Bush is Delusional - Even McCain Knows It

[Ryan]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ors/index.html

[Ryan]

Interestingly, my brother, who just returned from 16 months of service in Iraq described the situation to me yesterday as "a complete shit storm with absolutely zero chance of American success." Bush, on the other hand, is telling us all that everything is going just fine. And some of you actually have to ask why we hate him...

[DJPePe]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Interestingly, my brother, who just returned from 16 months of service in Iraq described the situation to me yesterday as "a complete shit storm with absolutely zero chance of American success." Bush, on the other hand, is telling us all that everything is going just fine. And some of you actually have to ask why we hate him...

Hey Ryan, what about those who know soldiers who talk about the positive situation that's occuring in Iraq? The same argument the pro-war people use in their justification for war, and how Fox News is the only one talking about the good it has "supposedly" brought?

Nice to hear a differing and more realistic opinion from someone who actually served in Iraq. Tell him thanks for his service on behalf of DDM man.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by DJPePe

Hey Ryan, what about those who know soldiers who talk about the positive situation that's occuring in Iraq? The same argument the pro-war people use in their justification for war, and how Fox News is the only one talking about the good it has "supposedly" brought?

Nice to hear a differing and more realistic opinion from someone who actually served in Iraq. Tell him thanks for his service on behalf of DDM man.

He says it's true that "most" people are friendly, but he also estimates that 20-30% are hostile and about 10% are willing and capable of carrying out what we consider to be "terrorism." And he says that the more we fight them, the more their resistance grows. The idea that Americans seem to have is that we are fighting a small group of people who we can "weed out," as George Bush puts it, and then the war will be over. But the only way that could realistically happen is to exterminate them by the masses, along with anyone who got in the way. Oh well, most of you wanted this, so be proud that you got your way.

[Dionysos]

I found myself - and I still can't believe this - agreeing with Pat Buchanan on some of his statements in his Daily Show interview, specifically the ones related to the neo-cons. He basically said that he believes the President was sold a bill of goods by neo-cons with an agenda, and that while he believes Bush should bear full responsibility for his decision to go to war he still can't reconcile why Kerry denounces the action when he voted for the authorization to go to war.

I think you'll like this part Ryan. When asked who Robertson is voting for, he said "My vote doesn't matter Jon, I live in a red state".


I can't believe I agree with Robertson on anything. Doesn't that make me legally insane? Can somebody have xiannaix look this up?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

I found myself - and I still can't believe this - agreeing with Pat Buchanan on some of his statements in his Daily Show interview, specifically the ones related to the neo-cons. He basically said that he believes the President was sold a bill of goods by neo-cons with an agenda, and that while he believes Bush should bear full responsibility for his decision to go to war he still can't reconcile why Kerry denounces the action when he voted for the authorization to go to war.

I think you'll like this part Ryan. When asked who Robertson is voting for, he said "My vote doesn't matter Jon, I live in a red state".


I can't believe I agree with Robertson on anything. Doesn't that make me legally insane? Can somebody have xiannaix look this up?

Wait, who was on the Daily Show, Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan? I didn't see the interview.

[kezarmyaj]

buchanan was on the other day, but I missed it.

[dallasclubber]

I can think of 4 people off the top of my head that are in Iraq or have returned, and ALL 4 said that what they are doing is justified and that MOST of the Iraqi people are glad we are there....
They are all voting for Bush, and are scared shitless of what would happen if Kerry is elected....

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by dallasclubber

I can think of 4 people off the top of my head that are in Iraq or have returned, and ALL 4 said that what they are doing is justified and that MOST of the Iraqi people are glad we are there....
They are all voting for Bush, and are scared shitless of what would happen if Kerry is elected....

Most people are glad they're there. That doesn't mean we can win the war. What quantifiable evidece do you have that shows that the situation is improving at all?

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Wait, who was on the Daily Show, Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan? I didn't see the interview.

Sorry, it was Buchanan. He was plugging his new book 'Where the Right Went Wrong'. I get the Evil Pats confused sometimes.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Sorry, it was Buchanan. He was plugging his new book 'Where the Right Went Wrong'. I get the Evil Pats confused sometimes.

The "Evil Pats" indeed. Pat Buchanan is interesting to me, though, because he represents a growing element of the conservative movement. He is a guy who believes in the staunchest of right-wing social values and a strictly conservative fiscal policy, but also opposes the foundations of neo-conservatism. I can realistically see a split among conservatives and the Republican party specifically in the future between the Pat Buchanan or "classical" conservatives, the neo-conservatives, the moderate conservatives, and the Bush toe-the-party-line conservatives. I think there is too wide a range of social values, economic ideologies, and foreign policies to fit comfortably within a single party. Of course, I doubt the Dems will pick up any of the remnants unless they can overcome their current identity crisis, so there could be a real chance here for a viable third party.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Ryan

The "Evil Pats" indeed. Pat Buchanan is interesting to me, though, because he represents a growing element of the conservative movement. He is a guy who believes in the staunchest of right-wing social values and a strictly conservative fiscal policy, but also opposes the foundations of neo-conservatism. I can realistically see a split among conservatives and the Republican party specifically in the future between the Pat Buchanan or "classical" conservatives, the neo-conservatives, the moderate conservatives, and the Bush toe-the-party-line conservatives. I think there is too wide a range of social values, economic ideologies, and foreign policies to fit comfortably within a single party. Of course, I doubt the Dems will pick up any of the remnants unless they can overcome their current identity crisis, so there could be a real chance here for a viable third party.

Yea, there's a faction of "us" that have a dissonance with the neo-cons. I don't believe in their spending policies(with small exceptions) and I don't believe Bush represents 'conservative' in the classic sense. It's why I bristle at the 'neo-con' moniker, because I don't think it really fits me personally. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican party split in the next couple decades, because I don't see these two factions growing back together. I would be surprised to see it split into more than 2 factions though, as conservatives are quite adept at consolidating power fairly quickly.

Who knew that a 3rd party might emerge in this fashion?

[Satchel]

I actually agree with Buchanan often when it comes to foreign policy. I think it is tied to his protectionist trade policies, which I do not agree with, but I'm all for leaving the world to police themselves. It's too bad his social agenda is barbaric.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Yea, there's a faction of "us" that have a dissonance with the neo-cons. I don't believe in their spending policies(with small exceptions) and I don't believe Bush represents 'conservative' in the classic sense. It's why I bristle at the 'neo-con' moniker, because I don't think it really fits me personally. I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican party split in the next couple decades, because I don't see these two factions growing back together. I would be surprised to see it split into more than 2 factions though, as conservatives are quite adept at consolidating power fairly quickly.

Who knew that a 3rd party might emerge in this fashion?

It's interesting to watch the growing factions of people who readily admit to being a "neo-con" and are very up front about their strategy as such. Then you have these classic conservatives on the other end preaching old Reagan-style politics. You also have the far-right Christian wing of the party showing up to the RNC to protest the presence of the party moderates, and the party moderates who more closely resemble progressive liberals than they do conservatives. And, of course, there is a large number of them who don't really like anything about the party except for the fact that they think they are a little better than the Democrats. I guess this could explain George W. Bush's acceptance among the party - he's not really a "neo-con" but he is certainly influenced by them, he's not a fiscal conservative but he swears he will be if you give him another chance, and he's a far-right Christian moralist who promises to be a moderate "compassionate conservative." I guess you could say he's some things to everyone and everything to noone.

[Import]

I think the war was definately coming and Bush is the one who will be remembered for it. I think Kerry was right to vote for authorization to go to war. I just don't think the current administration handled the whole affair properly. Then again, Cheney is looking to attack N Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran if Bush is re-elected as well as CHina if things don't cool down with Taiwan.