Re: what planet is this guy from?


"trotsky" <gmsingh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_HyXe.380269$xm3.49644@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ken from Chicago wrote:

<snip>

>> Considering that Bush said Wednesday morning after Katrina hit that no
>> one expected the levees to break and even I had known from the internet
>> that there had been multiple reports and studies and that even FEMA had a
>> practice run a few months earlier, "Hurricane Pam", how well-informed are
>> Bush's advisors keeping him? or how quickly-informed? To quote Don Imus,
>> "There's something wrong when I'm more informed than the president."
>>
>> And again, do you DISAGREE with Rove's comment that they should have
>> taken over local control?

<snip>

> so to hear him say what needed to be done after the fact without
> COMPLETELY blaming himself is hypocritical and idiotic. How do you guys
> like you put two and two together and get five--I'm just curious.

<snip>

Where did I say Rove or Bush was right?

I was merely asking the specifics--in this instance--of how Rove was
incorrect?

Would you have preferred Bush and the feds to have assumed local control
sooner, like Rove said, or should they have continued to wait?

>>>>Where are the Democrat politicians who've publically supports immediate
>>>>pullout from Iraq? Or the more ... curious ... things Sheehan has
>>>>reportedly said?
>>>
>>>
>>>The Democrats have an identity crisis. Criticizing them doesn't make
>>>what the Republicans do and say acceptable.
>>
>>
>> But do you DISAGREE with Rove's comments that no "serious" politician is
>> arguing for an immediate pull-out from Iraq?
>
>
> That's not what he said. He said no serious politician would show his
> face at anti-war rally, which is appropos of nothing. Republican Chuck
> Hegel, among others are already talking about pulling out of Iraq. Which
> doesn't even address the larger issue that we shouldn't have been there in
> the first place. As for Cindy Sheehan, until Rove has one of his gay
> lovers killed in Iraq he really isn't qualified to talk about someone who
> has lost a loved one.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere, you think the point is moot.

>>>>Do you think the Bush administration HAS done well in explaining its
>>>>success in Iraq?
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't even know what the hell that means. "Car bomb kills twenty in
>>>Baghdad" is success? (I think that was in today's headlines. I imagine
>>>most of us have become so jaded with reports of death there that we've
>>>stopped paying attention.) "Success in Iraq"? It boggles the mind. I
>>>can only assume you simply lack the imagination to understand what the
>>>conditions are like there. Wouldn't it be funny if you were walking down
>>>the street and got hit in the face with an eyeball because somebody's
>>>head exploded from a car bomb?
>>
>>
>> Considering you can't imagine anything positive occurring in Iraq, it
>> sounds you agree with Rove's statement that they have done a poor job of
>> explaining what, if any, successes they've had in Iraq. Or do you
>> disagree?
>
>
> I disagree, because there is nothing to explain. That's why the words

You don't believe the removal of Saddam Hussein was a success?

Allowing for the fact they disbanded the Iraq army which displaced many of
them into idle unemployment and candidates for terrorism, failed to secure
the ammon supplies so that many of their own weapons were turned on the
Allied forces, ignored the questions about having enough troops to secure
the country after seizing it so terrorists can flood the country and
threaten the fragile stability, have been unable to even secure the road
from the airport to Baghdad, undersupplied the armed forces so they are
forced to scrounge for metal to forge makeshift armor for their vehicles and
for body armor or ask for families and friends to send same from home, etc.

(See also "pyrrhic victory")

Saddam Hussein had "successes" when in power of having stability, limiting
random unsanctioned terrorism, and a relatively secular government. Altho
more than a few, to say the exceeding least, would argue those "successes"
were more than outweighed by the costs to maintain them. You can have a
"success" in escaping from a burning car, but if you tumble off a cliff in
the process it might be considered a NET "failure".

> "quagmire" and "Vietnam" keep popping up. We are mired in a no-win
> situation, and the body count just gets higher and higher. If you are
> really going to sit there and tell me we should "accentuate the positive"
> in all this you are just clueless. Rove is a professional liar. Agree or
> disagree?

Where did I say we should accentuate the positive?

Agreeing with a handful of points while disagree with ten times that amount
is not accentuating the positive. STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION had, in my
opinion, one of its worst seasons in its seventh and final seasons, but it
also had its best episode, "Lower Decks". In the middle of an acre of manure
a flower might grow--but that doesn't mean you had to trudge thru half an
acre of manure to get to it . . . or that it was worth the trip.

<snip>

>> I have not dog in fight, for or against Bush, obviously you disagree with
>> at least a few of their policies, to say the extremely least, but I can't
>> see what Rove said that you or Bush critics disagree with.
>
>
> Yeah, he's a good guy. He's the architect of thousands upon thousands
> dying, NOLA included.

And if Rove said the Sun rose in the East and set in the West would you
disagree merely because you hate him?

-- Ken from Chicago


.

Relevant Pages