Fairweather Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 John Howard, Australia: re-elected GW Bush, USA: re-elected Tony Blair, Great Britan: re-elected j_b: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 John Howard, Australia: re-elected GW Bush, USA: re-elected Tony Blair, Great Britan: re-elected j_b: Reelected by voters like you. Is this a great country, or what? Tony Blair sailed to victory with a whopping 36 percent of the popular vote for his party. Sounds like a mandate to me. To be serious, Fairweather, are you asserting that a majority of the American voters can't be wrong? Because many of these voters probably also cast ballots in 1996 and 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I think he's just saying this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD They were all being feed the same slanted intelligence! Or have you missed that most sinister aspect of the war buildup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 John Howard, Australia: re-elected GW Bush, USA: re-elected Tony Blair, Great Britan: re-elected j_b: well, bliar was the "lesser of 3 evils" (prowar conservatives, laissez-faire liberals, and bliar's labor) and he won a very reduced majority (effectively lame-duck). bush has the worst approval ratings at this point in his term since hoover or something ridiculous like that. but what about the rest of the world? spain? italy (regionals)? eastern europe? ukraine? you ought to check on the state of the coalition. we'll see how long you'll be laughing with bush for another 3 years ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 John Howard, Australia: re-elected GW Bush, USA: re-elected Tony Blair, Great Britan: re-elected j_b: Reelected by voters like you. Is this a great country, or what? Tony Blair sailed to victory with a whopping 36 percent of the popular vote for his party. Sounds like a mandate to me. To be serious, Fairweather, are you asserting that a majority of the American voters can't be wrong? Because many of these voters probably also cast ballots in 1996 and 2000. I'm saying, Norman, the people have spoken....and that's democracy whether you like it, or not. I'm not a big fan of sub-50% victories, which is why I'm glad that Bush won almost 53% this last go-round. I would support a 50% or run-off election amendment to our constitution. This comment... Reelected by voters like you. Is this a great country, or what? ...sounded a bit smug. Guess we're not friends anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I'm saying, Norman, the sheeple have spoken.... No shit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I'm saying, Norman, the people have spoken....and that's democracy whether you like it, or not. rich, a supporter of coup d'etats and secret wars against elected governements throughout latin america attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of democracy. (barf) anyhow, since when in democracies do supreme courts select presidents in spite of the popular vote? moreover, you know as well as i do that this is a republic, with th e president elected by an electoral college (highly irregular for a democracy). I'm not a big fan of sub-50% victories, which is why I'm glad that Bush won almost 53% this last go-round. I would support a 50% or run-off election amendment to our constitution. certainly not. bush got 51% of the unconfirmed vote (no paper record) according to cnn. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 Has the States had a revolution yet? What's holdin it up? Cmon, get goin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 rich, a supporter of coup d'etats and secret wars against elected governements throughout latin america attempts to wrap himself in the mantle of democracy. (barf) When third-world 'elected' leaders refuse to step down at the end of their term or declare, "I am a Marxist-Leninist", post-election, then they cease to be called elected leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 what a crock of sh*t. arbenz of guatemala was a democratically elected liberal democrat who promoted agrarian reform which didn't please the oligarchy and united fruit co. 40 years and 250,000 dead after the coup, guatemala was until recently still under the grip of the generals and death squads. allende was a twice democratically elected social democrat who nationalized some industry which didn't please the oligarchy and various US corps. 30years and an estimated ~10,000 dead and disappeared after the coup, chile is finally returning to normalcy. do you need any more? if you are going to respond to this, include some facts instead of the usual rant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 May 16, 2005 Staying What Course? By PAUL KRUGMAN Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak. There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the "Downing Street memo" - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted. Here's a sample: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." (You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.) Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world. But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport? At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose. Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating. Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat. In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats. So what's the plan? The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't. Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there. In effect, America has been taken hostage. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the terrible scenes that will surely unfold if we leave (even though terrible scenes are unfolding while we're there). Nobody wants to tell the grieving parents of American soldiers that their children died in vain. And nobody wants to be accused, by an administration always ready to impugn other people's patriotism, of stabbing the troops in the back. But the American military isn't just bogged down in Iraq; it's deteriorating under the strain. We may already be in real danger: what threats, exactly, can we make against the North Koreans? That John Bolton will yell at them? And every year that the war goes on, our military gets weaker. So we need to get beyond the clichés - please, no more "pottery barn principles" or "staying the course." I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself. The point is that something has to give. We either need a much bigger army - which means a draft - or we need to find a way out of Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 It's often most revealing to figure out what is not in the mainstream press rather than debating the bias of what does get covered. The mainstream press has become a lapdog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news you have to love that logic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman_Clyde Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 [quote This comment... Reelected by voters like you. Is this a great country, or what? ...sounded a bit smug. Guess we're not friends anymore? If you can't be smug in Spray, where can you be smug? But actually, I'm the opposite of smug. I would say that Bush has shamed this entire nation, but it's no longer Bush that has done it, it's the majority that voted him back in. America has made an emphatic statement to the whole world that we are comfortable with a leader who invades a foreign nation on false pretenses and employs a team of lawyers to justify torture. I honestly did not believe that the average American would so casually accept these offenses. I find it much easier to understand your current viewpoint, because I believe you havelong been in favor of militaristic intervention, covert action, any means necessary, etc. I just never expected to wake up one day to find that your viewpoints have become the new American mainstream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Well looks like the liberal press is making one more run at it! Downing St. Memo fizzles in US The Memo that won't quit Why has Downing Memo been a Dud in the US? British Memo reopens war claim Google-news search on "Downing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.