Expats Against Bush: Secretary of State Rice

November 17, 2004

Secretary of State Rice

Oh dear, oh dear. Anyone looking for evidence of Bush softening up his policies now that he doesn't have to face reelection will not have much ammunition to play with now that Bush has replaced the troublemaking Colin Powell with the loyal footsoldier Condi Rice. Assuming Rumsfeld stays on, the entire administration will now be in lock-step, personally tied into Bush, and, more ominously, into Dick Cheney.

Is it just me or does anyone else not place too much stock in Condi's diplomatic skills? She has one part of it downpat - lying through one's teeth - but it's the charm and nuance aspects that may elude her. Presidential staff? Sure. Stateswoman? Hmmm.

Posted by Luke Robinson on November 17, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7780/1425120

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Secretary of State Rice:

Comments

When I heard Condi was the choice... I smiled - mostly due to the gnawing effect it would have on the expatsforbillary crowd!

Mark my words - its happening - billary has just started to include 'Jesus' in her rhetoric!

Gotta love it! And you know who called his a year ago folks...

Any bets? It such a sure bet - I'll bet dollars to donuts!

Posted by: delal | November 17, 2004 at 02:47 PM

What an awesome choice.!!

Posted by: Jim | November 17, 2004 at 03:30 PM

I imagine they will groom her for a Pres or VP campaign. Makes sense, I would if I were the Bush camp.

About diplomacy, none of those high ranking Cabinet members of the Bush team have any. I think they prefer it that way.

Although I disagree with her on virtually everything she stands for I can think of far worse choices than Condoleeza Rice. At least she is smart and disciplined and worked her butt off to get there.

And Del, please calm down, we all know Hillary Clinton is going to make a bid for the White House in 2008. Everybody's known this for ages -- why you keep acting like it's a scandal and a secret is beyond me.

Posted by: Maryann | November 17, 2004 at 03:36 PM

Yes, Hillary is all lined up to go for it in 2008.

Which ain't gonna go down too well in the Red States. Not because she's female. Because she's Hillary. Here's hoping we Dems can field a candidate that has a better chance of gaining back some of our Red brethren rather than alienating them further.

Posted by: Luke | November 17, 2004 at 04:11 PM

Personally I think she will be a great Sec. of State. But we'll see what happens.

I think this will be her last and best post. She will not run for the highest office (though I was secretly hoping Dick would fake a heart attack and Condi would run as VP). I think her biggest obstacle to getting elected would not be her race or gender, but the fact that she has never been married. I think people like to see someone with their spouse on the stump. I don't have a problem with it, but I think especially a lot of older married people would.

We shall see.

Look for the Dems to push for Evan Bayh in '08 in a race which will be wide open.

Posted by: Jim | November 17, 2004 at 04:48 PM

Selecting Condi sends the right message... President Bush is serious about his vision. This is a good thing!

And Maryann... the 'clintonistas' had this planned all along!

Key sign coming up... the next DNC head!

Wanna bet it's a 'clintonista' choice?

Anyone?

Posted by: delal | November 17, 2004 at 06:40 PM

Why liberals can be racist and nobody says anything.
http://mhking.mu.nu/archives/049887.php

It's sick.

Posted by: Jim | November 17, 2004 at 07:04 PM

Yep Jim it is...

It's understood - a liberal will back a minority pick as long as it's their type of minority.

Pres Bush is helping build a trusting relationship with minorities. Look at his cabinet... Look at his appointments...

His leadership is building our Republican base - check out the increase of Hispanic voters for Pres Bush. As a minority myself - I know this is happening and in a big way!

Republicans will continue to chip away at the Democratic base and the dems/libs are not doing anything to reverse this trend because they have nothing to offer. And they don't want to believe it...

I wonder how many more elections - how many more seats they will allow to slip away before they realize they need to come more in line with the majority of Americans.

We have a good system - majority rules!

Posted by: delal | November 17, 2004 at 07:22 PM

What are "Clintonistas" and what did they have to do with Condoleeza Rice's new job? I'm intrigued.

Posted by: | November 17, 2004 at 07:43 PM

Exactly Delal,

Bush has a diverse cabinet and yet he's not running for any new offices again. hmmmmm. He's not doing something crazy like hiring the best people for the job, is he?

We need more quotas and pandering. This won't do.

Posted by: Jim | November 17, 2004 at 07:58 PM

Definition of a 'Clintonista'...

A cross bred 'carpetbagger' beast - consisting of both male & female attributes - that stashes cigars in places other than a humidor - who enjoys drinking 'whitewater' while known to fancy staining blue dresses and occasionally leaves dead bodies in parks...

As far as it relating to Condi... you're right - I just can't help myself... hehehe...

Posted by: delal | November 17, 2004 at 08:10 PM

Luke, When are you going to send all these people back to the place they belong, like http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm. They aren't expats and they aren't against bush. They have annoyed most of us so much we don't bother. There's other places they belong too but that's beside the point.

Posted by: | November 17, 2004 at 09:53 PM

Oh come on Chrish, the maturity police have to come in and comment on that "answer" from Del. Let's not be biased, shall we?

Where are all the lectures on "hate" now?

Posted by: | November 17, 2004 at 09:53 PM

Delal:

I know you can't resist your comments and they are kind of funny, so I won't ask you to stop.

But I am curious about 1 thing:
Since you take pride in keeping down us "dem'libs", are you advocating a 1 party system in America (like it is up here in Canada; 1 party has complete control and probably will for another 20 years)

You act like the dems will just self destruct and that would suit you just fine. Apparently, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other prominent minorities have not run to switch parties so I'm not sure that every one of you thinks the GOP having total domination of the world is the answer to all your problems.

As for Condi, I agree that at least she is educated. But if she had her head any furher up Bush's ass, she could see his dinner from last night digesting in his intestines.

Posted by: rodi | November 17, 2004 at 09:54 PM

As far as Rice goes, she is an Cold Warrior who never woke up to the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed under its' own weight and that Reagan and the muhajadin had nothing to do with it. She has shown no understanding of any other part of the world either. She will be a disaster at S of St, more of a doormat for Rumsfield and Cheany than Powell was.

Posted by: | November 17, 2004 at 09:58 PM

Haha! Too true about Condoleeza Rice, Rodi. I am of the generation that, unfortunately, has seen so few women in power that I'm willing to overlook some of their shortcomings just so we can start getting more in there. Eventually we'll have a better crop to pick from, but for now -- as un PC as this is -- I feel compelled to support women stepping into these roles whether I love them or not. God knows I don't love any of the male leaders we have to choose from, so I don't feel too badly about my genderist support!

And I do have respect for somebody that overcomes as many obstacles as one would have to in her position to get that powerful. Let's just hope one day women won't have to give up their entire lives and graft their whole identity onto a powerful man to get to the same levels of power.

Posted by: Maryann | November 17, 2004 at 10:03 PM

Ahh... rodi... buddy...

No I don't advocate a 'one party' system - what I advocate is an opposing party that makes sense...

Your remark about prominent minorities like Sharpton and Jackson - oh boy - May Providence help the dems if that's the type of minority they think will help the party (BTW perish the thought of either one of them switching parties)!

And as for Condi - could it be possible that she genuinely believes in the Bush doctrine?

Naw... she could not possibly... could she?

Posted by: delal | November 17, 2004 at 10:47 PM

Here I am asked - what is a 'clintonista' and I follow-up with a definition and I get accused of 'hate' speech...

A little levity please...

You dems/libs are way too uptight!

And here I thought we were...

hehehe...

I do love this site!

expatsforbillary.org

Posted by: delal | November 17, 2004 at 11:01 PM

delal:

I love this site too because I think there are an equal # of supporters on both sides and we get to bash each other while still exhibiting enough civility to debate intelligently (well, usually, anyway)

The funny part about Sharpton is how I remember growing up in Brooklyn (circa 1970's) and always seeing him on the news. I remember him having such a big mouth, preaching how the whole world is anti-black and on and on. At least he's toned down a bit. I always enjoyed his commentary on Dennis Miller, who of course is as pro-bush as they come.

Once again, I ask you for some suggestions as to what type of minority leadership could be a positive role model in today's urban environment for the Dems ??

Maybe Jennifer Lopez could revup us anti-Bushers? But then again, she'd probably wind up flashing one of her breasts during a Super Bowl speech.

Maryann:
I can understand how you think it's a good thing for Condi to attain such a high position of authority . What's funny to me is how much Omorosa from the first season of Apprentice reminded me of a Condaleeza-wannabe. Good thing the GOP is too moral for any sexual escapades, eh?

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt but I agree with the others that cited how she will be an even bigger pawn in Cheney's punching bag. At least the world respected Powell's moderate views and regard for multilateralism. Well, now there's absolutely no need to waste money sending the Sec of St. abroad to lobby for the world's cooperation. Every world leader already knows where she stands (wherever POTUS tells her to)

Posted by: rodi | November 17, 2004 at 11:28 PM

Wanna hear the Delals of this site laugh out loud and preach how pathetic all the
"dem/libs" are?

Try this link from today's SFGate.com
It's an article about "Sorryameroca.com"
that's a blast. 50 million hits already. 5000 pictures from average Joes apologizing to the world for Bush. And 1000 waiting to be uploaded from the rest of the world accepting our apologies.

http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Posted by: rodi | November 17, 2004 at 11:47 PM

"Oh come on Chrish, the maturity police have to come in and comment on that "answer" from Del. Let's not be biased, shall we?

Where are all the lectures on "hate" now?"

Don't know what you're talking about {no name}, wasn't I.

Posted by: Chrish | November 18, 2004 at 12:28 AM

I agree completely with you Maryann, well
stated but, it's more than a hope. It will
be a fact of life:
"And I do have respect for somebody that overcomes as many obstacles as one would have to in her position to get that powerful. Let's just hope one day women won't have to give up their entire lives and graft their whole identity onto a powerful man to get to the same levels of power."

Rodi in regards to your question "what type of minority leadership could be a positive role model in today's urban environment for the Dems ?? How about Barak Obama to name
one? A minority leader (Senator now), first
generation son of immigrants, educated, intelligent, and a sense of humility. Add
to that he also doesn't appear to have fallen for that "xxxxxxxxx-American" (replace the "x" with your own racial preference), nonsense and sees all of us as
just Americans. Hope he's able to withstand
the wolves (politicians) in Washington.

Posted by: Chrish | November 18, 2004 at 12:49 AM

I always love these quotes from people like anonymous: "Luke, When are you going to send all these people back to the place they belong, like http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm. They aren't expats and they aren't against bush. They have annoyed most of us so much we don't bother. There's other places they belong too but that's beside the point." And Democrats are always the ones who are crying about censorship and having freedoms taken away. I guess it only applies when it's convenient.

Rodi,
Condi like Omorosa? Uh ok. Please explain the similarities. One everyone hated for things she actually did, acting like a whiney baby, accused people of calling her names they didn't. The other you just hate because of who she works for. Please tell me how you think they are similar.

Posted by: Jim | November 18, 2004 at 01:03 AM

Powell is an idiot if he thinks we're going to fall for this crap again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20041118/ts_washpost/a57465_2004nov17

Posted by: | November 18, 2004 at 04:17 PM

The thing about that comment from the anonymous poster is, Jim, it really IS a little baffling why you guys are on here all the time. I can think of about three million things I'd rather do than trawl around web sites set up by and for (for example) "People Named Sue Who Love Iguanas" -- it's about as rational as your wanting to be here. And, more to the point, I definitely wouldn't spend all my time on those sites trashing the beliefs of the people on it (or their love of iguanas, as the case may be).

If you are here to try to change anybody's mind about Bush, I can safely say none of you have even got to first base. If you are here to insult and bully people you've never met because you have some kind of unresolved inner anger or something, may I politely suggest your mother should have raised you better, and extend my most humble invitation to piss off?

I assure you this is much better treatment than any of us consistently trawling around the site of someone like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh would be subjected to, so either return the respect you're shown here or be prepared to be repeatedly told to shove it.

Posted by: Maryann | November 18, 2004 at 04:31 PM

Maryann, I agree with your sentiments.

However, any time you find Del in particular annoying, just pick up a copy of Private Eye and note his striking resemblance to Glenda Slagg. Works a treat.

Posted by: miriamg | November 18, 2004 at 05:01 PM

Maryann:

I also wonder why so many regular posters are not expats and not against bush. Delal is kind of funny. He knows he'll never make an argument that actually convinces any one of us to think "hmm. maybe he has a point." Instead, he loves to say "hee hee hee...told ya so...dem/lib whiner...etc"

What's even funnier is how he says he hangs out with so many Democrats. If my buddy constantly rubbed the election in my face, I'm not sure I'd wanna be his buddy anymore.

Chrish:
I was kind of kidding with the Omorosa/Condi comparison. But I wasn't kidding when I said she has her head so far up Bush's ass, she can see his small intestine

Posted by: | November 18, 2004 at 07:26 PM

Ok {anonymous},

Posted by: Chrish | November 18, 2004 at 08:15 PM

Hey, now. I'm anon -- nothing intentional, just pressed the wrong buttons. Free speech doesn't have anything to do with it. The internet is a big place. There's plenty of space for everyone to say what ever they like. But I don't necessarily have to listen to you any more than you have to let me come to your wedding. Now Luke owns this space and I'm urging him to make that space do what the label sez -- Expats against Bush.

Why not look around -- there's sure to be some place on the web called "Virtual pub for Aimless Argument" I might evne buy you all a virtual round before I slip out the back door.

By the way, don't accuse me of being a Democrat --- I'm way way left of that. I might vote tacticly to help stave off a covert fascist takeover but I am not a Democrat.

Posted by: Larry | November 18, 2004 at 10:08 PM

In the past - months back - I would occasionally get into deep intellectual discussions on many of the things discussed on this site...

I quit when my hair started to hurt so...

Now when I have time - (due to the fact that I have three PC's going at the same time) & when I'm not traveling - I tap into your site to annoy a few 'bleeding heart liberals'.

Hey like the scorpion - it's in my nature!

So nothing personal and as I don't take any lib seriously - hopefully you will feel the same way... NOT! (hehehe)

You guys do take life a bit too seriously - my having been born & raised in 'lib land' - add the South Bronx, a minority who's first language was Spanish - never took any handouts, against affirmative action and you've got...

A raging Republican, who loves this country, worked very hard for what I've got and likes 'eating' libs for breakfast!

Posted by: delal | November 18, 2004 at 10:51 PM

Sorry Larry but, I really don't see much of a difference between those on "the far far left" and those on "the far far right". Both have facist tendencies uniquely their
own. Both have tendencies to get into a shouting and name calling posture in order to brow beat anyone who disagrees with their position. Both use fear tactics as a means to present an arguement, idea, concept, or belief....

Posted by: Chrish | November 18, 2004 at 11:09 PM

Delal and Chrish,

You two rock!!! ditto ditto ditto

Posted by: Jim | November 19, 2004 at 01:13 AM

So Powell now says Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. He says, "There's no doubt in my mind..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6516658/

Well, well, well... Those words and this issue seem vaguely familiar, don't they? Many believed him last time... no matter what the truth, how many are going to think he's crying wolf again? That... is the saddest thing about re-electing these guys. No credibility... exactly what you want from your leaders and your representatives.

Posted by: | November 19, 2004 at 06:19 AM

It's not quite on the front page, but what do you guys think about Republicans mobilizing to let Tom DeLay keep his job without regard to whether he's criminally indicted or not? It's always nice to have that majority of power to abuse it.

Posted by: Jeff | November 19, 2004 at 09:53 AM

If expats from Iraq were lying, why should we believe expats from Iran? There are no nukes in Iran. Let it go.

(guest commentator)

Posted by: Jim | November 19, 2004 at 02:28 PM

This article sums it up... I know what side of this article I'm on... I bet libs would take the other view???

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4236

Nor do I wait or expect from anyone...

Posted by: delal | November 19, 2004 at 02:46 PM

Whether there are nukes in Iran or not is not the point Jim. The problem is that Bush is going to have a much harder time convincing people that he's right after being so incompetent and wrong last time.

Furthermore, we're in no position to put the same type of pressure that we put on Saddam with our army stretched so thin and no semblance of peace or resolution in Iraq. If he told the American public that we needed to invade Iran, would we follow? I think not.

Posted by: Jeff | November 19, 2004 at 03:50 PM

What is happening in the Mid-East is something completely different from the way things were handled in the past... plain & simple...

History will show that what the Bush Doctrine accomplished was taking a much needed different approach though more forcefully that the minority (USA) would like - yet it will prove to have been effective.

And of course that will piss off libs/dems - which I'm entirely for...

As far as the rest of the world - nothing Big Macs and Cadillacs won't cure!

Can't help myself... hehehe...

Posted by: delal | November 19, 2004 at 04:10 PM

delal:

Unless you have a crystal ball, there is absolutely no way you can tell us how history will look at what the Bush presidency did during its tenure.

As for Big Macs, it mught shock you to know that all of the world is not so thrilled wth integrating US fast food culture with thier society, thus producing a nation that is so overly obese that 20% of kids wind up with Type 2 diabetes

Oh yeah, that world's just fine under the current administration because Merck will just find another 10 pills to solve the problem. And make 30 billion to boot.

Posted by: rodi | November 19, 2004 at 05:53 PM

delal:

Whether Iran has a nuke or not, what you say is true; Bush took a chance with Iraq in the sense that there is no possible way the US military could now pursue another "liberation" in any rogue nation.

So let's hope that Iran is as misunderstood as it appears to be. Of course Powell would make this statement now. he's on his way out and wants to leave Americans remembering him as the one who did not advocate invading Iraq. Even if he has shaky information, he's not gonna agree with Rummy/Cheney et al at this point, but rather make an opposing statement to try to discredit Bush policies. I'm not sure I would even place too much faith in what he says now and I like the guy.

I will stand by my version of how I think history will play out with Iraq. The insurgency apparently exists in as many as 10 or more other cities in Iraq. No matter how many times the Marines come in to a city, send all the civilians running for their lives and shoot a few unarmed Iraquis, the insurgency is NOT going away.

The US Marines may have the right idea but this will just drag on until enough American congressmen and senators get annoyed at all the wasted money and lives. You CAN'T force the country into a Democracy by trying to chase out an enemy that you can't ever clerly define.

Posted by: rodi | November 19, 2004 at 06:05 PM

But the majority of people do want some sort of democracy (see Afghanistan). Who wouldn't want to be represented in their government? It's not like half the country is rising up to stop democracy from happening. It's maybe 5000 - out of 25 million. Any many of those are from Syria, and Iran - and of course the big ass from Jordan.

The violence will continue until the elections. It will subside some after that and more when the police and NG get stronger.

No we won't get them all at once, but 1200 at a time isn't bad. Plus the amount of ammunitions recovered and safe houses destroyed is a huge win.

Oh, I forgot, it's supposed to be instantaneous like our country was, or forget it.

Posted by: Jim | November 19, 2004 at 08:35 PM

Jim:

I admire your idealsim but simply don't agree with your vision. I won't deny that millions of Iraquis probably want a democracy. But millions of Africans want to live under less corrupt governments. As well as millions of Palestinans that want Isreal to recognize a feee nation comprised of Jews and non-Jews. But you don't see us marching into the West Bank purging those insurgent Isrealis of their weapons, do you?

I never argue aganst freedom and democracy. Clearly, it's a better existance than government sponsored terrorism. But I just don't understand. Any American who can possibly deny that choosing to invade Iraq in the name of "freedom" is either completely naive (ie: simply hasn't read the facts about the GOP's financial and political interest in Iraq) or is truly an idealist (in which case you'd be a bleeding heart liberal, not a Bush supporter) Or, perhaps, you simply choose to turn a blind eye to the political agenda of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield in favor of feeling like a good American that knows what's best for every nation and culture on the planet. Have we reverted back to the Roman Empire? They had the world's best democracy and look what happened to them.

Imposing your own government, morality and culture on other nations is the same as the Romans feeding Christians to the Lions because they felt their way of life was superior. I love my country and I'm proud of the freedoms I enjoy due to the scarafices of my forefathers.

But I am NOT asking ANYONE to go kill "insurgents" to preserve my way of life. You claim 5000 ? Um, perhaps you should read some statistics and get an honest estimate of how may Suni Muslims oppose an American imposed Democracy.

Why not liberate the Ivory Coast? Or Sudan? Or Cuba? Or even North Korea, if you're so concerened with how wonderful we are to spread our democracy.

It's simply NOT America's job to go into ANY country in the world and physically focrce our way of government on them, with the possible execption of VERIFIABLE information that the country in question is an immediate and imminent threat to my way of life (and yours)

If you really were an "expat agianst Bush", you'd be lucky enough to view newscasts and documentaries that illutsrate my point. Instead, you seem brainwashed by the NBC, CNN, CBS, FOX, and ABC stories you see that are ALWAYS slanted towards the American way being the only way. I can't really expect you to understand. Hopefully, some day you will get an opprtunity to live in another country. When you do, you "might" learn the difference between being proud of America as a world leader and being ashamed of America being a global dominator.

Posted by: rodi | November 20, 2004 at 02:22 AM

Jim & Delal, I would love it if things turned out the way that you say they will. Sadly though, you have not a shred of evidence that it will go that way. In fact, most of the evidence points the other way, from the intelligence reports we have, which are always covered up by the Bush administration to the utter failure of Bush to predict anything.

WMD? No. Al-Qaeda alliance? No. Oil pays for reconstruction? No. Greeted as liberators? A little, but all lost now. Security? No. Being able to occupy Iraq with this number of troops? No. Killing Osama? No. Reducing terrorism? No. Giving us any prediction of how much the war and occupation costs? No.

I presume, that Bush knows more than either of you two. Yet of course, he's been wrong many, many times already. Yet somehow, the two of you think just because you say things will be fine that we should ignore the reality of hundreds of people dying every week because it's for a good purpose that will end someday.

Jim, you say that the violence will start subsiding after the elections. Anything to back that up at all? Anything? Wasn't it supposed to start subsiding after Iraq got back its sovereignty? No one predicted the insurgency either... didn't the Bushies tell us it was a bunch of dead enders? Don't hear that term used anymore...

Posted by: Jeff | November 20, 2004 at 02:49 AM

Hilarious quotes:
"As well as millions of Palestinans that want Isreal to recognize a feee nation comprised of Jews and non-Jews."
-Rodi
Rodi, you really believe this?

"Any American who can possibly deny that choosing to invade Iraq in the name of "freedom" is either completely naive (ie: simply hasn't read the facts about the GOP's financial and political interest in Iraq) or is truly an idealist (in which case you'd be a bleeding heart liberal, not a Bush supporter"
-Rodi
Rodi, how do you explain that I am a Bush supporter, am not a bleeding heart liberal and yet also believe in freedom for these people? And why aren't the "bleeding heart liberals" more in favor of freeing the Iraqi's? Because it would mean agreeing with Bush, who they hate.

"If you really were an "expat agianst Bush", you'd be lucky enough to view newscasts and documentaries that illutsrate my point. Instead, you seem brainwashed by the NBC, CNN, CBS, FOX, and ABC stories you see that are ALWAYS slanted towards the American way being the only way"
=Rodi
If I believed everything that ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS told me I would hardly be in favor of this President or the war. Please.

"I can't really expect you to understand. Hopefully, some day you will get an opprtunity to live in another country. When you do, you "might" learn the difference between being proud of America as a world leader and being ashamed of America being a global dominator."
=Rodi
This is just classic, pure left-wing arrogance. It never stops. :-) Ah, the self-described "intellectual elite".

"Jim, you say that the violence will start subsiding after the elections. Anything to back that up at all? Anything?"
-Jeff
Jeff, to answer your question. No. No I don't. Only my faith in humanity. You hate that.
Poor Jim, he's so naive (a.k.a. stupid)

Posted by: | November 20, 2004 at 04:33 AM

Sorry, yes, that's me above (as if you didn't know).

Posted by: Jim | November 20, 2004 at 04:34 AM

Jim, no I don't hate that, but at the same time then, you should accept that your personal faith in humanity has absolutely no chance of convincing anyone of anything you say. Faith in humanity didn't save any of Saddam's victims for 30 years and it's not going to save us. I'm looking for competence and unfortunately, this administration can't give that to us or the Iraqi people.

Posted by: Jeff | November 20, 2004 at 01:43 PM

The Bush doctrine is what it is...

Yep I can't predict the future though I would bet that history will score it a big win for liberty! No expat, Jim, Chrish, rodi, Luke or even me can know for sure.

I remember the OUTCRY when Reagan challenged the USSR - worldwide! I'm old enough...

Review how he is recorded in history...

And never forget - as far as the world is concerned - this is not a popularity contest!

Posted by: delal | November 20, 2004 at 03:12 PM

As far as Big Macs...

Last I checked - they don't force them down anyones throat!

Personally - I don't eat them - ever...

Posted by: delal | November 20, 2004 at 03:15 PM

Del, you say you can't predict history, so the answer is simple. Don't. The only way to make any sort of prediction is with what we know is happening today and sadly nothing you say indicates that you consider that at all.

Posted by: | November 20, 2004 at 03:25 PM

Sorry anon... I've always been a betting man! I won BIG on Pres Bush - it was very easy to find plenty of 'losers' in my neck of the woods!

Now I've bet on the Pres Bush legacy!

I've even given the takers odds!

It's MONEY in the bank!

Posted by: delal | November 20, 2004 at 03:38 PM

Del,
IN the years to come you will double your money.

Posted by: Jim | November 20, 2004 at 08:29 PM

The two of you remind me of those wackos buying Internet stocks for hundreds of billions of dollars at the top of the bubble. All hype...

Posted by: | November 21, 2004 at 02:11 AM

What happens to the kids who are dying? Think they're going to be cheering the Bush doctrine? So easy for hawks to support this so far away from the human costs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6541101/

Posted by: | November 21, 2004 at 03:00 PM

Jim:

no need to respond because Jeff said exactly what I would have. Both of you are just reveling in your Bush victory, spewing off comments about the future that have absolutely no way of being proven. Time will tell and once again instead of even possibly questioning even 1 shred of Bush policy, you just call Jeff and myself "paranoid left-wing liberals."

Del, as a betting man, you should know that the statistical odds of winning always diminish as you keep winning. So have fun with your bet that history will look on Bush the same way as Reagan. Might be the first time you lose BIG

>Rodi, how do you explain that I am a Bush supporter, am not a bleeding heart liberal and yet also believe in freedom for these people?Rodi, you really believe this?This is just classic, pure left-wing arrogance. It never stops. :-) Ah, the self-described "intellectual elite".Poor Jim, he's so naive (a.k.a. stupid)<

And this proves who is arrogant. Jim and I argue our points in the hopes that perhaps all you 53 million might step back for even 1 minute and take a good hard look at what's in store for the next 4 years. We don't insult you and del (in fact, I respect Del on a lot of issues)

But all you can do is call us names. That is simply childish, not constructive.

Posted by: rodi | November 21, 2004 at 04:38 PM

that last message somehow got garbled
my apologies; what i meant to say was:

>Rodi, how do you explain that I am a Bush supporter, am not a bleeding heart liberal and yet also believe in freedom for these people?

Because you don't understand that you can't be Pro-Life and Pro-War at the same time. You impose your freedoms on others by force and militarism. Good for you if that makes you feel better about occupying Iraq.

>Rodi, you really believe this?

Yup. Amazing how nobody ever talks about supporting Israel's terrorist policies as being wrong. Not even the Dems.

>Ah, the self-described "intellectual elite".

Intelligence is not elitism but ignorance is bliss. There is a CBC documentary called "The Passionate Eye" It's very similar to Dateline or 60 Minutes. Like Jeff has pointed out, this show illustrates how little support their is in most of these insurgency cities for Americans occupying the country anymore. The journalist is British and throughout the show, his life is constantly threatened by mobs of screaming civilians trying to convey the horrors that they have to live with every time their cities are "purged." They think America has no right to decide what is right for their country.

You and Del do not get a chance to see any anti-American point of view because it's simply UNAVILABLE on US TV. That's exactly what they want. No network executive has the balls to show this kind of reporting for fear of repercussions. That is not "arrogance." It's facts that you don;t get to see.

Posted by: rodi | November 21, 2004 at 04:44 PM

"You and Del do not get a chance to see any anti-American point of view because it's simply UNAVILABLE on US TV. That's exactly what they want. No network executive has the balls to show this kind of reporting for fear of repercussions. That is not "arrogance." It's facts that you don;t get to see."
=Rodi

Rodi, I see this all the time. On our own networks, on the CBC, on the BBC.....

But wait I forgot, anyone who lives in the contiguous 48 is stupid, or at least ignorant, unless they agree with you. I keep forgetting that part.

Posted by: Jim | November 22, 2004 at 01:27 AM

By the way, there were a lot of Nazis who opposed, and hated our occupation too. They even blew up buildings and people. So they were right to do so too?

Posted by: Jim | November 22, 2004 at 01:28 AM

Jim, your type of logic is so self serving that it only supports the conclusions which you believe. You constantly make WWII analogies, which history considers justified, while rejecting Vietnam ones, which of course was the worst kind of unjust war and government abuse... without really considering the facts.

Which war was it where the occupied country was not actively on the attack, invading and killing? Vietnam. Which war was it that our government lied about the threat? Vietnam. Which war was it where the occupied country was not a threat to us? Vietnam (yes, not Hanoi, but Saigon will suffice). Which war was it that didn't have world wide support? Vietnam.

For the Nazis who opposed and hated our occupation, you could at least say our occupation was just, for they attacked the rest of the world and would have owned it had we not stopped them. For Iraqis... well, where the hell is it?

Yeah, I know, you want me to show you where 56,000 American troops died... I'll do that as soon as you can show me where in Iraq, 400,000 American troops died as in World War II.

Posted by: Jeff | November 22, 2004 at 02:31 AM

Yes, my type of logic is self-serving.

Your logic on the other hand is pure. Your media outlets are unbiased and ultruistic. I am sure that the dozens of news media in the UK and Singapore and Canada (because they all have dozens right? And none are run by the state?). Ok, so all those media are completely unbiased and give a balanced view of America. Is it pretty there?

When we took Hanoi. That's when Johnson started lying to us. That dirty Texas bastard.

Posted by: Jim | November 22, 2004 at 03:37 AM

Saw a great story on Fox News tonight titled, "Hating America". You can watch it on....oh sorry Rodi, Fox News isn't available in Canada. It might give another side of the story. I wonder why Fox News would be banned in Canada - a country which wants to give it's citizens all points of view.

Posted by: Jim | November 22, 2004 at 04:18 AM

Jim, it is pure, unless of course you're telling me that media reports of deaths are false. I don't really pay attention to all the other noise...

So tell me, is there any doubt that Bush had contrary intel on WMD and chose to sell us a completely different story? No. Is there any doubt that we found no WMD. No. Is there any doubt that our intelligence told us it highly doubted a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda? No. Any doubt that Bush told us there was? No. Any doubt that our new secretary of state told us she had no idea that the CIA thought the uranium purchase in Niger was false? No. Any doubt that she was lying? No.

As you can see, there is no media bias in any of the above and amazingly, I really could keep going and going. So... is there any reason to trust this administration now? Absolutely no.

Posted by: Jeff | November 22, 2004 at 04:47 AM

Many of you Americans have some real big mental problems! What the hell is wrong with you people?

Posted by: a-radejavic | November 22, 2004 at 05:11 AM

Dear a-radejavic

If you're going to post something as ridiculous as this comment, please either make your point(s) using whatever logic you consider to be reasonable, or do not bother telling us we're "mental"

If you hate Americans, join the debate and add something relevant to support your position.

If you just hate all Americans for no reason, do us a favor and go find somewhere else to post childish hatred.

And I'm SURE I speak for all of us, no matter what side of the debate we're on.

Posted by: rodi | November 22, 2004 at 02:42 PM

Jim:

Re: your FOX comments.
FOX put its own foot in its mouth years ago. I don't even think the right wing pays much attention to anything they say anymore. As for being banned, it's not banned; it's just that Rogers, Bell and the other satelllite providers up here do not feel there's enough of an audience to make it a profitable venture. And I would like to see it. If it repeats, please tape it for me and mail. I will pay the postage.

Re: your WWII/Nazi comments:
Once again, thanks to Jeff for answering on my behalf. There is no comparison whatseoever to a Facist dictator that had the ability to invade the world at the time and a self-serving nutcase like Saddam that couldn't even invade Kuwait without severe repricussions.

Re: Your CBC comments:
If you do get to view the CBC documentaries, I apologize. Please do view The Passionate Eye and at least comment on what you think of the show. AS for being government controlled, I find most privately owned US networks to be much more biased regarding their point of view than the state owned CBC.

Examples??
On American Dreams last night, the entire show was sponsored by Ford and spent the last 10 minutes with a corporate sponsored load of crap that was obviously so pro-Bush. (It was a tibute to the soldiers figting the "war" if you wanna really call it a war.) Although I really enjoy that show and it's based in historical fact, they always show the anti-war activists as the bad guys who have to be punsihed.

Re: those living in the US now: Never said they were all dumb. Just wish they had a chance to see more non-American viewpoints.
Intelligence obviously had very little bearing on the outcome of the election when compared to morality.

Finally, just to verify a fact about Canadian politics: The Liberal Government is currently bending over backwards to kiss Bush's asshole like it's never been kissed before. The ban on Canadaian beef has cost Alberta over $3 billion so far. The softwood lumber dispute has cots the west about another billion or so. The SARS incident last year scared Americans from coming to Canada and cost the tourist industry an immense sum. And the 85 cent Loonie has made exports to Canada's largest trading partner so expensive, the CBC would NEVER advocate any anti-American sentiments.

The documentaries I speak of are just that: documentaries. Look up the definition of the word. Bush is coming to Ottawa next week and if you thought Vicente Fox ass-kissed in Chile, wait til you see Paul Martin lick his butthole.

So that media argument is not valid in this country. I can't speak for the UK or Singapore; I don't live there so you may be right about state sponsored televison in those countries.

Posted by: rodi | November 22, 2004 at 04:30 PM

so anything that supports soldiers is pro=Bush. Thanks for clearing that up, Rodi. That's sad that you feel that way. Are you saying if you don't support the President you can't support the troops? Thanks for saying what so many are thinking.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/27/110316.shtml

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=285&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

http://www.pogge.ca/archives/000518.shtml

Rodi, Fox News is still BANNED in Canada. This is not a local decision, but one by the CRTC. It may change soon, but they have repeatedly been denied a license.
Why?

Posted by: JIm | November 22, 2004 at 05:31 PM

Jim

was not aware of the CRTC ruling.
not really sure why. Yes, it's dumb and I don't have a good answer why they ban FOX
other than to say that there's much less of a strong right wing up here. But that does not justify censorship

And I support the troops;
just not the reason that they are there to begin with
(we're not really as far off as you think)

cheers

Posted by: rodi | November 22, 2004 at 09:53 PM

I'm sure we're not as far apart as we appear on a blog.

Posted by: Jim | November 23, 2004 at 02:52 AM

Rodi,

vis your comment to a-radejavic, well stated
and thank you.

Both you and Jeff might want to check this
out and, if possible, see the film:

http://www.voicesofiraq.com/

Either way I hope you all have a good Thanksgiving with family and friends and,
if travelling, a very safe and uninterrupted
travel home and back.

Posted by: Chrish | November 23, 2004 at 03:15 AM

Jim, whenever you're presented with unassailable facts that clearly show right and wrong, what do you do? Go on talking about not supporting the troops or wanting Saddam to be in power or as if Iraqis lived in paradise before. None of which of course, represent a position that any rational person would ever take and none of which are excuses or reasons for the incompetence and lies that we've seen. The closest to a real answer that I've heard from you is to paraphrase, "Oh yeah, like presidents don't lie." That makes it okay.

I'm not sure why you continue posting here... NOT that I'm against your first amendment rights. But since you merely run away like Sir Robin from every hard fact that is presented and pick away at the media or Michael Moore or whatever irrelevant nonsense is out there, I don't understand what your objective is. Honestly, I could do a better job of being pro-Bush than you.

Posted by: Jeff | November 23, 2004 at 03:22 AM

Jim wrote: "Rodi, Fox News is still BANNED in Canada."

Nope. They applied for a license in a joint venture with CanWest Global and the license was granted in 2000. They just never followed through and started the station.

More recently, FNC applied for a digital license on their own and that was granted last week. As far as I know, Fox has been approved on every application it's ever submitted.

Posted by: pogge | November 23, 2004 at 05:07 AM

Hating America? You might hate America too if you used to live in Fallujah, a city of what used to be 300,000, which now lies in complete rubble. You can blame insurgents, Sunni resistance fighters, and whoever else you want... but if you care even the slightest about Iraqi hearts and minds, you'll quickly figure out that the city was existed before Americans invaded Iraq and Americans leveled it. It's a no win situation, which is of course why Bush I and Cheney decided not to invade in '92. That wisdom behind that logic hasn't changed, yet the challenges seem to have been ignored this time around. I for one, can't fathom why.

Posted by: | November 23, 2004 at 07:39 AM

Pogge,

Got it. Fox just didn't follow through. Ok, I'm noting that. After applying for license they just didn't follow through. Ok, thanks.

Jeff,

I'm running away from you and the unassailable facts. I can't take it anymore.

Posted by: Jim | November 23, 2004 at 12:04 PM

I thought the Fox News situation had to do with anti-trust laws and Murdoch's other properties outside the US, but I could be totally off here. I seriously doubt anybody would ban a News Channel based on content in countries like Canada. It's probably just a question of market demand, and in most western modern democracies, the majority of people prefer factual, balanced news reporting to wackos all the way on one side or the other.

Posted by: | November 23, 2004 at 05:27 PM

Of course the dy. :\

Posted by: Jim | November 24, 2004 at 10:49 AM

sorry.

Of course they do. :\

Posted by: Jim | November 24, 2004 at 10:50 AM