A Washington, DC press photographer vents about the political wranglings in our Nation's Capital.
Divided, we fail
Published on November 21, 2007 By joe-pro-photographer In Politics
In my last political posting, I suggested Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history. My reasoning was straight forward: no matter what your position on the war in Iraq, his handling of the planning up to war, the execution of the war itself, and the poor after-thought about the conflict's aftermath, make him a nominee for Lousy Prez.

So, many more conservative bloggers took me to task on the intelligence leading up to the war. "No," they write, "hind sight is 20/20, and it's easy to see the intelligence was wrong after the fact."

The problem is,from the beginning, Bush forced the intel to fit his agenda. It's not me who says this, it's a chorus of people from both the right and left. David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, couldn't believe the lack of intel on WMD's when he started looking for WMD's after the conflict began. And although he had no intel, was given a rag-tag group to look for WMDs, he still thought the wMDs probably existed. As he dug into the reports, he understood how everyone was duped.

The Bush Administration relied on Iraqi exhiles to support the WMD beliefs. Some of these folks hadn't been to Iraq since the first Gulf War. Their intel was more than 10 years old. One was later arrested for accepting money from SH himself, under the oil for food program. He had been a regular visitor at the White House.

A leader doesn't take facts and fit them to his agenda. A leader evaluates facts and reacts to the facts. A leader inspires others to come forward and voice their opinion, even when that opinion is different from theirs. A leader evaluates his team, and watches for power hungry people who can't run their department (read: Rumsfeld), a leader works with the minority and incorporates their concerns, where possible, into his agenda. A leader works within the Constitution. A leader unites and inspires.

Bush did none of these. (Though whether he stepped out of the bounds of the Constitution is open to debate). He took a "you're with us or you're against us" approach.

The uniter turned out to be the ultimate divider.
Comments (Page 10)
15 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11 12  Last
on Nov 23, 2007
The whole world has been locked into an irreversible destiny for hundreds of years.

There's no way to change the current course. Not by ranting, raving, blogging, or tying yourself to a tree. This situation is far more complex than we know.

And that's one of the key points. There is much we don't know and quite simply haven't been told.

History tells a grim tale of resource wars since the dawn of civilization. It's not as though Bush is a new development. Thinking the war(s) in the Middle East are Bush's fault is juvenile and asinine. That's like imagining video games are to blame for violence in our society.

Mankind IS violent, has been for thousands of years, and will continue to be.

Resource wars will escalate every year. You should expect it since planet Earth's resources are limited and dwindling.

Did Bush do the right thing? I don't know. Did he do the wrong thing? I don't know. It's really not for me to decide. I'm not in charge of keeping the country from imploding into irreparable depression.

I would assume that securing the free flow of crude oil would give America a cushion against the inevitable crisis.

The more politically astute who frequent this forum understand the significance of oil dollars, and how it affects our economy. If the faith of the American oil dollar is lost, countries will no switch to another currency, our money will be devalued, and widespread poverty & famine will ensue within our borders.

The situation is precarious. If we don't secure the value of oil dollars, then you can kiss your comfortable suburban lifestyle goodbye. No more chicken pot pies and licorice twists. You'll be on the fast track to a diet of pigeons and rats.

Saddam Hussein had plans to convert billions of oil dollars to Euros. American intelligence caught wind of this and decided we needed a reason to stop him. It's quite simple. If he had gone through with this transaction, the landslide of other oil-rich Middle East countries adopting the Euro would cripple our delicate economy.

So, should a president give a false justification for war in order to implement a secret agenda to secure oil dollars? I am not qualified to answer that, nor would it matter if I had an opinion.

It's high time we stop being polarized and see the issues for what they truly are. We must rethink our world view, stop clinging to the romantic notions of right and wrong in world affairs. We live in desperate times, and frankly I believe it is the calm before the storm.

Instead of quibbling over who is right, we should channel our energies to prepare for a somewhat bleak future. We all know "fossil fuels" will run out. How will those big diesel trucks bring Campbell's soup to your local supermarket without first gassing up?

Instead of being politically snobbish, we should strive to be informed. Taking sides is merely bickering and nothing will ever get done.

I don't suppose to have the answers, but I know they cannot be realized by the asinine interchange I see occurring.
on Nov 23, 2007
FYI: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also had plans make the shift from American Oil Dollars to Euros. Lo, and behold, rumors of WMD's began circulating immediately thereafter.

Let's be a bit more savvy and identify the real issues.
on Nov 23, 2007
there you go stalin was a jew


like i said, you're an idiot who too very quickly and easily accepts whatever hateful bullshit you find on neo-nazi sites such as the one pointed to by the link you provided.


i spent nearly two hours looking for that.


and as i said you do not have to be a member of the jewish faith to be a jew.


hitler was a jew but he wasn't jewish.

my family name is jewish but i am not a jew. actually it is two jewish names put together.
on Nov 23, 2007
What does this have to do with personal computing?
on Nov 23, 2007

Incidentally, regardless of WHERE the post originates, the rules are the same.

  1. You may not personally attack other people.
  2. We do not censor comments or posts simply because people disagree with them.
  3. We will not censor posts or comments simply because they are politically incorrect.
  4. We reserve the right to move topics if they are deemed off-topic (this one has no business being in personal coputing, it will probably get moved to Politics).

 

on Nov 23, 2007
this post has nothing to do with personal computing, I will assume it was placed in this forum accidentally - however it has sparked quite a bit of debate and it's been incredibly interesting to follow & participate in.

  
on Nov 23, 2007
the sad thing is, you had to tell everyone.


 When it comes to discussing Bush, logic (and reasoned discourse, for that matter) has made like Elvis and left the building.  
on Nov 23, 2007
Good, it was a snaffu (AMAZINGLY) that put it here to begin with. I originally put it in Politics, and it got posted in Computing. Go figure. Move it, I would if I could.
M
on Nov 23, 2007
Thanks, and yes, totally accidentally. I wish the stardock guy would move it as I can't.
M
on Nov 23, 2007
hey cosmic, nice post - at least someone finally brought up the point of oil dollars.

However, you could have done us a bit of a favor and elaborated on the topic, truth be known, I would wager that the majority of people out there aren't aware of this process and what it involves, I did some searching and came up with the cliff notes version on this topic. Here is the "theory" of oil dollars...

Imagine you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have, a luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime, etc. etc.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, oil/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment (Oil is traded primarily in US dollars). This means everyone must hoard your cheques (US dollars) so they can buy oil/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for oil/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruit shop owner passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys flour with it, and on it goes, round and round - but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books (a large one), but so long as your cheque never reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your "TV" for free.
This is the position the U.S. has enjoyed for many years (30+) - it has been getting free world trade ride for all that time, receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As U.S. debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading - doing this makes the U.S. an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, an oil/gas seller (ex. Iraq, Iran, Russia, etc.) says he is going to accept another person's "cheques" (Euro's), a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques (U.S. dollars) and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, a lot of trouble will start to happen.

But the U.S. Government is big & tough & very aggressive.
Although they don't scare the other guy (Europe) who can write his own cheques (Euros) since he's pretty big too, given a legitimate excuse, the U.S. government can beat the stripes off one of the lone oil/gas sellers and scare him and his friends into submission so that they don't accept any one's "cheques" except for yours (U.S. dollars).

If this theory is accurate (albeit several stripped down for ease of understanding) of how Oil dollars are currently handled, then in a nutshell, this is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq. And possibly what they will being with Iran in the future.

How much of a stick of dynamite is this info on the theory of oil dollars for this discussion we're having? Again I don't know enough about the topic to offer a truly informed opinion but I've heard it discussed a few times to know that some of it is true.

Anyone care to argue for or against this point?

On a side note... Boy did the original post turn into an interesting conversation or what?!



on Nov 23, 2007
Screw oil. The water wars are soon to come.   
on Nov 23, 2007
Thanks unclerob - you spelled it out nicely.

If only more people would realize the issues.

It all reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Toto had a lot of guts for a small quadraped.

The Euro has sounded the death knell for American Oil Dollars. This has many economists worried, and rightfully so. If we open our eyes slightly, the birds of the air gathering to pick the American carcass clean.

And all the kids on the playground cheer when the bully gets beat up.

on Nov 23, 2007
The war was legitimate based on Saddams breaking of the ceasefire agreement which is why the UN backed off taking it to an International court. Because Saddam failed to comply unconditionally to his agreement made at the ceasefire at the end of Gulf War one. Hostilities resumed. It is nothing like Vietnam! All are volunteers. The only similarity is once again civilian protests are restricting troop numbers reaching required levels to effectively police the country and therefore are doing much to assist the increased body count of our own men.Like Vietnam the troops are the meat in the sandwich. I immensely disliked the civilian protesters when I served in Vietnam and my dislike continues today. If we commit our troops to battle then give them what they need to get the job done. Don't send them in then ALL whine about the war being wrong and whinge at politicians then pull the mat out from underneath them. The only way civilians will learn to butt out would be to send them into a war and subject them to their own counter productive and lethal behaviour. Civilians protesters need to own their share of the body count. Ahmadinejad says Irans Nuclear programme is peaceful. If so then he should have no problem allowing inspectors to go anywhere in those facilities and to access any information they like. The fact they are not being allowed can only arouse suspicion and confirm the fact it is not for peaceful purposes. There is no doubt Iran has WMD. Ahmadinejad revels in showing it all off in public parades frequently and is always excited to announce to the world his latest big missile capable of hitting a target at whatever range and wiping this and that from the map. No misunderstanding Irans intent and to think otherwise is to place yourselves in the same mindset you accuse Bush of having......stupid!
on Nov 23, 2007
Screw oil. The water wars are soon to come


NT, you hit that one right out of the park, that's another one coming soon as well

Hey Cosmic, thanks for the reply back.
I think the US govt understands their current situation very well, and probably have other plans (aside from what's obvious on the news) to slow or reverse the course of this problem - you seem to be quite versed on this issue, in your opinion what can be done to avoid this type of economic catastrophe? As it stands, the US won't be the only country adversely affected by this, this is a global economic problem.
on Nov 23, 2007
The war was legitimate based on Saddams breaking of the ceasefire agreement which is why the UN backed off taking it to an International court


Saddam did exactly what was mentioned in my previous post.
In 1999, Iraq (2nd largest oil reserves in the world), switched to trading its oil in euros from US dollars. It was first seen as a huge error by alot of economic analysts who thought that Iraq was now heading into an economic downfall but when the euro began rising against the US dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic lift by switching to euros, the decision made them alot of money and as a result costing the US govt alot of money.

"Legitimate" reasons for going to Iraq:
- Iraq is a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda (has this been proven)
- Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons (is there a proven link?)
- Iraq's military threat to its neighbours (this is very possible)
- the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously inhumane rule (this is probably the only real & valid reason in this list)
- lack of compliance with UN weapons inspection (yes but what was the infraction, what was found?)
- WMDs in Iraq (a controversial excuse which has never been proven to be real)

What countries may be next? You hear more & more about Iran in the news lately, and you might see a similar US military involvement in that region - why? Iran is going to do the same thing, begin trading it's oil in euros from US dollars. Another country to keep your eye on... Venezuela - same thing in this situation, they're trying to get off the US dollar track and they're currently implementing a system that allows them to trade oil without US dollars. Don't be surprised about some form of military action with that country too.
15 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11 12  Last