******
We listened to the Ipod during the drive so didn't realize until last night that former President Gerald Ford had died. I always had some respect for Ford and thought his bumbling image was unfair. Especially given his grasp of issues--well, compared with the one we have now.
This morning, speaking of that, I read that Ford criticized Bush's Iraq decision:
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."He also says that Cheney is far more pugnacious as VP than he was as Chief of Staff.
Now, of course, the Bush defenders will have to decide if Ford was just a "monday morning quarterback" or perhaps one of those "Saddam appeasers."
*******
Speaking of Saddam, I read in the paper yesterday that he will hang within 30 days. I am sure that will solve everything in Iraq and overnight make the world a better place. Oh wait.
******
During that political conversation, we heard some of the right's talking points. Obama was a "figment of the media's creation" and Hillary was the front runner. I think that is really their hope--because they believe--perhaps incorrectly--that Hillary is easily defeated. Oddly enough not one mention of McCain or anyone beyond Romney.
I cracked a joke and changed the subject. No dummy, this one. :)
Glad to be back.
16 comments:
I wonder how often the liberal media is going to mention that several of the Republican candidates are divorced, having cheated on their wives. Or will conservative Christians even care about that, since none of them are Bill Clinton?
saddam hussein needs to hang for his crimes against humanity.
volfan007
Does Bush get to hang for his crimes against humanity?
crimes against humanity? bush? come on, now, wasp....really. i mean, i know you hate bush, and possibly all republicans, but really.
saddam and his henchmen were raping women in front of thier husbands and children. they were murdering the husbands and teen boys of women in front of thier eyes. they were involved in the genocide of the kurds.
you cant be seriously comparing abu graib and the war in iraq with what saddam was doing....are you? because if you are, then you have lost all credibility in this discussion.
again, saddam needs to hang.
volfan007
Yeah, Wasp, it is YOU who has lost credibility here!
Volfan is very quick to decide who should die. Interesting.
The Bush administration says that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over the course of about 24 years. We'll ignore the fact that our country sold him some of the weapons he used to kill those people. The Lancet Study that recently came out confirms that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of Bush's invasion, which was based on lies and intelligence that was deliberately manipulated. So Bush is responsible for the deaths of more innocent people in a much shorter period of time. So you do the math.
600,000 people??? what????
i doubt that. anyways, it wasnt bush who killed them. and, bush is not a dictator. he can only do what we allow him to do. i believe that congress said that it was ok to fight with the iraqi's, and the repub's werent the only ones who voted for it to happen. right?
also, you cant compare people getting killed in war with those who are being murdered. there's a huge difference, and you should know that.
look at all the people who were killed in the war between the states...hundreds of thousands....it was war. some innocent people were killed as well...especially those who lived close to battlefields. it was war. what saddam was doing to his own people and to the kurds was not war........it was just plain ole murder.
its just like in darfur. those people are just being murdered. its not war.....its murder.
now, if we go into darfur to help these people out, then many of our soldiers will be killed, and many of the people who live there will be killed, and some of them will be innocent people....non soldiers. it's just a fact of war.
volfan007
streak,
since you are a historian, it might interest you to know something about me. my great-great grandfather on my dad's side rode with nathan bedford forrest in the calvary. and, i had a relative on my mother's side who was killed at shiloh.
also, the yankees came on my great great grandfather on my mom's side's farm, and they stole everything they could carry. a black woman that was thier slave hid my great great grandfather in a hollow log until the yankees were gone. but, my g-g-grandfather's older brother was gone when they came out of hiding. he was never heard from again. what do you reckon happened to him?
i guess abe lincoln ought to answer for that one, huh? you reckon abe should answer for invading the south and causing so much death and destruction?
volfan007
Ahh, Nathan Forrest. A klansmen. The original Klansmen. Another piece of the puzzle.
Abe didn't invade the south. The south started the war and attacked the Union. If Iraq had attacked us, maybe we could talk.
But then again, why do I bother. You have yet to acknowledge actual facts.
BTW, troll, I don't hate Bush and I certainly don't hate all Republicans. Most of my family are Republicans.
I hate what he has done to my country. I hate that he has made us less safe. I hate that he has made us less united and more afraid. I hate that he has been so callous to the rest of the world. I hate that he is so callous to the poor in our own country. I hate that he has decided that his billionaire friends deserve more help from the government than the poorest of the poor. I hate that he has decided that raping the environment is fine as long as it is profitable. I hate that he has decided that gay bashing is a good political tactic. And I hate that he, like you, supposedly represents the faith of Christ.
streak,
i am not, nor have i ever been, a member of the kkk. i do not hate black people.
volfan007
600,000 people??? what???? i doubt that.
Yes, 600,000 people. You wishing it wasn't so doesn't make it so. And what if it were only 400,000 people? Would that really make it better?
anyways, it wasnt bush who killed them. and, bush is not a dictator. he can only do what we allow him to do.
The fact that Saddam was a dictator isn't necessarily relevant. Bush wasn't really elected, either. He was appointed the Presidency by the Supreme Court along partisan lines after Florida officials refused to follow the law of their own state (Florida officials, who, incidentally, were George Bush's brother and the co-chair of his election campaign), and after nearly 90,000 voters were illegally removed from the voter roles because they were supposedly felons, but who were, in fact, mostly just Democrats and black people. (All this, incidentally, has been reported at length most everywhere on this planet, except in the United States, of course, where the media is so liberal and pro-Democrat.)
Either way, Bush lied us into the war, so, yes, Bush is ultimately responsible for their deaths. Did Saddam personally pull the trigger on those 300,000 people? Did Hitler personally pull the trigger on 10 million Jews?
i believe that congress said that it was ok to fight with the iraqi's, and the repub's werent the only ones who voted for it to happen. right?
I love how you use "the Democrats did it, too" in place of an actual arguement. I suppose if I were a Democrat that might hold some water.
also, you cant compare people getting killed in war with those who are being murdered. there's a huge difference, and you should know that.
The difference, as Streak pointed out, is that we attacked another country. Unprovoked. Perhaps you can explain the subtle difference here. Or is it really acceptable for me to drop a bomb on someone's house, unprovoked and unjustified, call it a war, and then go on my merry way?
look at all the people who were killed in the war between the states...hundreds of thousands....it was war. some innocent people were killed as well...especially those who lived close to battlefields.
Weapon technology was far different during the Civil War. There were remarkably fewer civilian deaths. And the Civil War was actually, you know, a war, not the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation.
it was war. what saddam was doing to his own people and to the kurds was not war........it was just plain ole murder.
Then I suppose certain members of the first Bush administration ought to go to the prison for supplying Saddam with his weapons and for looking the other way while he murdered, right? They were, after all, accessories to the crime.
its just like in darfur. those people are just being murdered. its not war.....its murder.
now, if we go into darfur to help these people out, then many of our soldiers will be killed, and many of the people who live there will be killed, and some of them will be innocent people....non soldiers. it's just a fact of war.
Well, for it to be a fair comparison, first the President would have to say, despite the evidence to the contrary, that Darfur poses a direct, immediate threat to the United States, that they helped terrorists fly planes into American buildings, and then, after that proved to be false, that they harbor terrorists. The reasoning you give wouldn't be the rationale for the war for a good two or three years.
Volfan,
Computer people have an acronym for people like you who don't read stuff. RTFM is the standard response to people who don't read the manuals. Perhaps you can figure out the letters. For you, I feel like repeating RTFC or RTFP. "C" stands for "comment" and "P" stands for "post." "RT" stands for "Read The" and you can figure out what the "F" stands for.
I didn't call you a Klan member. I referred to Nathan Bedford Forest. Of course, your ancestors, along with many others (perhaps including mine) fought for the Confederacy to defend the institution of slavery. But that isn't you and it isn't me. How you make sense of that is up to you. And your arsenic level.
So Volfan,
Have you followed in the footsteps of all your brave ancestrial warriors and gone to war yourself?
I've got some brand new unused combat boots sittin' right here. I'll be glad to send 'em to ya. In fact, I'll put up a nice pic of them on my blog so you can see 'em before I send 'em. They're free. Postage paid.
Oops...hope this link works
Just for you Volfan007
Post a Comment