Bush is in freefall.
And the Republican "revolution" is in trouble. Of course, the Democrats are no better, so let's not expect any kind of radical change in 2008.
And the Republican "revolution" is in trouble. Of course, the Democrats are no better, so let's not expect any kind of radical change in 2008.
21 Comments:
AL
Maybe or maybe not.
There may be a radical change. If rising US casualties in Iraq cause Bush to withraw the troops.
The Republicans loss of face may make the more liberal-left Democrats (and other US power groupings) smell blood - therefore allowing them to push other radical foreign policy changes - whether the Democrats win in 2008 or not.
The bipartisan desire for revenge after 9/11 may eventually cool - depending on bin Laden's agenda.
US politics is unpredictable.
The politics of the U.S is very predictable. As we have Government by Corporation one only has to discern the bottom line of profit to feel which way the political winds blow. The wild card is the influence of the fundigelicals and Likudists/Mossad.
Tinfoil hats, anyone?
Your fellow human.
Some reports to ponder after one pulls their head out of the sand and tries to look about -
http://207.44.245.159/article7545.htm
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=162902&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/05/MadCow_120504.html
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/052204/geo_15672724.shtml
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050809/bigger_than_aipac.php
http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/Artstudents.htm
your fellow Human ps for more links just google - Israeli movers or Urban moving systems.
Peace.
oops forgot this one with new post on a Lou Dobbs (CNN) article -
http://thelastchancecafe.blogspot.com/
your fellow Human
Peace. Pass the lithium, quick.
Must not read much. Just like Bush eh jw? So where are your facts? Don't have any? No surprise here or there. Peace. your fellow Human
And what is wrong with Mossad oh Human Failing?
I hear its blondes can be very caring.
Gawenda's piece runs thru the laundry list of crises besetting Dear Leader, with one notable exception. The AIPAC treason case, and it's links to Plame-Niger forgeries, is potentially the most explosive of all. Maybe Mr Gawenda forgot.
And all this head scratching and sense of wonder at the voltes-face of formerly rusted-on wingnut generals in the media misses the obvious point that, once a ship lists as badly as this, the rats race each other, climb over each other to get off.
Gawenda's piece is a modest version of the same phenomenon. Not even a skerrick remains of the triumphal pro-Bush spin he used to retail even on the news pages.
People like Gawenda are chewing their fingernails right now, hoping the waking giant of American democracy and accountability, personified by the icily patient progress of prosecutor Fitzgerald, stays dozy enough not to expose the neocon cabal that has taken the controls on behalf of a foreign country.
Kristol and Krauthammer and other prominent lackeys are furiously writing anti-Bush columns they hope will solder enough protection around their arses to enable them to continue their peddling punditry. Kristols trademark Cheshire Cat and Krauthammer's Blood and Thunder will be wounded, will be reduced, but they will be back, wiping vestigial egg off their faces and 'moving on'.
It's going to be fun.
The ignoring of the AIPAC/Israel spy case is typical of the MSM. Indeed, it's been virtually ignored in Australia - and the US. It's huge and is only beginning. I'm hearing that MUCH more is going to be coming out...
Israel and its blind supporter should be worried...
addamo_01:
Just waiting for your response re. Iran.
Must hurt to be slapped around the place so badly by a mere pup, eh?
Well just starting off Bunyip's "facts" leave a lot to be desired. "So far, so good. Bush's polls aren't cheerful (although no worse than any and every other president, at one point or other, since Nixon, including Reagan and Clinton). Even Gawenda's observation that Bush is "overwhelmed" is fair enough. Gawenda is writing an opinion piece and that is, after all, his opinion." It seems Bunyip takes his false talking points from Republican stratergist Mary Matalin - http://mediamatters.org/items/200510140008.
Bunylip, "persistent efforts have so far turned up nothing like yet another confession of his administration having been found wanting. If readers can supply a link, this error will be wiped off the Gawenda slate. (In the meantime, mistake #1)". The link (Crooks and Liars Sept. 13th post) http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Bush-apologizes.wmv
I would supply a link, but he does not allow comments on his blog.
Bunylip is right about the questions from the 2 photo ops. As the Bush team is producing these at a fast clip I can see that one who watches a lot might get confused. I did see the Matt Lauer interview. Bush did grimace a lot. Mrs. Bush did again carry the interview. All in all I thought the Bush team did a pretty good interview. Especially the way Bush deflected the question on why the victims of Katrina should have to pay for reconstrution. Things being in the eye of the beholder I'll give Bunylip a mark for this one.
Gawenda 2 Bunylip 1 shabadoo -2 -1"I never do posts like this" You just did. Don’t ever say never. -2 And no you should not do posts like this. You're not qualified.
Is it incompetence? Is it indolence? Is it indifference to truth? Or is it all of the above, underwritten by an arrogant contempt for his poor, stupid readers? Or is that, when the facts don't mesh with Bunylip's wishes, he finds fiction just as useful and a good deal easier to work with?
Okay just for giggles - http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Late%20Show-Top-Ten-Bush-Hammer.wmv
quicktime -http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Late%20Show-Top-Ten-Bush-Hammer.mov
your fellow Human
Antony, DBO, Addamo_01 - hell, Glenn Condell - I strongly suggest you take your pet Human out the back and put him out of his misery. He's the classic loose cannon; he's doing more damage to the credibility of your arguments than anything else.
Okay, Human. Let's take a look at your muddleheaded ramblings.
It seems Bunyip takes his false talking points from Republican stratergist Mary Matalin
So? Is he wrong in saying that past presidents have endured dips in their popularity that have been arrested at a later date? Of course he isn't. Who cares about the depth of the trough? The salient point that Bunyip is making is that a dip in popularity isn't necessarily a sign of a failing presidency, which Gawenda and others are asserting. It's called wishful thinking. So that's one point taken from Gawenda and awarded back to Bunyip.
The link (Crooks and Liars Sept. 13th post)
Sorry, did you say September 13th post? Oh. My. God. You really are as dumb as a box of hammers, eh? Go back and read what Bunyip said. He said that he couldn't find a reference to Bush apologising yet again on the trip he made down south this week. That's October. Not September. Gawenda (apparently) falsely claimed that Bush made further apologetic statements down there this week. That's what Bunyip was responding to. The link you provided above is footage from a visit in September. In fact, almost exactly one month earlier. Incidentally, whilst Bunyip doesn't have comments enabled on his blog, he does post his e-mail address in the top right hand corner. Feel free to e-mail him your link. I'm sure he'll get a kick out of it. Oh, and that's 1 more point taken off Gawenda and awarded to Bunyip. Guess what? That makes it 3-0 to Bunyip!
You're not qualified.
Human, you're living proof that ostensible prerequisites of basic comprehension and sanity aren't required to construct erroneous arguments and arrive at muddle headed conclusions.
Is it incompetence? Is it indolence? Is it indifference to truth? Or is it all of the above, underwritten by an arrogant contempt for his poor, stupid readers? Or is that, when the facts don't mesh with Bunylip's wishes, he finds fiction just as useful and a good deal easier to work with?
Stunning! The genius! Human's taken Bunyip's words and turned them against him! What a brilliant rhetorical flourish! I'm sure Bunyip's cowering in a dank corner somewhere after that stinging riposte.
Okay just for giggles ...
...read Human's silly post again!
Human, you'd be well advised to observe a period of silence whilst gathering what few strands of lucid thought you have left. Then perhaps attempt to post again.
The Bush presidency started off very badly and would undoubtedly have tanked had it not been for 911.
Actually, this is a furphy spread by Mike Moore and others. Certainly, 9/11 supercharged the Bush Administration, but it was hardly a "lame duck presidency" before that. Read down to deceit number 5 on this link: http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Bush_Presidency_before_September_11
As for your other rash predictions, they are just that at this stage. I think you're jumping the gun if you start writing off Bush now, but then his opponents have consistently underestimated the man since he popped up on their radar, and he in turn has consistently wrong-footed them. So he kinda has form.
Perhaps his administration is in freefall. All I'm saying is it's way too soon to call.
Hey JW - Gawenda. "In New Orleans this week, where he again admitted to mistakes by the Federal Government in the wake of Hurricane Katrina...."
Bunylip, " "persistent efforts have so far turned up NOTHING LIKE yet another confession of his administration having been found wanting. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/11/katrina/main931741.shtml -
In response to the government's initially slow response to Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Bush said, "If I didn't respond well enough, I'm going to learn the lessons." The federal government's response to the second huge storm to slam the area, Rita, has gotten better reviews.
"The story will unfold. I mean, the facts of the story will come out over time, and the important thing is for federal, state and local governments to adjust and to respond," President Bush said.
If there were no mistakes, why the need to "adjust"?
Gawenda , "After two weeks(in referance to the RECENT past). of relentless attacks and unprecedented vitriol, and with opinion polls(CURRENT POLLS) showing support for him at the lowest level during his presidency, George Bush looks like a man overwhelmed by the burdens of office." What is important about the polls NOW is that it is 2nd term polling. At one time Bush had the highest rating ever(so far as my research goes) at 90%. Conversly no President has suffered such a fall. Bunylip changes the argument so that people like you would bite. Further, I must say I do not put much faith in most polls. My argument is that Bunylip is deceitful. As for who cares about the "depths of the trough', evidently Gawenda, you, Bunylip, Mary Matalin, and the White House, hence the daily multiple photo ops and staged events.
I will not e-mail to Bunylip because he does have enough veracity in the bank. Unless he is as upfront as Antony I do not care to communicate with him. The reason Bunylip does not dare to have comments is so his crap won't be thrown back into his mouth in public. However I do see that you have no fear of that. Now, go rinse out your mouth kid.
PS - I see by you rapid response to the Israeli/Mossad links that you did not watch, read or listen. Afraid that your stone of truth that you carry in your pocket just maybe a fossilised cow paddy?
Firstly, it's Bunyip, not Bunylip. Since you're a non-Australian, I'm willing to cut you a little slack on that, however.
Congratulations! You took my advice and gathered your few lucid thoughts and went Googling - great, you turned up something. The Prof said quite clearly that he didn't find anything - but he was open to correction if anyone else found anything. But...
I will not e-mail to Bunylip
I'm sure he'd be terribly distraught if he realised the opportunity he's missed in not being able to converse with an intellectual heavyweight such as yourself.
Thing is, everything else Bunyip condemned Gawenda for stands. It's wrong for Gawenda to make up GWB's responses to questions put to him. It's wrong for Gawenda to pretend that Laura Bush had to answer for her husband. It's wrong for Gawenda to import quotes from another interview and paste them in to make Bush look bad.
My argument is that Bunylip is deceitful.
I put it to you, sir, that you - and not Bunyip - are the deceitful party here; along with Gawenda. You know full well that most of Gawenda's recollections of events Bunyip highlighted are false, and yet you still defend Gawenda. You are a crank, plain and simple.
so his crap won't be thrown back into his mouth in public. However I do see that you have no fear of that.
No - not from you, anyway. You're about as intellectually intimidating as a dead goldfish. And it looks like you're projecting, to boot.
I see by you rapid response to the Israeli/Mossad links that you did not watch, read or listen.
Excellent deduction, Watson.
Afraid that your stone of truth that you carry in your pocket just maybe a fossilised cow paddy?
Er, not really. Also, was that your attempt at razor-sharp snark? Jeepers, you must have been storing that corker up for a while. Look, Human, me boy...try to see things from my perspective. Why would I look at a bunch of links posted by a deceitful loon such as yourself? I don't trust you as far as I could throw you. I certainly wouldn't look to you for a truth enlightenment - I don't think you know the meaning of the word "truth". I mean, let me show you how cognitively unhinged you are - you spend a hundred or so words explaining how the polls at a particular time and in a particular way show that Bush's presidency is dying in the arse, and then in the very next sentence you contradict yourself by saying you don't believe in polls anyway, thus demolishing the foundation for your entire argument! So basically, I have better things to do. I'm half annoyed with myself for wasting time rebutting another bunch of crap that is your trademark. I guess I'm nothing if not thorough!
Not rash James, informed.
Just like you were with the Iran issue you still haven't managed to respond to?
Ahemmm wrong footed?
That's right. I know you're being/you've been wrong footed by Bush when I hear the impotent screams. They constantly rattle the panes around these quarters.
Oh my James, aren't we spending a lot of time watching FOX news these days.
Not really, although I can see you've been tuning exclusively into Air America and reading Democratic Underground briefings daily to get your wad of "information".
and the bait and switch performance his minions perfomed in Iohio and Florida.
Don't know anything about that, but I wouldn't be surprised - although you tend to deal in hyperbole, so in my mind I'll be toning it down a few notches. Having said that, democracy in the USA is far from perfect, and grubbiness is a bipartisan trait in some areas. Please don't tell me you're naive enough to believe otherwise. What was that about dead guys voting Democrat in several seats?
Social Security bill fo the ground and hit a brik wall.
Yep, it happens in the American system. I know you socialists admire a strongman, but an American president is frequently constrained in his actions. Just ask Bill Clinton.
Okay, you're also making several unsubstantiated, sweeping statements - ie. "people are rolling their eyes", "Bush has amazed his supporters with his ineptitude". That's right, Addamo, just because you say it, it must be true. Look, I'm no Bush fan. I personally don't like his big-government form of politics. But I cannot stand the deceit that swirls around the broad camp of his political opponents. You all say that Bush lies. Have a little self perspective. He's inspired the same trait in you, too.
James,
get a mirror and check out your arse. That way you'll know when it's being handed tto you on a plate. Warning - it's not a pretty sight.
Sterling work addamo, but is it worth it?
Glenn:
"get a mirror and check out your arse. "
Thanks for the tip - I'm accepting your worldliness on that particular manouvre; seeing as though I've handed you yours on many an occasion.
Addamo : don't have time to respond at length now. It's pending, however. Just a quick note - what do you mean what have I been smoking? What have you been smoking? The thread you believe has "disappeared from the page" is still there - I just checked it. It's right down the bottom of the main page, but I'll save you all the trouble if you want to view it. Just click here. I see addammo has realised his little cockup and has hurriedly gone down there to see my lengthy response (that I wrote out two days ago...keep up, Addamo!) to his lengthy post. Apparently he's composing a reply as we speak. Google is running hot, no doubt. I await with trepidation...
Andre:
Response, as promised.
Way to go James. False bravado and no evidence or reality to show for it. You have a promising political career ahead of you.
Not false bravado. That's my honest assessment of a lot of what's said and done around these parts.
"rather than question it’s veracity, you attack the information."
Isn't attacking the source of information attacking its veracity if you're deeply suspicious about the source? Seems as though you did exactly the same thing when you said
aren't we spending a lot of time watching FOX news these days.
So maybe the physician should heal thyself.
spite of being provided copious links
Links can be cheap.
You seem sot be hung up on strong men James.
A deceitful and wholly incorrect statement. See below re. my discussion on deceit.
to stand up to the US and put the interests of their people and country ahead of US interests...they are great value.
A most revealing statement. You are so anti the projection of American power that you gleefully accept any refusenik to Pax Americana as a bedfellow. Look at the number of leaders who struggle/d against the Americans. I'm pretty confident the vast majority of them are/were dictators of varying brutality who put neither their nation's nor their people's interests first - their first priority was staying in power.
This government would sooner chew off their collective right arms than admit to making a mistake
That's hardly exclusive to the Bush administration - although he did re. Katrina. Erroneously, IMO, but that's another issue. It's an essential prerequisite of any ruling political entity. Look, I'm sure Bush is copping flak about some cockups he's made recently. I just think the picture you painted was inaccurate - ie. the wheels are falling off his administration. That may be the case, however my point was it's way too soon to tell.
Hello? Aren’t we both playing at that game?
At some points, yes. But....
I strive to provide links
You didn't at that occasion. Which is why I said something. A lot of the time, links aren't the kingmakers you seem to think they are, anyway. At the end of the day, we base our arguments around our perceptions. We could both get links that support our perceptions - so what does that prove?
support your lame arguments for a change.
Which arguments are you talking about? As I said above, I happen to think providing a bunch of sympathetic links often pretty poor evidence, so I don't waste my time unless the links are worth it. I could find a bunch of links to back me up, but then you'll start attacking the quality of the links. And I could do the same thing to yours. It's a long, tedious path to go down and I can't be bothered.
Lies are perpetrated by those who set out to deceive, when they know the opposite to be true James.
Note that I said "you all". I know that there are a great many liars amongst Bush's opponents - take a list of stupid quotes that GWB's supposed to have made I received in my e-mail. I got that same damn e-mail 8 years ago with the same quotes, though they were attributed to Dan Quayle at the time. You personally may not create lies, however your strong bias against GWB makes you more credulous of falsities that attack Bush, and thus you are, in my eyes, a likely source of misinformation. To use an example I quoted above, you rushed to declare that the wheels are falling off Bush's regime. I think you're jumping the gun, and I'm quite sure that if you were a neutral you wouldn't be so hasty in declaring his presidency doomed. If you were a supporter you would swear blind everything's going to plan even when Rome's burning, to mix a couple of metaphors. You may even make erroneous conclusions due to your convictions. For example, you did this above when you decided that I was a fan of strongmen-type rulers. This isn't surprising - we all are far happier to believe good things about entities we like and support, and bad things about those we don't. I'm certainly no exception. However, I am not emotionally for or against Bush (and, as I said earlier, I baulk at the suggestion that I am a supporter of his), so when I see a whole lot of what I consider to be an unbalanced view I tend to rile up; you've probably deduced that I reckon I see a whole lot of unbalanced view on this blog. The anti-Bush crowd I believe is deeply unbalanced, and frequently consciously deceitful. I believe you possess an unbalanced view in regards to GWB and his admin (and I'm sure you feel the same about me). I take you at your word when you say you do not set out to deceive. But that does not preclude you from spreading deceit unintentionally.
provide a modicum of evidence to support your lame arguments for a change.
Again, which arguments are you talking about? Why do you think you're so justified because you've provided a link? So someone else agrees with you. Fantastic.
So, I'm off to the gym and I'll start on the Iran reply after dinner.
Fair enough. I did post again - at great length - and if I were you I would run out of patience, too. I'm certainly not stupid enough to interpret your silence as acquiesence.
For the record, my beefs with Bush are that 1) he isn't into limited government like he should be 2) he's a protectionist 3) he's a statist 4) he frequently won't sack people that should be sacked (eg. someone's head should have rolled over Abu Ghraib - arguably Rumsfeld's) 5) he gets things done, but he's not always strong on execution
As far as his foreign policy record is concerned - I feel a little conflicted. On one hand, America on the offensive is broadly a good thing. There's been too much foreign policy inertia since the decline of the cold war, and some states need their heads banged together - not necessarily militarily, although the unspoken threat can be useful. I concede that such a statement is liable to open a can of worms, and to really make my position understood on this I would have to qualify the above statement for several paragraphs. I will note that events are moving for the first time in a long time in many theatres. Not all in useful directions, but many are. Bush tackles problems, however he often has problems with execution. Clinton was good at deferring problems, and they would sometimes fester. There are pros and cons of both strategies.
Anyway, it's late here. Enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home