ok--I don't have DSL and am not willing to wait for the video to download, especially considering that I seem to support your anti-Bush stance even though your Topic Header presents it oppositely (if that's even a word!).
Keep in mind, we're in CRUNCH TIME here, the more you distract people with blind alleys the more frustrated they will get and vote for who you suggest in your topic. Were I to have the high-speed connection and the time, I would certainly watch your videos, but keep in mind that many won't -- especially those that are PRO BUSH and note the NOBUSH tag on your file. I'll add that most liberals, in that generally they are more intelectually curious than their counterparts, will go forth with your effort.
If you're looking to draw in and convince others to the contrary, try again. They're really not as stupid (or patient) as you think.
it is just some clips from something on comedy central, i am assuming the daily show...
they aren't exceptionally fresh. typical shots at bush's inability to sound intelligent.
i don't know what naysayer's intentions are, but i highly doubt they were directed towrds swaying the readers of archinect's votes.
i understand it is "crunch time" but, dude, chill out.
there is a reat essay on ctheory.net -http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=427
- that equates bush with the peter sellers charachter from "being there".
I think the first steps are what Kerry outlined in the first debate:
1. Get more people teaching the Iraqis how to police and manage themselves. So far, it's a pathetic effort at best.
2. Announce, and follow through, that the US and Europe will not get a penny of their oil.
Until those are done, it's hopeless to get support. I am confident that they aren't that naive over there about the true intentions of Bush, nor is the rest of the world. But if we can keep our dirty fingers out of their oil, they may just have a little more faith in us and in themselves.
As it stands now, I can't see a possible solution. We withdraw now, civil war, we wait and we lose more lives, basically postponing the inevitable. It's such a mess with so many forces, that we can't hope to 'solve' it. Regardless of which way we go, when we leave it will be much worse than it is now and we can't afford to keep sending more troops and money. A no win situation, unless we make a stand that we are for peace and freedom, not oil.
I do believe that this is the 'wrong war at the wrong time'. In a recession it's just bad, at least today, to spend 200 billion, not to mention the jobs shipping overseas.
I'd love to see the Middle East 'free', and to some extent, agree with the Wolfovitz papers (that started this war for 'freedom' back in Bush01 days), but it's just not the right time and not the right method.
Stark3d - your comments are only adding fuel to the fire of the heated divide in this country. Your name calling and all caps writing will only further anger people who disagree with you. I'm not going to change my vote to Kerry because you call Bush a "looooser." What ever happened to civil political discussions in this country? Democrat, republican or independant we are all citizens of the same country.
A
Very good point, Stark3d's comments might as well be stricken from the record.
But despite all of your discussing, I doubt any of you took the time to watch the movie that was linked. This thread was created with a reference to a movie at the top. I believe this would be a more focused discussion if a few of you cared to watch it and respond in the context of the movie, not to the context of politics at large?
Hopefully this won't exclude everyone from the discussion? Sorry if you don't have the patience for the link to load, db (and others). It's quite worth it.
It is quite telling of what everybody talks about when they talk about him considering what happened for the past four years. There is indeed nothing to forgive to this man. Anyway, I shouldn't even give my point of view, considering the fact that I'm not going to vote for this election, and I wouldn't want to. it's all in your hands, and I'm not sure it's going to affect really my future, but I'm sure if I was american, I would judt want to get rid of him. Sorry for the intrusion.
People speak of our greedy hands in their oil...without looking at who is to blame. The everday American man and woman. We have been involved in the Middle East, Iraq, and Saudi [url=http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia101.html] longer than the past 13 years and the first Gulf War. And until we as an American public look at ourselves, and not the government as the problem, then we can't point fingers. (Now i'm sure I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but) How many people drive an auto that is not a hybrid or ethanol based? How many people sit in a traffic clogged highway alone rather than with a car pool. How many people don't use public transportation?
The government has its hands in Mideast Oil because we as the public, we as their constituency, demand it. As much as people don't want to admit it, our dependence on oil and natural gas is the most important of national security issues. WWI and WWII are the best examples of this. Until we as consumers change our purchasing habits, our representative in government won't change their voting habits.
You want our troops out of the Middle East, make changes in your own personal life. Its not just government pulling the strings...its the choice to pay the $2.50/gal for gas that affects my family fighting in Afganistan and Iraq.
As a non-American, non-resident, could any of you, in all seriousness, please give me at least one redeeming personal quality about Bush, which makes him a fit leader.
I cant see anything about this man that I like, but I am happy to be proven wrong.
diabase - Bush has no redeeming qualities, that I can think of, that qualify him as a leader.
Kerry isn't a God send, either, but he protects issues that I personally feel are significant (right to choose, environment), and that's enough for me. His stance for giving the oil to Iraq is good, imo, and something Bush won't even comment on.
It's a choice of the lesser evil, unfortunately. But it's clear, for me, at least.
speck - we do demand the oil, but that's the government's fault. It's like giving a greedy kid candy all day because he wants it. At some point, there has to be a governing body that acts in the subjects best interest, and in this case it's encouraging less reliance on fossil fuels. Not rocket science, they technology is out there, but without encouragement, for both the producers and consumers, we'll just eat that damn candy until it kills us.
naysayer - I did watch the video and thanks for the link. Entertaining, but a shame more people won't see it.
We as consumers continue to buy high emission suv's rather than purchasing
a:lower emission suv's offered by the big three
b:ethanol, mixed fuel models - again Ford offers each of their top five models in the "green" version
c:hybrids. And, we as the public ignore the government - city/state/national - as they continue to operate and promote mass transit, most of the time at a loss. In the end it is our choice.
Yet we, as trace illustrated, continue to wait for the government to take care of the issue for us. at some point, the kid has to grow up and take care of himself. at what point do we wake up and realize that the candy is killing us and take the responsibility for our own actions.
It all starts out "We the People..." I'm amazed how we continue to forget that the power begins and ends with us, the common man.
Bush is a large part of the problem, so is Kerry, AND SO ARE WE. Nothing will change until we realize our own role in the issue. Once we do realize our role, and realize the power of that role, America will again illustrate its greatest precept: as Patrick stated earlier "It would occur to many of them for the first time, exactly what democracy means. They will realize that even in a country as powerful as the United States, no leader is exempt from oversight by his own people. And this is an ideal always worth fighting and dying for."
I did originally watch the link. Entertaining, yes. It was made for comedy central consumption. As for Bush changing his "words," I think we've all clearly seen that. Although I cannot forgive the president for everything I do agree that the war on terror has to be more than just finding Osama. I also know that we haven't given up that tast itself, personally knowing someone in Afghanistan serving at this moment. I'm not sure if Iraq what where we needed to go. I side of Patricks comment that we should've done it in 1991. Too late for that now but I am willing to conceed that our president has better intelligence that you and I get through our mass media. I don't buy the stories that it was a personal vendetta, and Bush knew WMD's didn't exsist. Clearly many people thought they did exsist, including many prominent democrats. How easy it is to blame whom ever is in office that makes that tough call. Many people, including Kerry are quoted from both pre and post 9/11 saying Iraq is our greatest threat. I choose to remain open minded enough to be optimistic about what our government has done over there for the past three years.
As for 2000 campaign promises, which the clip doesn't discuss but I think counts too, Bush has kept most his promises.
He promised to improve education with NCLB. Drafted by Ted Kennedy it raised the federal funding of education to the higest levels ever. It does have problems but it was a promise kept, none the less.
He promised to renew the missile defense iniaitive which has more or less happened. He also said that he'd uncover the nuclear threat around the world. Everyone likes to point out North Korea as a failure but one could argue most of that was in play during the Clinton admin. He did uncover illegeal nuclear deals of Pakastani scientists and don't forget that Lybia turned over their entire WMD program to the united states.
He promised tax cuts across the board for all incomes - done twice. Also promised to eliminate the death tax, also done.
All that said, I'm not voting for the guy, nor do I agree with all of what he's done. But for all the daily diatribe I read about how Bush is a liar, stupid, etc. etc. etc. Still, I personally can trust Bush more than Kerry, and think he has more conviction, compassion and respect for the office and the country.
you want reason enough not to vote Bush read the NYT Sunday Mag from 10.17.04. Bush and his faith are in keeping with religion during pre-enlightenment times, that and other points in the article are reason enough for me - although i was already voting Kerry - what i learned Sunday scared the bejesus out of me...
I hate bringing up old threads but I just joined today so please excuse me.
I was searching for some CAD related support and stumbled upon this forum. With all of the numerous anti-Bush and political rhetoric threads, I assume this site is sponsored in part by Berkley or various voice of dissent groups. Even a few of the more tech. threads reek of knowitallism.
Bush may be a few of the things mentioned above, but his personality is clear and his choices have been based on the best research of his advisers (who clearly are not stupid). Iraq could have possibly waited but do you really think if we were still “talking†with Saddam that he have made things easier. No way. Additional time wasted with him would have meant more time for him to build a resistance or develop a program in a fight that would have happened anyway. In addition, Bush took office just after the dot com error burst and millions of jobs were lost (and continue to be lost). He is always compared against the economy from Clinton but the only reason that economy was so strong was due to the emerging internet dot com’s (which Clinton somehow luckily gets credit for). We were attacked, we lost another gazillion jobs, all these mega companies went corrupt/bust, the dow almost fell below 7000, and we are fighting a bunch of wars. But despite all of that, he has helped to bring us back to near Clinton dow and job growth levels within 2 years…how can you say that is a bad job?
As for Kerry, he is a poster child for the “whining buttkissâ€Â. The man appears hollow with no clear personal identity and will whore himself out to ever he is standing next to. His buttkissing reminds me so much of former Ca. governor Gray Davis (who did an enormous amount of damage to Ca.) with his blame games and fence walking. He “will†raise taxes on individuals make more than $200k a year. This “will†include many small businesses (i.e. small arch. firms) that file as individuals. He whines and whines about everything under the sun and blames Bush for it all, but provides no “realistic†plans for a better society. He does not have one good thing to brag about for all those decades in office and spent most of his time whining about whatever republican was in office. He acts like a corrupt Hollywood lawyer and his running mate is a lawyer. Is that who you what you want to lead this country?
The real reason people don’t like Bush is because of his obvious religion and his “the man†attitude. And when someone is not liked for these reasons it breeds a resentment of hate……
But if Kerry says he will raise the speed limit like Clinton did, I will definitely vote for him!
His personality is clear... what the hell does that mean? He's consistently an idiot, and laughs at himself, so we should like him?
I don't want to vote for him because of very specific policy changes I see. Firstly, what has happened with Iraq. Secondly, what is going on with the EPA and energy policy. The religious right threatening a women's right to choose, the proposed marriage amendment, school vouchers (about which they've been quit but I'm sure they'll be back), the budget defecit, the list goes on...
BTW, as to that argument about the raising taxes on people with incomes over 200,000 affecting small business - I own a partnership and a corporation, and I can tell you that it will only affect small business owners whose NET TAXABLE INCOME exceeds 200,000. That means that any individual partner or owner would be taxed if they made more than that... a company whose revenue exceeds that but whose expenses bring their individual personal (meaning each partner or owner would have to make over that amount) gains below the 200,000 wouldn't have the increased taxes. There are many many deductions for business, which make it easy to lower what becomes net taxable gain. So the reality is it would only be people making that much, or really a lot more but writing tons of it off, that would have to pay it. It will be a long time before my partners and I are making that much money each year, and it that time comes that would mean my husband and I are making over 400,000 a year, and it seems fair we would pay more taxes. In any case, it just doesn't affect most people, nor will it put an undue burden on the small startup company, cause we sure as hell aren't making that much profit.
In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''
and more;
This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a California congressman in a meeting about one of the world's most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any number of times on the campaign trail, ''By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful.''
more;
Bush has been called the C.E.O. president, but that's just a catch phrase -- he never ran anything of consequence in the private sector. The M.B.A. president would be more accurate: he did, after all, graduate from Harvard Business School. And some who have worked under him in the White House and know about business have spotted a strange business-school time warp. It's as if a 1975 graduate from H.B.S. -- one who had little chance to season theory with practice during the past few decades of change in corporate America -- has simply been dropped into the most challenging management job in the world.
One aspect of the H.B.S. method, with its emphasis on problems of actual corporations, is sometimes referred to as the ''case cracker'' problem. The case studies are static, generally a snapshot of a troubled company, frozen in time; the various ''solutions'' students proffer, and then defend in class against tough questioning, tend to have very short shelf lives. They promote rigidity, inappropriate surety. This is something H.B.S. graduates, most of whom land at large or midsize firms, learn in their first few years in business. They discover, often to their surprise, that the world is dynamic, it flows and changes, often for no good reason. The key is flexibility, rather than sticking to your guns in a debate, and constant reassessment of shifting realities. In short, thoughtful second-guessing.
George W. Bush, who went off to Texas to be an oil wildcatter, never had a chance to learn these lessons about the power of nuanced, fact-based analysis. The small oil companies he ran tended to lose money; much of their value was as tax shelters. (The investors were often friends of his father's.) Later, with the Texas Rangers baseball team, he would act as an able front man but never really as a boss.
Instead of learning the limitations of his Harvard training, what George W. Bush learned instead during these fitful years were lessons about faith and its particular efficacy. It was in 1985, around the time of his 39th birthday, George W. Bush says, that his life took a sharp turn toward salvation. At that point he was drinking, his marriage was on the rocks, his career was listless. Several accounts have emerged from those close to Bush about a faith ''intervention'' of sorts at the Kennebunkport family compound that year. Details vary, but here's the gist of what I understand took place. George W., drunk at a party, crudely insulted a friend of his mother's. George senior and Barbara blew up. Words were exchanged along the lines of something having to be done. George senior, then the vice president, dialed up his friend, Billy Graham, who came to the compound and spent several days with George W. in probing exchanges and walks on the beach. George W. was soon born again. He stopped drinking, attended Bible study and wrestled with issues of fervent faith. A man who was lost was saved.
and more;
A few months later, on Feb. 1, 2002, Jim Wallis of the Sojourners stood in the Roosevelt Room for the introduction of Jim Towey as head of the president's faith-based and community initiative. John DiIulio, the original head, had left the job feeling that the initiative was not about ''compassionate conservatism,'' as originally promised, but rather a political giveaway to the Christian right, a way to consolidate and energize that part of the base.
Moments after the ceremony, Bush saw Wallis. He bounded over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand, and squeezed. ''Jim, how ya doin', how ya doin'!'' he exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that his massage therapist had given him Wallis's book, ''Faith Works.'' His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others remember it, was palpable -- a president, wrestling with faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, '''but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism.'''
Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.
''No, Mr. President,'' Wallis says he told Bush, ''We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism.''
Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.
''When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,'' Wallis says now. ''What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year -- a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him.''
wow and more;
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.'' When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, ''Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.''
A regent I spoke to later and who asked not to be identified told me: ''I'm happy he's certain of victory and that he's ready to burst forth into his second term, but it all makes me a little nervous. There are a lot of big things that he's planning to do domestically, and who knows what countries we might invade or what might happen in Iraq. But when it gets complex, he seems to turn to prayer or God rather than digging in and thinking things through. What's that line? -- the devil's in the details. If you don't go after that devil, he'll come after you.''
Bush grew into one of history's most forceful leaders, his admirers will attest, by replacing hesitation and reasonable doubt with faith and clarity. Many more will surely tap this high-voltage connection of fervent faith and bold action. In politics, the saying goes, anything that works must be repeated until it is replaced by something better. The horizon seems clear of competitors.
Can the unfinished American experiment in self-governance -- sputtering on the watery fuel of illusion and assertion -- deal with something as nuanced as the subtleties of one man's faith? What, after all, is the nature of the particular conversation the president feels he has with God -- a colloquy upon which the world now precariously turns?
That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.
''Faith can cut in so many ways,'' he said. ''If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.
''Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want.''
I really appreciate your moderate and objective level of thinking in regards to our country and soon coming election. The polarized people in this country cling to passionate ideals (including myself) that may dampen objective reasoning. It also seems most people believe what they believe based on a platform of morality and/or of personal gain/freedom. So it’s not surprising that the tone of utter hatred for this president is so amazingly strong. Bush’s “brain†and beliefs are so transparent it makes him a human dartboard. He is definitely not the best linguist and would never make it to Jeopardy, but “most†Americans identify with his human faults. The big city people are the voters that will put Kerry into to office. Most of the primary values of these dense cities are focused around personal gain, wealth, vanity, and no consequence party like a rock star freedom (i.e. choice). Much of the rest country set on simple bible based values and thinking. Democracy….it’s just crazy. But society in general with each passing generation allows more and more …. I mean, can you imagine back when you were 12 years old being able to go to nearly any computer at anytime and see instant super hardcore porn (and you can’t blame this on parents because kids will get access)….I think future boys are going to be pretty messed up in coming generations. As for the article above, I would bet that for every “Wallis†that Bush has met, there are a hundred other pastors saying just the opposite…he was probably insulted and felt the need to vent the to the NY Times of all places. Anyhow, enough ranting…..bored on a Saturday.
P.S. The Trojan War Machine is going to trample those beanie baby golden bears. Wahahaha
so when Pat Robertson says GW Bush tells him there would be no US casualties in Iraq that is what? I mean Pat is far from a liberal wonk. So what is that? He never backed down when the white house said he must have been mistaken.
yet one more blunder. seems the u.s. didn't secure 380 tons of the world's most powerful conventional explosives used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons. they are missing from one of iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
the u.s. knew about the weapons and did nothing. looting has continued even as recently as sunday.
Try this link. Granted, it's on Air America so it's not 'objective' anyway. But what Doctorow has to say is more elegant and artful than almost anything by anyone else I've heard. And it comes closest to my own sentiment than anyone else...(takes about 6 1/2 minutes to listen, but it's worth it.)
thought this thread needed to come back into play (and stay in play for the next few days?). the movies page on naysayer's first entry gets updated fairly often and there are some new ones that are rich. my favorite this week is 'bush-conclusions'.
it also has the eminem video. never was a fan before, but this is a good song and a great video.
5 more days. keep the focus on pushing the man out the door.
The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.
We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Whats wrong with celebrities being political? They have the power to influence and they use it to benefit their cause. In this case I don't particularly blame them. So many people hate W that I would be surprised if they didn't say anything. In Eminems case, he's doing what he has made his career out of, speaking whats on his mind. Love it or hate it, thats his art.
PM
George Bush does not have freedom on his mind. And neither is he a simpleton. But what intelligence he possesses is hamstrung by stubborness, a lack of intellectual curiosity, and a blind loyalty to idealogues he has surrounded himself with. (or should I say have surrounded him - very different situations)
Our interests in Iraq have nothing to do with freedom. It's about maintaining a flow of oil and protecting Isreal. This is all spelled out on the "Project for a New American Century's" website in documents dating back to the last century. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
I also disagree that the left only sees hatrred for Bush. That's the 60 second soundbite the media wants to feed you. While I am an independent that lives somewhere right of center fiscally and somewhere left of center culturally - I'll tell you what I hate. I hate that decades of struggle by environmental causes has been eroded in favor of the agenda of energy companies. I hate that my civil rights have been eroded. I hate that our individual rights are under attack. I hate that this administratioon is spending money like a drunken sailor - and getting very little in return for it's money. (When you consider the deficit that has been run up - the economy should be much stronger for it. But it has been mis-directed.) I hate that drug companies are allowed to pump out products like vioxx - which has killed more people than Bin Laden ever dreamed of - but this administration coddles them with policies like the medicare bill that prohibits the government from negotiating competitive pricing. I hate that this administration has used fear to maintain its powerbase. And I really really hate that we have spent, or will soon spend, more than $225 billion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Bin Laden still showed up on my TV this weekend. This in spite of Bushs big talk about wanting him dead or alive.
Time for a change.
I followed your discussion with great interest -
and as an European following this discussion I think the historic aspect brought up by Patrick concerning the value of democracy is the most important one.
And therefore I am concerned how the US is changing. Or at least that's how it seems from abroad.
You guys have one of the best constitutions (i.e. limitting the possible time of rule to 8 years), but becaus of its age, dating back to the age of the French revolution, some mechanisms don't seem to work.
This electorat-system.... I think it helps building a feeling, where the ruling class can ignore the will of the people. Second: your strong concentration on people not on a (party-)programm has created a person-centered election system. Where only the richest, wealthiest people can apply for office, another reason, I think, that there is no real alternative between the candidates.
Speaking from Germany, where we have a sad experience where you end, when trusting only in strong leaders, I am really concerned about the direction the US is heading in this so called "times of war".
Not that I am really happy all the decision of our leaders here in Germany, but knowing that our chancellor was brought up by a single-mother his dad killed in a cruel war and having the possibilitiy to go to evening-college only after having worked in a hardware-shop, seems like a mor "american"-career as the carreers of G.W. Bush or Mr. Kerry. (And well; I personally think, that Schroeder is married for the FOURTH time now, isn't a good characteristic trait at all, but should you make reasoning about a persons love-life the basis of your political decisions?)
So I REALLY hope that whoever will be elected president on Tuesday, that the US will be able to defend their history as a role modell of democracy.
I hope this didn't sound to self-righteous, but I have spent such a great time in the US and I am really concerned that some kind of PSEUDO-democratic SEMI-fascist PLUTOCRACY is evolving right now.
I only read norm's posting after I had finished writing, but the web-link he has posted is helping the argument I tried to make.
The statement of principles dating back to June 3, 1997 !!! sounds scary to European ears, but well it's been public for seven years. This attitude of: "we will do wat we want to do, whatever our allies think is aproppriate" is an opinion, that should have been changed after 9-11, but it has not. Far from it the global threat of teror even fostered this US-unilateralism.
SO AGAIN let's hope that whether Bush or Kerry wins, that the US as a whole finds back to a commonness with the rest of the world. (Something we Europeans should try, too)
The principled aspect aside (I think Lincoln was as much driven by pragmatism as principles) both Dick Nixon and Bill Clinton achieved their political success and eventual presidencies on their own without recourse to the kind of fabulous wealth that has benefited both W and John Kerry. Presidential politics in the United States may in fact be far less oligarchic than seats in the Senate, where last year forty of the 100 seats were held by individuals worth more than $1 million. That said, I think it would be difficult to prove that many of them started their lives in places of privilege. I would suggest that our political problems have more to do with the closed primary system which immediately eliminates moderates from becoming their party nominees than the cost of running a political campaign, or the ostensible emphasis on individuality.
Its all dirty. Nothing here is face value. We have a proxy goverment, controlled and directed by finacial institutions.
We owe trillions of dollars, our country floats in a sea of debt. The Federal Reserve, apparently public is a loosely regulated private group of internation bankers. They both control the interest rates and hold the notes for our outlandish debt. Every single AMERICAN is in hock, in dewbt to them for more than $100,000. The same bankers own notes on media, military, industry, communications energy and real estate.
These bankers have direction and they have action. They control the House, the Senate, and the POTUS.
Research the USS liberty; try to find the discovery of the"art student" spy ring, the largest infiltration in US histrory. Completely buried, reports grounded, crititics silenced, journalists threatened.
Janosh:
I would argue that our closed primary system gives us the moderate candiates we get from both the republican and democrat parties while the more conservative and liberal factions of both parties are pushed out. The fallacy of the major parties is that they are convinced that moderism wins elections, and the major reason I encourage 3rd parties, yet not the hypocritical vote swapping "I want to support 3rd parties but..."
I guess I disagree pending further data- in 2000 McCain defeated Bush in the Republican open primaries in New Hampshire and Michigan... this years Democratic open primary in NH was one of the first that Kerry defeated the more liberal Dean.
Nov 2, 04 10:52 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Why I Support Bush
Why I support Bush
http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater181.html
http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater181.html
ok--I don't have DSL and am not willing to wait for the video to download, especially considering that I seem to support your anti-Bush stance even though your Topic Header presents it oppositely (if that's even a word!).
Keep in mind, we're in CRUNCH TIME here, the more you distract people with blind alleys the more frustrated they will get and vote for who you suggest in your topic. Were I to have the high-speed connection and the time, I would certainly watch your videos, but keep in mind that many won't -- especially those that are PRO BUSH and note the NOBUSH tag on your file. I'll add that most liberals, in that generally they are more intelectually curious than their counterparts, will go forth with your effort.
If you're looking to draw in and convince others to the contrary, try again. They're really not as stupid (or patient) as you think.
it is just some clips from something on comedy central, i am assuming the daily show...
they aren't exceptionally fresh. typical shots at bush's inability to sound intelligent.
i don't know what naysayer's intentions are, but i highly doubt they were directed towrds swaying the readers of archinect's votes.
i understand it is "crunch time" but, dude, chill out.
db
you are an idiot
yea sure, someone is going to look at just the heading of a post in archinect and will change his mind/ascertain his or her decision to vote for bush
chill out, as the lady says!!!
Because you are misinformed???????????????
there is a reat essay on ctheory.net -http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=427
- that equates bush with the peter sellers charachter from "being there".
Enough is Enough
We must Vote Out This Idiot.
If We don't we are all going to Die.
I USED TO THINK HE WAS TRYING TO
FINISH WHAT HIS DO NOTHING DAD COULDN'T.
BUT MAYBE HIS DADDY KNEW HE COULDN'T WIN EITHER.
THATS BECAUSE ALL OF THE BUSH'S ARE LOOOOOOOSSERRRRSS.
WE SHOULD HAVE FINISHED THE WAR 13 YEARS AGO.
BUT NOW WAS NOT THE TIME FOR THIS WAR.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE. NEW THOUGHTS.
KERRY'S HAS A PLAN!!! BUSH HASN'T A CLUE!!!
I think the first steps are what Kerry outlined in the first debate:
1. Get more people teaching the Iraqis how to police and manage themselves. So far, it's a pathetic effort at best.
2. Announce, and follow through, that the US and Europe will not get a penny of their oil.
Until those are done, it's hopeless to get support. I am confident that they aren't that naive over there about the true intentions of Bush, nor is the rest of the world. But if we can keep our dirty fingers out of their oil, they may just have a little more faith in us and in themselves.
As it stands now, I can't see a possible solution. We withdraw now, civil war, we wait and we lose more lives, basically postponing the inevitable. It's such a mess with so many forces, that we can't hope to 'solve' it. Regardless of which way we go, when we leave it will be much worse than it is now and we can't afford to keep sending more troops and money. A no win situation, unless we make a stand that we are for peace and freedom, not oil.
I do believe that this is the 'wrong war at the wrong time'. In a recession it's just bad, at least today, to spend 200 billion, not to mention the jobs shipping overseas.
I'd love to see the Middle East 'free', and to some extent, agree with the Wolfovitz papers (that started this war for 'freedom' back in Bush01 days), but it's just not the right time and not the right method.
Stark3d - your comments are only adding fuel to the fire of the heated divide in this country. Your name calling and all caps writing will only further anger people who disagree with you. I'm not going to change my vote to Kerry because you call Bush a "looooser." What ever happened to civil political discussions in this country? Democrat, republican or independant we are all citizens of the same country.
A
Very good point, Stark3d's comments might as well be stricken from the record.
But despite all of your discussing, I doubt any of you took the time to watch the movie that was linked. This thread was created with a reference to a movie at the top. I believe this would be a more focused discussion if a few of you cared to watch it and respond in the context of the movie, not to the context of politics at large?
Hopefully this won't exclude everyone from the discussion? Sorry if you don't have the patience for the link to load, db (and others). It's quite worth it.
It is quite telling of what everybody talks about when they talk about him considering what happened for the past four years. There is indeed nothing to forgive to this man. Anyway, I shouldn't even give my point of view, considering the fact that I'm not going to vote for this election, and I wouldn't want to. it's all in your hands, and I'm not sure it's going to affect really my future, but I'm sure if I was american, I would judt want to get rid of him. Sorry for the intrusion.
People speak of our greedy hands in their oil...without looking at who is to blame. The everday American man and woman. We have been involved in the Middle East, Iraq, and Saudi [url=http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/saudi-arabia/saudi-arabia101.html] longer than the past 13 years and the first Gulf War. And until we as an American public look at ourselves, and not the government as the problem, then we can't point fingers. (Now i'm sure I'm preaching to the choir on this one, but) How many people drive an auto that is not a hybrid or ethanol based? How many people sit in a traffic clogged highway alone rather than with a car pool. How many people don't use public transportation?
The government has its hands in Mideast Oil because we as the public, we as their constituency, demand it. As much as people don't want to admit it, our dependence on oil and natural gas is the most important of national security issues. WWI and WWII are the best examples of this. Until we as consumers change our purchasing habits, our representative in government won't change their voting habits.
You want our troops out of the Middle East, make changes in your own personal life. Its not just government pulling the strings...its the choice to pay the $2.50/gal for gas that affects my family fighting in Afganistan and Iraq.
As a non-American, non-resident, could any of you, in all seriousness, please give me at least one redeeming personal quality about Bush, which makes him a fit leader.
I cant see anything about this man that I like, but I am happy to be proven wrong.
This question can be also applied to Kerry.
diabase - Bush has no redeeming qualities, that I can think of, that qualify him as a leader.
Kerry isn't a God send, either, but he protects issues that I personally feel are significant (right to choose, environment), and that's enough for me. His stance for giving the oil to Iraq is good, imo, and something Bush won't even comment on.
It's a choice of the lesser evil, unfortunately. But it's clear, for me, at least.
speck - we do demand the oil, but that's the government's fault. It's like giving a greedy kid candy all day because he wants it. At some point, there has to be a governing body that acts in the subjects best interest, and in this case it's encouraging less reliance on fossil fuels. Not rocket science, they technology is out there, but without encouragement, for both the producers and consumers, we'll just eat that damn candy until it kills us.
naysayer - I did watch the video and thanks for the link. Entertaining, but a shame more people won't see it.
trace -
We as consumers continue to buy high emission suv's rather than purchasing
a:lower emission suv's offered by the big three
b:ethanol, mixed fuel models - again Ford offers each of their top five models in the "green" version
c:hybrids. And, we as the public ignore the government - city/state/national - as they continue to operate and promote mass transit, most of the time at a loss. In the end it is our choice.
Yet we, as trace illustrated, continue to wait for the government to take care of the issue for us. at some point, the kid has to grow up and take care of himself. at what point do we wake up and realize that the candy is killing us and take the responsibility for our own actions.
It all starts out "We the People..." I'm amazed how we continue to forget that the power begins and ends with us, the common man.
Bush is a large part of the problem, so is Kerry, AND SO ARE WE. Nothing will change until we realize our own role in the issue. Once we do realize our role, and realize the power of that role, America will again illustrate its greatest precept: as Patrick stated earlier "It would occur to many of them for the first time, exactly what democracy means. They will realize that even in a country as powerful as the United States, no leader is exempt from oversight by his own people. And this is an ideal always worth fighting and dying for."
I did originally watch the link. Entertaining, yes. It was made for comedy central consumption. As for Bush changing his "words," I think we've all clearly seen that. Although I cannot forgive the president for everything I do agree that the war on terror has to be more than just finding Osama. I also know that we haven't given up that tast itself, personally knowing someone in Afghanistan serving at this moment. I'm not sure if Iraq what where we needed to go. I side of Patricks comment that we should've done it in 1991. Too late for that now but I am willing to conceed that our president has better intelligence that you and I get through our mass media. I don't buy the stories that it was a personal vendetta, and Bush knew WMD's didn't exsist. Clearly many people thought they did exsist, including many prominent democrats. How easy it is to blame whom ever is in office that makes that tough call. Many people, including Kerry are quoted from both pre and post 9/11 saying Iraq is our greatest threat. I choose to remain open minded enough to be optimistic about what our government has done over there for the past three years.
As for 2000 campaign promises, which the clip doesn't discuss but I think counts too, Bush has kept most his promises.
He promised to improve education with NCLB. Drafted by Ted Kennedy it raised the federal funding of education to the higest levels ever. It does have problems but it was a promise kept, none the less.
He promised to renew the missile defense iniaitive which has more or less happened. He also said that he'd uncover the nuclear threat around the world. Everyone likes to point out North Korea as a failure but one could argue most of that was in play during the Clinton admin. He did uncover illegeal nuclear deals of Pakastani scientists and don't forget that Lybia turned over their entire WMD program to the united states.
He promised tax cuts across the board for all incomes - done twice. Also promised to eliminate the death tax, also done.
All that said, I'm not voting for the guy, nor do I agree with all of what he's done. But for all the daily diatribe I read about how Bush is a liar, stupid, etc. etc. etc. Still, I personally can trust Bush more than Kerry, and think he has more conviction, compassion and respect for the office and the country.
you want reason enough not to vote Bush read the NYT Sunday Mag from 10.17.04. Bush and his faith are in keeping with religion during pre-enlightenment times, that and other points in the article are reason enough for me - although i was already voting Kerry - what i learned Sunday scared the bejesus out of me...
I hate bringing up old threads but I just joined today so please excuse me.
I was searching for some CAD related support and stumbled upon this forum. With all of the numerous anti-Bush and political rhetoric threads, I assume this site is sponsored in part by Berkley or various voice of dissent groups. Even a few of the more tech. threads reek of knowitallism.
Bush may be a few of the things mentioned above, but his personality is clear and his choices have been based on the best research of his advisers (who clearly are not stupid). Iraq could have possibly waited but do you really think if we were still “talking†with Saddam that he have made things easier. No way. Additional time wasted with him would have meant more time for him to build a resistance or develop a program in a fight that would have happened anyway. In addition, Bush took office just after the dot com error burst and millions of jobs were lost (and continue to be lost). He is always compared against the economy from Clinton but the only reason that economy was so strong was due to the emerging internet dot com’s (which Clinton somehow luckily gets credit for). We were attacked, we lost another gazillion jobs, all these mega companies went corrupt/bust, the dow almost fell below 7000, and we are fighting a bunch of wars. But despite all of that, he has helped to bring us back to near Clinton dow and job growth levels within 2 years…how can you say that is a bad job?
As for Kerry, he is a poster child for the “whining buttkissâ€Â. The man appears hollow with no clear personal identity and will whore himself out to ever he is standing next to. His buttkissing reminds me so much of former Ca. governor Gray Davis (who did an enormous amount of damage to Ca.) with his blame games and fence walking. He “will†raise taxes on individuals make more than $200k a year. This “will†include many small businesses (i.e. small arch. firms) that file as individuals. He whines and whines about everything under the sun and blames Bush for it all, but provides no “realistic†plans for a better society. He does not have one good thing to brag about for all those decades in office and spent most of his time whining about whatever republican was in office. He acts like a corrupt Hollywood lawyer and his running mate is a lawyer. Is that who you what you want to lead this country?
The real reason people don’t like Bush is because of his obvious religion and his “the man†attitude. And when someone is not liked for these reasons it breeds a resentment of hate……
But if Kerry says he will raise the speed limit like Clinton did, I will definitely vote for him!
His personality is clear... what the hell does that mean? He's consistently an idiot, and laughs at himself, so we should like him?
I don't want to vote for him because of very specific policy changes I see. Firstly, what has happened with Iraq. Secondly, what is going on with the EPA and energy policy. The religious right threatening a women's right to choose, the proposed marriage amendment, school vouchers (about which they've been quit but I'm sure they'll be back), the budget defecit, the list goes on...
BTW, as to that argument about the raising taxes on people with incomes over 200,000 affecting small business - I own a partnership and a corporation, and I can tell you that it will only affect small business owners whose NET TAXABLE INCOME exceeds 200,000. That means that any individual partner or owner would be taxed if they made more than that... a company whose revenue exceeds that but whose expenses bring their individual personal (meaning each partner or owner would have to make over that amount) gains below the 200,000 wouldn't have the increased taxes. There are many many deductions for business, which make it easy to lower what becomes net taxable gain. So the reality is it would only be people making that much, or really a lot more but writing tons of it off, that would have to pay it. It will be a long time before my partners and I are making that much money each year, and it that time comes that would mean my husband and I are making over 400,000 a year, and it seems fair we would pay more taxes. In any case, it just doesn't affect most people, nor will it put an undue burden on the small startup company, cause we sure as hell aren't making that much profit.
Some excerpts from the Times Magazine piece;
In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United States-sponsored ''road map'' for the Israelis and Palestinians would be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region. The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman -- the Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only Holocaust survivor in Congress -- mentioned that the Scandinavian countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''
and more;
This is one key feature of the faith-based presidency: open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a California congressman in a meeting about one of the world's most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any number of times on the campaign trail, ''By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful.''
more;
Bush has been called the C.E.O. president, but that's just a catch phrase -- he never ran anything of consequence in the private sector. The M.B.A. president would be more accurate: he did, after all, graduate from Harvard Business School. And some who have worked under him in the White House and know about business have spotted a strange business-school time warp. It's as if a 1975 graduate from H.B.S. -- one who had little chance to season theory with practice during the past few decades of change in corporate America -- has simply been dropped into the most challenging management job in the world.
One aspect of the H.B.S. method, with its emphasis on problems of actual corporations, is sometimes referred to as the ''case cracker'' problem. The case studies are static, generally a snapshot of a troubled company, frozen in time; the various ''solutions'' students proffer, and then defend in class against tough questioning, tend to have very short shelf lives. They promote rigidity, inappropriate surety. This is something H.B.S. graduates, most of whom land at large or midsize firms, learn in their first few years in business. They discover, often to their surprise, that the world is dynamic, it flows and changes, often for no good reason. The key is flexibility, rather than sticking to your guns in a debate, and constant reassessment of shifting realities. In short, thoughtful second-guessing.
George W. Bush, who went off to Texas to be an oil wildcatter, never had a chance to learn these lessons about the power of nuanced, fact-based analysis. The small oil companies he ran tended to lose money; much of their value was as tax shelters. (The investors were often friends of his father's.) Later, with the Texas Rangers baseball team, he would act as an able front man but never really as a boss.
Instead of learning the limitations of his Harvard training, what George W. Bush learned instead during these fitful years were lessons about faith and its particular efficacy. It was in 1985, around the time of his 39th birthday, George W. Bush says, that his life took a sharp turn toward salvation. At that point he was drinking, his marriage was on the rocks, his career was listless. Several accounts have emerged from those close to Bush about a faith ''intervention'' of sorts at the Kennebunkport family compound that year. Details vary, but here's the gist of what I understand took place. George W., drunk at a party, crudely insulted a friend of his mother's. George senior and Barbara blew up. Words were exchanged along the lines of something having to be done. George senior, then the vice president, dialed up his friend, Billy Graham, who came to the compound and spent several days with George W. in probing exchanges and walks on the beach. George W. was soon born again. He stopped drinking, attended Bible study and wrestled with issues of fervent faith. A man who was lost was saved.
and more;
A few months later, on Feb. 1, 2002, Jim Wallis of the Sojourners stood in the Roosevelt Room for the introduction of Jim Towey as head of the president's faith-based and community initiative. John DiIulio, the original head, had left the job feeling that the initiative was not about ''compassionate conservatism,'' as originally promised, but rather a political giveaway to the Christian right, a way to consolidate and energize that part of the base.
Moments after the ceremony, Bush saw Wallis. He bounded over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand, and squeezed. ''Jim, how ya doin', how ya doin'!'' he exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that his massage therapist had given him Wallis's book, ''Faith Works.'' His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others remember it, was palpable -- a president, wrestling with faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, '''but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we're going to lose.' I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism.'''
Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.
''No, Mr. President,'' Wallis says he told Bush, ''We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism.''
Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.
''When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,'' Wallis says now. ''What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year -- a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn't want to hear from anyone who doubts him.''
wow and more;
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Who besides guys like me are part of the reality-based community? Many of the other elected officials in Washington, it would seem. A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.'' When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, ''Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.''
A regent I spoke to later and who asked not to be identified told me: ''I'm happy he's certain of victory and that he's ready to burst forth into his second term, but it all makes me a little nervous. There are a lot of big things that he's planning to do domestically, and who knows what countries we might invade or what might happen in Iraq. But when it gets complex, he seems to turn to prayer or God rather than digging in and thinking things through. What's that line? -- the devil's in the details. If you don't go after that devil, he'll come after you.''
Bush grew into one of history's most forceful leaders, his admirers will attest, by replacing hesitation and reasonable doubt with faith and clarity. Many more will surely tap this high-voltage connection of fervent faith and bold action. In politics, the saying goes, anything that works must be repeated until it is replaced by something better. The horizon seems clear of competitors.
Can the unfinished American experiment in self-governance -- sputtering on the watery fuel of illusion and assertion -- deal with something as nuanced as the subtleties of one man's faith? What, after all, is the nature of the particular conversation the president feels he has with God -- a colloquy upon which the world now precariously turns?
That very issue is what Jim Wallis wishes he could sit and talk about with George W. Bush. That's impossible now, he says. He is no longer invited to the White House.
''Faith can cut in so many ways,'' he said. ''If you're penitent and not triumphal, it can move us to repentance and accountability and help us reach for something higher than ourselves. That can be a powerful thing, a thing that moves us beyond politics as usual, like Martin Luther King did. But when it's designed to certify our righteousness -- that can be a dangerous thing. Then it pushes self-criticism aside. There's no reflection.
''Where people often get lost is on this very point,'' he said after a moment of thought. ''Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want.''
And what is that?
''Easy certainty.''
What else do people need to read or hear?
Patrick Marckesano...
I really appreciate your moderate and objective level of thinking in regards to our country and soon coming election. The polarized people in this country cling to passionate ideals (including myself) that may dampen objective reasoning. It also seems most people believe what they believe based on a platform of morality and/or of personal gain/freedom. So it’s not surprising that the tone of utter hatred for this president is so amazingly strong. Bush’s “brain†and beliefs are so transparent it makes him a human dartboard. He is definitely not the best linguist and would never make it to Jeopardy, but “most†Americans identify with his human faults. The big city people are the voters that will put Kerry into to office. Most of the primary values of these dense cities are focused around personal gain, wealth, vanity, and no consequence party like a rock star freedom (i.e. choice). Much of the rest country set on simple bible based values and thinking. Democracy….it’s just crazy. But society in general with each passing generation allows more and more …. I mean, can you imagine back when you were 12 years old being able to go to nearly any computer at anytime and see instant super hardcore porn (and you can’t blame this on parents because kids will get access)….I think future boys are going to be pretty messed up in coming generations. As for the article above, I would bet that for every “Wallis†that Bush has met, there are a hundred other pastors saying just the opposite…he was probably insulted and felt the need to vent the to the NY Times of all places. Anyhow, enough ranting…..bored on a Saturday.
P.S. The Trojan War Machine is going to trample those beanie baby golden bears. Wahahaha
so when Pat Robertson says GW Bush tells him there would be no US casualties in Iraq that is what? I mean Pat is far from a liberal wonk. So what is that? He never backed down when the white house said he must have been mistaken.
yet one more blunder. seems the u.s. didn't secure 380 tons of the world's most powerful conventional explosives used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons. they are missing from one of iraq's most sensitive former military installations.
the u.s. knew about the weapons and did nothing. looting has continued even as recently as sunday.
do you feel safer?
Bula - thank you for your addition to this forum. It's nice to see a new perspective.
Try this link. Granted, it's on Air America so it's not 'objective' anyway. But what Doctorow has to say is more elegant and artful than almost anything by anyone else I've heard. And it comes closest to my own sentiment than anyone else...(takes about 6 1/2 minutes to listen, but it's worth it.)
http://airamericaradio.com/layout.asp?baseurl=eldoctorow/ELDoctorow.wma
thx steven. well put indeed.
thought this thread needed to come back into play (and stay in play for the next few days?). the movies page on naysayer's first entry gets updated fairly often and there are some new ones that are rich. my favorite this week is 'bush-conclusions'.
it also has the eminem video. never was a fan before, but this is a good song and a great video.
5 more days. keep the focus on pushing the man out the door.
The Eminem video is HOT.
Apparently they have played it on MTV and BET. I'm shocked!!
I liked it much better when celebrities weren't political, right or left.
Presidential race Prediction for 2112....Republican ticket: Arnold Schwarzenegger w/ Rudolph Giuliani (VP) vs. Democrat ticket: Benifer Affleck w/ Eminem(VP).
"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"
George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)
The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.
We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
dubya doesn't read much
....just when this thread was lightening up...
whoa!!
generally i don't find eminem exiting
but this video doesn't suck at all
alien vs predator for 2112 elections.
Whats wrong with celebrities being political? They have the power to influence and they use it to benefit their cause. In this case I don't particularly blame them. So many people hate W that I would be surprised if they didn't say anything. In Eminems case, he's doing what he has made his career out of, speaking whats on his mind. Love it or hate it, thats his art.
PM
George Bush does not have freedom on his mind. And neither is he a simpleton. But what intelligence he possesses is hamstrung by stubborness, a lack of intellectual curiosity, and a blind loyalty to idealogues he has surrounded himself with. (or should I say have surrounded him - very different situations)
Our interests in Iraq have nothing to do with freedom. It's about maintaining a flow of oil and protecting Isreal. This is all spelled out on the "Project for a New American Century's" website in documents dating back to the last century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
I also disagree that the left only sees hatrred for Bush. That's the 60 second soundbite the media wants to feed you. While I am an independent that lives somewhere right of center fiscally and somewhere left of center culturally - I'll tell you what I hate. I hate that decades of struggle by environmental causes has been eroded in favor of the agenda of energy companies. I hate that my civil rights have been eroded. I hate that our individual rights are under attack. I hate that this administratioon is spending money like a drunken sailor - and getting very little in return for it's money. (When you consider the deficit that has been run up - the economy should be much stronger for it. But it has been mis-directed.) I hate that drug companies are allowed to pump out products like vioxx - which has killed more people than Bin Laden ever dreamed of - but this administration coddles them with policies like the medicare bill that prohibits the government from negotiating competitive pricing. I hate that this administration has used fear to maintain its powerbase. And I really really hate that we have spent, or will soon spend, more than $225 billion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Bin Laden still showed up on my TV this weekend. This in spite of Bushs big talk about wanting him dead or alive.
Time for a change.
PLEASE VOTE.
I followed your discussion with great interest -
and as an European following this discussion I think the historic aspect brought up by Patrick concerning the value of democracy is the most important one.
And therefore I am concerned how the US is changing. Or at least that's how it seems from abroad.
You guys have one of the best constitutions (i.e. limitting the possible time of rule to 8 years), but becaus of its age, dating back to the age of the French revolution, some mechanisms don't seem to work.
This electorat-system.... I think it helps building a feeling, where the ruling class can ignore the will of the people. Second: your strong concentration on people not on a (party-)programm has created a person-centered election system. Where only the richest, wealthiest people can apply for office, another reason, I think, that there is no real alternative between the candidates.
Speaking from Germany, where we have a sad experience where you end, when trusting only in strong leaders, I am really concerned about the direction the US is heading in this so called "times of war".
Not that I am really happy all the decision of our leaders here in Germany, but knowing that our chancellor was brought up by a single-mother his dad killed in a cruel war and having the possibilitiy to go to evening-college only after having worked in a hardware-shop, seems like a mor "american"-career as the carreers of G.W. Bush or Mr. Kerry. (And well; I personally think, that Schroeder is married for the FOURTH time now, isn't a good characteristic trait at all, but should you make reasoning about a persons love-life the basis of your political decisions?)
So I REALLY hope that whoever will be elected president on Tuesday, that the US will be able to defend their history as a role modell of democracy.
I hope this didn't sound to self-righteous, but I have spent such a great time in the US and I am really concerned that some kind of PSEUDO-democratic SEMI-fascist PLUTOCRACY is evolving right now.
I only read norm's posting after I had finished writing, but the web-link he has posted is helping the argument I tried to make.
The statement of principles dating back to June 3, 1997 !!! sounds scary to European ears, but well it's been public for seven years. This attitude of: "we will do wat we want to do, whatever our allies think is aproppriate" is an opinion, that should have been changed after 9-11, but it has not. Far from it the global threat of teror even fostered this US-unilateralism.
SO AGAIN let's hope that whether Bush or Kerry wins, that the US as a whole finds back to a commonness with the rest of the world. (Something we Europeans should try, too)
Excellent points PM/ urbanisto.
"Will there ever return a day when a self-made, principled man like Abraham Lincoln finds his way to being nominated by by one of the parties?"
Not exactly an Abe but just one word........Schwarzenegger ;) (The law will change, just you wait)
The principled aspect aside (I think Lincoln was as much driven by pragmatism as principles) both Dick Nixon and Bill Clinton achieved their political success and eventual presidencies on their own without recourse to the kind of fabulous wealth that has benefited both W and John Kerry. Presidential politics in the United States may in fact be far less oligarchic than seats in the Senate, where last year forty of the 100 seats were held by individuals worth more than $1 million. That said, I think it would be difficult to prove that many of them started their lives in places of privilege. I would suggest that our political problems have more to do with the closed primary system which immediately eliminates moderates from becoming their party nominees than the cost of running a political campaign, or the ostensible emphasis on individuality.
Its all dirty. Nothing here is face value. We have a proxy goverment, controlled and directed by finacial institutions.
We owe trillions of dollars, our country floats in a sea of debt. The Federal Reserve, apparently public is a loosely regulated private group of internation bankers. They both control the interest rates and hold the notes for our outlandish debt. Every single AMERICAN is in hock, in dewbt to them for more than $100,000. The same bankers own notes on media, military, industry, communications energy and real estate.
These bankers have direction and they have action. They control the House, the Senate, and the POTUS.
Research the USS liberty; try to find the discovery of the"art student" spy ring, the largest infiltration in US histrory. Completely buried, reports grounded, crititics silenced, journalists threatened.
Weird stuff
I suppose the Knights Templar in turn control the financial institutions?
Janosh:
I would argue that our closed primary system gives us the moderate candiates we get from both the republican and democrat parties while the more conservative and liberal factions of both parties are pushed out. The fallacy of the major parties is that they are convinced that moderism wins elections, and the major reason I encourage 3rd parties, yet not the hypocritical vote swapping "I want to support 3rd parties but..."
I guess I disagree pending further data- in 2000 McCain defeated Bush in the Republican open primaries in New Hampshire and Michigan... this years Democratic open primary in NH was one of the first that Kerry defeated the more liberal Dean.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.