| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: The Real George Bush Posted by: Baldwin - [39358714] Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 18:28 Just to be fair. Sure he's not running but everyone is running against him, so... | |||||||
| 1 | Baldwin ID: 39358714 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 18:29 |
| ||||||
| 2 | biliruben ID: 33258140 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 19:00 |
George Bush is Frodo? ;) Yeah, yeah. I know. With frodo the words didn't show. | ||||||
| 3 | Baldwin ID: 39358714 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 19:39 | Wraithlord | ||||||
| 4 | nerveclinic ID: 105222 Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 11:17 |
Wraithlord Yeah well in the 80's ots of people Claimed Reagan was the anti Christ, then it was Bush Sr., or the pope. There's a long list of people who were declared the bringers of the end times and it never panned out. Not sure what Wraithlord means, but Bush seems too stupid to possibly be deserving of that title. | ||||||
| 5 | biliruben ID: 4911361723 Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 12:23 |
As I recall, a wraithlord was the leader of the 7 kings of man who were corrupted by Sauron. Yeah, I'd just put him down as an ordinary ringwraith. Now Bill Clinton... ;) Anyway, the rings he made for the ringraiths were more ornate. That's Sauron's ring there. Spending waaayyy too much time over-thinking this. | ||||||
| 6 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 13:03 |
Nerve: Bush seems too stupid to possibly be deserving of that title. One of the reasons why the left, moderates, and conservatives have been ineffective against him is not because he is stupid. Like it or not, dimpled chads or not, Bush won the election in '00 and '04. He also won against the incumbent Texas governor. I'm not trying to tell you that he's a scholar in Texan clothing. What I am saying is that I think the reason why Bush keeps getting his way is because folks underestimate him and I wouldn't be surprised if he counts on tha. | ||||||
| 7 | nerveclinic ID: 105222 Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 13:36 |
Like it or not, dimpled chads or not, Bush won the election in '00 and '04. He also won against the incumbent Texas governor. I'm not trying to tell you that he's a scholar in Texan clothing. What I am saying is that I think the reason why Bush keeps getting his way is because folks underestimate him and I wouldn't be surprised if he counts on that. Box, I'm not trying to be flippant when I call Bush stupid. I've heard the man talk for 8 years now, I've heard words come out of his mouth that make me wonder if he is really still sober. I've wanted to reach into his mouth and help him finish a sentence or correctly pronounce a simple word. I sincerely believe with no prejudice that he's not very bright. (For someone with a Yale degree) I'm not afraid to call someone I don't like intelligent. Reagan was smarter then he acted, and daddy Bush seems a good bit brighter then the son, and I didn't like either of them. (of course there aren't really any politicians I do like so take that for what it's worth.) It doesn't take a genius to win elections, it takes the backing of powerful, wealthy individuals who want you to be their boy. In Bushes case it was oil interest and the war machine that needed the invasion of Iraq. I firmly believe this. Bush has been their boy for a long time. When you need a "boy" to do what you want done, it's best he not be to bright or he might actually think he knows better. If an Obama wins, it likely means that there are powerful forces in this country who have come to the conclusion that we need to raise taxes and implement national health care. They work both sides of the coin. Come on Box, you've heard the guy talk enough, he's not going to win any intellectual contests. He actually has a very, very good sense of humor though and has made some classic off the cuff jokes. | ||||||
| 8 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 13:53 |
Come on Box, you've heard the guy talk enough, he's not going to win any intellectual contests. I'll never say he will. But I am telling you he's not dumb, by Yale standards. Look at the price of oil before his presidency. Now there are other factors (China, India, etc.), but Bush has engaged in two wars in the Middle East and helped to enflame things with Iran that have driven up the price. Mission accomplished for an oil man. W could very well be somebody's "boy" as you call him. I'm not slamming the door on that concept. I see him as an effective administrator. He usually accomplishes what he wants done; especially on the big things. Do we really need to occupy and nation build Afghanistan? Not really, but he wants a pipeline and fresh supply of poppy so we do what we're doing instead of killing Taliban and Al Qaeda and now the finding of UBL, Zawahiri and Mullah Omar are bullet points of a different mission. Same goes for Iraq. Yeah the freedom thing is nice, but that's window dressing for creating a friendly state with vast oil reserves and strategic bases for the next war; Iran. Intelligence shouldn't always be measured by Madman type standards. That guy is a genius. There are different kinds of smart though. Jeopardy-smart, genius smart, and administrator smart. I'm sure there's some more. W is administrator smart. The guy wins. | ||||||
| 9 | nerveclinic ID: 105222 Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 17:14 |
Do we really need to occupy and nation build Afghanistan? Not really, but he wants a pipeline and fresh supply of poppy so we do what we're doing instead of killing Taliban and Al Qaeda and now the finding of UBL, Zawahiri and Mullah Omar are bullet points of a different mission. Same goes for Iraq. Yeah the freedom thing is nice, but that's window dressing for creating a friendly state with vast oil reserves and strategic bases for the next war; Iran. (I might add here it's been a gold mine for his friends in the military industrial complex.) Box I and several others here have written the two paragraphs above dozens of times the last few years, I sincerely and humbly welcome you to our click. So now the only question is, was Bush the "smart one", or did he do what he was told? If you are suggesting he orchestrated the strategy you outlined above he truly is a genius, my guess is he was just following orders. Let's no longer debate that, I'm just thrilled to read your premise of the purpose of the Bush Admin. Don't get me wrong, they are all "someones boy" Dems and Repubs, Hillary, Obama and McCain. Likewise Johnson during the Viet Nam war. I'm not a partisan about it. The admission of the poppy situation in Afghanistan is particularly refreshing to hear you recite. Anyway thanks for the honesty and insight, and welcome to the conspiracy round table, I haven't heard you talk like this before...maybe I just missed it. | ||||||
| 10 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 21:06 |
So now the only question is, was Bush the "smart one", or did he do what he was told? I think it's both. The world operates on the fly and situations change. Bush has to be smart in order to adjust bigger strategies accordingly. I don't believe 9/11 was a conspiratorial event. I think it was a huge opportunity to speed up an already existing process. In terms of doing what he's told, timing has a lot to do with everything. We couldn't pull this s#it if the old Soviet Union was around. Our two key wars, Korea and Vietnam, while the USSR existed wound up being a draw and a loss respectively. Cuba went south in our backyard and we couldn't do anything about it. There was a serious counter balance to our power. That doesn't exist now. At least not yet. And it won't happen if the plan I believe "they" or W wants to implement. That plan is to turn most of the Middle East into Europe Lite to act as both a buffer and a 21st Century NATO against emerging Chinese power. This is intended to make the American Century into American Centuries. Good or bad, the key is to act before China starts a land grab of their own either militarily or as old school style Soviet puppet states. Each country serves its own unique purpose. Afghanistan serves as a key hub in an energy pipeline and has an abundance of narcotics which are an effective means of controlling/dumbing down the population. Afghanistan also lies on the eastern border of Iran, the one true stronghold that could wreck the whole thing and that is why Iran as we know it has to go. I would be curious to see the drug addiction rates of Iran before and after the invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq allows us to surround Iran and give an army that we already outgun a second front that they probably cannot defend. Iraq also provides us with oil; the energy to make war and the real estate from which to wage it. If optimized, Iraqi oil can substantially decrease the global need for Iranian oil which will kill their economy and cause civil unrest. We are now also deploying a missile shield specifically designed for Iran to prevent any launches from reaching real estate that we really care about. So...we have our enemy surrounded with narcotics, vast energy reserves and an overwhelming military presence. Not to mention the existing economic sanctions and the use of westernization to create moderate internal forces as a weapon. The last thing we need before checkmate is to keep them from developing the one weapon (nuclear) that would put a stop to the whole thing. That's why we're pitching the hissy fit we are. I am neither condemning nor endorsing what I perceive as an obvious course of action. I'm just laying out the situation as I see it. | ||||||
| 11 | nerveclinic ID: 105222 Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 17:01 |
I don't believe 9/11 was a conspiratorial event. I think it was a huge opportunity to speed up an already existing process. Fair enough Cuba went south in our backyard and we couldn't do anything about it. There was a serious counter balance to our power. My take is we have been THRILLED to have that tiny little nation at our door step behave as they have. They are harmless to our might, yet we can point to them as a "boggie man"...thus the planned failure at Bay of Pigs. Boogie men justify escalation of the military industrial complex. That plan is to turn most of the Middle East into Europe Lite to act as both a buffer and a 21st Century NATO against emerging Chinese power. This is intended to make the American Century into American Centuries. Good or bad, the key is to act before China starts a land grab of their own either militarily or as old school style Soviet puppet states. Interesting, I haven't heard this premise, any reference material to check out? Possible protection against a newly oil rich Russia also. As a resident of Dubai, I can tell you it's becoming Europe lite. Afghanistan serves as a key hub in an energy pipeline and has an abundance of narcotics which are an effective means of controlling/dumbing down the population. I and others have made the exact same argument here for years. The narcotics angle has been going on since at least Viet Nam. It's not just to dumb down the population though it's a primary source of Black revenue. I would be curious to see the drug addiction rates of Iran before and after the invasion of Afghanistan. Anecdotally I can tell you there's lots going on there in this regard, I just don't know when it started. It's not going on here I can assure you, at least not to any great degree. If optimized, Iraqi oil can substantially decrease the global need for Iranian oil which will kill their economy and cause civil unrest. There's already economic problems because of embargos and half the population not agreeing with the hard line religious stance of the government. The last thing we need before checkmate is to keep them from developing the one weapon (nuclear) that would put a stop to the whole thing. That's why we're pitching the hissy fit we are. But they can't dream about using it, they wouldn't have a country left after half the countries of the world invade. Interesting stuff Box, keep it up. I don't know how much you know about the poli boards history but you are starting to fall into the conspiracy camp that seems to have a higher ratio here then the rest of the general population. Just keep an open mind that 9-11 might have been a conspiracy, might have. | ||||||
| 12 | Boldwin ID: 54341915 Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 18:11 |
Bili Indeed we don't know if the nine power rings have a glowing inscription tho I would think more likely yes than no. The only one we know for sure is that Sauron's does. There is such a clutter of game related LOTR stuff on the internet that I cannot verify whether the ring wraiths are also accurately called wraithlords. They are afterall wraiths and kings even if the rings have also reduced them to slaves of Sauron. It's been 40 years since I read all that stuff and dunno if I could dig up th actual books. I wouldn't describe the Bush dynasty as Sauron level players, prolly not quite, but they are as close as you can get to a Rothchild or Rockafeller without actually being one. | ||||||
| 13 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 22:09 |
Oliver Stone's upcoming flick "W" Newsmax has learned that the “W” screenplay draft includes these highlights: President Bush frequently uses nicknames for aides, including “Turdblossom” for Karl Rove and “Balloon Foot” for Colin Powell. Asked if he planned to follow in his father’s footsteps and run for Congress, Bush tells a fraternity friend: “Hell no, that’s the last thing in the world I’d want to do.” George Bush Sr. has harsh words for the younger Bush after he gets arrested for helping to tear down the goalposts following a Yale football game. President Bush boasts to Cheney that he’s “the fastest president in history” and says of Bill Clinton: “Hell, my mother waddles faster than he can run.” Asked how likely it is that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons, Cheney tells Bush: “Personally, I think it’s close to a hundred percent.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld informs Bush that the American excursion into Iraq will take “six months at the most, as long as we don’t run into heavy camel traffic.” In a Texas bar, a hard-drinking, chain-smoking Bush in 1967 tells a young blonde named Judy that he wants to marry her — then dances drunkenly across the top of the bar. He later tells his father it was “just a fling.” That same year Bush Sr. tells his son that he “didn’t exactly serve your time in the National Guard” and urges him not to “drink and party your life away.” He also tells Bush Jr.: “You’ve disappointed me. Deeply disappointed me.” At age 26, a drunken Bush crashes his car into shrubbery outside the family home and when his father chastises him, he strikes a boxer’s pose and challenges Bush Sr. to “go mano a mano” with him. Bush terrifies a friend by taking him up in a single-engine plane and then nearly crashing it while under the influence of alcohol. Discussing with press secretary Ari Fleischer Bush’s justifications for going to war with Saddam, Bush declares: “I don’t like a—holes who try to kill my father.” He later tells Rumsfeld that Saddam tried to bomb his father’s car in Kuwait and “you don’t go after the Bushes and get to talk about it.” After his loss in his 1978 race for Congress from Texas, Bush — drunk again — tells a friend: “No way will I ever be out-Texaned or out Christianed again.” Bush complains that his father asked him to help in his 1988 presidential campaign “only ‘cause Jeb wasn’t available.” President Bush plots to paint an American recon plane in U.N. colors to see if Saddam will fire on it and thereby “justify retaliation.” Bush tells British Prime Minister Tony Blair that sectarian violence following an American invasion of Iraq is “just not in the cards,” adding that “Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, you know, in the end they’ll stick together, they’re all Muslims anyway.” Bush tells a televangelist in 1999: “I believe God wants me to run for president.” The movie ends in 2004 amid the ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq. Bush, one-time co-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, retreats alone to his White House den to watch a Rangers game. Bush imagines himself standing in centerfield in an empty Texas Rangers Stadium. Following the crack of a bat, “a ball, in slow motion, spirals upward through the air. He turns, raising his hands, searching for the ball, ready to catch it… “But the ball never comes down.” | ||||||
| 14 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Thu, Apr 10, 2008, 20:27 |
Nerve: My take is we have been THRILLED to have that tiny little nation at our door step behave as they have. They are harmless to our might, yet we can point to them as a "boggie man"...thus the planned failure at Bay of Pigs. Boogie men justify escalation of the military industrial complex. I can see that. I also believe the Soviets having Cuba lessened their intensive drive for other states. I believe had the Bay of Pigs been successful, the Soviets would've reached for another Caribbean or South American country to use instead. The Cuban Missile Crisis, as executed, showed the Soviets we weren't playing yet still allowed them to have a puppet state in our backyard. While never being a full counter balance to our pull in Europe at the time, Cuba still gave us nervous fits and yes it fits your boogey man description. Yet I don't know how many Americans have lost sleep over Castro. The key event (or non-event) of the Bay of Pigs / CMC was that it pacified both the Soviet need for expansion and our need to appear tough. Interesting, I haven't heard this premise, any reference material to check out? Possible protection against a newly oil rich Russia also. As a resident of Dubai, I can tell you it's becoming Europe lite. Haven't done much looking honestly. I just read the papers and look for what I perceive the real story to be. This allows us to surround a potential Iran / China / Russia economic/military/strategic alliance with the Pacific Ocean to the east, the Indian Ocean to the South and our Europe Lite to the West. Our ocean fleet dominates without serious contention. While our land forces pale in comparison to the combined forces of those three countries, the Middle East is an awful lot of violent land to grab (see Iraq and the failed Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). A pro-American (or anti-China/Russia) Mid East populace is an enormous weapon to us in this fight. Let's be brutally honest here. An army of suicide bombing arabs can be much more effective than our people. They blend into the existing populace better, they want to commit the ultimate sacrifice which makes the probability of their success greater. A loyal ally consisting of arabs who bankroll pro-American extremist groups would be a huge deterrant to any aggressive Russia or China military expansion into the Middle East. We can control the governments of the Middle East with our purchasing power, military protection and then our "liberation" of anyone who will not tow the line. I promise you that if Saddam did not turn on us we would pay him no mind and he might be one of our biggest suppliers of oil right now. But no, he just had to invade Kuwait, get Saudi Arabia nervous and the dog bit the master. Bye bye Saddam. But they can't dream about using it, they wouldn't have a country left after half the countries of the world invade. But dying to radical Muslims is good. Those are the folks in charge over there now. The concept of MAD doesn't work. I think Saddam was a power hungry dictator motivated by his own personal glory and wealth. He wouldn't have directly used those weapons on us for reasons you stated. I believe the Iranian regime is more motivated by religion than Saddam was and that adds the lunacy factor into this. | ||||||
| 15 | nerveclinic ID: 105222 Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 01:27 |
I promise you that if Saddam did not turn on us we would pay him no mind and he might be one of our biggest suppliers of oil right now. But no, he just had to invade Kuwait, get Saudi Arabia nervous and the dog bit the master. Bye bye Saddam. Well this is a thread about Bush and I don't want to hijack it except to say I think we were "thrilled" he invaded Kuwait. This allowed the start of the true launch of the "New World Order" as Bush Sr. called it. It gave the world a chance to unite against a common enemy. I was going to conspiracy talks at the time (1990) where I was confidently assured this was phase one, weapons would be left behind in SA and we would invade a second time. That, this was the plan. This was a talk given by an ex military intelligence officer (who was killed 1 month after 9/11 on his own property, in a confrontation with the police) I'd say we were thrilled with the enormous door the invasion of Kuwait opened for us. | ||||||
| 16 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 09:19 |
But dying to radical Muslims is good. Those are the folks in charge over there now. The concept of MAD doesn't work. I think Saddam was a power hungry dictator motivated by his own personal glory and wealth. He wouldn't have directly used those weapons on us for reasons you stated. I believe the Iranian regime is more motivated by religion than Saddam was and that adds the lunacy factor into this. It appears you have succumbed to a myth without doing the proper due diligence. Your failure to draw a distiction between radical Muslims and fundamental Muslims is the root of the problem. I assume when you say "dying to radical Muslims is good," you are mostly referring to suicide bombers(An army of suicide bombing arabs can be much more effective than our people). However, Iranians are Persians, not Arabs, and there is no data that shows Iranians, or even their Arab clients Hezbollah, have ever engaged in suicide bombing as a tactic. The suicide bombings in Israel have come from Sunni Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza. The suicide bombings in Iraq have come from the Sunni jihadists, aimed at either Shiite targets or those working with the US. The Shia reprisal tactics have involved death squads, not suicide bombings. Suicide bombings that have recently affected Pakistan are Sunni-based. Past suicide missions, including 9/11, have no connection to Persian or Shiite accomplices. About the only evidence one can find in recent history that would support your claims is Iranian death charges against the Iraqis during their conflict in the 80s. But tactics like these have been used in conflicts for centuries. They were used in Korea. Kamakazee pilots were suicide bombers in WW2. Even those who were the first off the boats during the D-Day assault could be described as some as a suicide wave. Iran is a brutally oppressive Islamic fundamentalist regime. However, there is no evidence that Iran has a death wish as a nation or a civilization, other than hysterical right wing claims that are fashionable to accuse Iran as the world's #1 state sponsor of terror, but these claims are only claims when even mildly examined. WTC attack I, 9/11, Bali, London, Madrid, Bali, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, African embassy bombings all have their roots in the Sunni-based schools of wahabism. It's easy to point to crowds of Iranians shouting "Death to America" as an example of radical Islam, but what do we call Americans who call for "Death to Iran" in the guise of winning the war on terror? | ||||||
| 17 | nerveclinic ID: 36536204 Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 12:25 |
Nice post PV. | ||||||
| 18 | J-Bar ID: 292552222 Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 19:26 |
"and there is no data that shows Iranians, or even their Arab clients Hezbollah, have ever engaged in suicide bombing as a tactic." pv16 may want to re-think this statement | ||||||
| 19 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 20:07 |
#18 Interesting article J-Bar. And even though the article explains that, for the most part Hezbollah abandoned the tactic 22 years ago: In 1986 and beyond, as suicide bombings began to yield fewer enemy casualties, Hezbollah used them less frequently, although they remained a potent threat. One suicide bomber blew himself up in October 1988, killing eight IDF soldiers. Knowing that this would provoke an Israeli counterattack, Hezbollah threatened to execute two Israeli soldiers captured in February 1986 if the Israelis mounted a ground attack against them. (65) These asymmetric tactics--a suicide bombing followed by a threat to execute prisoners--demonstrated Hezbollah's ability to adapt and innovate in pursuit of its military and political objectives. it gives a good historical explanation of the Shia justification for suicide attacks: Any military activity to attain political goals, let alone suicide bombing, was outside the canon of accepted Shi'ite thought..... ....New Shi'ite thought that emerged from Iraq's Najaf seminaries and from Iran in the 1960s challenged Shi'ite quietism and political disengagement. Contemporary thinkers asserted that remembering the sacrifices of martyrs was not enough; only by achieving martyrdom oneself could one help bring about the coming of the Hidden Imam. (17) This claim effectively politicized Shi'ism, ending its quietism. Inspired by clerics such as Sayyed Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini of Iran and Musa al Sadr of Lebanon, a people that had thrived on their own afflictions now espoused a revolutionary ideology of activism. Other leaders soon used Khomeini's and Sadr's ideas to justify suicide bombing as well. I stand corrected, even though the Shias presently use suicide bombings in very rare instances. However, considering: * "If the enemy invades the cities of Moslems and their borders, it is obligatory for all Moslems to defend those by any means possible, forsaking life and belongings. And in this case the permission of the religious ruler is not needed. * If the Moslems fear that the foreigners have a plot to subjugate their cities, either directly or through their agents, from outside or inside, it is obligatory that they defend the Islamic countries by any means possible. * If, within the Islamic countries, plots have been laid by foreigners, with the fear that they may dominate Islamic countries, it is obligatory for Moslems to foil their plot by any means possible and to obstruct the spread of their influence." (22) that could change. | ||||||
| 20 | Mith ID: 4982142 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 09:11 |
George W Bush in his forthcoming book:"I faced a lot of criticism as President. I didn't like hearing people claim that I lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or cut taxes to benefit the rich. But the suggestion that I was racist because of the response to Katrina represented an all time low."From his interview with Matt Lauer PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah. I still feel that way as you read those words. I felt 'em when I heard 'em, felt 'em when I wrote 'em and I felt 'em when I'm listening to 'em.Really? Not the devastation of the hurricane itself, but a subsequent personal attack from a pop music star? The worst moment of his presidency was not the most horrible act of terrorism ever perpetrated on American soil? Not overseeing a national economy spiral into disaster at the conclusion of his two terms in office? Not the realization (honest or not) that your primary justification for the second-longest foreign war in American history turned out to be untrue? Not having to leave office with the promise of bring OBL to justice unfulfilled? | ||||||
| 21 | Razor ID: 57854118 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 09:45 | Kanye is a bigger idiot than Bush. That Bush took his words to heart is telling. | ||||||
| 22 | Perm Dude ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 13:11 | Also in the book, Bush admits to personally ordering waterboarding. | ||||||
| 23 | Mith ID: 4310402110 Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 16:10 | The George W Bush Presidency in 24 graphs. | ||||||
| 24 | Perm Dude ID: 201027169 Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 10:41 | Slapping back the revisionists | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: The Real George Bush | ||||||||