Who else but Bush, someone once said that 'no-one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the average American' ( PT Barnum ? ) I thought about this the other night when Dubya was speaking on TV his insult to Americans this time was not Iraq or illegal torture or even the highest number in the world of people in jail, no this was an insult to savor he spoke about Americas failures in Vietnam. Some 50,000 American lives lost and he chose to use the Vietnam war to bolster his stance on Iraq.
So why is this so bad ? well many of you will be well ahead of me by now, yes that's right the President of the USA George W Bush is a draft dodging coward this dishonourable pathetic excuse of a president used his family's wealth and connections to avoid the war, he now gets away with criticism of how the war was prosecuted, how low can this man get ? how does he get away with it ? are the American people really that stupid ? it would seem so.
The Republican right attacked Clinton for missing Vietnam and elected Bush, conveniently avoiding a slight difference between them which was that Clinton opposed the war, the coward Bush was happy to support it with the proviso that someone else would do the fighting, he was all for fighting those pesky commies as long as he didn't have to get shot at, 'let the little people get shot at' as the late truly awful American Billionaire Leona Helmsley would have said
I truly despair at what this great nation has become, This dreadful President Bush makes Nixon look cuddly, he's a coward, a liar and a crook - all together now join in "God help America, my home sweet home"
Friday, August 24, 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Have you ever heard of the Daily Kos? You should check it out.
I think you will find that the main reason Clinton is despised is that he skipped the country and protested the war from Oxford, something that was, and still is seen as cowardly.
Well done for getting through an entire post without referencing the SNP.
Well said - Dubya is a draft dodging coward.
Problem is, this makes Churchill, who DID face the enemy (Sudan, South Africa, France)look like a true, grade A, British Hero.
Can you live with yourself
Followed closely by councillor Terry Kelly an overweight minor politico, who despite living off the labours of those who actually produce goods and services has no understanding of the free market.
A question for you councillor have you ever served in the armed forces, or like the man you lambast - who did not dodge the draft -do you let better men do the fighting and dying for you?
Indeed maybe a chorus of God Help Scotland with dire people like yourself in local authorities.
Oh and lest we forget you are a jew hater as well.
You accuse us of writing in green ink!
Your capitalisation puts me in mind of a child, 6ish, holding a crayon in his fist with his tongue lolling out of the side of his mouth as he writes his fist letter. The political analysis is as mature as the typeface.
RFS - I'm delighted to see your preference for Bush over Clinton.
When the old crook Dubya is reduced to relying on support from the likes of you he's had it.
I think that President Bush relies on other people's support. And indeed as a British Subject I cannot offer such support.
You however are in the full throws of BDS and it is a delight to watch.
Byeck - Churchill was never happier than when blood was being shed he was a war monger.
And all the other things I said about him are, as far as I'm concerned true.
The difference between him and Bush is that 'good ol boy' George probably has the edge on the Cretin Churchill intellectually.
Anon - 'hypocrite' I understand the free market very well thank you, that's what annoys people like you.
Have you ever put your life in another man's hands ? Asked another man to put his life in your hands ? That's what we do, you cant handle the truth !
max - if you want printed don't try to advertise on my site.
jackart - I seem to have upset you.
JACKART - I SEEM TO HAVE UPSET YOU!!!!!!
RFS - Bush ? you give him moral support, you share his morals, I'm glad that you like him, really, you have so many similarities, it's nice for you to have a hero.
Advertise on your site? What on earth are you talking about? I included a link to one of the most popular blogs in the world - he certainly doesn't need your "publicity", even if he appears to have been wrong on this occasion.
No one ever went broke working out the intellect of Terry either. Start at 10 and work down...
max - I've no idea what you are on about, who is 'he' who is wrong on this occasion, what is he wrong about ?
Look it up for yourself. I am not doing your research for you. Although right now everyone else reading this agrees with me about you having it.
with all respect, mr. bush is not technically a draft dodger.
he may be a military deserter, or he may have just decided to quit showing up for his national guard service right before the drug test and no one cared to notice (that part's a little fuzzy), but he did actually wear a flight suit on the weekend and serve as an ardent defender of certain texas and alabama airfields.
dick cheney, on the other hand, could be more appropriately described as someone who made every effort to ensure he never served a day in uniform.
Why is there a link to join the Labour party on this site when a Labour Govt has taken us into disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
fake consultant - I stand corrected I have been unfair to Mr. Bush I feel terrible now.
I'm persecuted now by the thought that I might have been unfair to him in other ways but what's done is done.
I'll just have to be more careful, he's lucky to have you fighting his corner.
anon - 'Labour link' I could provide you with a list of Labour positives but, I doubt if it would get through to you.
- Positive to Margaret Thatcher now Brown's favourite
- Positive to Tory Racists - give them a job in Govt.
i defend the man...because i care.
but while we're on the subject, allow me to begin the process of apology over the mess we made of these past several years.
i can only tell you that until recenly the president was able to delude enough voters to keep this thing going; and finally we are getting sick enough of the results of this administration to demand change.
anon - perhaps I could try to take you more seriously if you gave us your political perspective, which party are you in ? who gets your vote ?
Crawl out from under your stone.
fake - consultant - fair comment, I wish you and the great American people well in the search for change.
If Hilary Clinton wins the White House and serves two terms - the presidency of the USA will have been held for almost 30 yrs. by two families -
What do you make of that ?
i find edwards a better choice, personally, for several reasons:
first, edwards has advocated, as a national security issue, the idea of building schools and wells and improvements in small communities all over the world.
the (obvious) idea is that the us, by doing good, would improve a severly damaged image. not to mention making people happy is generally a safer foreign policy than pissing them off-our current policy.
second, edwards suggests a fair way to provide more amereicans postsecondary education is to provide books and tuition for those willing to commit 10 hours a week to national service. (in fairness, although we do not provide no-cost college in any substantial form today, we do allow anyone who can afford it to attend any school that will have them. this freedom would not be affected by this proposal.)
further, edwards is more willing than clinton to remove combat troops and open up discussions with iran, syria, and the players in israel/palestine. even north korea is invited to the table without preconditions.
if that wasn't enough, edwards has proposed a hybrid private or voluntary canadian-style (single-payer) public health care system.
just for the record, he has acknowledged the structural difficulties of a conversion directly from a public, mostly customer-driven system (note the use of the word customer, as opposed to patient. that was intentional, and was intended to reflect the role of "billpayers"-insurance companies and employers, who pay for most us health insurance-and privately employed providers as customers, too) to a system like the nhs that employs all providers "under one roof" as one reason he proposed the hybrid plan, and not the nhs-style structure.
but as to your original question: i'm not sure the concept of 26 years with two families is in itself inherently evil.
i suspect, instead, the real question becomes: who are those families?
in this case, i would prefer someone else take the reins of power; but if leonardo davinci had entered american politics, had done a great job, and his wise and helpful descendants then chose to accede to the american "throne", my opinion might be different.
all that said, if the choice was between clinton and any currently projected republican opponent, what do you do but hold your nose and vote for her?
it is well evident that in a world with identifiable differentiations in unpleasant choices, choosing clinton would be far less unpleasant than choosing anyone from the republican field by a margin that might well be described as a "quantum leap".
Fake consultant - I confess to not yet being up to speed with the candidates except the big names, it's early days yet but I will be watching it closely, Edwards seems like an interesting and decent guy, my question is, with his policies as you describe them how is anyone going to prevent the media from frying him ?
America has the potential for greatness - if it chooses to liberate rather than subdue, if it throws off the vested corporate interests in politics and lives by it's constitution, one of the greatest documents in history, cruelly betrayed by present and past administrations.
Two families in control for 28 yrs. May or may not be a good thing but I think Hilary is up to it and therefore gets away with it while Dubya fails, would he have done it without dad ?
I'm not being deliberately provocative here but I have always thought that in recent history the democratic presidents, Clinton, Carter, Johnstone, Kennedy etc have been far more capable than the republicans, out of Nixon, Bush sen. Reagan, Ford, Bush Jnr. Only the first two named republicans are up to speed with Nixon being as capable of any of the whole lot from both sides, what does that say ?
I think Hilary will win.
a few comments:
because of changes to the timing of various states' primary elections, the nominating process for democrats will likely be over by the middle of february.
(this is a unique election cycle in this regard, and you will want to get up to speed on the "big 3" at a minimum-while you still can.)
as a result, edwards and obama have to move much faster than normal to gain traction with the public. (and as you rightly suggest, edwards is being attacked by the mainstream media for his effort to alter the economic landscape.)
the difficulties for hillary revolve around the perceptions that she will say whatever is required to get the votes she needs and the percieved "woodenness" of her personality.
there is considerable controversy in the democratic community regarding the degree that hillary may or may not be a corporatist, as opposed to a progressive, and that may be the biggest hurdle she has to overcome in the primaries.
this perception is related to mr. clinton's efforts to get nafta passed, despite the opposition of traditional democratic constituencies, such as labor unions.
in the general election, a smear campaign will emerge from the republican side. the focus on whitewater will return, and her ability to "see through the fog" that is represented in that event will be the biggest hurdle she'll face in the general (november '08) election.
(to understand the tangled nature of the whitewater affair, one need only note the "foggy" nature of the wiki page i linked in the preceeding paragraph.)
republicans are likely to exploit these concerns in an effort to "rally the base" (a repetition of the rovian 50% + 1 strategy). obama and edwards also use hillary's electability as a campaign issue to varying degrees.
switching subjects, american presidents seem to have split personalities: it is almost unheard of for a president to be a force for positive change on both the domestic and international fronts.
mr. nixon, for example, was highly successful in his effort to create rapprochment with the ussr and china, but he was also the president of watergate, kent state and the first domestic surveillance battles. (he also failed in his efforts to pass an early version of the evil usa patriot act-senate bill 1.)
there is a strange breed of republican who believes the dismantling of the federal government is a desirable goal, and you have to examine the records of mr. reagan and the two mr. bushes in this regard.
mr. bush, with cheney pushing from inside, has embarked on an effort to tear down every element of government possible, and by that measure he has been quite successful.
the reagan/thatcher meme is well known and does not require additional discussion here, but the results of those policies are obviously coming home to roost today.
to understand this type of politician it is vital that you understand their motivations. they are not trying to run an effective administration-exactly the opposite seems to be true...the effort seems to be to discredit government as a tool to solve problems.
finally-it is our greatest struggle as a nation to deal with the liberation vs. subjugation issue.
our very founding was based on the tension between those two concepts (can a free people own other people?), and we have even gone to war with ourselves in an effort to bring the question to a conclusion.
we have martyrs from the struggle (mr. lincoln, martin luther king, malcolm x, rosa parks for starters-even mr. johnson, who pursued the "great society" despite the opposition of his own electoral base.)
this election is about what kind of a nation we will become-and it is going to be a struggle between those who fear the future and those who see this country again making a "great leap forward" to greatness. (sorry about that. i have an odd sense of humor sometimes, and i wasn't making a socialist jab. honest.)
Well, I Googled it, but I could find neither a President Johnstone, nor a President from Johnstone, execpt for the president of the local pigeon fanciers' club. The nearest I got was a ceratian Lyndon Baines Johnson. Bit of a shady character there. It's worth looking up but I'm fairly sure you won't bother.
jim lewis - do you really want people to see that your idea of a triumph is spotting a spelling mistake ? still perhaps at your level.
I'm tempted to print all the mistakes that you have sent me.
"Have you ever put your life in another man's hands ? Asked another man to put his life in your hands ? That's what we do, you cant handle the truth !"
No, I'm racking my brains, but I can't see how my life is in the hands of my local councillor. Sorry - think there's a touch of the ego there, Terry.
Be my guest. Let's make it a count back. Fancy a wager?
I think Jim's point here is your lack of attention to detail. Along with that Ian Hamilton guy your claim that Carter is better than Reagan (or indeed any other President of either side) just destroys your credibility.
You really are your own worst enemy.
fake consultant - I don't agree with all of this but I have to admit for an American, if you are one, it's a breath of fresh air.
winner - Im in ahurry - Nathan Jessup ?
jim - I said I was tempted but I realise how petty it would make me.
I can understand you mistakes and all - if I made more mistakes than you, would that be a triumph for you - you've never won an argument so you resort to this.
How many humiliations Jim ?
RFS - You and Jim and most others make mistakes when writing to me, if I can understand you I ignore them, if I picked up on them I would be worried that people would think that I have lost the argument and resorted to that kind of thing to try to salvage something, not something that worries you obviously.
Can I be my own worst enemy with you lot out there ?
No, that's not me. To be honest, I don't really want you to know my name. The point I was making is that there's a saying, from American politics, that the Republicans are the party of winners, while the Democrats are the party of losers. The point is, I work fifteen-hour days, give life my all and am successful - a "winner". I don't like a bunch of socialist "losers" trying to take all that away from me.
Winner - That might well be the American saying about Republicans and Democrats but my perception of both is one of massive corruption with the democrats being the lesser of two evils.
I don't want to rain on your parade 'winner' but, I find it genuinely difficult to accept that anyone who works 15 hrs. A day is a 'winner'
'Socialist losers' as you call them are working toward a far greater prize than personal success, they are trying to create a better world, that's worth more than any wealth.
nice one teryy you never said a truer word
...and who's the big tough sideklick of this draft dodger then Mr Kelly? Oh yes that's right one of your heroes...One Tony Blair.
Anon - couple of mistakes here about Blair - he's not my hero and he's not a draft dodging coward. Anyway the CIA are on to me and I have to watch what I say about the cretin in the white house oops.
Post a Comment