Is This Bush?!

On January 05 2009 18:23 stanley_ wrote:
911 and bush became a puppet pretty much afterward.

On January 05 2009 19:16 HeadBangaa wrote:
Most of you are probably too young to remember the political climate pre-911.

For example, in 1999/2000 or so, I remember reading an article warning about Al-Queda's growing capacity to attack, claiming that they needed to be aggressively routed out, otherwise a large-scale terrorist attack would be likely. I believe the phrase used was "Bin Laden needs to meet he business end of a B-52 bomber." In hindsight, this would seem insightful premonition. But that was from the pages of Soldier of Fortune (or something similar) almost 10 years ago. That proactive-speak was considered war-monger right-wing drivel.

In this 2000 campaigning, he's trying to appeal to Year 2000 moderates and left-of-centers. All those alignments have shifted since then. This hindsight comparison is as stupid as eating tortilla chips after chewing on a lemon ("ouch").

On January 05 2009 21:15 fight_or_flight wrote:

Going after terrorists is one thing, but blatantly lying in order to invade iraq is inexcusable and shows that he was lying in the video above about being against nation building, which is exactly what he is doing in iraq.

He went from weapons of mass destruction (ploy) to the reason being spreading democracy and freedom. His words, not mine.

On January 05 2009 22:20 HeadBangaa wrote:

Firstly, nothing you said contradicts me.

You aren't responding to my post in the appropriate scope. I am speaking about the attitude shift. We puffed out our chests a bit. "Fuck terrorists!" The US took a more aggressive foreign policy stance in general. USA patriotism became vogue again; you no longer had to be a Reagan-era Republican to waive an American flag. What we Americans defined as "common sense" fundamentally shifted rightwards. As time passes, we are sliding back left in our rationale, scorning the reactionary attitudes most ALL of us experienced for individually-varying amounts of time immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

And secondly, you are being intellectually dishonest by misrepresenting intent.

Bad intelligence =/= "blatant lying"

I'm not saying it wasn't a blunder.

On January 05 2009 22:20 HeadBangaa wrote:
why criticize what is a clearly successful operation? Why not acknowledge that the operation that never-should-have-been has turned out pretty well? Iraq is looking pretty good and seems well on its way to legitimate rationale sovereignty. For the first time.

On January 06 2009 00:26 naonao wrote:
Presidents always lie when their running, making tons of false promises that can never be fulfilled, anything so that the masses will vote for them. After the election, most people will forgot the majority of their promises and they will do whatever they want.

On January 06 2009 00:09 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjJAIuQz9D8