…type in the words “Miserable Failure” (include the quotes) and then hit “I Feel Lucky.”
And don’t come bìŧçhìņg to me about it if you don’t like the result.
PAD
…type in the words “Miserable Failure” (include the quotes) and then hit “I Feel Lucky.”
And don’t come bìŧçhìņg to me about it if you don’t like the result.
PAD
• 
YOU: Yugoslavia: We went in with a UN mandate and the backing of NATO. We have neither in Iraq.
ME: WRONG! The UN never approved of it. Clinton nor Blair ever asked for the UNs permission.
We actually had stronger justification in Iraq. Iraq violated the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War. There was also a unanimous UN resolution demanding he cooperate or face consequences.
Just because we’re the lone superpower, doesn’t give us the right to invade another country or for Dad Bush and uncle Cheney can get rich of funneling reconstruction contracts to their friends.
A former Clinton official has stated there’s no cronyism in Iraq:
One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded — whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert — who doesn’t regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd.
The premise of the accusations is completely contrary to the way government contracting works, both in theory and in practice. Most contract award decisions are made by career civil servants, with no involvement by political appointees or elected officials. In some agencies, the “source selection official” (final decision-maker) on large contracts may be a political appointee, but such decisions are preceded by such a torrent of evaluation and other backup material prepared by career civil servants that it would be difficult to change a decision from the one indicated by the career employees’ evaluation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A6691-2003Nov5¬Found=true
It’s also refuted in this Slate piece: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090636
The main reason Halliburton and others got contracts is because they had previously gotten them during the Clinton administration.
AnthonyX …what was UN resolutions: resolutions 1160 (1998) of 31 March 1998, 1199 (1998) of 23 September 1998, 1203 (1998) of 24 October 1998 and 1239 (1999) of 14 May 1999,
all about then? you call 4 different resolutions nothing?
you just proved my point on Rwanda, how was I “wrong”?
James Tichy ….
The economy JUST started to pick up after 3 years. Don’t make it sound like Bush is this great leader and his policies are steering us into some prospers wonderland. Remember that 408+ BILLION dollar deficit? We’re going to have to pay that off with interest thanks to Bush.
The war will be an issue, if you think other wise you’re living in denial. The fact Bush lied to the American people about the reason for the war and the aftermath of it will be a major problem for him.
Don’t give me this “Not with a majority of Americans supporting the war” junk either. With a quick 5 second search,I can find poll after poll thats either 50/50 on this war, or have a majority that don’t support it. I’m sure you can do the same. The proof will election time.
Jim Burdo….
From 1995 to 2000 Cheney was chief executive and chairman of Halliburton, the Dallas-based company that provides products and services to the oil and energy industries, employing 100,000 people worldwide.
Its share value has fallen by two-thirds because of lawsuits over asbestos poisoning and an investigation of accounting changes introduced under Cheney.
Most of Halliburton’s government contracts were won by its construction subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root – a company with British origins that was sold to the US parent in the 1970s.
Documents uncovered by a Washington researcher, Knut Royce – formerly with the Centre for Public Integrity – and by The Observer show that government banks loaned or insured loans worth $1.5 billion during the five years that Cheney was chief executive, compared with only $100 million during the previous five years.
The company under Cheney benefited from $3.8bn in government contracts or insured loans. Although Bill Clinton was in the White House, Capitol Hill – where the Appropriations Committee handles government contracts – was controlled by Cheney’s Republican Party, to which Halliburton doubled its contributions to $1,212,000 after his arrival.
The most eye-catching contract was for the refurbishment of a Siberian oilfield, Samotlor, for the Tyumen oil company of Russia. The company was loaned $489m in credits by the US Export-Import Bank after lobbying by Halliburton; it was in return to receive $292m for the refurbishments.
The White House and State Department tried to veto the Russian deal. But after intense lobbying by Halliburton the objections were overruled on Capitol Hill. One of Halliburton’s top lobbyists was David Gribben, who had been Cheney’s chief of staff at the Pentagon.
this comes from:http://observer.guardian.co.uk/economy/story/0,1598,759142,00.html
Hey guys! Lighten up! I’m a Bush supporter and I thought it was funny. Of course I kind of figure it out anyway since PAD was the one telling us about it.
Besides EVERYONE likes Bush! Well, except for gay men, I guess.
The reasons why the protests exist are a simple letter. Replace the (R) with a (D) beside Bush’s name and this would have been a success story.
Replace the (R) with a (D) beside Arnolds name and it would have been a wonderful rags to riches immigrant story.
I very much doubt it’s that simple. If George W. Bush hadn’t been George H. W. Bush’s son, he wouldn’t have made it to the Republican primaries, let alone president. A goodly amount of his policies and initiatives are unpopular domestically and world protest has nothing to do with his political affiliation or nationality (if being American were that much an issue, Clinton would have not been one of our most popular overseas presidents). They exist because the majority of the world’s citizenry (not politicians or radical protesters) feel that Bush’s handling of things has been utterly wrong.
Arnold is a rags-to-riches story. No one doubts that. The question is should someone with absolutely no experience in a field (politics) should be put in charge of what I believe is the world’s 11th largest economy (I am not sure on this point, but the meaning should be clear). The true hypocrisy of the entire Arnold question is this: All those Republicans who shouted down celebrities and actors who opposed the war, saying that they should shut their mouths and stick to what they know — entertainment, where were they when one of those entertainers (Arnold) decided to run for governor.
Its much worse than anti-Americanism, it is anti-right wing or whatever dillusional cliched definition you have of right wing.
True. It’s as bad as being anti-left wing or or whatever dillusional cliched definition you have of left wing.
Thought Policing. Its scary.
Indeed. That’s why so many people are against the Patriot Act now.
2)”we have found way fewer WMDs than we expected “…Try None. We haven’t found ONE WMD. Bush’s point of the war was WMD. Even Iraqi Scientists are saying there wasn’t a program to rebuild his WMD, only programs to get long range Missiles. Yes, a clear violation of the UN charter, but not worth Lives of one “coalition” solider.
The war had a lot of reasons for it. “President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.” — New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.
The casus belli was that Hussein refused to fully cooperate with weapons inspectors and fully disclose his research. No one can deny that. Here’s links to David Kay’s report:
http://windsofchange.net/archives/004100.html
There wasn’t much debate over whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Even Dean said he had to disarm.
Those scientists you mentioned were just talking about the nuclear program. They also said they lied to Saddam about it, giving the impression of results. Were we supposed to be better informed than he was? Those missiles you mention (part of a deal with North Korea) had a 1000 km range. That covers Israel and a lot of Europe.
I see maybe 3 military, economic powerhouse there.
Except for Canada, that covers the countries that invaded on D-day.
We had Iraq contained. They had sanctions on them that could never have been lifted without our OK in the UN. None of the WMD, or links to Al Qaeda have been proven after 6 months of us going over that country.
That’s nonsense. The sanctions were about to be lifted because of European pressure. Powell wanted to replace them with “smart sanctions”. They didn’t prevent Hussein from trying to get an entire missile production line from North Korea, or uranium from the Congo. The Guardian reported that:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,798497,00.html
As for links with al-Qaida,
The day after this speech, according to documents unearthed in April 2003 in the Iraqi Intelligence headquarters by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein’s intelligence service wrote a memo detailing coming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered by liquid paper that, when revealed, exposed a plan to increase cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to that memo, the IIS agreed to pay for “all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden.” The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of “the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him.” The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might provide “a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden.” This is from the Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
We pulled need resources from Afghanistan to fight this war, when we should have finished up there before doing anything else.
What needed resources? We only have small numbers of troops searching for al-Qaida.
From 1995 to 2000 Cheney was chief executive and chairman of Halliburton, the Dallas-based company that provides products and services to the oil and energy industries, employing 100,000 people worldwide.
Look at those dates. They prove no conflict of interest, since Cheney was out of government and the Democrats were in. You just proved my point about Halliburton’s contracts starting with the Clinton administration, with Gore’s program to privatize some government services. After 2000, Cheney severed ties with Halliburton, and there’s no such thing as a retroactive conflict of interest.
Arnold is a rags-to-riches story. No one doubts that. The question is should someone with absolutely no experience in a field (politics) should be put in charge of what I believe is the world’s 11th largest economy (I am not sure on this point, but the meaning should be clear).
How about someone with a graduate degree in economics and a successful career in business before his acting one?
Thought Policing. Its scary.
Indeed. That’s why so many people are against the Patriot Act now. Only ignorant ones haven’t read it. It has nothing to do with “Thought Policing”.
North Korea is a MUCH bigger problem, has admitted to having nuclear weapons, has been caught RED HANDED selling ballistic missile to anyone who’s will to pay for them, and has threaten to invade south Korea and attack the USA. What does Daddy bush do?? NOTHING.
You can’t see why someone would treat a country with nuclear weapons differently than one that doesn’t?
The problem is, that, until recently, North Korea didn’t have WMD (in fact, they may still not). When the flare went up that North Korea would resume such a program, instead of nipping the problem in the bud with diplomacy (a relatively easy task), Bush blithely ignored the situation. Now it has gotten much more complicated. As I’ve said before, if North Korea actually becomes a nuclear power, the world will become a much more dangerous place, and the blame will fall squarely on W.’s shoulders.
After 2000, Cheney severed ties with Halliburton, and there’s no such thing as a retroactive conflict of interest.
And, after 2000, they got even more contracts from the government, this time without even having to go through a competitive bidding process. There may not be a retroactive conflict of interest, but there is still such a thing as giving favors to former business associates in exchange for future quid pro quo. Cheney won’t be VP forever. We’ll see what kind of benefits he gets once he’s no longer subject to disclosure laws.
Arnold is a rags-to-riches story. No one doubts that. The question is should someone with absolutely no experience in a field (politics) should be put in charge of what I believe is the world’s 11th largest economy (I am not sure on this point, but the meaning should be clear).
How about someone with a graduate degree in economics and a successful career in business before his acting one?
That’s all well and good, but he has not even the least bit of political experience. To use a (possibly imperfect) analogy, if I had a skyscraper in desperate need of repair, I’d call in people who have proven empirical knowledge of fixing skyscrapers, not someone who is just starting out, had only some knowledge with home and small-scale repair, and is using this project as his on-the-job training.
Of course, you’re mileage may vary.
\Thought Policing. Its scary.
Indeed. That’s why so many people are against the Patriot Act now.
Only ignorant ones haven’t read it. It has nothing to do with “Thought Policing”.
Perhaps, but being able to demand a list of what you check out of a library comes dámņ close in my book.
A better example would be the attempts of some partisans to suggest that any criticism of Bush and his policies is a criticism on the war on terror, and thus, your patriotism is questionable.
Bush Sr. – “Read my lips: No new/more(?) taxes.”
Bush Jr. – “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Like father, like son?
As for Arnie, “he question is should someone with absolutely no experience in a field (politics) should be put in charge of what I believe is the world’s 11th largest economy.”
I’d say that’s a definite plus. Especially given how many people have had their morals and ethics corrupted beyond recovery by life in politics. At least he’s hopefully still ‘fresh’. And, with all the millions he’s got, he’s also hopefully less open to bribes.
As far as your Sierra Club goes…groups like them are keeping a coal gasification plant from being built near my home town. This would bring hundreds of jobs to this hurting area. I have no respect for groups like that. Oh, that energy bill that just died in congress due to democratic opposition would have been signed by Bush and would have built the plant.
Oh yeah… because we all know how much more important some jobs for a few individuals are over the future health of the enviornment/planet and the survival of the human race in the long run.
That’s all well and good, but he has not even the least bit of political experience.
Given the incumbents (such as the aforementioned subject of this thread)…is that a problem?
Tanviper
I should not have said wrong. You were right, but so was I in my explanation.
CLINTON after seeing what happened in Somalia (see Blackhawk Down) did not want to touch Rwanda.
Thats Clinton (D), one of the most popular Presidents worldwide according to Sasha.
That’s all well and good, but he has not even the least bit of political experience.
Given the incumbents (such as the aforementioned subject of this thread)…is that a problem?
Well, the fun will be in finding out I guess. 🙂
But still, I’m glad I don’t live in California.
CLINTON after seeing what happened in Somalia (see Blackhawk Down) did not want to touch Rwanda.
No great shock there. Sadly, most administrations don’t intervene in civil war situations like this unless there’s national interest or money on the line. The payoff is just too low unless there is serious backup from other countries. The Kurds and Saddam, Tiannamen Square, the Taliban and Afganistan (we didn’t do anything until 9/11, and if Afganistan had given up Osama, the Taliban would probably still be running the place). It’s all a sad testament, really.
Thats Clinton (D), one of the most popular Presidents worldwide according to Sasha.
I’m apparently missing something here. What discrepancy are you suggesting? Simply because Clinton did not step into Rwanda does not necessarily mean he wasn’t respected internationally.
Thought Policing. Its scary.
People who are criticizing the President, or criticizing the election of Arnold, are not being thought police. They’re part of the discussion that’s supposed to take place.
Folks who try to shut down the discussion with such slurs against anyone who disagree with them, however…
**People who are criticizing the President, or criticizing the election of Arnold, are not being thought police. They’re part of the discussion that’s supposed to take place.
Folks who try to shut down the discussion with such slurs against anyone who disagree with them, however…**
….are engaging in Political Correctness, pure and simple. The Left has never been the sole bastion of PC; I’m not even sure that they do the most of it nowadays….
Sarcasm time:
3)”The other issues aren’t failures; they’re successful policies you don’t like”…really. You call a 408+ BILLION dollar defect a Success? If you ran a business like that, you’d be in jail.
We have debtor’s prison again? When did that start?
Sarcasm aside, there’s some pretty sloppy thinking going on here. E.g.:
That coal plant was stopped for a reason, maybe because it’s dirty power?? I don’t know all the facts about it. But I do know if Bush was for it, then it HAD to be bad, or it lined the pocket of some special interest group. Whatever the reason, I’m glad it failed!
Don’t know all the facts about it? Do you know any of the facts about it? Someone you don’t like is in favor of it, therefore it must be evil? Go back and read the “West Wing” quote someone posted earlier. Good Lord.
Oh yeah… because we all know how much more important some jobs for a few individuals are over the future health of the enviornment/planet and the survival of the human race in the long run.
They matter to the individuals. As that famous Democratic economist Keynes said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” Have you done a cost/benefit analysis of the coal plant mentioned? Do you know how effective the cleaning equipment at the plant is or would be? But hey, you have a somewhat snappy comeback available. Why think analytically about the issue?
“After 2000, Cheney severed ties with Halliburton, and there’s no such thing as a retroactive conflict of interest.
Posted by Jim Burdo”
Cheney still has ties to Halliburton…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2233-2003Sep25¬Found=true
PAD, I’d like you to try something. I think you should post a blog entry that says, in full, “George W. Bush.” Or perhaps “William Jefferson Clinton.” I think it’d be interesting to see what happens around here.
It doesn’t seem to matter how innocuous or pointless the actual blog entry may be, any political content, however trivial, always sparks ridiculously ferocious debate around here.
I’m apparently missing something here. What discrepancy are you suggesting?
No discrepancy whatsoever.
I am just noting a popular worldwide President who did not intervene in Rwanda, went t o war in thge former Yugoslavia and consistently bombed IRAQ all without UN approval.
And yes despite this he is still popular.
Nat Gertler,
All I am doing is comparing the 2 presidents.
Both went to war without UN approval, only one is a warmongering DEMON.
Critque all you want. Just look as objectively as possible.
I have just decided what my politics are. EXTREME CENTRIST.
And the beat goes on and on and on…
Oh PAD… will you never learn? 🙂
Anybody read the most recent Captain Marvel?
D
All I am doing is comparing the 2 presidents.
I might believe that… if I didn’t have your messages still in front of me, seeing you invent motivations for people, involve the California gubernatorial campaign, and invoke the “thought police”.
I understand that it may be tempting to pretend that you didn’t post such shallow, logic-impaired nonsense, but with your post still open to public view, doing so is not apt to be effective.
Yikes! Touchy.
I would like to respond to your intial post.
You said:
“Folks who try to shut down the discussion with such slurs against anyone who disagree with them, however… “
What slurs???
Secondly, I am speaking as a Canadian, who at one time was so Anti-American I though Chomsky was a lightweight.
Then I grew up.
Just think about it. Or better yet, use that tolerance of yours.
Yugoslavia: We went in with a UN mandate and the backing of NATO. We have neither in Iraq.
Point in fact, NATO DID back military action in Iraq, and the UN mandate authorized the use of force in Iraq(that part of Resolution 1441 that mentioned “severe consequences”, a phrase that is more or less understood in the halls of the UN to mean “military action”. That Germany, France and Russia waffled speaks less about the US, and more about the effectiveness of the UN as a governing body).
But I’m not seeking to really enter into a drawn out discussion on this topic. PAD started a thread about an internet quirk.
I support Bush. I find I like the guy from what I see and hear. I thought the google thing was amusing.
Why has this whole thing degenerated into some partisan sandbox? Why can’t we chuckle at a little political humor when it is presented, and leave it at that?
It’s not like this thread was started to spawn a discussion of this nature.
Geez, relax people!
I would like to respond to your intial post.
Because your first attempt didn’t take?
What slurs???
Oh, the accusation of “thought policing” for one. Then there’s the assumption that folks were against the war just based on the political party, rather than, say, the violent deaths of thousands, the destruction, the destabilization, and the decrease in U.S. security in the wake of the war.
Then I grew up.
Really? You may want to check again.
Try also
weapons of mass destruction
For those interested in the story behind this sort of “Google Bombs” go to:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-bzgoog1206,0,864891.story?coll=ny-homepage-nation-utility