Why we should be worried about George W Bush (Euro-Aussebarf Alert!)

The (Sydney, NSW) Daily Telegraph ^ | 6.29.02 | Bruce Wilson

[mhking]

Why we should be worried about George W Bush
29jun02
THE world outside the US is now getting used to the fact Americans have a fraudulently elected nitwit as their president, but George W. Bush excelled himself this week with a "long-awaited" definitive speech on Middle East policies that stretched even the weirdest imaginations.
BRUCE WILSON in London reports:

US embassies around the world moved to "explain" the batty future Bush saw for Israel and Palestine, but nothing could disguise that the bedbug was running the White House and anything could happen next.

Hey, look. Even Tom Cruise is worried. In London this week he said he wanted his adopted kids brought up outside the USA because of what happens inside the USA. He listed terrorism and street crime, but very cogently he listed corporate crime as a reason not to bring up kids in the old US of A.

Now, Tom Cruise is not a Grade A rocket scientist. In fact, he is a Grade A Scientologist. On the whole, though, I would say he was brighter than George W. Bush (along with my neighbour's catatonic cat) and it was most intriguing that he named corporate crime as a reason not to want to grow up in America.

The WorldCom affair comes after the Enron affair while the Andersen affair simply defies belief. It has become perfectly clear that major US corporations have been running out of control, throwing billions of dollars into a kind of international financial black hole.

In vain you ask (as I tried to do), well, where has the money gone? I mean, if you back a loser at Randwick, then you know where your money went. If these companies have lost billions – $US3.8 billion in the case of WorldCom – why hasn't somebody won it? Or got it? Where has it gone? Or, more to the point, did it ever exist?

Of course it did, said the Doormouse. Otherwise, it could never have been lost and 17,000 people sacked for the lack of it. This is Alice in Wonderland stuff, capitalism rattling around like a high-velocity round in a mental vacuum. Where was government? Where was control?

Twenty years ago, when I lived in Washington, the US was said to have a trillion-dollar-a-day economy that was so strong not even government could screw it. Now, you have to ask if things have turned, that apparent fraudsters like WorldCom can screw government.

Dubya Bush seems reluctant to address these issues. He is a Texan (although not by breeding) and there they let things take their course, execute mentally deficient minors, and generally behave like good old boys, taking the Chevy to the levee.

If it were not for September 11, Bush would be in serious political trouble in America. He may be yet, in the mid-term November elections. His shocked nation rallied around him as the personification of The Flag when the atrocities stunned us all. His personal rating broke all records.

Since then, though, what? On this side of the Atlantic he is seen as a kind of strange joke. Britons try to understand him, but in Europe they simply think of him as a sort of circus act. The Middle East pronouncement was so absurd they didn't know whether to laugh or simply ask the US senior political attache over for a commiserating drink.

These concerns are based on the belief – that seems to be proven – that Washington itself is a divided city. Colin Powell, in State, is trying to plead reason over the clamouring voices in Defence, led by Donald Rumsfeld, clearly a man not always entirely in control of his senses.

Bush is listening to Rumsfeld, and other strange voices – not least the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. And, as he does, the US looks more and more to be a long way away from the rest of the world.

bruce.wilson@newsint.co.uk

[dighton]

You all are being intellectually dishonest, and you know it. Regardless of what you believe in terms of Bush's effectiveness or politcal bent, it's clear that he's not the brigtest bulb in the chandelier. It's knee-jerk defensive reactionary arguments like the postings above that leave free-thinkers everywhere unable to accept or believe the rest of the Conservative agenda. You're doing your own cause harm.

Awfully arrogant, especially for a first post. You're doing your own cause harm: not that I give a damn.

[tpaine]

Synopsis: I was banned again on FR for asking this question,and I'd like a few answers 

 Source: Self and FR posts 
 Published: July 3, 2002 
 Author: sneakypete 


I have now been banned by either a moderator or Jim Robinson himself,for the second time in less than a month.
The first time the alleged "sin" was "posting flames,flame baiting",and some other lame excuse I've forgotten.
Today/last night whoever did this was clearer. The "sin" was "bashing religion". Never mind the obvious face that any religion that can't stand up to a few questions is a pretty lame-ass religon to begin with,let's look into this a bit further. The truth is that in MY opinion I was banned both times for the same reason,and that reason is daring to ask embarrassing questions.

Some of FR's fundie Christians had posted that according to the US Constitution,ONLY Christians were "allowed to hold public office". I then made posts asking if non-believers like me,Jews,Buddists,Hindu's,or members of any other religious cults who were born in America were less than citizens.

I was immediately shut down and banned both times. The most recent was on the thread "The Seperation of Church and State",and was about remarks Lynn Cheney made recently.I have a couple of these saved to my hard drive in case they dissapear from FR.

My questions to JR are,"Were YOU the one who banned me,or was in a fundie monitor?",and if it WAS you,is it your and FR's official position that the US Constitution restricts citizenship rights to only Christians?


Is it YOUR position that Jews,for instance,can not legally hold public office in the US?

IF this is the case,aren't YOU "bashing" the Jewish and other non-Christian religions? Even if this isn't your opinion,isn't this the opinion of the fundies who complained and got ME banned.

I don't know about you,but I would call withholding citizenship rights from a group or groups of people because of their religious views to be "bashing" them.


I would also like to know if it wasn't you who banned me and you don't agree with the "Christian only" interpertation,WHY did you ban ME,and why DIDN'T you ban the posters making these claims?

---

-- Sneakypete made this post over at libertyforum.org, as you no doubt know.

[Jim Robinson]

So what? Who cares what he posted or where he posted it. He was suspended for the reasons I stated above.

[Rocko]

With six more years of GWB before us, how can this leftloon avoid working himself into a stroke?

[tpaine]

I care. - And so should you.

--- S-pete is an honest man, imo.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, he's misleading you on this one.

[f.Christian]

wow...WOW---WOW!

[tpaine]

I read the thread where he was banned, and saw no misleading statements on his part. Nor any in his LF post.
Can you answer his questions on that post?

[Cultural Jihad]

Buckingham Palace and 10 Downing Street holds all the nitwits.

[Jim Robinson]

Why should I? Have you ever seen a post by me where I suggested anything even close to his accusation? No. Because there are none.

And, yes, I suspended him myself. And the reasons are as I stated before: Excessive personal attacks and religion bashing.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Seems like there are a lot more newbies around lately who espouse the sophomoric tirades of the Tom Cruise-fawning, Rosie-admiring, money tree-hugging left.

School's out, I suppose.

[tpaine]

FYI. ---- VA is 'back in his hole' taking a little time out.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

[Roscoe]

'back in his hole' taking a little time out.

Sneakypete.

[Cultural Jihad]

Nice graphic, RG!

[tpaine]

The only hole S'pete has ever been in was a foxhole, --- while he was defending your right to be a socialist-statist.

[Roscoe]

Our host already corrected your falsehoods and gave the real reasons Sneakypete was suspended yet again.

Give your anti-Freeping a rest.

[Roscoe]

Nice graphic, RG!

Second that.

[tpaine]

Two suckup sycophants present, can the third be far behind?

-- Watch out, or I'll call in Dan Day to chastize you all severely.

[Cultural Jihad]

Just because someone doesn't fall in lockstep with the irrelevant libertarian ideology is no reason to smear them with the socialist/statist label, tpaine. Roscoe is a very honorable person, and does not deserve to be smeared by the likes of you.