Thumbs up to President Bush's Speech..

[georgym]

Originally posted by Drunk

,...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush would lose narrowly to a Democratic Party candidate if the U.S. presidential election were held now because of concerns about possible war and the economy, according to an opinion poll published on Thursday

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-politics-bush.html

[Drunk]

Originally posted by gmccookny

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush would lose narrowly to a Democratic Party candidate if the U.S. presidential election were held now because of concerns about possible war and the economy, according to an opinion poll published on Thursday

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-politics-bush.html

As usual, you show no logic when attempting to make points. Now you're mixing up the war and the economy. Any presidential candidate who's leading the country during a recession is not likely to fare well in a re-election bid.

People associate a bad economy with who's an office, and a good economy with who's in office, even though economists have stated time and time again that the President has very little impact on macroeconomic changes. This isn't an American recession it's a GLOBAL recession. Read the Economist, read Financial Times, educate yourself.

That's a totally separate topic from the whole Iraq issue. And anyway, the poll clearly states that President Bush would lose if the election were held TODAY. Things change in 2 years.

[cintron]

Originally posted by msoprano13

and what happens if this country goes into iraq bombs the hell outta them and they do not find any weapons.....the unted states govt will look real credible then just as they do now...

I'd worry less about the united states' credibility and worry more about what happens if this country goes into iraq, bombs the hell out of them and we DO NOT find any weapons... begging the question "well, then where are they?"

because they DO exist. We know.

That worries me far more than watching pissants bitch about a government's image.

[georgym]

Originally posted by Drunk

As usual, you show no logic when attempting to make points. Now you're mixing up the war and the economy. Any presidential candidate who's leading the country during a recession is not likely to fare well in a re-election bid. People associate a bad economy with who's an office, and a good economy with who's in office, even though economists have stated time and time again that the President has very little impact on macroeconomic changes. This isn't an American recession it's a GLOBAL recession. Read the Economist, read Financial Times, educate yourself.

That's a totally separate topic from the whole Iraq issue.

HELLO McFly>?/? EARTH to McFLY

it says WAR and ECONOMY, the 2 together.

Here's some logic for your drunkin' noggin:

Bush is to intellect as South Central L.A. is to safe.

Bush is neither competent to lead our nation (although i do praise his handling of 9-11) nor safe to lead it. He has too many carryover's from his father's administration, and they all look like they're going to croak any minute.

You can keep rambling, giving us statistics, but i don't think any sane, normal person trusts our leader as far as we can throw him

[georgym]

d/p

[Drunk]

Originally posted by gmccookny

d/p

Did you read what I wrote? I said things change in two years. Bush I went from over 80 percent approval to losing the election in '92. Show me the same poll in two years and I might give a shit. K?

[trancerxn112]

honestly these little trifles are pointless... each side is trying to prove why they are right and why the other side is wrong... some actually do a great job but the rest of you are just using hearsay and rumors to fuel your opinions so id like to give my 2 cents into the argument. First, there are a substantial amount of reports that prove that Iraq and namely the dictator Saddam has many rockets, nerve, chemical and biological agents that are unaccounted for. Second, in his declaration to the UN weapon inspectors a 700 something page essay he claimed he had no weapons but a month and a half he conveniently located a few rockets and promptly disposed of them hmmm how can you just FIND rockets... i mean change in the couch is one thing but lethal rockets that can carry a nuclear, chemical or biological payload... u dont just pull them out of a pair of jeans and say "LUCKY!". Third, the countries that stand against us arent doing so because they disagree with what the US, Britain and Spain are trying to push they are just saying that we did not give them enough time to comply with resolution 1441 which was passed UNANIMOUSLY by a 15-0 vote. Fourth, will the yuppy liberals please choose their words better and stop using the group think method to fuel there passionate responses... i dont doubt that they feel strongly about their opinion but try to listen to what the other side is saying... same goes for the pro-war people.

[Crackorn]

Take this into consideration-

If the Palestians had the technology and the resources that the Israeli's had, they wouldn't hesitate one second to kill every single one of them. Do the Israelis go ahead and murder people indiscriminately? Or do they wait until they are murdered through terror tactics to retaliate? The same goes for the entire Middle East. If we were a third world nation and THEY had our weaponry we would have been toast ages ago. They are a people with no technology save what was given to them by other countries because they have money, from oil (which they couldn't even pump themselves without us going there and showing them how). If the roles were reversed there would be no resolutions, no diplomacy. Just destruction because we are different. Being politically correct is all fine and dandy until we're faced with a crisis like this. Wake up.

[ivehadit]

EDITOR'S NOTE: What follows is a letter of

resignation written by John Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's

Foreign Service Corps and Political Counselor to the American

embassy in Greece. Kiesling has been a diplomat for twenty

years, a civil servant to four Presidents. The letter below,

delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is quite

possibly the most eloquent statement of dissent thus far put

forth regarding the issue of Iraq. The New York Times story

which reports on this remarkable event can be found after

Kiesling's letter. - wrp

Go to Original

t r u t h o u t | Letter

U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling

Letter of Resignation, to:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from

the Foreign Service of the United States and from my

position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective

March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my

upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to

my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I

was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to

seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists,

and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs

fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was

the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with

the State Department I would become more sophisticated and

cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives

that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it

is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human

nature. But until this Administration it had been possible

to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I

was also upholding the interests of the American people and

the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are

incompatible not only with American values but also with

American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is

driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has

been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense

since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to

dismantle the largest and most effective web of international

relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will

bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic

politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new,

and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still,

we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence,

such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the

war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger

than before, rallying around us a vast international

coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way

against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit

for those successes and build on them, this Administration

has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool,

enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its

bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and

confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated

problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the

motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking

public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that

protect American citizens from the heavy hand of

government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of

American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves.

Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a

selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction

in the name of a doomed status quo?

We should ask ourselves why we have failed to

persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary.

We have over the past two years done too much to assert to

our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests

override the cherished values of our partners. Even where

our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue.

The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies

wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and

in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind,

as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the

Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming

military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the

shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and

Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with

Micronesia to follow where we lead.

We have a coalition still, a good one. The

loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to

American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest

allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that

it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into

complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our

President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to

our friends and allies this Administration is fostering,

including among its most senior officials. Has "oderint dum

metuant" really become our motto?

I urge you to listen to America's friends around

the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of

European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than

the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when

they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that

the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a

strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close

partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than

for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who

will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it

was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the

planet?

Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your

character and ability. You have preserved more

international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged

something positive from the excesses of an ideological and

self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the

President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an

international system we built with such toil and treasure, a

web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that

sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever

constrained America's ability to defend its interests.

I am resigning because I have tried and failed

to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the

current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our

democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope

that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping

policies that better serve the security and prosperity of

the American people and the world we share.

John Brady Kiesling

Go to Original

U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent

Pursuit of War'

By Felicity Barringer

New York Times

Thursday 27 February 2003

UNITED NATIONS ¯ A career diplomat who has

served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to

Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's

policies on Iraq.

The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political

counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in

his resignation letter, "Our fervent pursuit of war with

Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy

that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense

and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson."

Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for

about 20 years, said in a telephone interview tonight that he

faxed the letter to Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on

Monday after informing Thomas Miller, the ambassador in

Athens, of his decision.

He said he had acted alone, but "I've been

comforted by the expressions of support I've gotten afterward"

from colleagues.

"No one has any illusions that the policy will

be changed," he said. "Too much has been invested in the

war."

Louis Fintor, a State Department spokesman, said

he had no information on Mr. Kiesling's decision and it was

department policy not to comment on personnel matters.

In his letter, a copy of which was provided to

The New York Times by a friend of Mr. Kiesling's, the

diplomat wrote Mr. Powell: "We should ask ourselves why we have

failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is

necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to

assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S.

interests override the cherished values of our partners."

His letter continued: "Even where our aims were

not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of

Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what

basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image

and interests."

It is rare but not unheard-of for a diplomat,

immersed in the State Department's culture of public support

for policy, regardless of private feelings, to resign with

this kind of public blast. From 1992 to 1994, five State

Department officials quit out of frustration with the Clinton

administration's Balkans policy.

Asked if his views were widely shared among his

diplomatic colleagues, Mr. Kiesling said: "No one of my

colleagues is comfortable with our policy. Everyone is moving

ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is

loaded with people who want to play the team game ¯ we have a

very strong premium on loyalty."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

this material is distributed without profit to those who

have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included

information for research and educational purposes.)

© Copyright 2002 by TruthOut.org

[ghhhhhost]

Originally posted by cintron

But rather when these things girdle your life and yet you rise above them naked and unbound.

And if it is a despot you would dethrone, see first that his throne erected within you is destroyed.

For how can a tyrant rule the free and the proud, but for a tyranny in their own freedom and a shame in their won pride?

--Khalil Gibran, The Book Of The Prophet.

reading the particular passages u bold-faced..just made me think of Bush...not Saadam as u probably intended to do

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by njangel

No, that is the problem, ppl dont think - They just want to go in there & bomb the shit out of the country. People just dont think, they speak & they think the louder they yell the more they will be heard.

njangel, You're telling us that The US government hasn't been discussing, thinking, and planning against Saddam since President Bush Sr.? You think that we "just want to go in there and bomb the shit out of the country"? ???? This topic didn't just surface. It's not like we announced four weeks ago that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The clock has been ticking too long--there has to be confrontation.

I do agree with you on the anti-american remark. I am 100% against war HOWEVER, I feel that you can't be lukewarm in situations like these. You either support the US or you don't. Remember, when it comes to the game of politics---- the rules are the same for every country.Saddam is ready to go to war with us. SO is North Korea. You watch your back first. So don't potray America as the evil big brother.....---I'm sure there are many iraqi citizens who disagree and dislike Saddam. But when war starts you should support your nation or just get out. That's all.

In a perfect world there are no governments, and there are no countries....

-iliana

[trancerxn112]

Originally posted by iliana

In a perfect world there are no governments, and there are no countries....

-iliana

That sounds like an anarchy without governments to bring order to the people it would be darwanism all over again "survival of the fittest." Besides theres no such thing as civilization without governments even if there was no central governments people would still band together and create small town like governments and elect a leader and call it the tribe of america our system is just a lot bigger.

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by trancerxn112

That sounds like an anarchy without governments to bring order to the people it would be darwanism all over again "survival of the fittest." Besides theres no such thing as civilization without governments even if there was no central governments people would still band together and create small town like governments and elect a leader and call it the tribe of america our system is just a lot bigger.

( Can't you just wallow in optimism for one freaking second and pretend that the Lord of the Rings & The Wizard of Oz are both true stories!! gEEEZZZZ!!!!!!!!)

I wasn't being literal. You gotta admit the "idea" of government is pretty lame. I'm madly in love with laissez-faire philosophy but as we all know, that has major loopholes. Why...because we have so many OTHER countries and OTHER governments.

I'd like to go back to living in the Inca dynasty and partaking in human sacrifices. ----- a little more spiritual don't you think?

-iliana

[trancerxn112]

Originally posted by iliana

( Can't you just wallow in optimism for one freaking second and pretend that the Lord of the Rings & The Wizard of Oz are both true stories!! gEEEZZZZ!!!!!!!!)

I wasn't being literal. You gotta admit the "idea" of government is pretty lame. I'm madly in love with laissez-faire philosophy but as we all know, that has major loopholes. Why...because we have so many OTHER countries and OTHER governments.

I'd like to go back to living in the Inca dynasty and partaking in human sacrifices. ----- a little more spiritual don't you think?

-iliana

well Laissez-Faire is the free-market idea that America was aiming for got close but didnt actually get a firm grasp on the idealism of it... Lord of the Rings = good movie...

[girly]

Originally posted by njangel

See this is where I have a problem, anti-american. I love how ppl call liberals or ppl who disagree with Bush's action "anti-americans". When this all started, I said we shouldn’t go to war with a part of the Security Council. So none of really "know" whats going on - but a lot people watch CNN and read a newspaper & just go along with what the govt. says, they don’t think for themselves (not saying you, yourself do). But yet they go around putting other ppl.'s beliefs down. People have a lot of fucking nerve.

I agree with what you are saying. there are people on here that post that do claim to think they know exactly what they are talking about.when like you said, nothing is a known fact just everyones own opinion. anything i type is my opinion and i have never stated otherwise..and i don't think people that don't like the president or disagree with his actions are anti-americans.. People on here say themselves they are anti-american. i never labeled anyone..I just can't understand why some people on here feel there is no danger to us and our families and that there are other solutions when it seems to me there are no other solutions, those solutions have been worn out already.. but noo apparently people on here see a better way and they know what they would do if they were the president .. thats all.. ahh i see what a long thread this has become.. after a long day at work and my head clouded, don't know if i will read but maybe i will make myself just cause i started this topic.. which by the way u go everyone

[Twilo Beauty]

LOLLLOL Nice Pic!

Question: Since when is "Liberal" a bad word????? And why is it associated with anti-war loving people???????????????

I'm sure there are many conservatives who dont want war, no??

-iliana

[dnice35]

Originally posted by girly

sassa- i would like to know how you would feel if we didn't go to war and saddam used his weapons and killed several of your family members.. how would you feel then? that there was a reason why they were killed adnd that they deserved it? Thats what you seem to say..

SHE WOULDNT GIVE THREE FUCKS, SHE IS ANTI-AMERICA. AS A MATTER OF FACT I THINK SHE MIGHT RUN OUT INTO THE STREETS AND CELEBRATE LIKE THE PARASITES DID.... EXCUSE ME I MEANT TO SAY THE PALESTINES DID ON 9/11.

[dnice35]

Originally posted by iliana

LOLLLOL Nice Pic!

Question: Since when is "Liberal" a bad word????? And why is it associated with anti-war loving people???????????????

I'm sure there are many conservatives who dont want war, no??

-iliana

LIBERAL - BAD,

CONSERVATIVE - GOOD, AND I BELIEVE NO ONE WANTS A WAR, BUT ITS A MUST AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

[eccentricmofo]

Let me just say reading these posts have made me realize beyond a shadow of any doubt that forums and threads are horrible places to hold debates. Phrases, information, etc. being taken out of context insanely....oy...just all of you guys meet up somewhere and talk for an hour I swear that there would never be such a long confusing thread.

So, with me having a few points to make I decided to quote a few people to do such..

Originally posted by Citron

When you state your opinons, admit that they're opinions and NOT in ANY WAY based upon anything of substance other than your own emotions.

To be honest, if everything on clubplanet was filtered for emotion, there would only be two posts every day...lol, and also you have to realize that this is a venting of sorts, all of us have hardly any (actual) control over what occurs with this whole mess so that is why this thread exists.

--Khalil Gibran, The Book Of The Prophet.

[nympho69]

Originally posted by sassa

what speech? and what did he say that you agreed with?

:laugh:

i <3 sassa

bush seriously lacks in passion and the ability to motivate

im not exactly for war cause i really dont know the whole truth

but i can say for sure if i were the president i would at least be able to convince the majority of the people in the U.S to support war

that just brings me to an interesting question, why hasnt bush tried using propoganda and bs to try to persuade people into supporting the war???

i dont know but anyone who doesnt seemed convinced themselves when speaking, isnt really fooling anyone....

[sassa]

Originally posted by nympho69

that just brings me to an interesting question, why hasnt bush tried using propoganda and bs to try to persuade people into supporting the war???

i dont know but anyone who doesnt seemed convinced themselves when speaking, isnt really fooling anyone....

when does bush NOT use propoganda and bs to try to persuade people into supporting the war??

[njangel]

illiana (sp?) - I didnt mean our govt, I meant the ppl who go around saying we should blow up Iraq & anyone else who we dont like off the face of the earth - I know our govt & the UN have tried, I give them credit

girly - I didnt mean to jump down your throat, in other arguments Ive had & on other message boards, liberals get lables anti-american frequently. I take it kinda of personally, I love this country & just becuse I question things, I dont feel I should be judged for that, this argument is a no-win situation, but at least your not one of those ppl who puts down liberals, thats refreshing

[bigpoppanils]

Originally posted by dnice35

LIBERAL - BAD,

CONSERVATIVE - GOOD, AND I BELIEVE NO ONE WANTS A WAR, BUT ITS A MUST AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

so a liberal that supports the war is bad....and a conservative that is against the war is good?

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by dnice35

LIBERAL - BAD,

CONSERVATIVE - GOOD, AND I BELIEVE NO ONE WANTS A WAR, BUT ITS A MUST AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

1. I wasn't directing my question to you.

2. I've ALREADY stated that War is inevitable.

3.You're a waste of sperm. DO NOT REPSOND TO MY POSTS.

-iliana

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by nympho69

:laugh:

i <3 sassa

bush seriously lacks in passion and the ability to motivate

im not exactly for war cause i really dont know the whole truth

Why don't you try educating yourself then?? Don't you think the fate of your future is important?????

Tip: Go to Barnes and Noble and pick up "Time", "Newsweek", "UsNews", and when you get home stop watching Buffy and turn to CNN.

but i can say for sure if i were the president i would at least be able to convince the majority of the people in the U.S to support war

If you were president the United States would be a third world country. Maybe you should study home economics???

that just brings me to an interesting question, why hasnt bush tried using propoganda and bs to try to persuade people into supporting the war???

i dont know but anyone who doesnt seemed convinced themselves when speaking, isnt really fooling anyone....

Man, can i send you on a student "trip" to Iraq????? Maybe after you get back home, your fucking stupidity will be gone!

-iliana