Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to Should Bush resign for lying?
Glenn and Trevor . . .
Glenn, bring your reality. I've asked you over and over for evidence to back up your claims, and you haven't come through yet. Kick away, my man.
Trevor, thanks for identifying Mr. Graham. When I saw your comment, I thought right away of his father, who has done the honors so many times before, but knowing of his failing health I was sure it wasn't him. Calling the Grahams leaders of churches is a common error. You also raise the issue of making the terrorists angrier. Sorry, that hypothesis was destroyed when Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. If we get to a point where we, as individuals or as a nation, are afraid to take action for fear if angering someone, we are lost.
posted by
WriterofLight
on October 30, 2005 at 4:25 PM
| link to this | reply
More info...
http://www.counterpunch.org/cajee04112003.html
there's a link with info about Franklin Graham, the man who gave Bush's inaugural sermon, and also a close friend of Bush's. And I mistakenly said "church" when I mean "christian mission."
I consider "evil" intentions when someone knows they are doing wrong. I think Bush thinks he's doing the world a favour (read: good intentions) by invading Iraq, but it's utterly unjustifiable. It's just making Islamic terrorists angrier...
posted by
Trevor_Cunnington
on October 22, 2005 at 7:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Trevor Cunnington,
No! Bush is an idiot with bad intentions! Do not assume good when only evil is evident!! Keeps you from guessing!
posted by
Glennb
on October 21, 2005 at 1:48 AM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight,
You are good! You are earning every penny that they are paying you here! I would love to give you a swift kick of reality! Stop twisting in the wind you really sound foolish! Didn't you upbringers tell you it is not nice to lie??
posted by
Glennb
on October 20, 2005 at 9:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Welcome, Trevor!
Doesn't mean I agree with you, but welcome to the frey. You cover a lot in a few words (a rare gift around here!) The concept of an "evil man with good intentions" is a fascinating non sequitor, just like a good man with evil intentions. They just don't go together. You'll have to refresh my memory about who offered the prayer at his inauguration; if it was the old standard bearer Billy Graham, Dr. Graham might swat you with his cane if you called him the head of a church. He isn't. You'll also have a hard time proving that al Qaeda is homegrown. Right about the mujahadeen's history, but would you rather have had Afghanistan remain under Soviet rule then not been trained to fight agaisnt them?
Glenn, you absolutely astound me. A hurricane is an American crime . . . But while you are right about the need to get to the bottom of the bad intelligence, we also need to ensure that any WMDs that did exist are destroyed and never fall into the hands of terrorists.
Scoop, well put overall.
Debbie, that's been the implication of how it has been reported.
posted by
WriterofLight
on October 20, 2005 at 7:39 PM
| link to this | reply
I don't think Bush is an idiot
I do think he is an evil man with good intentions, which is more dangerous than an evil man with evil intentions. It doesn't matter whether or not he was wrong that there were WMD in Iraq. What matters is that his motivations for the war are so multifarious. It's like the crusades, chapter two, with the added complicating factor of oil interests. The man who gave the prayer at his inauguration is the head of a huge fundamentalist church that is on a religious "mission" to Iraq. What better way to save people than put them in trouble in the first place? The war against terror argument does not hold water, either, as much terrorism is homegrown. And furthermore, Reagan's administration was the one who trained the mujahedeen who fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, many of whom would become members of Al-Queda.
posted by
Trevor_Cunnington
on October 20, 2005 at 3:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Scoop,
For someone who is as read and watches as intently as you? You can make some very dumb assumptions! Katrina and it's aftermath is an American crime against it's own humanity! You can continue to insinuate that victims were too dumb to help themselves. But that lunacy contradicts reality!
Iraq and Bush are linked by lies! There are no excuses and you cannot plan a mistake! If Bush felt he was misled: There needs to be an investigation to answer a lot of questions! Here I have a few: By whom? Why? When? Motive? Punishment? Apology to the Iraqi Peoples? Apology to the World Community?
This administration is a very efficient criminal enterprise, but incompetent government! Not until Grand Juries are convened and indictments handed down to shake a few of these bat out of hiding, America will continue to wallow in it's own feces!
posted by
Glennb
on October 20, 2005 at 8:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Writeroflight let me take these one at a time
1-Indictment, this does not mean a person is guilty, they are only charged with a crime
2-The Katrina fiasco has been hashed over Bush, but is Bush to blame? Yes and No, there was some federal failure but FEMA yes, they had a bad leader in Brown and blew it big time, but the state really dropped the ball by not getting things in motion. I also think the people who lived there were a little stubborn and did not help themselves after being warned. This past week on TV on saw a show on the Coast Guard rescue and many people were refusing to leave and the pilot of the chopper told his rescue swimmer, "We can’t take all day if they refuse to go we are out of here"
3-The Iraq war debate will go on for years. I still say someone, mainly Bush was misled with bad information. I still feel we were told the invasion was because of "imminent threat" due to weapons of mass destruction. To me I saw to much "mission creep", plans changed constantly as to what the mission was.
4-No Bush served but like so many others who came from money and politics he was cut some slack and did his time here in the states.
Now old Bubba Clinton he is just a big ole lyin’ boy.
posted by
scoop
on October 20, 2005 at 5:35 AM
| link to this | reply
writer
>>>> Indictment by a grand jury is proof of guilt. <<<< Which media person said that?
posted by
DebbieDowner
on October 19, 2005 at 9:03 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight,
In the spirit of correcting a mistake! Peice, should read piece. You know?
posted by
Glennb
on October 19, 2005 at 7:51 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterofLight,
Wrong! Ole W has been accused of a very few but specific lies! Most you noted in your writing this peice of an excuse for my President being a liar. No mister, Mr. Bush is a serial liar!
You keep noting that Bill Clinton lied! So what else is new?? White males, when caught, have a history of esculating lying! "Evidence" is just an inconvenience. It is sickening!
posted by
Glennb
on October 19, 2005 at 7:43 PM
| link to this | reply