Letters to the Editor
-
You lost me on "...and a shrewd politician..."
When will you jackoff "journalists" realize that GWB hasn't a shrewd, smart, calculating, intelligent, bright, thoughtful, or the like fiber in his being?
"Conniving" is the most connotatively proximate term one can reasonablely venture and only, ONLY if it is quickly followed with "inept" or "failed", lest we insult the band of successful plyers of that particular discipline led by the likes of Lee Atwater, Rupert Murdoch, and Josef Goebels.
Anyhow, as noted, you lost me at "shrewd", if you want to hold your audience try truth and accuracy then maybe graduate to subtle and gripping.
-
I confess to having grown disllusioned with "kitchen table psychology" as a pre-teen .... but this really isn't much of a step above that, imho ...
maybe next week we can have the astrological analysis
and then I want full assessment of the policy impolications inherent in that George/Laura rift being covered by the tabloids -- why the silence??? complicity or conspiracy.
Please save all this "theological" speculation for the mind and tea leave readers.... and the historians, eventually, all in good time.
My suspicion is that Bush's "spirituality" is just about as shallow and self-serving as the rest of his "core values" -- and that, like many other "christians" I've known he's just playing to his perceived audience... his "base" with coaching from Unca Karl.
-
Most Scary & outragious aspect of this presidency
The most disturbing aspect of the Bush presidency is the
extent to which he has brought religion and his brand of faith into politics, and the lack of outrage from the public in regard to the constant violations of separtion of church and state. I saw this coming. The Religious fantics now have thier man in the white House. Bush represents the worst of religious faith.. the "born agains" who had many failures in life being "saved" by JC from alchol, drugs, sex fraud and/or various other problems. They find God, then blame godless liberals for all the problems in the U.S. Bushes "Win" premise on Iraq is based on the the fullfillmentt of the radical "end world" religios beliefs.
Oh God please "take them in the rapture" and leave us in peace,
and sanity.
-
Hear hear!
Well said good sir... well said.
-
Long Live to Bush and Cheney!
"President George W. Bush will be remembered fondly on his deathbed.
Vice President Dick Cheney appeared to deliver that message on CNN's Larry King Live Tuesday night."
I got these comments from reading a Raw Story piece. If Bush believes the nonsense that history will be kind to his hubris, it is very much because his sense of being accomplishing "a divine mission". What I do not see still clearly spelled is that Bush and his enablers destroyed an entire nation. It goes without saying that Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party was a hell but, at least, it was a hell in one piece, where Iraqi Christians, book editors, and owner of liquor stores could exist relatively unhappily. Now they cannot exist period. Iraq has become a broken hell .
The downfall of Saddam did not have come to this, but the rest of the story has been told too many times for me to repeat. My only comment is that this inbecile is now justifying this disastrous occupation by arguing that the occupation has created a disaster whose consequences are still unforseen. It was like when Bush was justifying the death and incapacitation of American soldiers by arguing that more American soldiers have to die and be maimed to honor those who already died and were maimed. Only a true believer is capable of stupidity ad infinitum.
I wish Bush to live many years to come, so to Cheney, and the NeoCos, then they will face the horror of their arrogance.
-
Bush and his Neocons,. . . ..
From the article:
"The neocons fell prey to the same delusion that has always hypnotized warmongers: They thought they could control war."
If you look up the military service records of just bout EVERY single person responsible for this Iraq fiasco (the neocons), it's apparent that not one of them ever actually FOUGHT in combat, on the ground.
John McCain, although I respect his sacrifice and his years of captivity, he didn't fight on the ground, as the men who are in oppositon to this war. He flew OVER Vietnam, dropping bombs. Rove, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rummy, not one fought in combat, and only one of them were actually in the service at all (Rummy, and he didn't even serve in combat.)
It's appalling that our country has been so disserved by thise bunch of stupid goons.
-
Instructive Historical parallels: the Spanish Armada (1588); Athens' invasion of Sicily (413 BC)
One reason the Spanish Armada’s invasion of England failed was that King Philip II of Spain was a religious fanatic who believed that God wanted him to remove the “infidel” Protestant Queen Elizabeth from the throne. He assumed that since he was doing God’s will, God would ensure that all the innumerable variables that had to be just right would be properly arranged to guarantee a Spanish victory.
Both of King Philip’s key commanders, the Duke of Parma and the Marquis of Santa Cruz, advised Philip that his plan for invading England was unworkable, because it required that a myriad of uncontrollable variables fall out perfectly in order to effect a rendezvous between the Armada (commanded by the Duke of Medina Sidonia after Santa Cruz’s death in 1588) and the Army of Flanders. The Armada was to transport the army across the Channel to England, and then back them up as they secured their position for a march on London.
Parma's army would not be able to come out into the Channel to rendezvous with the Armada, and the Armada could not get close enough to escort the army through the blockade of English and Dutch warships. Furthermore, Channel waters were treacherous, and the Armada would have no friendly harbor in case of trouble.
But Philip was convinced that God would arrange good weather and adjust other circumstances to ensure Spain's success in this "holy war."
The result was, of course, a disaster for Spain and began the decline of Spain as a great European power, as well as the end of the Spanish monopoly in North America and in Portugal's Asian empire.
Athens’ defeat in a similarly wrongheaded and disastrous invasion of Sicily by Athens in 415 BC, proved to be the crucial turning point in the Peloponnesian War. The impact of Athens’ defeat in Sicily was devastating. Two hundred ships and thousands of soldiers—much of the city's total manpower—were lost. Athens' enemies on the mainland and in Persia were encouraged to take advantqage of Athens' vulnerability, and rebellions broke out in the Aegean.
Of course, the idiots who are supposedly leading us don’t think they have anything to learn from history. Bush himself, whose obviously unearned undergraduate degree was in history, is probably entirely unaware that such historical examples even exist. I doubt he has ever read a word about either of these failed invasions, and I doubt that his advisors are aware of them, either. These people don’t read any more than they consult reality when making their plans. They really do believe that they create their own reality through sheer force of will and exercise of power.
We all know what happens to those who fail to learn the lessons of history.