American Politics XIII

[Ormond]

Smells like BS, especially from Chirac. He could have come out hard against Bush with this in 2003. Europeans would have ate this shit up like candy. Instead, it gets revealed in some small time interview six years later? Something smells fishy.

If you would read the link, you will discover that this was reported two years ago in France and Switzerland by a Swiss theology professor Chirac consulted about it:

In 2007, Dr. Romer recounted Bush’s strange behavior in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir. A French-language Swiss newspaper, Le Matin Dimanche, printed a sarcastic account titled: “When President George W. Bush Saw the Prophesies of the Bible Coming to Pass.†France’s La Liberte likewise spoofed it under the headline “A Small Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog.†But other news media missed the amazing report

[Tempra]

If you would read the link, you will discover that this was reported two years ago in France and Switzerland by a Swiss theology professor Chirac consulted about it:

In 2007, Dr. Romer recounted Bush’s strange behavior in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir. A French-language Swiss newspaper, Le Matin Dimanche, printed a sarcastic account titled: “When President George W. Bush Saw the Prophesies of the Bible Coming to Pass.†France’s La Liberte likewise spoofed it under the headline “A Small Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog.†But other news media missed the amazing report

My bad, it is the Journalists book that was released in March of this year. Here, let me correct my statement.

"Smells like BS, especially from Chirac. He could have come out hard against Bush with this in 2003. Europeans would have ate this shit up like candy. Instead, it gets revealed in some small time interview six four years later? Something smells fishy. "

Try that.

[The Iceman of the North]

Maybe because it would be bad manners for a sitting Head of State to "out" a fellow sitting Head of State by retelling the story?

[Tempra]

Maybe because it would be bad manners for a sitting Head of State to "out" a fellow sitting Head of State by retelling the story?

Chirac doesn't strike me as a person worried about bad manners, at least not after telling eastern europeans to sit down, shut up, and know their role if they ever hope to join the EU. He is not exactly a classy individual.

[sologdin]

what does his behavior have to do with his capacity for truthfulness?

if it's true, what reason is there not to indict, try, convict, and hang?

[Dinsdale!]

People always told me Chirac was a liar. And a scumbag. French people, I mean. FWIW.

[Tempra]

what does his behavior have to do with his capacity for truthfulness?

if it's true, what reason is there not to indict, try, convict, and hang?

What does his behavior have to do with his capacity for truthfulness? Considering Chirac is known for making rash, inappropriate statements, and combined with the fact that Chirac's absymal popularity rating went up everytime he attacked Bush, the fact that he would conceal such a bombshell leads me to doubt his truthfulness. He could have done major damage to Bush and his march to war if he revealed this info. Instead, he reveals this bomshell in some crappy interview four years later? It doesn't make sense. It will take more than the word of a disgraced politician who makes a rather untimley revelation for me, and most likely many others, to give any creedance to this report.

Of course, if it is true...

[Lord O' Bones]

Tempra, if this is just Chirac lying, why would he do this?

"After the 2003 call, the puzzled French leader didn’t comply with Bush’s request. Instead, his staff asked Thomas Romer, a theologian at the University of Lausanne, to analyze the weird appeal."

And then not say anything about it until he was asked about it years later? That's pretty damned elaborate to set up a "lie" that only came out almost by accident, and well after it would be of any use.

[Shryke]

Wait, people are surprised that Bush holds what is a common belief among Evangelical Christians in the US?

[sologdin]

went into Iraq for geo-politics. This is worse if true

either way. the war was unlawful unless it was for self-defense.

the bushites knew this basic proposition, which is why they twisted and turned like twisty turny things to stretch the ancient law of anticipatory self-defense into the new doctrine of pre-emptive self defense. the unstated principle of the new doctrine allows any state to attack any other state at any time for any reason or no reason at all, provided the belligerent state can articulate its vague fear of annihilation at the hands of the target state at some indefinite point in the future, sans proof of capability and will to annihilate, and without regard for the actual geostrategic disposition, macroeconomic reality, and relative technical expertise of the parties involved--even, as it was in this case, to the point of surreality, wherein the most powerful state in world history had the gall to accuse a hobbled basketcase state of the will and capability to annihilate it, even after the former used the international disarmament mechanisms to confirm that the latter was certainly incapable of mounting even a conventional attack, which is of course completely consistent with the cowardice of pointless imperialism.

this new doctrine, therefore, is actually an old doctrine.

in fact, the new doctrine is actually so old that it is pre-medieval. it, indeed, is what hobbes might have meant by the state of nature thesis--which means that the bush doctrine, in hobbesian terms, is pre-leviathan and therefore pre-statist. it is, in this analysis, literally a doctrine for troglodytes.

perhaps this type of doctrine is what the rightwing that supported and continues to support the bush regime desires from its government, a policy that turns the clock back to the political theory of proto-simians who conduct human sacrifices, possess a lively intravillage economy in fertility icons, handleless handaxes, and earthware pots, and evolve opposable thumbs in their spare time.

[Tempra]

Tempra, if this is just Chirac lying, why would he do this?

"After the 2003 call, the puzzled French leader didn’t comply with Bush’s request. Instead, his staff asked Thomas Romer, a theologian at the University of Lausanne, to analyze the weird appeal."

And then not say anything about it until he was asked about it years later? That's pretty damned elaborate to set up a "lie" that only came out almost by accident, and well after it would be of any use.

Why would he do something that portays Bush in a bad light? Well, they aren't exactly friends and quite a few jabs were shared between the two, and the US and France in general.

I am, of course, skeptical that this is coming from Chirac and not from someone like Tony Blair, John Howard, or Silvio Berlusconi (or other leaders without an axe to grind). Are we to believe that Bush told only Chirac about this crusade? If not, why has it not been leaked by other sources with the intense dislike of Bush? As a result, I want more proof before I buy into this. I would hope that people would not succumb to their knee-jerk dislike of Bush and buy into such statements without further confirmation. There are way too many question marks surrounding this story to buy it hook, line, and sinker.

Does anyone here want to buy a bridge?

[Greg]

I agree that what is out there right now is not enough to confirm that it's true. But I would say that France was one of the most likely allies after Britain and it's not shocking to me that Bush may have wanted to bring them into the fold.

France was IMO not a likely ally in the 2003 war.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/cont.../167/35145.html

Moral, ethical issues aside (and really how much do these factors matter in power geopolitics?), French business had too much to lose by an American dominated post war Iraq.

But holy crap, if true, this is extremely distressing.

[Lord O' Bones]

Why would he do something that portays Bush in a bad light? Well, they aren't exactly friends and quite a few jabs were shared between the two, and the US and France in general.

I am, of course, skeptical that this is coming from Chirac and not from someone like Tony Blair, John Howard, or Silvio Berlusconi (or other leaders without an axe to grind). Are we to believe that Bush told only Chirac about this crusade? If not, why has it not been leaked by other sources with the intense dislike of Bush? As a result, I want more proof before I buy into this. I would hope that people would not succumb to their knee-jerk dislike of Bush and buy into such statements without further confirmation. There are way too many question marks surrounding this story to buy it hook, line, and sinker.

Does anyone here want to buy a bridge?

Jesus Christ. Would you maybe answer the question I'm actually asking? I did not ask "Why would he do something that portays Bush in a bad light?"

I asked, why would he go to an expert to interpret for him the meaning of the scripture references Bush allegedly used in the phone call, and then not tell anyone about it until asked to confirm the rumor years later?

[Dinsdale!]

which is of course completely consistent with the cowardice of pointless imperialism.

What's that? Are you saying the US invaded Iraq for shits and giggles?

Anyways,

There certainly is a law of international states, but it's equally certain that states violate it on will. And though it may be a law, how often does it resemble morality and ethics? Mostly it's about protecting the interests of states as states (generally to keep the large ones from predating on the small), at the expense of all other concerns.

That said the Iraq war was idiocy, and not moral under any definition of the good that I know of.

[Tempra]

Jesus Christ. Would you maybe answer the question I'm actually asking? I did not ask "Why would he do something that portays Bush in a bad light?"

I asked, why would he go to an expert to interpret for him the meaning of the scripture references Bush allegedly used in the phone call, and then not tell anyone about it until asked to confirm the rumor years later?

I'm not sure. If true, it is definitely evidence that this is true. Why has all mainstream media ignored this story? Did everyone miss the boat? Or are they all colluding to protect Bush?

[DanteGabriel]

I'm not sure. If true, it is definitely evidence that this is true. Why has all mainstream media ignored this story? Did everyone miss the boat? Or are they all colluding to protect Bush?

Um, because the mainstream media tends not to like to speak truth to power?

[Lord O' Bones]

I'm not sure. If true, it is definitely evidence that this is true. Why has all mainstream media ignored this story? Did everyone miss the boat? Or are they all colluding to protect Bush?

I wish I knew. I doubt if the mainstream media wants to protect Bush. Maybe (if this is even true) they figure that the only "news-worthy" event that would come from it would be criminal charges, which I think we can all agree is unlikely, so they don't want to bother. Maybe they are afraid of losing a lot of Christian viewership as the only way to cover this is to point out that decisions like war shouldn't be made with assumptions of fortold biblical events, even though many in the religious right probably would disagree.

The whole thing just seems bizarre all around.

[DanteGabriel]

Sarah Palin posts to Facebook that Obamacare "death panel" bureacrats might deny health care to her Downs Syndrome baby.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434

I have no words.

Fuck you very much again, John McCain.

[turinturambar]

Now I know you don't know what you are talking about. I have seen people with prostate cancer die in the U.S. I have been in the room with their families, I have carried their bodies. These people are real, they are not part of 0%, because 0% has no parts.

He's definitely not right about the 0%. There is no such thing as 0% in any case. Nothing is absolute.

He is correct though, that the US survival rates are much higher than the UK. In more than just prostate cancer as well.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancersta...state/survival/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/156...-in-Europe.html

[Watcher]

He's definitely not right about the 0%. There is no such thing as 0% in any case. Nothing is absolute.

He is correct though, that the US survival rates are much higher than the UK. In more than just prostate cancer as well.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancersta...state/survival/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/156...-in-Europe.html

I can cherry pick stats too! Ever country in Europe has a lower child mortally rate then the U.S. does. There are many factors that go into surviving cancer, like early detection, prevention as well as quality of care. It's almost as bad as comparing crime statistics. What's your point?

Mine isn't that the U.S. health care system is better or worse then how Europe has their system set up. The argument is about how and who pays for it. It makes absolutely no sense to me for it to be dependent on your job. Why should a company have to maintain a bureaucracy to take care of it's employee's health care? The government seems a better choice to manage it because it doesn't have a conflict of interest as a company does, ie minimize health care benefits to maximum profit. You can also maintain your health care when your change jobs, have a person more representative of your needs and not the companies.