This post began as part of a discussion some of us were having in the Electoral College thread. It seems to me, however, that the subject is far enough removed from the original topic that it would be appropriate to start a new thread.
Tempo Gain had asked me how a person could be
And pretty damn ironic that the Bush administration worked so hard to mislead Americans into thinking the war on Iraq was part of the larger war on terror. However, this is the thread about little lies instead of the great big whoppers.
A survey of British people indicates that a majority believes that U.S. President George Bush is a “stupid evil genius.” Part of Dubya’s mystique is his self-reported “blunt way of speaking”. Personally, I think Bush uses a lot of misspeaks in his speech.
In 1989 he said, “You know I could run for governor but I’m basically a media creation. I’ve never done anything. I’ve worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that’s not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.”
Then in 2001 he talked about how he was elected President the first time. “It was amazing I won. I was running against peace and prosperity and incumbency.”
He has said about land-locked Afghanistan, “This is an enemy that thinks its harbors are safe, but they won’t be safe forever.” Apparently he meant that Afghanistan will be unable to harbor terrorists.
In Arlington, VA he said, “It’s hard to be successful if you don’t make something somebody doesn’t want to buy.” Is Bush stupid, doesn’t stick to the script and just can’t get the English language to work for him, or is it all a carefully crafted facade of ignorance designed with votes in mind?
he’s stupid in regards to forming clear and convincing aruments yet engaging and smart in simple conversation…and the main reason he sounds attractive to voters is that he has had great speech writers…further, by repeating good lines over and over, he’s learnt enough to bluster his way through speeches semi-intelligently (like a parrot). The debate showed that he has a time limit on coherency and logic, however. Saying this, I concede he’d run rings around me in a debate on international TV. Go Bush!
talking about conniving repubs…here we have a slight resemblance to jabba the hut…
As the quote from where I got this goes:
If he could get his trousers any higher it’d be a jumpsuit.
To be fair, if he says those trousers are necessary to hide his enormous dick, that might qualify as a small Republican lie.
Here is a request that ignorant people refrain from voting.
One excerpt:
[quote]Some, like the ACLU, have made a fetish of preserving the sovereign right of the American voter to remain an ignoramus. Following the 2000 vote-counting debacle in Florida, that state’s legislature adopted a reform that required, among other things, the posting of a list of “voter rights and responsibilities” in every polling place. … the ACLU issued the following press release announcing a lawsuit to challenge the law’s constitutionality:
Educating oneself about the important public policy questions of the day is the barest minimum we should ask of citizens. Instead, lots of our most prominent opinion makers indulge in the fantasy that ideally, all eligible voters (and some illegal aliens?) should vote. If you don’t know the basics of government or policy, do us all a favor and stay home on Nov. 2.
[/quote]
Voting is a responsibility, all right.
You haven’t mentioned two benefits of it, one: like other responsibilities, it tends to be good for the people who take it on. Two: the more people who vote, the easier it is for the government to do its work.
Anyway what are you going to do, measure how much people care and mark it on their ballots?
This would be a good idea except the people who are already cultivating unhealthy obsessions with politics would then have the last thing they need, an incentive to care more.
It’s all very simple. Most of the people who are not registered are poor people. Most poor people know enough to know that bush is the anti-christ. Therefore it is a good thing, in this particular election, if more people are registered to vote because it helps to ensure that dumbo gets the boot. I understand that many republicans are stone walling attempts to get homeless people on the ballots. Hardly suprising.
bob, you are positively Jeffersonian - should I say Michael Moore-ian? - in your conclusions, and I couldn’t agree more with them even if I couldn’t agree less with how you got there.
Easy for you to say, “It’s all very simple” and yet so difficult for most of us to be so profoundly correct, imo.
Well done!!!
We (the people) get the government we deserve.
The primary purpose of Republicans is not to win support for Republicans but to lose it for Democrats. If Democrats don’t vote, the Republicans can stay in power.
So either this is a pollitical manoeuvre or the US army is in a piss poor condition.
I would say it’s a political move. An all out attack on Fallujiah just before the all important presidential election is surely a vote winning strategy - a strategy that would likely score points and enhance Bush’s chance of winning the election.
But what of the request for British troops to enter northern Iraq hotspots while the Americans are playing with their toys?
Well, either the Americans are stretched to such a point that they feel the need to request British assistance, or this is an entirely political strategy.
Bush sending more US soldiers to Iraq to fill the vacuum will surely be a popularity slicer. So, why not get the Brits to do it?
This way, less US soldiers lives will be lost (and as voters memories are similar to that of the goldfish) voters will be more likely to vote Bush. An offshoot of this will be the percieved notion that Britain backs Bush. Winners all round.
You can’t tell me that with the size of the US military in manpower terms, that it is totally overstretched. If so, then this seriously contradicts your Discovery channel propaganda.
Looks like another political move. Sure, lets support the US by all means. But the timing of the request for British troops and the attack on Fallujiah should wait until after the election. We are not pawns in your political chess game.
Some further discusion of this move by The Blackwatch troops.
No shooting please, we’re British
The storm over the movement of Black Watch troops in Iraq suggests the British elite is happy to support a war so long as it doesn’t have to fight one.
by Brendan O’Neill
‘Just say no.’ That was the Guardian’s considered advice to the UK government over the redeployment of British Black Watch troops from Basra to central Iraq to take the place of Americans who have to go off and fight insurgents. Defence secretary Geoff Hoon confirmed yesterday that 500 troops and 350 support personnel will move to the US sector, freeing up US soldiers to (allegedly) launch a new offensive against Fallujah (1).
British officers lobbied US to send troops to danger zone
Nicholas Rufford and Peter Almond
The Sunday Times - Britain, October 24, 2004
"THE decision to send Black Watch troops into Iraq
That is true. So why are US marines being used at the moment in their current field in Iraq? The field that British troops will aid in. If they are offensive troopsthen they should be usedas such.
I disagree that troops should be used now. Why can’t it wait until after the election and why is it so imperative that the attack on Fallujiah goes ahead now?
Two more weeks is not going to make the slightest bit of diffference.
That is true. So why are US marines being used at the moment in their current field in Iraq? The field that British troops will aid in. If they are offensive troops then they should be used as such.
I disagree that troops should be used now. Why can’t it wait until after the election and why is it so imperative that the attack on Fallujiah goes ahead now?
Two more weeks is not going to make the slightest bit of difference.[/quote]
It would seem that the time table of the war in Iraq is somewhat different than the scheduling you propose as more politically correct. Please understand, I do not use satire and I mean this with complete respect for your views. No flame war please.
The commanders in the fields are best disposed to judging the timeliness of their troop employments. While many ulterior motives may be easily ascribed from the sidelines’ I do not think it wise to use these as justification for their actions.
The BlackWatch commanders have been wanting to move into this role for several weeks. They feel that their previous experience, in Basra I believe, will be of use to them in fulfilling this particular mission.
If it allows the Marines to go into Fallujah and hunt down and kill the terrs bunkered in there, I can see the field expedient rationale for this deployment.
Don’t worry - I dont flame :fume: 
What I am concerned about is that the request from the US to send British troops to “backfill” has come at a crucial moment for the US - at a time when the US elections a dawning.
Of course, all arms of the British armed forces are more than willing to get their fair share of the action - The Black Watch is no exception.
But it seems strange that this time, the request was from the US, rather than the UK volunteering. I’m sure the US army is not stretched to the point that it cannot fill 650 seats left by the Marines.
Asking for British assistance seems purely pollitical due to the fact that sending more troops from the US would jeopardise feeling towards GWB- whether it is a deployment of 650 or 6500.
Timing is everything and this timing is a little too contriversial.
[quote=“Dangermouse”]Don’t worry - I don’t flame :fume:
What I am concerned about is that the request from the US to send British troops to “backfill” has come at a crucial moment for the US - at a time when the US elections a dawning.
Of course, all arms of the British armed forces are more than willing to get their fair share of the action - The Black Watch is no exception.
But it seems strange that this time, the request was from the US, rather than the UK volunteering. I’m sure the US army is not stretched to the point that it cannot fill 650 seats left by the Marines.
Asking for British assistance seems purely pollitical due to the fact that sending more troops from the US would jeopardise feeling towards GWB- whether it is a deployment of 650 or 6500.
Timing is everything and this timing is a little too contriversial.[/quote]
Interpretations of any actions can always be controversial. Read the 2nd article. This action was initiated by the British commander. And not recently, it appears that he has been wanting to do this for several weeks/months.
As I mentioned, the commanders on the scene and in the field, generally have a much better overview of the actual situation that those removed from the smell of cordite.
As to the BlackWatch Lads…God Speed!
i thought the leftist outrage was that bush wouldn’t launch any attacks before the election…thereby keeping news of american deaths out of the spotlight?
but now that it seems an attack might happen after all, it’s also a republican ploy. why you think having more troop casualties on the news will help bush’s campaign is beyond me. having a major battle right before the election does NOT benefit bush as it puts news of us deaths front and center on the evening news.
i’m sure if bush called off the attack you would be on here complaining that it’s an electrion trick like this strangly worded la times story:
DM, there is a war going on. I say that your argument is based wholly on conjecture, and I will counter it with this–if there is an opportunity now to bring the war more quickly to a successful conclusion, why should anyone stand waiting around? As long as the US and UK are allied in the war, cooperation between them in acheiving that goal is a normal thing.
