Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
That is not the conspiracy. The conspiracy is the ill intent you associate with these policy decisions (see, e.g., your repeated posting of "Bush Lied" shit). In order to believe your point of view, you would have to believe that Bush et al believed that this war, which, like any war, if very risky business, was going to benefit him politically (more than not going to war), and that was its only purpose. I submit that the better move, politically, would have been not to invade Iraq and ride high on the 90% or so support he enjoyed after Aphganistan and focus more on domestic issues.
But he didn't. He did what he thought was right, not what was politically convenient. Perhaps your problem is that you've got Billy Boy Hangover, where nothing is what it seems, and everything has a political motive. Luckily, there is a cure for that - watch any Al Gore speech. You see, Al is Billy without the smarts, timing, luck and je ne se qua, so you can see the political hack down to the core.
|
No. I don't think he went to war for political gain, though it probably didn't hurt. And even what you describe is not a "conspiracy theory," but a rather simple explanation of Bush's motivations.
It's beyond clear that Bush and other senior officials said things that were not true. I tend to believe they did this because they are ideologues, and believed -- even without evidence -- that they would be proved right. In other words, to them, the end justified the means -- or, as you put it, he did what he thought was right. You and I agree on that much.
Quote:
|
You have me confused with SEF.
|
Fair enough. When they found the trailers and the administration's defenders claimed vindication, you linked to the stories but didn't add your own comments.
Like you link to stories about job creation, but don't bother to link to people noting that we would have to create 850,000 jobs a month for the next two months to catch up to the administration's February forecast.
Quote:
This is laughable. Nearly the entire US media has been focused on destroying Bush's presidency for some time now. It is rare that we get a story of all the good that the US has done in Iraq over the last 14 months. Rather, it is one calamity after another. Take the electricity problems, as just one example. We heard for months about these problems, but do we hear that electricity levels are now far better than pre-war? Or the schools, or the oil production, or . . .
Yet, only the media I rely on is focused on influencing a political agenda. Wake the fuck up man.
|
I wasn't describing the mainstream media, I was describing stuff like the NRO.
"Nearly the entire US media has been focused on destroying Bush's presidency for some time now."
Our problems in Iraq are the result of failed policies, not bad press coverage. The press runs in a pack -- when things are good, it's all good, and when they're bad, it's all bad. Maybe there's less coverage of the power supply in Iraq because reporters aren't safe on the streets. No -- it must be because they're trying to destroy Bush. All bad news is evidence that the media is trying to destroy Bush. Maybe later you can tell me why, e.g., General Electric, which owns NBC, wants to destroy Bush. Or Disney, which owns ABC, wants to destroy Bush. I'm curious.
Quote:
Pot/kettle. I routinely take positions on this board that are based on principle rather than party - that requires critical thinking. For example:
1. I supported "Clinton's War" in Europe
2. I have been highly critical of the Bush deficits
3. I have been highly critical of the Bush FCC
4. I have been highly critcial of the anti-gay marriage agenda (though, did not support the circumvention of process by Gavin).
On what issues do you break from the party line? My guess is that you'd have trouble coming up with 2. But I'm the one that doesn't think critically. What a fucking joke.
|
You are absolutely right about your positions. I wasn't thinking about anything other than Iraq.
As for my "party line," I'd break it all the time if I knew what it was. [Insert Will Rogers quote here.] You are the consummate libertarian, and I respect that on some level, but I am generally suspicious of grand principles and ideologies, and am more of a small-p pragmatist. I wasn't opposed to the war because I thought it was wrong with a capital W -- I was opposed because I thought it would be a mess and a waste, and would make us less safe. And here we are.
