Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Section: George Bush


Recommended Posts

Simkin, you're a disgrace. The fact that you're allowed anywhere near a classroom is terrifying. You're not an "educator" of any kind; you're a left-wing radical socialist who long ago dispensed with any of notion of fairness or objectivity. Your hate-fueled anti-Americanism has reached OCD levels. There are 193 countries in the world, but you're fixated on just one. Incredibly, every negative event in the last 75 years has somehow been traced back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. America can never be a victim; only an aggressor. The stupefying, murderous crimes of the Communist world and the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism elicit nary a mention. Why worry about Bin Laden when you can rehash a bogeyman like Joe McCarthy for the umpteenth time, right? Why despair about the lack of civil liberties and human rights in the Arab world when you can kick around a dead horse like Watergate, right? Why scrutinize the anti-democratic and corrupt reigns of Castro, Assad, Putin and the Palestinian Authority when you can ascribe crazy, sinister motivations to an innocent collegiate group like YAF? Why recognize a demonstrably guilty man like Lee Harvey Oswald when you can make all sorts of reckless, fact-free accusations instead. You don't know a goddamn thing about this country, other than you wish it and its leaders ill will. Bush isn't dangerous; you're dangerous. Men like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and Joe Kennedy were wrong in the early 1940s and you're just as clueless today. I believe the Soviets coined a term for Western apologists seduced by tyrannical regimes: "useful idiots." Try making yourself a little less "useful" to democracy's enemies before entering your twilight years.

235-253-20060714RZ1AP-FairFight.jpg

John Dean derides 'imperial presidency'

July 27, 2006

MICHAEL R. BLOOD

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - John Dean, the White House lawyer who famously helped blow the whistle on the Watergate scandal that drove Richard Nixon from office, says the country has returned to an "imperial presidency" that is putting the United States and the world at risk.

In his new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience," Dean looks at Republican-controlled Washington and sees a bullying, manipulative, prejudiced leadership edging the nation toward a dark era.

"Are we on the road to fascism?" he writes. "Clearly, we are not on that road yet. But it would not take much more misguided authoritarian leadership, or thoughtless following of such leaders, to find ourselves there.

"I am not sure which is more frightening," he adds, "another major terror attack or the response of authoritarian conservatives to that attack."

Dean, who served 127 days in prison for his part in the Nixon administration's Watergate cover-up, recently talked to The Associated Press about the ascendancy of the conservative right and the two-fisted style of political leadership he says was central to its rise.

"We have returned to the imperial presidency," he said. "We have an unchecked presidency."

More than three decades ago, the 67-year-old Dean was a young White House lawyer when he warned President Richard M. Nixon that the cover-up of a break-in at Democratic national headquarters in Washington's Watergate complex was "a cancer growing on the presidency."

Dean, who later pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice, went on to become the star witness at the congressional Watergate hearings, implicating several high-ranking administration officials.

His book is anchored to a discussion of authoritarianism, a school of thought that, in the simplest terms, tries to explain why some people lead and others follow. The classic authoritarian personality - mostly found in men - thirsts for power, is exploitive, cheats to win, opposes equality, intimidates and is mean-spirited.

This headstrong leadership style marks the current Republican right in varying degrees, he says, starting with President Bush and moving on down through the leadership ranks. The Bush White House, Dean says, has "given authoritarianism a new legitimacy," the same legitimacy he says it enjoyed before Nixon's presidency unraveled.

Authoritarian thinking, Dean writes, "was the principal force behind almost everything that went wrong with Nixon's presidency."

For anyone familiar with Dean's writing, the sharp stabs at the Bush administration will come as no surprise. His latest book is a sequel of sorts to his 2004 best seller, "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush."

Dean's current book has been steadily climbing best-seller lists, with publisher Viking ordering a second run for a total of 180,000 copies.

Booksellers pointed to Dean's prominence and his engaging writing style for the book's success despite a flood of political commentaries in recent years.

"Books like this one, whether they be on one side or the other, there is a lot of interest from consumers," said Bill Nasshan, senior vice president of books for Borders Group, Inc.

Booksellers also are not concerned about oversaturation in the current events section.

"

We expect a lot more of these books to be published. With the coming midterm election, the country is more divided than it's ever been," said Bob Wietrak, vice president of merchandising at Barnes & Noble Inc.

In "Conservatives Without Conscience," Dean pays Bush a backhanded compliment, saying that while the president is "not a puppet" it is Vice President Dick Cheney who is the White House's dominant authoritarian.

"

Cheney has swallowed the presidency," Dean says.

While his journey from Nixon White House insider to Bush administration antagonist has evolved over the years, Dean told the AP that his politics haven't changed drastically during that time. He still sees himself as a defender of the conservative values championed by the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Republican icon to whom his latest book is dedicated.

But Dean says his version of Republicanism doesn't square with the authoritarians who have dominated his former party in recent years, from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to White House strategist Karl Rove.

He sees them drifting from traditional conservative values, citing, among other examples, deficit spending and the federal budget debt.

"My views have changed very little over the last 40 years," Dean said. "The Republican Party and conservatism have moved so far to the right that I'm now left of center.

"This country works best as a centrist nation. I think, basically, the electorate is centrist. You have the debate being set by the extremes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi-larious. Once upon a time, the Left hated this four-eyed wimp like poison (except when he was ratting out his boss). Now he's a media darling. Since when did Dean become an authority on the conservative movement? Come to think of it, what has this man done with his life since leaving the White House in disgrace more than 30 years ago? Perhaps his long-lost brother is Howard Dean, another authority on civil discourse. Sorry, but Dean's moment in the spotlight, not unlike disco, is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi-larious. Once upon a time, the Left hated this four-eyed wimp like poison (except when he was ratting out his boss). Now he's a media darling. Since when did Dean become an authority on the conservative movement? Come to think of it, what has this man done with his life since leaving the White House in disgrace more than 30 years ago? Perhaps his long-lost brother is Howard Dean, another authority on civil discourse. Sorry, but Dean's moment in the spotlight, not unlike disco, is dead.

Times change the Right used to hate the likes of David Horowitz and Irving Kristol. As he himself said America esp. the Republican Party has moved so far right he’s now left of center, as I noted elsewhere EVEN Goldwater complained about the GOP’s rightward lurch.

If he left the White House in disgrace then what about the likes of Tricky Dick Nixon, Mitchell and the rest. How qualified is he to write about Conservatives? I’d say about a thousand times more qualified that Ann “the plagiarist” “strawman fighter” Coulter but that doesn’t stop her from spewing ignorant invective which is lapped up by Pavlovic right-wingers.

I noticed you didn’t address Cheney’s comments that the US military wouldn’t face much resistance and be welcome to Iraq as liberators. Nor have you explained how the invasion has made the world as a whole and the US particular safer.

All I’ve seen you capable of doing here is toss out insults, how ironic that you speak sarcastically about the quality of someone else's civil discourse. I suggest you take a look at the posts of Tim Gratz, he is one of your ideological brethren but was far more civil and is obviously far more intelligent than you.

Len

Sorry, but Dean's moment in the spotlight, not unlike disco, is dead.

Sure you're not referring to the world's favorite nitwit, George Dubya Bush?

Unfortunately not, not only does his clique command almost complete political control of the US but he has a loyal lap dog across the pond at 10 Downing St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed you didn’t address Cheney’s comments that the US military wouldn’t face much resistance and be welcome to Iraq as liberators. Nor have you explained how the invasion has made the world as a whole and the US particular safer.

Lenny, you took eight days to reply to a post I left on July 18th. You think I'm under any obligation to answer you at all, esp in a timely manner? Get real. You also ducked a thread where I asked you to name the wars you served in that you supported. So there you sit in Brazil, all safe and sound, taking potshots at US foreign policy. What a hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lenny, you took eight days to reply to a post I left on July 18th.

Boo Hooo poor Brendan, how dare he ignore you for eight whole days. You should tell your Mammy.

That was the least of his sins. He blew off my queries, then had the audacity to ask why I didn't address his pet concerns. Hypocrisy, thy name is Len.

BTW, where's your pic, Ray. You're bucking for a suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lenny, you took eight days to reply to a post I left on July 18th.

Boo Hooo poor Brendan, how dare he ignore you for eight whole days. You should tell your Mammy.

That was the least of his sins. He blew off my queries, then had the audacity to ask why I didn't address his pet concerns. Hypocrisy, thy name is Len

Yeah I guess I’m a sinner

Sinners by F. Aldrich

Well, I tell you sinners, sinners

You're gonna go down there, down there

Yeah, you better be right

Sinner, you better be right

If you ain't right, you're goin' down there

You'll end up in the devil's pot of fire

Yeah, you'll end up in the devil's pot of fire

Yeah, you better be right

You'll see the devil, he'll be laughin'

You'll see sinners, they'll be cryin'

Yeah, you better be right

Sinner, you better be right, you better be right

If you ain't right, you're goin' down there

You'll end up in the devil's pot of fire

Yeah, you'll end up in the devil's pot of fire

Yeah, you better be right

You'll see the devil, he'll be laughin'

He'll see sinners, there'll be cryin'

Yeah, you better be right

Sinner, you better be right, you better be right

The difference is that I didn’t visit that thread for several days, I noticed you often skip the thornier questions and prefer to reply to points were you can come up with some “smart” assed remark. As I said have a look at Gratz’s posts. I normally didn’t agree with what he had to say but at least he was civil and articulate.

Also the point wasn’t one of “my” “pet concerns” YOU asked to be shown where Bush ever said Iraq would be Disneyland and I posted a quote from Cheney more or less saying that. Nor did I demand that you reply, I merely commented on the fact that you hadn't replied, you still haven't, stop beatin' round the W!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Title of this thread, New section:George Bush. Why do we need a new section, when an old one would suit our purpose?

MENTAL HEALTH ACT ENGLAND AND WALES, 1959 (REVISED 1985, 1996)

SECTION 35, PART 1 COMPULSORY ADMISSION TO HOSPITAL GUARDIANSHIP. PART 3 PATIENTS CONCERNED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, OR UNDER SENTENCE. REMAND TO HOSPITAL FOR REPORT ON ACCUSED'S MENTAL CONDITION.

SUBJECT TO SUB-SECTION 4 THE POWERS CONFERED BY THIS SECTION MAY BE EXERCISED IF...

(i) The court is satisfied on the written, or oral evidence of a Doctor that there is reason to suspect that the accused person is suffering from, mental illnes,Psychopathic disorder, or mental impairment. and..

(ii) The court is of the opinion that it would be impracticable for a report on his mental condition to be made if he were remanded on bail.

(iii) He ought to be detained in the interests of his own health, and safety or, With a view to the protection of others.

Think that just about covers it. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the same Meet the Press interview cited on the previous page:

MR. RUSSERT: The army's top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we've deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/...eetthepress.htm

US boosts Iraq troop levels amid Baghdad violence

Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:32pm ET

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday ordered about 3,500 U.S. troops in Iraq to stay up to four months past their scheduled departure, boosting U.S. forces in an attempt to curb unrelenting violence in Baghdad.

The move, involving the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Fort Wainwright in Alaska, is the latest sign that any significant reduction in the size of the 130,000-strong U.S. force in Iraq is unlikely soon.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....-USA-TROOPS.xml

Troop Buildup in Baghdad Puts Withdrawals in Doubt

By Peter Spiegel and Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer

6:13 PM PDT, July 27, 2006

Washington -- President Bush's decision to increase the number of U.S. troops in violence-plagued Baghdad, Iraq, has forced commanders to extend the tours of 3,500 soldiers and appears to eliminate prospects for significant withdrawals of U.S. forces this year.

Just a month ago, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. George S. Casey, came to Washington and presented a scenario to Bush in which the number of combat brigades in Iraq could be reduced from 14 to 12 by September. Another two brigades would have been removed by the end of the year. A typical brigade includes 3,500 soldiers.

Now, even Defense Department officials who talked of reductions are discounting the prospects of near-term cuts.

"Something has to give," said one Defense official, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of deployment plans. "Either we keep everyone in place, or the security plan is not happening."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines

Shortage of troops in Iraq a `grim warning'

By Tom Lasseter

McClatchy Newspapers (San Jose) Mercury News

Posted on Thu, Jul. 27, 2006

Many U.S. officials in Baghdad and in Washington privately concede the point. They say they've been forced to shuffle American units from one part of the country to another for at least two years because there haven't been enough soldiers and Marines to deal simultaneously with Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shiite militias; train Iraqi forces; and secure roads, power lines, border crossings and ammunition dumps.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ld/15138504.htm

I guess if one wanted to split hairs they could say Cheney was right because 130,000 is not quite "several hindered thousand" but it's close enough and in the same interview he indicated many of the troops would be involved in humanitarian work. The question of troop levels in Iraq continued and the veep said "There's no question but what we'll have to have a presence there for a period of time. It is difficult now to specify how long. We will clearly want to take on responsibilities in addition to conducting military operations and eliminating Saddam Hussein's regime. We need to be prepared to provide humanitarian assistance, medical care, food, all of those other things that are required to have Iraq up and running again."

At no point during the interview is there any indication he though the US would face any important military challenges after the fall of Baghdad or be troubled by insurgents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the signs of a civilized society is the way we help the most vulnerable in society. This includes the birth of children. A recent report points out that the current US infant mortality is 6.4. This makes it the 42nd best in the world. The average baby has more chance of surviving in Havana or Beijing than in America. The reason for this that a significant proportion of the American public cannot afford adequate healthcare. What a condemnation of the so-called private enterprise system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you in Europe or most anywhere would be surprised of how many Americans must weigh very carefully between the decision, for example, going to the doctor and having some troubling symptom checked, and buying the next tank of gas or bag of food...often with the medical help put on hold. For those with chronic or serious medical conditions and without health insurance, the longterm results are all too often the same as in impoverished third world nations. The USA has the best healthcare available - IF one can afford it. All attempts thus far to get universal health care or insurance have been yelled-down as 'socialism' - anathema in America. Its every person for themselves and may the richest win.

Most educated people in Europe are aware of this problem. Whenever there are threats of cutting back on the NHS people always refer to the situation in the US.

One of the problems seems to be unaware of the health system in other developed countries. This is a partly due to the propaganda that the US media puts out. To a certain extent this is true of other countries. However, a higher proportion of the population travel outside their own borders and can see for themselves the lies they are told about other countries. Only a small proportion of Americans leave their country. In fact, the vast majority do not own a passport. One survey showed that 18% of Americans own passports and bother to travel outside of the US. (85% of US soldiers in Iraq believe that they are there to get revenge for 9/11.) According to another article in the Economist it was a high as 34% but a high proportion of these were immigrants who had obtained citizenship.

This lack of travel is partly a reflection on the low standard of living in America. The rich do travel but they have selfish reasons for being opposed to the welfare state. There is no doubt that the lack of travel is one of the main reasons for the distorted political views held in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...