Saturday, February 18, 2006

America's Presidential Crisis

Americans cherish the greatness of our homeland, but many do not realize how extensive and profound are the transformations that are now taking place in our nation's basic moral values, public discourse, and political philosophy ~ Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values (Introduction).

I regularly visit conservative blogs just to see how messed up the other side's way of thinking is. It was shortly after the president's State of the Union Address and I was reading some wing-nut comments concerning how great it was... One of the posts included a link to C-Span where you can find all of the State of the Union transcripts going back to Harry Truman's 1945 speech. Having recently finished listening to the audio book version of Jimmy Carter's "Our Endangerd Values: America's Moral Crisis", I decided to take a look at the transcript from Mr. Carter's last SOTU address in 1980.

I was a little surprised by what I found. Near the beginning there is what may as well be a direct reference to the bush Administration's illegal preventative war in Iraq. I've excerpted a few key passages and added some comments:

Comparing Jimmy Carter's 1980 and George W. Bush's 2006 SOTU addresses

Jimmy Carter: I'm determined that the United States will remain the strongest of all nations, but our power will never be used to initiate a threat to the security of any nation or to the rights of any human being.

George W. Bush: Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal - we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction.

SWTD Commentary: The United States, under President George W. Bush, launched it's illegal preventive war against Iraq on March 20th 2003, breaking President Carter's pledge to never use our power to threaten the security of another nation. Mr. Carter also promised to protect human rights - another pledge that our current president has broken. Whether it be torture of terrorist suspects, or spying on American Citizens, human rights obviously mean very little to Mr. bush. (The length of bush's speech is 0:51:04. September 11th reference made at 0:03:31.)

.........................

Jimmy Carter: Three basic developments have helped to shape our challenges: the steady growth and increased projection of Soviet military power beyond its own borders; the overwhelming dependence of the Western democracies on oil supplies from the Middle East; and the press of social and religious and economic and political change in the many nations of the developing world, exemplified by the revolution in Iran.

George W. Bush: Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

SWTD Commentary: Lip service from a former Texas Oilman. Vice President Richard B. Cheney is a former Wyoming Oilman for whom the first order of business as Vice President was HUGE giveaways to the energy industry (oil companies in particular). Only 9 days after assuming office, Cheney, as chairman of the newly created National Energy Policy Development Group, invited energy company executives to help him develop National Energy policy. The result? Billions of taxpayer dollars given away in the form "subsidies" for the oil industry.

.........................

Jimmy Carter: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States.

George W. Bush: Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.

Article Excerpt: One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally. What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025. (Knight Ridder Newspapers: Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports, 2/2/2006).

SWTD Commentary: I guess that line was total BS. It was added because it sounded good. If it was really true I'd say GREAT. But I honestly don't believe it given the fact that bush and the Republican congress are obviously in the pocket of Big Oil. In a time of RECORD PROFITS for oil companies, bushco is still ripping off taxpayers though subsidies, royalty relief, and other tax breaks - at the same time the Republican congress is slashing things like home heating assistance for the poor from the budget!

How about ending corporate welfare? How about a windfall profits tax? How can you believe anything bush says given the constant lying? Does anyone else find this man's hypocrisy astounding?

.........................

Jimmy Carter: The American people are making progress in energy conservation. Last year we reduced overall petroleum consumption by 8 percent and gasoline consumption by 5 percent below what it was the year before. Now we must do more. After consultation with the Governors, we will set gasoline conservation goals for each of the 50 States, and I will make them mandatory if these goals are not met.

George W. Bush: (Doesn't mention conservation).

Article Excerpt: Our fuel economy standards in 2005 are 21 miles a gallon for all cars and SUVs. In 1987, they were 22.1 miles a gallon. We've been going in reverse. And when the energy bill was up last year, Republicans in Congress not only voted down Democratic amendments to increase fuel-efficiency standards, they actually made it more difficult to raise those standards in the future. (The Progressive: "More Dishonesty from Bush in State of Union", 2/1/2006).

Article Excerpt: ...this president has never been interested in changing consumer behavior. On the contrary, when asked at a 2001 news conference whether Americans needed to do anything about their high energy consumption, his then-spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said, "The president believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policymakers to protect the American way of life". (The Washington Post: Feeding the Oil Addiction, 2/3/2006).

SWTD Commentary: Does anyone else find this type of thinking as WRONG as I do? Just say no to conservation? Ironic, considering the dictionary definition of conservative says, "Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources".

.........................

Jimmy Carter: The decade ahead will be a time of rapid change, as nations everywhere seek to deal with new problems and age-old tensions.

SWTD Commentary: Age old tensions which bush has only made worse...

For months after the terrible terrorist attack in 2001, the American people were inundated almost daily with claims from top government officials that we faced a devastating threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or from large and well organized cadres of terrorists hiding in our country. But as was emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and key members of our own intelligence services, there was never any existing danger to the United States from Baghdad. It was obvious that, with the United Nations sanctions, intense weapons inspections, and overwhelming American military superiority, any belligerent move by Saddam Hussein against a neighbor, an overt display of a weapon of mass destruction, or sharing of such technology with terrorist organizations would have been suicidal for Iraq. Iraq's weapons programs had already been reduced to impotence before the war was launched to eliminate them.

If Saddam Hussein had actually possessed a large nuclear, biological, or chemical arsenal, then the American invasion would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties. Many of them US troops. There is no evidence that British or American leaders really expected or prepared for this eventuality.

We cannot ignore the development of such weapons in any potential enemy nation or organization. But unilateral military action based on erroneous or deliberately distorted intelligence is not the answer ~ Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values (Chapter 14: Worshiping the Prince of Peace or Preemptive War).

Further Reading
[1] U.S. Has Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies. The Washington Post, 2/14/2006.
[2] Feeding the Oil Addiction. The Washington Post, 2/3/2006.
[3] Addicted to Lies. Is Bush the Antichrist (blog), 2/1/2006.
[4] More Dishonesty from Bush in State of Union. The Progressive, 2/1/2006.

      

SWTD #3

8 comments:

  1. Thanks for taking a look... digging your site as well - I'll be sure to add it to my bookmarks. Usally I check Daily Kos and Steve Gilliard's News Blog.

    It's worth watching the FIREFLY set before going on to SERENITY... it gives you a greater appreciation of SERENITY.

    CSA is THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA... it was made by a Kansas filmmaker, Kevin Wilmott, and is starting to open in a wider release over the next few weeks. There are links in my blog archives about the film, and a roundabout way to the site if you check on the CSA weblog link.

    Waiting for THE FLY/FLY 2 set and the 2 disc LOST IN SPACE set to arrive soon - also got a bunch of FSM discs in payment for some scanning work, so it's been a good soundtrack year so far.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey thanks for mentioning that CNN site which was something I told Gayle about on another post. Interesting that you hate me so much yet use MY SITES and info for YOUR blog. Haha the irony. Okay, you can delete this now. Cheers dervish.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FYI the SOTU transcripts aren't provided by CNN -- they're located on the C-Span website. Which, BTW, isn't "yours".

    Oh, and thanks for taking the time to peruse my blog. I hope you enjoyed what you read! Hopefully you learned something as well (like what a liar W is)... but I seriously doubt it.

    Why would I delete your post? Shouldn't I be honored that such an intelligent college-level reader, a (self proclaimed) genius like yourself would actually read, and responded to, something I wrote? I'm humbled!

    ReplyDelete
  4. FYI the SOTU transcripts aren't provided by CNN -- they're located on the C-Span website. Which, BTW, isn't "yours".


    You got the link from me. Give me some credit at least.

    Why would I delete your post? Shouldn't I be honored that such an intelligent college-level reader, a (self proclaimed) genius like yourself would actually read, and responded to, something I wrote? I'm humbled!

    Dervish, I AM a genius. It's a scientific fact. I took an IQ test ok? You're probably one too. It's not like it has to be a really high score. A few points on your post:

    The United States, under President George W. Bush, launched it's illegal preventive war against Iraq on March 20th 2003, breaking President Carter's pledge to never use our power to threaten the security of another nation.

    First of all I don't remember a law stating that a president had to follow the pledges of another president, especcilay not Mr. Peanut's. Second of all we broke a total of 2 International laws. Iraq broke somewhere in the neighborhood of 30. If you want to punish people for breaking UN law then you should have been advocating for a punishment for Iraq. Third of all the UN was proven to be corrupt. You souldn't want to follow someone corrupt would you. You think Bush is corrupt (he isn't but this is an example that might get through your head). Would you want to follow him? The UN however, unlike Bush, was proven (through documents) to be corrupt. The US does not have to follow them, and even if they were not corrupt we still wouldn't have to follow them technically.

    Mr. Carter also promised to protect human rights -- another pledge that our current president has broken. Whether it be torture of terrorist suspects, or spying on American Citizens, human rights obviously mean very little to Mr. bush.

    Okay first of all, if you're reffering to Abu Ghraib how was Bush supposed to have predicted that? Second of all the spying thing was NOT on American citizens. It was on suspected terrorists' incoming calls.

    Link

    I guess that line was total BS. It was added because it sounded good.

    Oh what and Carter's wasn't? All presidents BS. Come on.

    (Doesn't mention conservation.)

    What? Yes he did! He talked at length about alternative fuels including ethonal to conserve on oil. Now you're just lying.

    Pres. Bush: "We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)"

    Link

    But as was emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and key members of our own intelligence services, there was never any existing danger to the United States from Baghdad.

    Oh? Then why was Saddam shooting at US planes?

    From an article published before the beginning of the war: "At least once an hour, Iraqi troops shoot at the fighter jets in hope of downing one and capturing their ultimate prize: an American pilot."

    Link

    Okay so your article has falsehoods, irrelevent facts by former Pres. Peanutfarmer and at least one outright lie. This is not exactly a good way to write.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the visit and the comment and the bookmark. How do u bookmark someone?? (I'm still kind of new at this.)

    You'd think that with all the subsidies given to oil companies that the oil prices would be lower. Its amazing how similar the two SOTUs are. After hearing the SOTU I was disgusted. But I think the democratic response to it (given by Kane) was very good. I was very impressed with what he had to say and I think he presented it very well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ellie said... Thanks for the visit and the comment and the bookmark. How do u bookmark someone?? (I'm still kind of new at this.)

    By "bookmarking" I meant I added your blog to my "favorites" (Click "favorites" and then "add to favorites").

    Ellie said... You'd think that with all the subsidies given to oil companies that the oil prices would be lower.

    That isn't the purpose of the subsidies...

    Ellie said... It's amazing how similar the two SOTUs are.

    That's what I thought. Clearly DarkSaturos disagrees. He thought I was making the case that W broke Mr. Carter's pledge of non-agression. Which he did, of course -- but, no, there aren't any rules that cover SOTU pledges.

    Ellie said... After hearing the SOTU I was disgusted. But I think the democratic response to it (given by Kane) was very good. I was very impressed with what he had to say and I think he presented it very well.

    I'm disgusted everytime I hear W the liar speak. I too liked Mr. Kane's response. Of course he was criticized because he said "there's a better way" a lot. He was also criticized for his mismatched eyebrows.

    Thank you for the post, btw.

    DarkSaturos said... Dervish, I AM a genius. It's a scientific fact. I took an IQ test ok? You're probably one too. It's not like it has to be a really high score.

    Right. If you're a genius then I must be a super-genius! Obviously your geniusness doesn't have anything to do with being able to spell properly, or discern when people you admire are lying to you. (I am aware that "geniusness" is not an actual word). I say you're full of yourself and full of sh!t.

    DarkSaturos said... You got the link from me. Give me some credit at least.

    OK. I am forever indebted to you. Thank you, thank you, thank you!! As if I couldn't have found that link on my own...

    If there still is any corruption in the UN we should work towards FIXING IT. The UN is an extraordinary organization which has accomplished amazing things. Yet all conservatives can ever point out is the "oil for food" corruption... at the same time completely ignoring the MASSIVE corruption in Iraq, the bush administration, and the Republican party. You f'ing hypocrites really make my blood boil! Perhaps I'll write a post in defense of the UN -- but for now, on to the rest of your lies and slander...

    DarkSaturos said... First of all I don't remember a law stating that a president had to follow the pledges of another president, especcilay not Mr. Peanut's...

    I just thought it was ironic that what Mr. Carter said 26 years ago is so relevant to what is happening today -- under the watch of Mr. Failed businessman. Have you got something against a person who accomplishes great things without their Daddy's money and family connections?

    DarkSaturos said... Second of all we broke a total of 2 International laws. Iraq broke somewhere in the neighborhood of 30. If you want to punish people for breaking UN law then you should have been advocating for a punishment for Iraq.

    I never say I didn't. I don't agree with invasion as a "punishment".

    DarkSaturos said... Third of all the UN was proven to be corrupt.

    No it wasn't. Individual members were involved in the oil for food scandal, that does not mean that the entire UN is corrupt and should be abolished! That's like saying we should do away with the entire US government because it is now being run by crooks.

    DarkSaturos said... You souldn't want to follow someone corrupt would you. You think Bush is corrupt (he isn't but this is an example that might get through your head). Would you want to follow him?

    He most certainly is. But I don't have any choice but to suffer the consequences of his foolish policies.

    DarkSaturos said... The UN however, unlike Bush, was proven (through documents) to be corrupt.

    The bush administration is massively CORRUPT. The only reason he continues to get away with his criminal activities is because the Republican controlled congress refuses to provide oversight. Hopefully that will change soon.

    DarkSaturos said... The US does not have to follow them, and even if they were not corrupt we still wouldn't have to follow them technically.

    YES WE DO! I explained this to you previously (on Cody's blog)...

    The United States is bound by International Law. Article 6 of the US Constitution, The "Supremacy Clause" states: Clause two provides that the Constitution, and laws and treaties made pursuant to it, constitute the supreme law of the land.

    The United States is one of the signatory nations of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which is an international treaty "providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy".

    Excerpt from "Preventive War" and International Law After Iraq: The new Bush doctrine of "preventive war" which was published in the National Security Strategy in September 2002 contemplates attacking a state in the absence of specific evidence of a pending attack. This doctrine marks a departure from the prohibition of the use of force under international law, starting from the Kellogg-Briand pact, the establishment of the Nuremberg Charter, the conclusion of the United Nations Charter and the establishment of the International Criminal Court, and marks a return to a readiness to use force in international relations.

    Following the publication of that doctrine, the United States, together with United Kingdom, Australia and other States, launched an attack on Iraq, having failed to gain approval of the Security Council under Chapter VII. Many international lawyers believe that attack was illegal and amounted to a war of aggression.

    bush's preventive war policy is illegal under International law, and illegal under Article 6 of the US Constitution.

    You think the United States can and should break the treaties it signs whenever a President decides we should? Why should any other nation ever sign a treaty with us again if we will break them whenever we see fit?!

    DarkSaturos said, in response to my "Doesn't mention conservation" claim... What? Yes he did! He talked at length about alternative fuels including ethonal to conserve on oil. Now you're just lying.

    Lying about putting money into researching alternate fuel sources is NOT conservation! I suggest you consult a dictionary. Conservation involves using LESS energy -- not just finding alternate energy sources -- which is also good, but he was lying about that anyway.

    From More Dishonesty from Bush in State of Union: He’s done nothing about [our dependence on foreign oil] for five years, with Cheney saying, back in 2001, that conservation is a lifestyle choice and that we’ll be as dependent on foreign oil in 2020 as we were in the year 2000. Yes, we are addicted to oil, but Bush is not making us go to Oil Guzzlers Anonymous, he’s not making us pay more for our drug, he’s not forcing those who make the chief drug-dispensing devices, cars and SUVS, to stop loading their products with engines that abuse this drug.

    And that’s the biggest hypocrisy of all. His energy bill last year did nothing to raise the fuel-efficiency standards on Detroit. Amazingly, our fuel standards are now lower than China’s! Our fuel economy standards in 2005 are 21 miles a gallon for all cars and SUVs. In 1987, they were 22.1 miles a gallon. We’ve been going in reverse. And when the energy bill was up last year, Republicans in Congress not only voted down Democratic amendments to increase fuel-efficiency standards, they actually made it more difficult to raise those standards in the future. (By Matthew Rothschild. The Progressive. 2/1/2006)

    Proved. I'm not, as you claim, lying. Any president who was serious about conservation would have mandated that the fuel effecinecy standards for our automobiles be raised. Why don't YOU stop lying?

    DarkSaturos said... Okay first of all, if you're reffering to Abu Ghraib how was Bush supposed to have predicted that?

    He knew all about it from the beginning. It was Rummy's idea!

    From The Grey Zone: Rumsfeld reacted in his usual direct fashion: he authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate "high value" targets in the Bush Administration’s war on terror. A special-access program, or sap -- subject to the Defense Department’s most stringent level of security -- was set up, with an office in a secure area of the Pentagon. The program would recruit operatives and acquire the necessary equipment, including aircraft, and would keep its activities under wraps.

    ...The operation had across-the-board approval from Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser. President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the former intelligence official said. ...They carried out instant interrogations -- using force if necessary -- at secret C.I.A. detention centers scattered around the world. ..."The rules are: Grab whom you must. Do what you want".

    The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system who were suspected of being insurgents. The internal Army report on the abuse charges revealed that Major General Geoffrey Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that "detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation".

    Miller’s concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to "Gitmoize" the prison system in Iraq -- to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the interrogation methods used in Cuba -- methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in "stress positions" for agonizing lengths of time. (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Conventions.)

    Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the sap, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation. (by Seymour Hersh. 5/15/2004)

    DarkSaturos said... Second of all the spying thing was NOT on American citizens. It was on suspected terrorists' incoming calls.

    That is the lie they would have you believe. It isn't the truth.

    From Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects (NSA's Hunt for Terrorists Scrutinizes Thousands of Americans, but Most Are Later Cleared). Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.

    Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why." But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.

    The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.

    The program has touched many more Americans than that. Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.

    The scale of warrantless surveillance, and the high proportion of bystanders swept in, sheds new light on Bush's circumvention of the courts. National security lawyers, in and out of government, said the washout rate raised fresh doubts about the program's lawfulness under the Fourth Amendment, because a search cannot be judged "reasonable" if it is based on evidence that experience shows to be unreliable. (By Barton Gellman, Dafna Linzer and Carol D. Leonnig. The Washington Post. 2/5/2006)

    In any case this whole program is illegal. Ever heard of Check and Balances? The power to sign off on wiretaps belongs to the Judical branch, NOT the Executive. The "war on terror" does not give W the power to circumvent the FISA court. As for your link... get real. I'm supposed to believe bush when he says "it's a limited initiative that tracks only incoming calls to the United States". The article's first sentence is a lie! I stopped reading right there.

    DarkSaturos said... Okay so your article has falsehoods, irrelevent facts by former Pres. Peanutfarmer and at least one outright lie. This is not exactly a good way to write.

    My post contained ZERO lies. Only facts and my opinions regarding those facts. I don't find Mr. Carter to be irrelevant. I was excited when I heard about his new book which address the alarming tred of intermixing fundamentalist religion with politics. I read it, agree with it, and highly recommend it. Obviously the publisher, the producers of the numerous TV programs he has appeared on to promote the book, and the news programs he is regularly booked on also disagree. He must be one of the most active and visible ex-presidents ever. I don't think he would have been able to accomplish this if he were as irrelevant as you claim he is. Aside from Conservatives, I'd say most Americans have respect for his many accomplishments. A truly great American, unlike that scumbag Reagan you worship.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's what I thought. Clearly DarkSaturos disagrees.

    Sure I disagree. It's obvious your whole point was to show the difference between the two. However you'll lie to someone just to get them to think you're great. How stupid do you think people are?

    Of course he was criticized because he said "there's a better way" a lot.

    No he was criticized for not telling what that way was. He was lying when he said he knew one. Just like John Kerry's "plan" which mysteriously never was publicized.


    Obviously your geniusness doesn't have anything to do with being able to spell properly

    Big deal. I'm 16 give me a break. And I'm honest. Any moron can run something through a spell checker.

    I say you're full of yourself and full of sh!t.


    The word is not spelled "sh!t". It's spelled "shit". If you're gonna swer then have the balls to do it.

    Yet all conservatives can ever point out is the "oil for food" corruption...

    Right, like all you liberals can point out is WMDs, even though only 2 reasons out of 33 for going to war were about WMDs.

    I just thought it was ironic that what Mr. Carter said 26 years ago is so relevant to what is happening today -- under the watch of Mr. Failed businessman.

    Failed buisnessman? I thought you said he was getting rich off the war and oil. Inconsistancy #1.

    I never say I didn't. I don't agree with invasion as a "punishment".

    That's not the point. The point is that you'll beat up Bush for two infractions and you won't beat up Saddam for over 30. Do you like Saddam better or something? And it's not like the UN would do anything about the 30 infractions, so it was up to us. The invasion was THE ONLY WAY to stop Saddam shooting at our planes and tourturing his own people. Or had you forgotten about those?

    He most certainly is. But I don't have any choice but to suffer the consequences of his foolish policies.

    Sure you do. It's called impeachement. The only difference is that Bush didn't do anything worthy of it. If you want to try to find something, sue him. You can do that you know. But you KNOW you'd lose the case.


    YES WE DO! I explained this to you previously (on Cody's blog)...


    And I explained to you on the same place why we don't.

    You think the United States can and should break the treaties it signs whenever a President decides we should?

    The treaty was broken by Saddam years ago when he decided to shoot at our planes. The treaty is null and void when someone violates it.

    Lying about putting money into researching alternate fuel sources is NOT conservation!

    Oh I see. You can just say that it's lying to prove your point. In that case you're just lying about everything. Hey, if that arguement works for you... And before you point out that I accused you of lying the difference is that I had a link to back it up.

    That is the lie they would have you believe. It isn't the truth.


    I believe there was a link I gave showing that it was true.

    The article's first sentence is a lie! I stopped reading right there.


    Wait a minute, you beat me up about not providing links and then when I do you don't read them?
    I read YOUR links.

    My post contained ZERO lies.

    Actually it did. I pointed them out. Saying that it didn't without any proof doesn't change that.

    A truly great American, unlike that scumbag Reagan you worship.

    Yeah, you know, Jimmy Carter DID accomplish more. He put the economy in a tailspin. He was a pansy-ass when dealing with the Iranian-hostage crises. He DID accomplish more, in a negative direction. And you have to realize that while Reagan is being immortilized as one of the greatest presidents in history, Jimmy Carter is trying to make a meager living writing crappy little books that wackos like you read. Who's the loser here?

    ReplyDelete
  8. DarkSaturos said... Sure I disagree. It's obvious your whole point was to show the difference between the two. However you'll lie to someone just to get them to think you're great. How stupid do you think people are?

    The goal of my post was not to convince anyone that I'm great. Seems to me that YOU'RE the one always bragging about how great you are.

    DarkSaturos said... he was criticized for not telling what that way was. He was lying when he said he knew one. Just like John Kerry's "plan" which mysteriously never was publicized.

    Did you watch Governor Kaine's response? I did, and I heard LOTS of good ideas. I'll do a post discussing what those ideas are -- and post it later this week. Anyway, this "Democrats have no ideas" baloney is just another of the MANY right wing lies. Republicans think that if they repeat their lies over and over eventually people will believe them. Unfortunately, to a certain extent this is true.

    DarkSaturos said... Big deal. I'm 16 give me a break. And I'm honest. Any moron can run something through a spell checker.

    I don't care how old you are -- if you want to debate me I'm not going to make special allowances -- for any reason. My point concerning your horrible spelling is that you don't care. I usually don't use a spell checker -- I'll only check a word if I'm unsure of the correct spelling. Why? Because I think it's important. Also, I think anyone would expect a genius to be a better speller.

    As for your "honesty", I've debated you before, so I am aware that you have the Republican talking points down perfectly. You've studied the propaganda extensively -- I'll give you that. I do acknowledge that you are probably unaware that the source material behind all your arguments is incredibly dishonest. You only believe you're telling the truth. Unfortunately you're a Republican dupe. This might come as a shock to you, but believing you're telling the truth -- when you are actually spreading lies -- doesn't make you an honest person.

    DarkSaturos said... The word is not spelled "sh!t". It's spelled "shit". If you're gonna swer then have the balls to do it.

    Terms of Service for Blogger.com You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable... Pyra and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or remove any Content that is available via the Service. Without limiting the foregoing, Pyra and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable.

    Notice that it says "racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable". I'd watch it if I were you -- you're running the risk of having your blog shut down.

    DarkSaturos said... Right, like all you liberals can point out is WMDs, even though only 2 reasons out of 33 for going to war were about WMDs.

    I believe I've read them before... Not that it makes any difference. Bottom line is that the inspections were working. I do not believe that the cost of this war -- the FULL cost (in money and lives) -- will be worth it in the end. Things are not working out "pretty much as planned" (which is a claim I have seen several times on conservative blogs). I predict disaster, or at least an end result nowhere near what was promised.

    Wasn't it something along the lines of: A Jeffersonian Democracy which will serve as an example to all other countries in the Middle east; a stabalizing influence in the region that would help bring about the end of terrorism? Is that were you think we're headed?!

    If so, I say you need to buy a clue. A more likely result is that Iraq becomes a Islamic theocratic republic -- like Iran. Of course we now have a civil war going on -- so is a unified Iraq even a possibility? I seriously doubt the end result of this war is going to be good. In fact it will probably be very very bad.

    (Those other 32 reasons -- can you provide a link? I googled for awhile but couldn't find anything.)

    DarkSaturos said... Failed buisnessman? I thought you said he was getting rich off the war and oil. Inconsistancy #1.

    President of the United States is not a business position, nor is it a position that should be used to enrich one group of people (The Super Rich) to the detriment of everyone else. I was referring to the THREE energy companies he ran into the ground BEFORE entering politics.

    First was Arbusto Energy, which was started with money from his trust fund. Despite "investments" from family friends it never turned a profit. Arbusto ended up in the red some $3.3 million. When his now bankrupt oil company was purchased by Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation bush was made chief executive officer! Spectrum 7 also lost money. Finally Spectrum 7 was purchased by Harken Energy Corporation -- well, they lost money too -- but not before they were awarded a huge contract, which caused the stock price increase dramatically. Bush sold his stock at a profit of 200 percent. One week later Harken announced a $23.2 million loss in quarterly earnings... bush was subsequently investigated for insider trading, but avoided any serious repercussions thanks to his family connections.

    You haven't heard about any of this before? This information can be found quite easily.

    What you conservative fail to see is that he's at it again! But this time it's the US government he's running into the ground! bush and pals are profiting tremendously while taxpayers (and future generations of taxpayers) foot the bill for his mismanagement. That is if his policies don't end up bankrupting the US Government and plunging us into another great(er) depression.

    DarkSaturous Said... That's not the point. The point is that you'll beat up Bush for two infractions and you won't beat up Saddam for over 30. Do you like Saddam better or something? And it's not like the UN would do anything about the 30 infractions, so it was up to us. The invasion was THE ONLY WAY to stop Saddam shooting at our planes and tourturing his own people. Or had you forgotten about those?

    Oh, here we go with the lying again! You're implying that there were only 2 options -- invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power, or DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. As I have pointed out before -- there are numerous other dicators in the world who mistreat their citizens. Yet Iraq is the only country we have invaded. I wonder why??

    DarkSaturous Said... Sure you do. It's called impeachement. The only difference is that Bush didn't do anything worthy of it. If you want to try to find something, sue him. You can do that you know. But you KNOW you'd lose the case.

    Only the Legislative Branch can impeach a president -- the citizenry doesn't have that right. Pretty basic knowledge. Something I assumed a genius would know.

    DarkSaturous Said... And I explained to you on the same place why we don't.

    Yes, but you were wrong. You didn't even understand that, according to Article 6 of the US Constitution we are REQUIRED to adhere to treaties we enter into.

    The United Nations Charter is a constituent treaty, and all signatories are bound by its articles. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the third, after Nicaragua and El Salvador, to join the new international organization. (from the Wikipedia entry)

    So, why are you STILL confused?

    DarkSaturous Said... The treaty was broken by Saddam years ago when he decided to shoot at our planes. The treaty is null and void when someone violates it.

    No, that is NOT the way it works. The treaty is between ALL members of the UN. All the member nations have a vote when it comes to deciding punishment for treaty violations. The US alone does not get to decide what is best for the rest of the world. That's part of the reason why the citizens of many other countries believe America is arrogant.

    You claim your "perceived arrogance" is really just sarcasm and "not meant to be taken literally". I don't buy it. You're arrogant, and proud of it -- and you have no problem with America (bush, Neocons, and supporting Republicans) acting the same way. You are proud that America is forcing our "solutions" on the rest of the world and doing what we "know" to be right through use of our military. You probably think that all the nations of the world owe us a big debt of graditude because, when we "win" the "war on terror" the world safer for everyone. Sure, a lot of Muslims will die, and the US may go bankrupt, but it will be worth the cost. Because you "know" we will win. Only cowardly libs think otherwise.

    DarkSaturous Said... Oh I see. You can just say that it's lying to prove your point. In that case you're just lying about everything. Hey, if that arguement works for you... And before you point out that I accused you of lying the difference is that I had a link to back it up.

    No. You don't see. Obviously you don't have a clue what conservation is. Like I said -- look it up. Maybe then you can put forth a vaild argument. Energy independance has TWO components: ONE, use less energy. TWO, develop alternate energy sources. bush's SOTU only covered the second component. You're a genius??! Come on, how dumb do you think people are??

    I wasn't just saying he was lying -- I provided a link which backed up my claims. Links show up as blue AND are underlined. Kinda hard to miss. So you don't have to go to the trouble of actually clicking a link -- here's an excerpt from the article:

    From Plug pulled on renewable energy gurus: [Carol Tombari, who has worked in energy policy for more than 25 years] was among the 31 recently dismissed worker from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden -- seven days after President Bush read the words "addicted to oil" off the teleprompter and announced yet another "Advanced Energy Initiative". The scientists at NREL "have no peer", U.S. Department of Energy spokesman Craig Stevens crowed last week.

    While our commitment to developing alternative energy sources in the U.S. too often is just empty rhetoric -- "greenwashing", Tombari calls it -- around the world it's the Holy Grail. "There's a tremendous market out there", said Thornton, who hopes to be able to work with his friends at NREL again someday. (by Diane Carman. Energy Bulletin, 2/14/2006)

    And here's some additional information to corroborate the story:

    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory: In early February, 2006, NREL's budget was cut by $28 million. As a result, 32 workers were laid off; NREL also cancelled outside contracts and subcontracts.

    On February 20, 2006, the Department of Energy announced it had restored $5 million to NREL's budget. This announcement coincided closely with a visit by President George W. Bush on February 21, 2006. Bush stated the original budget cut was the result of "mixed signals". An NREL official stated the lab will attempt to rehire the employees who were laid off, but cancelled contracts will not be restored. (from the Wikipedia entry)

    The NREL is part of the U.S. Department of Energy -- so, if bush was serious about his pledge of more research into alternate energy sources -- why were these people fired? Sure, when the news got out people were rehired and a SMALL part of NREL's budget was restored. But if he was right to cut their budget in the first place why is he now reversing that decision now? Could it be because he was caught in a lie? He had to do something to counteract the bad press -- but the budget cuts would have stood if the press hadn't alerted the public to another case of bush's MASSIVE hypocrisy.

    DarkSaturous Said... I believe there was a link I gave showing that it was true.

    No, the link you provided was to an article which began with a quote from W in which he repeats his lies concerning the illegal wiretaps.

    DarkSaturous Said... Wait a minute, you beat me up about not providing links and then when I do you don't read them?
    I read YOUR links.


    It was a link to a story in which bush HIMSELF defends the wiretaps! I already told you I believe the guy's lying. Why should I read something that comes directly from him or anyone in his administration? Give me a link to a story by a second party -- even a biased one and I'll read it. You didn't really think that was going to fly, did you??

    DarkSaturous Said... Actually it did. I pointed them out. Saying that it didn't without any proof doesn't change that.

    Actually it didn't. I pointed out what the truth was, providing links to back my claims -- which is hardly "without proof". Tell me where my post lacked supporting evidence and I'll provide it.

    DarkSaturous Said... Yeah, you know, Jimmy Carter DID accomplish more. He put the economy in a tailspin. He was a pansy-ass when dealing with the Iranian-hostage crises. He DID accomplish more, in a negative direction. And you have to realize that while Reagan is being immortilized as one of the greatest presidents in history, Jimmy Carter is trying to make a meager living writing crappy little books that wackos like you read. Who's the loser here?

    Jimmy Carter As president his major accomplishments included the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies. He enacted strong environmental legislation; deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the social security system; and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments included the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the creation of full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, and the negotiation of the SALT II Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

    The Iranian hostage crisis was seen by critics as a devastating blow to national prestige; Carter struggled for 444 days to release the hostages. A failed rescue attempt led to the resignation of his Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. The hostages were not released until the day Carter left office, five minutes after Ronald Reagan's inauguration. (from the Wikipedia Entry)

    The hostages were released five minutes after Reagan took office... that seems more than a little fishy to me. Perhaps this explains it...

    Evidence of a National Security Cover-up: Republicans sabotaged President Jimmy Carter’s hostage negotiations with Iran in 1980. (excerpts) Though some Carter administration officials found the timing suspicious, questions about the hostage release disappeared until the mid-1980s when the Iran-Contra scandal broke, with disclosures that the Reagan-Bush administration had engaged in other secret arms-for-hostage negotiations with Iran in 1985-86.

    As more Iran-Contra secrets spilled out in 1987, evidence emerged showing that the Reagan-Bush team had winked at third-country shipments of U.S. armaments to Iran as early as 1981. Some Iran-Contra witnesses began alleging that those shipments were part of a payoff by the Republicans for Iran’s secret cooperation during the 1980 campaign. (By Robert Parry. Consortium News, 5/4/2005)

    As for putting our economy into a "tailspin", bush's economic polices are a million times worse! The rich are getting richer -- but at the expense of everyone else. The National Debt has increased astronomically under bush. According to , "President Bush and the current administration have borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined"!!

    This is the type of behavior you admire! This out of control reckless spending is not solely the result of the illegal war in Iraq either. It started under Reagan and accelerated under bush I. Clinton started to get spending under control -- resulting in an actual budget surplus! But the first thing bush II did when he entered office was to cut taxes to the wealthy!

    From United States National Debt (1938 to Present). An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible For Excessive Spending: Prior to the Neo-Conservative take over of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties debt philosophy, they both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan Presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 was during the Clinton Presidency, where he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

    Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republican Presidents. Looking at the only Democratic President since 1981, Clinton, who raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year; the Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.59. Any way you look at it Conservative Republican Presidents can not control government spending, yet as the graph above clearly shows, Clinton did. (By Steve McGourty, Updated 9 April 2005. follow the link to see a graphical representation of presidential spending in the form of a chart)

    Before the Iraq war began the bush administration claimed that the war would cost relatively little, and that Iraq would be able to pay for it's own reconstruction. Remember that? Here's the quote, in case you've forgotten:

    Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people -- and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03

    Experts disagreed, saying the war and aftermath in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, a fact the White House refused to acknowledge as valid, even going so far as to fire Lawrence Lindsey for his realistic projections. (Past Comments About How Much Iraq Would Cost)

    Weren't high gas prices one of the problems that Carter faced during his administration too? But oil companies weren't making record profits then, were they DarkSaturous? Why does bush refuse to address this obvious Price Gouging? The Democrats are concerned about this thievery even while bush continues to defend it...

    A recent Press Release by Senator Schumer and House Minority Leader Pelosi: As Americans pay almost 90 percent more to fill their gas tanks since President Bush took office, oil companies continue to reap gigantic profits and oil executives receive astronomical compensation. Record prices, record retirement packages, and record profits are just the latest example of the wealthy few benefiting at the expense of hard-working Americans under the Bush Administration.

    "The Republican Rubber Stamp Congress has passed two energy bills, costing taxpayers $12 billion for giveaways to big oil companies. But the Republican bills clearly have done nothing to lower gas prices, as the price of a barrel of oil has settled above $70 a barrel - the highest price in our history. Even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve agrees that gas prices are decreasing the purchasing power of American families and depressing the U.S. economy.

    "Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new direction that works for everyone, not just the few. Our plan would empower the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on price gouging to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices, increase production of alternative fuels, and rescind the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks, and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies". (Pelosi on Gas Prices: Record Prices, Record Retirement Packages, and Record Profits. US Newswire, 4/18/2006)

    What's bush's solution? He wants to relax environmental standards! of course, as the article points out, "Oil companies, not consumers, will be the main beneficiaries of relaxed fuel-blend rules".

    Maybe Mr. Carter wasn't a GREAT president, but he is an honest and good man -- which is a lot more than can be said for either Reagan or bush. Both liars and thieves with a considerable amount of blood on their hands.

    Mr. Carter is a "pansy ass" and I lack balls? Why do you attack the masculinity of people you disagree with? I strongly suspect that it has something to do with your homophobia. (Who else but a homophobe would refer to "Brokeback Mountain" as "Gay Porn"?)

    ReplyDelete

Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.