Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Pennsylvania Jim, Nov 19, 2004.
One name: April Gillaspie. The socialite fund raiser friend of George H.W. Bush, he gave an ambassador's position.
Unfortunately, she was asked by Saddam Hussein (then George's buddy for fighting Iran) what we would think if he invaded Kuwait. She told him we had no position on that.
Saddam reasonably concluded that the US had no position on that, and invaded. Then the roof fell in. Many thousands of deaths, trillions in dollars spent, and no end in sight.
All because jobs were doled out to fundraising pals.
Not a good idea.
It demonstrates a (not unexpected) lack of critical thinking skills to try to make the case that the Iraq War (either one) was the result of an ambassadorship. Utter buffoonery.
This story has been out for a while, and it seems to be a fairly normal occurrence.
Politics is the busines of rewarding one's friends and punishing one's enemies. All parties reward their friends and supporters.
Peroutka said in a post-election statement in an article entitled Bush's Moral Mandate, 'Finally, in his press conference, Mr. Bush said he wants to "reach out to everyone who shares our goals." But, if what he says is true, why, in speaking about his agenda, did he totally ignore some important concerns of the millions of evangelical Christians who voted for him?'
Mr. Peroutka's sole strategy seems to be to attack the rank-and-file supporter of Bush with the charge that he is not getting his full share of the spoils. This unsuccessful line of attack on Evangelicals is disingenuous in that Evangelicals have not asked Mr. Peroutka to be their representative either on election day or now. In fact, Mr. Peroutka does not represent Evangelical values.
Don't look for any change in the Constitution Party tactic of attack, attack, attack. Politics is their main business and it is a 24/7/365 1/4 job with them.
cmg, you're wasting bandwidth on the Constitution Party. The election is over. Let 'em be.
Hey, they started this thread, not me. All they know how to do is to take pot shots at Evangelicals and the GOP. Who appointed Peroutka to anything?
I saw no mention of the Constitution Party in the opening article.
Look again at the author of the thread. It is another complaint about the GOP from someone who is not a member. You see, we Republicans are too foolish to see what Bush is doing to us (ignoring us according to Peroutka) and only Peroutka and the Peroutkies know what is best for the Bushies. Trouble is that the Peroutkies don't know what is going on because they are getting it all from the top only. Or if you prefer, Peroutka is the bullseye on the target and the other bands on the target are the ripples formed around the strong leader. The political party is organized like a fundamentalist independent church in its polity.
Unfortunately, the issue of Bush's appointments is really a non-issue. If Peroutka had won, PennJim would be Secretary of State in charge of getting the French to help us bring our troops home from Iraq and getting our sacks of wheat back from the starving in Africa.
Barbarian mentions that the Iraq wars were caused by the appointment of a socialite to be ambassador:
It was the lack of ambassadorship. The lady, not being a professional diplomat, inadvertantly gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait.
If she had understood what her reply would mean, she would not have done it. But she was being rewarded, and a "safe" ambassadorship was the way Bush chose to do it.
Yep. Think of all the cost, bloodshed, American lives, and dollars that would have been saved, if this lady had been rewarded with some other favor instead of the job of representing America.
Really? I'm not aware of another such gaffe putting us into two wars, or even one. But it might exist. Tell me about it.
The election is over, cmg, and Mr. Peroutka in no longer on any ballot. Give it a rest for four years and then you can continue with your vitriol against the Constitution Party in 2008.
In the meantime, all of us, including you, I am sure will have reasons to criticize President Bush and the GOP during the next four years.
I'd still like to hear about some amateur ambassador getting us into a war, other than Bush's appointee.
Anyone know of the one Larry is talking about?
You just can't help yourself Galatian. You don't think well and you insisting on demonstrating that by replying to these posts. The "story" in question is the story about political donors getting appointments. That is a fairly common occurrence apparently. If you thought before you replied you would have saved yourself the embarrassment of missing that. Close your browser when you feel that urge to respond. It will save you a lot of trouble.
The story you gave is buffoonery. It is not a story at all. Saddam did not invade Kuwait because some ambassador said something out of line, if she even said that to begin with. (With your track record, there is no reason to think it is true.) And it seems likely that you don't even believe that, I imagine ... although seeing some of your posts in it, it can be imagined that you would believe something that off the wall.
The problem, Ken, with the CP is that they can only attack the President of the United States and his supporters.
I can hardly attack any President for appointing his friends and supporters to office. To the victor goes the spoils. One hardly would appoint an enemy like Peroutka to the Supreme Court--one wants to reward one's friends and punish one's enemies.
In this case, the Peroutkies want to punish their GOP enemies. Michael Peroutka in his post-election article that I quoted above implied that Bush voters were stupid because Bush did not talk about same-sex marriage and abortion during his first press conference. Peroutka also critized Bush for saying that we have freedom of religion in this country but not pointing out that the religion of the Founding Fathers was Christian.
Peroutka should have made a concession speech and promised support for the elected person. He is too petty for that.
On this particular issue of appointments, Ken, Peroutka would have appointed his fundraisers and friends to every high-paying post in the federal government and you know it and you know it very well.
Perhaps you like the constant complaints of the CP about the GOP and the Evangelicals who might have voted for Bush.
I, for one, am tired of seeing the constant complaints of a group that has no following. They make me puke.
1)I am one of those evangelicals who voted for President Bush.
2)Well, maybe if you stop responding to them with such vitriol, they will stop.
Ken, Peroutka attacks not Bush's ideas but his supporters. Here is what Peroutka wrote in his post-election statement after the Bush press conference:
Finally, in his press conference, Mr. Bush said he wants to "reach out to everyone who shares our goals." But, if what he says is true, why, in speaking about his agenda, did he totally ignore some important concerns of the millions of evangelical Christians who voted for him?
Peroutka attacks Evangelicals for letting themselves be "ignored." He thinks that Evangelical concerns must dominate every speech and every website. That is a forerunner of what happens to the Bush support in debate with the member of the CP here on this board. One gets informed of what a "good" Christian does.
Bush deserves a honeymoon for what he has done for this country the last 4 years and for winning an election victory throughout the USA. If Kerry had won, he would have deserved a honeymoon also.
I see Larry has backpedaled a bit. Good thing, too. I can't find (contrary to his assertion) any record of any such ambassadorial goof causing a war for the US.
The habit of farming out "safe" ambassadorships for political cronys is a bad one, and it should stop.
It's killed enough American soldiers.
cmg, you're probably the only person in America who is not a Constitution Party supporter who cares what Mr. Peroutka says and lets it bother you.
I think church mouse guy is being a sore winner.
Where did you see this? I never backpedaled a bit. You were wrong. You misunderstood. And tried to blame me. I maintain what I said at the beginning.
Which makes you a liar. You are the one who made the charge that this ambassadorial goof caused a war. Now you admit you can't find any evidence for it. I searched on google, and found no evidence from any respected news source.
So far, you haven't shown that is has killed any. You made what appears to be a false charge based on very poor thinking. Unless you can demonstrate that 1) this story is actually true and 2) that it changed anything, you are wrong.
If you think that an ambassador has to power to bring on a war, you are in bad shape. You are sorely lacking in the knowledge of how the governmetn works. Of course, we have seen evidence of that before, but you are demonstrating it again. Saddam did not invade Kuwait because some ambassador said it was OK. How crazy are you?
You need to stop posting here. You have once again showed that you are either unable to read or plainly dishonest. Everytime you come in here, you are making irresponsible charges that are not backed up. You are too often wrong on things you should know, and you have a habit of lying to try to make your point. None are acceptable. Close your browser and quit posting.