US Presidential Advisor
so let er rip...
Whispering Death
Active member
I'd parlay the job into a comfy 6-figure administrative gig and retire early with a huge government pension. Invest all my fat cat money and live on a secluded beach for the rest of my life.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Mr President, you should launch a hunge counterinformation campaign on the media.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
bulldogg said:
Yes, you know I have argued about this in the past on the boards. There is so much unsaid. The world believes the war was unsuccessful because the only justification for it was the WMD, since that was proven to be a lie they say the war has been a total lie. In fact, as I have specified many times before, WMD were not the only justification, it was three reasons for going to war, the other two being democratization and Saddam-terrorism connections, which were strongest as ever. Democratization is succeeding. European media still believe what Michael Moore said was true, now why doesn't Bush take care of promoting an offensive on that level? Why doesn't he show the numbers? Way more people would die when Saddam was in power, I mean daily, than they have been dying daily since March/April 2003. Again, there was a lot of speculation by the left on the Katrina thing. They mocked Bush for inefficiency and "there will be 10 K or 15 K or even 30 K victims", it's a disaster, the whole world made fun of the US because it couldn't stand up to a natural disaster. In fact, 1000 people died, "only". In fact, there was a hurricane exercise, simulation and training last year in NOLA for a hurricane that was conceived to be even weaker than Katrina, and expected victims according to the data were 16 K. Now Katrina was stronger than that and we only had 1000 victims. It means plans have worked. When things didn't work it was because the media had made the gov't think they had to send war troops overthere able to fight a revolution when in fact it wasn't true and all they needed was food and water to deliver. There were so few violence episodes, rapes. Noone actually died because of violence at the Superdome when our media talked of "dozens of people dead at the Superdome". Now why doesn't Bush now make fun of all that?
That's just some examples.
The post I was going to submit in response to the topic doesn't really need to go on because IG said above, pretty much what I would say and believe - except that I would expand on Saddam's guilt over genocide more and how even the Left Wing Pacifists would have to be outraged at such a leader continuing in power.
It's too late now, but a "Just War" motive existed on Iraq because of past, present and most probably future acts of genocide. I would have advised the President to emphasise that aspect in the pre-war period. My former and beloved boss, Pope John Paul II, condemned the war on Iraq, but from the point of view of WMD threat was not morally serious enough to justify loss of life of both Iraqi civilians and American soldiers (God Bless each and every one of them). Genocide, which wasn't argued enough in my opinion, wasn't presented as the primary reason for liberation of the Iraqi's.
My other advice to the President would be to fill government jobs with more qualified people rather than loyal friends. If you can find both attributes in the same person good, but qualifications before personal friendships/favours. Lastly, i would have gone with a different pick for the current Supreme Court vacancy. :viking:
It's too late now, but a "Just War" motive existed on Iraq because of past, present and most probably future acts of genocide. I would have advised the President to emphasise that aspect in the pre-war period. My former and beloved boss, Pope John Paul II, condemned the war on Iraq, but from the point of view of WMD threat was not morally serious enough to justify loss of life of both Iraqi civilians and American soldiers (God Bless each and every one of them). Genocide, which wasn't argued enough in my opinion, wasn't presented as the primary reason for liberation of the Iraqi's.
My other advice to the President would be to fill government jobs with more qualified people rather than loyal friends. If you can find both attributes in the same person good, but qualifications before personal friendships/favours. Lastly, i would have gone with a different pick for the current Supreme Court vacancy. :viking:
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Padre said:
A quick
fftopic: clarification on this, that may have Padre interested. Although the left has misused the words of JP2 when he opposed the 2003 war, most people don't know what his real stances were and why he opposed it.I'll be short here but anyone who needs some more detailed explanation just feel free to PM me.
John Paul II was not a pacifist. He never was. He opposed the 2003 war because he feared a face-to-face clash of religions if he had endorsed the war. He feared this outcome too much. In fact, he was not a peacenik: He was the one who so loudly called for a military intervention on Belgrade, Serbia and Kosovo in 1998-99. The Kosovo War saw Nato bombing Belgrade and killing 10,000 people there. The UN never gave its consent because Russia and China were allies of Milosevics.
Still, the Pope blessed that war and blessed those bombings because innocents were being slaughtered. Like I said, he called for a military intervention and said it was a shame that the West hadn't intervened yet. He never said that war had been wrong. In fact, he agreed and blessed it.
#2 Not everyone knows that after 2003 John Paul II had been addressing the troops in Iraq (Coalition troops) as "freedom bringers", those who bring about peace, or "supporters of democracy", "friends of the Iraqis".
This for the record.
That the lib's prefer to overlook some things and emphasize others at their own liking is a whole other cattle of fish.
Beck to topic now, sorry Bulldog.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
No worries mate, I mean, ahem... (putting on presidential mask) we appreciate the information it is timely and relevant. I for one was not aware that the Pope was a fan of military intervention. (Silently signals the Chief of Staff to cancel the "accidental" bombing of the Vatican) Now Padre about that Justice? And of course any of you other esteemed experts feel free to chime in at any time...
Missileer
Active member
Well, even though I can't consider myself an esteemed expert, I'll have to speak to him from a grassroots but still cabinet level. Mr President, I'm that small voice inside your ear. Write this one off man. Once the Iraqis are on their somewhat wobbly, newborn legs and can shoot back at every Nationality of insurgents in the Middle East, withdraw only after the UN agrees to fill in the vacuum. Broadcast to the world that you're successful in your mission, and let UN pilots patrol the inevitable no-fly zones along the Iranian, Pakistani, and Syrian border. Now that shoulder fired missiles are as prolific as steroids at a weightlifting exhibition, a few planes will be lost but, heck, we can sell them more. Forget all the hoopla from Israel's neighbors, the world knows the Jews have nukes and are pissed off enough to use them to "soften" a few Capital cities.
After this unpleasant experience in the Middle East, and soon Europe, maybe you should consider a troublesome hearing ailment when it comes to a boots on the ground problem except for maybe the Allied Nations who showed their backbone while in this conflict. Don't bother with the UN, they'll be too busy for the next millennium or so.
Mr. President, does this sound like something you could consider? It will be a real problem for detractors and news media, but they never liked you anyhow.
After this unpleasant experience in the Middle East, and soon Europe, maybe you should consider a troublesome hearing ailment when it comes to a boots on the ground problem except for maybe the Allied Nations who showed their backbone while in this conflict. Don't bother with the UN, they'll be too busy for the next millennium or so.
Mr. President, does this sound like something you could consider? It will be a real problem for detractors and news media, but they never liked you anyhow.
OK...IG first. One of the most ultra-conservative Catholic websites is:
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/
It lists topics with stacks of on-line references and resources - mostly speeches by the popes and leading Catholic churchmen. Under the topic "Just War," I can't find any quotes from Saint John Paul the Great, that approved of military intervention in Iraq either in 1991 or 2003. Not that he was ever on the side of tyranny or tyrants like Saddam. He simply lamented that anyone, anywhere, anytime, had to go to war at all and urged diplomatic efforts everytime, all-the-time. Now, I personally support any efforts (incl. military) by the US/Coalition of nations, to removed any mass murdering leader, when the people of the mass murderer don't have the means to remove the mass murderer themselves ie. Iraq. I can't find any references to St. John Paul II "blessing" the war in Iraq but if IG can find them I would like to see them and would then stand corrected. Pope John Paul II was a holy man and a man of peace. Although I support forced removal of Saddam and any mass murdering tyrant, I was not surprised that His Holiness prayed for and urged all leaders concerned not to go to war. IG is completely correct about the pope and Church's fear about an Iraqi war igniting and all-out, world-wide Christian vs Islam war. I believe this could eventuate anyway but not because of Iraq as just as many Islamic leaders (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia) wanted rid of Saddam too.
Now my advice to the President on the Supreme Court vacancy is that it is too risky to go with someone who does not have a track record serving on any bench at any level of the judiciary. The risk of not knowing how a Justice-nominee will stand on judicial matters decreases when you are able to view their record and experience - ie. the pattern they follow over their judicail career. Harriet Miers has no bench experience. She may turn out to be very good, if by very good we mean a judge who acts as an umpire/referee not as an unelected player pushing an ideology. Also, it makes it harder to get her confirmed because even Republican supporters of the President in Congress will get jittery over an unknown nominee whose only reason for getting the nod has less to do with any judicial ability and more to do with just being a good personal friend of the President. I just think it is a bad move when there are others of higher caliber and where their record and experience is on the board for everyone - Democrat & Republican, to see.
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/
It lists topics with stacks of on-line references and resources - mostly speeches by the popes and leading Catholic churchmen. Under the topic "Just War," I can't find any quotes from Saint John Paul the Great, that approved of military intervention in Iraq either in 1991 or 2003. Not that he was ever on the side of tyranny or tyrants like Saddam. He simply lamented that anyone, anywhere, anytime, had to go to war at all and urged diplomatic efforts everytime, all-the-time. Now, I personally support any efforts (incl. military) by the US/Coalition of nations, to removed any mass murdering leader, when the people of the mass murderer don't have the means to remove the mass murderer themselves ie. Iraq. I can't find any references to St. John Paul II "blessing" the war in Iraq but if IG can find them I would like to see them and would then stand corrected. Pope John Paul II was a holy man and a man of peace. Although I support forced removal of Saddam and any mass murdering tyrant, I was not surprised that His Holiness prayed for and urged all leaders concerned not to go to war. IG is completely correct about the pope and Church's fear about an Iraqi war igniting and all-out, world-wide Christian vs Islam war. I believe this could eventuate anyway but not because of Iraq as just as many Islamic leaders (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia) wanted rid of Saddam too.
Now my advice to the President on the Supreme Court vacancy is that it is too risky to go with someone who does not have a track record serving on any bench at any level of the judiciary. The risk of not knowing how a Justice-nominee will stand on judicial matters decreases when you are able to view their record and experience - ie. the pattern they follow over their judicail career. Harriet Miers has no bench experience. She may turn out to be very good, if by very good we mean a judge who acts as an umpire/referee not as an unelected player pushing an ideology. Also, it makes it harder to get her confirmed because even Republican supporters of the President in Congress will get jittery over an unknown nominee whose only reason for getting the nod has less to do with any judicial ability and more to do with just being a good personal friend of the President. I just think it is a bad move when there are others of higher caliber and where their record and experience is on the board for everyone - Democrat & Republican, to see.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Padre said:
I know, that's what I said, I was referring to the War on Serbia, not on Iraq. I specified that.
Whispering Death
Active member
bulldogg said:
Hey, you never indicted Brown and you didn't fire Rumsfeld or Carl Rove. Hell, you just apointed Hariet Myers to the Supreme Court because she used her relationship with you to your advantage. Hell, I hardly believe it that you, Mr. Bush, would refuse to allow me to take a high paying comfy gov't job just because I'm a close friend of yours!