Why do you want to draw attention to them? Answer: because they are the measure by which both you and this e-mail seek to answer the queston whether or not Bush is thw "worst president". It is so stated. It's the FREAKING TITLE OF THE FREAKING THREAD. If you or the writer had an alternative purpose, which again, was meant to be sent by telepathy or some form of non-written communique, please state it now. It does this by equating combat deaths with the sole variable by which we should measure the validity of criticism . If you can't see this, you are illiterate. This is not clearly articulated at all and is not found in the piece. This is your own post hoc spin; random allusions to "Iraq junk"in general do not help you here. As you well know, criticissms of the war in Iraq extend far, far, far, beyond the simple number of combat deaths. So you agree that this is a stupid assumption? Good, we agree on something then. Really? then why do you do it so often by posting stuff like this, and then claiming it doesnt say what it says it does? You do more self debasing on an intellectual level than almost anybody here...at least Jorge is in it for laughs. You refuse to accept basic reasoning at the simplest levels for no other reason save to get in the last word.
http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73471 http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73315 http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72703 http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72106 that's just the ones i've started, sure there are others. hey clutch! who do i have to screw to get the search function back?
This thread got this song in my head: We are the mediocre presidents! You won't find our faces on dollars or on cents There's Taylor, there's Tyler, there's Fillmore and there's Hayes There's William Henry Harrison, "I died in thirty days!" We are the adequate, forgettable, Occasionally regrettable Caretaker presidents of the USA!
Did I miss your response? If so, I apologize; Moving on from the substantive errors of your premise, allow me to address the premise at it's chore; in theory. I presume that the essence of your theory is somehow to debunk the nature of some of the criticism of the war which is itself based on casualties numbers. If I am incorrect in this premise, please clarify; I am admittedly giving this less attention than, say, when I review a student's paper. If my assumption is correct, than I would have to say that you are missing the point. As unjust as it may seem, the numbers only work one way. The first step is in the nature of the confrontation, and in it's necessity/justification. Rather than belabour the points I already made, allow us to presume that WWII was necessary, and that there was no real alternative which could have resolved the issue for us. Both Korea and Nam are on more tenous ground, but noth are covered in time honoured grounds for conflict in regards to actions made in support of alliances. Additionally there is the questionable but nevertheless arguable and pre-existing Cold War logic wgich, if not excusing the wars, at least allows for a greater leeway when dealing with the actions of those seeking to arrest conforntations in the smaller canvases before they escalated into nuclear confrontations, which many, most notably Dulles, were advocating as forseeable. This in and of itself would not excuse the actions of the President's in question ( part of the reason I rate JFK so low) but when added to the responsibility of previous diplomatic commitments, they certainly alleviate some of the condemantion. With the example of Iraq, you have an administration creating a new policy out of whole cloth, an abandonment of previous policies and treaties which runs counter to any of the lessons of contemporary diplomatic groundskeeping previous to an engagement. You have a war which was brought about due entirely to our actions, with absolutely no threatening or belicose actions on the part of Iraq. This is in direct contradiction to any and all of the examples cited. The closest anyone comes to justifying the war is an agreement from a decade old war which we ourselves violated, and faith in our intel which has already been debunked, was known to be so by and large pre-engagement, and which in and ofitself constitutes bad policy. Unlike the aforementioned Presidents, GWB created an entrirely new set of action principles for the United States of America, and in so doing violated several internal and evwn more external procedural precedents and agreements. Casualties from wars count againt their leaders in only two ways; In the degree to which the war was not justified, and in the degree to which ncompetence in carrying out the war, justified or not, accounted for surplus casualties. As such, WWII is probably a complete wash for FDR, unless you support Stalin;s claim that a second European front should have been opened without bothering to first preotect British interests in Africa. On justification, it is virtually unassailable. Korea is probably excusable on alliance basis, added to that CW logic, and the issue far distances Iraq in terms of grounds. Same goes for Nam, as loathe as I am to give that war any credit, Iraq has actually done what I would have considered impossible, and made it our second least justifiable war of modern times. At least they were operating on alliance and CW precedents. In terms of the manner of the excecution, I would suggest that Korea and especially Nam were mishandled, but understandably so. Not to excuse, but to lessen the degree of blame ascribed to the actual Presidents involved. Nam was especially poorly handled, but it is fair to say that all the leaders involved made the same mistakes, the same underestimations, and none of them understood the enemy's schwerpunkt as much as he understood ours. But each and every casualty of this unneccesary, unjust, ill-conceived war lies directly at the foot of those responsible for re-writing our policies to carry it out, for using selective intelligence to justifiy it to those to whom they are accountable, and for the cost on the actual war we should have been waging since 9-11, not to mention the fact the complete reversal of global opinion towards us because of what is so obvious to the rest of the world, and increasingly so to any American with a grain of objectivity; it was a bad war fought for bad reasons with a bad post-operative concept, and as such each and every casualty is one too many.
Let's see who wrote these in order: Jonathan Schanzer from the Weekly Standard Michael Duff's blog Whoever that is Victor Davic Hansen from the NRO Peter D. Feaver editorial Washington post Well, I guess that is better proof than Bush had for invading Iraq. Go sit in timeout basso.
So, basso, how do you want to spin it? The Whitehouse is claiming that the President wants to extend the Commission, and it's Hastert that won't do it. As I said, how convenient. Hastert Tells W.House He Won't Extend 9/11 Panel Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:45 p.m. ET By Adam Entous WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a blow to the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives has told the White House and fellow Republicans that he will not bring up legislation to extend its May 27 deadline, officials said on Wednesday. President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, personally had appealed to Speaker Dennis Hastert to reconsider, and the Illinois Republican met on Wednesday with Bush at the White House. But the speaker's spokesman, John Feehery, said Hastert told the White House and members of the House Republican conference that "it's a bad idea to extend the commission and ... that we're not going to bring any legislation up." The commission wants a 60-day extension through July 26 to complete its final report on the attacks. Despite initial objections, Bush backed the extension and the Senate is moving forward with legislation. But Hastert cast serious doubt on its prospects for passage in the Republican-controlled House. "He thinks the (commission's) report is overdue and we need to get the recommendations as soon as possible. He is also concerned it will become a political football if this thing is extended and it is released in the middle of the presidential campaign," Feehery said. The commission says it needs the extra 60 days to complete hundreds of interviews and review millions of documents. It issued a public appeal on Wednesday to Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to reconsider their opposition to meeting with the full panel. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice has also refused to testify publicly on the grounds she is a presidential adviser and not a Senate-confirmed Cabinet officer. Bush and Cheney have only agreed to meet privately with commission chairman Thomas Kean and vice chairman Lee Hamilton, rather than with the full, 10-member panel. In contrast, former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore have agreed to meet privately with all members of the commission, the panel said. The panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, says it wants to question Rice and other presidential advisers about what the government knew about potential terrorist threats in the months leading up the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House defended Rice's decision not to testify publicly, saying it was in accordance with the practices of previous administrations. "Dr. Rice has already sat down with, and had a good discussion with, commission members and answered all of their questions for over four hours," White House National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said. Administration officials including Rice said there was no advance indication that terrorists were planning suicide airline hijackings. But the White House revealed later that Bush had received a briefing one month before the attacks warning of the possibility of a plot to hijack airplanes. So far, CIA Director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell have agreed to testify publicly, according to the commission. Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and defense secretary, William Cohen, are also scheduled to testify. http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Politics&storyId=825580
guess i'm not sure what you're so worked up about. seems like a procedural issue to me, but if W backs the extension, are you upset w/ W or Hastert? i can't tell.
http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73471 http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73315 Doesn't posit that there are provable links between Saddam and AL-Q or 9-11. Merely argues (and not very well) that going into the ME was a good thing. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72703 WMD's, the ends justify the means, more WMD's, Saddam was a bad guy, skulls rotting in the desert, nothing on Saddam and links to Al-Q or 9-11. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72106 WMD's and WMD intelligence. Nothing about Saddam and links to Al-Q or 9-11. Still waiting.
From the website put up bythe familie and others concerned about the 9/11 Commission... main page is here: http://www.911citizenswatch.org/index.php _____________ http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=63&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 Two weeks ago, thanks to public pressure from 9/11 families, the White House reversed course and issued a public statement agreeing to a two-month extension to the 9/11 Commission’s deadline for issuing its final report. Unfortunately, this statement appears to be a publicity stunt, because in the past two weeks there has been no evidence that the White House has done anything to make this promise a reality. The White House’s allies in Congress, including Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert, continue to oppose any extension. If an extension of at least two months isn’t enacted by Congress, the Commission will not be able to finish its work. The Commission will have to cancel important hearings and interviews and will not have time to analyze critical documents. The result will be an incomplete report that is likely to leave answerable questions unanswered and fail to provide a full list of recommendations for preventing future attacks. We need your help to convince Congress to pass legislation giving the Commission an extension. You can do two things: 1) Send a fax to Scott Palmer, Rep. Hastert’s Chief of Staff, at fax number 202-225-0697, and tell him you want Rep. Hastert to support an extension of the Commission’s deadline. If you don’t have access to a fax machine, you can call Mr. Palmer at 202-225-0600 or 202-225-2976. 2) Contact your own representative and senators urging them to support the bills that would grant the Commission an extension: H.R. 3771 in the House and S. 2040 in the Senate. You can contact your representative by going to the Web site http://www.house.gov/writerep. You can e-mail your senators by going to http://www.senate.gov, choosing your state from the pull down menu, and clicking on the Web forms of the two senators. This matter requires urgent attention, because the Commission must know soon whether it will receive an extension if it is to plan effectively for its last few months of work. Please act now and distribute widely.
Ok, I give up. Apparently there was little point in my responding to this thread. I answered the thread, asked a question, repeated it when it was ignored, and posted another on the essence of the argument all to no avail. Posts subsequent to mine have been answered, so it is apparent that mine are to be ignored. Lesson learned.
Your expectations were far too high. People who post intellectualy stunted junk that started off this thread are posting it for a reason, and for that same reason your attempts to use reason with them are ignored. See, e.g., my own responses and the replies thereto in this thread.
I hope you're wrong, but can't offer an alternative. I am seriously naiive in that, with the exception of T_J ( or texx,when he has the brain) , I still always assume it's a serious debate until proven otherwise.
Hey, you shouldn't be surprised. IMO, at least giddyup sincerely buys some of this stuff. I think basso at times is just a more sophisticated T_J. I decided to post some stuff from today's news that illustrates the guy may be (well, I think he is) the worst President in history. And I get some incomprehensible reply. I didn't see a reason to add to giddyup's argument and the subsequent responses. But "Worst President In History?" was too good to pass up. And bama, of all people, gave some sort of response. I don't agree with a ton of it, but it was a response. Hey, Bush drives me nuttier than anyone around here. Scarcely a day goes by that he doesn't illustrate his lack of competence for the office. And that's the least of the problems I have with him.
I think that's the only way to go about it. If they aren't serious, and you are their argument falls apart, then everyone who reads it will be able to make their judgement about the arguments they've put forward.
So let me get this straight... The far right propaganda machine spews out some nonsense breezily free of any point or substance. It's greedily consumed by their lapdogs everywhere and dutifully forwarded to newspapers everywhere many of whom apparently elect to PRINT IT? But, but, I thought the media were liberal? I'm, like, so confused. Oh, and BS, nice jab at Joe Kennedy (deserves a good jab or two, that's for sure). Nazi sympathiser and all that, you know, Joe Kennedy. What I can't remember is who ran that Wall Street outfit that provided substantial financing for the Nazis up until the firm was threatened with prosecution for trading with the enemy? Who was that?... Darn, I know I'll remember just as soon as I submit this, hmm...
