Dubya's resume

>Because we're still paying the price (ie one more dead soldier

>every day in Iraq from that mistake)

Why do you assume that there would have been no war in Iraq if Gore had been elected?

The policy of REGIME CHANGE was enacted by the Clinton Administration, with the full support of Gore's Middle East, very-hawkish foreign policy advisors, such as Martin Peretz.

And the fact is, you couldn't care less about the lives of soldiers -you just like to exploit their dead bodies, and anything else you can get your hands on, as instrumets to advance your liberal political agenda.

>First of all, in and of themselves, Colin Powell and Condi

>Rice are intelligent and accomplished individuals. They

>weren't selceted by ShrubCheneyRove for that reason. They

>were selected because they are black.

How do you know this?

>I also agree about Colin Powell, as I think he is intelligent

>and the only one in the cabinet who is honest, truthful and

>worth voting for as president.

Gen. Powell chose to be a Republican; rejected the Democratic Party's pleas that he join them; supported and campaigned vigorously for George Bush; and has steadfastly supported virtually every position of this Administration. I agree that he is "honest, truthful and worth voting for as president." Glad you agree.

That's why it's so disgraceful for people like Nick to see him as nothing but a "token black."

>I hope he does leave as Shrub

>is so far beneath his abilities and is only ruining his

>reputation. When he tried to sound a voice of reason in the

>madness that is the current administration, old Shrub

>basically silenced him (kind of like telling him "you are the

>top house nigger, but you're still just a nigger, so don't

>forget your place").

What is your basis for this assertion that Colin Powell was involuntarily silenced. He never said so - so how did you discover this?

>The defenders of Bush are so pathetic they should be pitied

>not castigated. Especially those who are gay.

Not only do you see Presidents as embodiments of race, rather than as individuals (hence your racist characterization of prior Presidents as "WHITE men"), but you also believe that people who are gay are, first and foremost, part of a GROUP who are compelled to march in lockstep with your political views for no reason other than the fact that they are gay.

I support gay equality because gay people have the right NOT to be judged as being part of a group based on their sexual orientation, but rather, to be judged as INDIVIDUALS. As your post makes clear - in which you demand that all gay people adopt a liberal political agenda simply because they are gay - you are the enemy of that goal.

The stupidest

>thing they do is to support their position by bringing up

>Clinton, who I do believe won the election twice by an

>overwhelming majority of the popular and electoral votes,

>including against Shrub Sr. And their main criticism is what?

> His morals for having sex with a legal aged female intern?

Why lie about the criticism of Clinton? Because you can't answer it?

The criticism of Clinton is not that he had sex with someone. It is that he committed the crime of perjury - for which people go to jail - by raising his right hand and swearing under the law to tell the truth when giving testimony in a court proceeding, and then violating that oath by lying when testifying.

You may think that perjury is ok - as long as it's committed by someone who shares your political views - but if that's the case, just say so. Stop pretending that Clinton didn't commit perjury - if you think there's nothing wrong with perjury, then argue that. Why pretend that the criticism his about his having sex when you know full well that it's that he lied when testifying - a crime for which he was disbarred?

Personally, I think the entire judicial system would cease to operate effectively if people were free to lie under oath, and I believe, for that reason, that perjury is a pretty serious crime - EVEN IF the one committing that crime is a president with liberal political views.

>Gen. Powell chose to be a Republican; rejected the Democratic

>Party's pleas that he join them; supported and campaigned

>vigorously for George Bush; and has steadfastly supported

>virtually every position of this Administration.

That is correct. In answering the idiots who contend that Powell was appointed solely because of his race, you should remind them that it was during the 2000 campaign that Bush announced Powell would be Secretary of State if he won the election, and that every commentator interpreted this as an attempt to reassure those who had doubts about Bush's knowledge of foreign affairs, not something to do with race.

>>I hope he does leave as Shrub

>>is so far beneath his abilities and is only ruining his

>>reputation. When he tried to sound a voice of reason in the

>>madness that is the current administration, old Shrub

>>basically silenced him (kind of like telling him "you are

>the

>>top house nigger, but you're still just a nigger, so don't

>>forget your place").

This is an incredibly stupid remark. Powell has won his share of the turf battles between State and Defense that occur in almost every administration. The appointment of Bremer as administrator in Iraq in place of Rumsfeld's man is merely one of his most recent victories.

>>The defenders of Bush are so pathetic they should be pitied

>>not castigated. Especially those who are gay.

I have yet to see the critics of Bush do anything but criticize -- they never seem able to come up with any alternatives to his policies. Perhaps that's why they did so poorly in the 2002 election. You can't beat something with nothing.

> The stupidest

>>thing they do is to support their position by bringing up

>>Clinton, who I do believe won the election twice by an

>>overwhelming majority of the popular and electoral votes,

Do you have amnesia? Clinton did not even get half of the popular vote in 1992, and in 1996 he barely got a majority, even against a candidate as weak as Dole. You should have your memory checked.

>>including against Shrub Sr. And their main criticism is

>what?

>> His morals for having sex with a legal aged female intern?

I think the main criticism of Clinton is that he went on national television and shook his finger in the faces of the American people and told them what we now know to be a blatant lie about his behavior in the Lewinsky affair. Do you really have a problem understanding why so many people find this action repugnant? If you do, then stop using the word "Truth" in your signature.

Yes, many Republicans used Clinton's personal foibles to attack him because their real problem was with his policies. And that's exactly what Bush's opponents are doing today.

>In answering the idiots who contend that

>Powell was appointed solely because of his race, you should

>remind them that it was during the 2000 campaign that Bush

>announced Powell would be Secretary of State if he won the

>election, and that every commentator interpreted this as an

>attempt to reassure those who had doubts about Bush's

>knowledge of foreign affairs, not something to do with race.

Exactly. Poll after poll showed that Gen. Powell was one of the most widely admired and respected public figures among all Americans. Any President would kill to have someone of his stature supporting his candidacy and serving in an important cabinet post in his Administration.

And yet - when Bush does what every President would love to do, and appoints Gen. Powell as Secretary of State, there are certain people who look at Gen. Powell and see nothing but his race - they just see BLACK MAN - and so, notwithstanding the incomparable stature and accomplishments Gen. Powell has achieved, they actually screech that his appointment had nothing to do with merit, and they insist that he got the position only due to his race.

Disagreeing with Bush's policies is one thing; that is fine. But these people who are so race-obsessed that they see nothing but a person's race - and are thus willing to demean someone like Gen. Powell or Dr. Rice with vile racial epithets ("tokens" and "house niggers" being some of the lovlier ones just in this thread) - are simply shameless.

>This is an incredibly stupid remark. Powell has won his share

>of the turf battles between State and Defense that occur in

>almost every administration. The appointment of Bremer as

>administrator in Iraq in place of Rumsfeld's man is merely one

>of his most recent victories.

Yes - and I will remind them that the Bush Administration delayed the war in Iraq and continued to try to reach a deal through the U.N. long, long after Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. were urging that the U.N. be left behind. The Administration did so primarily based upon Powell's advocacy of working more through the UN; Bush rejected the demands of the Pentagon and Cheney that the UN be ignored.

The Administration decided to pursue the war without UN approval only once even Powell became so frustrated with the obstructionism of the French and the Germans - and became convinced that they would never allow any agreement which called for a war, no matter what the terms - that he finally concluded that a war without UN approval was necessary and just.

One could make the argument that the Bush Administration's foreign policy over the last year vis-a-vis Iraq has almost completely mirorred Powell's views, and that - although both sides have had their share of defeats in what you sensibly refer to as standard D.C. turf wars -- it is the hawks who have had their veiws rejected far more often in favor of Powell's views.

Despite all that, these race-obsessed individuals will claim that he can't possibly have any influence. After all, he's not a credible or important policy maker; he's just black.

>Exactly. Poll after poll showed that Gen. Powell was

>one of the most widely admired and respected public figures

>among all Americans. Any President would kill to have someone

>of his stature supporting his candidacy and serving in an

>important cabinet post in his Administration.

>

>And yet - when Bush does what every President would love to

>do, and appoints Gen. Powell as Secretary of State, there are

>certain people who look at Gen. Powell and see nothing but his

>race - they just see BLACK MAN - and so, notwithstanding the

>incomparable stature and accomplishments Gen. Powell has

>achieved, they actually screech that his appointment had

>nothing to do with merit, and they insist that he got the

>position only due to his race.

>

>Disagreeing with Bush's policies is one thing; that is fine.

>But these people who are so race-obsessed that they see

>nothing but a person's race - and are thus willing to demean

>someone like Gen. Powell or Dr. Rice with vile racial epithets

>("tokens" and "house niggers" being some of the lovlier ones

>just in this thread) - are simply shameless.

Again you show that you are incapable of reading something and interpreting it in the original context. Had Powell not been a popular figure AND black, Shrub never would have given him the time of day. Yes, General Powell was an enthusiastic supporter of ShrubCo...until he saw what depths of deception that the MisAdministration was willing to go to to secure oil for Haliburton.

>Yes - and I will remind them that the Bush Administration

>delayed the war in Iraq and continued to try to reach a deal

>through the U.N. long, long after Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. were

>urging that the U.N. be left behind. The Administration did

>so primarily based upon Powell's advocacy of working more

>through the UN; Bush rejected the demands of the Pentagon and

>Cheney that the UN be ignored.

>The Administration decided to pursue the war without UN

>approval only once even Powell became so frustrated

>with the obstructionism of the French and the Germans - and

>became convinced that they would never allow any agreement

>which called for a war, no matter what the terms - that he

>finally concluded that a war without UN approval was necessary

>and just.

Bush had planned almost from the day he took office to invade Iraq. 9/11 provided him with the necessary pretext to craft lies ( The US was in imminent danger fram Saddam; Saddam has WMD ready to go; Saddam has ties to AL Qaeda and Osama bin Laden) for him to obtain his objectives of obtaining oil for his buddies.

>One could make the argument that the Bush Administration's

>foreign policy over the last year vis-a-vis Iraq has almost

>completely mirorred Powell's views, and that - although both

>sides have had their share of defeats in what you sensibly

>refer to as standard D.C. turf wars -- it is the hawks who

>have had their veiws rejected far more often in favor of

>Powell's views.

One could make that arguement and one would be assumed to be off his rocker as the above statement has no basis in reality whatsoever.

>Despite all that, these race-obsessed individuals will claim

>that he can't possibly have any influence. After all, he's

>not a credible or important policy maker; he's just black.

Once again, you prove you can't read. I never said anything of the sort regarding Colin Powell. However, I can see that you are following the edict of Bush's Minsitry of Information (aka Faux News aka Fox News): We spin. You comply.

>I will never understand what people like you think you can

>accomplish by lying on an Internet Message Board about what

>was said, since the Board records what was saying and anyone

>with eyes can see that you are lying.

You lack of understanding hasn't prevented you from becoming rather adept at it however, has it?

>The discussion of race began when this Nick person referred to

>the "White (very white) House". As he made clear, he was

>accusing the Bush Administration of not appointing enough

>"non-whites," and accusing him of appointing only "tokens" -

>such as Gen. Powell and Dr. Rice, not to mention his White

>House legal counsel, Alberto Gonzalez.

>

>You then defended Nick's racial reference by writing a post

>which, for some reason, talked about the race of prior

>Presidents.

More lessons from Bill O'Reilly and Faux News. We spin. You comply. The name is Neal, not Nick. Pay attention. How many more times must you show us that you are utterly incapable of understanding what other people write?

>It was at that point that I observed how sad it was that

>people like you and Nick are incapable of judging a person as

>an individual, but can only see them as a function of their

>race.

Like I said, you might not understand, but you sure are becoming a master at it.

>Lying and trying to pretend that I was the one who brought up

>race will do you as much good as spewing the DNC cliches which

>started this thread will accomplish with the electorate -

>which is to say, none at all.

All this from someone who says he's not a partisan, yet he goossteps to the Rush/Hannity/Faux News drumbeat completely in time. Heil Shrub to you too.

>Again you show that you are incapable of reading something and

>interpreting it in the original context. Had Powell not been

>a popular figure AND black, Shrub never would have given him

>the time of day.

You are the only person I have ever encountered who has suggested that Bush's desire to associate himself with Powell had anything to do with race. I don't think there was anyone in 2000 who believed there was anything Bush could do that would get him a significant number of black votes, especially after his appearance at Bob Jones University during the primaries.

>Yes, General Powell was an enthusiastic

>supporter of ShrubCo...until he saw what depths of deception

>that the MisAdministration was willing to go to to secure oil

>for Haliburton.

If you could point to any statement or action of Powell showing that he is no longer an enthusiastic supporter of Bush's policies I would be very interested to hear about it, since I know of none. I saw him talking to the media two days ago trying to explain why no one should pay attention to the flap over Bush's State of the Union speech. If he no longer supports Bush's policies, why is he still doing things like that? With all the money he's made from speaking engagements he certainly doesn't need a government salary in order to get by.

>Had Powell not been

>a popular figure AND black, Shrub never would have given him

>the time of day.

How do you know this? This is such a dumb statement - why wouldn't Bush want to have a popular white person in his cabinet? Why - if Powell were a decorated general who had huge respect and admiration among the American people, but was also white, would Bush not want him in his Cabinet?

Now you are just babbling and making no sense. You can't accept that not everyone in the world sees people as a function of their race the way you do. Your brain can't process that, unlike you, some people are capable of looking at Colin Powell and seeing something other than BLACK MAN. Most people look at him and see accomplished general, respected statesman, principled diplomat, etc. But you see him as BLACK.

Because of the racist prison you are trapped in, you simply insist that everyone else must see him as black, too, and that if he's appoitned to a high office, it must be because of his race .

Nothing I say or anyone else says will ever convince you that his achievements and his appointment as Secretary of State are independent of his race, because for you, there is nothing independent of a person's race.

So you will go to your grave believing that Colin Powell rose to the level of Secretary of State not based on his merit, but because he's black, and it's all because that's the only way you are capable of judging a person.

>So you think that she's incompetent, and able to stay in her

>job only because of her race? That's what you think of her?

Yes. 9/11 was a colossal national security failure which should have been matched by a colossal resignation or firing.

>Other than the fact that the names "Rice" and "Powell" are not

>Jewish names, do you have any other basis for asserting that

>they have no influence on our Government or its policies?

It's on the public record that both were over-ruled on the UN issue wrt Iraq and before that with respect tro Israel. O/2. They are just window-dressing. Personally, I'd rather have a Jew in both positions officially so they could be kept honest, rather than having the Jewish neo-cons calling the shots behind the scenes.

Thank you for once again showing that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

After an appearance at Bob "No Mixed Race dating" Jones University, appointing two qhalified black people to two top posts sounds like the proper spin to me....

>After an appearance at Bob "No Mixed Race dating" Jones

>University, appointing two qhalified black people to two top

>posts sounds like the proper spin to me....

Just as I said, your brain is incapable of viewing anything or anyone other than in racial terms. Sad.

>>After an appearance at Bob "No Mixed Race dating" Jones

>>University, appointing two qhalified black people to two top

>>posts sounds like the proper spin to me....

>

>Just as I said, your brain is incapable of viewing anything or

>anyone other than in racial terms. Sad.

>

You really need to apply for a job at Faux News, because your spin is almost worthy of theirs. You brought up Bob Jones U. You brought up every racist angle in this entire thread.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/luckovich/2003/images/02062003mike.jpg