Moonlight Graham Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Was watching tv last night, and came on this interview with Bush on ABC's Nightline about his faith. This quote is just priceless: “No, I'm not sure he's (the leader of the Taliban) praying to a God. I think anybody who murders innocent people to achieve their objective is not a religious person. They may think they’re religious and they may play like they’re religious. But I don’t think they are religious. They’re not praying to the God I pray to, the God of peace and love. And that’s one of the great ironies about this. You know, we’re in a so-called religious war. I don’t view this as a war of religion. I view this as a war of good, decent people of all faiths against people who murder innocent people to achieve a political objective.” Unbelievable (well, maybe not). The transcript. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
M.Dancer Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 You've lost me....what is unbelievable? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Moonlight Graham Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Posted December 10, 2008 You've lost me....what is unbelievable? The absolute hypocrisy. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
M.Dancer Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 The absolute hypocrisy. I don't see it. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 The absolute hypocrisy. There is no hypocrisy..."murder" is a very specific idea....legally and "morally". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) I also don't see the issue of his statement. Seems pretty accurate to me. Maybe it's one of those deals where if you play it backwards, like an old Beatles record (so I've been told), it reveals some hidden message that's horrible and terrifying. Edited December 10, 2008 by Shady Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 What we got here are three monkeys, See no Evil, Hear no Evil and Speak no Evil Quote
Shady Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 What we got here are three monkeys,See no Evil, Hear no Evil and Speak no Evil Please, by all means, translate the unbelievableness of his statement. For us poor pathetic serfs. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 ...Maybe it's one of those deals where if you play it backwards, like an old Beatles record (so I've been told), it reveals some hidden message that's horrible and terrifying. "Paul is Dead".....perfect! Was he murdered? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Sir Bandelot Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Please, by all means, translate the unbelievableness of his statement. For us poor pathetic serfs. Ok Dr. Zeis, since you asked for it- ook akk eek, Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Sorry I don't speak monkey too well! Bwahaha! Quote
moderateamericain Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I think what are dear friends are saying, in their perceived cheeky and cool way, is that bush is a hypocrite because he claims to be christian. The comparison they are making is that Bush is Religious when he wants to be and yet goes to war the same as Osama Bin Laden. Now whether or not that is a valid argument is up to you to decide. Quote
M.Dancer Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 I think what are dear friends are saying, in their perceived cheeky and cool way, is that bush is a hypocrite because he claims to be christian. The comparison they are making is that Bush is Religious when he wants to be and yet goes to war the same as Osama Bin Laden. Now whether or not that is a valid argument is up to you to decide. Yet he hasn't hacked off the heads of any journalists simply for being muslim....or planted bombs in schools simply to sow terror.... I see no parrellal between Bush and Bin Laden. Nor do I see the was o terror as being a christain/muslim conflict. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ReeferMadness Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Yet he hasn't hacked off the heads of any journalists simply for being muslim....or planted bombs in schools simply to sow terror....I see no parrellal between Bush and Bin Laden. Nor do I see the was o terror as being a christain/muslim conflict. Well, he did order the invasion and destruction of an entire country to get rid of WMD - no, wait, it was because they were harbouring al quaeda -hang on, it was to get rid of a vicious dictator that was supported by his father and Ronald Reagan Whatever he did, at least he didn't do anything as bad as bin Laden. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
blueblood Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Well, he did order the invasion and destruction of an entire country to get rid of WMD - no, wait, it was because they were harbouring al quaeda -hang on, it was to get rid of a vicious dictator that was supported by his father and Ronald Reagan Whatever he did, at least he didn't do anything as bad as bin Laden. Yes giving freedoms to an enslaved people is so evil Those darn iraqi's able to live in freedom and Afghan girls able to go to school. GW bush must be such a murderous bastard Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
LesterDC Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Well, he did order the invasion and destruction of an entire country to get rid of WMD - no, wait, it was because they were harbouring al quaeda -hang on, it was to get rid of a vicious dictator that was supported by his father and Ronald Reagan Whatever he did, at least he didn't do anything as bad as bin Laden. While I found your post most amusing (no sarcasm there), I do not believe that we have to wait for a country to obtain WMD's before we should take action. Mind you, this does not mean that my philosophy indefinitely converges with Bush policies. As much as you want to justify it, lying to the population is just always the easiest way out. Anyhow, the dilemma stands as this: should we put our country's reputation at stake for intervening or should we sit back and see what the international repercussions will be if we do not act. Surely we don't want Iraq to be marching off to Kuwait again.. Especially if they successfully got their hands on some actual WMD's.. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 ....Surely we don't want Iraq to be marching off to Kuwait again.. Especially if they successfully got their hands on some actual WMD's.. It's not even that complicated.....shall we indict PM Chretien as a murderer and war criminal for Canada's bombing of Serbia? Is he a "hypocrite" for ignoring the UN and Parliament? If anyone wishes to point the finger at Bush, they will find him last in a long line before him. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
LesterDC Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 It's not even that complicated.....shall we indict PM Chretien as a murderer and war criminal for Canada's bombing of Serbia? Is he a "hypocrite" for ignoring the UN and Parliament?If anyone wishes to point the finger at Bush, they will find him last in a long line before him. I'm sorry, but we have been through this before. At least Chretien acted on a NATO notion. Heck, if you don't even want to give him that, at least Chretien didn't turn around and tell his citizens that Serbia had WMD's and was harbouring terrorists.. Like I said, I have no problem with "peacekeeping" and perhaps preemptive attacks against extremely potential aggressors. But you know what? If Bush was truly sincere about it, why did he have to lie about it? Quote
LesterDC Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 If anyone wishes to point the finger at Bush, they will find him last in a long line before him. yes there is Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) I'm sorry, but we have been through this before. At least Chretien acted on a NATO notion. Heck, if you don't even want to give him that, at least Chretien didn't turn around and tell his citizens that Serbia had WMD's and was harbouring terrorists.. No...Chretien, Clinton, Blair, Schroeder, and Chirac used a different bullshit story about "human rights" abuses and genocide. Seems that Canucks will bomb their grandmothers for that. As for NATO, so what? Does NATO have free license to "murder"? Like I said, I have no problem with "peacekeeping" and perhaps preemptive attacks against extremely potential aggressors. But you know what? If Bush was truly sincere about it, why did he have to lie about it? Because he wanted to. Just as Peacekilling is utter pap for the Canadian masses....General Hillier pointed that out many times. Edited December 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
LesterDC Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 No...Chretien, Clinton, Blair, Schroeder, and Chirac used a different bullshit story about "human rights" abuses and genocide. Seems that Canucks will bomb their grandmothers for that. As for NATO, so what? Does NATO have free license to "murder"?Because he wanted to. Just as Peacekilling is utter pap for the Canadian masses....General Hillier pointed that out many times. Well no, NATO does not have a license to murder and it is not a perfect organization. However, at least it gives the decision more validity. At least Chretien's motives were rooted within the international community. On the other hand, only god knew what Bush's motives were.. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; if you do not believe in peacekeeping, then that is your opinion. As for me, I do believe in the "R2P" (Responsibility to Protect) concept and its implications. Are we doing a very good job at it? Maybe, maybe not. On the most part, I would like to think that we could be doing a lot worse. Anyhow, when you see the situation in Darfur, can you really say that "peacekeeping" is just "utter pap" for the masses? Quote
LesterDC Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) Well no, NATO does not have a license to murder and it is not a perfect organization. However, at least it gives the decision more validity. At least Chretien's motives were rooted within the international community. On the other hand, only god knew what Bush's motives were.. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; if you do not believe in peacekeeping, then that is your opinion. As for me, I do believe in the "R2P" (Responsibility to Protect) concept and its implications. Are we doing a very good job at it? Maybe, maybe not. On the most part, I would like to think that we could be doing a lot worse. Anyhow, when you see the situation in Darfur, can you really say that "peacekeeping" is just "utter pap" for the masses? Oh and by the way, the 1999 bombing was not out of the blue. The Yugoslavian conflict had** already been going on for about 8 years before the action.. Edited December 10, 2008 by LesterDC Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Well no, NATO does not have a license to murder and it is not a perfect organization. However, at least it gives the decision more validity. At least Chretien's motives were rooted within the international community. On the other hand, only god knew what Bush's motives were.. Again...more rationalizations. You can't have it both ways when it comes to an outcome that includes killing people. The US did not invade Iraq by itself, and the legal foundation is found in UN resolutions going back to the Gulf War. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; if you do not believe in peacekeeping, then that is your opinion. As for me, I do believe in the "R2P" (Responsibility to Protect) concept and its implications. What's makes a R2P any more righteous if the outcomes are similar? I understand that some people need such a veneer of legitimacy, and shun any information that would spoil the game. Are we doing a very good job at it? Maybe, maybe not. On the most part, I would like to think that we could be doing a lot worse. Anyhow, when you see the situation in Darfur, can you really say that "peacekeeping" is just "utter pap" for the masses? Is Canada in Darfur? Is it waiting for the "international community" to do something, like Rwanda? Good luck with that. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 Oh and by the way, the 1999 bombing was not out of the blue. The Yugoslavian conflict had** already been going on for about 8 years before the action.. As was Iraq....see: Gulf War I No Fly Zones Desert Fox UN Weapons Inspections UN Sanctions Kurds Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
LesterDC Posted December 10, 2008 Report Posted December 10, 2008 As was Iraq....see:Gulf War I No Fly Zones Desert Fox UN Weapons Inspections UN Sanctions Kurds The Gulf War had nothing to do with harbouring terrorists and WMD's.. Like I said, why couldn't Bush tell the truth? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.