Changing horses in midstream
Not sure what to make of Bush’s shakeup of a third to a half of his cabinet. The worst case scenario is that new members come in to do the dirty work, while the best case is that the old members testify at his impeachment proceedings!
posted by Tom Cleland @ 11/16/2004 10:31:00 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Yes, Collin Powell’s place in history was forever tarnished when he lied to the UN about the WMD. The only way he can redeem himself now is to testify against Bush and his successor Condeweasel Rice.
And the CIA shakeup sounds very political. The new head of the CIA is the same guy who told Michael Moore he wasn't qualified for the job.
Not sure what to make of it either. Have you seen any good analyses? One place to check is ZNet articles, which are posted on a daily basis. I haven't gotten arouund to it yet.... I was wondering, though, if the resignations have to do with a combination of people jockeying for better positions (more pay maybe) and disaffection with the administration (like Powell).
If Ruppert is correct that the CIA and Wall Street are one and the same, I wonder if those ties are strengthened or weakened by the shakeup.
He doesn't need to look moderate anymore now that he is a lame duck President. We thought Ashcroft was bad, but now we get to have the guy who said torture is ok for Attorney General. This should be telling you something.
The reason you are puzzled is that you underestimated his insanity (just like Ted and I were trying to warn you.) :-(
Hopefully we will get our congressional investigation, prove their scoundrels, throw them in jail, and survive this nightmare.
I thought for sure someone would have tried to assassinate Bush and his entire cabinet by now. Go figure.
Bush may be an arrogant scoundrel, but violence is not the answer. If the American people don’t sort this out, God will.
As for Iran, Nader had this to say:
“This list could go on and on but most importantly both will likely attempt to start wars in Iran and/or Syria if the domestic political situation looks at all amenable.”
http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=173
The Democratic track record speaks for itself. Clearly, a vote for Kerry was a vote for war. Did you read the link? These points should put the issue to rest once and for all.
Bush and Kerry:
Are staunchly for the war on Iraq. Both favor killing any Iraqis who oppose the rape of their country. To be fair, Kerry believes somehow that group rape is morally preferable to the selfish, unilateral rape espoused by Bush.
Have utter contempt for international law. While Democrats may fantasize that they are back an anti-war candidate that is hardly the case when Kerry continually tells us that we can “win” the war in Iraq.
Support virtually every bit of military spending proposed.
Invariably favor every significant aspect of the “free trade” agenda.
Strongly support the IMF and World Bank and the structural adjustment programs which they impose.
Favor the Israeli government under all circumstances.
Favor pouring more gasoline on the fire of Colombia’s civil war and continuing the Cuban embargo.
Favor attempting to oust populist leaders in Latin America.
And then there was this from Kerry in the debates:
"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are."
Iran, perhaps? This inflammatory rhetoric doesn't get to the root of the problem, which is that our exploitation of third world countries provides the breeding ground for new terrorists. Sounds rather Republican to me.
Tom, did it ever occur to you that by saying that we only go with the United Nations is the same as saying we shouldn't go? The United Nations is filled with hundreds of other countries who would put the brakes on pre-emptive war.
Sometimes politicians craft their discussions for the hard sell to the public. Especially when the public has been pumped up with pro-war propaganda.
No, I know you would not have considered that, because none of the people who spoon feed you your opinions has suggested as much. :(
I think you just admitted that your candidate is a liar. And just because I copy in some good points doesn’t mean that I’m being spoon-fed. I trust my source, and I challenge you to prove him wrong.
You saw Kerry as a liberal, crafting his message to appeal to conservatives. I saw Kerry as a conservative, crafting his message to appeal to liberals.
UN or not, when a candidate says he will add 40,000 troops and stay in Iraq throughout his 4-year term, I think you should take him at his word. Anything else is wishful thinking.
To be fair, I’ll agree that hunting the terrorists is a separate issue from the Iraq war, but I still think Kerry was a hawk. How we got into the war is another debate. I suspect the Democrats consciously allowed it, but that’s harder to prove.
I care deeply about the truth. It’s the necessary starting point for any discussion. Without it, I can borrow all your money and not pay you back, and you can poison me in return. The truth gives traction to our ideas. Most of the good things in our civilization have come about because people did what they said they were going to do.
Now I understand some lies are customary, like surprise birthday parties and not telling people they look fat, and that’s ok. I also appreciate my brother’s bumper sticker, “When Clinton lied, nobody died” though I do think he lied or deceived us on other more important issues previously noted in this blog.
So while I don’t claim to be perfect (God knows), I think it’s safe to say that all I care about is the truth. This is consistent, because I believe all the best things in life are true, from recreation to art to food to music to love. The truth is also how I can be persuaded. If given enough facts, my feelings can turn on a dime. I’ll even abandon my own candidate if I have to, without the slightest feeling of shame or regret. But you better know your sh*t.
So is Kerry a hawk or a liar, or some other odd amalgam? Cheryl seems to be saying that he was crafting his message to sound like a hawk, and you seem to be saying that at least he was honest about being a hawk.
Yes, the election is over. I think we can find common ground in the fact that Bush is liar. We might also find some common ground on the voting machine issue, though I have another barb for Kerry over on my Nov. 11 “Election Fraud?” post.
"I believe all the best things in life are true."So are all the worst things in life. Truth is nothing more than the reality of what is true. War is true. Hate is true. The fact that deception exists is true. Knowing what is true is not enough.
The other day I was talking to Ryan about the embedded journalists. Now what they were reporting was true, but they were only getting one side of the story.
You can lie to people with the truth. That's what the republicans did during the election. Say a democrat votes against a healthcare bill, because the republicans have slipped patriot act type provisions in it. Then when the election comes along, the republicans say that Joe Smith voted against the healthcare bill. It's completely true. But they don't mention that there was a better bill being discussed at the same time and that the one Joe voted against would have given the government the right to hold Americans without writ of habeus corpus and to ship pestersome liberals off to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured.
But it's perfectly true that Joe voted against the healthcare bill that would reduce premiums on people over 60.
It's not a matter of whether we are getting truth. It's about whether we are getting the truths we need to make good decisions. Which truths.
Yeah, gotta have the whole truth.
12/10/2004
Just heard about Bernard Kerik withdrawing his name as DHS chief. Is the problem with him, or with Bush? I thought this one wasn't going to be controversial. Now Bush can't even keep his new hires on board!
Ok, maybe it was just the Nannygate or something.
Post a Comment
<< Home