Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 21, 2005 SO, according to you, Rather's reputation as a journalist is a joke. He was just a news-reader, huh? Rather's got more to lose than the people behind the scenes. My own personal beliefs, which I don't bring into the issue because it's worthless debating, is that if Rather was given the yes or no on the running the story he would have said no. He's a journalist of the old school, not this new scoop-jumping "doesn't matter if we have no proof run it anyway" news mentality. I realize arguing the issue is pointless, though, which is why I rarely talk about Rather when I discuss the CBS thing. Rather was gung-ho about the story. Rather STILL doesn't think the story was false. So, no, others did not MAKE the guy who basically runs CBS News do it. A lot of people have it set in their minds that he's some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth lib whose willing to dispose of the decades he's built his career in a desperate attempt to do PR damage to a man whose going to be relevant for only four to eight years. Bush is actually going to end up one of the most historically relevant Presidents in recent history. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Bush is actually going to end up one of the most historically relevant Presidents in recent history. -=Mike I am pretty sure someone said that on about Millard Fillmore on a messageboard in 1850. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Bush is actually going to end up one of the most historically relevant Presidents in recent history. -=Mike I am pretty sure someone said that on about Millard Fillmore on a messageboard in 1850. Well, unlike Fillmore, it'd be accurate this time. Bush has a legacy and has made an impact. And I can think of a former President from Arkansas who is driven insane by this. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Bush is actually going to end up one of the most historically relevant Presidents in recent history. -=Mike I am pretty sure someone said that on about Millard Fillmore on a messageboard in 1850. Well, unlike Fillmore, it'd be accurate this time. Bush has a legacy and has made an impact. And I can think of a former President from Arkansas who is driven insane by this. -=Mike I am pretty sure Clinton couldn't give less of a fuck about that. No matter what, he is going to be rememberd as a good president. I know a certain south carolinian poster that is being drove INSANE by that. And will probably deny it in a few moments. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Bush is actually going to end up one of the most historically relevant Presidents in recent history. -=Mike I am pretty sure someone said that on about Millard Fillmore on a messageboard in 1850. Well, unlike Fillmore, it'd be accurate this time. Bush has a legacy and has made an impact. And I can think of a former President from Arkansas who is driven insane by this. -=Mike I am pretty sure Clinton couldn't give less of a fuck about that. Considering how hard he worked to create a legacy for himself (and failing miserably in the effort) --- he likely does give quite the fuck. No matter what, he is going to be rememberd as a good president. I know a certain south carolinian poster that is being drove INSANE by that. And will probably deny it in a few moments. He was a mediocre President. A President who did not do much of anything and whose impact on the country was, at best, negligible. He's a Harding for the modern era. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted February 21, 2005 A sincere question- what's Clinton's claim to fame? I have a feeling people are going to say the economy, which I hope people remember runs in cycles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 21, 2005 A sincere question- what's Clinton's claim to fame? I have a feeling people are going to say the economy, which I hope people remember runs in cycles. And which he left in SUCH good shape for Bush. -=Mike ...Neutering the SEC and selling missile technology to China probably weren't good ideas in all honesty. Nor was pardoning unrepentant terrorists, such as FALN... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Honestly? I think Clinton's going to be remembered as the president that was getting blowjobs 50 years from now. I think a lot of conservatives will say welfare reform since that's one of the few things he did that they liked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Honestly? I think Clinton's going to be remembered as the president that was getting blowjobs 50 years from now. I think a lot of conservatives will say welfare reform since that's one of the few things he did that they liked. I don't think Clinton LIKED that (welfare reform, not the blowjob. Though I've been with girls who couldn't do that either to save their lives), but he was politically wise to ignore his more liberal advisers and sign it. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Bush is actually going to end up one of the most historically relevant Presidents in recent history. -=Mike I am pretty sure someone said that on about Millard Fillmore on a messageboard in 1850. I don't see how anyone can say that Bush is NOT historically relevant. Just look at Iraq. If, ultimately, Iraq is a 'success' (in at least some connotation of the word), than the so-called "Bush doctrine" may be proven successful. If it's a failure, than liberals / Democrats / anti-Bush folks will always have that to hold over his head just like the Repubs have Monica to hold over Bill's. The difference, of course, is that unlike Clinton, who's actions in office effected primarily just his own nation, Bush's foreign policies have remarkable (and yes, historical) implications on the world-stage. And whether they fail or succeed, either way, it makes him historically relevant. Mike's right, for good or ill, Bush WILL have one hell of a legacy after he leaves office. I don't think Clinton LIKED that (welfare reform, not the blowjob. Though I've been with girls who couldn't do that either to save their lives), but he was politically wise to ignore his more liberal advisers and sign it. I've never had a bad blowjob. I don't know if such things exist. I mean, hell, even if they're terrible, they're never THAT terrible, know what I mean? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Bush is actually going to end up one of the most historically relevant Presidents in recent history. -=Mike I am pretty sure someone said that on about Millard Fillmore on a messageboard in 1850. I don't see how anyone can say that Bush is NOT historically relevant. Just look at Iraq. If, ultimately, Iraq is a 'success' (in at least some connotation of the word), than the so-called "Bush doctrine" may be proven successful. If it's a failure, than liberals / Democrats / anti-Bush folks will always have that to hold over his head just like the Repubs have Monica to hold over Bill's. The difference, of course, is that unlike Clinton, who's actions in office effected primarily just his own nation, Bush's foreign policies have remarkable (and yes, historical) implications on the world-stage. And whether they fail or succeed, either way, it makes him historically relevant. Mike's right, for good or ill, Bush WILL have one hell of a legacy after he leaves office. Even if Iraq is a total failure (unlikely, IMO), Afghanistan is in much better shape than when Bush entered office. I don't think Clinton LIKED that (welfare reform, not the blowjob. Though I've been with girls who couldn't do that either to save their lives), but he was politically wise to ignore his more liberal advisers and sign it. I've never had a bad blowjob. I don't know if such things exist. I mean, hell, even if they're terrible, they're never THAT terrible, know what I mean? Yeah, she was SO bad I had to ask her to stop. I assumed bad sex was impossible. This girl proved me wrong. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted February 21, 2005 Policy and rhetoric wise, Bush should draw comparisons to Teddy Rooselvelt in terms of the way he expands the power of the executive for the "good of the nation" and takes a strong US foreign policy stance, intervening where he feels there are US interests. Speak softly and carry a big stick indeed... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted February 22, 2005 Speak softly and carry a big stick indeed... This is a horrible comparison. You didn't hear the entire Big Stick quote. A good many of you are probably acquainted with the old proverb: "Speak softly and carry a big stick—you will go far." If a man continually blusters, if he lacks civility, a big stick will not save him from trouble; and neither will speaking softly avail, if back of the softness there does not lie strength, power. I'd say the run-up to the Iraq war was pretty lacking in civility. And yes, before you say it, I recognize the UN could probably stand to learn from the very last phrase. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted February 22, 2005 Meh, Im not taking the comparison any farther then I think they both had grand visions for expanding the power of the executive and for US power expansion in regions of the world... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted February 22, 2005 And yes, before you say it, I recognize the UN could probably stand to learn from the very last phrase. I've had a change of heart about the U.N. I'm willing to cut them some slack. They didn't have time to give the approval we wanted; when you're as busy as they've been, covering up the Oil for Food scandal and hiding the fact that your peacekeepers are molesting children down in Africa, damnit, your hands are just tied. And who can blame them? Not I. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted February 22, 2005 You think they still should have given us approval, knowing what we know now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 22, 2005 You think they still should have given us approval, knowing what we know now? Given that the UN pretends to care about human rights --- yup. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted February 22, 2005 Given that the UN pretends to care about human rights --- yup. -=Mike How often did Powell talk about human rights? How much focus was put upon human rights VS weapons? How quickly you forget that this whole thing only turned into Operation: Freedom when Operation: WMDs failed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 22, 2005 Given that the UN pretends to care about human rights --- yup. -=Mike How often did Powell talk about human rights? How much focus was put upon human rights VS weapons? Powell didn't mention it much because he knew it was a waste of time to mention it to the UN. You don't waste your time making a case on an issue that you're relatively positive the "jury" won't care about. That's basic logic. Bush mentioned it A LOT in his speeches for the months leading up to this. Just because you chose not to listen is not his fault. How quickly you forget that this whole thing only turned into Operation: Freedom when Operation: WMDs failed. Wow, you really have no historical knowledge of this event, do you? It's not even been that long and you are oblivious to reality. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted February 22, 2005 You damn well know that saving Iraqis from a dictators was never, NEVER promoted as reason for war before it started. In fact, the only time that human rights strings were pulled was "we know he has weapons, he's used them on his own people." Beyond that, it was entirely about protecting ourselves from the threat of phantom WMDs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 23, 2005 You damn well know that saving Iraqis from a dictators was never, NEVER promoted as reason for war before it started. Bull-fucking-shit. Bush mentioned REPEATEDLY leading up to the war. Just because you CHOSE to not listen --- or to listen to what the left claims he said --- is your problem. In fact, the only time that human rights strings were pulled was "we know he has weapons, he's used them on his own people." Beyond that, it was entirely about protecting ourselves from the threat of phantom WMDs. JOTW, you CLEARLY don't know what the hell you're talking about here. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2005 He said it would be a benefit of the war, that the Iraqis would be free, yes. Somewhere in there was where that stupid "We'll be welcomed as liberators" shit came from. However, it was a positive benefit from the war movement that was starting for other reasons. It was never alone cause enough to take the country into war, and they never said otherwise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 23, 2005 He said it would be a benefit of the war, that the Iraqis would be free, yes. Somewhere in there was where that stupid "We'll be welcomed as liberators" shit came from. However, it was a positive benefit from the war movement that was starting for other reasons. It was never alone cause enough to take the country into war, and they never said otherwise. The war was not, at any point, solely about WMD's. Not at any point in the entire buildup. Enforcing UN resolutions was a reason. Humanitarian reasons were a reason. And concern of WMD were a reason. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2005 And WMD's were presented as the number one reason. Look, I was and I still am for the war and all, but seriously, anyone pretending that this wasn't presented to the American people as "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and pose a threat to the American people" is just full of shit. That was the reasoning. i personally never believed that, but knew that the result of this war would be removing a horrible person from power. All this "No, no, no, they said WMD's was PART of the reason we were going in" is just bullshit. Just accept that we did something good, but justified it through not completely legitimate means. If they had said, Saddam is killing people, we have to stop him, I am PRETTY sure that people would remember that instead of the constant "WMD" talk being shoved down our throats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Bush mentioned humanitarian reasons CONSTANTLY. He constantly mentioned the rape rooms, the brutal treatment of his people, his flaunting of UN resolutions. Sorry, but reality is reality. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Bush mentioned humanitarian reasons CONSTANTLY. He constantly mentioned the rape rooms, the brutal treatment of his people, his flaunting of UN resolutions. Sorry, but reality is reality. -=Mike If I make 10,000 references about the color orange and one about the color red everytime I give a speech, I can't come back later and say "my speech was about the color red" No, it wasn't. It was about the color orange. Ripper - Praying he doesn't really have to explain that analogy since 1:11 pm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Bush mentioned humanitarian reasons CONSTANTLY. He constantly mentioned the rape rooms, the brutal treatment of his people, his flaunting of UN resolutions. Sorry, but reality is reality. -=Mike If I make 10,000 references about the color orange and one about the color red everytime I give a speech, I can't come back later and say "my speech was about the color red" No, it wasn't. It was about the color orange. Ripper - Praying he doesn't really have to explain that analogy since 1:11 pm. If you say orange as often as you say red, even though your opponents claim you said red constantly, doesn't mean you didn't say orange. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Bush mentioned humanitarian reasons CONSTANTLY. He constantly mentioned the rape rooms, the brutal treatment of his people, his flaunting of UN resolutions. Sorry, but reality is reality. -=Mike If I make 10,000 references about the color orange and one about the color red everytime I give a speech, I can't come back later and say "my speech was about the color red" No, it wasn't. It was about the color orange. Ripper - Praying he doesn't really have to explain that analogy since 1:11 pm. If you say orange as often as you say red, even though your opponents claim you said red constantly, doesn't mean you didn't say orange. -=Mike Okay, just to stop this before I get confused by my own analogy, you can't POSSIBLY be saying that this war was mentioned as a humnaitarian mission as much as it was called defending us from the WMD that Iraq had....you can't possibly be saying that because that is just plain laughable. It isn't even arguable because it simply isn't true. If you mean the same as in he mentioned it at some point whenever it was spoken about, okay, I give you that. But in the sense that 98% of the talk was about WMD to the 2 percent of "other" they are no where near the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Bush mentioned humanitarian reasons CONSTANTLY. He constantly mentioned the rape rooms, the brutal treatment of his people, his flaunting of UN resolutions. Sorry, but reality is reality. -=Mike If I make 10,000 references about the color orange and one about the color red everytime I give a speech, I can't come back later and say "my speech was about the color red" No, it wasn't. It was about the color orange. Ripper - Praying he doesn't really have to explain that analogy since 1:11 pm. If you say orange as often as you say red, even though your opponents claim you said red constantly, doesn't mean you didn't say orange. -=Mike Okay, just to stop this before I get confused by my own analogy, you can't POSSIBLY be saying that this war was mentioned as a humnaitarian mission as much as it was called defending us from the WMD that Iraq had....you can't possibly be saying that because that is just plain laughable. It isn't even arguable because it simply isn't true. If you mean the same as in he mentioned it at some point whenever it was spoken about, okay, I give you that. But in the sense that 98% of the talk was about WMD to the 2 percent of "other" they are no where near the same. That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Every speech Bush gave mentioned BOTH as reasons for going to war with Saddam. And he gave them equal importance. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted February 23, 2005 Bush mentioned humanitarian reasons CONSTANTLY. He constantly mentioned the rape rooms, the brutal treatment of his people, his flaunting of UN resolutions. Sorry, but reality is reality. -=Mike THat's nice, but to most people that's not a reason to send the US to war. Can't say I disagree with that notion, myself. Just come to grips with facts. The WMDs were the catalyst that provide the war with the wind in it's sails that it needed to come to fruition. Nobody's interested in spending billions to help the UN be relevant and liberate some people who aren't threatening us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
