|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject: Arrogance of the Former First Lady on War in Iraq |
 |
|
"I watch none. He (former President Bush) sits and listens and I read books, because I know perfectly well that, don't take offense, that 90 percent of what I hear on television is supposition, when we're talking about the news. And he's not, not as understanding of my pettiness about that. But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? And watch him suffer."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/barbara.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remind me again- what boy did she raise?
But in all fairness:
"Her comment was not meant as a dismissal of actual deaths or suffering (troops had not yet been engaged at the time of her remark), but of news coverage that amounted to one expert after another making predictions about what they saw as likely to occur."
Last edited by Bulsajo on Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Read within the context of the full interview, it is a tiny bit more clear that Mrs. Bush's "beautiful mind" statement referred to her desire to not become mesmerized by the pre-war media speculation of what such an invasion would mean, what sorts of weaponry and embedded defenses U.S. troops might well be walking into, which troops would be committed and when they'd be deployed, how long the war would last, and how high the body count might be. Prior to the commencement of hostilities, such matters were the subject of endless supposition by various news pundits. While maybe not "90 percent" of what was filling the air waves was guesswork rather than hard news, Mrs. Bush's point that news of that moment was much more about what could or might happen rather than what was happening was valid. Her comment was not meant as a dismissal of actual deaths or suffering (troops had not yet been engaged at the time of her remark), but of news coverage that amounted to one expert after another making predictions about what they saw as likely to occur. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Remind me again- what boy did she raise?
But in all fairness:
"Her comment was not meant as a dismissal of actual deaths or suffering (troops had not yet been engaged at the time of her remark), but of news coverage that amounted to one expert after another making predictions about what they saw as likely to occur." |
That is Snopes' interpretation of Barbara Bush's state of mind when she made her remarks.
But the fact is that those things did indeed come to pass. Perhaps they would not have had more people of influence actually cared in advance about needless deaths and suffering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good rebuttal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Remind me again- what boy did she raise?
But in all fairness:
"Her comment was not meant as a dismissal of actual deaths or suffering (troops had not yet been engaged at the time of her remark), but of news coverage that amounted to one expert after another making predictions about what they saw as likely to occur." |
That is Snopes' interpretation of Barbara Bush's state of mind when she made her remarks.
But the fact is that those things did indeed come to pass. Perhaps they would not have had more people of influence actually cared in advance about needless deaths and suffering. |
Possibly true on the other hand you don't know that they dont' car about American lives.
Furthermore those in power and/or in influence decided that taking Iraq was going to be their strategy for dealing with terror. It is possible that they felt/ believed that the US was going to be attacked over and over again unless there were changes in the mideast or at least changes in behavior by mideast regimes.
You obviously feel that those in power didn't think that invading Iraq had anything to do with fighting terror or keeping the US secure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Possibly true on the other hand you don't know that they dont' car about American lives. |
Their actions show that they do not. One doesn't have to be Cindy Sheehan to see that.
Of course, with the Bush administration doing everything in its power NOT to show body bags, etc. I suppose one could have the opposite impression.
I do wonder if more people will turn against this war when it becomes common to see 20-something amputees in the local Winn-Dixie.
| JRGR wrote: |
| Furthermore those in power and/or in influence decided that taking Iraq was going to be their strategy for dealing with terror. It is possible that they felt/ believed that the US was going to be attacked over and over again unless there were changes in the mideast or at least changes in behavior by mideast regimes. |
That is possible. The jury is still out on that one.
But, considering that those in power have not also overthrown the governments of Syria, Iran, Yemen, the Sudan, Libya, Algeria, and Turkmenistan (did I leave any out?), I, as a thinking person, doubt that very much.
Oh yeah, Saudi Arabia too.
I find it more plausible that Baby Bush's motive for deposing Saddam Hussein was revenge ("y'all tried to kill my pappy!"). Stopping terrorism as a motive? After all, the current president's father willfully left Saddam Hussein in power a decade ago. Is it your claim that there was no terrorist threat to the U.S. then?
I also find it more plausible that the desire to control Iraq has to do with control of its large and easily exploited petroleum reserves.
I also find it more plausible that like Clinton and others before him, both Republican and Democrat, Baby Bush sees military action as desirable because it potentially (1) stimulates the economy; (2) unites behind him in the cause of patriotism people who would otherwise oppose him; (3) removes the media's focus from undesirable issues; (4) allows him to avoid trying to deal with thornier perennial domestic issues.
| JRGR wrote: |
| You obviously feel that those in power didn't think that invading Iraq had anything to do with keeping the US secure. |
You obviously fail to consider the possibility that there were other, more cynical, motives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
You obviously feel that those in power didn't think that invading Iraq had anything to do with fighting terror or keeping the US secure. |
That was always a possible explanation for events; In hindsight it seems more likely than ever.
If we can't recognize mistakes, we can't correct them. If we can't correct mistakes, then the terrorists will inevitably win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
That is possible. The jury is still out on that one.
But, considering that those in power have not also overthrown the governments of Syria, Iran, Yemen, the Sudan, Libya, Algeria, and Turkmenistan (did I leave any out?), I, as a thinking person, doubt that very much.
Oh yeah, Saudi Arabia too. |
Perhaps Iraq was chose because the US was already in some kind of war with Iraq, that Saddam was weaker than he had been , that other nations were more difficult and that Iraq was the most strategically located .
This link below describes the choice better than than I could.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
| Quote: |
| I find it more plausible that Baby Bush's motive for deposing Saddam Hussein was revenge ("y'all tried to kill my pappy!"). Stopping terrorism as a motive? After all, the current president's father willfully left Saddam Hussein in power a decade ago. Is it your claim that there was no terrorist threat to the U.S. then? |
The situation had changed , Iraq was viewed as place for the US to project from power from. More than Iraq was a terrorist threat itself. Though Saddam did have links to terror groups.
Saudi Arabia was being evasive about cracking down on or cooperating destroy Al Qaida. Then they supposedly talked about asking US forces to leave if the US didn't stop pressuring them on Al Qaida.
So the US invaded Iraq because from Iraq the US could apply a great deal of strategic pressure on Saudi Arabia , Iran and Syria from Iraq.
The other main reason was the US wanted to make an example of someone in the mideast.
This explains the such a theory:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1110567/posts
| Quote: |
| I also find it more plausible that the desire to control Iraq has to do with control of its large and easily exploited petroleum reserves. |
The US could have cut a deal w/ Saddam to profit from Iraq's oil .
I agree a war to take control of Iraq's oil wouldn't be justified. But I don't think such is the case.
| Quote: |
I also find it more plausible that like Clinton and others before him, both Republican and Democrat, Baby Bush sees military action as desirable because it potentially | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
