Another 'Great American' Speaks Out!

[lunacy101L]

Well I can see that drug abuse and drunken driving are really something very close to your heart. And I would never attempt to influence anyone's past or present desires to destroy their brain cells. That's an amazing stat on drinking in college. 99% of collegiates endanger others by driving while inebriated? That's shocking!

Now back to our regularly scheduled program:

Dear Mr. Bush,

I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!

Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because ‘The Donald R.’ went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam’s right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.

1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:



“I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously.” --October 3, 2000



2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:


Powell: “We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” --February 24, 2001





Rice: “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” --July 29, 2001



2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.
2003: WE DON’T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!
2003: “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!
2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.
Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?
I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.
And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.
That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this country down.

[cxt]

Lunacy

This is exactly why I am so disgusted with the partisen politics.

You have a very detailed list of flops on the part of Bush.

And you are quite correct in that Bush has made an issue of "flopping" when his own hands are less then clean on "flopping" himself.

Part of me wants to throw back in your teeth the EXACT SAME EXCUSES KERRY USES WHEN ASKED ABOUT HIS FLOPS.

Cause if they are valid for Kerry--then they are equally valid for Bush.

But that would imply that two wrongs make a right--or somehow zero each other out.

More importantly though I think we as citizens deserve better than we are getting in terms of leadership.

We are so wrapped up in the various sins of "the other camp" that we don't spare two second to think--"hey don't I deserve better than this?"

From where sit, neither of these guys is a prize.

And it seems that its going to come down to whom is the least objectional person.

Not the best--the least objectional--and that kinda bums me out.

[KZMiller]

I feel pretty burned out right now as well, cxt.

http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html

Maybe this year I won't vote for a lizard. Maybe there's a libertarian ostrich running for pres.

Someday, a sane independent will stay through the whole game and maybe even win. I hope to be alive then.

Kami

[RACastanet]

Well Lun, you still want to hide behind a screen name. Until you have ther courage to indentify yourself I shall ignore you. A good example of a lefty coward.

Rich

[Gene DeMambro]

And why shouldn't he use a pseudonym, Rich? You challenged him to a duel, in effect.


Gene

[Panther]

NOTICE:

PLEASE BE ADVISED...

I have already contacted individuals off-list concerning the recent comments made by "lunacy101L" and the response from RACastanet.

IF anyone wants to jump in on either side, I will BAN you from this forum without hesitation.

The situation is being addressed and the response from the individuals involved will dictate any actions that need to be taken by the MODERATOR...

IF YOU ARE NOT THE MODERATOR, BACK-OFF... you don't know what's going on behind the scenes and it's not for you to get involved with!

AM I UNDERSTOOD? ANY QUESTIONS? Comments, SEND TO DEV/NULL.... I just don't need the crap...

In other words, I'm not putting up with snide comments and opinions. I've dealt with this kind of thing before and, unfortunately I'm going to have to deal with it again... I have been VERY hands-off with the forum for quite awhile... Being forced to be more hands-on does not make me happy in the least and now that I'm in a bad mood, I have little (read ZERO) tolerance for interference.

[Panther]

Well I can see that drug abuse and drunken driving are really something very close to your heart. And I would never attempt to influence anyone's past or present desires to destroy their brain cells. That's an amazing stat on drinking in college. 99% of collegiates endanger others by driving while inebriated? That's shocking!

Now back to our regularly scheduled program:

FIRST: I did NOT post a hard statistic. Never said it was. Never implied that it was.

SECOND: My comment (put in a joking manner) was directly referring to Ian's statement that he only had alcohol during his college years "less than ten times and never more than one drink per night". Which is FAR less consumption of alcohol than the average college student and knowing (as I do) that Ian is a Medical Doctor, that means quite a number of years in higher education... which makes it even more impressive, IMNSHO.

THIRD: In neither Ian's nor MY posts was there any mention of driving drunk and endangering others.

FOURTH: Your comment that drug use and drunken driving are close to my heart are completely uncalled for, without merit, inaccurate, inflammatory, and insulting. CORRECT THAT ERROR. I will not wait long... my patience with you has already worn thin.

FINALLY: Your lack of response to my private messages, obviously ignoring my messages, while still posting is unacceptable.

RESPOND TO MY MESSAGES, ASAP. You are the first (and so-far only) person to intentionally NOT respond to a message from me. CORRECT THAT OVERSIGHT.

[RACastanet]

Gene: All I want luna to do is ID him/herself. You and I do not agree on much, but you are honorable and do not hide behind an anonymous screen name.

Panther: another site I frequent had serious problems with trolls and flamers. The moderator of the sight banned screen names. The trolls disappeared into their holes or moved to another forum.

If you have an opinion but are either ashamed to be IDd or afraid to stand up for your ideas you do not belong on this site.

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

You want me to counter IJ, Jeff? Shoot... This doesn't bother me much. In my book, this is entertainment.



And what's with the drug and alcohol bit? Heck, if sex, drugs, and rock & roll stopped someone from being the leader of this free nation, then we're in trouble...



As for me, I'd give an answer simpler than Ian's - It's none of your damn business!

End of story.

- Bill

[IJ]

P, lots of people have funny voices. Bush senior, for example. Ross Perot. Of all the cocaine users I've met I can't say I recall one with a Clintonesque voice. Or any other weird voice. I've met several people with disrupted nasal septae and they had normal voices. On the other hand, people with sinus disease do have altered voices. More importantly, Clinton just had a 4 vessel bypass! I do think we'd have uncovered that problem earlier if he was a coke fanatic. I've seen it give a health young adult a heart attack. There are a ton of meth (related drug) addicts running around here in southern california, and they're also almost all undernourished and strung out. That's a hard charge to pin on Clinton, for sure, who acts more like my overfed kitty. This is a lot of speculation, but so is the charge, which is why I've never heard it before DESPITE the tendency of certain antiClinton publishers to get unsupported charges into the mainstream press--like that he was a murderer.

Just to continue that theme, I didn't mean I never drank more than ten times in college--I was referring to underage drinking. It remains true that I've never been intoxicated tho. Except, by the heady prospect of living in a country run by a man (or woman) I respect! (This is not Kerry). Sigh. That high didn't last very long.

I like Bill's response. Like I said earlier, this stuff is years old. W had a drinking problem too, and I'm not worried about it as the man has demonstrated sobriety forever. However (!) this does matter to his puritan fanbase, and it also matters (in a sort of slept-with-your-intern way, if you believe approximately 6 trillion republicans) that he has obfuscated and mislead about it rather than meeting the issue head on with an admission or a Bill style "butt out."

I agree with several posters that neither of these guys are model Presidents. This bickering isn't going to change any of our minds... Kerry does nothing for me; Bush however, I abhor, because he and his christian taliban has an anti-ian plank in their platform, and because I have been appalled by his foreign policy. More so than I imagine disliking Kerry's.

Last thought on foreign policy regards the suggestion to invade North Korea: these guys are reeducated nut jobs. They have a large, well armed, motivated army and a hell of a lot of well armed and well motivated friends just north of them They (so I read this morning) and their northern buddies who happen to be major trade partners of ours, happen to have nuclear weapons and are crazy enough to use them. So best case scenario: we lose thousands of boys and men fighting for the right to govern a bunch of reeducated ingrates who may be a constant threat to us, we spread our forces thin across the globe, and we give up on containment policies that have thusfar worked nicely, if imperfectly. Worst case scenario is nuclear war even involving China with millions dead, huge swaths of land basically uninhabitable, an a huge depression of the world market, all for an uneducated guess about the relative safety of the USA before and after another costly war. Post all links to optimistic appraisals of another Korean war HERE:____________.

If Bush has ambitions to take us to war around the whole world, he's wise to keep them secret until after november. In the meantime let's not risk the kind of conflict which holds the greatest risk of a worldwide catastrophe, and, when we see some kind of unspent muntion that landed in the middle of death valley, NOT kick it to see if it still works.

[lunacy101L]

I would like to hear him say, "I'm sorry. There never were WMD's and there never was a connection between Hussein and 9/11. There was no imminent threat, our lives were not in danger, no nukes were going to hit Richmond and the cause was our desire to get our hands on and for me and my cronies to carve up, the second largest supply of oil in the world, so we sacrificed a few thousand of your sons and daughters and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens. For this, I am greatly sorry."

The other thing I would like to hear is: Why haven't you caught Osama bin Laden? You've had three years to find him. The man killed nearly 3,000 people here on our soil. How difficult can it be to find a man over 6-feet tall hulking a kidney dialysis machine behind him?

[Panther]

lunacy101L

You have refused to respond to ANY of my PMs or emails. Yet you have continued to post here. That is unacceptable.

THEREFORE:

DO NOT POST TO THIS FORUM AGAIN UNTIL YOU HAVE CONTACTED ME DIRECTLY.

Just an FYI to others: "lunacy101L" is someone who's posted before and is back with a new username. IP addresses that are node-locked tend to give that sort of thing away. The other (multiple) usernames connected to that IP address haven't been banned from this forum, but had (shall we say) the same political leanings and attitude as "lunacy101L".

If there is a username change and the same person attempts to post to this forum again, I will PERSONALLY contact his ISP/WORK and file a complaint.

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian, I don't see anyone wasting troops on North Korea right now, or ever for that matter. They already are contained, and only misbehave so that they can blackmail the world out of some free aid to prop up their sorry economy.

If we wanted to get mean with North Korea, there is one thing that would put the fear of God in them - let Japan go nuclear. Believe me, they could do it in a New York second, and build missles accurate enough to put in Kim Jong-Il's living room. Nobody wants that scenario - least of all the North Koreans and the Chinese who might support them.

Bottom line - it's a non-issue. They're a yapping dog. The biggest thing we have to worry about is them selling arms or nuclear materials to terrorists or states that support terrorism.

- Bill

[IJ]

Agreed, I don't think we should go into the DPRK... but... it IS a major issue because it speaks to our whole motivation for war. What made Saddam's smaller, less well trained military, probably less well developed WMD, etc etc, MORE of a threat? Are there not acts of torture and political suppression in north korea? Aren't they part of the "axis of evil?" I would like to know how the crosshairs settled so clearly on Iraq. At the time, it was all about WMD. Honestly, I think a lot of it was (crazy despot, one of several) + (might have WMD, as do others) + (more or less same bunch as did actually bomb us on 9/11) + (would like to see gas tank region stable) + (tried to kill my dad!) = invade. Afterwards, with those WMD gone, most have said they'd still do it. What's different between an Iraq with no WMD and DRRK?

[Bill Glasheen]

What's different between an Iraq with no WMD and DRRK?

More than a few have posted this, Ian. Those who hate Bush choose to forget it. Check out many posts by myself, cxt, Rich, etc.

1) Violation of innumerable "last chance" U.N. resolutions. No matter how you shake it, no matter whether the U.S. and partners had invaded or not invaded, the net of Hussein's activities is that he proved the U.N. completely irrelevant. I wish I had access to an Ariel cartoon on the subject just before Operation Iraqi Freedom. It said it all.

2) Hussein's WMD's capabilities. By using WMDs on the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war and on his own people (the Kurds), Hussein showed he could produce WMDs and he would use them. By testing the U.N. like an adolescent, he was preparing to thumb his nose at the world and get on with his WMD programs.

3) Hussein's recent attempt to purchase uranium cake from Africa. This HAS been proven to be true. How much more convincing does the world need? Again, it was only a matter of time.

4) Hussein's constant shooting at U.S. and British aircraft protecting the "no fly" zone. Remember that the U.S. and Britain were preventing the oppression and extermination of the Kurds and the Shia with the U.N.'s blessing (with none of their military support).

5) French, Russians, and Chinese receiving payola in the "oil for food" program and with weapons running. What a joke that was. No wonder the French hate us. There's blood all over their greedy hands, and they were caught. And it's no wonder to me that there were opponents to enforcing all the many "last chance" U.N. resolutions. No more tricks for these U.N. whores.

6) Hussein's proven willingness to take over the bulk of oil wealth in the world. Decades of bad policy has led to a U.S. dependence on Middle East oil decades after U.S. oil production capacity peaked. And any politician behind the wheel when access to cheap oil is interrupted gets booted from office. Gotta keep those suburban assault vehicles gassed up, you know...

7) Hussein's support for Middle East terrorism. Hussein BRAGGED about his payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

8) Osama bin Laden being rendered completely irrelevant. We may never find him, but it doesn't matter any more - unlike what the whining Bush haters tell you. The Taliban are gone and bin Ladin is hiding in a cave somewhere - assuming he's still alive. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is gone, and the essence of it has metastacized through the world in various groups that will hate the U.S. as long as we are who we are and Israel is what it is.

Put all that together in the context of post-9/11 America, Ian. A president is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. Bush chose to act, with the support of Blair and company. The rest is history.

If Bush had chosen not to invade, the Democrat running for office would be blaming him for the Iraqi problem. Nothing changes.

- Bill