TIME's Person of the Year

I'm hoping that they're giving this to Bush on a "most talked about person of the year" basis rather than a "most deserving of celebration" basis. Ugh.

Comments

[jj]

it was gonna be either Kerry or Bush, whoever won.

[rodi]

Time magazine has given this "award" to both Nobel prize winners and evil dictators.

Normally, I'd say it means nothing, but with today's rise of denial and ignorance amongst the voting public, it will clearly sound like a ringing endorsement of Bush. But they'll just brush it off because remember: according to Bushies, we sport a "liberal left wing media"

Pardon the redundancy, but each and every day brings another comment that is so utterly ridiculous, I have to repeat it in case anyone missed it. From today's SFGate.com:
=======================================
Accused of being insensitive to U.S. soldiers in Iraq and their families, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld received a fresh endorsement Monday from President Bush, who called him "a caring fellow."

"I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart," Bush said. "I know how much he cares for the troops," adding that Rumsfeld and his wife visit hospitalized soldiers "all the time to provide comfort and solace."
===========================================

How can he say this and keep a straight face??????

Reading further into this, we see that many prominent Republicans have publically denounced Rummy but still don't have the balls to call for his resignation. That would look like an admission of error and we all know that the Bush administration NEVER admits a mistake. It seems clear that anyone that hasn't yet resigned his cabinet will step in shit one way or another before Bush leaves.

Anyone wanna start a pool about how many more books can be written lamenting the follies of the second four Bush years?

[jj]

since Rumsfeld is so competent and doing such a superb job, then listen to this 2 min audio report about Rumsfeld and the $80B requested for Iraq in 2005. I particularly like Rumsfeld quotes from 2003.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4230935

(just click on the "listen" button to hear the report.)

[rodi]

More great comments today from The Illustrious One's Press Conference:

1) Says he's going to cut the deficit by ONE HALF in 5 years. Can't wait to hear from the accountants that get that task.

2) With his never ending smirk, I love the way he looks at the camera and says "Of course the bombers are hurting us."

3) Tries to dole out all his ambitious plans for Social Security and tort reform but reporters only want to know why the situation in Iraq is worsening.

4)Gotta be my favorite of the day:
Lays out a plan done by ALL CIVILIANS for a U.S. troop departure by January 2006. Every single assumption is contingent on Iraq training and supporting a self-sufficient military consisting of as many as 275,000 soldiers.

Chrish, please try to shed some light on how to accomplish this task of amassing a military in a country that clearly has no interest in policing itself from insurgents. (I'm not pickling on you, but all the fun Bush supporters ran away. I guess they got tired of bragging and calling us "dem/libs.")

Anyway, 5 minutes after the ingeniuos troop departure plan announcement, Bush goes on to tell us how the Iraqis run away every time they see danger.

NBC News goes on to analyze the situation as this: Since it's clearly improbable that Iraq can take over security of their own country, an American troop departure would be nice to the families, but viewed as losing the war.

Hmmm. How many times have I tried to argue the similarities to Vietnam? It's an unwinnable war because war was never declared by a visble enemy. Occupation was assumed by a superpower with some false bravado of patriotism and freedom as the justification. I say when the Senate elections roll around and we still have over 200,000 troops there you watch how many Republican senators would rather admit that the "war" was a mistake than get voted out of office for supporting an unwinnable mission.

[Chrish]

Rodi,

"I'm not pickling on you"? Excuse me but,
I have no desire to be dumped into a barrel of brine; thank you very much... :o)

OK, before you guys go off half cocked you
seem to drop the fact that the only reason,
according to the Times, was because of his
statement during the campaign "You know what
I stand for, and you know I mean what I say." At least that's what the Times has
been saying. Which is the truth. Kerry couldn't say the same. You didn't know what
he really stood for and you really didn't know if he said what he meant from one day to the next.

Regarding Rumsfeld, I agree. I was truly
disappointed and rather irritated with his response to the soldier that questioned him
on armament. Which, by the way, I thought
was a valid question and it really doesn't matter if a news reporter coaxed that soldier with the question. To me, that side
of it was irrelevant. Rumsfeld had an opportunity to answer a valid question and
follow up by making it a point to see to it that it was done but, blew it. Not only did he blow it but, the question now arises as to WHY are Our people not fully equipped with the armament they should have, why wasn't the production of those equipped vehicles put on a High Priority Status?

I've also read and heard that there are members on the Republican side who are beginning to ask for Rumsfeld's resignation.
Now if it is shown that Rumsfeld was sitting
on his hands regarding the armament question than I would have to say Yes, he should go. It's a friggin combat situation that Our people are being sent into and they should have the latest in weaponry and aramament they require to do their job. Anything less is Not Acceptable.

And in regard to your item 4, yes it is contingent and he has said that on many occasions. That's nothing new.

Since Liberals or those on the Left are always excusing everyone for what happened when they were kids, what their parents did to them, or what some teacher did to them, or its societies fault then it should also apply here.

How many years were the Iraqi people under the boot of Saddam? How many years did they suffer the murders, rapes, tortures, mass killings from Saddam's Goon Squads and his darling little boys?

That's a hell of a lot of Trauma for a whole society to suffer for so many years. You can't expect them to just jump up as if nothing had ever happened to them individually or collectively.

It's very easy to sit here safe and sound in our or your place without ever knowing
what its like to experience the abject fear
that there's going to be a knock at your door with goons waiting to drag you off into the night. Or whether you're going to make it home safe without getting dragged off for no apparent reason never to be seen again. To watch your father, mother, sister, brother, or a close friend dragged off by some goons only to discover that they're in a dreaded jail being tortured, beaten, electrocuted, and all manner of other sick things that the mind of man can come up with.

Afraid? Of course, they're afraid wouldn't you after so many years of fear and oppression?

Things that aren't being reported on by the
all knowing news media is that inspite of what the Iraqi's are going through right now; the killings of police officers, the killings of public officials, etc. there are more Iraqi's lining up to join the police, the military, or become public officials. Nobody, not even Bush, has said it was going to be easy. Anyone who would believe that is either very naive or a complete moron.

[sarcasm]

I love how Americans cared for so many years about all those things Chrish just mentioned. All through the 70's we cared, all through the 80's we cared, all through the 90's we cared. And finally, in 2003, we got a great leader who had the courage to liberate all those poor saps in the desert.

[rodi]

To Sarcasm: (great pen name)

I'm not quite sure if your comment is actually sarcasm or are you being serious? Please, if you're going to post, elaborate. I'm gonna take it for granted that you are making fun of how Americans don't really give a shit about anything that doesn’t directly involve their everyday lives. And you'd be 99.9999999% correct if that's the point you are trying to make.

Chrish:
First, the things I agree with. Strictly from the point of view of sticking to your guns: Yes, I have to agree that Bush has not faltered one iota from his stated plan. However, if he had gone on record during the 2000 campaign and told the entire nation his true agenda (which we now know was planned from DAY ONE even before 9/11 thanks to Woodward, Clarke and others), how many people would have voted for him? Honestly, if he come out and told the public that he:

a) planned on removing Saddam from power
b) planned on invading Iraq in order to accomplish this goal REGARDLESS of world support (or lack thereof)
c) would "stick to his guns" in the name of "freedom and democracy" regardless of the thousands of Americans that might have to die over the course of his entire presidency
d) planned on appointing Supreme Court justices that will virtually guarantee that future generations of gays are always discriminated against
e) planned on trying to amend the Constitution to maintain his ultra conservative morality as the law of the land (ie: the definition of a marriage)
f) planned on running the country from a multi billion dollar SURPLUS to the all time largest DEFICIT in the history of the world in order to pursue his secret agenda
g) would continue to butcher the language (OK, that one we'd all believe)

Yes, his conviction should be admired. The problem is he hid his entire agenda from the people, the congress, and the world. But convictions quickly become stupidity and obstinate stubbornness when the country's best interests are clearly not the first priority. As more and more Republicans demand quick results and proof that the "war" is winnable, it shows that the national consensus is changing. Refusing to budge in the face of continuous anarchy and American deaths is not a trait to be admired.

Regarding your comments on Iraqi suffering:
Obviously they have suffered. But read up a bit on what happened in Rwanda in 1999 (among other places) and you'll see that it happens all over the world. No oil, no communists, no American intervention. Of course you and I can't understand what it's like to live that way. And I'm not pretending to. But I'm also not going to live my life felling guilty that I was privileged enough to be born in North America. You can have compassion and empathy without sending troops to die in a place where NOBODY wants American presence.

There are plenty of people that are willing to risk their lives in the name of humanity such as the organization "Doctors Without Borders". Talk to some of them before you feel so sorry for Iraqis. There is famine, treatable disease and plenty of other dictatorships all over the world. The US used to play a leading role by pledging 1 to 2% of GDP to world aid. Now the US is somewhere near the bottom in terms of GDP relative to other countries.

You don't have to be a bleeding heart liberal to promote humanitarian aid without military occupation. As for Iraqis lining up to join the police, even Bush admits that they're all chicken shit and run away when the bombs start dropping.

I don't expect Iraqis to jump nor do I expect their lives to "be easy." What I expect is the US to keep its military out of international conflict except in the face of absolute and imminent threats to its national interests. And the odds of any nation posing a threat that would ONLY affect the US is ludicrous. Do you remember the OPEC oil embargo of 1973? Didn't the world survive without the US deciding to invade anyone? Even if we have limited access to their oil, the world's gas tanks will still be full. Only the Cheneys, Haliburtons, Exxon-Mobils and warmongering Rumsfelds would suffer.

China's inevitable dominance of the world's economy is more of a threat to American "freedom" than any dictator. A superpower should promote democracy and freedom with the assistance of the entire international community. It's always been that way, otherwise we'd all be living under Hitler or speaking Russian. When Bush's generation finally dies out, hopefully the Gen Xers and Yers that become our leaders will not cling to some misguided conservative belief that American freedom and democracy means unilateral military intervention in order to wage war on an ideology.

[Chrish]

Rodi,

All well stated points but please don't get me wrong I wasn't necessarily supporting
the Times nomination but, merely stating known facts.

Please point me to those articles where it
undeniably presents the evidence that Bush
had pre-planned all of the things you're stating. I've read many of the "conspiracy" theories and even listened
to that boorish fellow - Michael Moore - and I don't see the evidence. Most of that, if not all, was stuff posted on websites with no real validated evidence nor confirmation from other known reputable websites or news outlets.

Please point me to those places where Woodward, Clarke, and other's present undeniable evidence of Bush's pre 9/11 planning?

[jj]

Rodi,

that sarcasm one was from me and, yes, my point was that no one here gives a rats ass about other people's plight until some dumbass president (guess to whom I'm referring) miraculously decides that those people suddenly are worthy of liberation and democracy.

How many people in the US now care about the plight of the Sudanese, Congolese, Chechnyans? ZERO!
How many people care that we are right now SUPPORTING evil dictators and tyrants in Uzbekistan? Or Turkmenistan? (It is a known fact that the latter of the two places boils his political opponents!) How many Americans care to liberate them? ZERO!

[correction]

that should read:
"It is a known fact that the dictator of the latter of the two places boils his political opponents!"

[rodi]

Chrish:

I know you were just stating the nomination as it was given by the magazine. I also know that you are willing to read facts that back up my arguments. I don't pay much attention to websites, conspiracy theories and movies by Michael Moore.

I prefer non-fiction that is well documented and generally non-partisan. I read about a book a week because I believe that knowledge is the most important way to educate. My goal is never to change anyone's moral or even political views, but simply to ask them to READ THE FACTS, not simply support Bush because you think he sounds like a "regular guy that sticks to his guns." If people read the facts with an open mind and then still think that Iraq is a winnable confrontation that was not pushed to the public as a series of lies and deceptions, then there is no hope of reaching them and I accept them as being stubborn dumbasses. You are not one of those mindless numnuts so if you haven't read these 2 books that come to mind, I highly recommend them.

The first is "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward. As a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and one half of the team that exposed Nixon and Watergate to the American public, Woodward has no reason to write anything besides facts that he obtained from all his sources in Washington. His book exposes plans that Bush had to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 from actual conversations. It then documents evidence of conversations that were made to Rumsfeld and Powell (among others) that demands they come up with some sort of link to Saddam and 9/11 after the attacks on the WTC. It shows that even Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolflowitz and his top cronies had doubts that they'd be able to convince the public that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, mostly because there was simply no evidence.

The other book is "Against All Enemies" by Richard A Clarke. He is the world's leading anti-terrorist czar that has worked under Regan, Bush1, Clinton and W. His book masterfully details the history of anti-western terrorism and examines all the steps that were taken (and missed) He is not blaming Bush exclusively; Clinton made his share of mistakes. But it will show you with undisputable evidence that Bush was fully aware of all the strides that Clinton's administration made to thwart Al-Queda. He could've acted or continued the path they were on but instead chose to toss almost every single entire Clinton program out the window simply because he wanted to. After the Supreme Court stole the presidential race away from the people, one would think he should have tried to unify a very divided public by easing into his polices. But instead he chose to alienate anyone that was not 100% behind the hidden agenda that much of the GOP cronies had been planning for 8 years.

Hope you read these when you get time and please have an open mind

jj:
You sound pissed that Americans are such assholes when it comes to world compassion. Yeah, it sucks and I'm not calling myself some aid-working humanitarian that would have the courage to risk my life so others can live a better life. But reality is what it is. American government has always supported dictatorships if they have financial or political interests such as oil pipeline contracts, drug cartel deals or right wing ideological viewpoints that determine what countries are "liberated" and what countries suffer year after year.

All you and I can do is read the facts, try to educate people using intelligently constructed dialogue and enjoy the fact that we are not one of those that live their existence without a shred of concern for humanity.

[Chrish]

Rodi,

Thanks, I will get those books and see what they have to say.

Yes, I agree with your response to jj but,
would have to add that the things Our goverment has done in Our name way before Bush came to office is, embarrassingly, shameful. If I recall correctly Castro did come to us seeking aid in overthrowing Bautista and we turned our back on him. Likewise the Sandinista's in Nicueraqua. Samosa, Bautista, Noriega all known brutal dictators and We supported them with the assinine excuse of "It is better than Communism" and "We will move them towards a Democratic society.". Meanwhile, their death squads murdered, raped, and pillaged the people of those countries. The list goes on. "some dumbass president (guess to whom I'm referring) miraculously decides that those people suddenly are worthy of liberation and democracy." could, honestly, refer to Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and now Bush Jr.

Which of the two parties can honestly say their hands are clean?

[Chrish]

As an aside to the current topic I'm wondering if someone could explain this to
me
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142258,00.html

I'm not quite sure what the opposition is to
the Gay Rights Bill? They're not calling it "Marriage" but, are giving the Gay community the rights they should have. So,
what's all the hub-bub bub.

[rodi]

Chrish

The "hubbub" is that even California has a small group of right wing extremists that try to block anything related to gay rights in court. The good part is that nobody in California listens to them. As the most tolerant state, blue and red co-exist in relative harmony, at least when it comes to "morality".

California was one of the first states to legaalize interracial marriage, all the way back in the 1940's. They have always been the most progressive state and most residents understand that equal rights extends to ALL Californians, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or political affiliation. That is what sets it apart from most of the other states and makes me proud to be a voter represented by California.

Here in Canada, the Supreme court just ruled that all provinces have to recognize and sanction gay marriages as legal (thus extending more Federal benefits) Nobody cares much except the Premier of Alberta who defiantly keeps vowing to fight it forever. Why he is so homophobic is a mystery to me; we don't even have a large gay population. Every other prominent politician in the province has given in, saying that the province has no more legal avenues to pursue a fight. Maybe the governor of Alabama could come up and campaign for him on behalf of Bush.

[Chrish]

Sorry to burst your bubble Rodi but, the
truth is is that the majority of your blue
state, California, that includes both Democrats, the so-called "Progressives" or
"Liberals", if you prefer, Republicans, Libertarians, and Green Party voted for the "Protection of Marriage" act.

It was also a Democrat who decided he was
above the law or to ignore the law and allowed Gay Marriages to occur.

Now with all the rhetoric about violating the laws, etc., etc., etc. as well as accusations of ignoring, denying, and rejecting various laws, the lying, and deceit one would think that the other side
would follow the law while taking it thru
the court system. Unless, of course, this
is one of those "Do as I say not as I do." kind of thing or, to be more precise, Double Standards?

The point being is there's been a lot of yelling and screaming about Democracy; the Will of the People, and let the voters decide, and Majority Rule. And when they do and its not what you or those in the so-called "Blue States" wanted the screaming, the yelling, and the name calling (brow beating) comes to bear. Can you explain that mentality to me?

BTW, who were the clowns that devised, yet another means of division, this ridiculous blue state vs red state crap? Would that be the same bunch of Bozo's that came up with the (nameyourflavor hypen American) in
order to categorize, pigeon hole, and stuff us all into nice neat little boxes? And if
I don't like the color Blue or Red does that mean I can pick my own color and say I'm this little cyan, green, or, perhaps, a Turqoise spot in that Blue state? Just curious about that.

[rodi]

Chrish:

It doesn't burst my bubble. I agree with you that most of the bickering is ridiculous. I also maintain that Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco, went above his authority when he continued to allow gay marriages in San Francisco even though the State Supreme Court decreed it is against the state constitution. But San Francisco County represents the extreme left. I liked the city but not its politics.

As for the blue vs red, I'm not sure who invented the color red as being Republican and blue as Democratic any more than I'd know who decided the Crips wear red and the Bloods wear blue. The color difference makes a convenient way to describe states that voted one way or the other. It's nothing more than that to me.

One explanation I can offer, based on living in Canada for 3 years , is that Americans love to put labels on everything and everybody. Up here, there are no "African-Canadians" or "Asian-Canadians." Everyone is just Canadian.

As for the gay marriage issue, I'm sure there are just as many Californians as anywhere else that are morally opposed to the issue. But the majority does rule and in a state with more gays and lesbians than any other state, one would expect more political sympathy for their issues. Personally, I could care less if they call it marriage or simply a union or "common-law partners" like here in Canada. But I'm not religious so I have no moral objection to the homosexual lifestyle.

My point with California is mostly about the lack of rah-rah, patriotic ignorance that dominate the political viewpoints of many conservative states. You don't drive around the freeways of LA and see huge American flags plastered on the driver's side of cars as I saw in Florida. People’s political viewpoints generally come with a more open minded attitude, one that is based more on issues like education, healthcare and national security, rather than the misguided belief that a war in Iraq was necessary "in the name of Homeland Security."

Anyway, have a very Merry Christmas and enjoy the holiday season.

[jj]

"marriage protection act"

in 30 years, we're gonna look back at that like the "separate but equal" ruling. based on nothing but intolerance.

that liberal news media always focuses on the negative, such as lack of electricity and fuel. But they rarely mention the positives, such as this report...

At the same time, Salih added with a grim smile, not all the news has been bad. Last week Iraqi police captured a Syrian man walking on a freeway bridge spanning the Tigris River in the capital's south end. The vehicle he had abandoned turned out to be rigged with explosives.

"A car bomb ran out of fuel," Salih said. "There's always a silver lining."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&e=11&u=/washpost/20041224/ts_washpost/a23297_2004dec23

The plan for the occupation was "mediocre" says an army historian. What a shock.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6753606/

[Maryann]

I love all these claims of the "liberal media" ignoring good news from Iraq -- FOLLOWED BY A LINK TO A STORY IN THE MEDIA COVERING THE GOOD NEWS. Ah, the irony does get thick sometimes with our conservative friends.

[rodi]

Maryann:

Ah, the beauty of Bush lovers. Vacationing on the ranch for the entire week while the rest of the G8 nations cough up millions in cash to help the victims of an actual tragedy. I guess Iraq is more important than Mother Nature, therefore renedering an actual crisis as meaningless to the Bush administration.

Funny how the "liberal media" points Americans concerned about victims in Southeast Asia to a web site run by the state department rather than show the names of NGO's that could actually take cash donations instead of calls about American tourists.

At least Powell had the decency to take to the airwaves right away since Bush couldn't be bothered until he was coaxed by his advisors. What a piece of shit of an excuse for a world leader. Oh, but he did pledge an amount of money that is spent EVERY FOUR HOURS in Iraq. Much more important to make sure the elections go on a scheduled.

[Jim]

What the???? What do elections in Iraq have to do with Sri Lanka? But Rodi we know you hate that those elections will take place. You will hate to see high voter turnout like there was in Afghanistan. You and let's see, who else said he didn't want those elections to take place. Oh ya, Usama bin laden.

Once again the US will do more than any other country to help those in need in Sri Lanka, but the only think you care about are photo ops and press conferences - rather than the real work. Unbelieveable.

[miriamg]

Jim:

Why are you here? Shouldn't you be preparing for the Boy King's coronation in January? The one that's costing $40 million?

That Afghanistan voter turnout sure was good. In fact, the turnout was bigger than the actual eligible voting population of Afghanistan. Now that's freedom!

Yes, we liberals hate freedom. We're just so full of hate, unlike your little friends Limbaugh, Falwell, Robertson, Savage and Dick "F*ck" Cheney. I note well that you don't even bother distancing yourself from their disgusting remarks.

Since we're so hateful, I suggest you take your delicate sensibilities elsewhere. Go celebrate with your GOP mates. Fiddle away while everything - healthcare, education, the environment, Iraq, the dollar - burns.

Otherwise I'll just assume you're a sicko masochist who likes hanging around losers like us.
Byeee!

[Jim]

Oh Miriamg, I missed you.

It's refreshing to find someone who finds fault with the Afghani elections, when even the UN didn't.
I so like the liberal web sites which preach diversity, so long as everyone agrees with them. Is there some sort of irony here? Leave Jim, you don't agree with us.

Merry Christm...I mean Happy Everything (sorry)

-The Masochist

[rodi]

Jim:

Yeah, I'll bet the Sri Lankans can't wait for the same kind of "work" that the American troops did in Afghanistan. As soon as they find some agency to contract out the task of catastrophe aid, they can start.

Afghan elections did absolutely positively nothing other than make Bush supporters feel proud of themselves. But you'd have to read a book like "Hope in Hell", the true story of Doctors Without Borders in order to have someone point out to you all the disruption that Bush policies have caused to humanitarian aid and rebuilding. And we don’t expect you to read anything based in actual truth.

To clarify my position, if you really think I'm opposed to an Iraq election, you may really be as dumb as your comments. I could care less because I have no personal or financial interest in Haliburton oil contracts. If that's what they want, they can do it without my government running a 3 trillion dollar deficit and sending troops to be blown up by suicide bombers.

Notice how Ukraine managed to have an election even though they are an ex-Soviet bloc nation controlled by evil dictators. And notice how they resolved the initial fraud without the US sending troops to occupy the country. Ah, but their country is too far North for a pipeline to connect anywhere.

You are NUTS if you think the US will do more than any other country to help disaster victims. Spain pledged EIGHTY MILLION dollars today. And let's hear it for Bush's moronic comment how "we will prevail" against the catastrophe. Maybe he can occupy all the stricken nations and build a "coalition of the willing" to defeat the evil forces of Mother Nature