Re: BUSH SAY TO HELL WITH FOLKS WITH BRAINS! YOU'RE GETTING THAT BOLTON IDIOT!

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:55:07 -0700, Northern Storm
<forgetit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:36:51 GMT, FL Turbo <noemail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:57:06 -0700, Northern Storm
>><forgetit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 02:38:33 GMT, FL Turbo <noemail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>-----------------
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I figured a whole batch of Right Wingnut, who wouldn't worry what the
>>>>French thought of the USA.
>>>
>>>
>>>Interesting; I never thought of a desire to be liked, respected and
>>>well thought of as a partisan issue. I always thought it was a part of
>>>the human condition.
>>
>>It is.
>>
>>At its best, it can bring you admiration and respect.
>>At its worst, it can get you killed by people who will hate you no
>>matter what.
>>
>>It takes judgment to recognize who your real friends are.
>>It takes judgment to recognize who your real enemies are.
>>It takes wisdom to know the difference.
>>
>>>
>>>>But noooo.
>>>>
>>>>There's a whole batch of thumb sucking Liberals who whine and whimper
>>>>about how bad we are, and what have we done to make the Islamofacists
>>>>hate us so much.
>>>
>>>I don't think we "did" anything to make the Islamofacists hate us. For
>>>them, hating us was something they were taught from childhood. They've
>>>always hated us and always will and I don't think very many Americans
>>>of any political persuasion care.
>>>
>>
>>Well, just IMHO.
>>It is usually the Left end of the political spectrum who are most
>>willing to repeat the excuses for Terrorism advanced by Islamofacist
>>apologists.
>
>There is no excuse for terrorism, to be sure.
>
>Let me ask you this:
>
>Say I stumble around drunk through the bad side of town with $100
>bills hanging out of my pockets and I get mugged and robbed.
>
>When my friend points out I was foolish to have done so, is he making
>excuses for the violent thieves?

No

>
>After all, I did nothing "wrong"; I'm perfectly within my rights and
>the guys who took me down are violent criminals. Why is my friend
>defending those assholes???

If that is all your friend said, you couldn't accuse him of defending
the assholes.
If he started to make excuse for them and telling you that you had to
look for the root causes why they mugged you, then you need to start
thinking that with a friend like that you don't need any enemies.

You could even ask him that inelegant yet relevant question:
"Whose side are you on, anyway?".

>
>
>>
>>With a healthy dose of Bush Bashing thrown in for good measure.
>
>Well, he's an easy target not unlike most politicians. Numerous
>politicians, from both parties, spin and lie leaving us shaking our
>heads and laughing.
>
>But, when the lies cost American lives it's not funny anymore.
>
There ya go.
When the violent criminals from the bad part of town come into your
neighborhood and fly airplanes into your buildings, killing 3000 or so
innocent people, it is not funny at all.
(As if it was funny for them to be doing it in the bad part of town)

>>
>>>The loss of respect for America that's developed over the last five
>>>years is coming from those who America respected and counted as
>>>friends for many, many decades. That's what has more and more
>>>Americans concerned every day.
>>>
>>I would posit that it is just the opposite.
>>More and more Americans are seeing how our attempts to buy friendship
>>worldwide have only generated disrespect from those we have tried to
>>help.
>>
>
>Naw, you can't believe that really.
>
Just look at the attitude of the average American towards the French
as a kinda, sorta, indicator.

Not that the contempt for the French as Cheese Eating Surrender
Monkeys in entirely deserved, but it does tell you something.

The standard line from the intellectual Elites and the Mainstream
Media Elites does not support my take on the subject, but they are not
a good indicator of what the average American thinks.
(And I am, of course)

>Back when America first invaded Iraq, 80+% of American adults were
>behind the effort. Of course, that was during a time when this
>administration had us convinced that Iraq / Saddam had some
>involvement in the 911 tragedy and possessed WMD with the intent to
>use them at any time.
>
Well now, there is one Big Lie that has been repeated over and over.
The administration never, ever claimed that Saddam had a direct
involvement in the 911 Terrorist attack.
Yes, yes, there is a poll often cited that a lot of people believed
that Saddam was directly involved, but the administration never, ever
said that he was.
(BTW, It was not a "tragedy", it was a deliberate attack by
Terrorists.)

As to the second point of the WMD's, there is another distortion of
the administration's position that has been repeated over and over.

Bush never said that Saddam posed an imminent threat.
He said we had to deal with him BEFORE he became an imminent threat.

>There were some VERY smart folks behind that deception. Knowing the
>truth would come out one day, they were very careful never to tell a
>direct lie (about 911, not about the WMD which they lied about
>regularly).

You need to make your case about "that deception" before you jump to
any conclusions about alleged lies about 911 or WMDs.

Proving that the administration "lied" about WMDs would be the first
step.
Otherwise you are simply repeating the Mantra chanted by the Lefties,
ala Howard Dean, et al.

The biggest hurdle is to explain why all the major players in both the
Demo and Repo Parties, as well as the major Intelligence agencies
worldwide thought that Saddam had WMDs ready to go.

And then explain just where the Bush Administration got information
that went against all that.

I've never read a complete explanation that didn't involve some vast
conspiracy.

>
>It was crafted perfectly by having numerous administration officials
>nearly never mentioning the word "Iraq" without also mentioning "911"
>in the same sentence. The two terms became associated in the American
>conscience without one molecule of evidence every being presented they
>were connected in any way.

Oh really?
Any quotes you would like to furnish to back that statement up?

>
>Today, a majority of Americans agree the invasion was a terrible
>mistake. The last numbers I saw (couple of weeks ago) showed 42% are
>behind the war.

Well, speak for yourself.

In any event, Bush has no reason to be a poll watcher.
He will do what he thinks is the right thing to do.

>
>And the number continues to fall.
>
>>>>
>>>>A whole bunch of people like Voinovitch who hug their Kleenex boxes,
>>>>and whimper at the mere sight of John Bolton's mustache.
>>>
>>>Priority wise, the Bolton issue is down the list somewhere; it's
>>>certainly not on top. He'll be a short termer who, by his behavior,
>>>will offer the world some comic relief during a stressful time.
>>>
>>Don't bet on that.
>
>I'd never bet on anything political. Talk about a "game" of incomplete
>information.

Fer shure.

>
>
>>
>>After the current round of whining, complaining, bitching, back
>>stabbing, second guessing, moaning and groaning is completed, the
>>corrupt UN leadership will have to deal with him.
>>
>>They won't be laughing.
>
>Why do they have to deal with him? Because Bush will nuke them if they
>don't?

No, because he'll be sitting there at the UN right behind his
mustache, staring at them.
That will put the fear of God into them.

>
>That John Wayne act goes only so far.
>
>>
>>Even Kofi Annan has been making soothing sounds about working with
>>Bolton.
>>Kofi may be as corrupt as the entire UN leadership has become, but he
>>ain't no fool.
>
>Corrupt, for sure, but a professional diplomat. They'd be making the
>same sounds and presenting a "we're looking forward to working with
>him" attitude if you or I were sent to the UN. Be sure that behind
>closed doors they're laughing at a US president who was foolish enough
>to send a representative who couldn't even muster support from his own
>party.

The last I read, there were 56 votes to stop a threatened filibuster
that kept the entire Senate from the chance to even vote on his
nomination.

Don't you think he would have gotten at least those same 56 votes had
the Demos given up their Obstructionism and given their esteemed
colleagues a chance for an up or down vote?

I think they would have approved Bolton, had they been given the
opportunity to vote.

If there is any laughter behind closed doors at the UN, I'm sure the
MSM will tell us.

>
>Have you considered that? With the majority the republicans hold in
>the senate the democrats couldn't have stopped a Bolton confirmation
>if all the republicans agreed and stood together.

But you see, the entire Senate never even got the chance to actually
vote, did they?

How many times am I going to have to repeat that simple fact?

>
>But, they've been there before. What was it...twice?...Bolton was
>denied senate confirmation for other posts.

I haven't heard that before.
What posts were they?

>
>Republicans...democrats...independents alike; a majority of them agree
>Bolton does not belong in a job where he represents America.

Oh, Jeez, not again.
All I have to say is this: 56.
OK!!??!!

>
>>
>>>The degree to which Americans care about their country varies widely
>>>from individual to individual. I'd guess the majority couldn't care
>>>less who is sent to the UN. Others think it's sad, during a time when
>>>our reputation is in desperate need of repair, that we're sending a
>>>non-professional, mouthy, arrogant ***.
>>>
>>
>>You are correct, sir.
>>The majority of Americans don't really care who we send to the UN.
>>That's why the current round of Bolton Bashing is such a non-issue.
>
>Very sad, huh? I'm glad you care.

I've been reading about the corruption at the UN for quite a while
now.
It's a long, sad story.
I can furnish a few links on the oil for food scam if you are
interested.

>
>>
>>"Repair" our reputation by sending someone to grovel?
>>Don't be silly.
>>That has never worked in international diplomacy, and never will.
>
>Grovel? Who said anything about groveling? Where in the world did that
>come from?

Weeeel, maybe just a teensy bit of hyperbole there.

>
>>
>>>But, this too shall pass. For the next two to four years Bolton will
>>>be politely ignored by the professional diplomats of the world then
>>>his name will be the answer to a trivia question.
>>>
>>
>>He will be remembered as the first UN ambassador with a pair of balls
>>since Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
>
>Problem is the UN job is one that requires brains and judgement as
>well as balls.

He has plenty of experience with the UN.

Don't get fooled by the hype coming from the Demos.

>
>Getting arrested in Maryland, Mike Tyson had the balls to tell the
>cops to go *** themselves. He had the balls to bite someone's ear off
>in the ring. He's definitely got balls; maybe he'd be a good choice
>too.

I know you don't like Bolton, although I doubt you could recite any
real evidence showing a lack of brains or judgment.
(Yes, I know he has spoken harshly to a subordinate, and even slammed
down a desk phone once, and that displays a lack of an even
temperament, yadda, yadda.)

But compare him to a borderline retard like Mike Tyson?
I don't think so.

>
>I'm glad you care enough to participate in conversation on the issue.
>Sadly, it looks like we're alone here.
>

Maybe it's an indicator that the Bolton kefluffle is a non-issue?
.

Loading