Maybe we should start a new forum, one titled "Dumbest Statement of the Week." If we do (and I am fairly sure we won't), I think the fisrt week's winner is the CIA's own Director Porter Goss.
His entry?
In a rare television interview, Goss defended the CIA's track record, tarnished by allegations ranging from erroneous or hyped intelligence to reports of secret prisons and harsh interrogation techniques amounting to torture. Al Qaeda leaders bin Laden and al-Zarqawi haven't been found "primarily because they don't want us to find them and they're going to great lengths to make sure we don't find them," Goss said in the interview broadcast Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."
No Shinola, Sherlock. No wonder you are the head of an Intelligence agency.
Italics above from CNN.com +++++++++++++ 11-29-05, 03:01 PM coldfuse I would enjoy keeping this going at least as a thread. Who knows when we will next get Charles Barkley claiming he was misquoted in his autobiography, or Joshua Steiner claiming to have lied to his diary! 11-29-05, 08:47 PM newnickname The Canadian election hadn't even officially begun when the Conservative leader, Stephen Harper put his foot in it. The incumbent Liberals are in trouble over sponsorship kickbacks; all Harper has to do to win is act sensibly, and not scare off any voters.
Instead, in his Dumb Statement Of The Week, Harper said 'the Liberals were guilty of "breaking every conceivable law in the province of Quebec with the help of organized crime". (Dumber quotes followed as spin-doctors tried to soften the blow without an actual retraction - along the lines of 'well, it was crime and it was organised'.)
This has taken some pressure off the Liberals who are huffing and puffing about the enormity of the accusation, while it recalls Harper's implication in the last election that Paul Martin supported child pornography, throwing Harper's own judgement into doubt.
www.cbc.ca 12-05-05, 10:08 AM newnickname This week...
'Wolf Blitzer got up on his hind legs during his Sunday morning confab with Senator Biden on CNN and expressed his outrage that the Iraqi people and their so-called leaders have not thanked the United States for invading and occupying their country. There was not one word of appreciation," said Blitzer, "to the United States for liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein."' www.truthout.org 12-07-05, 08:51 PM newnickname More dumb statements:
'...Rumsfeld did start to low-ball the Administration’s definition of success.
“To be responsible, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks,” he said.
But oddly, the Pentagon’s own “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” which Bush trumpeted last week, defines “longer term” success just that way: “An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.”
Rumsfeld is a blunderbuss.
Almost every time he opens his mouth, he inserts foot.
Just last week at a news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about the duty U.S. troops have to report abuse by Iraqi soldiers.
“Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of,” he said.
Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was standing right next to Rumsfeld and contradicted him point blank.
“If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it,” Pace told his boss.' progressive.org 05-10-06, 09:55 AM newnickname On Sunday, President Bush said he would "like to close the camp [Guantánamo]" and referring to the detainees, he added: "They will get their day in court. One can't say that of the people that they killed." www.commondreams.org 05-10-06, 12:06 PM FredPuli Secretary Rumsfeld is right not to define success in terms of deaths. It could be embarrassing. According to the BBC just now, President Talabani has announced, through his office, that over 1,000 people have been killed in sectarian violence in the month of April in Baghdad alone. It turns out that the figure comes from the local morgue. The total is 1,091. 05-17-06, 07:39 PM newnickname "We have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, to respond to natural disasters, and to help secure our borders." GWB 05-17-06, 10:05 PM DvdGStwrt Government Intelligence Spot on! 05-19-06, 12:30 PM bik74 I think this comes here in this category:
In another in a series of notable pronouncements, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year. "If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest." ____________________________________ If my understanding is right. He thinks he is a prophet. More benefits of freedom of speech Smile. 05-19-06, 12:33 PM bik74 Nice to make such statement when some scientific authorities are allready predicitng these storms.
The 2006 forecast calls for:
17 named tropical storms; an average season has 9.6. 9 hurricanes compared to the average of 5.9. 5 major hurricanes with winds exceeding 110 mph; average is 2.3.
“When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity. So coalition forces went into Iraq and removed his cruel regime.” GWB
(As the article points out, Hussein '...had no weapons of mass destruction to disarm. Weapons inspectors were begging the Security Council for more time, but Bush refused to give it to them. And Bush acted like was doing the Security Council’s bidding by invading when, in actual fact, the Security Council refused to give its blessing to the invasion. That’s why Kofi Annan called it illegal.') 06-15-06, 09:44 AM newnickname Maybe not the dumbest, but puzzling...
'President Bush reiterated Wednesday that he'd like to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but his administration is facing an awkward political and legal quandary over what to do with the estimated 460 detainees being held there...
..."It's a little bit of a Catch 22, but we are working through this," Bush said at a news conference on Wednesday at which he repeated his desire "to close Guantanamo." Knight Ridder
How is it a Catch 22 (rather than straightforwardly a problem, or foul-up)? If it is, didn't Bush & Co create it themselves with their new category of prisoner, and off-shore prison? 06-15-06, 07:13 PM coldfuse "Get the virgins ready" - New York Post
Admit it - you laughed no matter how inappropriate this was. 07-15-06, 10:40 PM newnickname '"I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion," Bush said at the news conference, "and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same thing."
Putin, in a barbed reply, said: "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly." Bush's face reddened as he tried to laugh off the remark. "Just wait," Bush replied about Iraq.' www.commondreams.org
Free religion in Iraq? Does he really believe that? Or does he mean "free" in the sense "free to murder people of other religious factions"? Or "free to impose barbaric rules and behaviour on women"? "Free to 'ethnically cleanse' along religious lines"?
What limits on religious freedom were there under Hussein's dictatorship? I know he gave preference to 'his own', Sunnis from his birthplace, but weren't some high-rankers in his regime Christian? 07-15-06, 11:04 PM DorianGreyed December 24, 2004
Tolerated by Saddam; Targets Under Occupation
Iraq's Christian Minority Loses Its Innocence
By BORZOU DARAGAHI The Independent
Baghdad.
The school year in Baghdad always began the same way for Sister Beninia Hermes Shoukwana. The Christian nun and headteacher of the Hebtikar School near Palestine Street would be peppered with innocent questions from her mostly Muslim charges.
"Madame headmistress, why don't you dress like mummy?" they would ask. "Why do you always wear the same white dress?"
This year, the age of innocence has ended and the remarks from parents and students have become more cutting than curious. "I've been accused of trying to convert little Muslims to Christianity," says the 64-year-old nun, with deep worry lines on her forehead. "Leaflets have been distributed asking the parents to withdraw their children."
This is not a happy Christmas for the country's troubled Christians. Many of the churches have cancelled midnight mass for fear of drawing the attention of terrorists.
After decades of living in relative harmony with the Muslim majority, Iraq's ancient Christian minority ? who include Chaldeans, with allegiance to the Pope, as well as Orthodox Assyrians and Armenians ? is threatened as never before.
A spate of bombings directed at churches, apparently the work of Muslim extremists, has led many to the painful conclusion that Christians are now equated with the US-led occupation regardless of their actual views. They insist that they are Arab nationalists who oppose the American presence just as much as resistance fighters in Fallujah or Mosul. One in 10 Iraqi Christians has fled Iraq.
Five Baghdad churches were attacked in October. In August, similar attacks killed at least 10 and wounded nearly 50 Iraqi Christians. Father Saad Hanna's small church was recently attacked. His parish is now one-third of its pre-war size. "The people are terrified about what is happening," he says. "The people no longer come to church. The truth is, we are in trouble, and we don't know how to overcome this."
Gone are the days when Christians' Muslim friends would join them carol singing, and Christmas trees are definitely out. In fact, few Iraqis are buying the traditional trees. Mohammad Noori sold 35 last year. With two days to go this year he had sold only one.
In Sister Beninia's three decades as head of the 3,000-student school, she has witnessed wars, bombings and the rise and fall of Saddam Hussein. But these, she says, are the worst of times, and she is unable to hide her distress over the fate of her country and fellow-Christians, mostly Chaldeans, members of the Nestorian sect who converted to Catholicism in the 16th century.
First came the pamphlets distributed in her hometown of Mosul during Ramadan, ordering Christian women to wear the headscarf. There were the August and October attacks on Baghdad churches. Among the victims was a young, newly engaged couple close to Sister Beninia. "For years, Christians and Muslims lived like brothers and sisters," she says. "Today the extremists are trying to separate us." But she has no plans to leave Iraq, vowing to continue her efforts to educate Iraqi children and build bridges between the different faiths.
She has stubbornly refused to bow to the extremists, putting up Christmas trees at her school and getting her students to sing carols. She will attend Christmas mass at her convent. "I will pray for peace in the country," she says.
Sister Beninia had plenty of experience facing down troubles, beginning with the Baath Party's 1974 decision to nationalise all schools including Hebtikar, which was originally run by her convent. "They wanted to force me to join the Baath party, but I always refused," she says.
Despite her refusal to sign up to Saddam Hussein's political machinery, she kept her job because of her organisational skills and popularity with students and parents. Another challenge came during the 1980s war with Iran. -------- Note the date. This was well over a year ago. I can't believe that things have improved for Christians. -------- From Publishers Weekly Former Iraqi General Sada delivers a riveting inside account of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, including confirmation of the existence and hiding of weapons of mass destruction. Despite being a Christian and refusing to join the Baath Party, Sada was promoted to Saddam's inner circle for his honest advice. Sada criticizes most countries and the United Nations (whose workers he accuses of accepting bribes) for their complicity in propagating Saddam's regime. But he strongly praises Operation Iraqi Freedom, pointing out that no other country would take the first step. The book has an unexpectedly religious angle, being slightly Christian-centric and paranoid over Muslim population growth in the West. Regardless, Sada blames Saddam for destroying Iraq, but remains hopeful the nation will have a chance to become a modern society, fulfilling its great historical legacy. --- He was Saddam Hussein's top military advisor . . . and a truth-teller in a regime where truth was relative. He was also a devout Christian in an anti-Christian country. --- One interesting note: as a Christian, General Sada was in a tiny minority among Saddam's inner circle , surrounded by Iraqi leaders who cynically and callously used Islam as a mask for their own twisted and sadistic ends. (Bold mine - DG)
The above three paragraphs are from an Amazon.com page. -------- THE NUMBERS OF Christians living in Iraq, mostly Catholic and Orthodox, have been dwindling for more than two decades. One exodus of Christians began during the prolonged Iran-Iraq war that stretched from 1979 to '88. The short, violent gulf war of 1991 was followed by 11 years of United Nations economic sanctions, which church leaders say have made life miserable and survival tenuous for many. Christians, once a notable minority in a land where according to tradition the apostles Peter, Thomas and Thaddeus planted the seeds of the gospel, constitute about 5 percent of the nation's population, said a Catholic source.
Church officials in Iraq and U.S.-based church relief workers are quick to say that they are not the victims of persecution by the regime of Saddam Hussein. - Find Articles.com
The above article goes on to say that the government does not discriminate against Christians, even providing help at times, and buying equipment. But the date of that article is October 23, 2002. Now, since we invaded, it is obviously a different story, as evidenced in the other links. 07-16-06, 03:10 PM Kelleygirl Just felt that this thread wouldn't be complete without ----
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who probably read the news themselves."--G.W.Bush, Washington, D.C.; September 21, 2003. 07-19-06, 10:27 PM newnickname 'Bombs were exploding and innocents dying, from Beirut to Haifa to Baghdad, and yet George Bush managed to pose for yet another photo op, smiling as he gave the thumbs up at the close of the G8 summit. Thanks to an unsuspected open mic, however, we could also glimpse the mindset of a leader unaccountably pleased with his ignorance of the world.
What seemed to interest him most at that farewell get together of leaders bitterly divided over a disintegrating Mideast was not some last-minute proposal for peace but rather the fact that it would take China President Hu Jintao eight hours to fly home from St. Petersburg to Beijing.
Bush had started the exchange by noting, absurdly, that, "This is your neighborhood, doesn't take you long to get home." Uh, yeah, incurious George, sure thing. Never mind that St. Petersburg is in Europe, on Russia's northwestern corner, due north of Turkey, and Beijing is on the eastern edge of mainland Asia.
"You, eight hours? Me too. Russia's a big country and you're a big country," he said when corrected, sounding for all the world like an earnest kindergartner, processing new information. "Russia's big and so is China."' www.truthdig.com
So, is it an act, or is he really that dumb? 07-20-06, 05:54 PM DorianGreyed "There is a civil war going on in Iraq." - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Thursday, July 20, 2006
No shinola, Sherlock. How very observant of you. This ranks with "If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure," spoken by Vice President Dan Quayle, to the Phoenix Republican Forum, March 1990. These guys get paid with tax dollars. Roll Eyes 08-04-06, 10:33 AM newnickname It's a tie this week:
'...But it seems to me that it is not a classic civil war at this stage.
It certainly isn't like our Civil War...' Rumsfeld holds out for a classic civil war.
"I am concerned about loss of innocent life, and we will do everything we can to help move equipment... I mean, food and medicines, to help the people who have been displaced and the people who suffer." Bush gets confused. No, George - the equipment goes to Israel. They drop it on Lebanon, where the food and medicines go. Maybe Dick can draw you a diagram.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
'Testifying before the Senate today, Donald Rumsfeld told Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) that he has “never painted a rosy picture” about Iraq. Rumsfeld insisted that he has been “very measured” and told Clinton “you would have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been overly optimistic.”
Here’s just a few of the “overly optimistic” comments made by Rumsfeld (and no, we did not have a “dickens of a time” finding them):
Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.
Feb. 7, 2003: “It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Feb. 20 2003: “‘Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces.”
Mar. 30, 2003: “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”'thinkprogress.org ++++++++++++ 08-17-06, 09:36 AM newnickname ''Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.'Curious George
As the linked page points out, 'An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month'.
'...a summing-up confidential cable by William Patey, the departing British Ambassador to Iraq, found its way into the newspapers. “The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy,” Patey wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair. “Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq—a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror—must remain in doubt.” Asked about Patey’s assessment during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John P. Abizaid, the over-all American commander in the Middle East, replied carefully (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was sitting next to him), “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that, if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.” Last Monday, in an interview with ABC News, General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for the past two years, agreed, saying that “the six last weeks or so have been the highest levels of sectarian violence that I’ve seen since I’ve been here” and that “a countrywide civil war” is “the most significant threat right now.”'
08-18-06, 05:40 PM newnickname A follow up...
"Sometimes it takes people awhile to come to the sober realisation of what forces create stability and what don't..." George Bush - architect of that exemplary stability in Iraq - on support for Hezbollah
08-18-06, 06:47 PM DorianGreyed It's easy to see why he wanted to make sure that No Child (was) Left Behind.
08-31-06, 09:59 AM newnickname "If we leave the streets of Baghdad before the job is done, we will have to face the terrorists in our own cities."George
Because, obviously, terrorists can only operate in one country at a time. That's the rule.
You have to wonder if Bush is an idiot or if he's just reaching desperately out to anyone who might be idiot - or uninterested - enough to accept this nonsense.
He also said, "These are important times, and I would seriously hope people wouldn't politicise these issues that I'm going to talk about." Seriously?
08-31-06, 11:15 AM FredPuli "A spokesman" (didn't catch his name, but it hardly matters as he was speaking for the Administration so using a set script Wink) has just said on the BBC " We are not going to be intimidated by Iran". Interesting. So the text is " We shall try to intimidate Iran, which is fine, but if they reply they are trying to intimidate us, which is wrong".Yes, and how exactly does anyone think they have any hope whatever of stopping Iran from proceeding with whatever nuclear programme Iran chooses? He didn't condescend into particulars on that matter Big Grin In the meantime, making loud noises in Iran's direction merely serves to strengthen Iran in the eyes of our enemies. She has already become, thanks to the foreign policy of the US in eliminating Saddam, the strongest and most influential force in the region. She doesn't need any more help from those uttering meaningless threats, veiled or otherwise.
09-01-06, 04:55 AM FredPuli Here's one which can be posted under this heading without any comment at all Roll Eyes:
" If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities" - President G W Bush , 31st August 2006.
09-01-06, 09:52 AM bik74
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: Here's one which can be posted under this heading without any comment at all Roll Eyes:
" If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities"
President G W Bush , 31st August 2006.
the thing is i believe that lots of americans believe the above statement , so maybe it cannot be classfied as a dumb statement.
09-19-06, 10:11 AM newnickname In bold...
'Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"
“If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.'
Kieth Olbermann explains...
'Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison."
And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter.
Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists.
Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.
What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison.
And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.
All of us agree about that.
Except, it seems, this President.
With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right.
And then there was that one, most awful phrase.
In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.
Olbermann doesn't mention it but Bush did, in fact, in ordering the invasion of Iraq, "kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective". I know we're supposed to pretend that no innocents died in "shock and awe", and their deaths weren't an inevitable consequence of it, but they did, and they were.
09-19-06, 02:33 PM sid1114 I guess the answer is this: if innocent women and children die by unintended but absolutely predictable consequence of certain methods of war, it's less bad than when they die by intended consequences of certain methods. Saying you didn't mean to kill those people immunized you (inference: in the eyes of your god), even if the war in which it happened was ill-advised, wrongly-justified, and poorly executed. To coin a phrase. And, I guess, in the case of the ones that actually intended it, it gives extra credit in the eyes of their god. These gods: they work in mysterious ways.
09-21-06, 04:08 PM DorianGreyed Somehow, I missed this one,
"If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate." --George W. Bush, Washington D.C., March 21, 2006
I didn't know that radiation helped reproduction.
I can't shake this vision of millions of Iranians running around, proliferating everywhere.
10-01-06, 07:13 PM newnickname This week, a joint effort:
'[Bush] said that for Al-Qaeda and its allies, a safe haven in Iraq "would be even more valuable than the one they lost in Afghanistan."
However, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview published Saturday, offered a different rationale for continued US military presence in Iraq, saying it was needed to counter the growing influence of neighboring Iran.
"We just have to fight tooth and nail for the victory of the Iraqis who do not want Iranian influence in their daily lives," she told The Wall Street Journal. "We've got a chance to resist the Iranian push into the region, but we better get about it."' Agence France-Presse
And, er... wait a minute - what chance did Iran have of dominating Iraq before the US invasion? 10-01-06, 08:07 PM Scotty
quote: And, er... wait a minute - what chance did Iran have of dominating Iraq before the US invasion?
Apparently very good since everyone says that Iraq didn't have weapons to defend itself.
10-01-06, 08:22 PM newnickname Good point, but would the Iranians have been dumb enough to risk getting themselves bogged down in an unwinnable war against a nationalist insurgency by invading?
10-01-06, 08:59 PM DorianGreyed It is highly unlikely that Iran would have tried anything against Iraq, since the no-fly zones covered about half of their common border. Any attack would have been noticed before it crossed the border.
10-01-06, 11:05 PM newnickname It was an unstable, or unsustainable situation, though. The no-fly zones, and the sanctions, couldn't last forever. Hussein himself was getting old, and his heirs seem to have been brutal idiots. At some point in the next ten years or so, Iran might have seen an opportunity to step in - although the opportunity may not have been handed to them on a plate, as it was by Bush & Co.
Is the Bush doctrine, then, to invade countries in danger of being dominated by their neighbours? How does that help?
10-01-06, 11:20 PM DorianGreyed I don't think either of Saddam's sons would have survived him by more than a few days. If we knew how bad they were, think of what Saddam's generals knew. Neither were strong enough to hold the country together, and surely the generals knew that. Whether out of patriotism or just a normal power grab (You have to remember where this is taking place.), the sons would have been "neutralized" and one of the military would have taken over. It is quite possible that Iraq, at that point, might have used Saddam's death to seek out US friendship. It would have been to a military leader's benefit to do so. We prop up dictators all the time, as long as they are our dictators.
10-02-06, 01:56 AM newnickname Wait a minute, here's a dumber statement from the week:
'Oh dear. I'm sure he didn't mean it. In Illinois' Sixth Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, of planning to "cut and run" on Iraq.
Duckworth is a former Army major and chopper pilot who lost both legs in Iraq after her helicopter got hit by an RPG. "I just could not believe he would say that to me," said Duckworth, who walks on artificial legs and uses a cane. Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?' www.truthdig.com
Ouch.
10-02-06, 09:00 AM DorianGreyed It sounds as if Duckworth has found that most vicious of animals, the Compassionate Conservative. Every other year, they leave their rookery (a House in Washington, DC), and descend throughout the land to prey on the weak and defenseless. Fierce, savage beasts, they will attack anyone who attempts to come to the aid of their victims. Duckworth must have placed herself between the beast and prey.
10-02-06, 09:45 AM newnickname Or he just read from the latest 'Here Is What To Say About Iraq' memo without a glance at his opponent.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
'...a summing-up confidential cable by William Patey, the departing British Ambassador to Iraq, found its way into the newspapers. “The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy,” Patey wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair. “Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq—a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror—must remain in doubt.” Asked about Patey’s assessment during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John P. Abizaid, the over-all American commander in the Middle East, replied carefully (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was sitting next to him), “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that, if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.” Last Monday, in an interview with ABC News, General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for the past two years, agreed, saying that “the six last weeks or so have been the highest levels of sectarian violence that I’ve seen since I’ve been here” and that “a countrywide civil war” is “the most significant threat right now.”'
"If we leave the streets of Baghdad before the job is done, we will have to face the terrorists in our own cities."George
Because, obviously, terrorists can only operate in one country at a time. That's the rule.
You have to wonder if Bush is an idiot or if he's just reaching desperately out to anyone who might be idiot - or uninterested - enough to accept this nonsense.
He also said, "These are important times, and I would seriously hope people wouldn't politicise these issues that I'm going to talk about." Seriously?
'Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"
“If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.'
Kieth Olbermann explains...
'Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison."
And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter.
Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists.
Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.
What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison.
And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.
All of us agree about that.
Except, it seems, this President.
With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right.
And then there was that one, most awful phrase.
In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.
Olbermann doesn't mention it but Bush did, in fact, in ordering the invasion of Iraq, "kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective". I know we're supposed to pretend that no innocents died in "shock and awe", and their deaths weren't an inevitable consequence of it, but they did, and they were.
I guess the answer is this: if innocent women and children die by unintended but absolutely predictable consequence of certain methods of war, it's less bad than when they die by intended consequences of certain methods. Saying you didn't mean to kill those people immunized you (inference: in the eyes of your god), even if the war in which it happened was ill-advised, wrongly-justified, and poorly executed. To coin a phrase. And, I guess, in the case of the ones that actually intended it, it gives extra credit in the eyes of their god. These gods: they work in mysterious ways.
Posts: 1563 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
'[Bush] said that for Al-Qaeda and its allies, a safe haven in Iraq "would be even more valuable than the one they lost in Afghanistan."
However, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview published Saturday, offered a different rationale for continued US military presence in Iraq, saying it was needed to counter the growing influence of neighboring Iran.
"We just have to fight tooth and nail for the victory of the Iraqis who do not want Iranian influence in their daily lives," she told The Wall Street Journal. "We've got a chance to resist the Iranian push into the region, but we better get about it."'Agence France-Presse
And, er... wait a minute - what chance did Iran have of dominating Iraq before the US invasion?
Good point, but would the Iranians have been dumb enough to risk getting themselves bogged down in an unwinnable war against a nationalist insurgency by invading?
It is highly unlikely that Iran would have tried anything against Iraq, since the no-fly zones covered about half of their common border. Any attack would have been noticed before it crossed the border.
It was an unstable, or unsustainable situation, though. The no-fly zones, and the sanctions, couldn't last forever. Hussein himself was getting old, and his heirs seem to have been brutal idiots. At some point in the next ten years or so, Iran might have seen an opportunity to step in - although the opportunity may not have been handed to them on a plate, as it was by Bush & Co.
Is the Bush doctrine, then, to invade countries in danger of being dominated by their neighbours? How does that help?
I don't think either of Saddam's sons would have survived him by more than a few days. If we knew how bad they were, think of what Saddam's generals knew. Neither were strong enough to hold the country together, and surely the generals knew that. Whether out of patriotism or just a normal power grab (You have to remember where this is taking place.), the sons would have been "neutralized" and one of the military would have taken over. It is quite possible that Iraq, at that point, might have used Saddam's death to seek out US friendship. It would have been to a military leader's benefit to do so. We prop up dictators all the time, as long as they are our dictators.
Wait a minute, here's a dumber statement from the week:
'Oh dear. I'm sure he didn't mean it. In Illinois' Sixth Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, of planning to "cut and run" on Iraq.
Duckworth is a former Army major and chopper pilot who lost both legs in Iraq after her helicopter got hit by an RPG. "I just could not believe he would say that to me," said Duckworth, who walks on artificial legs and uses a cane. Every election cycle produces some wincers, but how do you apologize for that one?'www.truthdig.com
It sounds as if Duckworth has found that most vicious of animals, the Compassionate Conservative. Every other year, they leave their rookery (a House in Washington, DC), and descend throughout the land to prey on the weak and defenseless. Fierce, savage beasts, they will attack anyone who attempts to come to the aid of their victims. Duckworth must have placed herself between the beast and prey.
Duckworth, who copiloted a Black Hawk helicopter that crashed while under a rocket grenade attack almost two years ago, also criticized Bush and others in his administration for accusing anyone who challenges the president's policies of "cutting and running."
"Well, I didn't cut and run, Mr. President. Like so many others, I proudly fought and sacrificed," Duckworth said. "My helicopter was shot down long after you proclaimed 'mission accomplished."' ++++++++++++++++ 10-02-06, 03:57 PM DorianGreyed From ABC News -
Oct. 2, 2006 — As Republicans try to calculate the political damage the party could suffer from the sexual scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley and congressional pages, the White House has said, in effect, everyone should chill out and make sure of the facts.
Speaking on ABC's "Good Morning America," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said a lot of people — presumably he was referring to Democrats — were "trying to figure out, 'OK, can I get political advantage out of this?'"
Snow said, "Let's take it one step at a time. There will always be time for people to call for investigations and so on. Frankly, I think we just need to get to the facts."
Just what does he think an investigation does? Oh, wait, he's part of the bush administration, so he's use to investigations that cover up things and lead nowhere. 10-09-06, 08:59 PM newnickname “177 of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don’t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.” George
I think this clinches it; he's not saying stupid things, he's saying things he hopes some are stupid enough to believe. 10-09-06, 09:06 PM DorianGreyed Well, he just about has to lie. Think of the panic if he started telling the truth. 10-17-06, 09:18 PM newnickname "I don't consider it a credible report. The methodology is pretty well discredited." G.W. Bush
No, it isn't.
The following quote was disqualified from the 'dumbest statement' competition:
"Nobody has accused me of having a real sophisticated vocabulary." (GWB)
It doesn't count if you're trying to sound dumb. 10-18-06, 07:57 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by newnickname:
"Nobody has accused me of having a real sophisticated vocabulary." (GWB)
It doesn't count if you're trying to sound dumb.
That's how he wins elections. We all love a man who can put sophisticated and subtle thinking about difficult matters into words that we all understand.
It's such a pity that he hasn't got subtle or sophisticated thinking to start with .He is simply not capable of it.It may be unfair to judge him from this distance but that much has been obvious to the British people right from the off. Polls taken here years ago described him as being thought unintelligent. But then we don't get exposed to the skills of Karl Rove, the White House machine or the seeming inadequacies of his political opponents. We can count ourselves fortunate to have an intelligent, articulate and perceptive Prime Minister (though not one, it must be said, who is in the top rank of Prime Ministers on that score). Now Blair is floundering. He is suddenly having problems in our fierce Press Conferences and, worse, in the House when cross-examined by that neophyte lightweight David Cameron, the new Opposition Leader. That's like Muhammad Ali losing to Spinks. 10-18-06, 09:59 AM newnickname It's interesting to compare and contrast the two statements, though. The first one, although wrong, does use sophisticated vocabulary.
Bush must be getting desperate if he's resorting to the "aw, gee, I'm just a straight-talkin' good-ol boy standin' up to these here city-slickers" script. He's been President for six years, for goodness' sake, and everybody surely knows by now that, in reality, he's a spoiled brat from a dynastic family. 10-20-06, 10:30 AM newnickname "My feeling is that they all along have been trying to inflict enough damage so that we leave..." Bush on Iraqi Insurgents
No shinola, Sherlock. 10-20-06, 11:29 AM FredPuli A British officer, asked to comment on his general's statement about troops now being a cause of a problem, put the above more neatly. "We are", he said," now another tribe". So when the Iraqis are not killing members of another 'tribe', Sunni or Shia, they occupy themselves now by turning on the foreigners.
When will the President notice that the number of attacks upon and the number of deaths among American forces is far,far less than the numbers for inter-sectarian attacks and deaths? This is a private war and one which the US is utterly incapable of stopping.It is set to rage for many a year. The President has been the Sorcerer's Apprentice.Like the Apprentice he has set in train a devastating sequence of events the consequences of which he was too naive and inexperienced to anticipate or forsee, obvious though they were to older, wiser and more knowledgeable individuals. Unfortunately in life no Sorcerer is to return and reinstate the status quo ante by a wave of his wand. 10-20-06, 07:22 PM newnickname “One of the reasons you’re seeing more casualties is the enemy is active and so are our troops...” George "Clausewitz" Bush
Is it just me, or is George making the kind of statements that seem profound to the speaker only because he or she is on something? 10-21-06, 01:52 AM DorianGreyed And another one -
[P]lot to establish a Department of Peace, raise your taxes and minimize penalties for crack dealers. - — Rep. Roy Blunt in an e-mail to the media on what he thinks the Democrats will do if they win control of the House
Boy, he left out the best part. We plan on inviting Castro and Chavez to all holiday events, Barbara Streisand will be appointed Singer of the House, Martin Sheen will declare the Capitol Building a nuclear-free zone, and KK will be appointed the Ayatollah of Rock & Rollah. However, the only person whose taxes will be raised is JohnGalt. He will be taxed by the word on his posts. That alone should pay for the statues going up. (Bill & Hillary in a thoughful pose with Teddy Kennedy) 10-21-06, 01:24 PM newnickname It must be the election; there are too many dumb statements for us to pick a winner this week.
'The desperation is difficult to miss, yes, but sometimes it is astonishingly obvious. Take the following statement from Fred Barnes, executive editor for the right-wing whacko factory The Weekly Standard. Barnes, ever the optimist when it comes to permanent Republican control, warned the faithful in this week's edition to prepare for a total wipeout at the polls.
"Of course there's little time left for a major event to occur," wrote Barnes towards the end of his article, titled "How Bad Will It Be?" "The North Korean bomb test wasn't big enough to change the course of the campaign. So Republicans may have to rely on their two remaining assets: They have more money than the Democrats and a voter turnout operation second to none."
There it is, right there in black and white. "There's little time left for a major event to occur," wrote Barnes, who went on to lament that the GOP must fall back on their "two remaining assets." Ergo, a massive terrorist attack with huge casualties and the rise of total fear among the populace is an "asset" in the mind of Barnes, one that, sadly for Barnes, does not seem about to come to pass. After, all there is "little time left" for a bloodbath to come along and rescue the Republicans.' www.truthout.org
And...
"He [Rumsfeld] leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country." Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Wow. Who knew God was so hopeless at military planning? 10-21-06, 01:48 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: ]
And...
"He [Rumsfeld] leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country." Marine General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Wow. Who knew God was so hopeless at military planning?
Yeah, He is hopeless but He cheats a lot (God, not Rumsfeld). If you can do things like part the sea to get your people out of a fix when they are running away then you are not playing by the rules.
Wonder what He can do for Mr Rumsfeld ? 10-24-06, 12:38 PM Scotty
quote: Quotes From the Staggeringly Brilliant Al Gore! (Enjoy!) Tuesday, October 24, 2006
"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
"The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
"We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a 'part' of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a 'part' of Europe."
-- Vice President Al Gore
10-24-06, 02:21 PM DorianGreyed Thanks for your contributions to "The Dumbest Statement of the Week", Scotty. I guess I missed those back in the 90s. But I did catch most of them when Dan Quayle said them back in the 80s. Roll Eyes 10-24-06, 03:20 PM DorianGreyed I have made good judgements in the Past. I have made good judgements in the Future. - Dan Quayle
The future will be better tomorrow. - Dan Quayle
We don't want to go back to tomorrow, we want to go forward. - Dan Quayle
We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a *part* of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a *part* of Europe. Dan Quayle
[It's] time for the human race to enter the solar system. - Dan Quayle
Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things. Dan Quayle, 11/30/88
One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'. - Dan Quayle, 12/6/89
I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change. Dan Quayle, 5/22/89 - Source: The 776 Stupidest Things Ever Said, Ross and Kathryn Pertras, Published April 1993
The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century. Senator and Republican candidate for Vice President Dan Quayle during a news conference in which he was asked his opinion about the Holocaust, 9/15/88
Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children. - Dan Quayle, 9/18/90
We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world. Dan Quayle, 9/21/88
We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur. Dan Quayle, 9/22/90 - Source: The 776 Stupidest Things Ever Said, Ross and Kathryn Pertras, Published April 1993
For NASA, space is still a high priority. - Dan Quayle, 9/5/90
Public speaking is very easy. - Dan Quayle, to reporters in 10/88
I stand by all the misstatements that I've made. Source: The 776 Stupidest Things Ever Said, Ross and Kathryn Pertras, Published April 1993
All above (and more!) located at The Quotations Page. Note the publication date of the book.
-------- I am simply amazed that Gore said so many of the things that poor Dan Quayle is blamed for saying. To make matters worse, Gore cleverly managed to say them after Quayle was blamed for saying them. Insidious, what? He even managed to say some of then on the exact date that Quayle didn't say them, but three or four years later. Truly an evil genius.
Thanks, Scotty. I love it when you post like this. 10-24-06, 04:22 PM Scotty You crack me up, DG. This was meant to be a joke, DG. A joke. LOL.
This is where it came from.
quote: Funstuff, Cartoons and Poems
Let's not get so serious about all this that we forget the lighter side of life!
You Know You're Living in 2006 When....
Quotes From the Staggeringly Brilliant Al Gore! (Enjoy!)
REF
I love it. I guess I should have warned you by posting the site, but it slipped my mind. 10-24-06, 04:25 PM Scotty
quote: Thanks, Scotty. I love it when you post like this.
Thanks, DG, I love it when you get wild over jokes.
But you might be interested in this.
REF 10-24-06, 05:28 PM DorianGreyed I guess I forgot about your clever and subtle sense of humor. I just thought you were quoting another poorly researched site, like you have done so many times.
I have to admit that it was funnier when Quayle said the quotes. Gore just doesn't have that sense of public style that Quayle does. 10-24-06, 05:34 PM Scotty Your vastly superior knowledge and intelligence are just too sophisticated for mere peons to challenge. Big Grin
Yes! Kinda like the sites you refer to, eh?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
I have to admit that it was funnier when Quayle said the quotes. Gore just doesn't have that sense of public style that Quayle does.
True, he has the style and personality of a dead log. +++++++++++++++ 10-24-06, 06:24 PM Karrow Roll Eyes 10-26-06, 04:13 AM FredPuli " Absolutely, we're winning" President George W Bush, press conference, 25th October 2006.
[Or is this an example of American, or 'Texan', English being different from ours ? Anyhow, we are 'winning' by losing ever more men and civilians than ever before and at an increasing rate and we will have 'won' within 18 months,by when we'll have pulled out] 10-26-06, 09:43 AM newnickname "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, 'Australia's most senior Muslim cleric', on why women should cover up and stay home.
Today - "I unreservedly apologise to any woman who is offended by my comments. I had only intended to protect women's honour," the statement published in The Australian said.
"Women in our Australian society have the freedom and the right to dress as they choose.
"Whether a man endorses or not a particular form of dress, any form of harassment of women is unacceptable." news.bbc.co.uk 10-26-06, 09:59 AM newnickname 'During an interview on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos asked where James Baker's Iraq proposal fell between "stay the course" and "cut and run." Bush's response: "Well, hey, listen, we've never been 'stay the course,' George." Huh?' Portland Press-Herald 10-30-06, 10:04 AM newnickname "I believe when you get attacked and somebody declares war on you, you fight back. And that's what we're doing." Bush on, er... Iraq. www.usnews.com 10-30-06, 11:56 PM newnickname That press conference transcript is depressing reading.
'Q: ...Instead of talking to Syria – can't Syria get some payback for sending all these guys over the border to subvert Iraq? Can't – shouldn't Syria be getting subverted in return, in some way?
THE PRESIDENT: Now you're thinking. (Laughter)...'
Laughter? There's a lot of talk about how Syria will have a vital part to play in ending the chaos in Iraq, and here's Bush laughing about 'subverting' the country. What if a US diplomat in the near future has to go to the Syrian government, looking for some cooperation?
Definitely a dumb statement.
And check out the "interesting story", about the Delta team rescuing someone, instead of the US paying a ransom for him. Bush sounds exactly like some drunk pontificating from a bar-stool:
'One of the stories – interesting stories I tell is about the fellow that came here. He got kidnaped and he was rescued pretty early by our Delta team. I said, what's it like to be kidnaped, man? It must have been weird – Baghdad, to be kidnaped. And he said, yes – he said, I was in there with, like – I forgot the number – nine other people from different nationalities. He said, at one time I said, I'm going to get out and you're – you're going to get out and I'm not. And all these people said, well, that's a pretty pessimistic thing to say. He said, well, my government won't ransom me; yours will. And he was right. We weren't going to.
And sure enough, the Norwegian went for – I don't know what the numbers are – but they made a nice little living, because there was no – no push-back. There was no kind of structure. And so these weren't necessarily political people. These were people that just found a pretty good niche for a while. Made a couple of million dollars, nobody got hurt. And fortunately, our Delta teams found the guy, and got him out of there. But it was just an interesting story.' 10-31-06, 08:40 PM newnickname Misfired "joke" of the week:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." John Kerry, talking to students in California.
('The president demanded an apology, and some furious military bloggers also pounced, calling Mr Kerry a disgrace.
Senator Kerry came out swinging in response, saying he had botched a joke aimed at the president - and that he would apologise to no-one for his criticism. But his tough talk reminded me of an old political maxim: If you're explaining, you're losing.') 11-01-06, 08:32 AM aminator2002 What an idiot... way to blow the midterm wave of good feelings for Democrats John. 11-01-06, 08:50 AM Professor A CNN tv report said that in Kerry's original scripted remarks, the joke was supposed to say, "...get us stuck in Iraq...", i.e., a jab at the president & his advisers -- not the armed forces. What a difference a syllable makes! That was the "botched" component of the joke. It was lame to begin with, but harmless as scripted.
So if that's true, why isn't Kerry simply explaining what he meant to say , apologizing for the misstatement, and moving on? Getting defensive and hostile is not how you do damage control. 11-01-06, 12:23 PM Scotty
quote: At issue is Kerry's comment, to a group of California students on Monday, that people unable to succeed in the U.S. educational system would likely "get stuck in Iraq." Kerry says he merely botched a speech line written to be critical of Bush, while Republicans seized on it as evidence of troop-bashing by the Democratic party's 2004 presidential nominee.
Seems that Sen. Kerry's follow up statement didn't help matters either. 11-01-06, 02:00 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by Professor: Getting defensive and hostile is not how you do damage control.
It is when you feel you are superior to the lowly, unwashed, uneducated commoners. 11-01-06, 02:04 PM newnickname That's a perceptive comment about Kerry 'fighting the last war'. His bitterness over his 'Swift-Boating' might explain, but not excuse, his aggressive over-reaction.
Another view:
'[Kerry] gave the wrong insult to Bush. The line was confusing only because the real truth is bigger and more grotesque and beyond that - there is nothing funny about being stuck in Iraq - no matter how one construes the "joke."
In fact, like a Rorshach test, the reaction to Kerry's mangled comment exposed the truth of what the White House most likely really feels about the troops. The people ready to pounce, John McCain included, heard what THEY must believe about the troops. Only people who go to nauseating lengths to say "the best and the brightest" each time they speak of the troops must have, just beneath the surface, the perception with which they are trying to slime Kerry.
Only those so careless as to put the fate of young soldiers into the sphere of Bush decision-making are the ones who disrespect the troops. Of course, Kerry was one of those who, with his vote, put the lives of the troops in jeapordy. His apology should be for the vote, not the comment.
Bush says Kerry should apologize to the troops who, as Bush says, "are plenty smart." Kerry says it is Bush who should aplogize to the troops for not planning properly - for not giving them the armor or weapons they needed - for not sending in enough troops. Still - not the point. He should apologize for the war. In fact, in a sane universe, Bush should be tried for the war.' ...Or You Get Stuck in Iraq 11-01-06, 03:34 PM aminator2002 I think his statements were similar to a Freudian slip rather than just a mix up. I think Kerry is still very hung up on thinking in terms of Vietnam and the way the draft was unfair to the kids that couldn't go to college, parents couldn't buy them a deferral or that flunked out into service back then. I think he honestly (and probably many of us don't disagree) thinks that many of the people currently serving in the military didn't have the same opportunities that others in this country have by way of economic status or academic discipline. Our military is all volunteer but people can't deny that a lot of the people who chose to serve do so to improve their possibilities for opportunity. There is no doubt this is a look at it from an outsiders perspective. The kids from small town depressed American towns that choose to serve most likely don't see it as a disadvantage or something unfair, whereas it certainly seems from an outside perspective to be a duty unfairly proportioned onto the lower class. A great many also choose to serve because they feel a duty to protect the nation and respect the role of the armed forces. I think a politician would do a better job of not landing in a big pile of do-do over this type of issue, but here we have a world class loser. The man that lost to the worst President in history.
That being said, Kerry is an elitist snob that never did appeal to many who voted for him. He had the LEAST difficult job to do to win the election from Bush and he failed. He is a miserable possibility for a candidate in 2008 and I wish he'd just keep his mouth shut to not ruin the Democrats chances of getting a real candidate elected in 2008.
Obama in 2008. 11-01-06, 03:55 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by aminator2002: I think he honestly (and probably many of us don't disagree) thinks that many of the people currently serving in the military didn't have the same opportunities that others in this country have by way of economic status or academic discipline.
If that's the case, then Kerry needs to stop believing this particular big lie that the left has been shamelessly pushing for years.
The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005.
...
In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004–2005) support the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight differences are that wartime U.S. military enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on average than their civilian peers.
Recruits have a higher percentage of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distribution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population.
...
Like their peers in 1999 and 2003, recruits in 2004 and 2005 came primarily from middle-class areas. Poor areas are proportionally underrepresented in the wartime years (2003–2005).
[Emphasis added.]
Source. 11-01-06, 07:22 PM honilov The mere words that Kerry said are small potatoes compared to the **** that Bush has said and done. I would hardly think that his words would ruin anything for the Democrats.
If you'd ask the troops what upset them the most, Bush's actions/lies or Kerry's words....oh, nevermind. 11-01-06, 07:45 PM newnickname A GfK Custom Research report found that 'The leading single reason—cited by 42 percent—for enlisting in the armed forces, among those not averse to joining, is “money for college.” Duty came in second, with 34 percent, and the opportunity to travel and see the world third, with 21 percent.' I guess those in the army may not have been to college, but want to go.
I wonder how much the figures John cites are affected by how 'the percentage of new African-American army recruits “has slipped dramatically over the past five years.” In fiscal 2000, blacks made up 23.5 percent of army recruits; that number has now fallen to less than 14 percent, a 40 percent decrease. The percentage of female recruits has fallen during that same period by 23 percent, from 22 to 17 percent.
Among blacks, the unpopularity of the war is cited as the primary reason for the drop in enlistment...
..."Black youth were less supportive of US troops’ presence in Iraq, less likely to feel the war was justified, more disapproving of the Bush administration’s handling of foreign affairs and more disapproving of its use of US military forces than were whites or Hispanics.”' www.wsws.org
Is it too much of generalisation to say that 'black youth' might tend to be poorer, and to have had less educational opportunity than others? In noting that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, they'd certainly be smarter than some in the US. 11-02-06, 12:14 AM newnickname "For some it is clear that college is not an option, at least for now. Let them know that the Army can fulfill their college aspirations later on." US Army Recruiting Command handbook 11-02-06, 04:31 AM Lighteningrodd
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
The handbook also says, "Focus on the freshman class because they will have the highest dropout rate. They often lack both the direction and funds to fully pursue their education."
So, while Bush & Co are working themselves up into a lather because Kerry could be taken to have implied that college dropouts join the army, the army is actively looking for college dropouts.
quote: If you'd ask the troops what upset them the most, Bush's actions/lies or Kerry's words....oh, nevermind.
You know the answer, don't you? Big Grin 11-02-06, 01:39 PM aminator2002 I wasn't making any assumption of racism. Actually I have always thought that the military is largely made up of rural kids. Incomes in rural America don't typically allow an average student to afford full college tuition and costs. In suburbia there are some options to go to a local community college whereas kids in rural America don't necessarily have that option conveniently. I think it's fair to say that incomes in the south and in rural America don't compare very well to suburban incomes.
If you throw in inner-city schools then that is not exactly what I was talking about.
In Illinois there is an enormous difference in funding for a suburban school versus a rural school. The students don't necessarily have the same opportunities. Money for college is a huge motivator for the people I know that have opted into the military. 11-02-06, 04:53 PM honilov Yeah Scotty, we both know the answer. I doubt you'll admit it though. Smile
We all know anyway that what Kerry said was geered at Bush. Don't we? Smile 11-02-06, 05:55 PM Scotty
quote: Yeah Scotty, we both know the answer. I doubt you'll admit it though.
quote: We all know anyway that what Kerry said was geered at Bush. Don't we?
No, we don't! Thats just his lie to try and make an excuse for his stupidity. 11-02-06, 06:40 PM sid1114 People will believe what they want: it were ever thus. But on so many levels, it's obvious that Kerry intended his words to refer to bush. Just as it's obvious that he has so little sense of humor that he can't tell what's funny or not, much less tell a joke properly. It's the country that's "stuck" in Iraq. He'd not have used that word to describe the troops. "Sent" would have been the word if that's what he meant. It's been said by several sources (and if you watch the video you can see he was trying to read it but bailed) that the line was written down for him, and it said get US stuck in Iraq. There's really no doubt that's what he meant. I don't argue that he's not an idiot: a box of rocks should have been able to defeat bush in '04, given the obvious failures. I lost respect for Kerry long ago, even though I happen to agree with him in most things and believe his heart is exactly in the right place. But there's absolutely no doubt that, no matter how he botched it, and despite the fact that he handed the republicans a nice way out of having to explain their complicity in bush's failures, he intended his comment as a barb at bush and not the troops. Scotty, really: give this one a rest. Tell us why we should like the deficits, tell us how we're safer, explain why we needn't have stayed stronger in Afganistan. Tell us it's ok to suppress scientific reports about pollution, argue that paying reporters for propoganda isn't bad for democracy. Get back to the important stuff. Kerry certainly earns the dumbest statement of the week: but it's for screwing up an already lame line. There's no way -- it makes no sense in any context -- that he meant his words for the troops. 11-02-06, 10:10 PM newnickname "Every great work of art goes through messy phases while it is in transition..." Major General William Caldwell, chief military spokesman, on the situation in Iraq 11-03-06, 02:21 PM Scotty He was for the joke, before he was against it. Big Grin 11-03-06, 02:38 PM sid1114 Scotty: good one! Razz 11-03-06, 03:22 PM newnickname Actually, I think Cheney's scriptwriters should get the credit. 11-03-06, 04:23 PM Scotty Actually, thats been floating around for the last couple of days, before Cheney said it. Big Grin
Looks like the scriptwriters got it second hand. 11-03-06, 06:34 PM newnickname Dumbest Internet glitch of the week:
'"Last March," begins the article, "the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to 'leverage the Internet' to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein."
Translation: On the three-year anniversary of the catastrophic decision to invade and occupy Iraq, Congressional Republicans, terrified that their comprehensive failures would come back to haunt them in the November midterms, cajoled the White House into publishing incredibly sensitive information in a rhetorically empty attempt to cover their backsides.
The Times article continues, "The site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb. The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs."
Translation: We have spent the last five years being terrorized by our own government - "We do not want the evidence to be a mushroom cloud" - and yet these nitwits somehow conclude that publishing detailed directions for the building of nuclear bombs is perfectly fine. You have to wonder if North Korea's sudden leaps forward in their own nuclear program came because they got a chance to read the user's manual for the nuclear club. Note well, by the way, that the data published is from before the first Gulf War, which means it has nothing to do with Iraq's WMD program in 2003, said program having been utterly decimated by sanctions and targeted bombing runs.
And then, the kicker.
"With the public increasingly skeptical about the rationale and conduct of the war," reads the Times story, "the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees argued that wide analysis and translation of the documents - most of them in Arabic - would reinvigorate the search for clues that Mr. Hussein had resumed his unconventional arms programs in the years before the invasion. American search teams never found such evidence."
Translation: "Most of them in Arabic," it says. Directions for building nuclear weapons, written in Arabic, were published by the White House three years after the invasion, for no better reason than to do some CYA after the weapons of mass destruction failed to turn up in Iraq.' You're Kidding Me, Right? 11-05-06, 11:02 AM newnickname 'As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday's elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq's considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.
"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' "
Bush said extremists controlling Iraq "would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be "able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel." www.washingtonpost.com
Couple of problems here, as the article points out. First, the administration has spent the last few years saying the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil; now they're saying that Iraqi oil in the hands of anti-US rulers would be a disaster.
Secondly, Bush's figures are way off:
'Even if Iraq did not sell oil to the United States, it would not matter as long as it sold it to someone because the international market is fungible and what counts is the overall supply and overall demand, according to analysts. If Iraq cut off exports altogether, it still would not have the dire effect on the world market that Bush predicts, they said. The price of oil began rising dramatically in 2002 as the confrontation with Iraq loomed, but many factors contributed, including increasing demand by China and problems in Nigeria, Venezuela and elsewhere.
The world, in fact, has already seen what would happen if Iraqi oil were cut off entirely, as Bush suggests radicals might do. Iraq effectively stopped pumping oil altogether in the months immediately after the invasion. And yet the price of oil has never topped $80, much less come anywhere near the $300 or $400 a barrel Bush cited as a possible consequence of a radical Iraqi regime withholding the country's oil.'
Once again, that question pops up; is Bush dumb, or does he just hope that the people listening to him are dumb? I guess this particular quote was scripted - or did he ad lib the dollar amounts? 11-05-06, 03:51 PM FredPuli The more desperate your situation, the more desperate your statements, that's all. Dumbness has nothing to do with it: all reason goes out of the window, in extremis. 11-06-06, 10:19 PM DorianGreyed “Never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I'm steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife.” — Rev. Ted Haggard 11-10-06, 08:45 PM FredPuli The BBC has just been showing a clip from the President's latest speech. In it he says that , in decades to come, Americans will look back and think of Fallujah as they now do of Guadalcanal.
Hmm. Can somebody find the relevant text ? That comparison must surely win a prize for dumbest statement (now, not just in decades to come ). What happened in Fallujah, apart from driving tens of thousands of innocent civilians out of their city,making it akin to a ghost town, flattening large areas of it, producing no positive results but some truly negative ones and fuelling animosity towards America ? Wasn't Guadalcanal, in contrast, a decisive turning point marking the first victory in a campaign which ended in triumph over the enemy (or have we been the victims of some WW2 propaganda about it over here)? 11-11-06, 12:21 PM newnickname 'And years from now, when America looks out on a democratic Middle East growing in freedom and prosperity, Americans will speak of the battles like Fallujah with the same awe and reverence that we now give to Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima. (Applause.)' www.whitehouse.gov
Such self-serving and fatuous applause lines, throwing emotive words together without any regard for logic or history, show disrespect more than 'reverence'. 11-12-06, 07:28 PM newnickname Revisiting that tale of Bush's for a moment:
quote: 'One of the stories – interesting stories I tell is about the fellow that came here. He got kidnaped and he was rescued pretty early by our Delta team. I said, what's it like to be kidnaped, man? It must have been weird – Baghdad, to be kidnaped. And he said, yes – he said, I was in there with, like – I forgot the number – nine other people from different nationalities. He said, at one time I said, I'm going to get out and you're – you're going to get out and I'm not. And all these people said, well, that's a pretty pessimistic thing to say. He said, well, my government won't ransom me; yours will. And he was right. We weren't going to.
And sure enough, the Norwegian went for – I don't know what the numbers are – but they made a nice little living, because there was no – no push-back. There was no kind of structure. And so these weren't necessarily political people. These were people that just found a pretty good niche for a while. Made a couple of million dollars, nobody got hurt. And fortunately, our Delta teams found the guy, and got him out of there. But it was just an interesting story.'
As well as sounding like a drunk recounting a half-remembered Chuck Norris movie, is it possible that it's untrue?
'In the capital, the United States military offered a $50,000 reward for an Iraqi-American soldier kidnapped nearly three weeks ago. Ahmed Qusai al-Taayie, a 41-year-old translator from Ann Arbor, Michigan, was handcuffed and driven away by gunmen of a rogue Shiite militia while visiting his Iraqi wife and her family on Oct. 23.' apnews.myway.com
'Our troops, including my son, travel to many counties with "blood chits" in their pockets. These small documents say that, if captured, their captors will be rewarded for their safe return. The Military Commissions Act may just have rendered those chits worthless.' www.tomdispatch.com 11-17-06, 10:03 AM newnickname “The elections mean the American people want to know if we have a plan for success" George 'the answer is no' Bush
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
HANOI, Vietnam - President Bush said Friday the United States’ unsuccessful war in Vietnam three decades ago offered lessons for the American-led struggle in Iraq. “We’ll succeed unless we quit,” Bush said shortly after arriving in this one-time war capital. --- Isn't that a particularly dumb place to make such a statement? (I am ignoring the obvious inaccuracy of the statement.) ++++++++++++++++ 11-18-06, 01:47 AM Wildflower63 Too long of a thread for me to read it all and pay attention. Bin Laden's family has been a family friend and business partner of the Bush family for many years.
I have never voted Democrat in my life. I'm not exactly impressed with my own choice, Republican. One thing I have debated friends with is the fact that Bin Laden will never be found. Everything really is about money and politics and don't think I'm saying Democrats are any different.
Why is it that Saddam was found alive, the top dog, leader of Iraq, but our government just can't find Bin Laden? For political and financial reasons, he will never be found. My apology for not spelling names right!
Our government really is corrupt and Democrats aren't any better.
11-23-06, 09:53 AM newnickname "International law is being used as a rhetorical weapon against us. We are constantly portrayed as being on the losing end, and the negative end of international law developments." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
"Chertoff objected to the Supreme Court’s reference to the Geneva Conventions despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution states that treaties entered into by the U.S. government are the “supreme law of the land” and all four Geneva Conventions were long ago signed by the U.S. Executive and ratified by the U.S. Senate."
11-23-06, 10:09 AM DorianGreyed Unfortunately, that merely joins the other parts of the Constitution that this administration has decided aren't important.
11-25-06, 12:51 AM Wildflower63 Do you think the US government is not corrupt?
11-30-06, 04:22 PM newnickname ``There's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete. We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and grandchildren.'' George 'Mission Accomplished' Bush
Which mission? The imaginary WMD one, the democracy one, the how-do-we-get-out-of-this one... ? And how could 'complete', or 'victory', be defined?
Will this quote come back to haunt George? Hasn't he already lost the credibility and moral authority to say what continuing sacrifices need to be made for the sake of "our children"?
11-30-06, 06:35 PM frankvan What "battlefield" ?
11-30-06, 07:36 PM DorianGreyed I guess he meant Iraq, or possibly and more specifically, anywhere in Baghdad. Even the supposedly safe Green Zone has had attacks.
12-01-06, 05:33 AM FredPuli "I say, if at first you don't succeed, redefine success"
One young manager talking to another: a cartoon in last week's New Yorker Magazine Big Grin
The President seems to take great exception to the word 'gracefully' in this context. Withdrawing 'gracefully' means nothing, in his view. Perhaps the word sounds too close to 'disgracefully' ?
12-02-06, 04:57 PM DorianGreyed "I recognize that the recent violence in Iraq has been unsettling." - george w. bush, in his Saturday, December 2 radio address
The man is truly amazing in his grasp of the obvious.
12-03-06, 06:44 AM FredPuli Here's a lighter one, seen by a correspondent to New Scientist and reported this week. It is displayed as a notice in a Careers Advice Centre in Scotland and intended to help people get training:
" Scared of computers? Download an application form" ! Big Grin
PS , DG: Why do you now render 'george w. bush' in lower case?Does he have anything else that connects him with k d lang and e e cummings? Confused
12-03-06, 11:04 AM DorianGreyed k d lang and e e cummings chose not to use caps, and everyone seems to allow their choice to be the standard. I was taught that all proper nouns get caps. I see nothing proper in our President's name. To those that say I should respect the office, if not the man, I agree, and I often capitalize the title President when it shouldn't be. After all (to paraphrase bush himself), it's just a ******* letter. -------- In a vein similar to your quote, I used to see an ad for a instructional video to help illiterate adults learn to read. One of the sales points was the comment that all you had to do was insert the tape in the VCR and follow the instructions in the instruction book.
12-08-06, 10:15 AM newnickname If extremists emerge triumphant in the Middle East, Mr. Bush warned, “History will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know, what happened? How come free nations did not act to preserve the peace?” NYT
And what chance was there of "extremists" (who, exactly?) emerging triumphant in the Middle East before Bush's failed and illegal invasion of Iraq? I don't think he really wants history to look back at his two terms with 'unforgiving clarity'.
As the article points out, Bush is retreating here into vague and sweeping statements - presumably because they're difficult to contradict (like fighting fog) and because the hard details are just too awful to discuss.
01-02-07, 11:27 AM FredPuli After meeting the President a few weeks ago General James T Conway, the Marine Commandant,reported to marines that their Commander- in- Chief had told him and other military seniors " What I want to from you is how we're going to win, not how we're going to leave" [reported in today's New York Times ]
That is the utterance of a leader who has now lost touch with reality, is in denial, and is fixated with reciting words like a mantra. That seems "dumb".At least Comical Ali had the excuse that he was paid to do that and could be shot if he didn't. Or could it just be that what the President meant was that he wanted his military to find a new definition of 'win' ? Roll Eyes
01-04-07, 09:57 AM newnickname More denial:
"Our priorities begin with defeating the terrorists who killed thousands of innocent Americans on September 11, 2001 and who are working hard to attack us again. These terrorists are part of a broader extremist movement that is now doing everything it can to defeat us in Iraq." George, or his ghostwriter.
The article that quotes the above points out, 'Bush, helpless as ever to avoid conflating Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, once again combines these two unrelated realities as a cover for his misguided and disastrous decisions... ...These lines are rich in denial. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, and the invasion of Iraq has obliterated the planetary goodwill enjoyed by America after that wretched day.'
01-04-07, 11:28 AM DorianGreyed There is little doubt that al Qeada has some presence in Iraq...now. That they had less before we invaded is also factual. Now, of course, having helped sow and nurture the seeds of religious hatred among Iraqis, their presence is possibly a caretaker one, making sure that no significant period of time passes without some sort of "not a civil war" action.* Of course, they haven't acknowledged that they couldn't have done it without the US's help in removing the stabilizing effect of the secular dictator who kept the religious sects from warring in Iraq.
*To be fair, I acknowledge that Iraq is also a training ground for al Qeada, although I don't think it is needed or used as much as it was in the first two years of the US occupation. I imagine bin Laden closing the book on Iraq, saying, "My work here is done."
01-04-07, 06:05 PM Karrow al-qeada? Is this a new off-shoot of al-Qaeda?
01-04-07, 06:51 PM DorianGreyed Yes. Do try to keep up.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
