Spiegel: Bush can barely string a sentence together, and more

[Anonymous]

Liberal Elite is just a label that uneducated people like to call smarter people in order to feel better about themselves.

[PD]

The “liberal elite” in SoCal includes a good number of Hollywood types. Although rich, they aren’t known for their education. Sean Penn really looked like a big smartie when he went over to Iraq before we invaded. Ben Affleck is a big smartie too. Did I hear that Barbara Streisand is secretly a physicist? Hmm… maybe I’ve got her confused with someone else.

[blahblahblah]

Yep, it’s no problem finding poorly educated spokespeople from the extreme end of either the right or left wing. Rush Limbaugh, for example, dropped out of Southeastern Missouri State University after one year.

[blahblahblah]

Whoops, ended up with 2 copies…

[L_Thek_onomics]

“Liberal Elite is just a label that uneducated people like to call smarter people in order to feel better about themselves”

Education has nothing to do with smartness. Actually today’s
college educated leftist “smartys” are the dumbest most uninformed
and segregated people. They’ve learned only how to look and act
“smart”. Easy to recognize them, they’re spending large portion of they
money and time at Starbucks Coffees, talking to each other only,
watching the screens of laptops, and obviously calling normal Americans
ignorent. They’re very concerned about “global warming”, oil drilling,
tobacco smoke and health, generally. Awsome…
By the way, I couldn’t hire a single college educated “smarty” in the
past 10 years. Sorry, they’re just a bunch of useless, dumb kids. I hope
they’ll grow up by age 45.

L Thek

[Anonymous]

Sounds like the liberal elite have a good life. Given the choice, I’d rather be more educated, make more money and hang out at Starbucks. What’s not to like about that?

Sounds like some of you lack of self confidence if you have to resort to name calling of people who are more successful than you.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think that was the point of L_Thek’s post deadzone.
I took it in the content that there is a disassociation from economic reality. You must be aware of that if you are here at this site. That said, this disassociation isn’t limited to the twenty somethings – it goes though alot of the thirty, forty, fify somethings as well. You make the assumption that he lacks self confidence and that the people he calling people names are more successful. Where in the world did you get that from?

[PerryChase]

I did read somewhere a while back that Germans are the most well traveled as a proportion of the population of a “big” economy. Americans rank pretty low possibly because America is so big and people don’t feel they need to leave the country. George Bush felt that way and before becoming president, he’d not been anywhere (except for perhaps Mexico?).

However, Jeb Bush (the smart one) lived in Venezuela and married a Latina.

In my view, it’s admirable to be being well-educated and prosperous, yet care about the environment and the poor. Better than the conservative elites who care about nothing and on one but themselves.

[Anonymous]

“In my view, it’s admirable to be being well-educated and prosperous, yet care about the environment and the poor. ”

Well said, I think most rational people will agree.

“Better than the conservative elites who care about nothing and on one but themselves.”

You should be more generous PC and spread the greed around it’s hardly an attribute solely of the conservative elites.

[bgates]

The wisdom of deadzone:
‘The only thing I hate about America it is the stupidity of these types of people, who would dare question someones patriotism or love of country simply because they are critical of the government.’

‘You guys need to get out more often.’

‘Liberal Elite is just a label that uneducated people like to call smarter people in order to feel better about themselves.’

‘Sounds like some of you lack of self confidence if you have to resort to name calling of people who are more successful than you.’

[CardiffBaseball]

Travel sucks. Tales of an American dummy. (just having some fun)

In my previous company, my CTO was in Holland, and my boss was in Scotland so I traveled there for 3 weeks on 2 occasions. I like the experience for a few days, hung out in Amsterdam, got drunk in Scotland, went to William Wallace’s monument, etc. However I got so tired of taking buses and trains everywhere and living by the schedule.

When I got back to the US, I wanted to do something completely American. I hopped in my pickup truck, drove it to a steakhouse, where I got to park my own damn car, in a free parking lot, and didn’t worry about leaving at a certain time. Also the freakin’ techno music blaring everywhere I went was nauseating. Christ didn’t Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath come from the UK? What was with this blaring sissy music? So upon returning, another thing I did for about two days until it nauseated me was to listen to country music. I don’t care much for that genre but it was so not Euro, that I just had to do it.

Similarly I went to Tokyo for 3 weeks, and I ate a lot of McDonalds. However Tokyo it was easier to find a good steak, and I did like Shabu-Shabu or Swish-Swish, whatever it’s called.

In all cases I liked the local beers, except the Guiness type heavy stuff. The scottish women were just yuck the first time, but when I went back it seemed they discovered tanning salons, and streaked-multi colored hair so they looked much better. Dutch women I just loved, tall, thin, with nice backsides. I kind of liked the Japanese girls, but it seemed like I could throw them 20 feet. You can’t breed football players with a 4’11” 80 pound woman. I am 6’1″ barely above average and I felt like a Giant in Shin-Juku city down at the train station.

In any case no voluntary trips in smelly tubes for me. It’s either corporate based or I won’t go. I recently passed on an option to go to India on business. I follow the Anabolic Diet, and what would I eat for two weeks over there? Actually the new version is called the Metabolic Diet.

[Anonymous]

I wrote the following letter to my then senator a month before the war began. In my view, the backers of war with Iraq are completely responsible for the appalling cost in lives, both Iraqi and American. All of the justifications for the war were demonstrated as false in the world press before the war began.

There is already the possibility of war crimes charges being filed against Rumsfeld. Historically and legally speaking, these charges are appropriate. There will be others charged.

As far as the Lancet article is concerned, I am not a statistician, but colleagues who are have informed me that the lead author of the study is the most prominent US scholar of statistical analysis of war dead. His figures have been widely accepted for other conflicts. The Lancet/Johns Hopkins study cites 655,000 Iraqi dead as a result of the US invasion and war.

Since many have invoked history in defense of the war, I would like to point out that from a historical perspective, the Iraq war is already the third and will perhaps become the second most destructive Middle East war of the past 100 years, behind only the First World War of 1914-1918 and the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, during which we backed Iraq while 1,000,000 were killed.

Many have claimed that the US is “giving” Iraq democracy or fulfilling some useful goal in Iraq. These claims are without basis in fact. The United States went to Iraq for its own reasons, and there is nothing noble, or justified, or well-intentioned about invading and destroying a country without provocation against the wishes of its inhabitants.

17 February 2003

Dear Senator Hutchison:

As a Texan, an American, and a professor of Middle Eastern History, I urge you to make efforts to stop further violence in the Middle East.

Based on 15 years spent studying Middle Eastern history and politics, I can say with professional assurance that the arguments made in favor of war with Iraq are not supported by evidence.

The Bush administration has made three central points about reasons for war: First Iraq has banned weapons. Second Iraq threatens the US. Third Iraq has some connection with the people responsible for the attacks of September 11 2001.

The first contention is unproven. Only time and further inspections will determine if Iraq possesses banned weapons.

The second contention is demonstrably false. Iraq has never threatened the US. Iraq is a secular, authoritarian police state. It seeks regime survival and regional prominence. The only time the Iraqi government has threatened its neighbors was while it was a US ally. The Iran-Iraq war and the various gas attacks of Kurds and Iranians cost 500,000 lives and were indirectly supported by the US. The Reagan administration reopened diplomatic relations with Iraq in the midst of that ghastly war in 1984. We enjoyed friendly relations with Iraq until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. While Kuwait and Iran have both suffered from Iraqi actions, both states oppose US involvement in a war against Iraq. How could they possibly be less threatened than the US?

The claimed connection between Iraq and September 11 is completely fallacious. As a secular authoritarian dictatorship, the Iraqi government has been fighting against Islamic militants for more than 30 years. Iraqi jails are full of Islamists. Saddam Husayn and Usama Bin Ladin are literally the bitterest rivals imaginable from opposite extremes of Arab political ideology. They are not now and never will be in alliance.

I know that you support the President’s policy in Iraq. Given the above facts, and the possible costs in lives and money of a war in the Gulf, including civil war in the Middle East, destabilization, a boost in the resonance of Bin Ladin’s “Clash of Civilization” message, and massive increases in anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and around the world, I wonder if you could explain the reasoning behind your position?

Sincerely yours,
Michael Provence, Ph.D, Modern Middle Eastern History, University of Chicago.

Michael Provence

[Anonymous]

duplicate

[Anonymous]

Statisics are only as precise as the person compiling them is unbiased.

Link to the Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/index.htm
Document # ISGZ-2004-009247

The document is an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) review of Iraqi efforts to establish ties with the Saudi opposition in the years following the 1991 Gulf war. Guess who that was?

Saddam is/was an Baathist, most Iraquis viewed the Baath party as terrorists given their small minority status and their predeliction toward extremely violent suppression of any parties or sects that they viewed as potential threats.
The fact they killed other “Islamists” is moot.

As to your comment of unproven banned weapons;
Heres a brief list of sources to contradict your comments;
later maybe you can list yours.

[1] Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller, “Threats and Responses: The Iraqis; U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts,” New York Times, September 8, 2002, p. 1.
[2] Anthony Cordesman, “Creating Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Armed Forces Journal International, Vol. 126, February 1989, p. 56.
[3] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1993) pp. 124-125.
[4] Central Intelligence Agency, “Chemical Warfare Agent Issues during the Persian Gulf War,” Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force, April 2002.
[5] “Iraq’s Aziz Denies Chemical Weapons Charges,” Teheran IRNA in English, April 1, 1985, transcribed in FBIS-SAS-85-062, Vol. VIII, No. 062, April 1, 1985, p. I5.
[6] Barbara Crossette, “Iraq Ratchets Up Renewed Defiance over Inspections,” New York Times, November 23, 1998, p. A1.
[7] (Newswire), “U.N. Says Iraq Put Fatal Gas in Weapons,” Buffalo News, June 25, 1998, p. A4.
[8] Jack C. Dacre, “Toxicology of Some Anticholinesterases Used As Chemical Warfare Agents—a Review,” in Miro Brzin, Eric A. Barnard, and Dusan Sket, eds., Cholinesterases: Fundamental and Applied Aspects, Proceedings of the Second International Meeting on Cholinesterases, Bled, Yugoslavia, September 17-21, 1983 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984) pp. 418-419.
[9] Edward M. Spiers, Chemical Weaponry (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989) p. 42.
[10] Charles L. Punte, “Some Aspects of Particle Size in Aerosol Studies,” Armed Forces Chemical Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, March-April 1958, p. 30.
[11] Karlheinz Lohs, Synthetic Poisons (East Berlin: German Military Publishing House, Second Edition, 1963), p. 63.
[12] Edward B. Vedder, The Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare (Baltimore, NY: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1925) p. 173.
[13] James K. Senior, “The Manufacture of Mustard Gas in World War I [Part I],” Armed Forces Chemical Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, September-October 1958, pp. 12-14; 16-17; 29.
[14] Curt Wachtel, Chemical Warfare (Brooklyn, NY: Chemical Publishing Co., Inc., 1941), pp. 46-47.
[15] “New Rules to Counter Chemical Warfare,” Chemical Week, April 11, 1984, p. 58; and Lois R. Ember, “Worldwide Spread of Chemical Arms Receiving Increased Attention,” Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 64, No. 15, April 14, 1986, pp. 8-16.
[16] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1993) p. 23.
[17] Armed Forces Pest Management Board, “Delousing Procedures for the Control of Louse-borne Disease During Contingency Operations,” Walter Reed Army Medical Center, March 6, 2002, p. 4.
[18] Richard O’Brien, Toxic Phosphorus Esters (New York: Academic Press, 1960) p. 7.
[19] Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 112, 1990, No. 142321k, S. J. Armour, “Characterization of K 125/Diethyl Malonate Solutions Used as Simulants for Thickened GD,” Report 1989, DRES-SR-389, Defence Research Establishment Suffield, Alberta, Canada (abstract).
[20] The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army (Washington, DC), application no. 855078, September 2, 1969.
[21] At present, both the United States and the former Soviet Union have committed to destroying their remaining chemical weapons stockpiles (amounting to a combined total of approximately 65 thousand tons), but the issue of thickened agents remains, chiefly because of the technical matter involved in chemical demilitarization. In the case of Russian thickened V-gas stockpiles, a special chemical is needed to fully dissolve the polymer, ensuring that all remaining V-agent is neutralized.
[22] Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 112, 1990, No. 142321k, S.J. Armour, “Characterization of K 125/Diethyl Malonate Solutions Used as Simulants for Thickened GD,” Report 1989, DRES-SR-389, Defence Research Establishment Suffield, Alberta, Canada (abstract).
[23] Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller, “Threats and Responses: The Iraqis; U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts,” New York Times, September 8, 2002, p. 1.
[24] There are two categories of dust carriers: clay- and talc-based materials. Clays include kaolinite and attapulgite (Fuller’s earth), while silicas include talc, diatomite, and pumice. Dusts used as insecticides are generally smaller than 50 microns in diameter, with most of the particles between 3 and 30 microns. Kenneth A. Hassall, The Chemistry of Pesticides (Deerfield Beach, Florida: Verlag Chemie, 1982) p. 31.
[25] R.E. McNally, M.I. Hutton, M.B. Morrison, J. Berndt, and J.E. Fischer, “Chemical Defense with Topical Skin Protectant (TSP),” Joopa, MD: Science Applications International Corporation, 1993, in Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 123, 1995, No. 348827r, p. 599 (abstract).
[26] U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), “Iraq-Kuwait: Chemical Warfare Dusty Agent Threat,” Filename:73349033, October 10, 1990.
[27] ibid.
[28] R.E. McNally, M.I. Hutton, M.B. Morrison, J. Berndt, and J.E. Fischer, “Chemical Defense with Topical Skin Protectant (TSP),” Joopa, MD: Science Applications International Corporation, 1993, in Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 123, 1995, No. 348827r, p. 599 (abstract).
[29] Jonathan B. Tucker, “Evidence Iraq Used Chemical Weapons during the 1991 Persian Gulf War,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Spring-Summer 1997, p. 120.
[30] Central Intelligence Agency, “Chemical Warfare Agent Issues during the Persian Gulf War,” Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force, April 2002.

[Anonymous]

One more thing M.P.
lest my nom de guerre give you the wrong impression, I acknowledge and respect your stated opinion. With respect to you and your colleagues, I disagree with your assessments.
Be well.

[Author]

Posts