Bush says he has been misunderstood, that he could have used "a different rhetoric." Now because he was so misunderstood when he said things like "bring 'm on" and "dead or alive" he regrets the way people think he, like, might have wanted war instead of peace.
The straight-shooter is saying he wasn't shooting straight after all, that he really didn't mean what he said. Where's GaGambler to call him a liar?
Actions have consequences, and you can't put them back in the can.
That's the reason it can be smart to think things through in advance - and take a couple moments to think what effect your choices will have a couple weeks down the road. 10 minutes thinking is a good investment in avoiding a lifetime of regrets.
I don't really have a problem with Bush. My problem is with people who want to run the USA by animal instinct and religious slogans, because I think it's a jackhammer in our collective ass. He just happens to be the personification of that.
And you find that to be a horribly damning admission, do you? To look back and say, 'I could have done something better' is what most rational men engage in. Children don't, nor liberals, lefties, Democrats, or is that redundant?
yeah, but when you were constantly advised that your head was up your ass, that your desired course of action had little to support it in terms of either common sense or intellectual consistency, and you persisted in doing the wrong thing, THEN you have the balls to say "oppps, coulda/shoulda/woulda..."
well, it's beter than nothing, and it's the most and the best we'll ever get out of GWB.
Bush lied. Does that make you happy?
Of course he fucking lied, that's the beauty of being independent and not being married to the lies of your party of choice. I've told you before I am not a Republican, but right now I prefer them over the complete fucking idiots who are leading the Dems.
FWIW I still believe we needed to go to Iraq, and what's more I believe that we need to stay, at least until we find something to replace oil. If Ahmadinejad gets complete control of the region, we are talking WWIII.
at least until we figure out WTF we're doing!
In a very sad development for Dims, it appears the US might be succesful in routing AQ in Iraq.
I know, I know, hearing that on a Friday will make for a bleak weekend for the treasonous buggers among us, but ihto each life, etc, etc.
Cheer up. It could get better (by getting worse)over there. Chin up! There's still time to lose. Vote Obama. Election Slogan: Insure Defeat! Vote Obama!
That's a change we could believe in.
and of course, with such a purely cynical plan, we needed to be lied to about it.
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad wasn't even in office till we pulled off our maneuver, which would be an admission that Bush's decisions have actually made things worse.
That idiot Ahmadinejad is so stupid I believe he could actually nuke his own cities by accident. Put a picture of Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Milsovic, and Saddam (in power) next to Ahmadinejad and you can clearly see somebody does not belong. Five look like the epitome of ruthless evil;-+* one reminds you of Inspector Clouseau.
Maybe he's been saber rattling, but I haven't heard about it. Besides, if he rattles the saber too hard he may well cut off his hand.
your lack of regard for the leaders of millions of people aside, isn't it amazing how people who have accomplished nothing find it so easy to ridicule others, Ahmadinejad rules a country that is not only poised to fill the void left by Saddam, but is decidedly anti American.
You and your hero may be willing to dismiss him as another paper tiger, but you and Saddam were ridiculing George W Bush as an impotent cowboy. Say what you want about GWB, but he is still a two term POTUS and Saddam is now nothing more than fertilizer. Somehow your prognosticating ability does not impress me.
If you have NO worries about Iran than you truly are an idiot. No one in their right mind, or even JackO for that matter can dismiss a country that except for our presence controls not only the Straitsm of Hormuz, but is also a cunt hair away from becoming a nuclear power.
the problem is managing it.
That is, you set the dominos up IN ADVANCE to fall the way you want. Never risk your resources by seeking battle unless the result is bound to go your way.
IOW, you manuever to a position that you cannot be denied. In Iraq, that meant twisting the arms of all the locals, using all their issues against each other, IN ADVANCE, so that once the landing is made, it's nothing more than a triumphal parade by a security force. We have our party, then we go home.
Like getting a date - you don't ask - you manuever her into asking. If you do like George, get a couple beers in you then stagger over and retch on her, you're going to get nowhere. That's OK as long as it's only YOUR drunk ass on the line. But your buddies won't be asking you to fly wingman for long with that act.
The problem with the oil rationalization is that (a) military force is too expensive to provide long term security for Iraqi oil, and (b) we haven't begun to deal with Saudi & Iranian oil, and (c) we have contrary interests in Israel. Talk about FUCKED UP!
Most idiots know if it's important enough to bet your career on, it's important enough to try to get it right. But not the Republican idiots, and it's difficult to say whether it's because they are intellectually incredibly smart (ie, know the certatin collateral effects will benefit them massively) or emotionally incredibly dumb (ie spoiled frat boys and chickenhawks who never do their homework or look a week in advance).
And of course, it's a massive distraction from finding Osama. Which is why it's hard to avoid the observation that what the GOP must be looking for is a perennial state of war for ulterior purposes.
For a century after the civil war, Republicans represented those in power. Subtly, starting with Nixon's southern strategy, they needed to enlist the disenfranchised to get enough votes, and they went to the blue collar southern evangelicals - who are no longer concentrated in the south, but concentrated in evangelical (and a few Catholics) churches everywhere across the nation.
To keep these voters, they have to observe policies that don't make a lick of economic sense to their Wall St financial constituents - like abortion issues, etc. Eventually, they imploded, with Bush policies like Jesus Day.
So now we have a situation where the cat, dog & fag outsiders of Bill Clinton's Democrats are the party of accountability & responsibility, and that is fucking scary. The Republicans are advocating bread & circuses, while the Democrats are saying, well, only little ones.
And it's so bad that the politics of the Dems risk everything with a 1st time black & woman fighting each other to the death, and the GOP can't come up with any policy changes, insisting that McCain suck their religious dick.
Looks to me like every man for himself and devil take the hindmost - unless possibly somebody can convince the other side he can represent both sides. Bush trashed that chance in 2000, and I doubt McCain can lead his party. Obama might be able to herd enough of the Democratic cats, and it's even more likely that he could line up the cultural Republicans, who want cultural law & order. But if he were to do that, he'd probably wind up doing it at the expense of the financial GOP, eg by shifting war money & effort to public works that would capture the imagination of the blue collar Republicans.
Obama might do this, since he seems to be able to control his party. I don't think McCain can do this, because he hasn't been able to control his.
is a positve for Obama. I agree with the statment, but I disagree about it's effect on the country.
Obama's ability to get the dummy's to follow him is one of the scariest things about his candidacy. With a democratic congress behind him, he would actually be able to effect change, but not change for the good. That's what's scary.
McCain on the other hand would be hamstrung by that same democratic congress and any radical changes would most likely be thwarted, making him sort of the Bill Clinton of the Republican Party(without the bj's) in other words, he would be unable to fuck things up too badly, which is the best we can hope for this election cycle.
govt paralysis may be the best we can hope for.
But our present course is disastrous, ie, bleeding resources away at an alarming rate in wars that have no clear objective nor immediate prospect of success or end. Indeed, our leaders haven't been able to define an objective in terms concrete enough to even make a plan for success.
In these circumstances, govt paralysis is likely to be fatal. How much longer can we spend to no effect?
It's unlikely that anybody is going to order troops to "get on the plane - NOW!" But there should be focus on finding Osama, if nothing more than as a symbol; and some articulation of a sensible goal in Iraq. So far, out goal has been, "you know". No, nobody knows, and that's most of why we're fucked up there. If we were to go thru the process of articulating a goal, it's likely that we'd figure out what we want - of course, Bush GOP mindless religious approach to govt precludes that.
It's also unlikely that Obama is going to ignore the experience of the Clintons. Unlike GW, there's no reasonable basis for thinking Obama is stupid, and will certainly compare & contrast the recent presidencies.
Despite all the hollering of the Wall St capitalists, the policy of Democratic presidents hasn't been any more anti-capitalist than Republicans. Indeed, the deregulation of Reagan and Bush has probably done more damage to Wall Street than the regulations of all the Democrats - and notice price controls were Nixon's idea.
So I'm guessing that Obama would scale back the Iraq war and move that money into domestic public works, rebuilding dikes, bridges, all the stuff that failed us and will put blue collar Americans back to work.
And I don't see that as nearly destructive as a continuation of Bush policies. Indeed, if Obama turns out to be Donna Brazile in drag, he's not going to be as destructive as indefinite war. We've survived all sorts of govt caps on capitalism in prior wars, but those wars ended in definite and short times. We are now 5 years in Iraq, and McCain is not saying "peace with honor" which meant double the time & casualties - he's saying "indefinite war".
This war will be determined by economics, and if we don't decide who we are trying to kill pretty soon, we will run out of ammunition, and the Chinese will own us.
You see, it's not enough to be a good shot in all weather. You need the fucking brains to know who to shoot, and when, and when to hold your fire.
Bush of course is none of these things. He's got us in a war for the entertainment value. But it's not his fault - it's the fault of the people who elected him - all the people sporting yellow ribbons who didn't rise up and lynch Rumsfeld when he said (translation here) "you start wars with the neighbor's kids, not your own"
indefinite military presence and indefinite war. Here is a link to McCain actual position on the issue.
I too believe we need to be in Iraq for a long time to come, but we don't need our kids to be the ones dying.
You may trust Obama not to immediately start packing up in Iraq, but I don't. If we leave Iraq prematurely, Iran WILL fill the power void. If that happens it will not be a matter of if, it will only be when we will be involved in a real shooting war with an enemy that won't be vanquished as easily as Saddam, and who might recieve the backing of China or India by using oil as a bargaining chip.
People, especially on the left keep saying that thing can't get any worse. Things could get worse, much much worse. Just imagine an all out war with a Chinese backed Iran, four thousand KIAs is a shame, dozens of times that amount would be a travesty especially since it can be avoided.
Does anybody remember Vietnamization? How did that work?
For that matter, McCain has already told us that everything is already normal. So I think he should be happy with it as it is.
You'd be smart to read the comments of a few of the 20th century guerrillas who kicked western asses far more often than they should have, because of bull-headed western politicians.
It has gotten to the point that the integrity of American govt is our primary concern, and far more important than our mideast policy, or our total foreign policy. The threat is more internal than external - witness rightwing hyperventilation about lapel pins and scarves on Dunkin donut girls. The idea that we have to salvage Bush's fuckup does not stand alone - if you accept that we need to re-evaluate Iraqi policies (as mcCain does not) then you have to accept those policies need to be fully investigated, and corrective action taken.
I don't trust Obama any way. Nor do I trust a flipflopper who promises to continue Bush's disastrous policies. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Bush's constituencies have led us down an irrational road to disaster because their sole concerns have been Jesus and the quarterly profits. There is a fair chance that a random man on the street could be a substantial improvement.
So you may write me in if you like.
but there is no doubt that McCain is by far the lesser of the evils.
There is no doubt that McCain will not immediatley withdraw from Iraq, there is no doubt that social security will extend to every penny you make under McCain, there is no doubt that McCain will elevate the likes of Chavez, Kim and Ahmadinejad, to legitamicy by holding unilateral talks with any of them. Can you say the same about Obama.
You keep saying that things can't get any worse, that is our biggest disagreement. I believe things could get much, much worse.
McCain or Obama will make things worse?
As Willie says, I don't see anybody betting. I see a lot of mouth-foaming, but that's usual GOP behavior. I don't see any betting.
My guess would be that a linear projection of the economy from here to November will result in Obama and 2 Democratic houses of Congress.
What do you mean you don't see anybody betting, we are all betting our future on this election. The amount of real money that an Obama presidency would cost me is too large to contemplate.
If your meaning is you would like to place an additional wager, then Come on. pony up and I'll take all the action you can handle. If you're scared then just say scared. I earned my handle, I'll book any bet you can afford.
and a mouth-foamer like yourself, too.
I like to avoid bad bets, just as I've done way too much fighting to like a fair fight.
Yeah, I'll bet you. I'll put down $100 against your $2K on either candidate. Your choice. Find us an escrow agent.
The odds are avering about McCain -160 Obama +140. I'll lay the minus 60, but even you aren't stupid enough to think I'd lay 20-1.
and you call Harry a drunk. get back on your meds JackO, and if you manage to find your balls and want to make a real bet. Escrow agents are easy to find. But can you remember your real name for long enough to open the account under.
Lets see how big your balls are now, Big shot.
I don't connect my manhood and gambling.
"As Willie says, I don't see anybody betting. I see a lot of mouth-foaming, but that's usual GOP behavior. I don't see any betting."
Cmon Big shot, I am calling your bluff. If your scared just say so. Your the one with the big mouth. Or are you so whacked that you actually think that your aliases are actually different people?
Typical libby wuss, won't ever put their money where there mouth is. I knew you were just hot air. Now so does everybody else. lmao
and we can work a deal if you need meds.
No balls, just a big mouth.
Come back when you grow a pair.
"Bleeding away resources at an alarming rate" sounds really smart. You must have a very big brain! Don't worry about the fact that it is Bullshit. Defense spending overall is a fraction of our economy. We spend more on pre-school and after school programs than the war.
The line, "put blue collar Americans back to work." Where are the non-working blue collars? If you know, send them to your local Home Depot parking lot to run off the illegal aliens who are here supposedly to do jobs our people won't.
And now a liar to boot!