Wouldn't want to offend any good friends
And not even direct military help. Just materiel and permission to fly over Iraqi airspace. But no worries: Bush "authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons." And no doubt it is working like a charm. "U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site," by David E. Sanger for the New York Times, January 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):
WASHINGTON — President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel last year for specialized bunker-busting bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex and told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, according to senior American and foreign officials.White House officials never conclusively determined whether Israel had decided to go ahead with the strike before the United States protested, or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel was trying to goad the White House into more decisive action before Mr. Bush left office. But the Bush administration was particularly alarmed by an Israeli request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located.
The White House denied that request outright, American officials said, and the Israelis backed off their plans, at least temporarily. But the tense exchanges also prompted the White House to step up intelligence-sharing with Israel and brief Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama....
Well, it was covert, anyway.
Time to send in the squirrels.
And the pigeons; heck, send in the Zionist rats, too.
Yellow!!!!!
Chicken!!!!!
Yet if covert CIA stuff works so well, why did we not do it in Iraq as well to stop their nuke program? I am sure that would saved a boat load of cash as well.
I said it before I will say it again: Bush does not want to screw up his Iraqi democracy project even if it means that the insane Iranians get a nuke, and blow Israel off the map. Of course the Israelis will nuke Iran off the map as well...but MAD does not work with people who think they are going to paradise if they die in a war with Israel.
Why...do we need to know this? Is this another indication of what the CIA is going to be? And the NYT giving the mullahs a heads up each day with front page news about covert ops?
Thank God nobody in Iran can read English!
A major covert program!!...why it's so damn covert nobody knows what it is..let alone how it works.
The NYT's operating expenses add up to over $700million per year. Meanwhile, its advertising revenues add upto less than $100million per year. I dunno where they're getting the money to make up the difference, but it looks like they're going to go broke pretty soon.
This is what happens when they spend their time prostituting themselves to irrational political causes, instead of trying to behave like a rational media enterprise or an honourable publication with integrity. They're losing their advertising base as advertisers flee from them in droves, and they're spending their time charging Quixotically at windmills.
Heh, somebody ought to take out a full-page ad in the NYT to tell their readership how their paper is running itself into the ground.
I wonder who's going to inherit NYT's self-styled liberal mantle? Will it be the Huffington Post or Salon.com? Won't it be interesting to see the psychological effects on the rest of the liberal media when they see their biggest ivory tower come crashing down.
I hate being right on this...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019042.php#c481455
I said Bush does not have the guts to go after Iran. He is so in love with Iraq, and so worried about a Shia uprising if we attacked Iran. I don't care if it was leaked, or not, to the soon to be defunct NYT, because the idea of using covert operations against the Iranian nuke program will not work. Can anyone name me a great CIA success in the Islamic world? I can’t?
The best thing you can do is bomb the hell out of their nuclear reactors, their military instillations, their half-assed navy, their half-assed air force, anything that could be used to make a nuclear weapon, and deliver the weapon, and keep bombing them until they yell enough.
Alas we don’t have the guts to do it, we don’t even have the guts to let someone else do it, because our little Iraqi friends might turn on us. If they were real friends, which we all know they are not, they would understand why we need to do this. Let us get this straight, if Saddam had been left in power, the Israelis would have just over flown his country and bombed Iran. The Iraqi air force was a joke, and Israel could have dealt with that, but now we will use American air power, American diplomatic power, and American resources to prevent Israel from defending itself against a lunatic run Iran from getting nukes that they will use to eliminate Israel.
Now you see why I dislike Bush so much. If this story is true, he is will be ranked as one of the biggest idiots of all time. God this is disgusting…I am having a hard time dealing with this one, and I am not even Jewish, because of how stupid it is. We will be responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, all because of some need to appease our Muslim “friends”.
And again covert crap will not stop this…I am sorry. I hope I am wrong…but I don’t think so, because history says I am right!
Interesting that Abdullah is willing to hold Bush's crap hand.
Who knows what is brewing in real time history. One would like to think that Irans fate is sealed already but it's unlikely Abdullah is ready to sign off on Shia central yet. Abdullah is happy to see Hamas discomfited and Israel get the blame but the Saudi's are not ready to have the US destroy Iran and thereby Shia power just yet. Ideally the Sunni's should let Iran weaponize and destroy Israel and then reluctantly (to western eyes) sanction it's destruction. This leaves Israel gone, Shia power dramatically decreased and the Sunni Saudi's in the cat bird seat for completion of the traditional murder, robbery and slavery Jihad instead of that wacky 12th-Imam-all-on-one-spin-of-the-wheel Jihad crap of the stupid Shia.
"Won't it be interesting to see the psychological effects on the rest of the liberal media when they see their biggest ivory tower come crashing down.
Has the NYT uncovered a plot by 19 Saudi born pilots to hijack a few 767's to bring it down? Nah....impossible to believe.
"Won't it be interesting to see the psychological effects on the rest of the liberal media when they see their biggest ivory tower come crashing down.
Has the NYT uncovered a plot by 19 Saudi born pilots to hijack a few 767's to bring it down? Nah....impossible to believe.
BL@KBIRD
You might be right. Who has the most to gain from all this...the Arabians!
"...new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons."
From the article.
Idiots. Whatever happened to the sedition laws that make it a felony to disclose information like this?
"...Israeli officials on new American efforts to subtly sabotage Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, a major covert program that Mr. Bush is about to hand off to President-elect Barack Obama...."
The left-wing media strikes again...
Hey, maybe ya'll should just go ahead and post the launch-code-of-the-day on the Reuters website and save Iran the trouble...
Jackasses.
Well, here's an even more disgusting picture (thanks to proud kafir-I had to go rinse my eyeballs off)
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l176/musiclover1992/BushSaudiKing.jpg
Bush is NOT in love with Iraq. He does not give a rat's ass about Iraq's supposed democracy. What HE wants it for is to build his pipeline to the gulf. He is about the bottom dollar, the millions and millions of dollars that line his family's pockets. Always has been and always will be.
I am too tired to go figure it out, maybe someone else here can. HOW much richer is the Bush family with the 2nd Operation Iraq? Let alone the 1st Operation Desert Storm. Can anyone tell me?
What did Americans expect from a spoilt / corrupt dhimmi who had declared (only Americans fdid not want to hear) that votes and money is all that counts in politics. So what if in return for the wahhabbi support, Bush had to:
- Escort terrorists out of America while all American flights were grounded.
- Blacken pages on Saudi Arabia from 9/11 Interim Report.
- Increase, yes increase Saudi student's visas (same visas exploited by 9/11 terrorists).
- Increase aid to Saudi Arabia.
- Adopt "Bandar Bush".
- Sacrifice American tax-dollars, lives and blood in a war against Al-Sauds worst enemy, Saddam.
The above is a small token of thanks for Saudi cash in Arbusto, harken Energy, Carlyle Group etc.
Americans re-elected this Saudi puppet twice and eunuch congress is in Bush pockets like Bush is in Saudi pockets so, why would Bush not repay his wahhabbi masters?
Every time I see this photo it looks like they're walking down the aisle together preparing to say 'I Do'. And the bride doesn't even attempt to hide the fact that she's pregnant. She could have waxed, though.
Bush has some interesting taste in women!
Bush is NOT in love with Iraq. He does not give a rat's ass about Iraq's supposed democracy. What HE wants it for is to build his pipeline to the gulf. He is about the bottom dollar, the millions and millions of dollars that line his family's pockets. Always has been and always will be.
Posted by: lorfalcon at January 10, 2009 11:03 PM
lorfalcon, you have figured out Bush famiy well. The entire Bush family is "about the bottom dollar", no matter what they have to do for it. Add to that presidency of USA. With the treasury and US army at their disposal, Bush family has sarificed America at the feet of their wahhabi masters. Take a close look; gulf war I was launched when Al-Sauds were in danger from Saddam and stopped when Al-Sauds were secure. Gulf War II was launched to 'finish' Saddam, no matter what lies, tax-dollars, lives and blood it took. Americans foolishly re-elected Bush even while Bush shoved 'guest worker program' and 'amnesty' down America's throat, pissed on Ameirica after 9/11: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
and lied about WMDs in Iraq: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060412-8.html with 'fight terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here'.
But Wafa Sultan saw through Bush lies: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52962
Now, Americans are protecting their saudi puppet, when they should be prosecuting Bush for murder him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73KIpzrUXI8
as he leaves the country devastated: http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/090102_vfl.htm
Although it is not too late to impeach/prosecute him, Americans have to thank themselves to let Bush Jr. devastate the country and get away.
People in Iran can read English and I hope they are reading this blog as it will only confuse them.
Let us assume that something is in the works that will take care of this problem once and for all.
No details of the plan in the work are known except for the people who are involved in this. And we need to keep it like that.
Here is a video showing how "palestinians" brain wash their children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J7whs4T4MY
To put forward the idea that President Bush and his father are ultimately concerned with lining their pockets is to reveal oneself as a non-serious thinker. I have my disagreements with the President. Many. I certainly think he doesn't comprehend that Islam is unreformable (what major Western politician does?), but to assert that Bush 43 is a liar or venal (in a post above there was link to a statement by Scott McClellan; when you have to invoke Scott McClellan for substantiation you are indeed desperate; even more ludicrous was the same post above which stated that there is still time to impeach Bush) is to insure that you are placed with the loons and thus no longer have to be taken seriously.
Bush has pursued a divide and conquer strategy where the Islamic world is concerned. He is convinced that enlisting part of the Muslim world against the other even more offensive part will pay off in the end and that at least part of the Muslim sphere can come into the modern world. Scholars of Islam like Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis think the same thing. Many Israeli politicians have as well. They may all very well be wrong. Frankly, I think they are wrong where modernization of Islam is the topic du jour but I think there is still merit in the overall divide and conquer approach. But, in any case, this does not mean that those who embrace this line of thinking, as Bush does, are corrupt or stupid or treasonous.
I too am exasperated by the disinclination of Western politicians to recognize what Islam is really about, but to stoop to insult and innuendo as a way of dismissing someone with whom you have a profound disagreement is to reveal far more about yourself than you realize.
Finally, I want to state for the record that I find President Bush to be a man of sterling character and deep moral resolve. I admire him very much as a man and as a President, even though I have many reservations about several courses of action he has pursued. For the record.
So I take it, Wellington, that you don't believe Bush and his cronies stole the presidential election from Gore with their shameless actions in Florida?
For the record, Saddam Hussein was a despotic tyrannical murderous president, but I don't believe for a moment that he is any worse than 'ole Abdullah.
Yet, don't you find it strange that Iraq's women pre-American takeover were free to wear pants and work? If they didn't wear hajibs, that was perfectly fine. They drove cars, voted, and divorced as they wanted (albeit after going to court for a lengthy time). They were employed in every aspect of the country. When I lived in Egypt, the Egyptians themselves were in complete admiration of Iraqi women for being so modernized. Both wars have done nothing except put them back in the middle ages. Does no one find it bitterly ironic that it was a sunni WOMAN who blew herself up in the midst of shiites recently? Does no one remember or realize that until the first Gulf war, the shiites were imported to the States as "refugees of religious persecution?"
Divide and conquer? For what and to what end? Peace? Diplomacy? Freedom of expression? Women's and children's rights? Democracy? You'll find none of that now that the shiite's have taken over. But that would be Abdullah's agenda and he used his BFF Bush to do so. Cesspoolistan is about to explode in our faces and there is no end in sight.
Bush has said, "I will die with a clear conscience." But I don't remember anyone asking him that, do you? You may believe what you like about him, but I believe his God is the almighty Dollar.
I will quote you then, we'll have to agree to disagree. Especially when it comes to American presidents. (Well, except for dhimmi Carter, or Eisenhower. I really don't know much about him, I'm a 60's baby.)
Wellington, unfortunately you have not presented any sounds points except "stoop to insult and innuendo as a way of dismissing someone with whom you have a profound disagreement is to reveal far more about yourself than you realize."
You can support POTUS/commander-in-chief and blame the messanger all you want but without reason, your support is hollow, arising out of mis-guided sentiments. No, am not a communist or a democrat, and back my views with reason. Here are a few more:
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050211_bush.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070603_amnesty.htm
Look at Bush's "allies" in the phony "war-on-terror":
Saudi Arabia: the father of international terror, prime financers of terror http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/331/saudi-arabias-terror-finance-problem.com
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2801017.ece
- recognizing Taliban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Saudi_Arabia
Pakistan:
Less said the better about Bush's second Ally, Pakistan.
Take a close look. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are prime sponsors of international terror. Thanks to Bush, not only are the two sponsors of terror not held accountable, but they flourish in their nefariosu activities, with Bush's blessings.
Finally, here is more about "man of sterling character and deep moral resolve" : http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050211_bush.htm
. and incase you did not know, the man you "admire very much as a man and as a President" was financed by the terrorists themselves: http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml
Still admire him: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html ?
Wellington,, More and more Americans are waking up to the reality that George Bush fooled them into voting for him. Then again, you have heard the saying. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
From above: So I take it, Wellington, that you don't believe Bush and his cronies stole the presidential election from Gore with their shameless actions in Florida?
That battle is eight years old and dead.
All politicians indulge in shameless actions, Gore included, none of them, not one, is a saint.
Most of them have horns...
I don't share Wellingtons admiration for George because I know some things about him, and family, not commonly known, which color my opinion.
But I'm not a Bush hater and will give him credit when he deserves it, which is never to liberals.
If anyone is stealing an election it's Prophet Obama (PBUH). If he gets into office without meeting the Constitutional requirements, and the courts wont force him to comply, he has achieved a coup, by Judicial anarchy. Now that's big time theft...
"If anyone is stealing an election it's Prophet Obama (PBUH). If he gets into office without meeting the Constitutional requirements, and the courts wont force him to comply, he has achieved a coup, by Judicial anarchy. Now that's big time theft..."
I concur with you completely on that one DS! But then Bush also "has achieved a coup, by Judicial anarchy. Now that's big time theft..." And the battle may be eight years old but it's not really dead. It will always be there in American history which was the point I was making, Bush is tainted. If Wellington can dream about how great Bush is well then I get to dream about how great America WOULD'VE been if Gore had not had the presidency stolen from him.
From alert... More and more Americans are waking up to the reality that George Bush fooled them into voting for him.
This is probably the case, most politicians trick people into voting for them...The current Prez elect is another glaring example...
The problem is that unless someone want's to charge Bush with something after he leaves office, Bushmania is pretty much over except for a few aftershocks.
Geo will retire to a super luxury home, on a super luxury street, in a super luxury neighborhood.
But will visit Crawford often...Ranch work you know...And there is little we can do about it.
lorfalcon: The idea that "Bush and his cronies" stole the 2000 election by way of the Florida vote count is pure loony-toon garbage. You have zero proof that Bush stole Florida. I'm calling your bluff. Go ahead, cite the evidence. In fact, it was Gore and his legal team that kept moving the goal posts and that's why the Supreme Court put an end to the nonsense. Yes, the vote was extremely close and yes the voting apparati functioned ineptly in some instances, but welcome to democracy, not fraud. Again, you have nothing. Prove me wrong. I say you can't.
Saddam Hussein had rape rooms aplenty where men had to watch their loved ones violated. If you wish to extoll how women were treated under SH, be my guest.
Divide and conquer has been used from time immemorial when treating with enemies or at least neutrals. During the Cold War we aligned with Tito's Yugoslavia as a counter against the USSR, just as President Nixon made overtures to Communist China and restored diplomatic relations with that country as a wedge factor in opposing Kremlin desgins. Not to invoke this strategy at present is to take on all of the Muslim world, theoretically the better course but also theoretically a worse course. My larger point here was to assert that reasonable minds can differ and I object to calumny being cast towards those who opt for a different strategy from the one which a person adopts. I do think Bush and all Western leaders are wrong, though, by not realizing that Islam is rotten throughout. At least during the Cold War America had no illusions about there being a good Communism. So, I'm ready to allow for Bush's approach as being at least as arguably effective as a complete opposition to the Muslim world, but I wish that Islam would be seen for what it is rather than what many in the West, including the American President, wish it were.
If you really think that what dominates Bush's thinking is the almighty dollar, yours is a withering cynicism that is as false as a Pollyannish idealism. Bush was motivated to go into Afghanistan and Iraq for reasons of national security, as a way of establishing democracy in the Middle East (the thinking here being that it was no longer efficacious just to kill the snakes coming out of the swamp but rather it was imperative that the swamp itself be drained), for purposes of removing truly heinous regimes from power (e.g., Afghan women now have a shot at education and proper medical care which they were denied under the Taliban) and, yes, to better protect the world's energy resources, an important goal in itself. But to characterize Bush's endeavors, which admittedly may not have been the best course to pursue, as motivated by greed is, quite frankly, pathetic and indicative of intellectual laziness and glib thinking.
If you didn't know much about Eisenhower (Truman, JFK, Ford too), then dragging such a great American down into the muck with Hillary Clinton is beyond shameful and, again, indicative of intellectual sloth. As I have said to my college students for years now, facts matter and theories without facts are worthless, such as yours was.
The worlds on fire, If those sob's keep up with the intimidating protests, in form and fashion, black masks and all, I am sorry to think, but that they will be answered - and not by the authorities, and I don't want to see it.
Meanwhile, Bush marries the Saudi king. I knew something was up with them two.
You see, that picture tells a thousand tales, the president of the United States, is so concerned about not offending, that he goes completely 180 degrees away from his cultural norms. And by doing so, offends all of us. This is how clueless, how complacent our rich, fat cat, leaders are. And he's from Texas!
From above: If Wellington can dream about how great Bush is well then I get to dream about how great America WOULD'VE been if Gore had not had the presidency stolen from him.
I dream about Pam Anderson and hitting the lottery.
A good dream is a good dream...However the fantasy is usually better than reality.
The reality is that Gore is just Bush in another suit, and Obama (PBUH) is a clone of them both.
Tolstoy said it best, so I will post it again...
Paraphrased a little maybe, I'm quoting from memory...
'The good cannot seek power nor retain it, to do that, men must love power, and the love of power has the opposite qualities of goodness, pride cunning and cruelty'.
So if Tolstoy has a point at all, there are no 'good' people in charge anywhere, and wannabee's
are not 'good' either...
There may be a few exceptions to that, but Bush/Gore/Obama(PBUH) are not among them...
If the public is fooled at all, it is fooled into believing these men are 'good'...
Alert: One of the links you provided stated that we went into Iraq under false pretenses. I completley reject that argument. The October 2002 Congressional Resolution on Iraq stated over twenty reasons why Iraq under Saddam Hussein could be taken down at the discretion of the President. Under Bill Clinton was passed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change in that country. Saddam had not abided in several ways by the truce agreement he signed in 1991 after his defeat in the Gulf War. Every major intelligence agency on the planet thought SH still had WMDs and wasn't coming clean. Also, SH was the ONLY leader who had WMDs AND had used them. Holy hell, do you really want any President of the United States to have 100% certainty before he acts decisively against a perceived threat? If a President can't invade a country like Saddam Hussein's, short of a direct attack on the United States by some nation, when could a Chief Executive act to take down a tyrant like SH? You can disagree with Bush's invasion of Iraq. I think a case can be made for the fact that he shouldn't have gone in (though I wouldn't make it), but to maintain that Bush went in under false pretenses is something I totally reject.
One more thing. George Bush didn't fool me into voting for him. I voted for him twice and I assert to this day I wasn't fooled at all. I knew exactly who I was voting for. I have had many disagreements with President Bush and have written him several times about them, but I continue to admire the man and think he has more backbone and resolve than any other leader in the world today. Yes, he's no Winston Churchill, but he does what he thinks is right without regard to what is politically expedient or most popular in the polls. I respect that a lot and I will not desert him as so many have. Besides, considering who we're getting next in the Oval Office, Bush, I would vigorously argue, will look better and better as the years go on, even to some who continue to suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).
Well, I didn't post to undermine Wellington, I think we hit about the same time. But Bush and whomever, are so concerned about the affairs of the world, that they forget to be the least bit sensitive to ours.
What is unemployment at? They're not unemloyed. Who's apartments do the protests go past, not theirs.
I'm beginning to think Buchanan was right, It's a republic, and not an empire.
What empire. At least the empires before took taxes from the commonweath or colonies. We give payments. We pay them to be our friends. and then pat ourselves on the back and say, how good we are to spread the wealth.
I mean, look at him. He thinks he is spreading good will, in bed with the prince, but our enemies, correctly, see it as proof otherwise. And he just-doesn't-know. Unless he doesn't care. But we know he cares, so he is stupid.
I share many of the views of the above posters who are disgusted with the Bush family's dealings with the Saudis. (But for the record, I'm not impressed by the article in In These Times pointed to by alert. The publisher of that site is an admitted one time communist and currently a hard left Socialist. An inverse filter therefore has to be applied to anything he writes, such that when all the Socialist-think has been removed there isn't much left.)
Bush and his cronies from Baker-Botts and Haliburton have not worked to serve our national interests well, other than whatever overlap may accidentally occur between their own interests and the interests of the country at large. No one of Bush's administration gives a rat's ass about cultural issues. Indeed, Bush is virtually illiterate in a cultural sense, all the attendances of pop events at the Kennedy Center notwithstanding. The only other culture he "knows" about, and approves of, is that of the Mexican laborers and domestic staff he grew up with and therefore automatically sympathizes with.
I don't believe for an instant the statements I have seen that he reads extensively. As a teacher I can always tell when students are trying to fake knowing something that, in fact, they do not know. Bush has all the characteristics of a kid trying to fake it. There is a simple test that would reveal this, and that is for him to compose an essay of moderate length, say, 5,000 words. The one rule is that he would have to research and write it himself. No ghost writers, no proof readers, no one except him and his word processor. I'd bet any amount of money that if it were judged on organization, content, originality, quality of thought (which includes evidence that cliches do not constitute thougt), and grammar he would not do well.
Can anyone lay their hands on any documents that George W. Bush composed by himself?
THANK YOU, WELLINGTON, FOR YOUR VOICE OF SANITY!
Sad to see Bush Derangement Syndrome on Jihad Watch. The 2000 election stolen by Bush? Stop the nonsense! I agree, show me the evidence. Can you imagine Al Gore dealing with 911? It is chilling to think about. And talk about corrupt, and the almighty dollar being their god, what about Gorlioni's global warming and carbon credit scam? I heard someone say recently that global warming is a scam to tax and control the masses, and I totally agree.
BDSers need to get some therapy, and stay on your hater websites, please.
Wellington:
Please, please do take the time to read ALL of this and let it settle in a bit before you get too angry:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
They also have other links for you if you're interested. I remember reading about the particular study in 2001, I think it was in the San Diego Union Tribune. But I'm not sure. By the time the study was done the war on terrorism was begun, so it wasn't expedient to say anything against Bush. Your argument is quite typical really, "Yes, the vote was extremely close and yes the voting apparati functioned ineptly in some instances." But why don't you PROVE to me how he didn't steal it. His brother was governor and complicit. Bush was the one who did NOT want a total recount and fought vigorously against it. The Supreme Court, as I remember, was sharply divided and because the majority was Republican the lot fell to Bush.
I believe I qualified my opinion about Saddam right from the beginning. I know all about his heinous rape/torture rooms and his murderous sons. But lamenting the loss of ANY freedoms for women anywhere in the middle east isn't something that you should casually brush off as though it were of no importance. Your sexism is showing. I also don't appreciate your choice of the word "extol" as though I were some neophyte in awe. It's rather pretentious and you DO need to stop lecturing me as though you were my omnipotent grandfather. So, let's please keep the personal vitriol to a minimum (including contrasting comparisons between "unserious thinker to Pollyannism").
Yes, I know that divide and conquer has been used since time immemorial. But again, I ask to what end and what exactly is Bush doing this for in Iraq? Your spewing diatribe on the cold war and Yugoslavia does not illuminate Bush's true goal in the middle east. You intone the words National Security as though they are sacred and without question, but I do question Bush's motives and I have yet to hear the "security" reasons behind them. Bush knew full well there were no WMD, but he went into Iraq anyway. So forgive my "withering cynicism," but I feel it's justified. Maybe you can elucidate Bush's policy. By the way, maybe YOU can tell me how much more money is in the Bush octopus empire now than before.
Nowhere did I mention Afghanistan. I did not choose to bring up that can of worms purposefully. As a matter of fact, I cannot see any other road that Bush could've taken after 9/11. However, it would've been particularly better for the United States if he had chosen to finish the job there and help the Afghani people set up their new country rather then the endless draining occupation that is taking currently taking place. And your statement, "(e.g., Afghan women now have a shot at education and proper medical care which they were denied under the Taliban]" is almost naive. Afghani women aren't really all that much in a better place and Bush WAS not thinking about them at all when he went after Afghanistan. (Except maybe as an excuse.) Please show me the proof of that one.
I have admitted to not knowing about Eisenhower. When I posted a few blogs back I did the math wrong, I meant to say the last almost 50 years or so of presidents gone bad. It's remarkable to me that we're on our way to 2010. JFK notwithstanding, I still believe that Hillary could do no worse and in some cases, perhaps better.
But that's what America is all about, FREEDOM to have opinions. I'd still rather have you for company than some others, even if I am just an "intellectual sloth."
I'm with Wellington on this.
Bush has access to a lot of information that we do not and I'm convinced that the issues addressed by Jihad Watch are just part of the overall picture of a much larger conflict, involving not just Islam but communism against a free world and if you like, evil versus good.
The West failed big-time in understanding the cultural warfare waged against it over generations by communism.
Islam provided the revolutionary flame that the theories of communism demanded, but somehow were always lacking in western indigenous populations.
The theory was good but goshdarnit, people weren't revolting!
It is my belief that Bush has come to understand what Russia, China and the worddwide communist movement generally have been doing in the Islamic world to foment the existing Islamic tendency to jihad and violence and focus that hatred against the West.
So, Bush has deliberately been adopting the Sunni side of the existing Islamic divide, against the Shi'ites but otherwise generally adopted a softly-softly policy towards Islam.
I'm no fan of the Arabs, but maybe Bush was just recognizing realpolitik in courting the Arabs and Sunnis against the Shi'ites.
Yes, Bush's dream of a free and democratic Iraq and Afghanistan might be a pipe dream but it might have been one of the few options left for Bush.
I don't believe it will work.
Heck, so far as I can see, all it has done is enshrine sharia law in the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan and legitimize the persecution of non-muslims in those countries.
As soon as we leave those countries they will revert to Islamic barbarism in a heartbeat.
It is my belief that Russia and China have been using Islam as a wedge and fifth column on the West as part of their culture war.
After Islam is used to destabilize the West through internal conflict and revolution, Russia and China will move in to pick up the pieces.
The early stages of this unrest are already evident throughout the West with the radical left and Muslims, arm-in-arm, violently protesting Israel's legitimate efforts at self-defense, as well as the left controlled media deliberately spreading lies and fanning the flames of hatred against Israel.
Yuri Bezmenov warned us many years ago about part of the culture war being waged against the West in the form of ideological subversion:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/saturday-night.html#comments
Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service has provided a wealth of information on Russia's involvement in fomenting strife in the Islamic world, especially in the Middle East against Israel and thereby against Israel's ally, the U.S.A.
Frontpage magazine interviewed him for an article in March 2004:
From Russia With Terror
"FP: Tell us about the PLO and its connection to the Soviet regime.
Pacepa: The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings and guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks on the “Palestinian territories” occupied by Israel, and the “Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia,” created by the KGB in 1975, which organized numerous bombing attacks against US airline offices in Western Europe.
In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow. The Palestinian National Covenant and the Palestinian Constitution were also born in Moscow, with the help of Ahmed Shuqairy, a KGB influence agent who became the first PLO chairman. (During the Six-Day War he escaped from Jerusalem disguised as a woman, thereafter becoming such a symbol within the bloc intelligence community that one of its later influence operations—aimed at making the West consider Arafat a moderate—was given the codename “Shuqairy.”) This new PLO was headed by a Soviet-style Executive Committee made up of 15 members who, like their comrades in Moscow, also headed departments. As in Moscow—and Bucharest—the chairman of the Executive Committee became the general commander of the armed forces as well. The new PLO also had a General Assembly, which was the Soviet-inspired name given to all East European parliaments after World War II."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D162656E-9C26-4FF4-BE93-3C64CCC1FFCD
Also an August 2006 article:
Russian Footprints
What does Moscow have to do with the recent war in Lebanon?
By Ion Mihai Pacepa
"In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S. As KGB chairman Yury Andropov told me, a billion adversaries could inflict far greater damage on America than could a few millions. We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred for the Jews throughout the Islamic world, and to turn this weapon of the emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. No one within the American/Zionist sphere of influence should any longer feel safe.
According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Their illiterate, oppressed mobs could be whipped up to a fever pitch."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjUzMGU4NTMyOTdkOTdmNTA1MWJlYjYyZDliODZkOGM=
This conflict concerns more than Islam; though evil to the core itself, Islam is being used by other more calculating forces.
"I dream about Pam Anderson and hitting the lottery.
A good dream is a good dream...However the fantasy is usually better than reality."
DS-you had me laughing with that one. It is so true. I am glad that you understand I really don't care about the presidents and their varying degrees of "badness." I just happen to like Hillary Clinton (whom Wellington hates) and think she should merely be held to the men's standard (which is to say, almost none, depending which side you choose)...lol....
But dreaming on, Gore would've had water vapor cars all ready for us by now.. sigh...
lafn, one doesn't have to be a member of the BDS crowd to acknowledge the man's weaknesses, or to discern the obvious conflicts of interest inherent in the Bush family connections to Saudi oil. This forum is mostly dedicated to discussions of problems in the world deriving from the resurgence of an aggressive form of radical Islam pushed by Saudi oil money. It is here where we find most fault with Bush.
Most, but not all, of us here, in fact, feel that Bush has done a more or less good job in devising a homeland security program. But many of us think it was improperly motivated and lacking in a clear understanding of the nature of the terrorist threat it is intended to counter. Lacking such an understanding, we see such absurdities as searching wheel-chair-bound grandmothers, while worrying excessively about offending anyone's cultural sensitivities. And by not instituting a sensible and intelligent program of profiling.
But back to Bush. A simple question: Did George W. Bush or anyone in his family divest themselves of any financial interests that may in any way have been affected by his decision to invade Iraq, or contracts stemming from that action? Haliburton stock, or stock in any company that subsequently got contracts for building Iraqi infrastructure? Stock of any of the companies that produce munitions or any of the multitudinous forms of war materiel? In other words, did he have a financial conflict of interest stemming from any of his actions as POTUS?
The situation is different with Obama. I'm not overly fond of his politics, but am waiting to see how he does. I suspect he lacks the deep ties to the MIC (military-industrial complex) that Bush had. Neverthess, I would ask the same questions regarding his personal financial connections.
Idiots. Whatever happened to the sedition laws that make it a felony to disclose information like this?
Eastview
Eastview, You took words right from my mouth. How can there be any covert operation when El Presidente tells the whole world. Really a smart guy.
Bush, like George Galloway, Ken Livingstone, Dhimmi Carter and Lyse Douchebag Doucet, should just recite the shahadah and get it over with. At least they'd look less hypocritical:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/69/154795137_9c33f95a22_o.jpg
(from Charles Martel's Blogspot page.)
Wellington - Normally I mostly agree with you but this time I agree with Eastview. Eastview said about everything that I was going to say concerning President Bush. I too voted for him twice. I have since withdrawn support from him due to his tone deafness on cultural issues and the middle class. (After all, it IS the President's job to maintain some modicum of popular support while in office.) Also I have noted that his appointed people, while maybe very loyal to him, are mostly corrupt or inept.
I think that Mr. Bush's main problem is that he does not have enough "people smarts" and common sense. Also I see a lack of any "vision" on his part. I think he lacks the mental capacity for any "vision". (As Eastview pointed out, he obviously doesn't read much.) But I too think he is an honorable man and means well.
I believe you are totally correct with regard to Alert's comments. Alert has a passionate dislike for Bush. He and I have had previous discussions about President Bush.
In all, I believe that Bush has not been a good President because he has failed to maintain any modicum of popular political support due to his complete lack of understanding (as Eastview pointed out) of the effects of illegal immigration on the middle class.
Wellington - One point missed. Clinton finally disclosed how much money ($50Mil?) he received fron the Muslims. Do you think that Bush will receive any less? What are your thoughts on that subject. $50Mil would really influence me.
Scores of patriots will be seen ululating in the streets stomping on/burning it's recently scaled down, terminal edition when that treasonous rag goes into bankruptcy.
Three year stock chart
I believe you are totally correct with regard to Alert's comments. Alert has a passionate dislike for Bush. He and I have had previous discussions about President Bush.
In all, I believe that Bush has not been a good President because he has failed to maintain any modicum of popular political support due to his complete lack of understanding (as Eastview pointed out) of the effects of illegal immigration on the middle class.
Posted by: Spot on at January 11, 2009 6:44 AM
Spot on, I think we are agreeing on the pathetic performance of Bush admin, but disagree on the reasons. While you still give a pass to Bush for 'complete lack of understanding', Wafa Sultan, Bugliosi, Robert Baer http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/09/12_baer.html attribute the same to corruption. How could Bush family, with three generations in public service, lack understanding? Had it not been for Saudi bail-outs, George W would not have been as prominent. George knows this and hence, rolls over to every Saudi command. Does this not compromise American safety and soverignity? Is this what Americans expect from their POTUS? When 3000 Americans were slaughtered, Bush came up with: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
This one declaration is a boost to Jihad world over. Ofcourse, Bush did not stop at that, he went on to include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (another nation, besides Saudi Arabia to recognize Taliban) as an 'ally'. Then, Bush goes on to lie about Iraq and wage a 'war-on-terror' against Saudi Arabia's worst nightmare. A lie that has costed America billions of tax-dollars, lives and blood. Are Americans going to condone this? The Saudi perpetrator of 9/11 is still not brought to justice http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html
This, after covering up Saudi Arabis's role in 9/11. What does that tell you?
Add all of the above up and you would have to suspect Bush's loyalty to America. Giving Bush a pass is PC masked in nobility. At what stage would Americans acknowldge that Bush failures are not only due to honest mistakes but deliberate treason? And what happened to holding politicians accountable? Just for the record, I am not a democrat as Clinton is no less guilty in supporting Jihad http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton%20Embracing%20Islam%20selling%20out%20children.htm
Point is, elected officials are given authority over tax-dollars, armed forces and other important descisive powers, which if abused, can go squarely against the nation, and in extreme cases, destroy the nation, as demonstrated by Bush.
Let me leave you with a question:
How come border patrol agents, who were protecting US border, behind bars? If you try to find the answer, you will find that the very drug dealer Aldrete-Davila who had 743 pounds of marijuana in his van, was granted immunity to testify against US border patrol agents.
Anything can be explained as 'lack of understanding' but when it comes to the responsibility of POTUS/Commander-in-chief, the global threat of Islamic terror/Jihad, harder questions need to be asked and answered.
Alert - Your comments about Ramos and Compean are well taken. I attribute this to a corrupt loyal servant of Bush (the prosecutor). Bush is blind to any bad words said about a loyal appointee. Blind loyalty is what it is.
But you may be right if Bush accepts a large amount of money from the Muslim enemies like Clinton did. All I'm saying, is that the jury is out with me on the issue of corruption with Bush.
Israel MUST have a plan.
THEY MUST.
Perhaps they'll use a few tactical nukes?
I would defend Alert from the much unwarranted charge of BDS. This is a charge that ought to be reserved for Leftists who oppose(d) Bush to the point that they are willing to side with any of Bush's perceived enemies, including the Jihadis. This is the group that is willing to gloss over Islam's prescribed treatment of women, children, animals, gays, Jews, Atheists and others who normally constitute the Liberal constituency.
But having read Alert for a long time, he's on record as supporting Tancredo, opposing the Clintons and Obama, as well as supporting anti-Jihad parties wherever they exist. Consistent with that position, he also takes an uncompromising position on Bush. I supported Bush in 2000 and even (to a lesser extent 2004), but his policies have devolved to the point that they are indistinguishable from the Left (and let's accept that so far, we are prejudging Obama in the same way that the Left prejudged Bush in 2000. Also, let's not forget that it's Bush's initiatives that recognized a Pali and Kosovo state - we now have 2 more Islamic countries in the world. Therefore, Alert and Great Comet, neither of whom are Liberal, are completely correct on him. He wasn't proposed for a Dhimmi award for nothing.
Sorry, while I personally am a Conservative, when I experience a clash between my pro-Conservative loyalty and my anti-Islamic loyalty, the latter automatically overrides the former. Like Debbie Schlussel, who has on occasion endorsed less vile Democrats over Republicans in bed with Hizbullah and Hamas, I have this one litmus test - is the entity I support anti-islamic? Therefore, despite my Conservatism, if a party that supported tax hikes, more regulation, gun control, abortion without restrictions, sex ed, and a whole host of other issues, but was as anti-Islamic with a similar passion, vs a party that opposed all those things but was ambivalent about Islam, I'd support the former. Given the track record of Conservatives - not just Bush, but also pro-Pali Conservatives like Sununu, Issa, Novak, and the asymptotic positions of Hannity, O'Reilly, Barnes, et al, it ought to be recognized that Conservative and Anti-Islamic are by no means synonymous, no matter how closely the Left cozies up to the Ummah.
Wellington
We will see who is right. I am not going to argue with you on this. History is on my side. Bush will be ranked as one of worst presidents in history, not because of what the liberals accuse him of, but because he failed to stop Islamic immigration into the west, failed to stop the economic center of Islamic jihad (Arabia, and other gulf state), failed to crush the Taliban in western Pakistan (and even in Afghanistan), failed to take advantage of fault lines within Islam (as Hugh Fitzgerald has pointed out), managed to tick off the some useful non-Islamic allies, and in general spent a boat load of cash (and lives) for very little in the end. Most important of all, he never tried to educate himself on Islam, nor did he ever try to educate the public about Islam…except that it was a “religion of peace”. These failures will cost millions upon millions of lives down the road.
If he did it for money, or out of stupidity, it does not matter. The results will be the same.
Wellington
Oh...yes one more..if they figure it out...
He will be responsible for allowing Iran to gain a nuclear weapon.
He had his chance...
miira wrote:
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for NYT's imminent bankruptcy. I'm hoping that Mr Make-believe-Moneybags Obama isn't going to wrangle the NYT some kind of bailout, since everyone under the sun seems to be getting a bailout these days.
Hopefully NYT won't get a bailout, since they're steadily shrinking in size as they sell off their assets to others. By the time their moment of truth is at hand, there shouldn't be anything left of them to save.
But dreaming on, Gore would've had water vapor cars all ready for us by now.. sigh...
Posted by: lorfalcon
I didn't wait for Gore or industry, I built a hydrogen HHO generator and installed it in my car...I'm always in research and development so results vary from one experiment to another but my gas mileage has improved. Where I used to get about 200 miles per tank, I now get about 250.
I'm working on a new cell system that will better that...If we wait for Gore or industry we will have a long wait...If you want something done right, do it yourself...
"The reality is that Gore is just Bush in another suit, and Obama (PBUH) is a clone of them both."
Gee, thanks for that mind picture, Swami! I won't get a wink of sleep, tonight! LOL
I know I don't share the political acumen of many of my fellow posters, here.
I do have one thing to say, though, with regard to the "stolen election" of 2000.
I've lived in Florida all my life. I've been a voter for more than thirty years. In the 2000 election, everything about the process of voting in the state of Florida was exactly the same as it had been in all my previous voting experience.
This is why I'll never be able to buy into the "hanging chads" baloney. I just don't believe that in the 2000 elections, Florida voters suddenly forgot how to use the same ballots they have always, in my thirty years, used.
Yet, this is the excuse we were given by concerned Democrats, everywhere, led by Mr. Gore.
It's ludicrous. More likely, Mr. Gore and his supporters were simply poor losers.
If he did it for money, or out of stupidity, it does not matter. The results will be the same.
greatcometof1577
You are right. Alert and I only disagree on whether Bush is stupid or corrupt. At present I think he is just stupid by I have an open mind about is subject.
...three generations in public service, lack understanding? Had it not been for Saudi bail-outs, George W would not have been as prominent. George knows this and hence, rolls over to every Saudi command. Does this not compromise American safety and soverignity?
Alert
I have seen bad judgement from very prominent families up close. They live in a different world from us. They only listen to those whom they choose to. And people tell them what they want to hear. They can be stupid and guilty of very very poor judgement. This may be the case with the Bush family.
On the other hand, if money is where the game is played, then they are corrupt. And you may be right. As another poster here said, it really doesn't make much difference as to how we are affected, whether it is stupidity or corruption.
But you may be right if Bush accepts a large amount of money from the Muslim enemies like Clinton did. All I'm saying, is that the jury is out with me on the issue of corruption with Bush.
Posted by: Spot on at January 11, 2009 9:37 AM
Spot on,
Thanks to daddy George H W Bush, Bush Jr. had already accepted millions of petro-dollars (as investments in Arbutsto http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Arbusto.shtml and other Saudi/Bin Laden contributions http://www.rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm http://knowyourbfee.blogspot.com/2005/08/know-your-bfee-james-r-bath-bush-bin.html) even before he became the president. After becoming POTUS, he paid his Saudi masters off, just like he paid off the open-border traitors, after accepting campaign contributions.
Out of good-will/trust, Ameriacans have not studied the Bush family well enough. A mistake that may cost Americans their beloved nation.
"...whether Bush is stupid or corrupt. At present I think he is just stupid by I have an open mind about is subject."
Posted by: Spot on
I agree with Spot on. Bush is the closest American equivalent we have had to the idiot kings of Europe whose only qualification is that they were born into royalty and were next in the line of succession. In our case the mechanics of accession to the throne were different (elections), but with the Old Man's ability to control the media and the resources to polish the turd as many times as was necessary to make it shine, the results were the same.
It's too bad the Founding Fathers didn't think to include provisions in the Constitution to prevent the formation of political dynasties like those of the Kennedy, Gore, Bush, Clinton, etc., families. Even though a political dynasty may extend over only a few generations, unlike the royal dynasties of history, the late generations of these dynasties, lacking the skills of the first generation and skating on the family name, can still inflict a huge amount of damage during the time they wield power. My modest proposal would be to prevent formation of dynasties by disqualifying spouses, sons or daughters of anyone who has ever served as President, Congressman or Senator, from holding these offices.
We'll get to watch another episode of "Dynasty" (a popular American TV show from several decades ago, arguably loosely modeled after the Bush family) with Caroline Kennedy's move into active politics. She seems like a nice lady who means well, but her only "qualification" for moving into national politics is that she is the daughter of the sainted John F. Kennedy. If it were up to me that would, this in an of itself, would disqualify her from seeking public office.
Sheesh...repair the last sentence to read "If it were up to me, this would automatically disqualify her from holding the Senate seat she is seeking."
Opened another can of worms. I want to thank everyone who posted here, including those who vigorously disagree with me. To "lorfalcon" especially I wish to respond with a few comments.
I went to the article you provdied me about the 2000 election. I didn't find it very convincing, especially when it asserted that Bush and his associates dispatched thugs to Florida to intimidate election officials recounting ballots. Lawyers were sent by the Bush team, just as Gore sent lawyers. They weren't thugs and they didn't intimidate. They were attorneys who vigorously argued their case. To characterize them as thugs is just awful. By the way, if any modern Presidential election was stolen, it was the 1960 election where JFK took Cook County, Illinois by a preposterous 400,000+ vote margin and more people voted in many wards in Texas counties than there were registered voters (see Robert Caro's biography of LBJ on how Johnson absolutely stole the 1948 Senatorial election form Coke Stevenson). If Nixon had won Illinois and Texas, he would have been President. I'm pretty certain he knew the election was stolen from him, but to his great credit he refused to contest it because he thought it would bitterly divide the country. For this selfless act, he received no credit. Gore, by contrast, refused to give up and unnecessarily put the nation through the ringer for weeks.
I believe my analogizing to the Cold War was appropriate and my way of pointing out that a divide and conquer strategy has merit when dealing with numerous enemies. Yes, alternative points of view should be entertained, such as the main one here at JW that we should let the Islamic world rot from within and almost never side with some Muslims against others, that is to say, virtually never aid the pathetic Islamic world. What I have objected to, though, is the vitriol poured on Bush for pursuiing the strategy he has. I admit he may have erred, I am often chagrined whenever he has said kind things about Islam, but he's not a moron, a traitor, a liar or some such thing for doing so.
I don't like Islam. Anyone who's read my posts here at JW knows that, but I think there's some merit in helping some Muslims against others. I think it has also paid off many times for Muslims respecting being freed from the most egregious human rights abuses. As an example, yes, Afghan women have a long way to go, but now they can have their faces seen in public, attend school, including Kabul University, and some even sit in the Afghan legislature. This is progress and it is simply petty not to acknowledge this. Another example here are the Kurds. Under Saddam Hussein they were brutalized. Now, they live something of a free and prosperous life, at least far better than under SH. Both of these examples I have given would not have occurred but for President Bush. He has given fifty million people a shot at freedom and prosperity, not a guarantee, but a shot at them. And for this he is villifed across the world in a way Saddam Hussein and the Taliban never were. Go figure.
If I caused you any offense, lorfalcon, I didn't mean to. I wasn't angry when I wrote to you but frustrated, particularly by what you implied about Eisenhower, whom I consider the single greatest American of the entire twentieth century. But you have acknowledged your error as I hopefully have made amends here with you. And I might add that I detest sexism. Whether you believe that or not is another thing. My wife believes it, tough and resourceful woman that she is, and that's enough for me.
I don't think the Bush family, where Arab money is concerned, has done anything illegal, but I do admit the possibility that some of the goings on have not been of the wisest course. I do think, though, that both Bush 41 and Bush 43 are patriots, not corrupt men, and have done their best, which admittedly might not be good enough, in a very difficult and dangerous world. I would suggest to anyone who assesses Bush 43, put yourself in his place these last eight years. What would you have done? Remember, a President is pulled every which way and then some and has access to information and has to take into account possibilities that would dazzle all of us, I'm sure, were anyone of us in his place.
I'll close by giving President Bush great credit for one thing above all and it is that we have been spared another Islamic terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. He's the guy at the top and I think him most responsible for this splendid achievement. As Dick Morris has said, Bush has been so good at this that people have just taken it for granted. I like to think that, at least sometimes, I haven't.
My best to all of you and if I have given offense to anyone, that was not my intention. What was was a ruthless pursuit of the truth, which sometimes makes it appear that I'm angry or insulting, when in fact I just want to get things right in so far as I am able. I know all of you share my deep reservations about the Islamic faith and that is what is important above all. Now, I gotta' go and watch the Eagles/ Giants game. Take care all.
"Where I used to get about 200 miles per tank, I now get about 250."
DS..heheheh...me too, I took my foot off the gas pedal and drive at 55mph now. I am not mechanically inclined at all, so I could never accomplish what you've done.
I'll close by giving President Bush great credit for one thing above all and it is that we have been spared another Islamic terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. He's the guy at the top and I think him most responsible for this splendid achievement. As Dick Morris has said, Bush has been so good at this that people have just taken it for granted. I like to think that, at least sometimes, I haven't.
Posted by: Wellington at January 11, 2009 1:02 PM
Wellington, your read, analysis and posts are well meant. No offence taken. Yes, it cannot be argued that Bush has successfully prevented any MAJOR (there have been several jihadi attacks like that by Afzal Haq in Seattle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naveed_Haq ) terror attack after 9/11. If that is all that satisfies you, you are living in a dangerous world of complacency. As Robert has been educating us, terror is just one of the many flavours of Jihad. Some others being:
- Slow Jihad.
- Stealth Jihad.
- Judicial Jihad.
- Financial Jihad.
.. and so on.
As you go along, you will see/realize that prevention of terror attacks, while a significant achievement, is not the end. Terror is just a means to a larger end of spreading Islam. What good is preventing terror attacks, if Islam spreads on?
Anyone, specially a civil-servent/politician, who is, knowingly or unknowingly, even if he/she stands against/prevents terror, supports Islam, is a threat to America. It is in this light that, the harmless, humanitarian and benign looking declaration by POTUS/Commander-in-chief, is also fatal: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
Robert repeteadly highlights, that there is no effective way to distinguish a moderate muslim from a radical one. While terror is a visible danger, the untimate threat comes from Jihad, in all it's flavors. And as you well know, Jihad is an Islamis obligation. While terror is a danger in itself, the real danger lies in the roots of terror, Jihad, whose roots lie in Islam. Therefore, Islam is the real threat to America.
Enjoy the Eagles/ Giants game.
A lot of people will miss Bush when there is no one left to kick but their current pet dog.
Confronting Iran is an all in kind if moment. It is no suprise the request was turned down.
Israel is currently being condemed by the World Community for defending itself. So how well off would we be if they started WWIII without ourselves being prepaired to respond?
If I'm not mistaken, the Bush Democracy project has created the conditions where Israel is confronting one of it's declaired enemys. Depite the usual MSM bias, can any thinking person not understand the why of it?
"My modest proposal would be to prevent formation of dynasties by disqualifying spouses, sons or daughters of anyone who has ever served as President, Congressman or Senator, from holding these offices."
From my 12:47 PM post above.
Let me extend this to include siblings. Thus, Bobby Kennedy would have been excluded, and Jeb Bush would be doubly excluded (son of Bush 41 and brother of Bush 43). Further, certain in-laws should also be excluded, such as fathers-, mothers-, brothers-, sisters-, sons- and daughters-in-law.
There's probably a neat way to encapsulate all this in the language of consanguinity (any lawyers out there want to take a crack at this?), but I haven't figured out how to do so.
Lorfalcon-- I wish just half the country's motorists would do the same, and observe the speed limit. That would add up in very real savings on energy usage and translate into less moolah for the mullahs.
Besides, it often seems like the people who are most aggressive on the road in terms of tailgating/passing/speeding are the ones who can least afford it in terms of fuel economy (gee, have they ever hauled anything, or gone off-road in that Escalade pickup?).
Marisol, don't forget keeping the tires inflated to the proper pressure. ;-)
Mais oui!
I just have one last thing to say on American Presidents. I only wish that I could stop voting for the lesser of two evils. In short, I wish that ONE candidate would come forward and declare an anti-immigration stance. That person would DEFINITELY have my vote, no matter what.
I suspect that is an ideal that would be central to most of us here at JW.
Stop immigration and close our borders. Deport all residents(permanent and temporary) who commit crimes or demonstrate an anti-western facism.
I know... I know... I am still dreaming...
Coward Bush. Coward Rice. Cowards the entire top tier of the US military. Murdering Serb Christians and brutally eradicating Christianity from Kosovo is the only thing the "proud" US military is good for.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Here comes the Bride, all dressed in white! Getting married during your first tri-mester makes for better wedding pictures, or at least wait until AFTER the baby is born. Duh!
Bush will soon be gone, and then Obama will take the helm. God help us. Again.
Wellington
You said…
“Now, I gotta' go and watch the Eagles/ Giants game. Take care all.”
I am just a simple Skins fan who is sick of bad coaches and bad owners.
Once upon a time my team was coached by a legend, owned by a legend, won super bowls, and now I am stuck with a coach named Zorn, and Semi-GM named Vinny (who got the job because he is the owners racket ball partner) and the “Little Furor” himself…Daniel Snyder who now sucks up to Tom Cruise. Perhaps the only human left in America who does that. God….just like the once mighty GOP….
No offense…but it is a depressing time of the year for me, and please god, don’t let the stupid Ravens go to the Super Bowl, I just don’t know if I could handle that, and the “O” ascending to heaven around the same time….just too much to handle…
Ray Lewis prancing around the field, Jihadis prancing around on the streets, and “O” prancing around on stage…ohhhhhhh…it is really the end….
Bush will soon be gone, and then Obama will take the helm. God help us. Again.
Posted by: champ at January 11, 2009 7:38 PM
Looks like Americans treat change of presidents as insignificant as change of seasons. Something that 'happens'. Which explains why career politicians like Kennedys, Clintons and Bushs get elected and re-elected. It doesn't seem to matter if Teddy opens borders or Clinton rents out the Lincoln bedroom or Bush smokes cigars with wahhabbi islamist with twin-towers still smouldering.
No wonder Americans are raped by their presidents time and time again. Also, few seem to realize that president is also commander-in-chief. A corrupt president also weakens the armed forces and hence, the defense of the nation. Yet, lies and false promises is all it takes to be US commander-in-chief.
Anyone find it disturbing at all? Or is it "unamerican" to question the performance of USGOD.
Wellington - Do you have any advice for the Rams?
I wish that ONE candidate would come forward and declare an anti-immigration stance. That person would DEFINITELY have my vote, no matter what.
I know... I know... I am still dreaming...
Posted by: lorfalcon at January 11, 2009 5:09 PM
lorfalcon, no, you are not dreaming and yes, that candidate was right under your nose. He ran for presidency, 2008 as anti-illegal Immigration, anti-mass-immigation. Also, this candidate was also anti-Jihad.
Can name this presidential candidate, 2008?
greatcometof1577: As a lifelong Steelers fan, I share your animosity towards the Ravens (the real Browns team). I hope it's the Pennsylvania Bowl come this Super Bowl. I can't imagine much interest nationwide in a Cardinals/Ravens matchup. Also, my wife is an Eagles fan and a Steelers/Eagles Super Bowl would provide an additional, unique zest to our wonderful marriage.
Spot on: Perhaps the Rams should have never left Los Angeles. There's just something about St. Louis which oozes baseball. Kinda' like trying to have a great football program at Indiana or Kentucky.
Wellington - I can disagree with your analysis of the Rams.
'No wonder Americans are raped by their presidents time and time again. Also, few seem to realize that president is also commander-in-chief. A corrupt president also weakens the armed forces and hence, the defense of the nation. Yet, lies and false promises is all it takes to be US commander-in-chief.
Anyone find it disturbing at all? Or is it "unamerican" to question the performance of USGOD.'
Posted by: Alert
Alert, we are perfectly aware of all of this, and yes, we are as disturbed as you are. The problem is what to do about it - the system has a lot of inertia and isn't so easy to change.
Alert-NO I do not know... Please enlighten me which one of the lesser two evils it was... We need a MAJOR party to take a stand, and at this rate, I don't care which one!
lorfalcon,
Congressman Tom Tancredo: http://www.teamamericapac.org/
Although Tom is not a smooth talker, every cell in his being is American is it can get. Having risen to congress from a humble teacher's job. Tom cares for America more than the Clintons, Kennedys and Bushs put togather. Check his record. Check his initiatives.
Tom Tancredo was the last chance Ameirca had. Take national security, Islamic terror, illegal immigration, with Tom, America could not go wrong.
Eastview,
The problem is what to do about it ...
Impeach the traitors. To start with, check out who, in your state, would prosecute Bush for the loss of brave and patriotic servicemen. Lest you forget, Bush has on his hands, the blood of his countrymen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73KIpzrUXI8
.... fighting the war of his wahhabbi masters. Every American should hold Bush responsible for the lives lost in the Iraq war, which is still not over.
'Bush has access to a lot of information that we do not and I'm convinced that the issues addressed by Jihad Watch are just part of the overall picture of a much larger conflict,...
... This conflict concerns more than Islam; though evil to the core itself, Islam is being used by other more calculating forces.'
You're right Mike, I was thinking of this as I typed my vitriol. The unmitigated protests were getting to me. But the above is what I think. I read a book about a KGB operative who has since defected, it was on operations in Iran before the Shah fell - and was amazed at the pettiness then, even in grand schemes. If they were that petty, it was through and through, man.
' ...I believe my analogizing to the Cold War was appropriate and my way of pointing out that a divide and conquer strategy has merit when dealing with numerous enemies. ...
' ...I'll close by giving President Bush great credit for one thing above all and it is that we have been spared another Islamic terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. ...'
Good close Wellington. Even so, onward.