Richard Clarke attacks Bush

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:36 pm

Originally posted by Moonbiter
...and the bimbo next door!

Hey! I resemble that remark.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:00 pm

Originally posted by Moonbiter
Naaaaahhh! This isn't about oil! It's about weeeepuns of mass deeestrukchn and freedom and deemocracy and moms apple pie and the bimbo next door! Didn't you know that? Shheeesh, you Yanks are SO ignorant.

So Dubya would have us believe--the first part, I mean, though it's likely he considers us ignorant enough to eternally fall for his nonsense. (I still shudder over the depths to which the presidency sank when Bush, during an interview, said with emotion about why he was going to invade Iraq and attack Hussein, "He threatened to kill my daddy.")

Being the president, with all that news coverage, power and prestige, allowed Bush to frame the discussion in whatever terms he wanted. Now, that period is over, and other voices are being raised (like Clarke's), insinuating it was all about oil, or obsession, or bungled policy at the top, or underrating both the financial and personal cost of the invasion. Recent estimates put the loss of Iraqi lives at approximately 10,000. The loss of US and UK lives are much, much smaller, but Bush had to make that stupid remark after the war was "over," posturing like a buffoon in front of some troops for a photo-op, saying "They still want war? Fine! BRING IT ON!" to the cheers of people who are putting their lives on the line while he sits comfortably in his office.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:57 pm

Originally posted by fable
So Dubya would have us believe--the first part, I mean, though it's likely he considers us ignorant enough to eternally fall for his nonsense. (I still shudder over the depths to which the presidency sank when Bush, during an interview, said with emotion about why he was going to invade Iraq and attack Hussein, "He threatened to kill my daddy.")

Ugh.

Bush had to make that stupid remark after the war was "over," posturing like a buffoon in front of some troops for a photo-op, saying "They still want war? Fine! BRING IT ON!" to the cheers of people who are putting their lives on the line while he sits comfortably in his office.

Precisely. His life is not on the line, and never was. As time has wore on - and with recent developments - my distaste over the Iraqi invasion has been slowly turning into utter disgust. I am watching my brothers in arms lose their lives...

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:24 am

Originally posted by Chanak
Precisely. His life is not on the line, and never was. As time has wore on - and with recent developments - my distaste over the Iraqi invasion has been slowly turning into utter disgust. I am watching my brothers in arms lose their lives...

Eight more, killed today. Not to mention over ten thousand Iraqis killed since this War started, many of whom were clearly "collateral damage," to use that quaint euphemism.

Bush's obsession with Iraq, his lack of adequate reasons for the invasion, his toleration of the war's gauche aftermath by a series of military and civilian leaders, are starting to finally hurt his popularity. I still think the ultimate payoff lies years in the future, when we realize that this administration's handling of both Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian issue has made us a wonderful catalyst to the creation of terrorists. That--and, of course, the incredible hole of a deficit. It took Clinton (who handled this *very* well, whatever else we might say of the jerk) 8 years to work down our first enormous deficit, from the Reagan years. Dubya's deficit is many times larger: the latest *conservative estimate* is $500 billion. Guess who will ultimately pay in economic slowdowns, unemployment, loss of basic services, etc? Us.