America once again shows lack of class

After reading quite a view of the posts to this thread I had to give my reply some thought. I do think that it was infact rude to boo Mr. & Mrs. Bush and Mr. & Mrs. Cheney. Knowing how many American feel about them they WERE there. And what about the wives, what did they do to deserve being boo'd? Here's a shoe on the other foot thought. How would it have looked if many of McCain and Bush supporters showed up and boo'd Mr. Obama? Would that have been rude? And one more thing, the problems that this country is facing were not cause by one man over an eight year period. Many people were involved and it stems much farther that 8yrs. And I hope that we NEVER see another 9/11, but if we do, DON'T ask our president to do something. DON'T get outraged. Because that could very well lead to another war. Then we may find ourselves booing that President too. Americans need to start taking responsiblity for the decisions they make instead of trying to find someone to blame.

reply to post by jsobecky


In the context of two stolen national elections, allowing 911, invading Iraq by mistake, torture, and the worship of deregulation leading to the coming depression, your complaint over some booing seems a bit petty. Yes, it was in poor taste, but it didn't kill anyone, it didn't steal/waste billions, it didn't slaughter tens of thousands, and it didn't steal the country. Get the distinction?

reply to post by semperfortis


What a great summation of the last 8 years. I totally agree with this. Unfortunately, as a sidenote and as a centrist, I remember seeing the republicans using the "wag the dog" sayings ad nauseam (sp?) during Clinton's reasonable military solutions to Bosnia and Haiti. Both sides have been pathetic during times of war. Both sides should be ashamed of how they've carried themselves during times of war. And both sides need to wake up and realize that they're not always correct. It is childish to think that your side is always correct.

But again, I thank this writer for so correctly pointing out all that people have so easily forgotten. I still haven't seen any partisans put together a good response to this. It appears as though they've been inconvenienced by these facts!

reply to post by mrfire9


I hope you don't mind Obama's hands in your pockets...

thread title: "America once again shows lack of class"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Michelle Obama is more eloquent and to-the-point:


she states the majority of Americans have '...broken souls'
and are both cynical and mean...


see: republicbroadcasting.org...

re: www.latimes.com/

Originally posted by Schrecken Licht
I don't like everything Bush did, nor do I agree with everything he stood for, yet that old guard dog did keep us safe for 8 years, despite what many see as stubbornness and aggression. Now we have "Scooby-Doo for president - hiding, cowering and walking around with his tail between his legs when that day comes, and we all know it will.

Hmmm... Speaking of which, how long did Biden say we have? Until Obama is "tested", that is?

I'm starting to think that politics is the newest form of entertainment...
It's like a bad movie that's so bad you just can't stop watching .

Originally posted by questioningall
I am now proudly (for the first time in 8 years) flying my flag, I will keep it out now. Since I am becoming a "proud" American once more.

Oh snap!
I wouldn't let people know that there was a time when you weren't a proud American. You just might get sniped .

Rule 1 of America: You must at all times be proud of your country.

I wonder if that makes brainwashing easier...
I digress...

I am Texan Born and Raised. After all He has done to this once Proud Nation, All the Blood of 911 still Lays with Him and Cheney and Rumsfield. They still deserved to be Given The Electric Chair or dipped into a Vat of Acid still alive until they dissolve. And still the Punishment would not fit the Crime.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Also, in no way did the "rest of the world" agree with Bush.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

They did not agree wit the US going to war, however, no where in your source does it say that the intel was not shared by several other nations...unless the source is insuating that all nations who had similiar intel were "in on it" as well.

Clinton may have wanted regime change in Iraq, however, unlike Bush he was neither willing to sacrifice 35,000 dead and wounded US soilders nor America's moral standing in the world to accomplish it.

Yet he was willing to abuse his power, lie under oath, all for a blow job...

Maybe you should pay more attention to what I said. I agree that Katrina was going to be a disaster or "calamity." However, Bush transformed this disaster into a national disgrace by his failure to handle our nations response before Katrina and in its aftermath.

What would you have had him done then?

I know the source of this opinion is obviously bias, however even as far back as 2005 a majority of Americans agreed with Obama.

The fact that you yourself claim that the source is "biased" is very telling as to how solid an argument you just presented.

Bush may not have been the first to do condone warrantless wiretapping, but he was the first to do it openly and on a grand scale against American citizens.

That is pure conjecture on your part.

I am sure other presidents, in secret meetings, on select occasions have condoned the torture of all kinds of people. However, once again Bush is the first president to condone the torture of a class of enemy combatants publicly and on a grand scale.

But you are talking about non-deadly prison abuse in a time of war against opponents who follow no rules of engagement. And again, the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist.

I noticed your careful selection of the phrase "fight against terror" in your comment about the Geneva Convention. Well, you may call it a "fight" against terror, how most of us, including Bush himself, call it the "War" on terror. I assume it is your position that it is ok to torture "terrorists" and not ok to torture "soldiers"? Though I guess that would be a decent policy in a perfect world, in the real world it just doesn't work.

I like to think of myself as a realist. I do not kid myself into thinking we live in a Utopia. If we are to move forward, and actually succeed at fighting the war on terror, we need to move past the unrealistic utopian standards. War is hell, and it most certainly will never be anything but that.



[edit on 28-1-2009 by West Coast]

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Also, in no way did the "rest of the world" agree with Bush.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

They did not agree wit the US going to war, however, no where in your source does it say that the intel was not shared by several other nations...unless the source is insuating that all nations who had similiar intel were "in on it" as well.

Many nations may have shared similar intel. However, many other leaders chose to discount the intel as unreliable or down right false. Essentially, this the issue upon which the controversy revolves. Bush and his administration lackeys knew that much of the "intel" he was spoon feeding the rest of the nation to justify the invasion of Iraq was FALSE.

1. They knew the WMD claims were false.
-Powell stated in early 2001 that Iraq had not WMDs and were not trying to produce them.
2. They knew that claims of a connection b/w Iraq and 9/11 were false.
-Bush, when asked what connection there was b/w Iraq and 9/11 stated "NOTHING." However, this was after the start of the war and Cheney's claims to the contrary on Meet the Press
3. They knew that the claims of yellow cake from Niger were at best outdated and most likely again, false.
-The husband of outed CIA officer Valarie Plame stated that this intel was false. Instead of being rewarded for his diligence to the truth, his wife was outed by the Bush administration, once again, a treasonous act punishable by death.

Despite knowing all this, the Bush administration in a bid to get into Iraq, began stating the exact opposite. Basically, at best they cherry picked the intel and more likely they just lied.

Again, other countries may have received the same intel (most likely from the Bush administration) however, they correctly realized that it was incorrect and that it was being used as misinformation to justify Bush's ultimately successful attempt to invade Iraq.

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Clinton may have wanted regime change in Iraq, however, unlike Bush he was neither willing to sacrifice 35,000 dead and wounded US soilders nor America's moral standing in the world to accomplish it.

Yet he was willing to abuse his power, lie under oath, all for a blow job...

Man, get a grip. Are you seriously comparing the magnitude of lies about a BJ to the sacrifice of 35,000 dead and wounded soldiers and the dismantling of America's moral standing in the world??????

I mean, do you really think they are even in the same league of importance.

Quite frankly, when I read this I seriously considered discontinuing my attempt to educate you about the fallacies you insist on believing. If you really think that lying about a BJ in any way compares to 35K dead and wounded, you are clearly disillusioned by your political loyalties and affiliations.

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Maybe you should pay more attention to what I said. I agree that Katrina was going to be a disaster or "calamity." However, Bush transformed this disaster into a national disgrace by his failure to handle our nations response before Katrina and in its aftermath.

What would you have had him done then?

Well, for starters, I am sure it would have been prudent to appoint someone who was actually qualified as the head of FEMA. That way, if and when a disaster did occur, FEMA, and its vast resources and powers, could be applied correctly.

Aside from that, really any response to this disaster would have been better than Bush's lack of a response.

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
I know the source of this opinion is obviously bias, however even as far back as 2005 a majority of Americans agreed with Obama.

The fact that you yourself claim that the source is "biased" is very telling as to how solid an argument you just presented.

Just because a source may be biased, it does not mean that the information presented is necessarily false. My argument was very solid and I challenge you to present information disputing it. A majority of Americans feel that Bush's response to Katrina was deplorable...PERIOD.

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Bush may not have been the first to do condone warrantless wiretapping, but he was the first to do it openly and on a grand scale against American citizens.

That is pure conjecture on your part.

This is not a hypothesis supported by little hard facts (definition of conjecture). Bush WAS the first president to condone warrantless wiretapping openly and on a grand scale. Why you labeled this "conjecture" is unknown to me and thus I cannot fully debate this point with you. I can only say that you are clearly wrong. If you would like to provide an explanation as to why you feel that my statement was "conjecture," I may be able to provide a better argument to the contrary.

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
I am sure other presidents, in secret meetings, on select occasions have condoned the torture of all kinds of people. However, once again Bush is the first president to condone the torture of a class of enemy combatants publicly and on a grand scale.

But you are talking about non-deadly prison abuse in a time of war against opponents who follow no rules of engagement. And again, the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist.

Look, no matter how you cut it, pre-Bush the US did not condone torture under any circumstances (even though it obviously did occur). Post-Bush torture of a select group of combatants is publicly condoned. This policy shift has greatly harmed America's moral standing in the world.

Allowing the torture of an individual combatant because he or she does not wear a uniform is a very slippery slope. I mean, who is a terrorist? Look at the several US citizens who were tortured at Gitmo. Who labeled them "terrorists"? For what reasons did they receive this label?

If we allow this policy to continue, I find it quite reasonable to believe that one day simply disagreeing openly with the policies of a particular government could potentially allow for the application of the label "terrorist." I mean, how many of the people at Gitmo actually carried out a terrorist act? I would say very few. Yet, despite this they were labeled "terrorists" and thus, rightly in your opinion, subject to torture.

Look, I agree with you that anyone who is convicted of terrorism should be subject to torture in order to obtain intel that would prevent future terrorist attacks. However, allowing a government to apply the label "terrorist" to anyone they wish to torture is wrong and thus should not be allowed.

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
I noticed your careful selection of the phrase "fight against terror" in your comment about the Geneva Convention. Well, you may call it a "fight" against terror, how most of us, including Bush himself, call it the "War" on terror. I assume it is your position that it is ok to torture "terrorists" and not ok to torture "soldiers"? Though I guess that would be a decent policy in a perfect world, in the real world it just doesn't work.

I like to think of myself as a realist. I do not kid myself into thinking we live in a Utopia. If we are to move forward, and actually succeed at fighting the war on terror, we need to move past the unrealistic utopian standards. War is hell, and it most certainly will never be anything but that.

My point was that you were, in this instance, not being a realist. Again, in a perfect world where the terrorists wear red hats and the soldiers wear blue hats, sure, torture the red hat wearing terrorists. However, in the real world terrorists and soldiers are not so easily identifiable. Because of this, many non-conventional soldiers are being incorrectly labeled as terrorists and being tortured.

Basically, I think that torture should be reserved for select cases where we know that the individual is in fact a terrorist and that there is a reasonable assumption that torture would result in the saving of lives. The blanket application of the label "terrorist" to anyone from a particular corner of the world or who adheres to a particular political philosophy is wrong and should be discontiuned.

Just so you know, many of the non uniform wearing minute men who fought the British in the Revolutionary War would, in today's terms, be labeled terrorists. This is not correct. Would you have condoned the torture of them by the British? Would you have condoned the torture of the non uniform wearing Mujahideen of Afghanistan by the Russians?

I am sure that both the minute men of America and the Mujahideen of Afghanistan were indeed tortured by their oppressors. However, is it your wish that America be considered an oppressive tyrant like the British or the Soviet Russians???

With the direction he has steered this country that president deserved to be booed. We are americans after all.

If your a bad prez, we will let you know. Hell, if bush was even decent he wouldn't have gotten booed, but his approval ratings are among the lowest ever recorded so imo, he deserved to get booed. Peroid.

Yeah it took Bush and Cheney 8 years to ruin our country and only 3 years for Obama to put it in its grave, just remember when the US goes the rest of the world willl follow soon.