Category Archives: Bush
The catch to the warming, is the cooling. And ahhh . . . it’s a little chilly out there.
Which, brings us to Bush:
QUESTION: I know you’ve said you are not planning to see Al Gore’s new movie, but do you agree with the premise that global warming is a real and significant threat to the planet?
BUSH: I think it’s — I have said consistently that global warming something is a serious problem. There is a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives. One, be good stewards of the environment, and two become less dependent on foreign sources of oil for economic reasons and for national security reasons. (link)
Thus, according to Bush there is a debate.
I wish that President Bush would walk outside. I’m colder than I have ever been in November.
Will Ferrell’s Bush impersonation makes me feel a little warmer inside though.
A classic . . .
And the weird remix version . . .
Bloggers whose views I often admire from all over the blogosphere are ripping into Powell and writing off the man as, it almost feels like, some sort of useless hack.
Look people, Colin Powell gave a dishonest speech before the United Nations that was disgusting, and helped make the case for a pointless war in Iraq. Here it is again for good measure, so that it can even be fresh in your minds:
I lost respect for the man during that UN speech. But, some members of the progressive blogosphere are taking it too far for several reasons:
1) Colin Powell Made A Subtle Effort To Stop The War
It just so happens that during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, I was living off my parents while working part-time as a bartender and for-little-profit-entry-level-employee. I also had like three friends still living in my old neighborhood. The point being that during my many leisurely hours I watched CNN and other news stations. Throw in a little Discovery Channel and History Channel, and that’s basically all that I did. During that time it was crystal clear to me that Colin Powell was furthering a subversive public campaign to throw up the red flag of caution. If you watched what Powell said, and then watched the Dick, or Bush, it was as if it was two administrations. Now Powell would ultimately agree with Bush, but from what he also said, and the way he said it, it was clear that he was a man with reservations who was trying to get them across.
2) Once the President Made Up His Mind Powell Played The Good Soldier
And yet, at one point, Powell pulled a 180. It was like night and day. After the President said we were going in Powell was lock step behind him. Many on the left believe he should have resigned. But that’s not what soldiers have been trained their entire life to do. Soldiers follow orders, especially from the commander in chief. Sso long as they are not committing war crimes (the act of going to war was not a war crime). If they don’t, they get court marshaled. Now Powell could have just resigned, but my point is that the backdrop to doing so was his experience in the military, and that experience made it a more complicated decision.
3) For Those Of You Falling All Over Yourselves To Condemn Powell . . . Take A Break
Do you really believe that Powell, had he been President at the time, would have gone into Iraq? This is the guy whose entire military doctrine is grounded in making sure you have an exit strategy from a conflict. If you think Powell is smart, or have the same sense of the man as I feel I do, you don’t actually think that he woudl have done it if he was running the sow. So why did he give that speech? The fact is that it was is job to do. The alternative, and some may think this a trivial burden, was to as the first African-American Secretary of State, simply throw the administration that appointed you under the bus. That’s what it would have meant, and the precedent it would have set, fair or not, is a pretty big business.
4) Powell Said What I Have Heard Few Public Figures Say in Recent Months
If you still have the grudge about the UN Speech that it was his job to give, I understand your point of view. But before you throw Powell under the bus, you should pause a moment to consider this statement during his Meet the Press endorsement of Obama:
I’m also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said, such things as, “Well, you that know Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America
If there are other well know public figures going on national shows and saying that, they aren’t getting their message across, or they just don’t exist.
I don’t forgive Powell for what he did, and I can’t forget what he did. However, Colin Powell is still a man that America would benefit from listening to.
If America had done so before (albeit by way of subtle statements undermining his commander in chief ) we would not be in Iraq right now.
Lets’ not make the same mistake twice because Powell made a mistake in carrying out orders, that he was duty bound to carry out, that he would not have given.
Looks like a great movie.
Our fearless leader President Bush has said and invoked the word “freedom” more than anybody has ever been able to keep track. This word is used with amazing frequency in regards to the occupation of Iraq. We needed to “free” the Iraqis, we needed to fight for “freedom” for the Iraqis, we’re still in Iraq now because we want Iraqis to be “free,” and indeed we are a nation that fights and stands for “freedom.”
I would consider some horrific deal with the devil, if only it would result in President Bush being forced to publicly define what the word freedom actually means to him. Despite the fact that Iraqis did not have all of their freedoms under Saddam, it’s clear that Iraqis are not much more (if at all) free in the currently war torn militia run country now before us.
Then again, it’s not as if Americans can consider themselves completely free either. Many Americans face various forms of racial discrimination, class discrimination, and country of origin discrimination everyday. That’s certainly not complete freedom. Even more specifically, we increasingly face the rollback of our civil rights and civil liberties. Add to all this othe ftentimes insurmountable financial hurdles faced by many families trying to live a decent life, it’s a hard case to make that we are completely “free.”
Indeed, freedom seems at its base, to be a relative concept. The question really is free in comparison to what? Your previous state? A universal standard somehow applied to hundreds of different countries and hundreds more cultures within them?
Is freedom the simple absence of state interference and the ability to be left to our own random devices, or does true freedom oftentimes require more?
Can we truly be free in a prejudiced society?
I’m not sure about any of this, but I’d like to propose a starting point from which we can begin an evaluation of, if not freedom, whether we are pursuing the correct means to achieve an increase in “freedom.”
While there are a variety of forms of slavery, the American version is most familiar to us all. I think it’s fair that while true “freedom” is hard to define, almost all human beings can agree that the opposite of freedom is definitely slavery. If that is true, than the further away we are from slavery, the closer we arrive towards absolute “freedom.
So let’s look at what was done to the African slaves in order to enslave them. By identifying the tools used to enslave a people, we may be able to reverse engineer these tools to find the way to best undue slavery, or perhaps reach closer towards a state of absolute freedom. Three of the “slave-making” practices stand out for me.
1) Their language was taken from them. They were prohibited from speaking their native languages because they would otherwise have been able to communicate with out the slave owners understanding them.
2) They were prohibited from reading and writing. In other words they were kept from becoming literate.
3) Slave owners controlled their sexual relations/sexuality and reproduction.
Arguably, to the extent that we can move away from these conditions, and arrive at their opposites we may be making the most steady path towards absolute freedom.
The opposite conditions would be:
1) The ability to freely speak and maintain one’s own “native” language. Taken further, the active encouragement of the state in the maintenance and teaching of “native” or perhaps simply non-majority languages.
2) Literacy. Taken further, an excellent quality education and higher education.
3) Sexual choice and birth control.
Something to think about.