George W. Bush

[zubin]

btw mike
i was just curious why they took off your religious post; or did you? sensitive topic or what?

[mike435]

i dono man i guss to sensetive i was acctualy looking forward to it read my rant in general discustion under "REG: BLITZ CRIGE....

[golgol85]

actions speak louder than numbers. dont judge the man based on his numbers, we can give him the benefit of the doubt: maybe he had a bad day when he took the IQ test, he didnt have his lucky pencil, he was running late and was flustered as a result, who knows.

look at what he has done since he took the office as president of the united states, he has caused multiple wars and he is the reason hundreds of innocent soldiers and thousands of innocent citizens of other countries are dead. if he had a higher IQ, i would have to wonder if he only had half a functioning brain, since what he has done would have caused any other person out there with any logic to change their plan of action, but he has been predictable with his solution to everything being war, war, and then some more war.

[mike435]

....but he has been predictable with his solution to everything be war, war, and the some more war.

regarding that the ther day rush limbagh was saying how we are not the old us were we could fight out wars

he was straight up saying why arnt we in IRAN yet
the sad thing is that is how people think he has loyal fallowers

the other day some guys called his show and was asking him for permision on wether or not he should watch the drive by media or will it get to him

that is insnity cult

[golgol85]

regarding that the ther day rush limbagh was saying how we are not the old us were we could fight out wars

he was straight up saying why arnt we in IRAN yet
the sad thing is that is how people think he has loyal fallowers

the other day some guys called his show and was asking him for permision on wether or not he should watch the drive by media or will it get to him

that is insnity cult

And this is why the US is not even half as pishrafte as Iran when it comes to its citizens being involved and caring about politics. The Americans may seem to care what is going on, but they arent smart enough to put things together, because they believe the media 100% and when the media is government controled, then the thoughts of the citizens can be controled too. We think we live in a democratic country, but how much democracy is there when people have to worry about being influenced by mainstream media? Shouldnt it be ovbious that you look at both sides of the arguement and then try to see who has better judgement and the stronger arguement?

Then we have iranian citizens who are supposedly the third world people who dont know much about politics, but look at how involved they are with their politics, they know what is going on and even those of us outside of iran and even not born in iran like me like to know what is happening. what does all this tell us? it tells us that the US can do whatever it wants. i dont think they US can go into iran and i pray to god they dont. it was heartwrenching for me to look at the pictures of devestation in other middle eastern countries, i would hate to see that happen to iran. lets hope bush surprizes us by acting out of character and not opting for war for once.

[mike435]

i have to disagree
most iranians get most of their info from state run news that is a hundrad times worse than rush limbagh cult remeber the ultra left and ultra right are among minoritys

[golgol85]

i have to disagree
most iranians get most of their info from state run news that is a hundrad times worse than rush limbagh cult remeber the ultra left and ultra right are among minoritys

you can disagree, it makes for a more interesting arguement when someone disagrees. how many more iranians are against the government when compared to americans in the US? the less you know about what is going on, the less you have to disagree with. when was the last time you went to a persian family party and people didnt talk about poilitics? most iranians dont rely on inside news sources, the ones that do are a part of the government and be ghole maroof they have to practice what they preach.

[zubin]

you can disagree, it makes for a more interesting arguement when someone disagrees. how many more iranians are against the government when compared to americans in the US? the less you know about what is going on, the less you have to disagree with. when was the last time you went to a persian family party and people didnt talk about poilitics? most iranians dont rely on inside news sources, the ones that do are a part of the government and be ghole maroof they have to practice what they preach.

that's an interesting comment. the other reason I think iranis have more political wisdom is the centuries of cultural evolution that we are ahead. This tells me that the crucial factor that US media and politicians are responsible for is not letting Americans go through a natural cultural evolution, which is, ironically, based on the idea that Americans are superior to others in the world...

[mike435]

you can disagree, it makes for a more interesting arguement when someone disagrees. how many more iranians are against the government when compared to americans in the US? the less you know about what is going on, the less you have to disagree with. when was the last time you went to a persian family party and people didnt talk about poilitics? most iranians dont rely on inside news sources, the ones that do are a part of the government and be ghole maroof they have to practice what they preach.

lololololo oh my g-d persian parties daste john stearto as posht bastan
this is what it comes down to when my relatives speak politics at parties

shah was a saint he was the greatest iranro abad kard
carter badgance bood he is the devil
iran khoobbood akhoondha naboodesh kardan
britian is the devil servate keshvaro dozdid
oil is the root to all things, america is the popetier of the world
at the same time they love america and they say it is greatest place on earth then they manage to squeez in some boro doktor sho
and they curse carter it was because of him that they had to restart their life allover again, oh they also say "vagarna mam alan khodemoon adami boodim to iran"
aperantly the millions who proteseted were nothing

but i mean when it comes to american politics they talke in general ways like
are as hafteye dige gheymate benzin mire balah election tamoom mishe
amrica akharash irano misane
heife iran
then some more cater hating and britian hating
then wow look how good US is

and as allways in most circle the israel debate is in the backdrop israel this israel that

[mike435]

that's an interesting comment. the other reason I think iranis have more political wisdom is the centuries of cultural evolution that we are ahead. This tells me that the crucial factor that US media and politicians are responsible for is not letting Americans go through a natural cultural evolution, which is, ironically, based on the idea that Americans are superior to others in the world...

i think more than anything becuase it is a country that its backbone is reveloutionary heritage independence was only 300 years ago and that spirit keeps getting renewed with new waves of immigrants who in their own way are revelutionary

US is still growing it hormones are still raging
that is why we dont have strong social welfairs
becuase most belive in themselfs and think they will make it with hard work

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

This is a valid proposition that as long as the U.S., posing as the lone imperial power and self-appointed arbiter capable of dictating or at least influencing the direction of Lebanon's domestic and foreign policies by propping up a privileged and wealthy class of politicians over all the other groups in the Lebanese political establishment and undermining the nationalist and progressive forces, the working people of Lebanon, Muslim or Christian, remained defenseless and at the mercy of the imperialists in Washington and the Zionists in Tel Aviv.

This inequality was challenged by the people's army of Hezbollah in the recent 34-day war when Israeli sea, land and aerial attacks on the Lebanese people and the country's infrastructure was dealt in turn with short and medium-range rocket attacks against the northern towns of Israel.

It was in this heroic resistance against the invading Zionist hordes armed to the teeth that the people of Lebanon from all walks of life, including many members of the Christian population, through their own experience reached the conclusion that the cadres and the leadership of Hezbollah are more patriotic and qualified to defend and protect the national interests, sovereignty and independence of Lebanon as a whole than some rich bureaucrats in Beirut, with ties to London and Washington. It is in this context that a substantive revamping of the people's representation within the Lebanese federal administration has become a dire necessity.

On this basis the leadership of Hezbollah, led by Shaikh Hassan Nasrallah, has informed Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora that resistance against a probable attack by Israeli forces urgently requires the formation of a "national unity" cabinet, without which Lebanon will suffer the most for the lack of unity in domestic and foreign policies. Lebanon cannot go on fragmented and governed by sectarian economic, political, cultural and diplomatic rules.

On the other hand, it is the common strategy of the U.S. and Israel to keep the government of Lebanon in disarray with lack of cohesion and a unified direction. It goes without saying that a weak and fragmented Lebanon makes it easier for Israel to hold on much longer to the occupied territories of Shabba Farms, and the Syrian Golan Heights.

At the same time, Hassan Nasrallah assured the government of Saniora that the people's demand for change may take the form of peaceful demonstrations which are part of their democratic rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Respect for Sovereignty
Determined to retain the fractious, ineffectual and to some extent parasitic structure of the state, the White House, through its spokesman Tony Snow on November 2, 2006 said that any attempt by Hezbollah to mobilize the Lebanese for the purpose of pressing Beirut's U.S.-backed faction of the government to agree with Nasrallah's plan for a "national unity" cabinet would be considered by the U.S. government as a violation of Lebanese sovereignty.

Look who's talking about respect for sovereignty of other nations: an empire that tramples on the rights of the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and Haiti, to mention just a few. Furthermore, to deflect world public attention from its policy of interference in the domestic affairs of Lebanon and its plans of intervention, Tony Snow pointed his finger in other directions and said that "The Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically-elected government."

Who Should Be Blamed?
Meanwhile, Israel has been daily flying its U.S.-provided warplanes over Lebanese territories to boost the appetite of the pro-imperialist forces for confrontation with Hezbollah and influence the direction of the government's foreign policy. Certainly the White House's demagogy did not go unanswered. The Syrian Foreign Ministry a day later responded that "The U.S. administration's attempts to circulate that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are seeking to destabilize Lebanon are not true." He continued that on the contrary, "Syria has voiced its support for anything that the Lebanese agree through their national dialogue."

In a statement on Thursday, November 2, 2006, Hezbollah's spokesman said the U.S. is trying to draw Lebanon into its disputes with Iran and Syria and enlist Lebanon among the countries that the "Bush Administration considers to be U.S. enemies." "We do not care about such accusations. They're worthless," Syrian Expatriate Minister Buthaina Shaaban told reporters in Damascus. "They are practicing terrorism while accusing others of it. The problem in Lebanon is U.S. and Israeli interference."

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini denied the U.S. accusation and said, "Washington should review its policies in the Middle East." It is common knowledge that the United States single-handedly sells, in monetary terms, one half of the total cost of weapons sold internationally. If we venture to add the cost of the arms sold by Britain, France, Germany and Italy to the U.S. sales, then one justifiably can say that the West deserves to earn the title of world's "Merchant of Death."

This is also a well-known fact that Israel, since its creation not so long ago, has been the recipient of all sorts of sensitive technologies, materials and parts for the production of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, including atomic weapons. Just a little more than two months ago the world was a witness to the use of all sorts of American-supplied weapons used by the Israeli war machine ˆ F-16's, F-161 Sufa's, Abrams tanks, guided missiles, supersonic combat aircraft, helicopters, surface to air and surface to surface missiles and between two and three million anti-personnel cluster bombs dropped ˆ against the people of Lebanon.

What level of hypocrisy is reached when the governments of these arms exporting countries turn to countries with much less capabilities of weapons production and issue orders that they have no right to provide or even receive such conventional weapons as short and medium-range missiles and anti-aircraft guns. For example, why shouldn't Lebanon have the defense capability of targeting the Israeli warplanes that intend to level the homes, factories, bridges, schools and hospitals of that country? Why shouldn't Lebanon be able to receive the defense technologies and sophisticated arms from any country that it desires?

To face this issue squarely, Iran's commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Yahya Rahim-Safvi, said on November 5, 2006 that Iran will be willing to share its missile systems with its political allies and neighboring countries. Being right on target, Iran's ambassador to Lebanon, Mohammad Reza Sheibani was quoted by Iran's Mehr News Agency the same day as saying Iran was ready to supply air-defense systems to the Lebanese Army. Will the West, under pressure of the U.S. and Israel, draft yet another resolution to impose more sanctions on Iran? That will turn the United Nations Security Council into a comic troubadour.

[donsaeid]

[Rasputin]

Bogor - Police were probing unconfirmed reports that a suicide bomber was planning an attack during United States President George Bush's visit to Indonesia, where thousands rallied against American foreign policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.

Hundreds of anti-Bush students also tried to seal off McDonalds, Pizza Hut and Dunkin' Donut restaurants in two cities in the world's most populous Muslim nation, at times clashing with police.

A massive security cordon was thrown around Bogor, a presidential retreat on the Jakarta's southern outs***ts, where Bush is scheduled to meet President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, a close ally in Washington's war on terror.
Thousands of police and rifle-toting soldiers patrolled the streets, barbed wire fences were set up along the roads and several trucks were mounted with water cannons for Bush's six-hour state visit.

Demonstrations by Islamic hard-liners, students, housewives and taxi drivers have been staged every day in November and nearly 10 000 turned out in Bogor on Monday, some holding banners that said, "Bush is a terrorist."

Others carried posters showing victims of violence in Iraq and the Palestinian territories while chanting "Allahu Akbar," or "God is Great."

Though Washington and Jakarta enjoy close relations, the Bush administration's support for Israel, the Iranian nuclear dispute, and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have made the US president immensely unpopular on the streets.

Although Indonesia itself has been a victim of al-Qaeda linked attacks -more than 240 people killed in four bombings since 2002 - there has also been a surge in the clout of Islamic fundamentalists.

In some provinces, local and regional governments have been practicing Islamic Shariah laws including public flogging - unheard of before in this secular country where most of its 190-million Muslims practice a moderate form of the faith.

The White House said it was comfortable with security arrangements despite warnings by Indonesian police that the threat of an al-Qaeda-linked attack had "increased sharply" in recent days.

Though it was not clear if a plot had been uncovered, Bogor's police chief said authorities were taking seriously unconfirmed reports that a man wearing a suicide vest would infiltrate rallies on Monday.

"We're very sensitive about such reports ... because, in fact, we have had suicide bombers in Indonesia wearing jackets or backpacks," said Sukrawardi Dahlan. "We want to protect the people."

When Bush last visited in 2003, talks with were focused primarily on terrorism. Since then, hundreds of Islamic militants have been arrested and put on trial. Now Bush is ready to expand the discussion to ways Washington can help improve education and health and bring capital investment to this vast, impoverished Southeast Asian archipelago.

With many Muslims around the world regarding his foreign policies as an affront to their faith, Bush also was eager to be seen soliciting Yudhoyono's advice about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, the North Korean and Iranian nuclear standoffs and other world affairs.

Bush was expected to highlight America's quick dispatch of aid after the December 2004 tsunami that left 131,000 dead in Indonesia alone - and after a devastating earthquake in Pakistan in October 2005.

He often speaks of both efforts as proof that the United States can be a compassionate friend to Muslim nations.

[Rasputin]

A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power? At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting “shorteners” on the wire—that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put “shorteners” on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.

The White House’s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. “They’re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war,” a former senior intelligence official told me.

In late 1982, Edward P. Boland, a Democratic representative, introduced the first in a series of “Boland amendments,” which limited the Reagan Administration’s ability to support the Contras, who were working to overthrow Nicaragua’s left-wing Sandinista government. The Boland restrictions led White House officials to orchestrate illegal fund-raising activities for the Contras, including the sale of American weapons, via Israel, to Iran. The result was the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-eighties. Cheney’s story, according to the source, was his way of saying that, whatever a Democratic Congress might do next year to limit the President’s authority, the Administration would find a way to work around it. (In response to a request for comment, the Vice-President’s office said that it had no record of the discussion.)

In interviews, current and former Administration officials returned to one question: whether Cheney would be as influential in the last two years of George W. Bush’s Presidency as he was in its first six. Cheney is emphatic about Iraq. In late October, he told Time, “I know what the President thinks,” about Iraq. “I know what I think. And we’re not looking for an exit strategy. We’re looking for victory.” He is equally clear that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran. “The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,” he told an Israeli lobbying group early this year. “And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

On November 8th, the day after the Republicans lost both the House and the Senate, Bush announced the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the nomination of his successor, Robert Gates, a former director of Central Intelligence. The move was widely seen as an acknowledgment that the Administration was paying a political price for the debacle in Iraq. Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group—headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman—which has been charged with examining new approaches to Iraq, and he has publicly urged for more than a year that the U.S. begin direct talks with Iran. President Bush’s decision to turn to Gates was a sign of the White House’s “desperation,” a former high-level C.I.A. official, who worked with the White House after September 11th, told me. Cheney’s relationship with Rumsfeld was among the closest inside the Administration, and Gates’s nomination was seen by some Republicans as a clear signal that the Vice-President’s influence in the White House could be challenged. The only reason Gates would take the job, after turning down an earlier offer to serve as the new Director of National Intelligence, the former high-level C.I.A. official said, was that “the President’s father, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker”—former aides of the first President Bush—“piled on, and the President finally had to accept adult supervision.”

Critical decisions will be made in the next few months, the former C.I.A. official said. “Bush has followed Cheney’s advice for six years, and the story line will be: ‘Will he continue to choose Cheney over his father?’ We’ll know soon.” (The White House and the Pentagon declined to respond to detailed requests for comment about this article, other than to say that there were unspecified inaccuracies.)

A retired four-star general who worked closely with the first Bush Administration told me that the Gates nomination means that Scowcroft, Baker, the elder Bush, and his son “are saying that winning the election in 2008 is more important than the individual. The issue for them is how to preserve the Republican agenda. The Old Guard wants to isolate Cheney and give their girl, Condoleezza Rice”—the Secretary of State—“a chance to perform.” The combination of Scowcroft, Baker, and the senior Bush working together is, the general added, “tough enough to take on Cheney. One guy can’t do it.”