william ayers and hugo chaves concerning education.

#51
#51
rjd970 said:
Depends on what you consider short-term. I think we were worried about the 5 year ramifications more than the decades long ramifications of these conflicts. Even if Iraq came out as the victor against the Iranians, they still would have disagreed with our foreign policy in the region. This certainly happened in Afghanistan after they repelled the Soviets.
Click to expand...
In Afghan, we were simply stopping the Soviets from moving further South and it worked.

In the ME, we liked a secular state much more than the religious nutjobs running Iran and were willing to help if possible there.

I think both were short and long term plays.
 
#52
#52
BigPapaVol said:
In the ME, we liked a secular state much more than the religious nutjobs running Iran and were willing to help if possible there.

I think both were short and long term plays.
Click to expand...


I think that is what makes us look hypocritical in the Middle East. We consider Saudi Arabia a principle ally in the region, and their nation is run by religious nutjobs (albeit, they are in the pocket of the royal family). The only difference being they are not shouting "Death to America" from the mountaintops at the same time they are shouting "Death to Israel". If we weren't so energy dependent, I could see a lot of ME countries that we would treat in a similar fashion to Iran.

Nevertheless, I agree with your last statement.
 
#53
#53
we only coexist with SA because they keep us with a manageable oil policy. When that's no longer the case, they're finished.
 
#55
#55
MG1968 said:
1) Iran

2) nice dailyKOS talking point

3) not sure what your point here is, unless you're hinting around that 9-11 was an inside job.
Click to expand...

Talk about missing a point.

The point is: The Bush family absolutely knows the Bin Laden family (most specifically through the Carlyle Group). Bush Sr, was also once friendly with Hussein.

Does this make them terrorists or bad for the country? No -- so don't try to draw the same lines with Obama.

As for #3 -- please. Don't lump me in with that crowd.
 
#56
#56
VolByBirth said:
Talk about missing a point.

The point is: The Bush family absolutely knows the Bin Laden family (most specifically through the Carlyle Group). Bush Sr, was also once friendly with Hussein.

Does this make them terrorists or bad for the country? No -- so don't try to draw the same lines with Obama.

As for #3 -- please. Don't lump me in with that crowd.
Click to expand...

1) so what? The Bin Laden family owns one of the largest construction companies in the middle east. Most of them are on record as despising Osama.

2) Obama's radical ties and sympathies are becoming increasingly apparent. His friendships with Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and Odinga in Kenya are particularly troubling.

3) if you don't want to be lumped in with that crowd, stop using their talking points.
 
#57
#57
MG1968 said:
2) Obama's radical ties and sympathies are becoming increasingly apparent. His friendships with Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and Odinga in Kenya are particularly troubling.
Click to expand...

I guess this means Obama is a closet terrorist.
 
#59
#59
MG1968 said:
1) so what? The Bin Laden family owns one of the largest construction companies in the middle east. Most of them are on record as despising Osama.

2) Obama's radical ties and sympathies are becoming increasingly apparent. His friendships with Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and Odinga in Kenya are particularly troubling.

3) if you don't want to be lumped in with that crowd, stop using their talking points.
Click to expand...

MG1968 said:
the measure of a man can be judged by the company he keeps
Click to expand...

I must not be clear at all. You are agreeing with me that the Bush family has "kept company" with the Bin Laden family and Hussein at one time. You contend it's not a big deal, but then turn around and say Obama can only be judged by the company he keeps. This is NOT an argument against the Bush family -- instead an argument that you can make the same "terrorist" associations with the Bush family. Your argument doesn't hold water unless you carry the stance to both sides of the party. It appears that you are stating it's bad for Obama to have some connection to these people but turning a blind eye for Bush family having the similar connections.

I'm not pointing fingers at the Bush family -- I'm just stating the argument can't go both ways.
 
#60
#60
what evidence do you have that Bush launched his political career in Saddam's or Bin Laden's living room? Has Bush ever traveled to an African country to campaign for a politician who, when he lost the election, engaged in a murderous pogrom until the legitimate government was forced into a power sharing agreement. Is there anybody in Bush's close circle of friends who was once a fugitive domestic terrorist?

when you can find actual parallels, I'll grant your point, until then all you're engaging in is intellectually dishonest doublespeak.
 
#61
#61
MG1968 said:
what evidence do you have that Bush launched his political career in Saddam's or Bin Laden's living room? Has Bush ever traveled to an African country to campaign for a politician who, when he lost the election, engaged in a murderous pogrom until the legitimate government was forced into a power sharing agreement. Is there anybody in Bush's close circle of friends who was once a fugitive domestic terrorist?

when you can find actual parallels, I'll grant your point, until then all you're engaging in is intellectually dishonest doublespeak.
Click to expand...

George W. Bush, even after 8 years as the actual President of the United States, does not have the intelligence to write what you just wrote. E.g., he doesn't know many facts, even after being the ACTUAL PRESIDENT. Moreover, I don't think he is capable of grasping the concept of the subordinate clause. In my view, this substantially weakens your argument.
 
#62
#62
CaedmonVol said:
George W. Bush, even after 8 years as the actual President of the United States, does not have the intelligence to write what you just wrote. E.g., he doesn't know many facts, even after being the ACTUAL PRESIDENT. Moreover, I don't think he is capable of grasping the concept of the subordinate clause. In my view, this substantially weakens your argument.
Click to expand...

what utter, pedantic drivel. he's not exactly dynomite when giving a speech, but it's a stretch to say he's not intelligent.
 
#63
#63
MG1968 said:
what utter, pedantic drivel. he's not exactly dynomite when giving a speech, but it's a stretch to say he's not intelligent.
Click to expand...

Dude, the reason his speeches and press conferences suck is because he has no command over basic facts and issues. It's that simple. I'm not even talking about his policies, just his basic ability to absorb, process, and synthesize information and ideas. I can't remember the last time I heard him say a fact with any specific details.
 
#64
#64
MG1968 said:
what evidence do you have that Bush launched his political career in Saddam's or Bin Laden's living room? Has Bush ever traveled to an African country to campaign for a politician who, when he lost the election, engaged in a murderous pogrom until the legitimate government was forced into a power sharing agreement. Is there anybody in Bush's close circle of friends who was once a fugitive domestic terrorist?

when you can find actual parallels, I'll grant your point, until then all you're engaging in is intellectually dishonest doublespeak.
Click to expand...

No, Bush has not done these exact things. However, Bush Sr supported Hussein, a murderous dictator, against Iran. We made sure he had the weapons he needed. This is just another version of campaigning for a murderous dictator.

Bush Jr is noted as having discussed political items at length with convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian (he is also a Carlyle Group guy I believe). (Note: I personally believe this connection has been exaggerated - but you can see how connections get made and blown out of proportion).

I really don't think it's political doublespeak, but maybe you see some differences I don't (and therefore the difference).

I also don't believe Obama is staging some sort of coup with his hinted "sympathies with terrorists" so I believe the connections aren't nearly as concerning as people want to believe. Just as I don't believe the comments about the Bush family above are actually that serious. It's all overblown.
 
#65
#65
CaedmonVol said:
Dude, the reason his speeches and press conferences suck is because he has no command over basic facts and issues. It's that simple. I'm not even talking about his policies, just his basic ability to absorb, process, and synthesize information and ideas. I can't remember the last time I heard him say a fact with any specific details.
Click to expand...

Amazing - you keep the gems coming.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top