President Bush and Thomas Jefferson

Not to mention descendants with skin considerably darker than his own.

 

What does a racial comment like that have to do with anything, much less the OP?

 

Nothing. It has to do with what Jefferson was, had, and what he 'left behind,' as the post I quoted remarked on.

 

Sorry, wrong again Alcott. Magnetic Pole has this one right on target, it is a racial comment and totally uncalled for, plus it has nothing to do with comparing Jefferson to the present holder of the office.

 

I think it's relevant. Despite Jefferson's early work in our country, he thought black people were beneath him. I don't think that should be off limits.

 

The way you put that, it has a totally different light than Alcott, and I agree 100%.

 

Worst policy decision was Lincoln's War.

Just coinsidence that we only "free" nations that have stuff that will make the Bush family rich . . . oil, gas pipeline access to open water, opium . . . ."

 

The current President does not hold slaves, nor is there any evidence, of which I am aware, that he <edited for language - LE> with little recourse to stop him and has offspring he does not support. That is relevant when the subject is comparing the the current President to one of whom there is evidence of such things.

 

No, instead he does that to all of us, men and women. Plus, the comment about "dark skinned offspring" was racial and has nothing to do with Sally Hemmings except to sound like a racist. Your point has more value if you leave that out of it.

 

YOU had his baby, or what is it you mean?

 

You really are not that dumb.

 

This war never had much to do about terrorism. If we were serious about terrorism we would have kept more troops in Afghanastan where the real terrorists were. At one point Bush said he didn't care about catching bin Laden. This war was about U.S. power and oil.

 

The war is not about US power being used to gain terrority or resources such as oil! If we'd that were our objective then we'd been pilliaging Iraq for their oil for several years by now. No such thing has happened nor was intended to happen. We have, however, helped the people of Iraq establish a representative government that will much more likely help facilitate sharing the wealth of its own resources with more of its citizens. We'll pay for whatever we purchase from them. We're not into stealing any other nation's resources. You're confusing America with other nations in history.

 

Yes, the Shia are a greater population than the Sunni. You're right there.

 

All told about 50 years give or take a couple. We started supporting Saddam in the late 1950's.

Wow! The evidence you have to overlook to even make such a statement would fill the Persian Gulf. What's the first thing Bremmer did when he got to Iraq? Change their laws to allow foreign "investors" to take control of almost but not quite everything...which in itself was a violation of international law btw. "Losing" billions of dollars in cash (363 tons) doesn't even compare to how much the private central bankers of Europe and the international corporations stand to gain from these wars.


Jefferson had a problem with the private central bankers and corporations that these wars benefit most. Bush doesn't as he works for them.

 

You missed the news story - just yesterday I think - about the people of Iraq being able to share in the wealth of their natural resources.

 

They haven't acted on it yet but it is a good proposal.

 

They repealed Bremmer's 100 orders...wow! I must have missed that news story, got a link so I can catch up? I can't remember, did anyone in the "international community" ever question him about the possibility of breaking international law with these 100 orders?

 

No, I don't have a link to the story but I'll bet you can find it with Google. It was only a day or two ago. It's not a done deal but yet another sign of the progress being made. I think the Iraq citizens will like the deal because it's good for them. The bad part, for those that believe the "rape and plunder" line because "it's about the oil", is that now we won't be able to steal it after all. We've had about four years to do it but being generally nice people didn't take the opportunity. As for "international law" - whatever that means - being broken, I don't think so.

 

Quotes from both Presidents:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary........the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson

Mission accomplished. George Bush