Welcome to Bushworld

Search

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,441
Tokens
The Orwellian Olsens
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: April 25, 2004

WASHINGTON

It's their reality. We just live and die in it.

In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home.

In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership against terror.

In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.

In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.

In Bushworld, it was worth going to war so Iraqis can express their feelings ("Down With America!") without having their tongues cut out, although we cannot yet allow them to express intemperate feelings in newspapers ("Down With America!") without shutting them down.

In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that you're insisting you're not planning.

In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes.

In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.

In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in Mr. and Mrs. Rival while cultivating your own opacity.

In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush.

In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and money it will take to get Iraq on its feet are patriots, while those who are honest are patronizingly marginalized.

In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.

In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental president on Earth Day while being the industry president every other day.

In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections.

In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But even better evidence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about is hidden away.

In Bushworld, the C.I.A. says it can't find out whether there are W.M.D. in Iraq unless we invade on the grounds that there are W.M.D.

In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft.

In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.

In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.

In Bushworld, it's perfectly natural for the president and vice president to appear before the 9/11 commission like the Olsen twins.

In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.

In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops.

In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your administration does not leak to the press, while you flood the best-known journalist in Washington with inside information.

In Bushworld, you list Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" as recommended reading on your campaign Web site, even though it makes you seem divorced from reality. That is, unless you live in Bushworld.


E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Ain't this the truth:

"In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America."
 

Rx Wizard
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,438
Tokens
What is is about this President that appeals to the majority of Americans? His cabinet failed to heed the warnings against imminent terrorist attack on domestic soil, his Attorney General was picked to concentrate resources on moral crusading rather than rooting out terrorists, the poorly conceived Iraq invasion was build on false pretenses and is diverting untold resources away from the real war on terrorism and is isolating the US from the rest of the world. His cabinet fires top-ranking military officers for telling the truth about how much resources will be needed (Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki...also Colin Powell was cut out of the loop for telling the Administation the same thing). I can see that I am paying less taxes at the moment under his tax plans, but being a half-way intelligent individual I know I will pay much, much more later to pay off the record deficit his plan is creating. Other than less taxes now, I can find no rationale reason to vote for the guy.

[This message was edited by ppeter on April 25, 2004 at 04:22 PM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
232
Tokens
It is very simple,most of the people are ill informed due to their own lack of intelligence.They believe what they want to ,not what is real.The administration's perception of reality is their reality.A very simple Orwellian concept,but effective on the weak minded.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
4,552
Tokens
Of the ten best educated states in U.S. nine voted for Gore. Is it any wonder Bush wants to starve the educational system of money? The guy has a vested interest in keeping the people ignorant.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,835
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EverFresh:
The Orwellian Olsens
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: April 25, 2004

WASHINGTON

It's their reality. We just live and die in it.

In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home.

In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership against terror.

In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.

In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.

In Bushworld, it was worth going to war so Iraqis can express their feelings ("Down With America!") without having their tongues cut out, although we cannot yet allow them to express intemperate feelings in newspapers ("Down With America!") without shutting them down.

In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that you're insisting you're not planning.

In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes.

In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.

In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in Mr. and Mrs. Rival while cultivating your own opacity.

In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush.

In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and money it will take to get Iraq on its feet are patriots, while those who are honest are patronizingly marginalized.

In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.

In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental president on Earth Day while being the industry president every other day.

In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections.

In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But even better evidence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about is hidden away.

In Bushworld, the C.I.A. says it can't find out whether there are W.M.D. in Iraq unless we invade on the grounds that there are W.M.D.

In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft.

In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.

In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.

In Bushworld, it's perfectly natural for the president and vice president to appear before the 9/11 commission like the Olsen twins.

In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements.

In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops.

In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your administration does not leak to the press, while you flood the best-known journalist in Washington with inside information.

In Bushworld, you list Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" as recommended reading on your campaign Web site, even though it makes you seem divorced from reality. That is, unless you live in Bushworld.


E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1 millllllion percent right.

RX: Free us from the misogynists
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It is very simple,most of the people are ill informed due to their own lack of intelligence.They believe what they want to ,not what is real.The administration's perception of reality is their reality.A very simple Orwellian concept,but effective on the weak minded.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

noital,

I realize that you don't like Bush or his policies but every person that I know that supports the actions against Islamic agitators would support those actions even if it was a Democratic President ordering such things. I would consider that to be decidedly strong-minded. My opinions don't change to keep in step with party lines or what is currently en vogue.

Maybe I'm confused because of my lack of intelligence?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Of the ten best educated states in U.S. nine voted for Gore. Is it any wonder Bush wants to starve the educational system of money? The guy has a vested interest in keeping the people ignorant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bulldog,

There are stupid people in every state. Stupidity does not discriminate based on race, sex or party lines. I don't think that any state is a bastion of intellectual superiority.

I like how I'm called a sheep but when you listen to my opinion about Iraq it is the same as it was 10 years ago, as it was 2 years ago and as it was 2 days ago. I, on the other hand, see people supporting it and 1 year later there is a big dropoff. Those are sheep, my friend, not I.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
UMB: ...every person that I know that supports the actions against Islamic agitators would support those actions even if it was a Democratic President ordering such things

BAR: Well, we don't formally 'know' each other, but count me as one who believes we should not be using our military power to interfere with the Iraqis in Fallujah, or anywhere else in the country.

We need to pull our troops out of Iraq and allow them to make their own way, even if it is at the cost of many of their citizen's lives. That's how we made our own country work and how most all currently free countries have done it in theirs.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
UMB: when you listen to my opinion about Iraq it is the same as it was 10 years ago, as it was 2 years ago and as it was 2 days ago. I, on the other hand, see people supporting it and 1 year later there is a big dropoff.

BAR: You're not that close minded a person as the above statement implies.

If you were to receive new information you would surely add it into your personal equation and revise your point of view.

I realize that perhaps to date you do not perceive that such information has been received.

But for many people, they have observed the various fresh information shared about the USA/Iraq relationship during the past 10 yrs, 2 yrs and even 2 days; and these people's personal equations have been revised accordingly.

That's all. It's not a personal failing to revise your thinking IF you believe valid new information has come to light.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted April 26, 2004 07:19 PM
UMB: ...every person that I know that supports the actions against Islamic agitators would support those actions even if it was a Democratic President ordering such things

BAR: Well, we don't formally 'know' each other, but count me as one who believes we should not be using our military power to interfere with the Iraqis in Fallujah, or anywhere else in the country.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my other post. My statement was meant only to include the people that supported the events of this past year, specifically my friends that with which I actually converse face to face. I didn't include online acquaintances whether they are for or against the entire Iraq situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>UMB: when you listen to my opinion about Iraq it is the same as it was 10 years ago, as it was 2 years ago and as it was 2 days ago. I, on the other hand, see people supporting it and 1 year later there is a big dropoff.

BAR: You're not that close minded a person as the above statement implies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In some ways, that's true. However, at the same time I wanted to inform bulldog that he was taking the easy way out by calling me a sheep when my feelings indicate otherwise. When it became fashionable to hate Iraq the #'s for same went up. I wasn't a part of the reason why it went up. Those people are sheep. I did my homework. I asked questions. I then made a decision as to what I thought should be done. As you said, I haven't found or heard anything to convince me otherwise. I think the best way to describe my opinions is that they're like a knot: Easy to tie but harder to untie.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
That seems a reasonable explanation to me....cool.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
"....my opinions is that they're like a knot: Easy to tie but harder to untie."

BAR: Actually, mine probably are too. I guess life's challenge is knowing the right time to loosen the knot, eh?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
232
Tokens
Uncle Moneybags,i have followed bush since his days at Harken Energy,the savings and loan scandals,his time as governor of Texas,among other things.I have also followed Sr.,and all the other boys.I have always felt they were crooked to the max.I did not just jump on the bandwagon.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
noital,

It's been back and forth for quite a few of us here for the better part of 7 months. Your recent arrival and other poster's fondness for using ghosts automatically gives me pause. My particular interest in the falling support for Iraq is inclusive of all sides of the political spectrum.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Messages
886
Tokens
Noital.....ghost ...whatever ......funny how you followed anything up in Dickinson ND before the internet was conceived.
LOL ...followed Bush LOL
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
4,552
Tokens
UM:
Where did I call you or any one a sheep?
I supported the war in Iraq/Kuwait in '91 and still think it was the right thing to do. I opposed this one from the beginning and still think it is a disaster and the wrong thing to do as I thought 1 year ago. I wish I was wrong on this one but events are proving me right. The first Bush was correct in leaving a weakened Hussein in power as he, properly weakened offensively, kept the religiously fanatical terroists out of Iraq as he was an enemy of Bin Laden and the other crazies.
And don't tell me getting rid of Sadam was worth it because 'He is a SOB... yada yada yada". For an effective foreign policy and the security of the USA we have often had to rightly align ourselves with some 'SOBs' and refrain from attacking other 'SOBS'. The quintessential example: Allied with Stalin for 4 years aginst Hitler because Hitler was the greater threat at the time. The world is full of 'SOBS', the trick is to have as many on your side in order to de-fang the more dangerous ones on the other side. That is what is so stupid about W's Us against the world view of war. Did he (or those that control him) actually think we have won any major war without significant contributions from major allies? I guess it worked that way in Texas politics so Rove and company think they can bully everybody in the world the same way. Maybe they figure, as usual. its not their blood any way.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Messages
886
Tokens
We already used that SOB .....remember getting him to help get to the Iranian SOB's .......his time was up. Bush simply asked the world ....are you with us or against us. I am glad he is looking out for our interest first and foremost. Thank God ...some of you cream-puffs are not in charge.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
4,552
Tokens
Right. Just line up and fight with 80% of the world against you when there are reasonable options. Worked well for Germany and Japan in WWII, Napoleon, countless others.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but please tell me what interests it served us? I could think of many governments far more dangerous to us than Saddam's. He was simply bankrupting his own people with his personal fantasies of greatness. His one foray into disturbing the local peace was quickly backed off and everyone had to highly doubt he would try that again and take the risk of putting his head out there on the line again. He was a horrible and despicable man and Iraq is better without him, but I just personally wonder when all these defenders of Bush tell me how he stands up for our interests just what interests were involved there?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,947
Messages
13,575,516
Members
100,887
Latest member
yalkastazi
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com