Sorry, Bob, but this is just more of the silver-tongue, selective puffing/wordsmithing that got us into that mess we're in and perpetuates it.
> More mysterious to me is how otherwise intelligent people can > believe the amusing hogwash about Bush's clever ability to > dupe the world despite having an IQ of a refrigerator, Bush was duped, plain and simple. He's only half-good at reciting what he's been taught by the neocon gang, and he's as stubborn as a mule. When one considers that he's sitting in the same seat as giants like Lincoln and Eisenhower, just to name two, one is left with the feeling that the institution of the presidency has devolved to figurehead status, with the real power hidden behind the scenes. Here's a simple way to come up with a blank: try to imagine Bush thinking of and writing something with the impact and enduring power of the Gettysburg Address. It's not like he's lacking for historical events to work with, that's for sure. Come to think of it, when did Bush write anything at all of consequence? Now my refrigerator, it exhibits intelligence. It's functional, reliable, dependable and trustworthy. It knows exactly how to calibrate a consistently useful climate, and it doesn't feed me cool-aid when I want water. I'm not sure if Bush is the worst President in history, given the weirdness of some of them, but he has more power at his disposal then all of them put together, and given how he's handled it so far, and with his ongoing attitude, I believe he is far and away the most dangerous person ever to occupy the office. From this standpoint I would prefer a refrigerator. > and > the omnipotence of the dreaded NeoCon cabal, which for all > their omnipotence at planning and executing intergallactic > land-grabs, can't even keep Bush's approval ratings above 40% > lately. And with this information right in front of you, you still don't see how flawed their 5-year-plan mentality really is? There is a pile of difference between pulling the most profit out of a Wall Street scheme and the needs of an enduring political system. This is the failure and tragedy of neocon thinking, exposed for all to see. It's high time we called this spade a spade and get busy running it out of Washington. > I'm further astounded by the criminalization of > policy disagreements, Yeah, launching a war is a "policy disagreement". Wow! And from the same person who is jumping up and down over the word casualty? > such that a 'neo-conservative' is > actually something evil and worthy of being hung for high > crimes, People are free to think as they wish, but when they actively subvert and undermine the nobility and aspirations of a democratic republic designed and intended to serve it's people, that's a different story. To properly grasp the magnitude of the coup d'etat they pulled off and which resulted in that invasion, one has to take into account the roles played not only by the neocon protagonists who coached Bush, but also the collaboration of our "news" system, which pounded the war drums and set the stage that he was put onto. > while an Al Qaeda thug like Zarqawi is a "just a > casualty" of an "unjust war"... That blows my mind. Guess either you missed the dictionary definition of casualty or are still trying to tweak mileage from your perception of the word. Another mountain-from-molehill anyway. What's really important isn't the spin on that word, but agreement that Zarqawi was a bad guy, and that he was. This is an aside from the angle you wish to focus on, but let's consider Zarqawi a little more: he got away with declaring himself Al Qaeda in Iraq, despite behavior Bin Laden didn't like. As details emerge, it's starting to appear that his own people turned against him for this reason. Nevertheless, he's gone now, and the vacuum will likely be filled by someone more closely aligned with Bin Laden's concept of dealing with a foreign military occupier. That is, Bin Laden's gang didn't like killing beheading innocent civilians, instead they wanted the focus on the military presence on their land. It seems that now, with Zarqawi out of the way, we're going to see fewer attacks on civilians as the emphasis shifts to the military. Unless someone is looking for an excuse for more war, this is not good. Now, consider the military's position. They are trying very hard to keep casualties down by doing things such as "standing Iraqi's up" to face the insurgency. If this plan doesn't smack of the losing Vietnamization plan, it's only because people forget. And, it's actually a worse plan than Vietnamization, because that plan at least pulled the military out. In Iraq, the talk isn't about complete withdrawal, it's about reducing the number of troops in country. Why? Because there is a tiny detail nobody wants to talk about: those permanent bases. The trick there is this: in order to maintain those bases, the core gov't connection, aka the Green Zone, will have to persist. Now, try to imagine a less secure Green Zone without thinking of the word "Alamo". Sure, they can call in an air strike every time a mortar team cuts a hole in a rooftop, and that might work for a few weeks ... > And then > there's folks like Sheen and Nick Berg's father who take that > line to even more absurd conclusions. Yes, let's focus on Sheen and Nick Berg's father, instead of the tens of thousands of casualties and every other monstrous aspect of what's happened and is going on. > I think their organs of ratiocination must operate on the > same frequency as Saddam's when it comes to sizing up the > reality of their own position, not to mention the > strength/weakness of the 'enemy's'... There is definitely a > bond of some kind between the moonbats that crosses > boundaries of language and culture... Can't figure out what you're saying here, but if you're still on the bandwagon preaching that we've only got a few dead-enders to deal with, I think people are beyond that. Questions: what are your thoughts about North Korea? How do you think it's possible that really bad guy, who has been developing nukes and missiles all along, has gotten zero attention? How about China's 30% increase in military spending because they can't trust us? How about the effect the attention to the ME vs no attention elsewhere is having on our image for the world at large? In the simplest possible terms: just how did the ME get so important that we would bet our farm trying to assert our authority there? If you're capable of coming to terms with these questions and can offer useful analysis and solutions, then I'll think that you're something other than a neocon supporter/apologist. Bill > :) > > - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
