Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is it socially acceptable for Republicans to be Hypocrites?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 12:19 AM
Original message
Why is it socially acceptable for Republicans to be Hypocrites?
The same party that did nothing but scream like a bunch of harpies that they wanted a transparent government and personal views into the Clinton White House...has now become the most obstructive, secretive governments in ages..

The people who belittled Clinton for lying about sex has a monkey boy who lies about Yellowcakes in the State of the Union no less....and yet not a peep from the public.

I don't have time to type up all the offenses but this stuff is just pissing me off beyond belief.

What is it???? I don't get it..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. For the same reason it is acceptable for babies to shit their pants
It's just nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. that is about the only logical explanation because I can not
comprehend the republicans I have confronted about bush's lies ...and yet that is okay by them...

However lying about a blow job...well that's treason???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well, I Haven't Seen A New Thread About This
:+
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. You should start one
immediately. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comsymp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. And for the same reason * "won" the 2000 debates
Low expectations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DieboldMustDie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. Since they own the media...
a lot of people simply don't know what's going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Corgigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
6. It's only about winning.
Anyway it has to be done is fine as long as they win. They back their party like it's a sports team and I'm not sure most of them understand how serious politics can be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
46. Money, Power, and White Privilege
That about wraps it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. That's a question I've been struggling to answer myself
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
9. it's expected of them. and is the soft bigotry of lowered expectations
you see its our fault, as usual, or maybe bill clinton's.

i call them out whenever they slam their minds into my face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynndew2 Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
10. The answer is 9/11 and a feeling that dems cant
and wont make the US safe. I know will pitt wants to teach me polotics 101 but it is the truth. Under Clinton terrorism was pushed to the back and he used the bombing of Iraq to overshadow his monica hearings.

I think its all bullshit but it is the truth. I work with almost all RW people and I hear all of this. They say that shrub is doing what he has to too protect us. Clinton was offered bin laden three times and because of the way he and madaline albright set it up they couldnt accept him. They say they set up security so it had to go through a grand Jury thus making the info unusable by the CIA or FBI.

I know this is gonna get me flamed or tombstoned but it is what is true. I hear it and have to listen to it daily.

Thats my answer bleedingheart. sorry its not what you wanted to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LevChernyi Donating Member (158 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. The story is more complicated than that
I'll set you on the easiest path to address the question though: If this is true what did Bush do? His administration said that the Clinton's were overly fixated on terrorism (in a way I'd agree with the Bushies, the causes are far more interesting and addressable) and sat with their thumbs up their collective asses pushing for tax cuts because that's all they are there to do in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. then why were we actually "safer" under clinton's watch?
meanwhile as the planes were hitting the towers, as people burned to death, and jumped to their deaths, bush was reading a story about a goat :argh: you actually prove the original poster's point about RW hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynndew2 Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Nope, The CIA and FBI were not allowed
To see any testimony. Grand Jury testimony is not open to anyone under law. Thus there could be No investigation upon that or could it be asked again. Clinton tied there hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. as opposed to the no-holds-barred counter-terrorism effort Cheney launched
oh yeah, he didn't do anything. Go hunt some more in Wyomning, Dickie.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynndew2 Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Hey, I am not agreeing with what i post
I am asking for someone to give me amunition to dispute what they say. I cant find any and its left me kinda shhhh. Sorry if you took me wrong but, I cant dispute any of this. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. some folks here have a ton of 911 information
i'm not sure where it is now, but perhaps someone can direct you to it. you can look on globalfreepress.org for some 911 info.
good luck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynndew2 Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Thanks Noire, I dont do press that you or I could write
I am off to bed now since no one can give me the ammo I need. I will look more on my own and thanks all. I will be back with other ?s in the future and of course my own commentary...lol Thanks all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LevChernyi Donating Member (158 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. So what did Bush do about it?
Why is answering this question so hard for you? What did the present gang of theives do to address this question you seem to find so serious?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. So you agree with your RW friends that Clinton "tied their hands"???
If so, where's the beef...gimme facts to support your reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Oops I see from your lasest post you were disagreeing...sorry!!!
Edited on Wed Oct-01-03 01:55 AM by U4ikLefty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. WTF does this have to do with 911?
clinton wasn't the president then...as i said, you KEEP proving the poster's point. what does testimony have to do with bush, inc's failure to act, given the advance knowledge we now know they had...from the CIA and the FBI? what does testimony have to do with bush, inc failure to shoot down the first plane, not to mention the second plane, that hit the towers? see the hypocrisy...yet? bush, inc failures are their own, regardless of what clinton did or didn't do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynndew2 Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. He wasnt given advance warning, because
Clinton made it a grand jury thing which precludes info to the CIA or FBI. Anything in the Grand Jury is precluded from everyone including the CIA,FBI, and Defense Dept.. I am asking any of you to give me ammo to challenge this. If you cant fine. But I am not here to defend them. I am here for help to combat them. Sorry you are so intolarent, I thought you would help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LevChernyi Donating Member (158 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. it's just a load of bullshit?
Edited on Wed Oct-01-03 02:12 AM by LevChernyi
Sane people don't want the CIA/FBI delving around into grand jury testimony. As a matter of fact republicans I'm sad to say were the main force of civil libertarianism preventing this during the Clinton years. Bush got the Muslim vote by claiming to be the force to combat surveilance and suspicion of the Muslim community.

Other than that, this barrier never even really existed. It wasn't an exemption of grand jury testimony that kept anything from moving on a matter completely unrelated to 9/11 it was the fact that the Saudi's didn't have extridition treaties with us and the entire case is about as dodgy as Iraq and WMD.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynndew2 Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. It has Existed for decades
I was only asking for some links. Sorry your so offended Lev. I am not your enemy. Sweet dreams. and Good night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LevChernyi Donating Member (158 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. tell me exactly what you want to know
All you have given is cryptic nods towards a load of Clinton conpiracy horseshit.

Tell me what it is you are exactly looking for and link or no link I'll scan books or newspapers if need be.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uhhuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Some links
Edited on Wed Oct-01-03 04:17 AM by uhhuh
This was a complex negotiation with a terrorist supporting state. There used to be a reliance on laws in this country, and the Clinton administration tried to use both legal and extra-legal means to capture bin laden.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/ladnsudx.htm

or how 'bout this one.
http://vander.hashish.com/articles/911/dontblameclinton.html

Here's how the "cooperative" Sudanese government viewed the U.S. in 1998.

http://www.vitrade.com/who_is_who/bashir/980910_bashir_us_dominated_by_zionists.htm

Speaking of guys who refused offers to hand over Bin Laden, ladies and gentlemen, I present our very own chimpy:
http://www.redpepper.org.uk/intarch/x-bailie.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calm_blue_ocean Donating Member (370 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
31. Debunking then Explaining the Republican Mindset
Edited on Wed Oct-01-03 08:16 AM by calm_blue_ocean
Debunking the Mindset: Republican Inaction

If the Republican party had wanted to focus on terrorism prior to 9/11, they had plenty of opportunity to do so.

For example, the USS Cole was attacked prior to the 2000 elections, but I don't remember Bush making a big issue about it.

Moving back through recent history, Timothy McVeigh attacked in 1995 and I don't recall Dole making a big campaign issue of it.

Perhaps most tellingly, Bush doesn't seem to have done much during his presidency, prior to 9/11, to beef up counter-terrorism efforts. Intelligence information was there about flight school suspicions and about those terrorists living in San Diego. The Bush administration wasn't pressuring their intelligence agencies to get focussed on terrorism any better than the Clinton administration had.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Explaining the Mindset: US foreign policy causes terrorism

What was the USS Cole doing over there in the first place? I mean, I know what it was doing over there, but was it really right for our warship to be over there? We had and have a lot of other military and quasi-military involvement in the Middle East. The legitimacy of this heavy Middle Eastern involvement is strongly supported by both parties.

Most people from both parties believe that it is the US's prerogative to bomb Iraq (for oppressing the Kurds), to have warships in the Persian Gulf, to militarily support Israel's expansion beyond its UN-appointed boundaries. Maybe these kinds of things are a fair prerogative of the USA. Maybe power has its perks and military action in the Middle East is a perk that we get that, say, Switzerland does not.

However, Republicans understand that this military action is going to cause terrorism and that there is a heavy price to be paid for excercising our military rights in the Middle East. Republicans think the "heavy price" for US actions in the Middle East should include: PATRIOT Act, $87B war, emasculation of UN, foreign policy secrecy, false government propaganda. They are not hypocrites, so much as they are realists.

The Republican problem with Clinton's affair with Lewinsky wasn't really the dishonesty or the adultery -- it was the fact that he dissipated time, energy and lies in a course of action not designed to show the people of the Middle East who the boss is. To a Machievellian, Republican mindset, Clinton's lies were a criminal misapplication of the limited governmental privilege to behave dishonestly. Even if you don't personally agree that there is any governmental privilege to lie, it is possible to understand how others would draw a distinction between Clinton's lies and *'s lies.

------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION: WHAT I THINK

Now that I am done explaining the Republican mindset to you all, I would like to let you know what I think personally. Brace yourself -- my opinions on this are quite unpopular!

(1) I think the US ought to stop being militarily involved in the Middle East. I think we should have stopped our involvement a long time ago (with the exception of militarily supporting Israel to the extent (and only to the extent) that Israel could maintain its 1947 boundaries).

(2) Assuming that we are going to stay involved, despite my opinion (1) above, I think we ought to focus on rational national security here in the US. Spend $87B trying to keep a nuclear device away from Puget Sound and other ports. Don't spend $87B trying to draw all the terrorists to Iraq so they can be captured and killed. Why the Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq War is beyond me! Why the Democrats in Congress didn't fight to condition the Iraq War on UN support is beyond me! What monumental blunders! Go Dean.

Peace,

Out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
39. So in your mind their hypocrisy only started after 9-11?
You my friend have been asleep for a long long time if you believe that tripe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chopper Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #10
41. not quite...
Clinton was offered bin laden three times

well, Clinton was offered Bin Laden by a country with a lying streak. plus, they would only go through Saudi Arabia, which out-and-out refused to have anything to do with the proposed 'swap'. trust me, Clinton tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
43. information
Some of this was posted by liberal_and_proud_of_it (I've added to it)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=18808&forum=DCForumID5#11
Here are a few stories about Clinton's attempts to combat terrorist forces and the brick walls he ran up against:

April 24, 1995 The American Civil Liberties Union today said that the “counter-terrorism” proposals suggested by President Clinton Sunday evening threatened to repeat the mistakes of the past and erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty.

http://www.aclu.org/news/n042495.html

April 18, 1996 Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism . . . The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

July 30, 1996 Paris -- A Fact Sheet from the July 30 ministerial meeting of the P-8 (the industrialized nations of the world plus Russia) notes that President Clinton for three years has led an international campaign to combat terrorism in concert with the P-8 as well as with allies in the Middle East and elsewhere . . . Following is the official text of the Fact Sheet.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/p8_facta.htm

July 30, 1996 President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess . . . But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures . . . Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

August 25, 1998 The August 20 bombing of Osama bin Laden's terrorist bases in Afghanistan and the alleged bin Laden-funded chemical weapons production facility in Khartoum, was a decisive and appropriate U.S. response to the atrocities in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and President Bill Clinton should be commended.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/schenker.htm

March 21, 2000 US President Bill Clinton said on Tuesday that he would take up with Pakistan military ruler Gen Pervez Musharraf the issue of terrorism in the Kashmir valley.

http://www.indiainfo.com/news/2000/03/21/clin

March 22, 2000 Clinton is pushing General Musharraf to use his influence with Afghanistan's leaders—the Taliban—to bring Bin Laden to trial . . . Even if Musharraf could convince the Taliban to give Bin Laden up, there is an abundance of anger, frustration and weapons in the region, left over from the Afghan war, when thousands of extremists came together to bring a superpower to its knees . . . That militant network has built up in this region over two decades of conflict. The president believes America must get deeply involved in South Asia to crack the terrorist problem, a process Clinton continues throughout this week.

http://www.kdka.com/now/story/0,1597,1747

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8734-2002Jan19

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62725-2001Dec18

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/24/pentagon.budget/

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

http://www9.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm

http://online.securityfocus.com/news/201

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/01/page-a-01-23.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61219-2001Oct2


And don't forget how GW stopped ongoing terrorist investigations:

FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
The Guardian Wednesday November 7, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.

They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to “back off” from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

“There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.”
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and commercial closeness reversed towards the other members of the large Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin Laden as their “black sheep”.

Hart-Rudman
Not only did Clinton's actions prevent Y2K terrorist acts (eg, a bomber headed off on his way to the celebration in Seattle), but much more occurred in his administration to ward off terrorism ~ only to be scuttled by the Bushistas:

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
by Jake Tapper

Sept. 12, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- They went to great pains not to sound as though they were telling the president “We told you so.”

But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. “Frankly, the White House shut it down,” Hart says. “The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day.”

“We predicted it,” Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. “We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999.”

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

The Gore Commission
also known as the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.
http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm

Here is what seems to have happened to the recomendations of the Gore Commission:
We begin our news with a quote: “The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements. The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.”

If you think that comes from a recent Bush White House report, guess again. In the summer of 1996, shortly after the crash of TWA flight 800, President Clinton asked Vice President Al Gore to chair a commission on improving air transportation safety. As a result, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, commonly known as the Gore Commission, conducted an in-depth analysis of the U.S. commercial airlines' safeguards against terrorist attacks. In its final report, which is what I quoted from a moment ago, the Gore Commission found that security measures used by U.S. airlines were extremely inadequate, and made over 50 recommendations to improve security.

What happened? Well, the Gore Commission demanded tougher airline security, but airlines and conservatives said no. Specifically, the airline industry dismissed the threat of terrorists, and attacked the commission. Indeed, the day after the final report was published, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association fought back with a legislative action of their own that claimed the Gore Commission existed simply to thwart the will of the Republican Congress.

And conservative ideologues rejected the proposal on “cost-effectiveness” grounds. OK, so how much are 6,000 lives worth - not to mention the dollar value placed on the World Trade Center, a portion of the Pentagon, an economic recession, and America's security?
http://www.d28dems.org/pspeak/psE85.htm

For instance, the commission, headed by then-Vice President Al Gore, wanted airlines to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems to detect potential terrorists.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=25100&forum=DCForumID35

I think that what Shrub is doing is *creating* terrorism and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people and whole families.
Before 9.11:
Bush defunds international organizations that provide abortions or abortion counseling to poor women.
Bush postures over North Korea.
Bush pulls out of the Kyoto treaty.
Bush makes a gaffe over Taiwan/China policy.
Bush returns the world to a Cold War-level arms race.
Bush rejects a protocol to enforce germ warfare treaty.
Bush denies Africans AIDS drugs through international aid agency.
Bush isolates United States in denying support for Kyoto treaty.
Bush officially rejects germ warfare treaty protocol.
Bush announces that the United States will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Bush skips an international conference on racism.
After 9.11:
Bush tries to end arms sanctions.
Bush approves the assassination of Osama bin Laden.
Bush proposes trying suspected terrorists with military tribunals.
Bush abandons ABM treaty.
Bush plans to store--rather than destroy--nuclear weapons slated for reduction.
Bush invents the “axis of evil.”
Bush tries to limit Congressional probes of September 11 terrorist attacks.
Bush releases his laughable global warming plan.
Bush makes the possibility of using nuclear weapons much more likely.
Bush lifts restrictions on aid to Colombia.
http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html

The center of Shrub Inc's rhetoric (and actions) in their anti-terrorism campaign has been to turn the grey areas into either bright white or dark black. “Axis of evil”, “With us or against us”, “Good verus evil”. Their rhetoric can be easily manipulated by savy hawks in order to justify war or an escalation in their current war against another group of people.

For example, Sharon's recent speech sounded alot to me like one of Shrub's speeches with references to bin Laden replaced with references to Arafat.

Also, lets not forget that Shrub has NOTHING substantial (he hasn't even tried!) to decrease the suicide bomber attacks on Israeli innocents. Nothing. Contrast this misadminstration to the Clinton/Gore administration where Arafat was THE foreign leader who *most* visited the White House.

Also, I should mention that Clinton managed to help Palistine and Isreal come closer than anytime in the past 30 years to a permanent peace treaty between their people. And look what Shrub Inc. did to try to undermine this:


In 2000, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Clinton were meeting at Camp David, Perle made news when he warned Barak not to let Vice President Al Gore become involved in the peace summit, for fear it would boost Gore's election prospects. He also told Barak to “walk away” from a peace plan if it left the thorny issue of a divided Jerusalem unresolved. Working as an advisor to candidate Bush, Perle warned Barak he would urge the Texas governor to condemn any peace plan that gave the PLO a foothold in Jerusalem. The Bush campaign quickly distanced itself from Perle's remarks.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/09/05/perle/index.html

Anger at peace talks 'meddling'
Political scandal in US as Bush advisers tell Israelis to be ready to walk out of Camp David negotiations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,342857,00.html

You’re Invited to the War Party (“Bush at War” book review)
By Georgie Anne Geyer
Ever since his Watergate revelations, which helped evict a president and change the United States for all time, for better or worse Bob Woodward has stood as the major force in a new genre of journalism. He talks, wheedles, and, using government officials’ personal ambitions and dreams of political eternity, implicitly threatens his way into the often closed corridors of power—there, he is a master at getting a certain number of figures who try their best to remain aloof and unknown to tell their stories. The proposition, understood if not explicitly spoken, is that this book, as his former ones, will tell the story—you miss out on leave on this journalistic port, fellow, you miss the whole historic ship!

First of all, Bush at War is really about the decision-making process in the upper levels of the Bush administration—the White House, the State Department, and the Pentagon—from the exact morning of Sept. 11th. It begins with a profoundly worried George Tenet, head of the CIA and, from all of the space he gets in the book, obviously one of Woodward’s best and favored sources. That very morning, Tenet is wondering about when Osama bin Laden, whom he has been desperately tracking, will strike the U.S. Then “it” happens—and from then onward, the book delineates day-by-day, and sometimes hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute—what supposedly went on in meeting after meeting. From all accounts that I know of, Woodward’s interpretations are exactly right; it is the quotes that are so bothersome.

Another time, he says to Woodward, “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”

At still another point after the Afghan war has started, the president says to his staff, “Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum.” And Woodward ends the book with another quote from the president, in which he again reflects the obsessive chaos theory of the neoconservatives surrounding him like sentinels and for whom Iraq has become the sina quo non of political existence: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” Whew.
http://www.amconmag.com/01_13_03/geyer7.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unknown Known Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
11. Fat, pasty-faced white guys who have to pay for sex
Never have to say they're sorry:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
28. Yes, there is an institutionalized double standard
Basically, a Democratic candidate has to be a tier, sometimes even two, better than the Republican candidate to win.

It's a fact of life.

But it's also a kind of compliment. The People want one Party to be all the good and capable people, willing and able to deal with catastrophes. And they need the other Party to be complicit in mediocrity and abuses and corruption and vanity and superstitions, which are the games the People prefers to engage in between demands on its virtue and endurance. Neither state is endurable for too long

Things are worse these days because there are always large groups of people who think there is a national crisis and other large groups of people who think there isn't. It is roughly coincident with a time of stagnation of social mobility for white people and growth of minority populations from ~20% to ~35% of the population. That is the root of the bitter partisan political battles of our time, the slow devolution of some more power and wealth to non-whites and, causally linked, the unusual semi-voluntary concentration of white people's power and wealth in ever fewer hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Go Lexingtonian!
Very astute observations, indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnohoDem Donating Member (915 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
30. They "changed the tone" in Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
32. Because they own the media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
33. Because republicans lie, steal and cheat in the service of
maintaining white supremacy. It's totally acceptable. It's for a "good" cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobd Donating Member (473 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
34. Because they're Christians (tm) and because
they're pure as the driven snow and don't engage in illicent sex which is the most horrific thing that can be engaged in. Illicit sex is far worse that killing, stealing, genocide, etc., etc.

People will immediately cow-tow to claptrap religion every time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calm_blue_ocean Donating Member (370 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. You are oversimplifying . . .
IMHO, Clinton would have gotten in a lot less trouble if he had not lied.

Speaking as one Christian, I was much, much more disturbed by Clinton's perjury than by his illicit sex.

As a matter of fact, I even know lots of non-Christians who disapprove of perjury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. The 'perjury' charge you're throwing around...
...consisted of Inquisitors asking Clinton where and how he touched Monica.

- Ever heard of a perjury trap? Clinton was set up. The lie you hate didn't have anything to do with his performance as president. Compare this with George's constant lying about things relevant to his duties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calm_blue_ocean Donating Member (370 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Easy with the hostility there
I think *'s lies are worse than Clinton's perjury.

I just don't think Clinton's popularity and impeachment problems were caused primarily by Christian revulsion regarding illicit sex.

Also, let it not be forgotten that Clinton's sex was with a subordinate employee and in his workplace. I bring this up because it really helps explain why Clinton was being asked about this particular sex in a judicial setting. I know if I had sex with a subordinate employee in the workplace, there is a good chance that I would eventually have to answer questions about it at a deposition. None of that would give me the right to commit perjury.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InkAddict Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #34
44. I agree with this analysis
Their hypocracy can easily be rationalized under the guise of instant exoneration for PAST deeds at the "communion" rail; FUTURE deeds of repentence are NOT necessary - just "believe." Reformation changed everything about the need to do "penance" and what could be construed as good works of charity in the community. If they can be exonerated moment-to-moment through their faith alone, why bother with being honest. Self-gratuitous cost/benefit analyses, the "we know better than anyone else as God's most forgiven" is the single most fundamental ideation. They'll "forgive" Eve, but they can't get over the fact that Adam fell for it!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
38. A perfect example:
Sen. Tom Harkins talking about the WH leak on the senate floor, and how a special investigation is needed. Time ran out.

Then Norm Coleman R-Minnesota took the floor and basically began talking about how we should be paying attention to important things like our troops, and listening to junior and the clearness of junior's wisdom about how to handle the leak. And that was about finding the truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mandyky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
40. They don't seem to have consciences,
because they think they are always right!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
42. no one calls them on it
they OWN the media.

not an issue.

move along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nannygoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-03 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
45. They put party over country every time...
Edited on Wed Oct-01-03 10:54 AM by nannygoat
Traitorous bastards!

Edited to make sense...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC