Re: OT Presidents - was 'I Like This Group'

I see where Dusty contributed a long repetition of right wing rhetoric and
in the process criticized the left wing (and they're just as guilty) for
doing what he just did.
Have fun Dusty.

Max (neither righty or lefty)


"Just plain "Dusty"" <RV-dragger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:13pnbh51scaf10a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Good Saturday morning, "Max" & all;

"Max" <thesameoldme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:04vmj.2011$so6.717@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
...
Well, first of all, as the politicians are wont to say, and with all due
respect, I don't know much about you Dusty but I'm not prone to wasting
my time on someone who has a firm, established opinion that they would
rather not change. So I don't know where you got *your* information and
just how reliable you consider that source to be.
Likewise. I don't have "a" source of information, I have many. But then
I do something that's become something of an anathema of late...I THINK
about what I see and hear, and do my best to place it within the context
of what *I* perceive to be reality. I don't hold an opinion with a, "Damn
the torpedoes! I know I'm right and that's that!", philosophy. I
challenge my 'opinions' everyday as newer, better, more up-to-date
information comes to light. Bring me something new that redefines what I
thought I knew--and it passes the reality test, and I'll change "my
opinion" in a heartbeat. I don't know of any other way that one can
extract information and use it to build a case for the reality it's a
reflection of.

I would be willing to spend whatever time it might take to persuade
someone of something I hold to be absolutely factual provided that
someone will listen with an open mind.
Absolutely spot-on! I can be convinced of much, if one will bring the
requisite "facts" to the table (and demonstrate that they are valid--not
just "present").

But, here's a quandary; my opinion of the issues under discussion isn't
etched so firmly in my mind that I can't be persuaded otherwise and I
have no idea how open you might be to another point of view.
Excellent!

Sources? Years ago, while teaching fire ground management, a discussion
about hunches developed. If one had a "hunch" that a roof was about to
collapse, should he pull all the men out of the building? etc.
Hey! I'm all for following your hunches. There can be great value (in a
survival manner) in hunches followed. But you can't substitute a hunch
for a fact. And you can't manufacture a fact out of having followed a
hunch.

My response: A hunch is nothing more than the recollection of
information you have stored in your memory from previous study or
experience. So consider the reasons you have that hunch and you may
realize that it's based on your knowledge.
Absolutely!

You might say that I just have a hunch about the Bush administration. I
don't read the NYT. I distrust *all* the TV media. The source of my
hunch comes from so many sources that I couldn't begin to name them all.
I mentioned trade magazines and why I'm inclined to rely on them. When I
read a book, I try to find another book that might tend to disagree with
the original book. Looking for perspective.
Certainly looking for perspective is a valid and valuable adjunct towards
building a mental consensus (the root of opinion) about any particular
issue. But deciding that the administration is going about things wrong,
based on nothing more substantive than a hunch, is pretty lazy reasoning.

...
My opinion of America doesn't come from the NYT or any other single
source for that matter.
Then sadly, my friend, you should broaden your "input" horizons a bit.
Because nearly everything you state as your opinion seems to have been
lifted directly from the pages of either the "gray lady" or the DNC.
Given the broad range of sources you profess to peruse, I don't know how
you could possibly come to some of the conclusions you hold...other than
an ideological need to hold a "popular" view.

Take "global warming". It's a populist view with cult-like adherents.
And while temperatures seem to have gone up a few fractions of a degree
over some decades--that's what long term temperature trends do, they
change. But nothing about that suggests that somehow a cataclysmic
environmental change is in the making. Yet you'll find no shortage of
those willing to impose draconian measures on the working men & women of
the world in order to defer such an outcome. There's nothing scientific
or rational about such a view. It's strictly ideological...geared towards
accomplishing some outcome. And it's all 100% driven by propaganda of one
form or another. Trying to change/capture the mind of someone simple
enough to believe such folly, is pointless, as they have no ready
reference to what reality actually is.

That Iraq is a "fiasco", is an opinion--albeit one held by many. You
state that Iraq is a "fiasco".

Do you really believe that the US is incapable of doing a much better job
of preparing for such an action?
Nope. But there's a vast gulf between doing something and finding in
hind-sight that you made a mistake, and doing something different first
and then never having the opportunity to review the results of that action
that you didn't take.

As an experienced firefighter you must be well aware of the diameters
needed to bring enough water to any given fire situation. Pump losses,
friction losses in lines, nozzle sizes, the use of Wye or Siamese
connections, standpipe connections, pumper power and so on. It's easy to
be fighting a fire and realize that you should have brought in a 1" nozzle
on a 2-1/2" hose instead of the 3/4" nozzle on a 1-1/2" hose. The fire
never changes, and the general physics of fuel, air and heat-flow during
burning are always the same (relatively). You can say that you didn't
bring in enough water and can rectify that situation (or not, if by having
brought what you did the roof collapses instead). You learn. And next
time you'll do it better.

Unlike a fire, an enemy combatant--especially one that's taking a major
beating--can take action that makes your current "best effort" a poor
solution. So, is it the fault of the general for not anticipating exactly
how the enemy will change their response paradigm--from a nearly unlimited
number of available scenarios, especially when most of them would never
occur to a rational human mind? Or is it the fault of the CIC for having
selected the general he did? How could the general have known in advance?
Or the CIC? Second guessing is always easy when you're dealing with hard
results.

We're not fighting a 'set-point' fire in Iraq. We're fighting a
determined, learning enemy, one that hates us much more than simply
because we're there. No one could have predicted the outcome we find
ourselves in. No one could have factored in the effects of those long
simmering hatreds--that they'd be there? Probably, yes. How they would
be manifested? Probably not. In any event, now we're there. And some
faction hates us for being there. Others hate us because we're infidels.
Others because we're beating the crap out of them and their almighty
Allah. And others because they want to be able to run the show their way.
Now what? Run away? Give up? Finish the task?

You'd said in the previous post, "... I
just can't see the "vision" in Bush. He took bad advice for so long
...". To which I challenged you with, "... Given your position from the
stark clarity of 20-20 hindsight, what "bad advice" was he given (that
he took)?" Apparently unable to come up with an example of the "bad
advice" he took and ran with, you came up with the assertion that Iraq
was a "fiasco". I was simply trying to understand what you based that
on. Apparently--if one discounts BDS, nothing...

What was Bush's "vision" for Iraq? Initially, it was to stop them from
developing a nuclear weapons program, or so the administration publicly
That was one of the seven reasons given. Reasons, BTW; that were signed
onto by ALL of those charged with what's laughingly referred to as
"leadership" (on both sides of the isle) amongst our insipid
congress-critters--and deriding GB so hard today. Why? Because they have
nothing at stake. They can "change-their-minds" and pretend they didn't
mean it. The CIC can't. The body bags won't let him.

In any event, we stomped Saddam's excuse of a military into the dirt in a
few weeks, we effectively took over the running of the country. We
captured and/or killed most of his "leadership" as well as himself. What?
GB didn't have a utopian flowers-chocolate-and spiced tea outcome in mind
that came true in under 6-weeks? What kind of standard are you trying to
manufacture? At the moment Iraq is no threat to its neighbors, it's not
funding terrorists, they've held open elections, it doesn't have a
maniacal dictator on a quest for nuclear domination in charge, and it's
pumping and selling it's own oil. So it ain't perfect. It's a start...

stated.
Then it was to free the Iraqi people from the oppression of a dictator,
or so they said.
I believe that was accomplished. Was it not?

When I say I don't trust the media, I *do* think that when they show GB
or one of his representatives, they aren't using some stand-in to make
things up.
So when GB says something on TV, I assume it's really GB.
Yeah. And?

It appears to me, as it did several years ago, that the Bush
administration didn't do their research concerning the sociology,
religiosity, style of government and mores of the Iraqi people.

Now that's certainly true enough. As a population our citizens are all
somewhat behind the rest of the world in general education. How did
that happen, I wonder...?

HUH?? Am I to understand that because our "citizens are all somewhat
behind the rest of the world in general education", it serves as an
excuse that the Bush administration is behind the rest of the world in
general education??
Did I say that? I don't think so! What is it that you expected? An
administration is composed of...folks like us. And, by-and-large, too
many of "us" are under educated. When you get politicians telling us that
they're concerned about GW, or this latest vote-buying fiasco--trying to
sell the public an "economic stimulus" can be had by giving some money
taken by force from Peter to Paul, are basically STUPID! And fools much
like you and I keep putting folks like that in charge. What kind of an
outcome can you possibly expect from a basis like that?

C'mon Dusty, why didn't they do a little research. I'm not the only one
who
What makes you so certain none was done?

was curious about what was happening in the middle east. I had a good
friend who spent 4 years in Saudi Arabia as a Fire Safety Engineer after
his retirement from the EPFD. I could hardly wait for his return to get
some first hand info on that tinder box over there.
Okay. Your point? What did he learn or tell you about them?

The fact that the middle east has been a thorn in the side of civilaztion
for so many years should be enough to generate interst in anyone who
might be at all concerned.
Certainly true enough. Okay. Now what? Leave SH in power and all that
that entails because some folks there don't like us? What would you have
done differently that hadn't already been done? It's probably just me,
but as you so often seem to be, you're long on rhetoric and short on
suggestions. So the middle-east has been a thorn in the side of
civilization for so many years. We agree. So what? What conclusion or
course of action does that statement of yours portend? What could'a,
would'a, should'a been done differently?

Okay, given that we don't understand _completely_ all of the details of
the, "... sociology, religiosity, style of government and mores of the
Iraqi people." What is it about any of those that would have
ameliorated the need to aggressively remove a dictator that:
1) said he had WMD's and was working on more;
2) was threatening both eastern Europe and our allies in the area;
3) was financially and overtly supporting the "Palestinian" terrorists;
4) was threatening his neighbors in our vital oil supply arena;
5) was shooting at our airmen patrolling the "no-fly" zones;
6) was in material breach of his UN cessation of hostility agreement;
7) was in material breach of his UN demand for nuclear inspections;
8) and had the cash, the ability, and the technical reach to carry out
any manner of provocation?
...
1. Why was intel (that has been now established as available) that
Hussein had abandoned his ambitions for nuclear weapons ignored?
Help me out, here. Isn't, "(that has been now established as available)"
a 20-20 view of hindsight? At the time we went into Iraq, that
information WAS NOT available! Yes, it turned out to be wrong. While
others may have suspected that, only SH _knew_ that. You can't move (or
not) an army based on what some suspect... In addition, there is not now,
nor has there EVER been a shred of proof that SH had "abandoned his
ambitions for nuclear weapons". According to his own scientists: HE!
DID! NOT! He wasn't hiding his 500 tons of yellowcake, 300 tons of
Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60, depleted uranium (already been processed), and
1.8 tons of enriched uranium for the pretty colors! He was only playing a
waiting game until he got rid of those damned inspectors. And those words
come from his own scientists. Only a fool would consider taking a dictator
at his word on impending actions.

You can read more about that and the games he was playing from the IAEA's
own records from '91/'92:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/event.html read:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/iaeaplan.html as well.
Especially a few paragraphs down where they talk about his ability to hide
stuff in the desert.

And if you think that somehow he found religion and decided that this was
a bad idea and that he would voluntarily get out of the nuclear biz, I've
got a couple of bridges that I'd like to sell ya...(:-o)!

2. Threatening them with what. His missiles weren't capable of reaching
Europe. Even if they were, why wasn't Europe more alarmed than we were?
Our bases and folks in the area were at immediate risk, as was Israel and
others. Why? Do you consider those targets as "disposable" and
irrelevant if he destroyed them?

But this begs a wider question, when then, should action be taken? After
missile launch? Just before launch? He was working on them and along
with his new North Korean buds, he was developing that capability. How
close to success (in his missile dev. prog.) should he have been before we
took action? Come on! Give me a date!

3. And you think that would justify our invasion?
(NB: The reason was - financially and overtly supporting the
"Palestinian" terrorists;)
By itself, probably not. OTOH; just when "should" one take action?
September 10th, 2001? After all, before 9/11 AQ "had only" blown up a few
floors in the parking garage of WTC tower 1 in Feb. of '93, the Khobar
tower in '96, a couple of our east African embassies in '98, and the USS
Cole in '00--among a string of other attacks as well. Hundreds died and
thousands were injuried in those attacks. When do you think the
handwriting on the wall is clear enough to take action? Ever? Never?

4. Aha, now we're getting to the truth which is that:
the economy of the whole world (but especially the US) would be deeply
affected by disruption in an adequate supply of oil.
(NB: The reason was - threatening his neighbors in our vital oil supply
arena;)
Yes. Yes it would. But less so for us than others. But in general, it
would have put extreme pressure on the world economy and would have been a
major calamity. And you would have left a madman like that in place?

5. I guess the US takes the position that we can damn well fly wherever
we choose to.
(NB: the reason was - shooting at our airmen patrolling the "no-fly"
zones;)
Well, actually, yes. Yes we do. ESPECIALLY when we were mandated by the
UN to take that action to keep the Kurds (in the north) and the "Marsh
Arabs" (in the south) from being slaughtered by SH.

In case you'd forgotten, we fought GWI to liberate Kuwait from SH doing
what he wanted to do to his other "neighbors", and keep 1/3 of the worlds
oil supply (and the money that brings) out of his singular hands. *We*
and the coalition we built were the victors. As victors you get to
dictate the terms of surrender. In order to prevent attacks on US troops
still in the area, he was prohibited from flying without permission near
our bases. Unfortunately he used the ability to fly around them, to attack
and kill those of his citizens that had supported us during GWI. The UN
mandated "No-fly zone", was put into place to keep him from attacking
those defenseless civilians. In an effort to patrol and enforce that NFZ,
our airmen patrolled and flew through those air spaces, and SH continually
fired missiles and AA at us for doing so. Why? Did you think that him
killing more of his own citizens is a good thing? Or should he have had
"the right" to fire upon us as well?

6. Where does the UNs responsibility begin?
(NB: the reason was - in material breach of his UN cessation of hostility
agreement;)
Good question. If it was up to me they'd be thrown out of the country
post-haste. They can set up their corrupt operation in Belgium or
someplace that likes 'em.

7. When it came time for nut cutting, he agreed to allow them in.
(NB: the reason was - in material breach of his UN demand for nuclear
inspections;)
Um, not really. He'd held them out for years. And then only allowed them
to visit places he permitted them to see. Why do you think we found 500
tons of yellowcake in Al-Tuwaitha? While we can't know what he intended
for that material, if he'd turned it all into warheads, he could have made
for 140+ (depending on the process) with that much material.

8. You think he represented a more imminent danger than Al Queda?
(NB: the reason was - he had the cash, the ability, and the technical
reach to carry out any manner of provocation)
Yes. Yes I do. Why? Or better yet, why do you think that he'd be less
of a threat...and when would his "threat level" be sufficiently high in
order to get your attention? Just before or just after you can see a
mushroom cloud on the horizon?

There was information available about the government infrastructure and
perhaps more importantly, the oil infrastructure. The information was
there.
True enough. But how would a greater "understanding" have changed
anything? Also, why did you feel the need to toss in the gratuitous "oil
infrastructure" comment?

Cuz if you're banking on the oft-repeated slur/lie
that Bush did it for the oil, I'd have to submit that given the price of
oil these days, that reason seems a bit thin, dontcha think?

The price of oil is what it is because the Iraqi plan didn't work. That's
about as simple as it can get.
Really? And what would the price of oil be today if "... the Iraqi plan"
would have worked? And, while you're at it, what "Iraqi plan" would you
have implemented that would have worked and given you the outcome you're
railing against?

Despite the shrill heckling by the MSM, the price of oil is set by
availability vs. supply. And as long as our politicians won't let us
drill new wells and/or build new refineries, and/or use other forms of
energy, the trend we see today is only going to continue.

...
We know that now. Nobody (except Saddam) knew that then. And while I
continue to hear the tired refrains of "He had no WMD's! Bush lied!", I
rarely hear anybody mention the 550 tons of yellowcake that were found.
What did you think that was going to be used for? Cupcakes and party
mix? How can you be so sure? In addition to that, just how much of a
threat must one pose before you're willing to step up and take action?

What is your source for the 550 *tons* of yellowcake? That's news to me
and it would certainly make a difference in my opinion.
Well, given that it didn't get nearly the ink or airtime as "Bush lied!",
it's not too surprising that you didn't hear about it. As other posters
have suggested, it's not too hard to find...from many sources via Google,
so I won't further bore you here.

...
Certainly true. And, I *do* actively read and puruse those as well.
However, in my experience and analysis, they're only a tiny bit more
accurate than the MSM, and just as self-serving.

Well, they're more reliable than the "average". How about annual
reports?
Yep. There's certainly a spot of truth to that. My only problem is that
they tend to be a bit too sparse, and a bit too far behind "today" in the
typical 24/7 news cycle that we experience these days.

The Bush people were right to pursue Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and should
have concentrated on that pursuit.
They did. Are you, like our friend Don Lampson, saying that after the
Taliban (ostensibly the Afghan government at that time) were crushed and
UBL drifted across the border into Pakistan, that we should have invaded
a sovereign "friend" in pursuit of that ***?

Friend? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy?
I think that's another mistake the administration is making. Pakistan is
and has been a cauldron of corruption.
Certainly true! But you're saying that we should have invaded Pakistan to
get UBL! You? The same guy that said not the many words back that we
shouldn't even be in Iraq! So invading Iraq was bad and wrong and we
shouldn't have done it, but invading Pakistan would have been good and
we're bad for not having done that? Certainly the Pakis are probably one
of the most corrupt and dishonest administrations in that area, what
islamic, third-world, shithole isn't? They may be all that, but they
haven't threatened either us or any of our allies in the area, and they
aren't holding us in economic hostage. While their help in this matter
has certainly been anemic, they are at least helping. Keep in mind that
you're speaking of an area that even the Paki police/military don't want
to go into. It's a wild and lawless area. Loyalties there are to each
other, not to any government (the "tribal mindset" is a discussion I'll
save for another time...(:-o)!). In any event, the depth of support in
Pakistan for the Taliban is enormous! If Mushi did go after them hard,
it's almost certain that he'd be living in the midst of a revolution
forthwith. And I for one would rather not have to face victoric islamic
revolutionaries holding nukes!

If enough troops had been dedicated to Afghanistan, I believe UBL could
have been headed off before he got to Pakistan.
Sadly, what you do or don't believe isn't a viable method towards a given
result. The Iraqis and Pakis have a country to defend or die for. AQ had
nothing. Once their Taliban patrons got iced, they had nothing to tie
them there to "take one for the team". Like the international cockroaches
they are, they cut & ran at the first sign of trouble. That we could have
gotten them is a matter only of conjecture.

Saddam didn't run out of the country, we took it over pretty completely,
we had loads of cash and eyes to spread around, and it still took a long
time to dig the *** out. In hindsight, one can say that different
measures should have been in place when they thought they had UBL
trapped/surrounded. But the whole thing went so fast that that wasn't
possible. But, don't get me wrong, if it was up to me I'd give Musharaff
48 hours to produce UBL, or we go in after him their reaction be damned!
So, what do you think that would do to us being "cocky" or how we're
viewed in the world? No worries in those departments for you over this?

...
Now they have a mess there that could *possibly* have been avoided.
Agreed. As long as the operative word here is "could"; as well as your
own 'weasel word': "*possibly*". And, you having said that, have to
admit that you can only say that from the safe and comfortable perch of
20-20 hindsight.

Hindsight? The opium wasn't a secret. The tribal organizations weren't
a secret. In fact the US used as many of them as they could. We needed
*more* troops; troops that were being held for the invasion of Iraq.
There were no troops being held out for the invasion of Iraq at that time.
That's just an MSM concoction.

As for the opium; trying to get folks to grow something else has been
tried. It didn't work. It seems the profit margins on dope is far greater
then on carrots. As for the "tribal organizations", yes, they know there
are tribes, and they know they are organized. Now what? Are you
proposing to go in and force the tribes to behave (or not) in some
specific way? How would you do that? Send their leadership Hallmark
Greeting cards? What are you gonna offer 'em? How are you gonna make 'em
comply? Not to mention how are you gonna get to 'em in the first place.
It's not like taking the bus to the city-center terminal.

But I note with some amusement that you diligently neglected to define
some means to prevent/re-direct that outcome. So, what would you
propose those folks be coerced to do instead?

With a little bit of the cash that's flowing into Iraq, the resources
could have been provided to teach the Afghans how to grow crops that are
sustainable unders. harsh growing conditions. It's being done in other
countries.
That's been done, and I believe those programs are still in effect. But
you can't "buy" the Afghanis. It's hard to tempt a third-world peasant
with cash when they have no real need for it. There's enough cash already
being offered to make every member in dozens of villages
multi-millionaires many times over. But they have no banks, no stores, no
MTV; they'd have nothing to spend it on. So it doesn't mean all that much
to them.

It might be appropriate for me to ask you if you think the Afghans should
be left to their own devices (vices, <G>) It's OK for them to be the
world's biggest supplier of cocain?
Well, it's opium, not cocaine. But, that aside, no! Not at all. If it
was up to me I'd genetically modify some caterpillar to eat only opium
poppies and turn 'em loose. In a few years opium production would be
zero.

...
I think there just might be a difference between "steely resolve" and
obstinance. There's no crime in admitting mistakes.
So give us a thumbnail sketch of what we're being obstinate over? No,
there's certainly no crime in admitting mistakes. But first you'd have to
define a mistake, and then further define how it could have been prevented
or done better.

...
Is that how you treat your neighbors?
No. I treat them with respect and consideration. And in return they
don't try to impose their own values (or lack thereof) on me. Humility is
something one displays when one is wrong about something. So first, you
have to actually be wrong about something. That another thinks you're
wrong, doesn't make you wrong. You're wrong, when the situation and
circumstances or societal responsibility dictates that something is wrong.
Simply not being in agreement with others doesn't make one wrong.

Demonstrating a little humility doesn't equate to "surrender".
Neither does standing firm for ones principles.

It doesn't hurt to look in the mirror once in awhile.
I have. Yuck! (:-o)!

...
I could go on and on but.................
Please do! As it is, you've neglected to answer these questions that
I'd posed to you in my previous post (why is that, I wonder...?):
* What part of "foreign policy" did GWB "flunk" (your word)? And what
would you have done better/different?

How about a little diplomacy? How about what he and Condi are showing
now?
How much "diplomacy" would have been enough for you? Because the previous
12-years over 3 administrations with more than a dozen UN sanctions
certainly didn't seem to have done any good. How much/long would you have
suggested? As it turned out, he was using that time to further his goals.
How close to his goals of "owning" the mid-east should have been
tolerated? Any idea at all? Where does one stop "diplomacy" and start
reality?

And all of the sudden respect you've found for his & Condi's "diplomacy",
what has it done? By that I don't mean what speeches has it caused,
what's been accomplished?
(Please take as much time & space as you need to list 'em all...(:-o)!)

* Tell me of one instance where GWB imposed a, "We know what's best for
you!" policy that you find so patently offensive (again, your words)?
It's perception. It's perception.
Translation: I have no clue and can't point out an instance.

Many countries are of the opinion that the US would like the rest of the
world to be just like the US.
So, why are "we" responsible for what folks in other countries think?
They couldn't all think that, could they? Given the lines at the visa &
immigration counters, not that many folks are all that put off by us, are
they?

... They just have the notion that the US is trying to shove it down
their throats. I'm
I agree that we shouldn't be doing that. But I can't seem to put my hands
on any information where we forced others to either buy or take what we're
selling. Can you?

not talking about *my* opinion, it's what many other countries are
thinking.
But, since you started this opinion vein, in the past 10-15 years, how
many islamic countries have changed their opinion about us? Totalitarian
countries? Socialist countries? And free countries? How many won't buy
our products? How many won't sell us stuff any more? I don't think much
has changed...only our perceptions as fueled by the MSM. And I believe
*that* is where our greatest danger lies...

* Tell me of those consequences that should have been anticipated from
our incursion into Iraq (again, your words)?
It was no secret that the Shiites were extremely angry with the Sunnis.
It is only common sense that they would seek revenge.
In addition, any time the yoke of oppression is removed from people there
will be a certain "lawlessness" that will result. It's human nature.
Yep. True enough.

But what should have been done? Left SH in place and pretended that it's
better that way? Built a fence around 'em first? Tell me! What does one
do even if he thinks there's a good likelihood that there are going to be
problems? Nothing? Should we adopt the standard that we can do something
only if we can know in advance with perfect certainty what the outcome
will be? How would anything ever get done in such a case?

* Give me an example of his lack or loss of "integrity" (your assertion,
remember)?

For one, he kept changing stories about the reasons for the invasion of
Iraq . Read, "The President of Good and Evil". Disbelieve anything that
can't be verified and you'll still be left with plenty of evidence of
Bush's lack of integrity.
Oh give me a break! He did not Do you mean to tell the assembled
readership here that the words of the author of that bit of garbage, Peter
Singer, the founder of the "animal rights" movement, is someone that you'd
recommend as "intellectual" reading? What's next? Michael Moore on
'Honesty in Health Care by Government'? Or Al Gore in 'The Science Behind
Global Warming'? If you're going to read claptrap at that level, you need
to at least be able to separate fact from fiction. Given the weight you
assign to the content of the specious stuff you read, it's easy to see why
you hold the views you do.

Singer offers a peek at almost every significant policy that the current
Bush administration has taken a position on. And he does it in a way that
offers damn little in the way of new philosophical inquiry. Like any true
and clueless liberal, Singer attempts to pit rhetoric and prescriptions
against actions, jumping freely from topic to topic as if they were both
salient and connected. His grasp of reality and logic can best be
described as "mushy." His absurd leaps of logic do nothing to distinguish
his book from any of the other anti-Bush publications--of which there are
many. You should probably upgrade your reading list. Cuz the one you're
working isn't worth its weight in cow dung.

* You were decrying the lack of good choices for elections. I agreed
with you. Who would you suggest would be a good candidate...even if
your selection has already been 'pre-savaged' by the media. I just want
to learn from you what kind of character you're looking for.
...
I doubt that my specifications for a candidate would be much different
from yours but I don't consider any of the present bunch to be what this
country is capable of producing.
Now here we agree 100%--as far as any of the current crop of candidates
being a member of the "present bunch". As I'd pointed out in a previous
missive, why would any rational, successful, non-ego driven human being
want that job?

Oh well, it's been fun, but I've gotta git on outta here...


L8r all,
Dusty



.

Loading