>> ^NetRunner:
@GeeSussFreeK, you sure sound like a Bush fan.
I think that he probably should've come home from China sooner.
I think that he probably shouldn't have made assurances to Georgia that we would protect them from Russia before fighting broke out.
I think he should at least mention that Georgia started the fight.
I think he shouldn't start off with accusations of a potential escalation that didn't happen, and then instead of using the usual "The United States condemns the actions of Russia", says "Invading a sovreign country is unacceptable in the 21st Century".
I think rather than letting Condi finish out her vacation, he should tell her that her country needs her to be in Moscow, ASAP.
He doesn't mention it in this video, but I think we should stop pushing the idea of Georgia joining NATO for the moment (something Bush/McCain express a need for in other statements).
Toothless outrage followed by a mumbling of diplomacy is exactly the wrong message to be sending. It should be diplomacy first, with a mumbling about standing for our allies if necessary.
Bush isn't Clinton. Setting my bar as low as it will go, I will say at least Clinton avoided committing human rights violations during his 8 years, while Bush seems to have gotten rolling with them in 2002, and hasn't looked back since.
If you meant to compare George H.W. Bush with Clinton, I think that's pretty fair, since they were both pretty moderate and capable (while still managing to piss off people from the other political party).


Let me more precise then. I dislike bush and his bending of the constitution to the highest degree. Of all the presedents of my life time, no one has expanded the policing powers of the government more than he. With that bias in the clear, let me retort some of these things, and agree with you on others.

I also think he should of come home from China sooner. Even more so since he pleagded support. However, in that, NATO does not accept members with territorial disputes, and as long as this still has the PR of a territorial despute, his hands are tied.

The jury is still out on who fired first, and you will never really know who it was. Why are Russia claims more valid than Georgian ones?

Invading a sov sovreign country was the grounds of the first gulf war with had support from the UN and a large portions of the nations of the world united and fought against, this being the same kind of situation would tend to suggest the same kind of action could be warrented.

Yes, I also agree that condi should be in moscow ASAP. It is his call, he knows more about the details then we do, so I can't be to desisive on my own opinion.

I don't see why he should stop talking about them joining NATO. It would seem they need protection from large powers more than ever? Why do you think they should take this off the table, and don't you think that would undermine our position of loyalty to the Georgians in their minds of us?

I think the leasons from the cold war need to be explained again. Always come out bold, then digress later. Even Kenedy knew the most ancient rule of nation states, never apear weak or your enimies will take advantage. Taking a strong stand by your allies IS a diplomatic method of resolution that workd for 50 years in the cold war till Russia evaporated.

Your right, bush isn't Clinton, that was a poor analagy as to the president can't stop doing his job because of something. And I would say I hate bush's evaporation of the rights of america far more than lusting after the ladies.

However, I don't see this as a mistake or any kind for the prez to react in this way. In fact, I was hoping it would happen sooner than it did.


edit: BTW. I hope none of this comes off as condicending, I always appriticate anothers point of view.

@GeeSussFreeK, you sure sound like a Bush fan.

I think that he probably should've come home from China sooner.

I think that he probably shouldn't have made assurances to Georgia that we would protect them from Russia before fighting broke out.

I think he should at least mention that Georgia started the fight.

I think he shouldn't start off with accusations of a potential escalation that didn't happen, and then instead of using the usual "The United States condemns the actions of Russia", says "Invading a sovreign country is unacceptable in the 21st Century".

I think rather than letting Condi finish out her vacation, he should tell her that her country needs her to be in Moscow, ASAP.

He doesn't mention it in this video, but I think we should stop pushing the idea of Georgia joining NATO for the moment (something Bush/McCain express a need for in other statements).

Toothless outrage followed by a mumbling of diplomacy is exactly the wrong message to be sending. It should be diplomacy first, with a mumbling about standing for our allies if necessary.

Bush isn't Clinton. Setting my bar as low as it will go, I will say at least Clinton avoided committing human rights violations during his 8 years, while Bush seems to have gotten rolling with them in 2002, and hasn't looked back since.

If you meant to compare George H.W. Bush with Clinton, I think that's pretty fair, since they were both pretty moderate and capable (while still managing to piss off people from the other political party).

@choggie

You have your strategy, I have mine. Yours is to scream "you're all idiots" at people on the Internet saying the only solution is to disconnect from society, and hope enough people follow your lead to make a difference.

Mine is to try to support the opponents of a lawless band of fools who've taken over my country's government, and expose those fools for who they are.

You can be disillusioned all you like, but I'd be happy to go back to the imperfect days of George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton rather than have to suffer this constant push to destroy the fundamentals of our government from a political party that I used to simply have a philosophical difference with.

Now they're the enemy of democracy itself, and you seem to think not paying your taxes will make a bit of difference when the civil protections of our society are coming apart at the seams?

There's a lot wrong, but unless you're raising an army for a revolution, I don't see why you feel you have to discourage people from trying to still use political activism to try to push back this foul tide.

I know I'm pushing for the lesser of two evils, not the end-all be-all fix for everything. I also know if Obama doesn't win, we've lost for good.

Not sure why I bother explaining though, you'll just declare me a mindless parrot of the machine, maybe make a joke about bodily functions, and continue on with your holier-than-thou crusade to make everyone think they're hopelessly fucked.

George H.W. Bush wasn't CIA director when these negotiations might have taken place. He left the position when Carter took office.

McCain may be surprised to know that the release of the hostages in 1981 was negotiated (and not by Reagan, but Carter) - the results of which were the Algers Accords.

^Biminim:^

Does that mean that the situation McCain is referring to was actually a problem solved by Jimmy Carter and not Reagan at all?

In reply to this comment by Biminim:
I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.

I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.

Interesting "Stop Loss" info from wikipedia

The stop-loss policy, in the United States military, is the retention of troops to remain in service beyond their expected term of service.[1] It has been argued that soldiers contractually agree to partake in stop-loss, but this may or may not be the case, and the issue is still being debated, both in public and in federal court. Stop loss was created by Congress after the Vietnam War. Stop-loss has been justified on the legal basis of paragraph 9(c) which states: "In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless the enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States" but which has not been reviewed in full by a federal court system.

The use of this provision has been criticized by many as abuse of the spirit of the law, due to the fact it is often used in circmstances that Congress has not yet declared as war, such as in the current occupation in Iraq.

Stop-loss was first significantly used just before and during the first Gulf War. According to a military publication[1], "the Army last used stop loss during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in 1990 when President George H. W. Bush delegated stop loss authority to the defense secretary." Since then, it has been used more extensively; since 2001 primarily after the national State of emergency declared by President George W. Bush

Stop-loss, as well as the practice of involuntary extension, have been controversial. In a campaign speech in 2004, former presidential candidate John Kerry described stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft."[1]

The first legal challenge to this policy came in August 2004, with a lawsuit challenged by an anonymous National Guardsman in California.[2] A basis for the suit is that stop-loss does not apply to the current situation in Iraq, which is a military occupation and not a war zone. Another argument used in the case is that it broke the contract of the guardsman, as he had already fulfilled his IRR obligation.

The first legal challenge to the extension of term of service of military call-up or contract occurred during the American Civil War, when a soldier was courtmartialed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton himself.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, as one of his first acts in his position, penned a memo compelling commanders to "minimize" the stop-lossing of soldiers.

The United States Department of Defense now has begun a program to replace the stop-loss, as it is "too controversial". The new program, known as Involuntary Extension, is a circumvention of stop-loss, and simply changes the ETS [end time service] date on a soldier's LES (Leave and Earnings Statement).

The Army claims that enlisted soldiers facing stop loss can now voluntarily separate from the United States Army by request, under provision 3-12, but this is deceptive because only after they complete an involuntary deployment of twelve to fifteen months and 90 days "stabilization time" can they apply.

Iraq Veterans Against the War, an activist organization of former and current service members, in solidarity with former Specialist and Iraq vet Evan Knappenberger, has announced a national "Stop the Stop-Loss" campaign at a recent press conference where they were holding a week-long vigil in a tower erected on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Other anti-Stop-Loss vigils have occured in Bellingham, Washington, and Colorado Springs, Colorado

By 1970 there were over 1600 CFR members and in 1972 the Trilateral Commission was formed by Rockefeller (Chairman of the CFR). The CFR and the Trilateral Commission are not US Government created entities. The Council's first recruitment of a future president occurred in 1950 with Eisenhower. Since then every president (except Reagan) has been a CFR/Trilateral commission member and these presidents have filled their staff with other CFR members.

One example of how a presidential elect that claims he doesn't want NWO personnel in his administration, however ends up appointing such people to their cabinet is Reagan.

He was neither a CFR or Trilateral Commission member. He was neither a Skull & Bonesman or Bilderberger, however he was a Bohemian Grovesman.

When Reagan was asked who really ran the United States, Reagan admitted: "I think there is an elite in this country and they are the ones who run an elitist government (shadow government). They want a government by a handful of people because they don't believe the people themselves can run their lives... Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for people's lives or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?".

It also seems that Reagan was thinking along similar lines to Jimmy Carter when he gave his pre-election promise to avoid "insiders" when selecting his cabinet. When Reagan was elected, he formed a transitional team that would act as kind of a recruitment agency for the major positions in the new administration. Of the 59 people Reagan appointed for the team, 29 were members of the CFR, ten were Bilderbergers, and astonishingly, ten were from the dreaded Trilateral Commission. With George H.W. Bush as his Vice Presidential running mate, Reagan was not about to make the CFR or the Trilateral Commission or any other secret group into a campaign issue.

When Reagan entered the White House, he appointed 12 members of the Trilateral Commission, six of whom were also CFR members. As a sign of the true state of secret group influence, there were another 64 appointees who were also members of the CFR.

This from a man that stated he would take control and keep the government from being controlled by a shadow government. He appointed the exact people he vowed not to have in his office.

Today in the Bush administration, every single appointee is a CFR member. The CFR prohibits its members from disclosing anything that has been said within it's closed meetings to outsiders. A recent breakdown of the 4200+ members today reveals that 31% come from the corporate sector, 25% come from academia, 15% from charities, 13% from government, 8% from law, 6% from the media and 2% from other professions. CFR members are on the boards of the following sample of corporations: Citicorp, J.P.Morgan Chase, Boeing, Conoco, Disney, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Dow Jones, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner, Carlyle Group, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston, Chevron Texaco, Lockheed Martin, Hailliburton, Washington Post/Newsweek.

The CFR has been the breeding grounds for future presidents and their administrations for several decades now. Whether Republican or Democrat, the men and women in power will have been schooled in foreign relations by the council. If there is a shadow government at work then you can guarantee the puppet strings pass through the Pratt House (CFR).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to read up on the CFR (and not from the CFR itself), one good source of an examination of the CFR from it's initial creation up to today is a book written by 2 authors.

One is Thom Burnett (One of Britain's leading experts on security and military affairs. He served with UK Special Forces in the 90's and has been undertaking postgraduate research in Conspiracy Theory and Military Intelligence. The other author is Alex Games - Author and journalist for the London Evening Standard, UK's Financial Times, Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph, Guardian and Independent on Sunday).

The book is called: "Who Really Runs the World?: The war between globalization and democracy". Pages 100-120 descibe many details about the CFR's history from inception to today.

People blew the Michael Jackson trial way out of proportion at a time when there were so many more important things going on on Earth. Idiotic media let Michael Jackson's trial preempt domestic policy and foreign affairs, and Bill Maher is right to be angry about that. His last joke is a good joke that exposes irrational priorities. I don't think he crossed the line at all. This is not at all close to his worst work. His worst work is frivolous stuff about celebrities that nobody complains about. I like to see comedians tackle the real issues instead of dwelling on frivolous subjects.


"the fact that our government had been taken over by the fundamentalist Christian right. "
>"I'm afraid I must insist that you back up your claim."

The pledge of allegiance and the currency were hijacked by McCarthyist Christian zealots in the fifties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22

"Fundamentalist" might be an exaggeration, but George H. W. Bush said he doesn't believe atheists should be considered U.S. Citizens. George W. Bush supports creationism.

http://www.videosift.com/video/CNN-panel-discussion-slandering-atheists
http://www.videosift.com/video/Response-to-CNNs-slander-of-Atheists

In 2007, Card received an honorary degree in public service from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The decision by the university administration to give Card the degree was met with protests and petitions from thousands of university students, faculty, staff, and community members. They argued that Card played a leading role in disseminating deceptive and misleading evidence to justify the Iraq War. At the May 25, 2007 graduate school commencement ceremony, hundreds of students, faculty, and staff protested the award with boos and catcalls as Andrew Card accepted the degree. Protesters, including many faculty on stage, drowned out Provost Charlena Seymour's remarks, asserting that Card lied about the Iraq war.

Andrew Hill "Andy" Card Jr. (born May 10, 1947) is an American businessman, former state legislator, and was President George W. Bush's first White House Chief of Staff and the head of the White House Iraq Group. He announced his resignation on March 28, 2006 and it became effective April 14, 2006. He assisted the President with many of his policy decisions and managed the daily operations of the White House staff. Prior to serving as Chief of Staff under his son, served as U.S. Secretary of Transportation under George H. W. Bush.

A native of Holbrook, Massachusetts, he and his wife Kathleene have three children and four grandchildren. A dedicated Chief of Staff, his wife once asked "Are you married to me or George W. Bush?".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Card

The last joke was amusing, but George H. W. Bush was NOT loyal to Barbara. He had a long-term affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald from the time he was United States ambassador to China which continued while he was Vice President and then President.

Are the conservatives posting here aware that George H. W. Bush had a mistress all through the time he was Ambassador to China (he took his mistress with him, and Barb stayed at home), when he was head of the CIA, and when he was Vice-President and President? Her name is Jennifer Fitzgerald. This information is not from a scandal sheet, but from the Times of London.

The right-wing attack machine spent a huge pile of the American people's money attacking Bill Clinton relentlessly and nothing they came up with stuck. Finally, they got him to testify before a grand jury and and were able to ask questions about the one subject that every single human lies about - sex.

I have no doubt that George W. Bush is currently faithful to his wife. But that's the only positive thing I can say about the man, and that hardly seems like the most important criteria for President of the United States. The fact that he let the man who killed thousands of Americans in the World Trade Center get away in his haste to fight a pointless war against a tin-pot dictator that his OWN FATHER had good reasons to leave in power (read Bush and Scowcroft's book for the full story).

Clinton successfully kept Saddam in check by enforcing the no-fly zone. Cheap, easy, kept his aggression in check and didn't involve the US any more than necessary in the politics on the Middle East. Read the book by Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to George H.W. Bush. Here's what he said before Gulf War II in that notorious liberal rag, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

The "reports" that Bush had access to was the raw, unverified intelligence - and what his administration did with it is proof exactly why competent Presidents trust Intelligence professionals to vet it. The Bush team cherry-picked what they wanted to get what they wanted - a long pointless (but very profitable for Halliburton) war and literal C130 cargo planes full of cash being shipped to the control of underlings chosen not for competence but for loyalty.

Please - try to do a tiny bit of moral algebra here, OK? What is Bill Clinton had done exactly the same things?

The Onion had it exactly right in in their January 1st, 2001 headline:

"Bush: Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over"

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

I've been trying to find the article, but Spy magazine had a list of "101 Reasons Not To Vote For George H. W. Bush". Reason #1, on the front cover was "He Cheats On His Wife" and named the woman he took with him on his trips to China (not Barbara). Men in power attract women. American's are so hypocritical about sex. From all appearances, George W Bush doesn't cheat on his wife...I'm not sure how many lives that is worth.

Edit: I found a reference to Bush Senior's mistress, Jennifer Ann Isobel Patteson-Knight Fitzgerald, in the Times of London. That this might be the first time you've ever heard of this belies the whole idea that the press has some sort of "liberal bias".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1268535,00.html