This is how we (bloggers, cable hosts, radio hosts, etc.) get into trouble, Russ. "Bush is a Nazi." "Obama's a Marxist." "Bush is a war-monger." "Obama hates America." Bush is a racist." Obama's a racist." I call it the evilization of our political adversaries and it seems to me to be getting very divisive these days......Just for the record, while I thought that Mr. Bush was a bad and irresponsible President, I never thought that he was an evil one. And I don't think that Mr. Obama is evil, either.
Bush was an evil president. I don't know how else you'd describe a politician who'd wage an unnecessary war for political reasons... killing hundreds of thousands in the process. And, at the same time, funnel billions to war contractor cronies while making virtually no attempt to curb corruption.
I'm sure -- in his head -- he thinks he did the right thing. I judge him by his actions -- which most certainly were evil.
I think Beck is a dangerous violence-inciting delusional egomaniac.
Evil, by its very nature, has to do with intent. I think that the more plausible adjectives for Mr. Bush would probably be irresponsible, idiotic, myopic, baffling, short-sighted, naive, ignorant, reckless, cocky, ethnocentric, delusional, etc. (though, yeah, some of these words might be a tad over the top, too). Though, yes, wd, you're more than entitled to your adjectives, too.
The end-results may be evil. But you said that Mr. Bush himself was an evil person. I think that for a person to be evil, he has to be driven by sinister motives......Like with Mr. Roosevelt. He wasn't evil for interning those over 100,000 Japanese-Americans. But it turned out to be a terrible decision that had some evil consequences (one of the worst violations of human rights in U.S. history).
Your example is a false equivalency. WWII was not a war of choice. You can argue that bush genuinely believed that removing Saddam was something we had to do, and to some extent I think he believes his own lies about that, but not completely.
Two statements by bush (in particular) tell me he knew he was lying. First, what he told his former ghostwriter Mickey Herskowitz, 2 years before 9/11.
Second, what he told former Argentine president Néstor Kirchner in 2004.
These two statements tell me that it's a lie that bush invaded Iraq because Saddam was an "imminent threat". He did it primarily for political reasons, and secondarily for economic reasons -- like all Republicans bush believes our economic prosperity relies on the wealthy doing well, which is why he saw nothing wrong with war profiteering.
Whether you say bush's motivations were evil or just his actions -- I think is splitting hairs. I'm sure many evil people rationalize and lie to themselves to justify their actions -- it doesn't make what they do any less evil. I believe he knew/knows what he did was wrong – at least on some level. He did it anyway, even though hundreds of thousands of people died.
He has no remorse for the deaths he is responsible for, or the lives he ruined. We know this because in his just released memoir he says his worst moment as president was when Kanye West said that bush doesn't care about black people. If that isn't evil I don't know what is.
Voltron, Will said Roosevelt WASN'T evil. But, it isn't surprising that you'd see what you wanted to instead of what Will actually wrote, considering you believe the lies in that BS video you linked to.
My theory, gentlemen, is that ,after 9/11, Mr. Bush wanted to look strong and proactive. He thought that by displacing Saddam Hussein, that would no doubt be an easy (yeah, right) way to do it/secure political capital. Did he really think that Saddam was actually a threat and that he had WMD. I'm not entirely sure. I suspect that he probably did......I also think that Mr. Bush was a naive and easily persuadable individual. Couple that with the fact that he was surrounded by neocons such as Scoop Jackson acolytes, Perle and Wolfowitz (not to mention, Mr. Cheney), it's easy to see how he could become co-opted. Is Mr. Bush a bad man, or simply a naive and reckless one, I don't know if we'll ever be able to know that for sure.
You're right, wd, WW2 was NOT a war of choice. But that fact does NOT in any way EXCUSE FDR's blatant stripping of American civil liberties. I'm very disappointed to hear that you would try to spin it as such.
I'm not "excusing" FDR for that dark chapter of American history. That isn't my "spin" at all. I'm saying he made a very bad decision in a situation that wasn't of his making.
bush, on the other hand, took advantage of a terrible tragedy to start a completely unnecessary war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with said tragedy.
Because he thought it would benefit him politically and the US (his wealthy cronies) economically. HE IS ON THE RECORD AS HAVING SAID AS MUCH (see the first two links in my previous comment).
There wasn't any "faulty" intelligence. The intelligence they cherry picked, massaged, and manufactured told them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Not only that, but I strongly suspect that 9/11 could have been prevented if the bush administration hadn't ignored the dots -- they say they didn't "connect the dots". I say they ignored them. That PDB wasn't "historical" in nature.
Anyway, in regards to your theory... [1] you're admitting that Dick Cheney is evil? and [2] How do you explain the (fairly well documented fact) that bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11?
Richard Clarke says bush brought it up in the first cabinet meeting. Mickey Herskowitz says he wanted to invade Iraq before being elected president.
I would say that Mr. Cheney is a far more sinister individual than Mr. Bush (who I tend to see as much more of a simpleton than a mastermind - though, yes, I could be underestimating him)......Cherry-picked the intelligence? Gee, ya think? LOL I definitely agree with you on that one. My suspicion, though, is that it was (as Richard Haase says in his book) probably more along the lines of a "group think" scenario than it was some evil plot......I also agree with you that the Bush administration could have done more to possibly prevent 9/11. I mean, I'm not sure that they could have stopped it but, yeah, you're right, there were in fact some signs that they should have been more attentive to......Did Bush have an earlier notion that getting rid of Saddam would in fact be a good thing? That's entirely possible (this, though, yes, I would prefer to hear it in Bush's own words than from second-hand sources).
17 comments:
He's a money printing machine!
Crazy and rich, huh? Oh well, at least I'm half-way there.
He's a money printing machine, WHO LIES ROUTINELY ON AIR!
Fixed it for ya rusty;
PS isn't lying on of those ten things you aren't supposed to do according to the bible.
Getting money for lying is as wrong as getting money for another sin isn't it?
For me, it was when he called the President of the United States a racist. That one was way beyond the pale, in my opinion..
How was that a lie...he is a racist and it was just beck's opinion.The leftys are pissed because hes raking in over 30 mil per year.
I'd ask anonymouse to list three of Becks so called "lies."
You guys always say FOX lies,O'Reilly lies,Hannity lies and Beck lies....either back up your assertion's or forever STFU.
This is how we (bloggers, cable hosts, radio hosts, etc.) get into trouble, Russ. "Bush is a Nazi." "Obama's a Marxist." "Bush is a war-monger." "Obama hates America." Bush is a racist." Obama's a racist." I call it the evilization of our political adversaries and it seems to me to be getting very divisive these days......Just for the record, while I thought that Mr. Bush was a bad and irresponsible President, I never thought that he was an evil one. And I don't think that Mr. Obama is evil, either.
Bush was an evil president. I don't know how else you'd describe a politician who'd wage an unnecessary war for political reasons... killing hundreds of thousands in the process. And, at the same time, funnel billions to war contractor cronies while making virtually no attempt to curb corruption.
I'm sure -- in his head -- he thinks he did the right thing. I judge him by his actions -- which most certainly were evil.
I think Beck is a dangerous violence-inciting delusional egomaniac.
Evil, by its very nature, has to do with intent. I think that the more plausible adjectives for Mr. Bush would probably be irresponsible, idiotic, myopic, baffling, short-sighted, naive, ignorant, reckless, cocky, ethnocentric, delusional, etc. (though, yeah, some of these words might be a tad over the top, too). Though, yes, wd, you're more than entitled to your adjectives, too.
From Dictionary.com
evil (noun) that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct.
The end-results may be evil. But you said that Mr. Bush himself was an evil person. I think that for a person to be evil, he has to be driven by sinister motives......Like with Mr. Roosevelt. He wasn't evil for interning those over 100,000 Japanese-Americans. But it turned out to be a terrible decision that had some evil consequences (one of the worst violations of human rights in U.S. history).
The Extremists are Coming!
BTW Will,
We agree on Roosevelt being evil...
Your example is a false equivalency. WWII was not a war of choice. You can argue that bush genuinely believed that removing Saddam was something we had to do, and to some extent I think he believes his own lies about that, but not completely.
Two statements by bush (in particular) tell me he knew he was lying. First, what he told his former ghostwriter Mickey Herskowitz, 2 years before 9/11.
Second, what he told former Argentine president Néstor Kirchner in 2004.
These two statements tell me that it's a lie that bush invaded Iraq because Saddam was an "imminent threat". He did it primarily for political reasons, and secondarily for economic reasons -- like all Republicans bush believes our economic prosperity relies on the wealthy doing well, which is why he saw nothing wrong with war profiteering.
Whether you say bush's motivations were evil or just his actions -- I think is splitting hairs. I'm sure many evil people rationalize and lie to themselves to justify their actions -- it doesn't make what they do any less evil. I believe he knew/knows what he did was wrong – at least on some level. He did it anyway, even though hundreds of thousands of people died.
He has no remorse for the deaths he is responsible for, or the lives he ruined. We know this because in his just released memoir he says his worst moment as president was when Kanye West said that bush doesn't care about black people. If that isn't evil I don't know what is.
Voltron, Will said Roosevelt WASN'T evil. But, it isn't surprising that you'd see what you wanted to instead of what Will actually wrote, considering you believe the lies in that BS video you linked to.
My theory, gentlemen, is that ,after 9/11, Mr. Bush wanted to look strong and proactive. He thought that by displacing Saddam Hussein, that would no doubt be an easy (yeah, right) way to do it/secure political capital. Did he really think that Saddam was actually a threat and that he had WMD. I'm not entirely sure. I suspect that he probably did......I also think that Mr. Bush was a naive and easily persuadable individual. Couple that with the fact that he was surrounded by neocons such as Scoop Jackson acolytes, Perle and Wolfowitz (not to mention, Mr. Cheney), it's easy to see how he could become co-opted. Is Mr. Bush a bad man, or simply a naive and reckless one, I don't know if we'll ever be able to know that for sure.
You're right, wd, WW2 was NOT a war of choice. But that fact does NOT in any way EXCUSE FDR's blatant stripping of American civil liberties. I'm very disappointed to hear that you would try to spin it as such.
I'm not "excusing" FDR for that dark chapter of American history. That isn't my "spin" at all. I'm saying he made a very bad decision in a situation that wasn't of his making.
bush, on the other hand, took advantage of a terrible tragedy to start a completely unnecessary war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with said tragedy.
Because he thought it would benefit him politically and the US (his wealthy cronies) economically. HE IS ON THE RECORD AS HAVING SAID AS MUCH (see the first two links in my previous comment).
There wasn't any "faulty" intelligence. The intelligence they cherry picked, massaged, and manufactured told them exactly what they wanted to hear.
Not only that, but I strongly suspect that 9/11 could have been prevented if the bush administration hadn't ignored the dots -- they say they didn't "connect the dots". I say they ignored them. That PDB wasn't "historical" in nature.
Anyway, in regards to your theory... [1] you're admitting that Dick Cheney is evil? and [2] How do you explain the (fairly well documented fact) that bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11?
Richard Clarke says bush brought it up in the first cabinet meeting. Mickey Herskowitz says he wanted to invade Iraq before being elected president.
I would say that Mr. Cheney is a far more sinister individual than Mr. Bush (who I tend to see as much more of a simpleton than a mastermind - though, yes, I could be underestimating him)......Cherry-picked the intelligence? Gee, ya think? LOL I definitely agree with you on that one. My suspicion, though, is that it was (as Richard Haase says in his book) probably more along the lines of a "group think" scenario than it was some evil plot......I also agree with you that the Bush administration could have done more to possibly prevent 9/11. I mean, I'm not sure that they could have stopped it but, yeah, you're right, there were in fact some signs that they should have been more attentive to......Did Bush have an earlier notion that getting rid of Saddam would in fact be a good thing? That's entirely possible (this, though, yes, I would prefer to hear it in Bush's own words than from second-hand sources).
Post a Comment