Tag Archives: bush

Three More Years, and some time off

Posted on by
Reply

“Four more years” is a bit of a misnomer. Notwithstanding the question as to whether he’s really “the Decider” when he is actually in the White House, Bush has spent over a year on vacation. At 418 days, he’s set to beat Regean’s vacation time record of 436 days in the next year. One might think that excess vacation would be a trait of a non-wartime president, but Clinton took 152 days off and Carter, “the worst president ever,” took only 79 days off, about 1 week per year longer than the average American’s paid time off.

I’ve heard it been said that even when the president is “on vacation” he’s still working. That may be so, but was Bush elected President in order to work on clearing brush out of his ranch? But seriously, I think it would be truthful to question whether he is really working as president when he’s not on vacation. I take it as indicative of our never-ending campaign culture that Bush was reading to kindegardners when America were attacked on 9/11. Setting aside the fact that he continued to sit there and do nothing for 7 minutes even after he heard the words, “The country is under attack,” can it really be said he was “working” as “president” that day? Of course not, he was campaigning for women’s votes that day.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5042364.html

Jimmy Carter: Worst President?

Posted on by
Reply

Carter is normally seen my the Republcians as the worst president in modern history. Why? Because Radical Islam suppossedly “began” with the ousting of the Shah and the hostage crisis and this happened on his watch. Funny how the Bush Administration failing to act on reports before 9/11 allowed him to reap a second term rather than receiving any blame for that Islamic plot unfolding “on his watch.” Or was it that Carter didn’t “back the Shah.”? Actually, he did allow that brutal dictator to come to the U.S. to receive the best medical treatment that money can buy. That’s actually what caused the hostage crisis in the first place. There was also the failed mission to rescue the hostages in which 8 servicemen died, but one failed mission hardly compares to a failed war. It seems more like the real reason was Carter didn’t declare war on Iran for daring to overthrow the tyrannical dictator than the U.S. had installed over their Prime Minister because he had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company (which today we call BP). Sure, the Shah was dying, but maybe Carter should have continued the suppression of Democracy in Iran and install another Big Oil puppet with the title of an ancient Persian dictator. Or maybe Eisenhower should not have allowed anti-Communist sentiment to ally with British to bring about the deposition of a democratically elected official of a foreign country for the sake of western oil companies?

My Anti-Clinton Bias

Posted on by
Reply

I voted Libertarian in 2000. I’ve never much liked the two party system that America has caught itself up into, but in 2004 I felt that Bush had so polarized the nation that voting for NotBush was an absolute necessity. When Conservatives started talking about Hilary running some a couple of years ago, I didn’t believe them. How could Democrats even think about running under the name Clinton after the absolute hell the media had put them through with his sex scandal? Clinton killed 16 civilians when he destroyed the headquarters of Radio Television Serbia in central Belgrade for distributing propaganda. He also killed 6 Iraqi civilians, including a famous artist, in a “retaliation” attack after the suppossed assassination attempt of Bush Sr. in Kuwait. He destroyed an important pharmaseutical plant in the Sudan that had meant the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He had been accussed by multiple women of being a rapist. Then there was the questionable last-minute pardon of Mark Rich and the disgraceful exit from the White House. Although none of these had any direct tie to Hillary, I always pictured them as a single political unit, and her re-entry into White House reflected a kind of tag-team mentality reminiscent of the Bush Dynasty. There are a lot of good, smart people out there who aren’t related to the former bad presidents we have had.

The YouTube debates were absolute crap and the snowman asking about global warming did not exactly help Conservatives take the issue more seriously. The AFL-CIO debate was a little better, but one person stood out as a question dodger and slogan beater and that was Hilary. And all the news comentators absolutely loved her for it. Chris Matthews referred to her “I’m your girl” comment as “post-feminist.” The other candidates made the usual number of bloopers and disputable claims. But by comparing the two using FactCheck.org, one can see that they rise the kind of lies and exaggerations normally found in a Republican debate.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html

http://www.factcheck.org/sunday_morning_missteps.html

I am just as determined to vote NotBush in 2008 as I was in 2004, but I’m not sure the complete catastrophe that was these last 7 years would make me want to vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils.

Selling Weapons to Arabs

Posted on by
Reply

The White House has been complaining about weapons coming into Iraq from Iran for a while now. The media pretty much lets this through unquestioned, condemning Iran as an enemy to peace. But in case you haven’t heard, there is a civil war going on in Iraq, so what do you expect? If Iraq was throwing a party, then Iran would be selling cakes. But what does not get mentioned is the fact that Saudi Arabia is also selling weapons. Now, the fact that there’s absolutely no news coverage of that fact might lead one to assume we were on the Sunni’s side. But in actuality, Iraq was already under the control of Iraq’s Sunni minority. Since Shi’ites are the majority population, “De-Bathification” and Democratization by their very definition means giving more power over to Shi’ites. Of course, this also means more power for Iran. The Sunnis, however, control the majority of Saudi Arabi’s oil, which makes them natural allies to the West.

After the Iranians rose up and expelled the tyrannical Shah that the U.S. had illegally replaced their legitimtely elected leader with, the Islamic Revolution began to inspire many of Iraq’s Shi’ites to rise up against Saddam’s Sunni-led government. Since the Ayatollah considered the U.S. the enemy, the Reagan administration allied with Saddam and gave him $40 Billion to help fund his WMD program to fight them. Hence the joke, “We know Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruciton. We have the receipts.” Additional money was spent in convincing Saddam not to ally with the Soviets, making him the third largest recepient of U.S. aid. A famous picture from 1983 shows Rumsfield shaking hands with the dictator. Around a million died and Iraq got into a $75 million debt. Saddam borrowed heavily from other Sunni-led states, much of it was from Kuwait, and since Saddam felt that Kuwait had been protected from the fighting, he argued that the debt should be forgiven. Naturally, Kuwait disagreed. Saddam thought that he could just take over the country and use their oil to help pay off the debt, but failed to realize that the New World Order would not allow this. The UN and Arab countries agreed to help the U.S. expel Saddam, but would not help take him out of power. When asked about taking Saddam out of power, Bush Sr. foolishly made a speech saying that the Iraqi people should do it themselves. Taking this as a que, the Kurds rose up, believing the U.S. would help, and got hit by a poison gas attack, killing some 5,000 civilians. According Iraq’s report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and China. The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.

So what did the U.S. learn from all of this? I’ll let the following news articles speak for themselves:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/325981_moneyforarabs02.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/01/opinion/main3122492.shtml

Glenn Beck

Posted on by
1

What do you do with a hard-line conservative recovering from substance abuse after losing his mother and brother to suicide? Give him a liberal-bashing show on CNN Headline News of course.

Rush Limbaugh has long been considered too offensive for television. He couldn’t even keep his quibs about racial bias silent as a football commentator for ESPN and was let go in 2003 after suggesting that the media only gave positive performance reviews for the Philadelphia Eagles quarterback because he was black (something Rush still bitterly complains about constantly on his radio program). Yet Glenn Beck, who often describes himself as a recovering alcohol and drug addict, runs a show on CNN Headline News that is almost a carbon copy of the Rush Limbaugh radio program. Now, we all know that accepting Jesus or Muhammed or some higher power has long been considered one of the unwritten rules of substance recovery, and in Beck’s case, it was the power of Joseph Smith who helped him overcome his troubles, but only lately has mental instability become accepted as a qualification for news commentary.

By his own admission, Beck has not completely come to terms with his own emotional demons within himself, yet he has taken the attitude that he has figured the rest of the world out (the rest of the world being far less complex than his own mind). You see, the UN is like the Third Reich, environmentalism is the new eugenics, and Al Gore is Hitler. No doubt many manic depressives agree with these amazing and thought-provoking theories. And since those crazy left-wing hippies at CNN have slowly begun to realize that a great deal of the American population hold similar ideas to those who are mentally ill, they decided to give him his own news platform to propell these wonderful ideas throughout the American conciousness.

Here’s what Beck had to say on the subject during his radio show:

“Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government… You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler’s plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore’s enemy, the U.N.’s enemy: global warming… Then you get the scientists — eugenics. You get the scientists — global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, ‘That’s not right.’ And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did.”

Now you know he’s up to date, since it was only a couple of months ago that conservatives found out that climate scientists were fudging their data in order to get more grants. The new common knowledge that disproves global warming is that all the scientists are fudging their data because they want to globalize the world under the U.N. This of course, has long been predicted by conservative radio-show prophets who forsaw that the Anti-Christ would come and try to take over the world through the U.N. This proves that the Bible tells us that America must only commit itself to its own interests and not allow devil-worshipping institutions like the World Court take control away from our soverign rights.

Of course, there are a few minor problems with this comparison. One is Hitler was head of his government whereas Al Gore is not. Another is climate science is peer-reviewed by other scientists from around the world rather than political appointees of one nation. But in this case, nearly all the climate scientists are in on it. So it’s no wonder that the Bush Administration has been forced to continuously block reports from their own agency:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0927-10.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/tech/main510920.shtml

Obviously, since eugenics was once considered “science,” we can never rely on this undemocratic form of tyranny ever again. This would explain other “scientific” reports that the Bush Administration has so wisely blocked, like this one on health care that was blocked in 2006 for “being too political.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801420.html?hpid=topnews

Obviously, liberals are no more interested in scientific purity than conservatives. Take their irrational stand against sociobiology, the idea that IQ is determined by evolution. Richard Hernnstein’s book The Bell Shaped Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, funded by the conservative think-tank, The Heritage Foundation, in 1994, argued that classes were becoming more divided by intelligence rather than racial or social disadvantage. Conservatives touted the book as proof that Affirmative Action was unnecessary while liberals roundly criticized it. So if liberals could take such an anti-scientific stance against eugenics then, how do we know they won’t take an anti-scientific stance for eugenics in the future?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n3_v122/ai_16424249

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology