gravid
|
posted on September 22, 2003 01:42:23 PM new
He feels it is 'uncivil' to use the word.
What should you call it to clean it up?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/22/bush_calls_kennedys_iraq_criticism_uncivil_boston_globe?mode=PF
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 22, 2003 02:40:05 PM new
This kind of garbage is only going to get worse as the election approaches. It's going to be one of the lowest, bloodiest fights for the White House we've ever seen.
BECAUSE the democrats have nothing to offer of their own. Look at all 10 dem candidates....the only thing you hear from them is criticism of what this President has done or has not done. NO platform of their own....just promising to turn this great country of ours around...but they're not sure how...other than it won't be the way Bush has done things. lol
Even the new '4-star' democratic hopeful can't answer questions put to him on his policies. And "if Rove had only answered his call....he might be a Republican"... [That was the best statement he's made imo. LOL He also can't make up his mind if he supported the war or not. From one day to the next it changed. It's a circus and the dems realize their party is in BIG trouble. No surprise they're going to start exactly the way the Kennedy has begun. And it only makes them look small.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 22, 2003 03:19:11 PM new
"He feels it is 'uncivil' to use the word."
"What should you call it to clean it up?"
I call Ted Kennedy's criticism of the Bush case for war refreshingly accurate! And many Americans who were shocked to see the justification for the Iraq war slip away, feel the same. First, the weapons of mass destruction allegedly ready to fire within 45 minutes were not found. No weapons, no chemicals, no nuclear weapons or delivery systems...nothing was found.
Following this revelation was the announcement last week by Bush that there was no link between Saddam and 9/11!. Bush and Cheney consistently justified their invasion of Iraq over the past two years by implying a connection between the two, leading more than 70% of all of America to believe a LIE. They sent their family members to war based on a lie and some of these brave soldiers will never return.
Only a small percentage of American people still support the Bush case for war...a case built only on political, economic and power interests which is best described by the word, fraud.
Helen
|
gravid
|
posted on September 22, 2003 05:26:57 PM new
And it is a shame that it has to be pointed out by a man that if he were rolling on the ground on fire I wouldn't piss on.
There isn't a single candidate that is worth putting in office. There are no decent choices.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on September 22, 2003 05:59:43 PM new
George has prophesied the loss of his regime.
"A regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."
George W. Bush
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Sep 23, 2003 06:20 AM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 22, 2003 06:50:34 PM new
After a little more thought.....
What should you call it to clean it up?
What was it called when clinton paid North Korea to not produce nuclear weapons??? Concessions - mutual agreements??? I'm really not sure.
But I don't remember the opposing party calling it a 'bribe' in front of the 'world' at that time. Some of us, here, have referred to it in those terms though. 
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 22, 2003 06:53 PM ]
|
austbounty
|
posted on September 22, 2003 07:26:22 PM new
How about calling it; an expedient appeal to coheres foreign ‘independent’ nations, expressed in monetary terms, in the interests of a PNAC.
I’d have to say that it’s more ‘civil’ than assassination, and certainly more expedient when in conjunction with.
To an extreme nationalist, anything goes Linda.
Don't bag Bush.
How very 'civil' of you.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 22, 2003 09:30:20 PM new
"What was it called when clinton paid North Korea to not produce nuclear weapons?"
Protection money. Although a very civil wise guy might call it 'insurance' when shaking you down.
|
AuctionAce
|
posted on September 22, 2003 11:30:16 PM new
In the beginning of the Vietnam Conflict there was mostly support for the war. Little by little the masses turned on the war and little by little the politicans also turned on the war. We're seeing the same thing all over again in Iraq.
-------------- sig file ----------- Most costume jewelry is unsigned. After all, the vast majority of it was made to be worn a few times, then discarded. It wasn't made to be durable. --- The Fluffster
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 25, 2003 07:22:47 AM new
An update -
Asked by Fox News if he had evidence of his charge, Kennedy said Tuesday: "Just yesterday the administration announced a $8.5 billion loan to Turkey, and under the conditions of which they are going to be supportive of our troops in Iraq.
Now you can say it's an incentive, you can say it's coercion, you can say bribery -- you choose the word."
Aren't LOANS usually paid back? On the 'you choose the word'...I certainly wouldn't say a LOAN is a bribe.
How about you?
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 25, 2003 07:52:51 AM new
Yes and no. It is clear that this loan will not be paid back. It is a common dodge to conceal a bribe as a loan. Generally when there are tax consequences involved in civil matters the IRS considers these "loans" to be gifts. Some famous examples OJ's loan to Kato Calin, BB Rebozo to Richard Nixon. The mechanism is simple when it defaulted on no one attempts to collect. In the case of a loan there is a reasonable expectation that there will be an attempt to repay the principal.
Republican, the other white meat!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 25, 2003 08:07:22 AM new
dave - It is clear this loan will not be paid back. How do you make that call, please? The loans you mentioned are between individuals....not between countries.
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 25, 2003 08:52:35 AM new
In terms of corporate governance loans of this type are considered to be criminal and leave both parties exposed to various tax ramifications. In my book I would comfortably argue them to be bribes plain and simple. Any loan predicated solely on an unrelated action or permission is a bribe.
Republican, the other white meat!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 25, 2003 09:18:34 AM new
dave - thanks
okay if it's your position that: Any loan predicated solely on an unrelated action or permission is a bribe.....
then I say all US presidents are guilty...because there have been loans to many different countries and our *national interest* is almost always has been behind the giving of the loan. {clearer, I hope} It benefits the US in some way.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 25, 2003 09:27:56 AM new
True
How long must crime be carried on before the law becomes null and void?
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 25, 2003 09:47:55 AM new
Exactly. The main premise of the neo con movement which coincidentally is the premise of fascism is the end justifies the means. I do not agree. Gravid is correct no matter how you parse it out a bribe is a bribe.
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck its a duck.
Republican, the other white meat!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 25, 2003 09:58:25 AM new
dave - just to be clear on exactly what you're saying. Is it your position that NO democratic president has ever given such a loan [similar to this Turkey loan], based on what is in the US best interests?
|
gravid
|
posted on September 25, 2003 12:17:06 PM new
You guys are hung on which party they are. As if they are angels and demons.
They're all crooks.
It matters which party they are as much as which crime family has your neighborhood for a territory.
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 25, 2003 01:14:10 PM new
I am not commenting on the merit of any president other than the one currently in office as it is not relevant to this situation.
Republican, the other white meat!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 25, 2003 01:52:56 PM new
dave...[i]as it is not relevant to this situation.
[/i]
Sure it is. If you accept this same practice under your own party's administration, but not that of a rival....that makes it very relevant, imo.
I think gravid is being more honest here.
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 25, 2003 02:28:29 PM new
If there are 5 thieves in a room it does not excuse any of the 5. He did it too is not a justification. This president is my concern as he is currently guiding policy I am not concerned with any prior president in this context. Everyone does it is not an excuse. Do not however take that as a blanket statement that all in the past did it is just irrelevant to the present situation and I have not considered any precedents as you only wish to in order to blur the line. Based on his own merits or lack thereof this president has used bribery as tool to advance his agenda.
Republican, the other white meat!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 25, 2003 02:41:43 PM new
Like I said....I admire gravid's honesty.
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 25, 2003 02:45:46 PM new
I'm being quite frank. What is the point on rating past presidents integrity. The mistakes of the past if any only are relevant should lessons have not been learned by them. You only are looking for some justification for the behavior of the current occupant of the White House nothing more.
BTW, do you still believe Nixon was not a crook?
Republican, the other white meat!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on September 25, 2003 02:56:47 PM new
LOL dave - You couldn't be more wrong.
gravid asked what word might have been more civil. I answered.
My position was it wasn't a bribe but rather a LOAN, because when put on the spot and asked to PROVE his accusation that he made, that's what Kennedy ADMITTED himself. A LOAN is different from a bribe.
I believe ALL our presidents do whatever it takes that they feel is in the best interested of the US. Gravid holds the position they're all crooks. You appear to continue with your typical non-willingness to answer honestly.
As to Nixon....I think he was a good president. I think he was the BEST we've *ever* had at foreign affairs, especially with China during his administration. BUT I'm also able to admit that what his men did was wrong and he was right to resign.
But I do find it funny that you question me on a PAST president, but refuse to discuss past presidents yourself. LOL
But when people like you can't be honest and admit other's in their own party have done wrong...I think that's being a hyprocrite.
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 25, 2003 02:59 PM ]
|
davebraun
|
posted on September 25, 2003 06:15:36 PM new
Linda, I try to be polite. My reason for not commenting on any other president is simply that we are talking about this president. Should every president that has ever been turn out to be a bribing liar that would not excuse this president from being a bribing liar. It would be a sad commentary regarding other presidents but not relevant to this president. I mention one of the more glaring examples as an illustration of this point (of irrelevancy) that the actions of past presidents do not excuse the failed presidency we are currently witnessing. The actions of John Wayne Gacey would not be an argument that would have any bearing on those of Jeffrey Dalmer's actions.
Republican, the other white meat!
|
gravid
|
posted on September 25, 2003 06:27:16 PM new
If you want to explore past President's I will make most of you gasp in horror and say the very worst we have had is Lincoln.
He destroyed the agreed upon state's rights that all the colonies had promised them when they joined the union.
If he had allowed the Southern states to go their own way slavery would have been abolished within a decade anyway with better treatment of the freed slaves. The whole continent would have had a much better chance of being one United States of North America by now with possibly Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Hispanola.
We would have a much healthier union with better laws and fairer tax, and would not be seeking a Pax Americana beyond our borders.
|
