Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   so Bush isn't a liar?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 62 (143857)
09-22-2004 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
09-21-2004 11:27 AM


quote:
So why was the war necessary when the threat of war had succeeded?
During the run up to the war, I thought that Dubya just might be incredibly smart by doing all of this sabre rattling to get Saddam to comply with the UN disarming demands.
(not that I really understood why we were fooling around in Iraq, when Afghanistan was where the terrorist who had done this was hiding)
Then it became clear that he had decided to invade Iraq unilaterally no matter what, even if the demands were met, even if very nearly the entire world was outraged and disgusted, even if he broke international law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 09-21-2004 11:27 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 62 (143859)
09-22-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ThingsChange
09-21-2004 7:17 PM


Re: dumb and dumber
TC, our conversation about Bush got cut off when the thread was closed.
There were quite a few points left hanging that I would very much like for you to address.
Would you like to start another coffeehouse thread so you get a chance to respond?
The post is #606 in the "Kerry unfit for command" thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ThingsChange, posted 09-21-2004 7:17 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 62 (143860)
09-22-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Silent H
09-22-2004 5:46 AM


"I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."
George W. Bush, on Al Gore during the pre-election debates.
Flip flop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2004 5:46 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2004 12:07 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 62 (143861)
09-22-2004 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by paisano
09-21-2004 8:48 PM


A reply to these points would be appreciated:
quote:
I don't think Bush was lying. At most he acted hastily based on erroneous intelligence assessments...
There is quite a bit of evidence that Bush, Cheney, and others were planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and used that terrible event as some kind of justification.
Rice and Powel both characterized Saddam and Iraq as contained and powerless just before 9/11, but when Bush wanted to invade, suddenly there were WMD all over the place.
They repeatedly made clever connections between terrorists, 9/11, and Iraq in order to connect them in people's mind.
This was so effective that a majority of people believed that the hijackers were Iraqi, not Saudi.
How do you think the public got that idea?
So, there was definitely some lying in the selling of the war, for sure. There was also quite a lot of ignoring of contradictory evidence because it wasn't what they wanted to see or know. They ignored Blix and the weapons inspectors who told them that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq and listened to Chalabi and others because it was what they wanted to hear.
This might not make them utter liars, but it does make them grossly incompetant.
but then, so did Kerry/Edwards, who both voted to authorize use of force against Iraq. And Blair of the UK, for that matter.
Unfortunately, it would have been political death for anyone to vote against Saint George at that point, with irrational patriotism and gullibility being at an all time high amongst the populace.
Besides, Kerry and Edwards didn't vote for Bush to bollocks things up so badly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by paisano, posted 09-21-2004 8:48 PM paisano has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 35 of 62 (143884)
09-22-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
09-22-2004 10:30 AM


George W. Bush, on Al Gore during the pre-election debates
Exactly. I am unclear why Democrats have not been simply replaying Bush's own soundbites PARTICULARLY his promises and initial assessments, and what he is saying now.
Believe it or not that was one of the things that made me prefer Bush to Gore... whoops!
You know what they'll say though: 9-11 changed everything!
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-22-2004 11:09 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 09-22-2004 10:30 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 09-22-2004 12:44 PM Silent H has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 36 of 62 (143891)
09-22-2004 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Silent H
09-22-2004 12:07 PM


holmes writes:
Believe it or not that was one of the things that made me prefer Bush to Gore... whoops!
Oh, so it was you that infiltrated our ranks and was working to overthrow our cause. No wonder why we lost last time. I say we go for another cleansing of our people. We can start by killing off all the repuclican wannabes and lookalikes.
Ok, seriously now. It's really been bothering me how both sides have been exploiting 9/11. If they have something political to say, spit it out!
quote:
CIA reports comfirm that Sadaam Hussein purchased a second hand Weather Machine from Evil Labs Inc. based in Moscow.
President Bush comments today:
"Yes America, our resolve has payed off .. 'September 11th' .. We have found weapons of mass destru..'September 11th'..ction ... 'resolve'...
"You know America theres a funny thing about weather machines, when evil madmen ..'September 11th'.. get them. Our Resolve against gay marriage will help us get rid of the evil states .."September 11th".. that have these weapons.
"Fool me once shame on.. fuck.. fool me twice.. fuck.. 'September 11th' ... 'September 11th' ... 'September 11th'
"

The Laminator
B ULLS HIT
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2004 12:07 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2004 5:47 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 37 of 62 (143919)
09-22-2004 2:34 PM


Back to the original topic, "so Bush isn't a liar?", which concerned whether he lied about fulfilling his service obligations in the Texas Air National Guard:
Some anomolies:
(Note: None of these rely on the Killiam documents, but on documents that have been released either by Bush or by lawsuits seeking disclosure)
Bush flew for the last time on April 16, 1972. Upon entering the Guard, Bush agreed to fly for 60 months. After his training was complete, he owed 53 months of flying.
But he flew for only 22 of those 53 months.
Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training.
But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.
In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama.
But Bush failed to get the authorization.
In requesting a permanent transfer to a non-flying unit in Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling.
But no such document exists.
He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit.
But Bush did not.
He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander.
But Bush did not.
He was supposed to receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general.
But Bush did not.
He was supposed to receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves.
But Bush did not.
On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his "permanent address."
But he wrote down a post office box number for the campaign he was working for on a temporary basis.
On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his Air Force specialty code.
But Bush, an F-102 pilot, erroneously wrote the code for an F-89 or F-94 pilot. Both planes had been retired from service at the time. Bush, an officer, made this mistake more than once on the same form.
On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, informed Bush that a transfer to his nonflying unit would be unsuitable for a fully trained pilot such as he was, and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his remaining two years of flight obligation.
But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.
Bush's transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he was still obligated to attend training sessions one weekend a month with his Texas unit in Houston.
But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at the time.
According to Air Force regulations, "[a] member whose attendance record is poor must be closely monitored. When the unexcused absences reach one less than the maximum permitted [sic] he must be counseled and a record made of the counseling. If the member is unavailable he must be advised by personal letter."
But there is no record that Bush ever received such counseling, despite the fact that he missed drills for months on end.
Bush's unit was obligated to report in writing to the Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base whenever a monthly review of records showed unsatisfactory participation for an officer.
But his unit never reported Bush's absenteeism to Randolph Air Force Base.
In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances surrounding Bush's failure.
But no such FEB was convened.
Once Bush was grounded for failing to take a physical, his commanders could have filed a report on why the suspension should be lifted.
But Bush's commanders made no such request.
On Sept. 15, 1972, Bush was ordered to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the deputy commander of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala., to participate in training on the weekends of Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5, 1972.
But there's no evidence Bush ever showed up on those dates. In 2000, Turnipseed told the Boston Globe that Bush did not report for duty. (A self-professed Bush supporter, Turnipseed has since backed off from his categorical claim.)
However, according to the White House-released pay records, which are unsigned, Bush was credited for serving in Montgomery on Oct. 28-29 and Nov. 11-14, 1972. Those makeup dates should have produced a paper trail, including Bush's formal request as well as authorization and supervision documents.
But no such documents exist, and the dates he was credited for do not match the dates when the Montgomery unit assembled for drills.
When Guardsmen miss monthly drills, or "unit training assemblies" (UTAs), they are allowed to make them up through substitute service and earn crucial points toward their service record. Drills are worth one point on a weekday and two points on each weekend day. For Bush's substitute service on Nov. 13-14, 1972, he was awarded four points, two for each day.
But Nov. 13 and 14 were both weekdays. He should have been awarded two points.
Bush earned six points for service on Jan. 4-6, 1973 -- a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
But he should have earned four points, one each for Thursday and Friday, two for Saturday.
Weekday training was the exception in the Guard. For example, from May 1968 to May 1972, when Bush was in good standing, he was not credited with attending a single weekday UTA.
But after 1972, when Bush's absenteeism accelerated, nearly half of his credited UTAs were for weekdays.
To maintain unit cohesiveness, the parameters for substitute service are tightly controlled; drills must be made up within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after, the originally scheduled drill, according to Guard regulations at the time.
But more than half of the substitute service credits Bush received fell outside that clear time frame. In one case, he made up a drill nine weeks in advance.
On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that he had received word of his grounding.
But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn't remember if he'd ever been grounded.
Bartlett also told the Boston Globe that Bush didn't undergo a physical while in Alabama because his family doctor was in Houston.
But only Air Force flight surgeons can give flight physicals to pilots.
Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months.
But Bush's last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a required physical for 42 months.
Bush's unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on the status of local Guard members. Bush's absenteeism should have prompted what's known as a DD Form 44, "Record of Military Status of Registrant."
But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush's draft board in Houston.
Records released by the White House note that Bush received a military dental exam in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973.
But Bush's request to serve in Alabama covered only September, October and November 1972. Why he would still be serving in Alabama months after that remains unclear.
Each of Bush's numerous substitute service requests should have formed a lengthy paper trail consisting of AF Form 40a's, with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the signature of the officer who supervised the training and Bush's own signature.
But no such documents exist.
During his last year with the Texas Air National Guard, Bush missed nearly two-thirds of his mandatory UTAs and made up some of them with substitute service. Guard regulations allowed substitute service only in circumstances that are "beyond the control" of the Guard member.
But neither Bush nor the Texas Air National Guard has ever explained what the uncontrollable circumstances were that forced him to miss the majority of his assigned drills in his last year.
Bush supposedly returned to his Houston unit in April 1973 and served two days.
But at the end of April, when Bush's Texas commanders had to rate him for their annual report, they wrote that they could not do so: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."
On June 29, 1973, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver instructed Bush's commanders to get additional information from his Alabama unit, where he had supposedly been training, in order to better evaluate Bush's duty. The ARPC gave Texas a deadline of Aug. 6 to get the information.
But Bush's commanders ignored the request.
Bush was credited for attending four days of UTAs with his Texas unit July 16-19, 1973. That was good for eight crucial points.
But that's not possible. Guard units hold only two UTAs each month -- one on a Saturday and one on a Sunday. Although Bush may well have made up four days, they should not all have been counted as UTAs, since they occur just twice a month. The other days are known as "Appropriate Duty," or APDY.
On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School, signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment.
But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 38 of 62 (143926)
09-22-2004 3:26 PM


Oh, and speaking of whether or not Bush is a liar: The latest in a long string of evidence that the Bush administration knew very well that al-Qaeda wasn't operating in Iraq, despite Bush's attempts to insinuate as much:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm
Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated
Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 62 (143933)
09-22-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by coffee_addict
09-22-2004 12:44 PM


Oh, so it was you that infiltrated our ranks and was working to overthrow our cause.
I didn't infiltrate anything. I didn't like either side. I'm an independent. I'm just saying that between both of those jerks, I agreed with Bush's stated military policy (which stands in direct contrast to his actual military policy). There were other things as well.
I mean come on, Gore actually boasted during his campaign about his drive to get stickers on records after buying that Prince album. Screw him.
They both deserved to lose.
Bush deserves to lose this time.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 09-22-2004 12:44 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 09-22-2004 7:20 PM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 62 (143948)
09-22-2004 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
09-22-2004 5:47 PM


I wasn't thrilled with Gore, either, but I had to vote for him and not Bush, because Gore could at least speak intelligently, was clearly very bright and well educated, and had done a lot of good work, particularly regarding the environment, as VP.
Bush appeared to be knuckleheaded and smarmy, a terrible speaker, uninformed and unconcerned about it, and beholden to the religious right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 09-22-2004 5:47 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2004 4:43 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 62 (144022)
09-23-2004 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
09-22-2004 7:20 PM


To my mind it didn't really matter which of those guys got into the white house, it was not going to be good.
I agree Gore speaks better, but he is almost as much a social fascist as Bush. I really cannot ever begin to forgive him or his wife for what they did to free speech during the 80's. Did you ever read Tipper's book? And then to cart that out without apologies on the campaign trail?
In the end 9-11 most likely would have happened anyway. Gore was a front man for allowing airlines to escape the regulations suggested by airline safety organizations which would have stopped it.
And with Lieberman as VP, do you think Sharon wouldn't still be calling the shots in Washington? Everytime Lieberman starts talking about Iraq and Israel he sounds EXACTLY like Bush.
I can only say that since Bush did not do as he said he would regarding use of the military (and against most Republican doctrine), he did make the post 9-11 world a LOT WORSE than Gore would have.
And because he stuck to other campaign pledges once reality had changed all conditional prerequisites, he made the US economy worse than Gore would have.
It is still a mystery how any Republican, or any person that voted for Bush, can say he is NOT a liar when he has reversed pretty much all of his stands except the very ones he should have lost... which is of course why honest and intelligent Republican generals and even some hawkish guys like Tom Clancy are against him.
If Gore ran again, I would probably vote for him this time, but only to put in a new administration over all. Thankfully I don't have that scenario. If he ran with Lieberman again, he would still not get my vote.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 09-22-2004 7:20 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 09-23-2004 8:25 PM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 62 (144257)
09-23-2004 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Silent H
09-23-2004 4:43 AM


Well, yeah, I kind of forgot about Liberman, but remember that Liberman wasn't going to be president, Gore was.
And I am damn sure that we wouldn't have the Iraq debacle, and we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, and we probably wouldn't have tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the middle class and poor.
We probably wouldn't have presidential support for a ban on gay marriage, either.
I am also not so sure 9/11 would have happened, either, as Clinton had been planning a more aggressive program to find and assasinate Bin Laden but did not begin it because it was so close to the end of his term. His people passed on all of their intelligence and plans to Bush's folks and they did not implement any of it. Clinton knew what a danger Bin Laden was and had followed him closely for years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Silent H, posted 09-23-2004 4:43 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rei, posted 09-23-2004 8:33 PM nator has not replied
 Message 44 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 6:13 AM nator has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 43 of 62 (144262)
09-23-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
09-23-2004 8:25 PM


... and they wouldn't have eroded abortion rights, and gay rights wouldn't have gotten worse (they probably wouldn't have gotten better, either), and they wouldn't have done these huge environmental rollbacks, and they wouldn't have referred to Germany and France as "Old Europe", and wouldn't have unilaterally backed out of the ABM treaty, and wouldn't have launched a huge military buildup...
Well, you get the picture.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 09-23-2004 8:25 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Silent H, posted 09-24-2004 6:23 AM Rei has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 44 of 62 (144389)
09-24-2004 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
09-23-2004 8:25 PM


remember that Liberman wasn't going to be president, Gore was.
Lieberman would have helped push the exact same agenda on Gore, or tried to, that Bush's crew did to him.
Clinton left with a policy of supporting the overthrow of Saddam. Lieberman was long desiring the same thing for the aid of Israel.
Perhaps Gore would have been able to avoid all the temptations, but I have no reason to believe he would.
And if he was killed, we'd have had Lieberman.
we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, and we probably wouldn't have tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the middle class and poor.
I think we still would have had the Patriot Act. Ye Gods the guy was for reducing our freedoms over the national security threat of Prince's "masturbating to a magazine"!
I do agree he would not have put in place those tax cuts. And if anything would have kept him from invading Iraq, it would have been not destroying our budget surplus and creatintg huge deficits. I think he was not going to want to be the guy that screwed up those gains.
I agree he wouldn't have been for a ban on gay marriage... but then neither is Dick Cheney. Many Republicans are not. That is primarily election year fodder.
I am also not so sure 9/11 would have happened, either, as Clinton had been planning a more aggressive program to find and assasinate Bin Laden but did not begin it because it was so close to the end of his term. His people passed on all of their intelligence and plans to Bush's folks and they did not implement any of it.
Okay, there is no question that Clinton was more aggressive on terror and national security than Bush. However the facts are in and the above statement is incorrect.
First of all I will point out that it was likely the nature of Clinton's pursuit of OBL which set the stage for 9-11. His dependence on "missiles missiles missiles!!!", even on innocent countries was infuriating, and wholly ineffective. That is a case where Rumsfeld was right on the money. The idea of using planes as missiles against the US, was pretty obviously a reaction to the missiles which landed in Afghanistan with him as their target.
Second, and this is more important, even if Gore had managed to kill OBL, 9-11 would still have been on. AQ is structured that way.
The only thing which MAY have been different, is if Gore had created a better intelligence structure which acted quicker on some of the hijacker info. And that is because it was already clear from past performance that he was wholly uninterested in improving actual airline security... the only thing that guaranteed would have stopped it.
I realize Bush makes Clinton look like a genius, but Clinton did have a lot of problems and caused a lot of problems, and Gore was not set to be doing much better.
His bumbling does make me wish Gore had been in place, but I am not about to believe it would have been Shangri-La. I am certain... given all the evidence in the congressional review... that 9-11 was going to happen whoever was in office.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 09-23-2004 8:25 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 45 of 62 (144390)
09-24-2004 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rei
09-23-2004 8:33 PM


gay rights wouldn't have gotten worse
Not to say Bush did anything (it was those "damn activist courts") but didn't gay rights actually improve during the last four years? As far as I can tell some major rights have been won.
they wouldn't have done these huge environmental rollbacks, and they wouldn't have referred to Germany and France as "Old Europe"
I think this is clear, though my guess is if Lieberman was upset with them not helping out in specific actions he would have started noting their high antisemitism.
I mean... I believe he already has.
wouldn't have unilaterally backed out of the ABM treaty,
I still think that's a mystery to most people. A pet project if ever there was one.
and wouldn't have launched a huge military buildup...
This I don't believe. He would have had to react to 9-11 in some way. He may have even reacted to prove he was not "soft". Going after OBL in Afghanistan would have required some amount of a build up unless he followed Clinton's pure cruise missile strategy. But then it would have been even less effective than what Bush is doing.
I am uncertain that after an attack, a military buildup is somehow unusual or unwarranted. I realize it was not a military attack, and this is not a military fight, but the campaign will (pretty much by necessity) require military actions and in addition we'd need to be prepared if some nations attempted to take advantage of any perceived weakness.
I can't argue dollar for dollar, and I am not going to defend Iraq costs, but what is wrong with a buildup at this time?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rei, posted 09-23-2004 8:33 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rei, posted 09-24-2004 1:09 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024