Were we duped? - CBC Archives
These people bring up some points about the first Iraq war. Interesting!
I was one of the people pointing out this BS in the 90's and I was called everything but a patriot. That was in the days before PCs and when I find my written word I will post it and illustrate that some of us were right and informed back in the "dark ages".
Is McCain Like Bush? It Depends on the Issue - NYTimes.com
McCain tries to distance himself from GW, but it just does not hold water. If you watch closely, he , McCain, tries to divert the attention away from Bush as often as possible. His stands will NOT hold up to scurtiny.
Text of Bush-EU news conference - Yahoo! News
A wonderful piece of theater.......
Text of President Bush's speech to the Israeli parliament
Needs to be read.......he definately knows how to piss off the bee hive.
Oh good, 4000 deaths and the Prez has this to say, "One day people will look back at this moment in history and say thank God there were courageous people willing to serve because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come [and] I have vowed in the past and I will vow so long as I am president to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain,"
Just who has the deaths benefited? The Iraqis? Do not think so! The US? Well, yes, there it is, the answer. Who has gotten rich off the invasion? Halleburton, Blackwater, and others within the military-industrial complex.
On the tube when Cheney was ask about the opposition to the war by the American people, he said "SO". Now there is the real answer to why the war continues. The elites want it, so be it.
Language is being used by the WH to control the situation and the attitudes toward the war. What? Take surge for instance, a surge is a limited influx of something with an end to come. Like a surge of power, it ends. Want another? How about regime change? Instead of what it was an invasion. Again? It is called a war, but it is an occupation. Check history! You people are allowing these people dance you around like a cheap WHORE. Don't think so? Then why are all returning dead taboo to the media? Why are all services for the dead taboo to the media? Ok, family privacy, is a good call and in most cases legit. News of this would swing the support away from the bullsh*t that they have been cramming up your ass for 5 years.
Wake up people!
Recently at a press conference, Pres. Bush has challenged the allies of the US to send more assistance to Afghanistan. Actually he is asking for more combat troops. The resurgent Taleban is becoming a major problem for the country. The US cannot send too many more combat troops to the country; they are needed in Iraq. There is some success there and he needs to keepp the pressure on. His legacy is at stake and that is far more important than fighting the people that actually gave us 9/11.
But the question now is, just how receptive will the allies be to sending more troops to Afghanistan? Everyone of our allies is having war problems . I think his calls will fall on deaf ears. Bush is hanging himself slowly with a rope of his own making. Could not happen to a better person.
I will be brief, for I am sorry that by now it has been analyzed to death. Bush spoke and spoke and spoke and.....still did not hear anything that was uplifting. So, here is my analysis:
YAWN
Bullsh*t
Sounds like unresolved New Year's resolutions
A basic list of admin failures
SNOOZE
The only way that this speech could have been less boring was if the Pres had fell off the stage. We can only hope that 2009 will bring true change and true democracy. I did however, get an anal-ocity out of this speech. I will post it later.
Tonight is the big night.....The last state of The Union speech to be given by GW. He will dance around about how well his strategy in Iraq has worked. And then he will go to his new economic stimulation plan will benefit Americans and Corporations.
Let us begin with the tax rebates. The theory is that the taxpayer will go out and spend this money on consumer goods thus massaging the economy back to health. NO! This is an economic band-aid. Why? The normal taxpayer will use the rebate for their mortgage or their credit cards or something similar. The poor, who do not own a house in trouble or have the luxury of multiple credit cards, will probably spend this rebate on toys or electronic or such--consumer goods. So they will be the only ones using the money in the economy, but they will not be that effective in the slide of the economy.
Ok, let's move on to the REAL benefit of the package. Corporate Incentives. Corporate tax credits will help create jobs, according to the President. In what world does he live? Consumer demand creates jobs, not corporate tax breaks. Do you honestly believe that if a company has an extra $2 billion, that they will say darn we need to create more jobs? You are dreaming! If their is no demand, they will not invest it in production. It is just that simple.
The small amount of jobs that will be created will NOT be in the US. since almost all consumer goods are imported, from, India, China, Thailand and so on, any jobs created will be in those countries not here. The consumer goods that will be bought, like toys, china, clothing, are all made overseas. So where will these jobs be created in this country. Any jobs created will be low paying jobs and that too will be a drag on the economy.
The real questions that should be asked are: we have a $7 trillion deficit and this package will cost about $140 billion, where will the money come from to pay for this plan? If they print more money, then that will be yet another drag on the economy. In the past, how many high paying jobs have past corporate tax cuts created? Not enough!
IMO, Bush's plan is just a way to make the economy look good for a short period of time. until he is out of office and then when the economy tanks, someone else will be in office and will take the blame.
Do not be ignorant! This plan is a band-aid for a gunshot wound. There is no way it can be a good thing for the future. Someone will have to pay for this plan.
I remember back in the day when there was news of the USSR Politburo elections and there was a 7 or 8% turn over, the media would say how predictable and how fixed the elections were. Then I remember also when like Pakistan and India when daughters or spouses of countries leaders were "elected" it was somehow fixed.
But think about it! If Clinton wins the election we will have at least 25 years of Clinton and Bush. Would that fall into the category of a political dynasty? By most definitions, it would be a political dynasty, but for some reason it will be the desire of the people for this to occur. Does that then, mean that the ones labeled in the past we also as legitimate?
Now let us look at the Congress where about 95% were re-elected to serve, but yet in the USSR it was a fixed election when 93% were re-elected. Which is it?
All I am saying is that the American people are allowing these political dynasties to exist. Is it laziness? Or possibly stupidity? Just what is it that makes the continuation of these families to rule the country so appealing? When will the people realize this is not really in their best interests?
What will the future bring with these festering dynasties? After all Jeb Bush could have a shot. How about Chelsea? We are traveling along a dangerous path in my opinion. Where are the new ideas that will bring a change in the system? Not with the Clintons. The DLC has kept the same line and they are the heart of the Democratic Party. When Bill Clinton became president and moved the Dem Party to the right, new ideas became a dirty notion.
The American people are setting themselves up for generations of the same couple of families ruling the country. This is not my idea of how a democracy should work. If you are truly a voter looking for change and Clinton wins in November, they will be sadly disappointed. But then that is what you get when popularity, race or gender are the important things in a campaign. You will just have to live with it.
