permaculture playing cards*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes Teflon, take 2 Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "Teflon, take 2" Watch "Teflon, take 2" New topic
Author

Teflon, take 2

Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8815
    
    5
I'm going to try to bring up a topic that truly is neither left wing nor right wing, but that from time to time has happened in both wings...

Why is it that, when it comes to politics, some stories "stick", and become big deals, and some stories that seem really important don't "stick"... they slide off like the politician in question is made of teflon?

(Think of Ronald Reagan, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, George Bush II...)

Is this a reflection of what people care about?
Is it a reflection of the media spin du jour?

Are some politicians better able to control the media?
Are there hidden bad guys threatening to smash kneecaps?

Payola?



Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Max Habibi
town drunk
( and author)
Sheriff

Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 4118
Fellas,

General warning: please keep your feedback to the facts (which can be verified), and avoid political side swipes.

Thus,
1. President X is a coward because... ->deleted post

2. President Y ran away from a threatening mongoose @ a rate of 3.5 Km/Hr on such and such date as verified here ->keeper

thanks,
M
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

Java Regular Expressions
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
I think it has to do with "likeability". If people like you then they will trust you.

Ignore politics and think of Monday Night Football... would you rather hang out in a bar with Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon? George W. Bush or John Kerry? Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan?

No matter what the press would like, if people aren't interested in the story it is going to die.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
I think Tom is on to something. Some Presidents seem to come off as more trustworthy, and some seem to come off as more slick or deceptive. I'm also not sure how many Americans really trust the news media. While the news media may have an agenda in any given situation, they are not always able to successfully convince the public to go along with them.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Only Ronald Reagan had true "teflon" - as in, when he wanted the story dropped, even the press wouldn't pursue it.

In the case of the Bush administration, I'll stick to my previous answer: they don't lie, even if the press does misunderstand their statements and thus misrepresents them in headlines.

With regard to the current administration the Christian Science Monitor gets part of it in http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p09s01-codc.html in a comment on a statement by Vice President Cheney:

Parse that carefully and you'll see he is 100 percent correct. If the US brings a stable democracy to Iraq, it will strike a blow at "the heart" of "the geographic base" of Islamic terrorism: the Middle East. But the wording, if you will, leads the reader or listener to more dramatic conclusions, particularly when the "9/11" is added in there. They are led toward the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda are working together.

The part that this journalist is still missing is that comments like this one from Cheney don't actually lead all readers or listeners to more dramatic conclusions; those who actually read carefully just take the statement at face value, rather than reading more into it as that journalist evidently did. The writer of that article could more accurately have written, 'the wording, if you will, led me to more dramatic conclusions'.

Most people in the U.S. still believe in personal responsibility: if they read more into someone's statement than that someone actually said, they blame themselves for not reading carefully, rather than blaming that someone for saying something that he didn't actually say. That's where some of the teflon comes from.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Part of the thing with Reagan, too, was that the press attacked him with such insane charges that no one took anything they said about him too seriously. Reagan, we were told, was a fascist who was going to lead us into nuclear war with the USSR. When the press makes charges like that, then no one is going to take anything they say seriously.

Whenthe Monica Lewisnsky story first broke, the press was treating it as if Clinton's presidency was doomed but most Americans saw it for what it was... something really stupid that he should apologize for and now let's move on.

I would say that Clinton and Reagan were the two recent teflon presidents. I don't think that Bush has the charisma or popularity to be a teflon president.
paul wheaton
Trailboss

Joined: Dec 14, 1998
Posts: 20542
    ∞

I should probably stay out of this ...

I hope I never again see the president of the united states talk to the nation about his personal sex life. That's just wrong.

On the flip side: I hope I never again see a president of the united states distracted from his duties by such political dreck. The fact that the leader of our nation was impeached for something in his personal life is downright embarassing to me.

I don't give a damn if the bastard is caught stealing M&M's from the 7-11 on video tape. I want the president to focus on issues of state.

During the whole Lewinski thing, I think the biggest threat to American security and prosperity was our own legislature.

Shame on them.


permaculture Wood Burning Stoves 2.0 - 4-DVD set
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
"when it comes to politics, some stories "stick", and become big deals, and some stories that seem really important don't "stick"...
they slide off like the politician in question is made of teflon?"




Good observation but I'll be damned if I have the perfect explanation! (I'd rather have a perfect vision of the next winning PowerBall
lottery number but I don't even live in one of the participating states.) I am being discriminated against! ... But I digress...

Bert: Don't underestimate the American electorate: Our voice will be heard on the first Tuesday in November.

Bush won the last election fair and square due only to the mistakes that the electors made in MY COUNTY OF RESIDENCE PALM
BEACH COUNTY!!

If WE (repeat WE in PALM BEACH COUNTY) had not been so stupid as to accept the infamous BUTTERFLY BALLOT, Bush
would have lost. (Not that I personally would have liked that. For the record: I would NOT have!)

I am not a DEMOCRAT!!

However 2+2 = 4 and we (and I am Soooooo... ashamed of this, being a resident of Palm Beach County, FL):

This is what happened that is documented elsewhere:

But before I loose my audience: GEORGE BUSH WAS ELECTED FAIRLY as President! Period.

WE Screwed up in Palm Beach County! The Democrats and Republicans accepted an election sample ballot that turned out to be so
CONFUSING (the infamous Butterfly Ballot) that MANY people voted for Buchannan for President instead of Al Gore.

That's how far the ballot was screwed up.

Before you ask:

For all the analysts (and I hope there are many) This is how it went:

1) We all know that Buchannan did not get a lot of votes. Anywhere.

2) Too many people voted involuntarily for Buchannan. It was ALL a mistake that they made due to the INCOMPETENCE of the
Palm Beach County Election Committee.

4) They elected Bush by their vote not being recorded for Gore.

Which in my opinion was GOOD. FOr the Nation Esp. on Afghanistan.

Not even close for Iraq!

Going back to the 'Teflon'

In my opinion if Bush tries to get a piece of that Teflon that Regain rightfully worn, this would be GRAVE ROBBING

The American Public will decide against such Teflon...
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Yo!' I know Paul; I agree as so does common sense with you as (me are) one of the oldest ones here (Tony Alicea) I repeat...

"The fact that the leader of our nation was impeached for something in his personal life is downright embarrassing to me.'

And to The Nation as a Whole too: How many blow jobs constitute an offence?

The public has spoken. (NOT ENOUGH, really...).

[Competing with Helen Thomas: Did SHE realize the WE hve our own UPI person?
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Thomas Paul:

I would say that Clinton and Reagan were the two recent teflon presidents. I don't think that Bush has the charisma or popularity to be a teflon president.

I'd hardly call Clinton 'teflon' given that he did get impeached for Whitewater....
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8815
    
    5
The "like-ability" factor might have some legs...

On a scale from 1 - 10, 10 being the most likeable, how do you think a survey of people would rate:

Carter
Reagan
Clinton
Bush II

?
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Bert Bates ]
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Clinton is pass�...

The non-partisan issue is HOW MUCH Bush's admin lied. That is NOT an unreasonable question.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Warren Dew:
I'd hardly call Clinton 'teflon' given that he did get impeached for Whitewater....


And how did that come out? Is he still the most popular president in recent history? Did his book sell out even though even the liberal press says it sucks? Would the American public elect him to the third term if it could?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Extending the list back to Nixon listed in my guess at order of popularity:

Reagan
Clinton
Ford
Bush II
Carter
Bush I
Nixon

I think Carter is more likeable now than he was whe he was president. At the time he seemed to be a guy who had to control everything and couldn't even let his underlings book the tennis courts. Now I feel sorry for him as a guy who was in way over his head.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
Clinton is pass�...

The non-partisan issue is HOW MUCH Bush's admin lied. That is NOT an unreasonable question.


Can we avoid the unsupported accusations, please?

lie n - A false statement deliberately presented as being true.

The unsupportable assumption is that the Bush admin knowingly made false statements. Since the evidence indicates that other US administrations, other foreign governments, and other international institutions had the same information, this is not likely. As this is the case, continuing with this baseless and inflammatory rhetoric only serves to poison what could conceivably be an otherwise interesting discussion.
[ June 22, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Michael Yuan
author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: 1427
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Can we avoid the unsupported accusations, please?

lie n - A false statement deliberately presented as being true.


I will stop calling Bush a liar when the "social conservatives" stop calling Clinton a liar. Can you prove that his definition of "sex" is the same as yours? If not, he did not deliberately present a false statement as true.

But the Iraqi intelligence is only part of Bush's problems. Did he lie when he said that "by far the vast majority of my tax cut goes to those at the bottom"? He knew it was not case but said so nevertheless in order to sell his plan. Well, I benefit from his tax cut since I make enough income, own stock and use little social services (no kids or anything). Too bad for those troops who face the threat of pay cuts so that I can buy two copies of Clinton's book -- one for home and one for office. It is a shame, really.

OK, back to the topic. The presidents I liked are: Clinton, Reagan and Bush Sr. Too young to remember anything before Reagan.


Seam Framework: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0137129394/mobileenterpr-20/
Ringful: http://www.ringful.com/
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8815
    
    5

The unsupportable assumption is that the Bush admin knowingly made false statements


Unsupportable? That's kind of leaning a bit on the other side. I suppose you could contend that lots of people got bad info. If that's your argument, then I'd say how grossly incompetent is it, in this day and age, to initiate a "preventative" war based on bad info?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
The non-partisan issue is HOW MUCH Bush's admin lied. That is NOT an unreasonable question.

As compared to any other administration, you mean?
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8815
    
    5
Of course, not all lies are created equal...
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
I do wonder sometimes how much people vote for a particular candidate just based upon some "gut feeling" rather than any view on their policies. There's probably a large amount of the electorate who will choose a candidate just because they seemed a "nice guy" or gave a funny speech rather than having looked into what they are campaigning for. There is also a large number of people who vote for party X every time just because they always have - it doesn't matter what party X wants to do, the voter wants to be a "loyal Xian" and keep voting for them.

In the end its probably just down to whoever has the best haircut in their adverts.
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24183
    
  34

It's very well established that both Cheney and Powell had been told in advance of the January 2003 State of the Union that the Niger Uranium sales documents were forgeries; yet Bush went ahead and used this as the 800 lb gorilla in that speech anyway. If Bush personally hadn't heard the information, then the only possible way to avoid saying he lied would be to say that both Cheney and Powell chose to keep him in the dark -- itself a damning statement about the administration. In any case, parts of the administration knew that the statements about the Niger documents were not true, and yet they allowed the President to deliver the speech regardless.


[Jess in Action][AskingGoodQuestions]
paul wheaton
Trailboss

Joined: Dec 14, 1998
Posts: 20542
    ∞

I saw the movie "thirteen days" this weekend. It was on the tube. I think the picture that is painted is pretty interesting. A roomfull of military guys doing everything in their power to convince the president to go to war. I suppose every president has to deal with this. Only some presidents take the advice and some don't.

We're talking about politicians lying right? I guess I don't understand why folks would get excited over this. This is what they are famous for doing.

As for whether Bush lied: what he told us turned out to be not true. Saying that he was misinformed just sounds like a cheap excuse. I'm not sure which is worse, a guy that lies, or a guy that will go to war based on someone else's lies. The end result is what is important: during the bush administration we went to war on a false pretext. And the price paid was lots of American lives and (I think I heard) $4000 per American. So my family gets to chip in an extra $16,000 for a mistake by the Bush administration. That doesn't inspire me to vote for the man.
Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820
Originally posted by Paul Wheaton:

We're talking about politicians lying right? I guess I don't understand why folks would get excited over this. This is what they are famous for doing.

That's why we vote the worst liars into public office - at least that way we know where they are and can keep an eye on them.

As for whether Bush lied: what he told us turned out to be not true. Saying that he was misinformed just sounds like a cheap excuse. I'm not sure which is worse, a guy that lies, or a guy that will go to war based on someone else's lies.

Or the third possibility - a guy that believes the lie/mistake that he has been told and doesn't take the time to further investigate if it was true or not (ie have more inspections in Iraq and more assessment of the intelligence).

I suspect that Bush completely believed what he was doing was right and thought that there were WMD present, because that was what he was told. Unfortunately this leaves the impression that he is nothing more than a public face (or puppet some would say) to the real decision makers, who are behind the scenes. What I would like to know is:

* Who took the decision that the evidence clearly and without reasonable doubt showed that Iraq had/was developing WMD and was passing weapons on to terrorists? Seeing as WMD have not been found, either the intelligence effort was incredibly flawed, or someone somewhere decided that the unclear should be presented as clear.

* Who has the most influential voice in the meetings to decide government policy? Is it Bush who's deciding, or various other people? Who lobbies them? Where do they earn their non-government pay money from?

* What do the sponsors of Bush's election campaign ask for in return? Maybe nothing, but its hard to believe that they give all that money without expect some perks in return. While we're at it, lets ask the same thing of Kerry.

* How much do the commercial interests of the various high level members of the government effect their policy recommendations and decisions? This will be very hard to know, but there have been many accusations along the line of "Cheney is only doing X to get Halliburton rich". It may be nice to have a complete list of the commercial interests of various important political figures.... its probably out there somewhere.....
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
[Jerone, I'm sending the content of your post. Do you want to try that again, without political side swipes? My advice is to stick to supportable facts. This process is a pain for me, so the next time you overstep, I'll just delete it.-MH]
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

42
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
"I think Carter is more likeable now than he was when he was president. At the time he seemed to be a guy who had to control everything and couldn't even let his underlings book the tennis courts. Now I feel sorry for him as a guy who was in way over his head."

I agree almost 100% with that statement.

You know how old I am Paul, and one thing about Carter that I will never forgive is the way, according to TIME magazine, that the failed raid on Teheran (Iran) went. The planning for it, I mean.

According to TIME magazine in that year, which I read when it came out, Carter had given very restrictive orders in how the American soldiers should proceed when they got to our embassy in Teheran (which they never did of course). Asked by one of his staffers what should the soldiers do in case of being confronted by ARMED Iranian occupiers of the embassy, Carter said, and I am paraphrasing of course since this was a long time ago, something to the effect that if the militant was there by choice, he should be shot dead. But that if the militant WAS FORCED to be there by... who knows who, then HE SHOULD NOT BE SHOT DEAD.
I remember being in disbelief when I read that, and I remember imagining how a theoretical encounter of an American soldier trying to rescue an American hostage in American soil (the Embassy of the United States of America) would go:

American soldier confronting an armed militant:

"Excuse me sir, are you here voluntarily or were you forced to participate in this act? I ask because I cannot kill you unless you answer in the affirmative, sorry."

I stopped thinking after that point.

For all who don't remember, Iran essentially declared war on us (the USA) in 1979 and they still exist, and still pose a nuclear threat. And Iran IS an Islamic Republic. They are not arabs, BTW, they are Persians.

On the other hand, I consider the situation in Iran then, under the Shah, similar to Cuba when the dictator Fidel Castro took over. I will repeat an explanation that was given to me on the current situation in Cuba by more than a few Cubans here in S Fl, in Spanish (since it was in that language that it was presented to me originally and then I will translate it to English because it's worth doing it):

"La MIERDA que teníamos antes (dictador Batista) nos trajo la MIERDA que tenemos ahora (Castro)."

The SHIT that we had before (dictator Batista) brought us the SHIT that we have now (Castro).

The same way we supported a brutal dictator in Iran called Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and then the ISLAMIC revolution took over and placed in power one the most anti-American Islamic clerics ever, the ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini.

We never did get even with Iran. SO do they owe us? Inquiring minds want to know. On the other hand, it turns out that a large part of the population in Iran (the younger ones) don't care much for their current repressive regime. Many of them have expressed their desire for the US to intervene.

But that's not likely anytime soon but we should keep it under consideration.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Tony Alicea:

The non-partisan issue is HOW MUCH Bush's admin lied. That is NOT an unreasonable question.

The answer is, none, as far as I can tell. Usually when people say "Bush lied about X" what they mean is 'I saw a headline portraying Bush as saying something simplistic about X that turned out to be wrong' - but if they'd bothered to carefully read what he actually said, they would have found out the fault was with the press for oversimplifying.

Thomas Paul on Clinton:

Did his book sell out even though even the liberal press says it sucks? Would the American public elect him to the third term if it could?

Nixon's memoirs sold out too - do you think he was really popular? I doubt very much that Clinton would be reelected today, though we may have to agree to disagree on that.

I think Carter is more likeable now than he was whe he was president. At the time he seemed to be a guy who had to control everything and couldn't even let his underlings book the tennis courts. Now I feel sorry for him as a guy who was in way over his head.

I think most of what Carter is now respected for are the things he did after he was president - he showed that he was a good person able to do good work on some things he really cared about. But yeah, it seems like the difference between the Georgia state government and the Federal government was a little more than he was prepared for at the time.

Ernest Friedman-Hill:

In any case, parts of the administration knew that the statements about the Niger documents were not true, and yet they allowed the President to deliver the speech regardless.

Link to an actual statement by Cheney or Powell, please? My impression is that the actual situation, vice what was reported in the headlines, was that some people in the administration lower down had suspicions that some but not all of the evidence was questionable. Lack of evidence is not evidence of falsehood.

Joe King:

Or the third possibility - a guy that believes the lie/mistake that he has been told and doesn't take the time to further investigate if it was true or not (ie have more inspections in Iraq and more assessment of the intelligence).

This seems fair. Of course, he did wait for quite a few months of inspections, during which time Saddam Hussein was as uncooperative as possible - the U.N. inspection team on the bio/chemical side reported that they wouldn't be able to discover any WMD without more cooperation from Iraq, which they weren't getting.

At the time, Saddam Hussein was acting very guilty. Given that they actually have found a few chemical weapons since the war, it's still not clear to me that Hussein didn't have a program for which he successfully got rid of most of the evidence.
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I think Tom is on to something. Some Presidents seem to come off as more trustworthy, and some seem to come off as more slick or deceptive. I'm also not sure how many Americans really trust the news media. While the news media may have an agenda in any given situation, they are not always able to successfully convince the public to go along with them.


FOX News the other day (don't tell me you didn' see it)

"CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND IN IRAQ"

You know what I mean...
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Tony Alicea:

We never did get even with Iran. SO do they owe us? Inquiring minds want to know. On the other hand, it turns out that a large part of the population in Iran (the younger ones) don't care much for their current repressive regime. Many of them have expressed their desire for the US to intervene.

But that's not likely anytime soon but we should keep it under consideration


Honest question - how do you see this as different from the situation in Iraq a couple years ago? Or don't you?

Personally, I'm less worried about Iran's anti-Americanism than about the fact they threw out the nuclear inspectors as soon as those inspectors found a little evidence of a weapons program. I'd rank them behind North Korea as a problem, though.
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

As compared to any other administration, you mean?


At least Clinton's admin was lying about oral sex (e.g. saying it was not sex. BORING)

Bush's lies and/or lack of info are costing unnecessary human lives.
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Tony Alicea ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Well Bert, it was a nice try but I think you have been officially hijacked.
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Paul W:

I saw the film and I liked it.

How about an Oscar winning documentary on the Secretary of Defense during those "13 days"?

THE FOG OF WAR

(I understand that the movie "Thirteen Days" stayed close to history, BTW)

Kennedy was a special person. He did not accede to the suggestions that would have led to nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

The worst player in all of this as the documentation now shows, was Fidel Castro. He blatantly admitted in the meeting that happened in the 1990s about this issue, that he would have sacrificed the whole nation of Cuba during that encounter with us.

When asked about what would have happened to Cuba if a nuclear war had begun between the Soviet Union and the USA, Castro said that he would have expected Cuba to cease to exist. Period. And that he was willing to sacrifice the Island for that little.

Of course he didn't ask his people about their opinion. That's why they call it a DICTATORSHIP.
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Tony Alicea ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
At least Clinton's admin was lying about oral sex (e.g. saying it was not sex. BORING)
As opposed to the Clinton lies about our mission in Somalia or the Clinton lies about our mission in Serbia. Next we can discuss the Kennedy and LBJ lies that got us into Vietnam.
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
"Honest question - how do you see this as different from the situation in Iraq a couple years ago? Or don't you?"

Easy: Iran almost declared war on us by taking American hostages in an American embassy which according to international law is part of the country of origin. Our soil.

Iran invaded the US. Iraq didn't.

BIG difference.
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
Thomas: I (or the Universe) finally get you to admit that Viet Nam was a mistake!?

We are so pleased! [JOKING!]

So no more Kerry bashing because he opposed the Viet Nam war.

In fact, kudos to him for that.

Summary:

<code>
Anti Viet Nam War: GOOD
For Viet Nam War: BAD
</code>

Cheers,

Tony
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
At least Clinton's admin was lying about oral sex (e.g. saying it was not sex. BORING)

Bush's lies and/or lack of info are costing unnecessary human lives.


You know.. I think Clinton's lies were far more egregious than any lie ever said by any president. We dont know for a fact that Bush was lying, he might have been relying on faulty intelligence but that does not make a lie. Let me illustrate my point here; If you were to receive information that Paul McKenna is planning an alliance with Dr.Evil and is going to destroy the planet wouldnt you act? Now you may be totally wrong but you acted on good faith. It does not make your assumptions about me a lie, it just makes them wrong. Clinton on the other hand disgraced the most powerful office in the world with his personal life. I watched his interviews on TV and walked away with the feeling that what people complain about him is quite right. He is full of himself.

RushLimbaugh.com has a great video from 1993 about Clinton, Rush shows a clip where Clinton is attending a funeral and on his way out he is joking and laughing with one of his security detail personnel. When he spots the camera taping this he immediately starts crying.


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Okay, I can understand that point of view, Tony.

Politically incorrect joke about Iran:

Two Iranian students were talking just as the news of the U.S. invasion of Iraq hit.

Student one: "You know how America has been calling us, Iraq, and North Korea the 'Axis of Evil', and it sounds like they're going to invade us? I've got good news and bad news on that."

Student two: "We don't get much good news around here - let me hear the good news first."

Student one: "The good news is, America invaded Iraq."

Student two: "Uh ... what's the bad news?"

Student one: "It looks like North Korea is next."
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Tony Alicea:
Thomas: I (or the Universe) finally get you to admit that Viet Nam was a mistake!?
Tony.. is the Alzheimer's clicking in? I have always said that the Vietnam War was a mistake. I even protested the war at the tender age of 11.

You can look at this thread to see my opinion of Vietnam:
http://www.coderanch.com/t/39907/md/Vietnam-war-Domino
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Ernest Friedman-Hill
author and iconoclast
Marshal

Joined: Jul 08, 2003
Posts: 24183
    
  34

Originally posted by Warren Dew:

Link to an actual statement by Cheney or Powell, please? My impression is that the actual situation, vice what was reported in the headlines, was that some people in the administration lower down had suspicions that some but not all of the evidence was questionable. Lack of evidence is not evidence of falsehood.


Of course there are no direct statements from these guys saying any such thing. That's the whole point, isn't it? In any case:

In Nick Kristof's May 6th, 2003 editorial in the NYTimes, he talks about the Wilson report (the one from 2002 that explains that the Niger documents were forgeries, and no such transactions ever took place) and presents conversations with several people, including recently retired 24-year State Department veteran Greg Thielmann, regarding the issue of who had seen the report. Thielmann insists that Powell had seen it. Yet Bush still insisted in the SOTU that Baghdad had purchased a large quantity of Uranium from Niger.

There's also the issue of the National Intelligence Estimate, which one would imagine that the State Department reads with interest; nevertheless, the Washington Post reported that the NIE available at the time stated that the government was "lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program." The Bush administration apparently felt that it knew better than the collective intelligence community at the time.

Regarding your statement about lack of evidence: yes, but it seems incomprehensible to me that the White House would not avail itself of all the available intelligence on a topic before deciding to declare war.
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Ernest Friedman-Hill ]
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 12, 2000
Posts: 5093
Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
[Jerone, I'm sending the content of your post. Do you want to try that again, without political side swipes? My advice is to stick to supportable facts. This process is a pain for me, so the next time you overstep, I'll just delete it.-MH]

[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]


If you require people to be politically correct in order to be allowed to post here I think I'd rather leave.
I'm not going to spout the Party line...
If you can't live with facts or people questioning the way some people try to portray other as liers that's your problem not mine.
Tony Alicea
Desperado
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 3222
    
    5
"Clinton on the other hand disgraced the most powerful office in the world with his personal life."

Wouldn't that be Kennedy then? :roll:

The issue it that Bush lied and/or was supremely malinformed about the reasons to go to war in Iraq.

By all accounts it was a WRONG decision.

That's why he won't be re-elected in November unless [Tony, play nice-MH]
[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: Teflon, take 2