| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Less Competent Than Jimmy Carter - Is That Really Possible?
George Z. Bush wrote:
"Gactimus" wrote in message ... (Ray Fischer) wrote in : Is that what they tell you, sheep? He sat on his ass for seven minutes when told that the country was under attack. John Kerry sat on his ass for forty minutes. But Kerry was NOT responsible for defending the country.....Bush was. He needed to do something other than to continue to read fairy tales to kindergarten kids. It obviously took him 7 minutes to get his brain engaged and get moving. Not a great record regardless of what Kerry might or might not have done if he had been responsible for making those kinds of decisions. George Z. Wait a minute...there's no evidence Bush was actually reading aloud from that child's book. We've all seen and heard Bush attempt to read. It is very painful. My guess is that the little kids and the little kid POTUS were reading responsively, first the kids and then bush, one sentence after another, and it was taking Bush seven minutes to figure out how to pronounce some of the words in his sentence. -- "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 |
"Ray Fischer" wrote Sheep. Ray, that's crap. If you read Mr.Ed's post you'ld see he's thinking about the issues and why he's voting the way he is. Just because he's determined, through thought, that the Republicans are offering the better candidates for his values & beliefs does NOT make him sheep. The whole point of his post -- that he respects Kerry for his Vietnam service despite that he will be voting for Bush -- shows that Mr. Ed is NOT a sheep just following along with Faux News. It really ****es me off when people do what you just did. You disagree with the guy so you start a personal attack on him. Save your attcks for people that deserve them - god knows there are plenty of 'em. Note: I agree with Mr. Ed that Kerry should be admired for going to Vietnam at all and I disagree that Bush is any good for America as President. Gary |
jim-- wrote:
And your "Center for Cooperative Research" group is just another moveon.org clone whose purpose is to discredit GWB any way they can. No one is discrediting Bush. Bush has screwed up just about everything since he presumed office, and his mountain of failure is visible for all to see. What's happening is that more and more Americans are pointing out those failures. I can't think of ONE area where Bush has done anything to improve the lot of the average working American. Virtually everything he has done has been little more than a pay-off to his contributors and base. Bush is a whore. It's time for him to go. -- "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 |
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:14:28 -0400, jim-- wrote:
He continued to read stories to the children after being told that a plane crashed into the first tower? Link? And if so, was he to know at that time that it was a terrorist attack and what was he to have done? That thought (a terrorist attack) certainly did not cross my mind after the initial crash, nor the minds of the newspeople reporting it. Was it immediately apparent to you? What should the President have done? Uh, you are a little confused. Bush had already been informed of the first attack, the seven minutes being referred to are after Card whispered to Bush "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." He did nothing. To be generous, there are staff professionals expected to deal with unforeseen events, but if Bush were a "hands on" administrator one could expect him to take the lead. In any event, Bush's behavior then, and in the subsequent flight around the country, were not his finest hours. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...estingday.html |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... forge wrote: In article , "jim--" wrote: So your discussion resorts to childish insults, a sure sign you can no longer support your position. Whaa-? His position is that you're an idiot. The other stuff we've been saying is not "position," it's record. You'll have to cut "Jim-" here some slack. He is among the dumbest posters in the rec.boats newsgroup, He-he-he. And obviously you and basskisser take the prize for being *the* dumbest. |
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... forge wrote: In article , "jim--" wrote: So your discussion resorts to childish insults, a sure sign you can no longer support your position. Whaa-? His position is that you're an idiot. The other stuff we've been saying is not "position," it's record. You'll have to cut "Jim-" here some slack. He is among the dumbest posters in the rec.boats newsgroup, He-he-he. And obviously you and basskisser take the prize for being *the* dumbest. Oh, really? I'm certain that if an "honest" simultaneous IQ test could be arranged, not only would I score significantly higher than you, so would almost almost any regular poster in the newsgroup. Even Jax. You have a closed mind. -- "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... jim-- wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... forge wrote: In article , "jim--" wrote: So your discussion resorts to childish insults, a sure sign you can no longer support your position. Whaa-? His position is that you're an idiot. The other stuff we've been saying is not "position," it's record. You'll have to cut "Jim-" here some slack. He is among the dumbest posters in the rec.boats newsgroup, He-he-he. And obviously you and basskisser take the prize for being *the* dumbest. Oh, really? I'm certain that if an "honest" simultaneous IQ test could be arranged, not only would I score significantly higher than you, so would almost almost any regular poster in the newsgroup. Even Jax. You have a closed mind. Dance Krause, dance. It is ever so easy to make a fool of you. |
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:01:34 -0400, Gactimus wrote:
Patrick Hynes at Crush Kerry gives a preview of his Swiftie book review: "I received my review copy of Unfit for Command and read the entire book in one sitting. The first draft of my book review is complete and I will submit it to my editor at The American Spectator this morning. Everyone needs to order this book today and share it with every undecided voter you know. The John Kerry we learn about in Unfit for Command is less truthful than Bill Clinton, less competent than Jimmy Carter, and less grounded in reality than Howard Dean. A troubling read." I was heartened to see a new cast of characters in this latest thread. As I asked myself why there would suddenly be these new, fresh faces in the crowd, I chanced to read the headers. This thread is currently being crossposted to these newsgroups: rec.boats alt.space*******s alt.war.vietnam comp.sys.mac.advocacy alt.os.windows-xp alt.fan.rush-limbaugh soc.veterans alt.abortion Quite a mix, isn't it! It is also a surefire way to create flames in a newsgroup. Most sincerely, W.T. hatch |
Interesting that rec.boats is included with such distinguished company as
space*******s.alt. It does say something about how rec.boats is percieved by the iinternet community. |
"forge" wrote in message ... In article , Matt Osborn wrote: Just what was Bush suppose to do in your estimation? Jump up and shoot the teacher?. Perhaps he should have fired nuclear weapons at China? Maybe he should have run back to the White house where the next plane would have had a better chance of taking him out? Our government has all sorts of people who figure out what is going on and then ask the President to make choices. This 'seven minutes' is as disingenuous as it gets. The point of his being stuck in that classroom for so long, is that the Commander in Chief was incommunicado to his all-important squad of assistants and advisers while sitting in front of a classroom full of little kids on a *photo opportunity.* What ANY Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is supposed to do, when the United States is attacked, is drop everything and get his ass to a command center, preferably Air Force One which is probably the most-connected communications center on Earth, and talk to his people so that the hard decisions can be made - like, should we scramble jets and disable these jets before they hit the second tower, before they hit the Pentagon? Which are decisions that ONLY the President can make. As for the "it would have scared the kids" excuse, pardon me, bull****. "I'm sorry kids, the President has some Presidential business to take care of, so y'all have a great day and we'll reschedule this for another time! Bye now!" And done. How is this not common sense? Anyone? Bueller? First you assume that they knew the first plane to hit the WTC was part of an attack. They, as well as all of us on a boat off San Diego tuna fishing that day, most likely thought it was a bad accident. Has happened before. Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building years ago. And he was in touch with his people. Those black Suburban's that follow him will have great radio gear. Both Kerry and Dashel admit, they had no idea of what to do either. When the plane was blown up over Lockerbie, did the then President, call a war council? |
Calif Bill wrote:
"forge" wrote in message ... In article , Matt Osborn wrote: Just what was Bush suppose to do in your estimation? Jump up and shoot the teacher?. Perhaps he should have fired nuclear weapons at China? Maybe he should have run back to the White house where the next plane would have had a better chance of taking him out? Our government has all sorts of people who figure out what is going on and then ask the President to make choices. This 'seven minutes' is as disingenuous as it gets. The point of his being stuck in that classroom for so long, is that the Commander in Chief was incommunicado to his all-important squad of assistants and advisers while sitting in front of a classroom full of little kids on a *photo opportunity.* What ANY Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is supposed to do, when the United States is attacked, is drop everything and get his ass to a command center, preferably Air Force One which is probably the most-connected communications center on Earth, and talk to his people so that the hard decisions can be made - like, should we scramble jets and disable these jets before they hit the second tower, before they hit the Pentagon? Which are decisions that ONLY the President can make. As for the "it would have scared the kids" excuse, pardon me, bull****. "I'm sorry kids, the President has some Presidential business to take care of, so y'all have a great day and we'll reschedule this for another time! Bye now!" And done. How is this not common sense? Anyone? Bueller? First you assume that they knew the first plane to hit the WTC was part of an attack. 1. The first airliner was under control when it crashed into the first tower. It didn't just fall out of the sky. Airliners have all sorts of equipment to let the pilots know where they are and where they are going. 2. If I recall, it was a clear, bright, sunny day. 3. If the plane hadn't been taken over by terrorists, and the pilot had lost some control, it is really unlikely an airline pilot whose plane was going down would choose to smack it into the WTC. 4. Bush was told about the first WTC crash before he starting trying to read to the kiddies. 5. His aide came in and told him of the second crash. 6. Bush kept on reading. Whatever bull**** the Bush-****ters are spinning, it is obvious by the looks on Bush's face and by the amount of time he wasted, he was lost in space. Bush almost always is lost in space...why anyone would think he would act otherwise in a real crisis is...amazing. -- "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 |
Life must be a bitch when a stupid idiot is more successful that you are.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "forge" wrote in message ... In article , Matt Osborn wrote: Just what was Bush suppose to do in your estimation? Jump up and shoot the teacher?. Perhaps he should have fired nuclear weapons at China? Maybe he should have run back to the White house where the next plane would have had a better chance of taking him out? Our government has all sorts of people who figure out what is going on and then ask the President to make choices. This 'seven minutes' is as disingenuous as it gets. The point of his being stuck in that classroom for so long, is that the Commander in Chief was incommunicado to his all-important squad of assistants and advisers while sitting in front of a classroom full of little kids on a *photo opportunity.* What ANY Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is supposed to do, when the United States is attacked, is drop everything and get his ass to a command center, preferably Air Force One which is probably the most-connected communications center on Earth, and talk to his people so that the hard decisions can be made - like, should we scramble jets and disable these jets before they hit the second tower, before they hit the Pentagon? Which are decisions that ONLY the President can make. As for the "it would have scared the kids" excuse, pardon me, bull****. "I'm sorry kids, the President has some Presidential business to take care of, so y'all have a great day and we'll reschedule this for another time! Bye now!" And done. How is this not common sense? Anyone? Bueller? First you assume that they knew the first plane to hit the WTC was part of an attack. 1. The first airliner was under control when it crashed into the first tower. It didn't just fall out of the sky. Airliners have all sorts of equipment to let the pilots know where they are and where they are going. 2. If I recall, it was a clear, bright, sunny day. 3. If the plane hadn't been taken over by terrorists, and the pilot had lost some control, it is really unlikely an airline pilot whose plane was going down would choose to smack it into the WTC. 4. Bush was told about the first WTC crash before he starting trying to read to the kiddies. 5. His aide came in and told him of the second crash. 6. Bush kept on reading. Whatever bull**** the Bush-****ters are spinning, it is obvious by the looks on Bush's face and by the amount of time he wasted, he was lost in space. Bush almost always is lost in space...why anyone would think he would act otherwise in a real crisis is...amazing. -- "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "forge" wrote in message ... In article , Matt Osborn wrote: Just what was Bush suppose to do in your estimation? Jump up and shoot the teacher?. Perhaps he should have fired nuclear weapons at China? Maybe he should have run back to the White house where the next plane would have had a better chance of taking him out? Our government has all sorts of people who figure out what is going on and then ask the President to make choices. This 'seven minutes' is as disingenuous as it gets. The point of his being stuck in that classroom for so long, is that the Commander in Chief was incommunicado to his all-important squad of assistants and advisers while sitting in front of a classroom full of little kids on a *photo opportunity.* What ANY Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is supposed to do, when the United States is attacked, is drop everything and get his ass to a command center, preferably Air Force One which is probably the most-connected communications center on Earth, and talk to his people so that the hard decisions can be made - like, should we scramble jets and disable these jets before they hit the second tower, before they hit the Pentagon? Which are decisions that ONLY the President can make. As for the "it would have scared the kids" excuse, pardon me, bull****. "I'm sorry kids, the President has some Presidential business to take care of, so y'all have a great day and we'll reschedule this for another time! Bye now!" And done. How is this not common sense? Anyone? Bueller? First you assume that they knew the first plane to hit the WTC was part of an attack. 1. The first airliner was under control when it crashed into the first tower. It didn't just fall out of the sky. Airliners have all sorts of equipment to let the pilots know where they are and where they are going. And they still fly into mountains. 2. If I recall, it was a clear, bright, sunny day. And they still crash on those days. 3. If the plane hadn't been taken over by terrorists, and the pilot had lost some control, it is really unlikely an airline pilot whose plane was going down would choose to smack it into the WTC. See #1. 4. Bush was told about the first WTC crash before he starting trying to read to the kiddies. 5. His aide came in and told him of the second crash. 6. Bush kept on reading. Whatever bull**** the Bush-****ters are spinning, it is obvious by the looks on Bush's face and by the amount of time he wasted, he was lost in space. Bush almost always is lost in space...why anyone would think he would act otherwise in a real crisis is...amazing. Sort of like the other piece of **** you are running. Great thing about being in California. It will vote Kerry, but those of us who like neither, can happily vote Libertarian, or another party. |
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "forge" wrote in message ... In article , Matt Osborn wrote: Just what was Bush suppose to do in your estimation? Jump up and shoot the teacher?. Perhaps he should have fired nuclear weapons at China? Maybe he should have run back to the White house where the next plane would have had a better chance of taking him out? Our government has all sorts of people who figure out what is going on and then ask the President to make choices. This 'seven minutes' is as disingenuous as it gets. The point of his being stuck in that classroom for so long, is that the Commander in Chief was incommunicado to his all-important squad of assistants and advisers while sitting in front of a classroom full of little kids on a *photo opportunity.* What ANY Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is supposed to do, when the United States is attacked, is drop everything and get his ass to a command center, preferably Air Force One which is probably the most-connected communications center on Earth, and talk to his people so that the hard decisions can be made - like, should we scramble jets and disable these jets before they hit the second tower, before they hit the Pentagon? Which are decisions that ONLY the President can make. As for the "it would have scared the kids" excuse, pardon me, bull****. "I'm sorry kids, the President has some Presidential business to take care of, so y'all have a great day and we'll reschedule this for another time! Bye now!" And done. How is this not common sense? Anyone? Bueller? First you assume that they knew the first plane to hit the WTC was part of an attack. 1. The first airliner was under control when it crashed into the first tower. It didn't just fall out of the sky. Airliners have all sorts of equipment to let the pilots know where they are and where they are going. And they still fly into mountains. 2. If I recall, it was a clear, bright, sunny day. And they still crash on those days. Please show the last time a passenger airliner, with crew training and equipment standards up to date crashed into a highrise building. 3. If the plane hadn't been taken over by terrorists, and the pilot had lost some control, it is really unlikely an airline pilot whose plane was going down would choose to smack it into the WTC. See #1. 4. Bush was told about the first WTC crash before he starting trying to read to the kiddies. 5. His aide came in and told him of the second crash. 6. Bush kept on reading. Whatever bull**** the Bush-****ters are spinning, it is obvious by the looks on Bush's face and by the amount of time he wasted, he was lost in space. Bush almost always is lost in space...why anyone would think he would act otherwise in a real crisis is...amazing. Sort of like the other piece of **** you are running. Great thing about being in California. It will vote Kerry, but those of us who like neither, can happily vote Libertarian, or another party. Perhaps the ONLY "great thing" about living in the S.F. bay area of California. |
"basskisser" wrote in message Please show the last time a passenger airliner, with crew training and equipment standards up to date crashed into a highrise building. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...ate010911.html |
Hi
Couldnt help myself buttt....... Isnt it kinda sad about Jimmy Carter? Probably one of the (actually, not hyped) smartest presidents we've had in a long time....and most arguably the most moral/upstanding one(compare any "dirt" (is there any?) on him to ANY other president in modern times)....and I get the feeling he WAS a president that truelly did CARE about doing what he thought was the right thing to do (regardless of politics/getting reelected).....now dont get me wrong, he did alot I didnt agree with then (and now).....but at least I could respect the man....yet despite all these positive points, he was a pretty crappy president in action......makes you wonder about the "system" as much as the presidency doesnt it? take care Blll |
BllFs6 wrote:
Hi Couldnt help myself buttt....... Isnt it kinda sad about Jimmy Carter? The saddest thing about Jimmy Carter is that he's been the target of a right-wing smear campaign for thirty years. Probably one of the (actually, not hyped) smartest presidents we've had in a long time....and most arguably the most moral/upstanding one... What's "arguable" about it? I don't think there has been a President on the same moral plane since at least Coolidge... if ever... ....yet despite all these positive points, he was a pretty crappy president in action......makes you wonder about the "system" as much as the presidency doesnt it? What is "crappy" about what Carter did? Perhaps you were against the national energy conservation initiative because you think wasting energy is a better idea? Maybe you did not know about the conventional arms limitation treaty, which did more to stabilize 3rd World politics than any other action ever undertaken? Maybe you think the Camp David accords were "crappy"? President Carter had a bad tendency to micromanage, and he had no concept of using patronage for political leverage. He got undermined at every turn by those who profit from the system... the Iran hostage rescue mission disaster was his only really big failure. If you can think of others please tell us. History will place Carter much higher on the scale than any other President since Truman. Just wait a hundred years or so ;) DSK |
I don't think that now is the time to be shipping troops home from S.
Korea. Unless you hope to provoke an incident. |
|
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:23:16 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
As smart and as compassionate as Carter was, his biggest problem was that he was politically weak. Our enemies knew it, which is why the Iran hostage situation lasted as long as it did. Is that why the hostage situation lasted so long? http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm |
"Netsock" wrote in message ... "David Fritzinger" wrote in message ... Now, try to actually support your ridiculous contention. Indeed, you cannot, because I took what you said, and asked you to support it. You obviously cannot, so you made the strawman accusation. You have demonstrated how brainless you are yet again. -- Dave Fritzinger Bye bye Davy... *ploink* -- -Netsock I thought you would have killfiled the entire NG by now. |
Dave Hall wrote:
His whole administration was a failure. He managed to do a few domestically good things, and he paid lip service to the concepts of peace to a segment of the world which laughed at him behind his back. But otherwise, he presided over a recessionary economy, as well as at least one oil "crisis". What a tiny memory you have, Dave... not that it's surprising. The oil crises was brought on under Nixon (think "wage & price freezes") and made worse under Ford... Carter was doing much to get out of it, although baulked at every turn by profiteers in both parties. As for the "recessionary economy" you have been telling us how the boom of the '90s wasn't Clinton's doing and the recession of the '00s isn't Bush's doing... isn't it handy to be able to blame Carter for the economy though? So, with no specifics except what you got wrong, you condemn Carter's "whole administration" as a "failure." You have no real facts, no solid basis for saying so... just what the hate-radio voices have been telling you... DSK |
Netsock and Harry are very similar in this respect, they both like to tell
us who they are filtering, but in reality neither of them ever put anyone in their filter. "jim--" wrote in message ... "Netsock" wrote in message ... "David Fritzinger" wrote in message ... Now, try to actually support your ridiculous contention. Indeed, you cannot, because I took what you said, and asked you to support it. You obviously cannot, so you made the strawman accusation. You have demonstrated how brainless you are yet again. -- Dave Fritzinger Bye bye Davy... *ploink* -- -Netsock I thought you would have killfiled the entire NG by now. |
When you put up an extremist as your nominee, that says a lot about your
party. Al Sharpton in an extremist. Lyndon LaRouche is an extremist. John Kerry is a moderate that frightens the right so badly they portray him as an extremist. But it's a matter of perspective. You guys who think Jerry Falwell and Rush LImbaugh are centrists, would find Kerry an extreme leftist under the same standards. |
To be more precise...
"God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam" That is pretty extreme, if Bush said it. Sure this isn't an urban legend? Do you have a cite? It would be pretty frightening if we are going to war not in response to actual strategic requirements but because our President believes he is hearing divine voices. |
Gould 0738 wrote:
To be more precise... "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam" That is pretty extreme, if Bush said it. Sure this isn't an urban legend? Do you have a cite? It would be pretty frightening if we are going to war not in response to actual strategic requirements but because our President believes he is hearing divine voices. A number of cites, including this one from the WashPost, which questions the credibility of the statement, but...if you enter the statement in google, you'll come up with a plethora of hits. Road Map in the Back Seat? By Al Kamen Friday, June 27, 2003; Page A27 Imagine our surprise Wednesday to read in the Israeli paper Haaretz (online), that Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, meeting recently with militants to enlist their support for a truce with Israel, said that, when they met in Aqaba, President Bush had told him this: " God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." So who needs to find WMD or a link with al Qaeda when the orders come from The Highest Authority? Two calls to the White House for clarification went unreturned, but colleague Glenn Kessler did some digging. The Haaretz reporter, Arnon Regular, read what the paper said were minutes of the Palestinians' meeting to Kessler and another colleague, who is an Arabic speaker. The Arabic-speaking colleague's translation, was this: "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them." Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English. But one thing seems consistent: The election season is going to be a huge distraction from the Road Map, something the White House has always insisted would not be the case. |
A number of cites, including this one from the WashPost, which questions
the credibility of the statement, but...if you enter the statement in google, you'll come up with a plethora of hits. I got 914. Most seem to say it's a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a translation. So, surely Bush has cleared this up? Scanning through the hits I didn't immediately spot anywhere Bush had clarified or repudiated the statement. Doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I didn't see one. I did type in "Bush denies God told him to strike Al Qaida" and got a bunch of hits, but actually *none* seemed to be Bush denying that he said it. All of them seemed to be people noting that Bush had not denied it. It does pose an interesting political dilemna for Bush. Do you clarify or repudiate a statement that claims you said God is directing the military and foreign policy of the United States -(and reduce the effectiveness of the incident when used by your detractors), or do you say that God is *not* speaking to you and giving specific instructions on conducting the "war on terror" and disappoint a lot of your most ardent followers? |
Gould 0738 wrote:
A number of cites, including this one from the WashPost, which questions the credibility of the statement, but...if you enter the statement in google, you'll come up with a plethora of hits. I got 914. Most seem to say it's a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a translation. So, surely Bush has cleared this up? Scanning through the hits I didn't immediately spot anywhere Bush had clarified or repudiated the statement. Doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I didn't see one. I did type in "Bush denies God told him to strike Al Qaida" and got a bunch of hits, but actually *none* seemed to be Bush denying that he said it. All of them seemed to be people noting that Bush had not denied it. It does pose an interesting political dilemna for Bush. Do you clarify or repudiate a statement that claims you said God is directing the military and foreign policy of the United States -(and reduce the effectiveness of the incident when used by your detractors), or do you say that God is *not* speaking to you and giving specific instructions on conducting the "war on terror" and disappoint a lot of your most ardent followers? I would bet Bush said it. It is just the kind of stupid statement he would make. Remember, this is a man who declared "Jesus Day" in Texas while he was governor. |
Gould,
As always you are the voice of reason. The quote is from a foreign newspaper, quoting a foreign leader (whose English is not perfect, who is quoting something from memory, that no one else heard. Bush and Kerry have too many issue where they differ, for anyone to resort to this. I put this right up there with the Swifties against Kerry. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... A number of cites, including this one from the WashPost, which questions the credibility of the statement, but...if you enter the statement in google, you'll come up with a plethora of hits. I got 914. Most seem to say it's a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a translation. So, surely Bush has cleared this up? Scanning through the hits I didn't immediately spot anywhere Bush had clarified or repudiated the statement. Doesn't mean there aren't any, just that I didn't see one. I did type in "Bush denies God told him to strike Al Qaida" and got a bunch of hits, but actually *none* seemed to be Bush denying that he said it. All of them seemed to be people noting that Bush had not denied it. It does pose an interesting political dilemna for Bush. Do you clarify or repudiate a statement that claims you said God is directing the military and foreign policy of the United States -(and reduce the effectiveness of the incident when used by your detractors), or do you say that God is *not* speaking to you and giving specific instructions on conducting the "war on terror" and disappoint a lot of your most ardent followers? |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:34:45 -0400, thunder
wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:23:16 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: As smart and as compassionate as Carter was, his biggest problem was that he was politically weak. Our enemies knew it, which is why the Iran hostage situation lasted as long as it did. Is that why the hostage situation lasted so long? http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm And you believe that crap? I have copies of "documents" which are supposedly from top military officials which confirm the existence of aliens. Does it mean that it's true? One thing that is true though that if this scheme occurred as reported in those links, then the guys responsible are/were guilty of a major crime (possibly Treason). Since none of the participants were ever brought to trial much less convicted of anything, I would have to say that the evidence was not enough to make a case, and that what you read there is pure bunk, and most likely a left wing smear campaign. Dave |
Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:34:45 -0400, thunder wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:23:16 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: As smart and as compassionate as Carter was, his biggest problem was that he was politically weak. Our enemies knew it, which is why the Iran hostage situation lasted as long as it did. Is that why the hostage situation lasted so long? http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm And you believe that crap? I have copies of "documents" which are supposedly from top military officials which confirm the existence of aliens. Does it mean that it's true? One thing that is true though that if this scheme occurred as reported in those links, then the guys responsible are/were guilty of a major crime (possibly Treason). Since none of the participants were ever brought to trial much less convicted of anything, I would have to say that the evidence was not enough to make a case, and that what you read there is pure bunk, and most likely a left wing smear campaign. Dave Uh, there was enough evidence on hand to take George H.W. Bush over the coals and worse because of his involvement in Iran-Contra, but the Democrats decided the country would be better served if Bush I got a pass. So he got one. |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:54:07 -0400, DSK wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: His whole administration was a failure. He managed to do a few domestically good things, and he paid lip service to the concepts of peace to a segment of the world which laughed at him behind his back. But otherwise, he presided over a recessionary economy, as well as at least one oil "crisis". What a tiny memory you have, Dave... not that it's surprising. And you fall for it every time........ The oil crises was brought on under Nixon (think "wage & price freezes") and made worse under Ford... Carter was doing much to get out of it, although baulked at every turn by profiteers in both parties. Much like our current recession is not the fault of Bush, but of Clinton, while Bush is doing as much as he can to get out of it? Funny how people change their train of logic to support their favorite political icons...... And you're forgetting the second oil crisis in 1979, where we first saw gasoline hit $1.00 a gallon and many places were rationing gas. As for the "recessionary economy" you have been telling us how the boom of the '90s wasn't Clinton's doing and the recession of the '00s isn't Bush's doing... isn't it handy to be able to blame Carter for the economy though? Well then which is it? Is Carter to blame for not being able to pull out of a recession which may or may not have begun under Nixon/Ford? If not, then you can hardly blame Bush for our current predicament, especially considering the recession was underway before he took office. So, with no specifics except what you got wrong, you condemn Carter's "whole administration" as a "failure." You have no real facts, no solid basis for saying so... just what the hate-radio voices have been telling you... I have plenty of specifics. I just like baiting you left wingers (and guys who claim to be "conservatives" yet parrot the left wing agenda), into revealing your own duplicity. Dave |
As for the
"recessionary economy" you have been telling us how the boom of the '90s wasn't Clinton's doing and the recession of the '00s isn't Bush's doing... isn't it handy to be able to blame Carter for the economy though? Dave Hall wrote: Well then which is it? You don't know, do you? It's kind of funny to see you running around in circles trying to justify your stupid opinions & prejudices. It's not funny to see how many voters in this country aren't any smarter. In any case, *if* you blame Carter for the late 1970s recession then you have to blame Bush for the mess we're in now. And for all your vitriol against Carter, that's the only thing you seem able to pin on him... other than your right-wing hate radio malarkey.. DSK |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:08:10 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm And you believe that crap? I have copies of "documents" which are supposedly from top military officials which confirm the existence of aliens. Does it mean that it's true? Yup, I believe it happened. I can't *prove* it happened, but I believe it happened. The hostages were released *15* minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and two months later arms flowed to Iran with Reagan's approval. There is considerable circumstantial evidence it happened. Remember Casey was a spook. It's just the way his mind worked. One thing that is true though that if this scheme occurred as reported in those links, then the guys responsible are/were guilty of a major crime (possibly Treason). Since none of the participants were ever brought to trial much less convicted of anything, I would have to say that the evidence was not enough to make a case, and that what you read there is pure bunk, and most likely a left wing smear campaign. As I have said, I can't prove it, but the Congressional investigation was a white-wash. *It* was pure bunk. By the by, it would be treason. |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:10:10 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:
Uh, there was enough evidence on hand to take George H.W. Bush over the coals and worse because of his involvement in Iran-Contra, but the Democrats decided the country would be better served if Bush I got a pass. So he got one. Oh, and don't forget Bush's pardons. http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:10:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:34:45 -0400, thunder wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:23:16 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: As smart and as compassionate as Carter was, his biggest problem was that he was politically weak. Our enemies knew it, which is why the Iran hostage situation lasted as long as it did. Is that why the hostage situation lasted so long? http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105011.htm And you believe that crap? I have copies of "documents" which are supposedly from top military officials which confirm the existence of aliens. Does it mean that it's true? One thing that is true though that if this scheme occurred as reported in those links, then the guys responsible are/were guilty of a major crime (possibly Treason). Since none of the participants were ever brought to trial much less convicted of anything, I would have to say that the evidence was not enough to make a case, and that what you read there is pure bunk, and most likely a left wing smear campaign. Dave Uh, there was enough evidence on hand to take George H.W. Bush over the coals and worse because of his involvement in Iran-Contra, but the Democrats decided the country would be better served if Bush I got a pass. So he got one. Right....... And the tooth fairy and santa claus are doing the jitterbug on my roof right now...... Dave |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:34:44 -0400, DSK wrote:
As for the "recessionary economy" you have been telling us how the boom of the '90s wasn't Clinton's doing and the recession of the '00s isn't Bush's doing... isn't it handy to be able to blame Carter for the economy though? Dave Hall wrote: Well then which is it? You don't know, do you? It's kind of funny to see you running around in circles trying to justify your stupid opinions & prejudices. It's not funny to see how many voters in this country aren't any smarter. What's even more funny is catching you guys on the left (and their sycophants) in their blatant hypocritical mindsets, who flip flop on their opinions (just like Kerry) depending on whether the sitting president was a republican or democrat. In any case, *if* you blame Carter for the late 1970s recession then you have to blame Bush for the mess we're in now. Carter's policies were unable to correct the situation. Coincidentally not too long after Reagan took office, the economy improved significantly. Was Carter a victim of poor timing, or just a lousy CEO? Was Reagan in the right place at the right time, or was he a more savvy businessman? The same questions can be made of Clinton and Bush. What does this all mean? I've always asserted that the economy follows a sort of roller coaster cyclic trend governed by market conditions, and pretty much beyond the ability for any sitting president to influence. That doesn't stop them from attempting to claim credit for the good times, or having the blame placed on them when times are tough. Government can help things to some degree by improving public perception, which can translate to improvements or declines. More recently the mass media can have a greater effect on perception. When we are constantly barraged by all sorts of economic bad news, it's tough to look positive and take the steps necessary to jump start the next up phase. And for all your vitriol against Carter, that's the only thing you seem able to pin on him... Vitriol? Hardly. History is my witness. other than your right-wing hate radio malarkey.. As compared to left wing hate propaganda? When will the clue of truth finally hit you? You are the flip side of the same coin you attack so vehemently. Dave |
Dave Hall wrote:
What's even more funny is catching you guys on the left ??? In any case, *if* you blame Carter for the late 1970s recession then you have to blame Bush for the mess we're in now. Carter's policies were unable to correct the situation. Coincidentally not too long after Reagan took office, the economy improved significantly. Yeah, about 3 years after Reagan took office. So, in blaming Carter for the late 1970s economy, you also accept that Bush Jr has totally screwed up the economy since 2000? And for all your vitriol against Carter, that's the only thing you seem able to pin on him... Vitriol? Hardly. History is my witness. Funny, you don't seem to have a single fact in your "history." DSK |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 07:52:53 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
You assume that they are. There is no proof that the recent threats were politically motivated. If the people start taking a cynical view of the threat system, then its effectiveness will be severely compromised. A picture is worth a thousand words. Notice a trend? Notice the Terror Alerts becoming more prevalent? Linkage? http://img69.exs.cx/img69/7638/aprov...lert_chart.gif |
Dave Hall wrote in message
1. People other than GWB were saying the exact same things about Saddam's WMD program, including Clinton, Kerry, and even Teddy Kennedy in this country, along with the Brits, the Germans, the Russians and other foreign countries. Pure spin. IF you would really take the time to see what each has said, IN IT'S ENTIRETY, you'd see that there were qualifying statements involved, but of course you don't see anything other than the spin. 2. Saddam could have come clean at any time, yet he chose to play shell games with the inspectors for the 12 years following the gulf war. He finally kicked them out in 1998. Why would anyone who had nothing to hide, be so evasive and uncooperative with the inspectors? Do you think that during the time between the ejection of the inspectors in 98, and when they came back years later, could not give Saddam ample time to hide them? Jeez, you may be on to something there, seeing how GWB was also uncooperative with inspectors. He's not let the U.N. do a thing, that is, until he screwed up foreign relations so bad, that now he WANTS the United Nations' help. 3. Absence of proof to the positive does not, by itself, indicate proof of the negative. The remaining WMD could very well be in Syria. There has been intel which supports this theory. Uh, yeah, okay. The right wing lies are getting more and more far fetched. You guys are looking for ANY excuse. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com