Today's Salon has a really scathing article on Bush. It gives him praise for his willingness to stand up for what he believes is right, but it questions (to put it mildly) the wisdom of what Bush believes in. At the end, I noticed a link to something the same writer had put on Salon in December 2000. Here's what's in that article. I'll bet this man, unlike me, wasn't surprised and depressed and saddened and disappointed at (to take the most recent example) Bush's speech yesterday, in which he referenced 9/11, and the war as a battle in the war on terrorism. OK, to be honest, I lost my faith in the basic decency of President Bush about 2 months ago. But this writer figured it out 2 1/2 years ago. And for that he deserves props. http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/15/trust/index.html?pn=1
Not to poop on your admiration of this author, but wouldn't Bush's entire life story of overprivilege, irresponsibility, drunk driving, shameless coattailing off his dad, string pulling and unethical business behavior kind of maybe hint at what was to come if he became President? Given the rest of Bush's life, was it really so hard to predict that he'd have a Machiavellian yet inept administration?
I almost joined the reserves in the summer of 2000, my then girlfriend talked me out of it. Her reason, "if that man (Bush) becomes president there will be one pointless military action after another". I'm starting to think she was smarter than she seemed. He doesn't have any moral values, he never did.
I know - I mean all those sailors on the ship yesterday were dreaming of the good ole days of Clinton and Monica - thinking of the high moral standing of the executive office in those days. geez - you guys are freaking clueless.
I have never, and will never say that Clinton had decent more values? Did I say that? But Clinton never tried to play himself up as a born again Christian either.
Hey, Jesus hung out with the sex workers. He didn't hang out with army men. It amazes me that someone would put philandering on the same plane as bombing others. I am not saying one is good, and one is bad. (Okay, I am saying that being killed by a missile is worse than seeing an adulterous act on the lawn -- color me crazy.)
The Bush worshippers here are obviously desperate when they can't even defend Bush himself but have to resort to trying to make themselves feel better by attacking Clinton, as if that means Bush is a hero after all. Sad.
If she talked you out of the reserves after 2000 - what did you do after 911 and the impending conflict in Afghanistan ...? Was that pointless?
born again or not - do you think Bush's claim ala "born again" to stop excessive drinking was a political play - IAW do you not believe him?
By that point my disdain for the current administration ended any hopes of my involvement with the military. Also, by that time I had gone back to grad school and was working at a job making $70k. Call me crazy for not wanting to give that up to bomb Afganistan further back into the stone age.
most people (not all) decide on the military based on total opportunity available - and the potential to grow and have a good experience - not based on the current Presidential administration (we still had good recruiting #'s throughout the Clinton 8 years regardless of how the services felt about him) .... you are not crazy for going to grad school instead - nobody should ever be faulted for choosing education instead - in fact - many people go into the military to help set money aside for schooling. the military sent me to grad school - as I said - opportunity knocking.
I thought you were describing Ted Kennedy's 30-something yrs. in office. Just change that one part to "shameless coattailing off his dead brothers."
Ah, more ad hominem attacks to try to distract themselves from Bush's sad record. Obviously you're the one who doesn't read posts because if you'd read mine, you'd know I despise Clinton almost as much as I despise Bush. And I can add you and Pizzaface to the list of Bush fans who can't even defend him but have to attack someone else rather than deal with the obvious facts about your hero. It's good to see that you disrespect Bush as much as anyone else seeing as how you can't find anything to say in his defense other than "Uhm. Er. Well... He's as bad as the worst Dems we can think of.". Talk about damning with faint praise!
OK - Bush is far better than any chump the Dems will nominate in '04. Work from there. You're obviously so eager to get a Dem. back in office that your smear campaign has started a year in advance. Clinton was practically a Republican because he co-opted many Republican ideas. No wonder why you don't like him much.
actually, i am not defending bush and i'm not a clinton fan either. and i like west ham. so far joe pak and i have a lot in common. i need to sort some sh1t out here! damnit!
Salon is so out of touch with reality that it is impossible for me to get angry with its articles. Sometimes I read it just to remind myself that there are people out there who live in an imaginary world of their own creation. And they mean well, in their own way. As a curiosity it can be fascinating.
So you didn't bother to read the article. Add overly broad dismissals to ad hominen and collateral attacks.
Ad Hominem. I love it when people use latin in their posts. There is just someting about the latin language. Yeah, I read the article, and it was amusing. Nothing that you can argue with, really, because it is so out of touch with everything that is known about the American president. I wish we had somebody like Salon to cover Argentine politics, so we could escape from our reality. Plus Ultra.