I think Glenn Beck Will Have a Real Breakdown Very Soon!!

[Facial_King]

Well, chalk up another victory for that reasonable, independent Glenn Beck and his FoxNews overlords - Van Jones has stepped down (oh, phew!!! Glenn pulled us back from the brink of totalitarian fascism/satanism AGAIN!!).

Here are some fun statements from reasonable, independent, centrist Beck:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200509090003

 

[Philbert]

Damn good job, Glenn!
Thanks from the citizens of the USA, for your good works.
And who could disagree with your statements made after Katrina...most Americans felt the same way about the small number of Katrina victims who exploited the help people and the government tried to give the hurting hurricane survivors...in Mississippi as well as Louisiana.
MoveOn failed to smear you, except for easy targets like Facial-King, and you are still doing a great job exposing fanatics like that Van Johnson ...he is an appointee to a high government post in the Obama admin, and is a total nutcase.
And there are a bunch more of the Czars out there...how nuts are the rest of them?
Even the Dem congress is starting to draw back, and told Obama to freeze the Czar nom-fest until they can take a closer look at these end-runs around Congressional approval to cabinet-level posts.
Glenn gets another "well done" from the American people...:thumbsup:

 

[jasonk282]

Damn good job, Glenn!
Thanks from the citizens of the USA, for your good works.
And who could disagree with your statements made after Katrina...most Americans felt the same way about the small number of Katrina victims who exploited the help people and the government tried to give the hurting hurricane survivors...in Mississippi as well as Louisiana.
MoveOn failed to smear you, except for easy targets like Facial-King, and you are still doing a great job exposing fanatics like that Van Johnson ...he is an appointee to a high government post in the Obama admin, and is a total nutcase.
And there are a bunch more of the Czars out there...how nuts are the rest of them?
Even the Dem congress is starting to draw back, and told Obama to freeze the Czar nom-fest until they can take a closer look at these end-runs around Congressional approval to cabinet-level posts.
Glenn gets another "well done" from the American people...:thumbsup:

:nanner::bowdown: I can't wait to watch Beck and Hannity on Tuesday now! I still find it strange how Obama never adresssed these issues. IMO if this was a Bush appointe the media would be all over his ass to fire this person.

 

[Hot Mega]

Well, chalk up another victory for that reasonable, independent Glenn Beck and his FoxNews overlords - Van Jones has stepped down (oh, phew!!! Glenn pulled us back from the brink of totalitarian fascism/satanism AGAIN!!).

Here are some fun statements from reasonable, independent, centrist Beck:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200509090003

This is no victory for Beck nor any of his cohorts in the "echo chamber". Obama should have never employed the guy. No matter how brilliant Obama or anyone else thinks Van Jones' ideas are on conservationism...he is a self-recognized radical. Van Jones needs to recognize that if he wants to be taken seriously in the mainstream he has to be accountable for the statements he makes which are not politically correct.

:nanner::bowdown: I can't wait to watch Beck and Hannity on Tuesday now! I still find it strange how Obama never adresssed these issues. IMO if this was a Bush appointe the media would be all over his ass to fire this person.

When are you going to recognize advisors to a POTUS don't require congressional confirmation. Karl Rove was probably more influential than any other individual other than Cheney in the Bush WH but he was never confirmed by any congress.

The main reason why you and your buddies ended up in Iraq was because of individuals like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle...they were among the primary architects of the preemptive invasion of Iraq EVEN BEFORE 9/11. They found themselves the primary advisors to the POTUS on how to sell the war to the American people and even such things as the number of personnel necessary to do the job. Which amazingly enough was adopted by Bush and was an historically huge blunder by him.

We have a C.I.A. and NSA (among other agencies) which gather and analyze intelligence for our country. When Bush came along he and with Cheney created a new group within the DOD called "The Office of Special Plans" (aka group that creates phony Iraq intelligence) and put Douglas Feith in charge of it.....he was never confirmed.

Who railed against Bush for this?? Where were Beck and Hannity during these "appointments"?? Oh...I forgot, they had their pompoms cheer leading on the sidelines.

This is where Demos consistently fall down in not point out the hypocrisy of the "echo chamber" and drawing like comparisons and confronting these shrill whoopy cushions with them.

 

[jasonk282]

This is no victory for Beck nor any of his cohorts in the "echo chamber". Obama should have never employed the guy. No matter how brilliant Obama or anyone else thinks Van Jones' ideas are on conservationism...he is a self-recognized radical. Van Jones needs to recognize that if he wants to be taken seriously in the mainstream he has to be accountable for the statements he makes which are not politically correct.{/QUOTE}
And here you are in my Van Jones threat defending him

Wrong! He didn't say that of people who are against Obama.

He asked how were republicans able to push through their agenda items with less of a majority than the Demos have now....His response was, because they were/are assholes.

Implying GOPers are more willing to play hardball and gutter politics to push through their agenda.

I don't see where the suggestion is at odds with the facts.

When was he a Black Panther? Also, you do know that Marxism can merely refer to radical social change and have nothing to do with a critical aspect of capitalism right?

Also defending his Marxist communist ways

Semms your talking out of both sides of your face. Defending his "republican's are assholes" statement and his Maxist communist, but now saying he is too radical.

When are you going to recognize advisors to a POTUS don't require congressional confirmation. Karl Rove was probably more influential than any other individual other than Cheney in the Bush WH but he was never confirmed by any congress.

The main reason why you and your buddies ended up in Iraq was because of individuals like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle...they were among the primary architects of the preemptive invasion of Iraq EVEN BEFORE 9/11. They found themselves the primary advisors to the POTUS on how to sell the war to the American people and even such things as the number of personnel necessary to do the job. Which amazingly enough was adopted by Bush and was an historically huge blunder by him.

We have a C.I.A. and NSA (among other agencies) which gather and analyze intelligence for our country. When Bush came along he and with Cheney created a new group within the DOD called "The Office of Special Plans" (aka group that creates phony Iraq intelligence) and put Douglas Feith in charge of it.....he was never confirmed.

Who railed against Bush for this?? Where were Beck and Hannity during these "appointments"?? Oh...I forgot, they had their pompoms cheer leading on the sidelines.

This is where Demos consistently fall down in not point out the hypocrisy of the "echo chamber" and drawing like comparisons and confronting these shrill whoopy cushions with them

Where was Olbermann and Maddow then?:dunno: It's not Beck's or the GOP's fault that no one spoke openly about Bush as Beck does to Obama. Now I am waiting for the unamerican word to come out. Seems like you liberals always say its unamerican to speak out aganist bush, but if we speak out aganist Obama we are racist:dunno:. Kinda seems like the same thing to me. It just nice to see your getting your just dessert. We had 8 years of hearing about Bush and the neo-cons, but NOT ONE LIBERAL DID ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Not one person spoke up aganist Bush and demanded Rove etc... to be fired and replaced, why?

 

[Hot Mega]

Semms your talking out of both sides of your face. Defending his "republican's are assholes" statement and his Maxist communist, but now saying he is too radical.

Where's the inconsistency? You can be right on a statement like that but too radical for mainstream politics. Like I also said before, Marxism can merely mean favoring radical change of which I believe Van Jones does. I defend his right to be a radical and have a Marxist approach to politics. That doesn't mean I believe he's politically correct enough to be in the mainstream. But that's all he is...not pc.

I also defend Obama's right as has every POTUS enjoyed the right to employ advisors who serve ONLY at their pleasure.

Since never said characterized Van Jones' employment by Obama nor Obama's decision to employ him specifically, where is the inconsistency??

Where was Olbermann and Maddow then?:dunno: It's not Beck's or the GOP's fault that no one spoke openly about Bush as Beck does to Obama. Now I am waiting for the unamerican word to come out. Seems like you liberals always say its unamerican to speak out aganist bush, but if we speak out aganist Obama we are racist:dunno:. Kinda seems like the same thing to me. It just nice to see your getting your just dessert. We had 8 years of hearing about Bush and the neo-cons, but NOT ONE LIBERAL DID ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Not one person spoke up aganist Bush and demanded Rove etc... to be fired and replaced, why?

What the heck are you talking about?? Who cares where Olbermann or Maddow were...It should seem for credibility's sake that the listeners and viewers of people like Beck and Hannity should wonder where is the consistency and why they're being hypocrites now. But of course that would mean those people care about the truth more than politics...and we ALL KNOW that's not true.

Many people argued for Rove's dismissal and even prosecution. There is pretty clear evidence the guy orchestrated firings and politically motivated prosecutions....yet GOPers were not only mum on this they cheered while he did it.

Van Jones is a radical that's true...but it seems a little...no allot hypocritical of GOPers to criticize someone for being a radical and not pc when their mainstream spokespersons are radical and built the names on being anti-pc.

 

[Member2019]

Like I also said before, Marxism can merely mean favoring radical change of which I believe Van Jones does. I defend his right to be a radical and have a Marxist approach to politics. That doesn't mean I believe he's politically correct enough to be in the mainstream. But that's all he is...not pc.
I also defend Obama's right as has every POTUS enjoyed the right to employ advisors who serve ONLY at their pleasure.

I find it humorous the number of Democrats that defend the type of "off-the-planet" and "outside-reality" comments from other Democrats, but chastize Republicans as "crazy" when they do remotely the same. You can't be a public servant and put out the type of non-sense this man did without it coming back to haunt him, and for good reason.

Between several reps from California, several cabinet members in Democrat administrations over the last few decades and countless other, ideal examples, this is what pisses me off about Democrats as much as Republicans. Pelosi has "gone-off-the-deep-end" several times in the past, which makes me question her mental health at times as well.

And a perfect example of yet another reason why Fox News must exist. I don't like the sensationalist nature of Fox News, but 2% of what they do is expose what none of the other networks will do. Sorry, but truth, Fox News is very much required in the US, because you never get these types of exposures from the other media outlets. Heck, Fox News exposed the horrendous "oil-for-food" program abuses, which involved several, big Republican contributors as well.

That's what independent news does in the US. It exposes such issues, and when other news outlets won't, another will. Sooner or later one of the major media players is going to start a 2nd, conservative network. And that's when Fox News will be tamed, because there will be more balance instead of the single "us" v. all other "thems" in their mind. Murdock will be forced to rethink when there is a calmer, less sensationalistic right outlet.

Until then, long live Fox News. They aren't getting my viewership, but none of the networks do anyway, sans maybe PBS.

 

[Hot Mega]

I find it humorous the number of Democrats that defend the type of "off-the-planet" and "outside-reality" comments from other Democrats, but chastize Republicans as "crazy" when they do remotely the same.

Between several reps from California, several cabinet members in Democrat administrations over the last few decades and countless other, ideal examples, this is what pisses me off about Democrats as much as Republicans.

And a perfect example of while I don't like the sensationalist nature of Fox News, 2% of what they do is expose what none of the other networks will do. Sorry, but truth, Fox News is very much required in the US, because you never get these types of exposures from the other media outlets.

Heck, Fox News exposed the horrendous "oil-for-food" program abuses, which involved several, big Republican contributors as well.

Maybe I can make myself clearer. I defend Perle's, Rove's, Rush's, Hannity's, Beck's, Coulter's, etc. right to be extreme and radical. Like Van Jones however, I don't think they should be accepted as mainstream.

GOPer mouthpieces can say almost ANYTHING, incite almost ANY action without fear of reprisal nor being held accountable because GOPer rank and file by and large don't hold them accountable. Not only are they not held accountable they are further embraced.

The more confrontational, divisive and hyperbolic the greater the GOPer following for individuals who engage in it.

 

[Facial_King]

I think the evidence, taken as a whole, indicates that Van Jones is very much a has-been radical leftist. He wouldn't be the first person to be a Marxist idealist up to the age of 25 or so, only to slide back towards the center with age, or, even more likely, upon being subsumed into the DC power culture. Participating within the power culture as a soloist is hardly effective in overthrowing the socioeconomic structure.

From his book "The Green-Collar Economy":

"[W]e are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.

So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world —and everyone else." (emphases mine)

Jones is a proponent of eco-capitalism, much like Paul Hawken, author of "Natural Capitalism", who endorsed his book. And you remember that crazy radical bomb-thrower who was promoting Hawken's book for a while? Yep, Bill Clinton, avowed Commie - the Commie who tossed welfare as we know it. But I know, I know, eco-capitalism is just secret code-talk for Stalinism or whatever..... yeah, sure.

Also, nobody's seriously upset about this guy's use of the word "asshole" - are they?

Cuz, I can recall a certain prez who called a reporter a "major-league asshole".

 

[Hot Mega]

And a perfect example of yet another reason why Fox News must exist. I don't like the sensationalist nature of Fox News, but 2% of what they do is expose what none of the other networks will do. Sorry, but truth, Fox News is very much required in the US, because you never get these types of exposures from the other media outlets. Heck, Fox News exposed the horrendous "oil-for-food" program abuses, which involved several, big Republican contributors as well.

That's what independent news does in the US. It exposes such issues, and when other news outlets won't, another will. Sooner or later one of the major media players is going to start a 2nd, conservative network. And that's when Fox News will be tamed, because there will be more balance instead of the single "us" v. all other "thems" in their mind. Murdock will be forced to rethink when there is a calmer, less sensationalistic right outlet.

Until then, long live Fox News. They aren't getting my viewership, but none of the networks do anyway, sans maybe PBS.

Don't confuse yourself "Prof...". Fox exists for one reason, to promote a GOPer agenda. I really believe that. The evidence is rampant.

The GOPer mentality has demonstrated there are no sacred cows. There is nothing they are unwilling to sacrifice, undermine, attack or besmirch including some of their own if it poses a threat to an agenda.

Exposing the "oil for food" corruption was done only to further the agenda for invading Iraq period...the end.

It clearly was an effort to counter the suggestions that sanctions were working against Saddam in the run up to the war.

Get your head out of the sand on this "Prof..." The only way one can believe Fox serves a greater good and not need 3 showers after the mere suggestion is if you believe a GOPer agenda is paramount and facts be damned.

 

[Member2019]

Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

Don't confuse yourself "Prof...". Fox exists for one reason, to promote a GOPer agenda. I really believe that. The evidence is rampant.

And you get the "here's my bleeding heart, if you don't agree you're evil" from the Big 3. Dude, I fully admit there is a blantant, front'n center bias at Fox. But it's a result of and counter to the "bleeding heart" bullshit of the Big 3.

The GOPer mentality has demonstrated there are no sacred cows.

As have the leftist on personal property, personal wealth and other things. You really want to start that argument? "Oh, personal property and personal wealth is bad." Dude, Marxism is an affront to individualism, and that right there is an affront to what the US was founded on.

Arrogance comes in many forms.

There is nothing they are unwilling to sacrifice, undermine, attack or besmirch including some of their own if it poses a threat to an agenda.

Dude, take your political alignment out of the question and stop and listen to what people like Lou Dobbs is trying to say. Through the Baby Boomers, the thought in the US was of individual right, property and individual success.

Somewhere mid-Gen-X the "bleeding hearts" guilty many into thinking otherwise. And now you and people like yourself on TV have sold this idea that anyone who thinks such is "evil." That is the ultimate form of arrogance right there! To think that anyone who pushes for individual rights, all rights as individuals, over community and groups is wrong ... sorry, that's "new age" thinking and its not wrong to disagree.

That's the arrogance and bullshit we've seen out of the Big 3 networks since the early '90s.

Exposing the "oil for food" corruption was done only to further the agenda for invading Iraq period...the end.

Umm, you have a repeat issue with the chronology involved here. That was way back during Clinton, even before Clinton considered invading himself.

No offense, but this is "apologist" non-sense. The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, and the thick, "you are wrong" attitude is stewing from the left media as much as the right.

I'll at least give it to Fox because they come right out and yell it to you. Watching the anchors on ABC, CBS and NBC repeatedly spew it with, "this is fact" awhile acting neutral until they are finally cornered and finally admit they have a leftist agenda after being presented with it, is just as bad.

Arrogance comes in many forms. Fox has theirs, and I cannot stand it. But the arrogance of people who think individualism is wrong is just as bad. I, for one, would like a 2nd, conservative outlet that pushes that, instead of the tit-tat non-sense of Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart.

 

[Member2019]

I'm so tired of hypocritical lefts and rights ...

This just continues to prove my issue with the left and right, filled with hypocritical people who cannot apply the same values to their own alignments as they do against "the other people."

I'm so tired of the "new age" left trying to tear down individualism, property right and other things. They go as far to associate it with slavery and materialism.

And I'm so tired of the "even newer age" right counter, that tries to tear down individualism with right-wing aligned garbage and values. They try to sell it as conservative, when it's really just another form of "group values" like Marxist. Both are pipe dreams and destroy individual rights.

In the middle are the majority of the tax payers in this country. The small business owners in the highest, individual tax bracket, over 90% first generation and self-made. The ones that wish the government would stay out of their business in the home and, literally, in their business.

The Democrats and Republicans are both about big business and trying to cater to their grass roots at the same time. The only true Democrats and Republicans I know are the ones that admit both parties are about such, and have lost their way. They spew tit-for-tat at each other, and not the real issues. And yes, you can be both "Marxist" and "big business" at the same time, and that's very much been in case in every, major socialist country too.

So when I see this level of hypocritical apology and explanation, I just have to say, "we're deserving what we're getting as a result."

I wasn't for the war. I cannot stand Fox News. I'm not remotely a Republican. But I thank God for 2% of what comes out of Fox News because it would be one-sided, bleeding heart bullshit if we didn't have them, and we'd really be fucked. Now I wish they'd just get off the right-wing, Republican shit as much as the left-wing, bleeding heart, Marxist based news at the Big 3.

Understand Murdock and Fox News came about because of where the Big 3 went by the early '90s. It was 2 decades in the making.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

And you get the "here's my bleeding heart, if you don't agree you're evil" from the Big 3. Dude, I fully admit there is a blantant, front'n center bias at Fox. But it's a result of and counter to the "bleeding heart" bullshit of the Big 3.

We're apparently just going to have to disagree on this. If it were only about a bias...while not good at all either that's different from having an agenda. Fox has an agenda not just hosts who happen to have some bias.

As have the leftist on personal property, personal wealth and other things. You really want to start that argument? "Oh, personal property and personal wealth is bad." Dude, Marxism is an affront to individualism, and that right there is an affront to what the US was founded on.

America was founded on the right of the individual. That includes the right of the individual to believe as they chose....even to be a Marxist.

Dude, take your political alignment out of the question and stop and listen to what people like Lou Dobbs is trying to say. Through the Baby Boomers, the thought in the US was of individual right, property and individual success.

Somewhere mid-Gen-X the "bleeding hearts" guilty many into thinking otherwise. And now you and people like yourself on TV have sold this idea that anyone who thinks such is "evil." That is the ultimate form of arrogance right there! To think that anyone who pushes for individual rights, all rights as individuals, over community and groups is wrong ... sorry, that's "new age" thinking and its not wrong to disagree.

I don't listen to Dobbs nor do I believe making "too much" money is "evil".

You got the wrong guy.

Umm, you have a repeat issue with the chronology involved here. That was way back during Clinton, even before Clinton considered invading himself.

Umm sorry, there is no issue with chronology. In fact, this fact makes my point. Invading Iraq was a sentiment which existed among those who would later become part of GWB's closest cabinet members and advisors as far back as the late '80s. At minimum deposing or causing an internal coup overthrowing the Baathist was the centerpiece to a larger agenda before Clinton. (BTW, Clinton never considered US military intervention for regime change in Iraq). In fact, it's safe to say that if Bush I would have defeated Clinton we would have invaded Iraq long before 2003.

There is evidence the whole invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was a US manipulation in order to set the stage for conflict with Iraq....to ultimately remove by coup or invasion the Baathists.

Clinton was petitioned incessantly to not just enforce US no fly zones but to invade Iraq...The very individuals who did all of this petitioning found themselves in W's administration....how soon after would common sense presume an invasion of Iraq would happen again, facts be damned???

I'll at least give it to Fox because they come right out and yell it to you. Watching the anchors on ABC, CBS and NBC repeatedly spew it with, "this is fact" awhile acting neutral until they are finally cornered and finally admit they have a leftist agenda after being presented with it, is just as bad.

Arrogance comes in many forms. Fox has theirs, and I cannot stand it. But the arrogance of people who think individualism is wrong is just as bad. I, for one, would like a 2nd, conservative outlet that pushes that, instead of the tit-tat non-sense of Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart.

You "give it to Fox" because you identify with the politics.. that's it in a nutshell IMO.

There is no excuse for accepting a so called serious news outlet bending the truth and misrepresenting fact almost pathologically.

Expressing different viewpoints is necessary if not commendable...shaping truth to promote an agenda is not.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

America was founded on the right of the individual. That includes the right of the individual to believe as they chose....even to be a Marxist.

The problem with Marxism is that it removes the individual rights of others. Marxism is not community by individual choice, it's community by forced choice.

I have a problem with anyone who wants to take away my individual choice.

(BTW, Clinton never considered US military intervention for regime change in Iraq).

Now that's bullshit.

In fact, it's safe to say that if Bush I would have defeated Clinton we would have invaded Iraq long before 2003.

Why didn't Bush Sr. just keep going why the army was there then?

There is evidence the whole invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was a US manipulation in order to set the stage for conflict with Iraq....to ultimately remove by coup or invasion the Baathists.

Oh man, you've gotta be kidding here. Now you're off-the-planet.

Clinton was petitioned incessantly to not just enforce US no fly zones but to invade Iraq...The very individuals who did all of this petitioning found themselves in W's administration....how soon after would common sense presume an invasion of Iraq would happen again, facts be damned???

I completely assume many Americans were tired of the bullshit of Iraq and the UN, especially after the 1995 Security Council non-sense and the 1996 "smoking guns." Doesn't surprise me one bit that the US wanted to enforce the cease fire agreement since Iraq was not complying.

You "give it to Fox" because you identify with the politics.

Bull fucking shit! Now you're not even reading what I said! Most of the analysts at Fox are scum. I have repeatedly stated such.

But thank God they expose what the Big 3 won't, just like the Big 3 exposes what Fox won't. It's the sad, sick balance we have. I don't like it, but it's that 2% of what both sides do that keeps them honest at times, even if only 2% of the time.

You sir are the ones arguing for a network. I am not. I say they are all bullshit artists going after ratins and, subsequently, advertising dollars.

that's it in a nutshell IMO.

Yeah, you keep excusing your bias.

There is no excuse for accepting a so called serious news outlet bending the truth and misrepresenting fact almost pathologically.

And I see that out of the Big 3 regularly myself. They all suck!

Expressing different viewpoints is necessary if not commendable...shaping truth to promote an agenda is not.

Sorry, see that out of the Big 3 as well. Again, you really don't see my point at all, do you? It's hypocrisy at its finest.

And why this country is fucking falling into a pit of "tit-for-tat."

 

[Friday on my mind]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

. In fact, this fact makes my point. Invading Iraq was a sentiment which existed among those who would later become part of GWB's closest cabinet members and advisors as far back as the late '80s. At minimum deposing or causing an internal coup overthrowing the Baathist was the centerpiece to a larger agenda before Clinton. (BTW, Clinton never considered US military intervention for regime change in Iraq). In fact, it's safe to say that if Bush I would have defeated Clinton we would have invaded Iraq long before 2003.

There is evidence the whole invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was a US manipulation in order to set the stage for conflict with Iraq....to ultimately remove by coup or invasion the Baathists.

Clinton was petitioned incessantly to not just enforce US no fly zones but to invade Iraq...The very individuals who did all of this petitioning found themselves in W's administration....how soon after would common sense presume an invasion of Iraq would happen again, facts be damned???

Here I am gonna have to disagree somewhat.While I totally agree that I don't think Clinton had the remotest intention of ever doing a full scale invasion of Iraq I think Bush 1 totally saw it the same way.His experience with the world and such things taught him that "going to Baghdad" would be a monumental mistake (and he said so at the time of 1st gulf war) and he resisted all advisors who recommended such. I was against the 1st gulf war but still see it as conducted in a limited way which did not get us into the unwinnable quagmire the Son got us into.Many of the people like Scowcroft from the 1st Bush administration agreed that what GWB did was again a monumental error.Bush senior was not nearly as naive and able to be manipulated by the neo-cons as GWB was.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

The problem with Marxism is that it removes the individual rights of others. Marxism is not community by individual choice, it's community by forced choice.

I have a problem with anyone who wants to take away my individual choice.

I have a whole lot of problems with many 'isms. I don't have a problem with people's right to believe in them though. That is the core value of Americanism and individualism.

Now that's bullshit.

So then it should be easy for you to point out where Clinton sought or even considered a policy of US military overthrow of the Baathist then.

Why didn't Bush Sr. just keep going why the army was there then?

Because if you recall, Bush Sr. was holding together a fragile coalition built around the sole purpose of ejecting Saddam from Kuwait...not overthrowing him. HOWEVER, if Saddam and his sons were killed in the process that would have had the desired effect. As it stood...the administration and policy advisors thought the effect of decimating his forces and keeping him from flying over the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south...coups could foment and ultimately overthrow his regime.

No such luck.

Oh man, you've gotta be kidding here. Now you're off-the-planet.

Do you even know why Saddam invaded Kuwait or was even at war with the Iranians?? While you're at it...find out who is April Glaspie and what was her role in this??

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

Here I am gonna have to disagree somewhat.While I totally agree that I don't think Clinton had the remotest intention of ever doing a full scale invasion of Iraq I think Bush 1 totally saw it the same way.His experience with the world and such things taught him that "going to Baghdad" would be a monumental mistake (and he said so at the time of 1st gulf war) and he resisted all advisors who recommended such. I was against the 1st gulf war but still see it as conducted in a limited way which did not get us into the unwinnable quagmire the Son got us into.Many of the people like Scowcroft from the 1st Bush administration agreed that what GWB did was again a monumental error.Bush senior was not nearly as naive and able to be manipulated by the neo-cons as GWB was.

They were against it at the time for the below reasons. After it was clear, Saddam could easily resist the attempt to overthrow his regime from within...That's when the petitions started into Clinton. Certainly if Bush were in office with the same advisors petitioning Clinton...those petitions would have become action.

Because if you recall, Bush Sr. was holding together a fragile coalition built around the sole purpose of ejecting Saddam from Kuwait...not overthrowing him. HOWEVER, if Saddam and his sons were killed in the process that would have had the desired effect. As it stood...the administration and policy advisors thought the effect of decimating his forces and keeping him from flying over the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south...coups could foment and ultimately overthrow his regime.

No such luck.

 

[jasonk282]

Well he invaded for several reason
1. Kuwait had heavily funded the 8 year long Iraqi war against Iran. By the time the war ended, Iraq was not in a financial position to repay the $40 billion which it had borrowed from Kuwait to finance its war. Kuwait's reluctance to pardon the debt created strains in the relationship between the two Arab countries.

2. According to George Piro, the FBI interrogator who questioned Saddam Hussein after his capture (in 2003), Iraq tried repaying its debts by raising the prices of oil through OPEC's oil production cuts. However, Kuwait, a member of the OPEC, prevented a global increase in petroleum prices by increasing its own petroleum production, thus lowering the price and preventing recovery of the war-crippled Iraqi economy

3. Iraqi government justified its invasion by claiming that Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq carved off due to British imperialism.

4. At the same time the Iraqi military intelligence was receiving warnings about Israeli plans to attack Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

 

[jasonk282]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

So then it should be easy for you to point out where Clinton sought or even considered a policy of US military overthrow of the Baathist then.

To weaken Saddam Hussein's grip of power, Clinton signed H.R. 4655 into law on October 31, 1998, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq, though it explicitly stated it did not speak to the use of American military forces. The administration then launched a four-day bombing campaign named Operation Desert Fox, lasting from December 16 to December 19, 1998. For the last two years of Clinton's presidency U.S. aircraft routinely attacked hostile Iraqi anti-air installations inside the Iraqi no-fly zones


Apprenlty he did consider military overthrow

 

[Member2019]

Re: Fox blatant right v. Big 3 bleeding heart

Do you even know why Saddam invaded Kuwait or was even at war with the Iranians?? While you're at it...find out who is April Glaspie and what was her role in this??

Yes, I'm very much aware.

In fact, it was well know that the US was unlikely to challenge the invasion. The White House Press Secretary regularly commented, when questioned, that the US did not have a defense arrangement with Kuwait as Iraqi forces amassed on the border, basically easing Saddam's fears right there.

It was the British that first raised the issue with Bush Sr. Their reasons were obvious. While the US received less than 40% of its oil from the Middle East, and had plenty in the Americas to leverage back against OPEC and others, the UK and EU did not have such a luxury (and still do not). Japan was in a similar boat as well.

It was all about control and the US shifted its policy to prior engagement and later "tolerance" with Iraq to "intolerance" of the invasion. I do find it continually humorous that the policies of France and German on Iraq were directly related to the price of oil they'd sell them. This was a major reasons for stalling of the UN Security Council in 1995 as well.

Some things proven in writing after documents seized by coalition in 2003 and later.

If people think the US has been "selfish" when it comes to Iraq, the US is hardly alone. This is politics on a world stage and as long as people blame only the US, the political bullshit will continue. Damn us for crossing the British in French back in 1956, because we put ourselves in this position.

I still remember the days when the US was considered more of "the neutral moderator" on things outside of the Americas (although quite horrendous inside of the Americas). Once we started crossing nations of the EU, that ended quickly, while inheriting the burden of securing their resources at the same time.

Truth. Hence why I want to pull back totally to the Americas.