Jump to content

Bush: "Brown skinned" people deserve freedom too!


Seveneighty

Recommended Posts

Take up the White Man's burden--

Send forth the best ye breed--

Go, bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need;

To wait, in heavy harness,

On fluttered folk and wild--

Your new-caught sullen peoples,

Half devil and half child

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Bush looked terrible during his PressOp. That, in and of itself, is not news. But his inability to roll with the punches was apparent as soon as the Q and A started. He got defensive, he got flustered and, at points, looked angry. He also kept hitting the same five or so key messages, regardless of what teh questions were. Worst of all, he appeared arrogant and dismissive. If last night was a test, Bush came might close to failing (but what do you expect from a lifelong C student?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard part of the Q & A on the radio and thought Bush did well - I mean I thought he answered questions the way a majority of Americans want their president to speak and answer questions.

He clearly wants to get back to the middle of the American road. I think the press conference placed him well.

I also thought that the stakes are so much higher in US politics. It is very hard to dance around as Ouellete did. The US journalists wouldn't accept the nonsense our MPs accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Among my favourite lines from Bush's press conference last night (13 apr 04): *Much sarcasm to follow*

"America's commitment to freedom in Iraq is consistent with our ideals and required by our interests."

"Secretary of State Rumsfeld" - Isn't he Secretary of Defense, I'm not 100% sure how titles work in the U.S., maybe all 'secretaries' can be called secretary of state as a collective? Or does Bush not know his own administration? Although, in his defense, I suppose a U.S. president is required to know 1000's of names at an instant. This is a small thing compared to what comes...

"As we've made clear all along, our commitment to the success and security of Iraq will not end on June 30th. On July 1st and beyond, our reconstruction assistance will continue and our military commitment will continue."..."In terms of how long we'll be there, as long as necessary, and not one day more."

"[part of the first question]...And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

BUSH: I think the analogy is false."- Is there a reason why he thinks this? Of course "because the end result is in our nation's interest."

"And as to whether or not I made decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way." - I've heard Canadian leaders say this as well, but it is all blurred with a slap in the face.

"I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something for the sake of security in the world." - Impressive...discrediting the U.N. Fair enough right? Of course, in the past, and I'm sure in the future, there will be quotes that the U.S. is incredibly proud to be a member of the U.N., a strong international community, etc..etc..etc...

"The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm." - But...Its not a real resolution because it came from the U.N. Security Council, therefore it was not done for the sake of security in the world. One minute discrediting the U.N., the next, trying desperatly to use them in just another invented justification for war.

"And what else was part the question? Oh, oil revenues. Well, the oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant." - He seemed relatively upbeat (have to watch his body language at the time).

"It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country."- And the U.S. chooses who gets the reconstruction contracts. I doubt it balances the trillions of tax dollars spent on the war, but just another way of laundering such revenue into the pockets of the select few.

"I didn't see — I mean, I didn't have that great sense of outrage that I felt on September the 11th. I was — on that day, I was angry and sad. Angry that al-Qaida — I thought at the time al-Qaida, found out shortly thereafter it was al-Qaida — had unleashed this attack. Sad for those who lost their life." - 'Nice save' is probably an appropriate thing to say. Again, its just the way he said it.

"I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with family members, and I do quite frequently. I grieve for, you know, the incredible loss of life that they feel, the emptiness they feel." - Anyone else notice how many times he says, "You know"...This phrase is usually used when you are relying on the assumptions of the listener to know what you mean. But he has nothing to worry about because most people assume the good, applaud the words, regardless of the acts of a person. Take away that assumption (not replace it with an assumption of evil), and what is left? Empty words; no substance at all. And enough people will hang off every word of it.

"[part of a question]...you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism, and do you believe that there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?

BUSH: Well, I think, as I mentioned, you know, the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war." - What does the country have to do with anything. Firstly, the question was directed to Bush personally, so it seems he copped out, as is the case in several other questions. Secondly, he doesn't care about the country as he doesn't base decisions on polls.

"He [Charlie Duelfer] also confirmed that Saddam had the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. And he had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations."..."And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet." - Did he just admit defeat in yet another attempt to justify the war? He seems to admit those long-range missiles are not the weapons he was looking for, but tries to use their discovery as evidence to justify the war.

"I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly asking him does he have what he needs, whether it be in troop strength or in equipment. He and General Sanchez talk all the time. And if he makes the recommendation, he'll get it."..."The American people need to know my last choice is the use of military power. It is something that — it's a decision that is a tough decision to make for any president, because I fully understand the consequences of the decision."

"Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is not the war on terror; it is a theater in the war on terror."

"I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

"...the MI5. And I heard a summary of that from Director Mueller, who feels strongly that we — and he'll testify to that effect, I guess tomorrow. I shouldn't be prejudging his testimony."

"I hope today you've got a sense of my conviction about what we're doing. If you don't, maybe I need to learn to communicate better." - Sheer arrogance in such an acknowledgement of this fault - again feeding off the positive assumptions of the general public.

Now, not everything is wrong with Bush's speech. Just the majority of it. But evidently, majorities no longer matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oic, I read your analysis, and I realized that you don't like Bush. Fine. Whatever he would have said, you still wouldn't have liked him. Fine too. No doubt there are many Americans who think like you do. Fine again.

BUT HE WAS NOT SPEAKING TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

He was speaking to Republicans and MOR Americans. What Nixon called the Silent Majority. There are not many such people in San Francisco or Boston.

Bush Jnr is barely more articulate than his father and miles below Kennedy.

Voters in Quebec put great importance on the fluency of their political leaders. That is not the case in the US, nor even in English Canada. So what?

I'm not an American but I got his point. And more important, I got too that he was serious about what he was saying.

Did you get that oic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

August1991,

I want to earnestly believe you. I really do. But I am unable to due to my own analysis. Surely, you can help me out. And in this post, I am not being sarcastic at all. Please provide content vs. content arguments that defeat the U.S. is bad sentiment you claim I suffer from. If you didn't notice, I used Bush's own quotes to show contradictions he made in a single speech. How do you respond to what I have previously pointed out. So far, it seems you are merely on the defensive with your U.S. is good sentiment.

btw...I have no personal feelings towards Bush. I am just shocked at everything that is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT HE WAS NOT SPEAKING TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

He was speaking to Republicans and MOR Americans. What Nixon called the Silent Majority. There are not many such people in San Francisco or Boston.

Then why did he start with "my fellow Americans" instead of "my fellow Republicans" or something?

Anyway, Bush had a chance to clearly articulate his Iraq policy and make his case. He failed.

Blumenthal on Bush.

As the iconic image of the "war president" has tattered, another picture has emerged. Bush appears as a passive manager who enjoys sitting atop a hierarchical structure, unwilling and unable to do the hard work a real manager has to do to run the largest enterprise in the world. He does not seem to absorb data unless it is presented to him in simple, clear fashion by people whose judgment he trusts. He is receptive to information that agrees with his point of view rather than information that challenges it. This leads to enormous power on the part of the trusted interlocutors, who know and bolster his predilections.

At his press conference, Bush was a confusion of absolute confidence and panic. He jumbled facts and conflated threats, redoubling the vehemence of his incoherence at every mildly sceptical question. He attempted to create a false political dichotomy between "retreat" and his own vague and evolving position on Iraq, which now appears to follow senator John Kerry's, of granting more authority to the UN and bringing in Nato.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, Bush had a chance to clearly articulate his Iraq policy and make his case. He failed.

Bush failed to make his case to you, BD. (And frankly, I would have been extremely surprised if Bush managed to convince you of anything.)

On the other hand, I think he managed to convince a majority of his fellow voting citizens. We will find out in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I think he managed to convince a majority of his fellow voting citizens. We will find out in November.

I doubt Bush's performance would have brought anyone who was on the fence ove rto his side. It's not like he offered up anything new or substansial. But I wopuldn't be surprised if his arrogance, his unwillingness to accept responsibility for 9-11 and for the debacle in Iraq will drive some away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, he is briefed by people who are supposed to know what they are talking about. If they are not up to speed on events or happenings within their own depts one can hardly blame Bush. Dumb as you like to think he is, even the best President could not have avoided this happening. Second, the main reason why he never came right out and said that he was sorry that it had happened or something similar is that with all the Kerry BS going on it would have been used out of context and provided fodder for ad after ad.

Nararator: What about foreign policy?

Bush Soundbite: 'I'm sorry'

Nararator: What about the economy?

Bush Soundbite: 'I'm sorry'

Instead, he explained what was going on. He didn't trip up. He had nothing to trip up, he just said it like it was. The truth is an easy script to follow.

Speaking of economy, did you happen to notice that the questions asked were all pretty much answered in his monologue and if they wern't, were answered by Bush in another question? And what is really amazing is that none were on the economy. Not one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, he is briefed by people who are supposed to know what they are talking about. If they are not up to speed on events or happenings within their own depts one can hardly blame Bush. Dumb as you like to think he is, even the best President could not have avoided this happening.

Bush did pick his own team, and of course he's ultimately responsible for the results of his policies. I think the "best" President might have made better plans to manage the post war situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will see. Something that is forgotten is that this terrorism has been brewing for decades and is long from being over. It may be further decades before we will know if he was right or wrong. As for his culpability, it seems that previous Presidents missed the mark as well, as did all the beureaucrats in office over the last ten or so years. He seems to have satisfied the investigators on the commission, never of course the left.

As for the Post War Situation, hindsight is 20/20. I still see no severe problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will see. Something that is forgotten is that this terrorism has been brewing for decades and is long from being over. It may be further decades before we will know if he was right or wrong.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Iraq here...

As for his culpability, it seems that previous Presidents missed the mark as well, as did all the beureaucrats in office over the last ten or so years. He seems to have satisfied the investigators on the commission, never of course the left.

As for the Post War Situation, hindsight is 20/20. I still see no severe problems.

Absolutely true on the hindsight. Just to be clear, I'm not any kind of outspoken critic on GWB's handling of this. My opinion has nuances. I don't think 9-11 could have reasonably been forseen or prevented by any administration, mostly because domestic terrorism was not a concern with the general public. As a pacifist, I was against the war on principle but I welcome the end of any strongman regime such as Hussein's, though he was formerly supported by the US. I think Iraq has a better future now than before the invasion.

And I think that Bush's team obviously glossed over the problems with occupying Iraq. None of this is surprising - I've seen it happen in business all the time. The executives don't know the details, and they can't predict the future so they downplay these factors when trying to push an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the Post War Situation, hindsight is 20/20.

Didn't you hear? This is the "war on terrorism". There will be-can be-no end.

Meanwhile, it seems Bush has determined that while "brown-skinned" people deserve freedom too, only certain ones need apply. His endorsement of Israel's "security" wall and the transformation of Gaza into, essentially, a Palestinian concentration camp will fuel the fires of resentment across the Arab world, further galvanizing the conflict as a "clash of civilizations" and make peace in the region a distant dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the candor Michael.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Iraq here...

We are and were. However, years after Iraq is sucessfully in the hands of a government chosen by the people and is a threiving, self determined country, we will still not know if the action in Iraq acheived the desired results on the War on Terror. That remains to be seen years and decades from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are and were. However, years after Iraq is sucessfully in the hands of a government chosen by the people and is a threiving, self determined country, we will still not know if the action in Iraq acheived the desired results on the War on Terror. That remains to be seen years and decades from now.

Uh... I thought the stated goals were to remove Hussein and his links with terror and WMD - goals that are now de-emphasized.

It sounds like you're talking about the long-term goal of setting up a thriving secular democracy in the ME. I'm hopeful that it will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, I haven't thought any different scince WMD changed to 'Regime Change' a month before the invasion. Put two and two together, add in the oil revenues that would be used to rebuild, the central location of Iraq, the little to be missed by anybody Dictator and you understand quickly why it was Iraq and not Lybia, North korea, Syria, Iran and son on and forth. A mighty ambitious enterprise that wouldn't have sold very well as it would have been deemed impossible, but here we are watching it happen.

I take it from the reaction of the people of the world when they were presented with a legitimate reason when all thought there was WMD (Ted Kennedy, Chirac, Clinton, Gore and more than you can count) that if Democracy Seeding was the reason it would have been a tough sell. Probably the reason why they were de-emphsized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, I haven't thought any different scince WMD changed to 'Regime Change' a month before the invasion. Put two and two together, add in the oil revenues that would be used to rebuild, the central location of Iraq, the little to be missed by anybody Dictator and you understand quickly why it was Iraq and not Lybia, North korea, Syria, Iran and son on and forth. A mighty ambitious enterprise that wouldn't have sold very well as it would have been deemed impossible, but here we are watching it happen.

It wasn't a sell job. It was a hustle.

And I'm sure tired of hearing how all that oil revenue is going to rebuild Iraq, even as the CPA goes about the business of privatizing evrything they can get their mitts on. They haven't done it to oil yet (probably because such a move would underscore the argument that the war was "about oil"), but I wager it's only a matter of time. Iraq oil profits will go to Halliburton, Exxon and other F.O.B's (Friends of Bush) as part of the new Washington Consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraq oil profits will go to Halliburton, Exxon and other F.O.B's (Friends of Bush) as part of the new Washington Consensus.

Wow. Thanks for the scoop Black Dog. It will go to them in some amount for sure but the bulk will go to Iraq, if it doesn't, Iraq will fall. Rather quickly I might add, necessitating either another massive $500 Billion Military effort by the US to quell a whole country in an uprising, not just a Cleric and a band of Fundementalists, or the whole area falls apart. Wanna bet the bulk goes to Iraq?

Anyhow, it seems to be on the up and up. Nothing suspicious happening here, but I suppose you and some others can find a rat anywhere. BTW, did you locate the Russian, Chinese and French ones out before the war?

Prior to the toppling of Iraq's Ba'athist regime, the country reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimated that $38 billion worth of contracts were signed on new fields

Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has a strong interest in Iraqi oil development. This includes a $3.7 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate Iraqi oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion barrel West Qurna field (located west of Basra near the Rumaila field).

READ THIS PLEASE

Iraqi oil sales and exports currently are being handled by SOMO, under CPA supervision. SOMO operations were seriously disrupted by war and turmoil during 2003, but the organization has now been reconstituted and has resumed many of its operations. On June 5, 2003, SOMO issued its first oil sales tender since the war started, for 8 million barrels of Kirkuk crude stored in tanks at Ceyhan and 2 million barrels stored at Basra. Dozens of companies placed bids for the oil, with winners including ChevronTexaco, Cepsa, ENI, Repsol, Total, and Tupras. Bids for the Kirkuk oil reportedly ranged around $2.70-$3.30 per barrel below dated Brent (f.o.b. Ceyhan). On June 22, a tanker arrived at Ceyhan to load the first oil since March 20, 2003, when the 600,000-barrel tanker "Caithness" completed loading one day after the outbreak of war. On July 3, SOMO issued its second spot tender, for 8 million barrels of Basra Light.

In late July 2003, SOMO signed its first term contracts since the war, for Basra Light oil from Iraq's southern fields. Major purchasers included BP, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, ENI, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Mitsubishi, Petrobras, Repsol, Shell, Sinochem, Total, and Vitol. As of February 2004, Basrah Light reportedly was being priced at $4.25 per barrel below dated Brent. On March 8, 2004, SOMO issued a tender for Kirkuk oil via the Turkish port of Ceyhan, the first such sale from Iraq's northern oil fields in a year. The SOMO tender offers 6 million barrels of oil for March 12-19 delivery, to be sold in shipments of 1 or 2 million barrels.

Not only seemingly on the up and up, if any loose cash was floatting around, it would be gobbled up pretty quick by things like this;

The World Bank estimates that restoring and improving Iraq's electric power sector will require about $12 billion in investment, more than double the $6 billion that the U.S. Congress appropriated in the fall of 2003. Iraqi Electricity Minister, Ayham al-Sammarai, reportedly has drawn up a list of 200 power projects that he hopes to start by 2006, at a cost of $6 billion

As for US involvement in the 'Oil Grab' they will have to fight off these guys among many others;

In May 2003, another Russian company, Tatneft, set up a joint venture with Germany's MRH in order to win work in Iraq's oil sector. According to Tatneft's President, the company had been close to reaching a deal on exploring Block 9 in Iraq's Western Desert region prior to the war. In October 2001, a joint Russian-Belarus oil company, Slavneft, had signed a $52 million service contract with Iraq on the 2-billion-barrel, Suba-Luhais field in southern Iraq. Full development of Suba-Luhais could result in production of 100,000 bbl/d (35o API) at a cost of $300 million over three years. In early February 2004, Iraq's Oil Ministry issued a tender for development of Suba-Luhais, with bids due by April 15, 2004.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how sales tallies of Iraq's oil indicate how things are "on the up and up".

BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION

Getting back to the issue of Iraqi national soverignty for a second, I've heard a lot of talk about the "handover" of power to "Iraqis". However, I would like to know who exactly is getting power handed to them and what they will control. Will it be a hand picked "transitional" government, featuring the likes of the criminal Chalabi? And what kind of power will they have? The "new Iraqi government" won't control foreign policy or security, U.S. troops will be staying in country past the June 30 power transfer. Real soverignty will remain in the hands of those with the biggest guns: U.S forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how sales tallies of Iraq's oil indicate how things are "on the up and up".

BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION

Let me ask you to put something in solid context before you just drop that on the table as a quasi fact and move on Black Dog. Unless there is a gem in there that is a fact it is nothing but opinion.

Getting back to the issue of Iraqi national soverignty for a second, I've heard a lot of talk about the "handover" of power to "Iraqis". However, I would like to know who exactly is getting power handed to them and what they will control. Will it be a hand picked "transitional" government, featuring the likes of the criminal Chalabi? And what kind of power will they have? The "new Iraqi government" won't control foreign policy or security, U.S. troops will be staying in country past the June 30 power transfer. Real soverignty will remain in the hands of those with the biggest guns: U.S forces.

THIS IS THEM

AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DO AND CONTROL

As for real soverignty, yes I agree but I think the main aim is to get the US troops out of Iraq, not put more in wouldn't you agree? I mean, if they wanted to control the place, why go through this sham of trying to set up governments, write constitutions and all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for real soverignty, yes I agree but I think the main aim is to get the US troops out of Iraq, not put more in wouldn't you agree?

They're not going anywhere. Iraq is going to be home to permanant U.S. military bases.

All your base are belonging to U.S.

More.

I mean, if they wanted to control the place, why go through this sham of trying to set up governments, write constitutions and all

They can control the place just fine by putting in a puppet regime. Which is what they're doing with the governing council. Any body with Ahmed Chalabi on it immediately loses credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not going anywhere. Iraq is going to be home to permanant U.S. military bases.

Just like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We call them 'Little America' where I come from. All those troops running around and hassling the locals. Yep, I can see how the troops presence has gone from a hundred thousand and change to .... well, a hundred thousand and change.

BTW, nice opinion articles you offer as proof, and dated a little as well. Got anything recent? You know, this year?

They can control the place just fine by putting in a puppet regime. Which is what they're doing with the governing council. Any body with Ahmed Chalabi on it immediately loses credibility.

Boy, wait until the World finds out about this! The Iraqi people are not going to be very happy either, they thought they were getting a transitional Government and then elections come next year. You would think those nasty Americans would simply pay Saddam some cash to supply them with oil instead of spending all this money ($500 Billion) and trouble. Or simply install a puppet instead of going through this elaborate sham over the next few years. I mean, it must be hard to control 25 members of a council, one or two, not so bad, but 25 of them? Challabi rules the roost there for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We call them 'Little America' where I come from. All those troops running around and hassling the locals. Yep, I can see how the troops presence has gone from a hundred thousand and change to .... well, a hundred thousand and change.

Remember, they're pulling out of Saudi Arabia and need a new base of operations.

Anyway, did a little more digging on the weekend. The 25-member Council you mentioned is not the body taking over. The council will be dissolved for the June 30 handover. So the next government of Iraq is still, at this point, unknown.

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...