America's Fun-est Family
Apparently, Jeb Bush's son was arrested for public intoxication and resisting arrest. Thank goodness! That means he is well-qualified to follow in the grand, time-honored traditions of the Bush Crime Family: Look at the shoes he's got to fill. Everything from run-of-the-mill white collar crime to full-blown treason. Hoo, boy! That's a tall legacy to follow! Why, even the other Bush kids are already accomplished criminals! He's got a lot of catching up to do! Go get 'em, Johnny!
posted by SheaNC at 2:09 AM
20 Comments:
The thing that makes me scratch my head about people's view of the Bush dynasty is that no one seems to care about the Carlyle Group. That company's dealings have been marginalized by everyone except the left wing fringe. Why is that?
Carlyle's nefarious ways can be summed up by simple economics: they are in bed, so to speak, with the Saudis so the Saudis have always had a free pass. That is a major reason September 11 was able to happen - because of oil interests in the Middle East, via the Carlyle Group (among others such as Dick Cheney's Halliburton and Condoleezza Rice's Chevron). If the Bush family never existed there is a strong possibility 9/11 would never have happened.
How about that, Sean!
If the Bush family never existed there is a strong possibility 9/11 would never have happened.
Considering that the planning had to have started under the Clinton Administration, which oversaw several terrorist attacks, this seems pretty darn naive.
That company's dealings have been marginalized by everyone except the left wing fringe. Why is that?
Because the fringe left are lunatics and believe every conspiracy theory that comes along, so long as it paints the U.S. as evil overlords bent on the destruction of freedom and liberty? That just a working theory of mine, but so far its stood up to all the real world examples of left wing asshattery.
I dont know what to think, but I definitely dont trust chickenhawks.
I'd be curious to know, CH, whether you have supported any military action in which the U.S. has engaged since your 18th birthday. Any at all? How about our involvement in Kosovo in 1999? How about our involvement in Afghanistan? Out of curiosity, if you did not support those engagements, why not? If you did, did you join the military?
Considering that the planning had to have started under the Clinton Administration, which oversaw several terrorist attacks, this seems pretty darn naive.
Ahh, but I was saying the Bush family, not necessarily the current administration. I'm talking about the corporate interests all the Bushes, Cheney & co. have with regard to the middle east. It dates back to when George H.W. was head of the CIA. Maybe before...
...and I'll tell you why only fringe "lefties" care about the corrupt corporate pirates that run this country (Republican and Democrat alike): fring lefties typically aren't major stakeholders in corporations, i.e. equity or corporate debt holders or company executives.
And on a side note, Sean, I love the term "asshattery". That made me laugh out loud. Kudos.
"Because the fringe left are lunatics and believe every conspiracy theory that comes along, so long as it paints the U.S. as evil overlords bent on the destruction of freedom and liberty? That just a working theory of mine, but so far its stood up to all the real world examples of left wing asshattery."
Ha ha - you're not only wrong, but you've contradicted yourself to the point of exhibiting the same behavior you claim to condemn.
First of all, your generalization is wrong because generalizations are instrinsically inaccurate - they are absolutely wrong by definition, because there are always so many exceptions. Of course, when those are pointed out, the person making the generalization says, "Yeah, well, that's true, but..." and ackowledges they are wrong but still insits they are right. It happens every single time.
Second, as far as conspiracy theories go, the Rightards have built both their domestic and foreign policy on conspiracy theories: Fear of the evil liberals, the "liberal media," the "homosexual lobby," etc., at home. Fear of the French (!?) and of Europe, and fear that any country that has oil must be out to get us, so we must smite them. Were you lying awake at night quivering with fear over the threat of invasion by Iraq all those years? Ha ha.
And third, you announce your own conspiracy theory: the left-wing fringe, they're all out to get you! Look out! There goes a hippy!
First of all, your generalization is wrong because generalizations are instrinsically inaccurate
Really? Intrinsically wrong? I disagree. Generalizations do not hold true in all cases, but they are a generalized view of certain groups or activities. Based on experience, they are more likely true than not. Its okay, you can disagree.
Smorgasbord, I wish I could take the credit for that term, but its tossed around on the conservative (i.e., fascist) blogs. I thought it was pretty funny too.
As far as the Bush family is concerned, are you referring to more than just Bush Sr.'s stint at Carlysle? Clinton's administration has staffed Carlysle as well. Thomas McLarty, Clinton's former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton’s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission are/were employed by Carlysle. One of its other managing partners is William Cannard, Clinton’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Pretty serious ties, and not to Bush.
When Clinton had the chance to get OBL but delayed, was it because of his ties? Or did he get his cronies in because he was so favorable? Hmmmmm. Why doesn't the left ever discuss those conspiracy theories?
That is one thing the Left has refused to acknowledge: Clinton is just as much a scubag as any scumbag out there. More or less than Bush, I cannot say. The Clinton-Bush I relationship disturbs me. I just do not want President Hillary, that's all.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Hmmmmm. Why doesn't the left ever discuss those conspiracy theories?"
So, Sean, your problem with the "left-wing fringe" is that they choose to believe different conspiracy theories than you?
The old "blame Clinton" thing never holds up. Like him or hate him, the Clinton administration oversaw a more effective war against terrorism than the Bush administration. And, as you say, with all the forewarning (including Clinton briefing Bush on the danger of Bin Laden), the Bushites still chose to ignore the warnings and encourage 9/11 to happen. The Bushes and the Bin Ladens: partners in business, partners in crime. Hey, Bush is the guy who gave the Taliban $43 million dollars just a few months before 9/11, remember? That's no theory... that's our Bush!
I don't support any conspiracy theories. I just find it odd that the left fringe only chooses certain theories to tout.
As for Clinton's "more effective" war on terror? Wow, laughable. Kobi Towers, first World Trade Center bombing, attack on the U.S.S. Cole, was offered OBL on a silver platter but dithered and missed him ... yup - much more effective.
Oh, and I'm actually glad you think Clinton ran such a tight anti-terrorism ship. He was, after all, in agreement that based on the intelligence Sodom had WMD's and had to be taken from power. You seem to support Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts, does that mean you support his analysis as well?
I will answer your question, but first, what the hell is "Sodom"?
I don't like the guy, and that's how Bush Sr. pronounced his name, so I use it. We've had this discussion, you (or someone here, I forget who exactly) thinks my use of "Sodom" rather than "Saddam" is silly and immature. You're correct, but I use it nonetheless. After all, why should I give any shred of respect to someone like him?
Of course Bush emphasized the first syllable of "Saddam". Many do, and for all I know that is the correct pronunciation. But for you to misspell the name, especially when you admit that it is silly and immature of you to do so, only makes you appear to be ignorant, too. Correct spelling has nothing to do with giving respect to Saddam Hussein. Your "Sodom" thing does nothing to him, but makes you look bad. So, if silly and immature is how you with to define yourself, you've succeeded.
Now, in answer to your question about Clinton's analysis: was it made before or after we bombed the shit out of Iraq for several years? Iraq may have had a lot of stuff left over that they got from Reagan and Bush, but by the time
Bush was pushing to invade Iraq, there were no WMD's. So, depending on when his analysis was made, Clinton was wrong about the WMD's too. You can go here to learn more: The Lie of the Century
His analysis was pretty darn recent.
See here(has lots of quotes scroll down for the recent ones). And there is this quote from an AFP article:
Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.
Right up until the fall of Hussein. Now. With so many leaders who are "in the know" (have or had access to the U.S. and world intelligence information) believing that there were WMD's, the invasion was justified. Sodom was supposed to disarm, and prove he had disarmed. He refused. That's like a police officer telling a criminal to drop his weapon and the criminal saying he has but refusing to show his hands. Should the police officer just lower his weapon and walk nonchalantly over and start chatting with the criminal? Would you? Or would you go over with force and make sure he had complied?
As for calling an intelligence mistake (caused by Sodom's active dissembling) a lie, well, you apparently don't know what a lie is.
Sean, you're ignoring the facts. There were no WMD's. If there were, then where are they? If you know where they are, then please enlighten us. It was proven that Hussein was just bluffing about having them when it served his purpose, and saying otherwise when it didn't. And you say that a bunch of people being totally wrong justifies the war? Ha ha! That's one of the most ridiculous (although totally neocon) things I've heard in a quite a while. You're saying that if a lot of people believe the same wrong thing, then they must be right! Ha ha ha ha! You and Clinton can believe whatever. You were both proven wrong!
And, I do know a what a lie is, and Bush lied, and so did Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Powell, and Rice, and Ashcroft, etc. The neocons adore lying, as much as you adore believing it!
There were no WMD's. If there were, then where are they?
Wow, there goes that perfect hindsight of yours, functioning beautifully. I love how you can look back on past events and see them so clearly. Of course, you don't seem to understand them, but that's why I'm here. To help.
It was proven that Hussein was just bluffing about having them when it served his purpose, and saying otherwise when it didn't.
Exactly, after going into Iraq. The point of the cease-fire agreement brokered with the U.N. was that Sodom had to disarm and (this is the kicker) prove it.
Please, tell me where Bush lied. Be specific. And just to save some time, you've actually agreed that he couldn't have lied about WMD's, because we didn't know he was bluffing until after going in. I really am curious to hear these "lies". Inevitably, in my experience discussing this topic, the "lies" turn out to be intelligence failures.
Post a Comment
<< Home