of someone we've killed over in Iraq comes and blows up the Mall of America in retaliation?

Kinda of a high price to pay for being both ignorant and stubborn.

and he is a much better president than your "hero" Clinton.

If by "much better" you mean much better at spending our tax money, and much better at cultivating a culture of corruption in Washington, then yes...you are correct.


mrC

EDIT: Word fix.

[ChadTower]

They both suck... Bush has had a much, much harder time with the events that have occurred during his watch, while Clinton rode an economic bubble and zero national threat for 8 years.

It is of course impossible to prove, but I suspect Clinton wouldn't be doing much better right now were he president.

It's going to be awfully hard to view Clinton as much of a president once the Chinese start pointing more of those US technology guided long range missles directly at the US.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's going to be awfully hard to view Clinton as much of a president once the Chinese start pointing more of those US technology guided long range missles directly at the US.

Heh. I'd say the same thing about Bush and North Korea. I am much more comfortable with China having them (read: not much) than I am with that maniac in NK.

China losses big if they blow us up...Bush has made us their biggest debtor, with over half (52%) of all U.S. Treasury debt is now held by overseas owners, China being the second largest owner (next to Japan). Thanks to the Iraq War.


mrC

[ChadTower]

China would trade that debt for the land in North America in a heartbeat.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

China would trade that debt for the land in North America in a heartbeat.

I'm sure that if there was a land bridge, we'd all be speaking Chinese right now. But that ocean surely narrows the options. Nukes are the most efficient, but then again, they'd be dead...and our land would be useless to them. So, I'd say we're going to probably be a Chinese Corporation before we're ever conquered militarily, and they may get that land yet, without firing a single shot!   


mrC

[Grasshopper]

I think the best option at this point in time would be for the US and UK to pull out of Iraq asap and be replaced by large numbers of UN peacekeepers preferably drawn from Muslim countries. Sadly I don't see this happening firstly because it would cause Bush and his team to lose a massive amount of face and secondly because I cannot imagine the UN wanting to touch Iraq with a bargepole at this point. I mean why should they help Bush out when he has repeatedly shown them the finger?

[ChadTower]

Plus, the UN would have to HAVE troops, which for the most part they don't.  What they have is US, so all this would do is result in the UN taking control of US troops on foreign soil.  Not going to happen.

If Bush has done anything right,  it was separating from the so called authority of the UN.

[Dartful Dodger]

If Bush has done anything right,

[Grasshopper]

Plus, the UN would have to HAVE troops, which for the most part they don't.  What they have is US, so all this would do is result in the UN taking control of US troops on foreign soil.  Not going to happen.

If Bush has done anything right,  it was separating from the so called authority of the UN.

Not true. There are UN peacekeepers all over the world. India for instance contributes large numbers. You don't get to hear about them much because peacekeeping is unglamorous. It is true that US troops (or troops from other developed countries) are needed for UN backed invasions but peacekeeping is an entirely different matter. For peacekeeping manpower is far more important than having the best/most sophisticated/most expensive equipment. The US army actually seriously lacks manpower and that is part of the problem. Another problem is that the US has zero credibility in the arab world.

[DrewKaree]

Not true. There are UN peacekeepers all over the world. India for instance contributes large numbers. You don't get to hear about them much because peacekeeping is unglamorous. It is true that US troops (or troops from other developed countries) are needed for UN backed invasions but peacekeeping is an entirely different matter. For peacekeeping manpower is far more important than having the best/most sophisticated/most expensive equipment. The US army actually seriously lacks manpower and that is part of the problem. Another problem is that the US has zero credibility in the arab world.

Aren't those UN guys needed to replace the UN guys dealing in sex abuse rings, or are those guys replacing the UN guys responsible for the corrupt Oil for Food dealings...well, I guess they'll have to solicit bribes to pay the troops they might send to Iraq....wait, that was a leadership problem, not a man-on-the-ground problem.  Well, at least there's no rigging of deals going on by...nevermind, scratch that.  That's only supposed to be newsworthy when it might be able to be tied to Mr Cheney, you probably weren't aware of anything like that going on, right?

Yeah, you're right.  The UN is the better solution to handling Iraq.  They seem to be above the fray with NONE of the problems everyone seems to think are making the current U.S. administration a "failure".  I mean, they'd have to be better, right?  What with everyone "working for the betterment of all"