George W. Bush: Mission Creep. Heh.

The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia!

(from The Princess Bride)

This was, is and always will be the mission.

Bush/Cheney et al will not leave until the Iraqis agree to give 70% of their oil to big American oil companies and they have finished and secured the 13+ air bases as well as the Taj Mahal Embassy (the largest in the world at taxpayers expense.) After all, private contractors, need housing and bases so they can develop the oil fields and steal the oil. The U.S. has already managed to get a pipeline through Afghanistan. Next they will invade Iran and try to confiscate it’s oil. JH

That’s what the whole Cheney (and his puppet president) regime has been about: legally seizing untold trillions of public dollars for their private bank accounts.

Bush mission: Mission of God to screw the Middle East and anybody who oppose me, including the American people. (Still trying…)

We have to call our various enemies something, that is the only way to differentiate between them (besides pointing). How about “Insane Muslim Killers”?

As an over-fifty independent-type it seems pretty obvious that in Iraq the oil’s always been the thing. Also seems obvious that, consistant with the massive lexicon of Bush malaprops and misstatements, “I’m the decider,” can be dismissed along with WMD and yellowcake.

Our C student (and proud of it) president has never displayed the intellectual capacity to make an informed decision much more complex than whether it’ll be lime Jello or fudgesicles for dessert. I don’t say this just to be desrespectful; I have to believe even most Republicans don’t believe our president is real bright.

So for those who want their democracy back, Cheney has to be impeached first. Though I wouldn’t have believed a year ago, this could happen, it just migh: see Moyer’s 7/13 PBS Impeachment offering.

Anyway, just a passing-through thought. And jeez, that O.bigmouth guy (oh, you just know it’s a male with short-man syndrome), what an ass.

..

They have NEVER intended to bring our troops home… EVER.

Bush is brilliant. He is the evil villian.

He’s just on a different agenda than the rest of us.

Fundamental muslims are not marxists in their economic practices either. They are quite good businessmen and have often lead thriving markets, so long as the businesses are run on islamic principles, for example, not charging interest which is seen as usury.

They are not anti-capitalist. This is oversimplification, but look at Iran today. Generally, a theocracy on the national level, much of their local decisions are made by an elected parliament. They have a thriving private enterprise, good education (although women’s education is now in danger and women teachers are being weeded out.) They have a significantly western approach to many things, but not to the fundamental principles of Islam as described in the Qu’ran.

Our enemies in the middle east are not islamo-fascists either. While fascism as several elements in common, e.g. the rigid enforcement of social rules, they are more correctly labeled as fundamental islamic theocracies.

Politicians of both stripes often resort to labeling things in order to gain support for or against; thus, the estate tax becomes the death tax, or the Paris Hilton tax, depending upon your political party.

Nevertheless, this is wrong. Calling our enemies islamo-marxists does not help us to understand or defeat them.

Comment by O. BigMouth — July 14, 2007 @ 3:55 pm

Maturity ay?

Ok.

I’ll start with your mom.

Not really a surprise. Whenever someone responds by telling someone that they just don’t understand and that they should read a few books, without supplying a shred of information, that’s a sure sign that they are either trolling or don’t know what they are talking about or both.

All you have to do is look at his refusal to actually address the Madison quote that Bartlebee supplied. In countries like ours, tyranny doesn’t show up in overnight coups, it shows up with a gradual loss of oversight and rights. All too many tyrants began as duly elected leaders, something that is likely to be true of us if that scenario should ever take place here.

The Bush administration has used the “war on terror” for political gain from the very beginning and continues to use it so to this very day, claiming that those who oppose the administration on even trivial matters are “weak on defense,” “aiding and abetting our enemies,” “weakening our troops and our cause,” “emboldening those who would harm us,” and the like. They have fostered an attitude of fear in the population at large from the very beginning and continue to do so to this day.

They have used national security as a weapon to prevent any oversight into their actions and deliberations, even when there was very good reason to believe that their actions were unlawful and/or unconstitutional. They used that same weapon to deny the right of habeas corpus even to American citizens.

They continue to block Congressional and judicial oversight into any and all matters, even going so far as to assert executive privilege for matters in which the president wasn’t even involved (e.g., the Tillman investigation). The latter is quite literally something that no other administration has ever done.

If American does descend into tyranny, the first steps of that tyranny will be precisely what see today — a complete lack of oversight, redefining the powers of the presidency well beyond what the Founding Fathers intended, and constantly flogging an enemy and a war in order to keep themselves in power.

In short, the quote was apt. Not because the United States is presently a tyranny, but because the first steps have been taken down that road. Those steps would never have been possible without the never-ending “war on terror;” Madison had it exactly right.

Our presence in Iraq is seen as an occupation. We are seen as invaders. Cheney was wrong when he said we would be greeted as liberators. The insurgency was not in its last throes. After more than 4 years the Iraqis are still not motivated to fight their civil war. How long are our troops supposed to fight someone else’s civil war? Going into Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. There are more terrorists in Iraq today because of our invasion. We are less safe because of it.

i don’t see that listed.

i’d be interested to hear mr.bigfoot elaborate on that “factoid” above…
with sources and/or links, of course…
…Comment by katy — July 14, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
… are you? [up to that task] … and keep it civil too, of course…
can you?
…Comment by katy — July 14, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

guess not…

Rove takes questions on Iraq, CIA case
Brent Gardner-Smith – Aspen Daily News Staff WriteSun 07/08/2007
09:01PM MST

Aspen Institute CEO Walter Isaacson interviewed Rove at the morning session of the Ideas Festival and asked him if the Bush administration would redefine the mission in Iraq. “Yes, we will be redefining the mission because the goal of the surge was to get us to a place where we could redefine the mission,” said Rove.

BTW: if the troops were getting trained to defend themselves (one of the bigger piles in the load), who are they training to protect themselves from?? Don’t spend allot of time on that.That is a big if.And the when is even more iffy.
But they still follow the repeat after me and print this waste of words.
Speaking of the environment: should be an epa violation to use so much paper to print unusable “news”.Using trees to distribute known lies is ………well,go back to the top of this