It's funny how history repeats.
Eight years ago, I watched the final returns of the election (nearly a full day after the polls closed, of course) saying Bush won. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, and I was bracing myself for a very smug Ryan. My attitude was simply... "Hey, he has it all now. A Republican Congress, the White House, and a conservative majority in the Supreme Court." No excuses for failure now.
How can anyone see it differently now?
There is no super-majority, so the opposition still has some sway. The Chief Justice is a very conservative Bush appointee. At least one key Cabinet appointment is a Bush carry-over (and a good one, too).
I'm in the same spot that I was in eight years ago... the only difference is Ryan now gets to see what the view is like from MY perspective.
I'm really looking forward the end of the whining... it makes listening to talk radio about as much fun now as it was listening to NPR for the last 6 years.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Bushs? I'm ready to do Obamas!
Look, its been 24 hours and my vehicles aren't paid off, I don't have a free mansion in the high end part of the Valley, and Bin Laden hasn't surrendered - WHAT'S THE HOLD UP MAN!?
Some tid bits here ...
Obama ... sorry... PRESIDENT, THE ALL MERCIFUL, HALLOWED BE HIS NAME, PEACE BE UPON HIM Obama has requested (read: ordered) a 4 month delay in the military tribunal trials of the remaining, captured and charged, 9/11 conspirators down in GTMO. He gave no reason as to why, not that I've found, but I can think of a few reasons he might order this, none of them good.
Also, noting that the American people are having to do some "belt tightening," he proclaimed "so is the government." Now he used that word - GOVERNMENT. And then announced that he is freezing ... get this cost saving measure ... the salaries of his senior staff.
Uh huh. Most of which are millionaires. And he isn't wiping out the salary, just "freezing." Well, I suppose that ought to sufficiently tear away at the $800,000,000,000.00 in spending he has in mind.
Look, I get that this is political theater, and it's laughable to the informed; but what concerns me is he knows, and he is RIGHT, that the millions that support him will lap this up as the first sign real "change" has come to Washington, and cite it as an example of his benevolence, mastery of government, and status as an agent for reform. Strike concern, it flat out SCARES me that you can now win national elections based on a sort of Daily Show, Bill Maher, Lettermen style popularity, without any examination of policy or position, and make symbolic (at best) "changes" as a substitute for discussing real policy.
*sigh*
Some tid bits here ...
Obama ... sorry... PRESIDENT, THE ALL MERCIFUL, HALLOWED BE HIS NAME, PEACE BE UPON HIM Obama has requested (read: ordered) a 4 month delay in the military tribunal trials of the remaining, captured and charged, 9/11 conspirators down in GTMO. He gave no reason as to why, not that I've found, but I can think of a few reasons he might order this, none of them good.
Also, noting that the American people are having to do some "belt tightening," he proclaimed "so is the government." Now he used that word - GOVERNMENT. And then announced that he is freezing ... get this cost saving measure ... the salaries of his senior staff.
Uh huh. Most of which are millionaires. And he isn't wiping out the salary, just "freezing." Well, I suppose that ought to sufficiently tear away at the $800,000,000,000.00 in spending he has in mind.
Look, I get that this is political theater, and it's laughable to the informed; but what concerns me is he knows, and he is RIGHT, that the millions that support him will lap this up as the first sign real "change" has come to Washington, and cite it as an example of his benevolence, mastery of government, and status as an agent for reform. Strike concern, it flat out SCARES me that you can now win national elections based on a sort of Daily Show, Bill Maher, Lettermen style popularity, without any examination of policy or position, and make symbolic (at best) "changes" as a substitute for discussing real policy.
*sigh*
Bush's Report Card
Dare we work to finish George W. Bush's "Bund Report Card"? He had a partial grade, last time we worked on them, but that might have been two years ago (in the old mail-list days).
He is already calling retirement "sweet"... so I suppose we are not jumping the gun on this.
He is already calling retirement "sweet"... so I suppose we are not jumping the gun on this.
The last recourse of a weak mind...
I don't know what else I can do... I recanted my original claim that Reagan "conspired" with Iran to keep the hostages BECAUSE it hadn't been substantiated by Federal authorities, and submitted another example of Federally determined illegal activity in its place, while letting the first two examples stand on their own merits.
Are those three examples refuted? Are the rebutted? Has anyone here offered a legitimate RATIONAL explanation for the policies I questioned?
Nope. All we get is snide, sarcastic name-calling and juvenile innuendos. How is that behavior any different than the crowds of sneering and jeering Bush-haters that laughed and waved their shoes as his motorcade drove away from the ceremonies yesterday? No rational basis for the outright sanctimonious ignorant pride... just pure emotional response.
And all this time I thought that was the trademark of a LIBERAL... nice.
My sources are not quotes from the National Enquirer. I have cited USMC field manuals, tactical analysis works, Congressional testimony, and clear, unbiased investigative reporting. The people I am quoting are such CURRENT political figures as the Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Newt Gingrich (prior to his role as Speaker), and former VP and Sec Def Richard Cheney. I'm not mooning over some Moore-esque "what-if" work like those crying "No Blood for Oil" or "Impeach Bush Now"... I feel my position is clearly and unambiguously laid out and simply waits to be refuted or explained by a rational adult with a modicum of intellectual capability.
Someone let me know when the REAL Reagan-conservatives arrive so I can stop wasting my time.
Are those three examples refuted? Are the rebutted? Has anyone here offered a legitimate RATIONAL explanation for the policies I questioned?
Nope. All we get is snide, sarcastic name-calling and juvenile innuendos. How is that behavior any different than the crowds of sneering and jeering Bush-haters that laughed and waved their shoes as his motorcade drove away from the ceremonies yesterday? No rational basis for the outright sanctimonious ignorant pride... just pure emotional response.
And all this time I thought that was the trademark of a LIBERAL... nice.
My sources are not quotes from the National Enquirer. I have cited USMC field manuals, tactical analysis works, Congressional testimony, and clear, unbiased investigative reporting. The people I am quoting are such CURRENT political figures as the Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Newt Gingrich (prior to his role as Speaker), and former VP and Sec Def Richard Cheney. I'm not mooning over some Moore-esque "what-if" work like those crying "No Blood for Oil" or "Impeach Bush Now"... I feel my position is clearly and unambiguously laid out and simply waits to be refuted or explained by a rational adult with a modicum of intellectual capability.
Someone let me know when the REAL Reagan-conservatives arrive so I can stop wasting my time.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Have you talked this over with Trevor?
I can't imagine he'd approve.
"No Way. On this, I'm convinced that there is more to tell... and those that can, won't."
Oh wow, well why didn't you say so - you're "convinced" that something you have no proof of exists. That's good enough for me, case closed.
*sigh*
But just so you know, you are a conspiracy theorist.
Being "convinced" of something that you can't see, haven't seen, and can't prove should be reserved for the auspices of faith, not determining the validity of heinous accusations.
Like I said - reliable binoculars. Wouldn't want any black helicopters or Sasquatches to get the drop on you while you're removing that CIA chip implant from your buttock. Of course, the alien anal probe should probably take care of that, so I wouldn't bother.
"No Way. On this, I'm convinced that there is more to tell... and those that can, won't."
Oh wow, well why didn't you say so - you're "convinced" that something you have no proof of exists. That's good enough for me, case closed.
*sigh*
But just so you know, you are a conspiracy theorist.
Being "convinced" of something that you can't see, haven't seen, and can't prove should be reserved for the auspices of faith, not determining the validity of heinous accusations.
Like I said - reliable binoculars. Wouldn't want any black helicopters or Sasquatches to get the drop on you while you're removing that CIA chip implant from your buttock. Of course, the alien anal probe should probably take care of that, so I wouldn't bother.
No way
On this, I'm convinced that there is more to tell... and those that can, won't.
The timeline I gave is clear enough to me to warrant further investigation, but Congress hasn't followed through. It is my opinion that the reason that a Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't then (and won't now) investigate this further is because of what ELSE it will expose. When these allegations actually came to light, both Reagan and Bush were out of office, and Big Bill Clinton was President. The most iconic names of the Democratic lexicon could easily have been exposed for illegal dealings with rogue or enemy nations (especially Kennedy and Johnson... lest we forget, Bobby is KNOWN to have ordered numerous assassination attempts on foreign leaders).
More importantly, though... it doesn't negate the FACTS of my original post. REAGAN went to the table and negotiated with terrorists AND altered established US foreign policy because of terrorist acts. CARTER was negotiating in good faith through a "third party" nation with the de facto government of Iran for the release and safe conduct of 52 American citizens and servicemen... at least until Bob Casey went to Paris (I know, I know... withdrawn...).
*****
Regarding Obama...
Today, we witnessed the peaceful and successfull transition of the most powerful office on the face of the earth from one popularly elected official to another, proving once and for all that there are NO MORE LIMITS to the potential success an American citizen can reach, regardless of race, religion, or sex. Today, regardless of WHO was elected to the White House... the United States of America has its 44th President. Our Republic works. Our society has a chance to learn and grow from the leadership (successfull or otherwise) of the 43rd man to call himself President of the United States.
So, today... just today... I'm not going to beat up on the President of the United States of America.
The timeline I gave is clear enough to me to warrant further investigation, but Congress hasn't followed through. It is my opinion that the reason that a Democratic-controlled Congress wouldn't then (and won't now) investigate this further is because of what ELSE it will expose. When these allegations actually came to light, both Reagan and Bush were out of office, and Big Bill Clinton was President. The most iconic names of the Democratic lexicon could easily have been exposed for illegal dealings with rogue or enemy nations (especially Kennedy and Johnson... lest we forget, Bobby is KNOWN to have ordered numerous assassination attempts on foreign leaders).
More importantly, though... it doesn't negate the FACTS of my original post. REAGAN went to the table and negotiated with terrorists AND altered established US foreign policy because of terrorist acts. CARTER was negotiating in good faith through a "third party" nation with the de facto government of Iran for the release and safe conduct of 52 American citizens and servicemen... at least until Bob Casey went to Paris (I know, I know... withdrawn...).
*****
Regarding Obama...
Today, we witnessed the peaceful and successfull transition of the most powerful office on the face of the earth from one popularly elected official to another, proving once and for all that there are NO MORE LIMITS to the potential success an American citizen can reach, regardless of race, religion, or sex. Today, regardless of WHO was elected to the White House... the United States of America has its 44th President. Our Republic works. Our society has a chance to learn and grow from the leadership (successfull or otherwise) of the 43rd man to call himself President of the United States.
So, today... just today... I'm not going to beat up on the President of the United States of America.
Good and faithfull servant, farewell.
I want to make mention of the exiting president, amidst all the history being made by our new president.
When Clinton left office he made four or five public rallies in airport hangars and on tarmacs on the very day of "Dubya's" inauguration. Bush staff noticed, curiously enough, that many of the "w" keys on the computers in the White House had been pried off.
Does anyone think that the new president and his staff will experience anything even approaching this? In fact, Former President George W. Bush (woah, first time I've written that) allowed President Obama (also a first to write for me), to serve as almost co-president for many weeks prior to the inauguration, and his farewells were done in private, his exit quiet and immediate. Gracious does not even begin to describe his attitude towards the incoming administration, and the new president in particular. It is a tradition for the outgoing president to leave a note to the incoming. In fact 41 and 43 had a father and son conversation on television not long ago, unique to only 2 families in American history - where you are supposed to physically leave the note. Reagan's to George H. is reported as reading: "Don't let the turkeys get you down!" I hope one day we are privy to what George W. left President Obama this afternoon.
Today Bush got as close to again being that man on the rubble, with the bull horn after 9/11, then at any other moment since that terrible day. Perhaps its fitting - he started his presidency with our darkest hour, and he was at his best. In a very bright hour of American history (laying my ideological differences aside) the ascension of the first black American to the highest office in the land, he again was at his best ... gracious, memorable ... presidential.
God's speed sir.
When Clinton left office he made four or five public rallies in airport hangars and on tarmacs on the very day of "Dubya's" inauguration. Bush staff noticed, curiously enough, that many of the "w" keys on the computers in the White House had been pried off.
Does anyone think that the new president and his staff will experience anything even approaching this? In fact, Former President George W. Bush (woah, first time I've written that) allowed President Obama (also a first to write for me), to serve as almost co-president for many weeks prior to the inauguration, and his farewells were done in private, his exit quiet and immediate. Gracious does not even begin to describe his attitude towards the incoming administration, and the new president in particular. It is a tradition for the outgoing president to leave a note to the incoming. In fact 41 and 43 had a father and son conversation on television not long ago, unique to only 2 families in American history - where you are supposed to physically leave the note. Reagan's to George H. is reported as reading: "Don't let the turkeys get you down!" I hope one day we are privy to what George W. left President Obama this afternoon.
Today Bush got as close to again being that man on the rubble, with the bull horn after 9/11, then at any other moment since that terrible day. Perhaps its fitting - he started his presidency with our darkest hour, and he was at his best. In a very bright hour of American history (laying my ideological differences aside) the ascension of the first black American to the highest office in the land, he again was at his best ... gracious, memorable ... presidential.
God's speed sir.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
