Common Ground Common Sense > Bush in Cleveland

Common Ground Common Sense > Online Community > People of Faith Community > People of Faith Community Archive

Noonan

Mar 20 2006, 05:58 PM

The first question asked to Bush after his speech was about the Kevin Phillips book called, "American Theocracy." Read the review.

Video-WMP Video-QT

Transcript

QUESTION: Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President, and to the City Club.

My question is that author and former Nixon administration official Kevin Phillips in his latest book, "American Theocracy," discusses what has been called radical Christianity and its growing involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the Apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the Apocalypse?

He didn't answer the question, but rather went into a long rant about 9/11 and his most important talking point. The one that paves the way for the U.S. to attack Iran-"pre-emptive strikes." He threw in the word diplomacy to make believe that was on his mind, but the whole neocon game is to change the face of the Middle East and I don't think diplomacy is part of that equation.

Steve also notes:

"So, when Bush visited Cleveland this morning to share his ~~bizarre~~ optimistic perspective on the war in Iraq, which of the state's major GOP players were anxious to be seen with him? Well, none.

QUOTE

When a president's popularity plummets as Bush's has, other politicians often avoid public appearances with them. Prominent Ohio Republicans including Sen. Mike DeWine, Sen. George Voinovich and Rep. Steve LaTourette say they're skipping Bush's speech because of prior commitments.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/20.html#a7592

EvelyninTexas

Mar 20 2006, 06:16 PM

Can we just all tell dubya we have prior commitments and send HIM home?

As to the religious question implied, my mother still insists that he is going to start Armageddon. (Bombing Iran would probably just about do it.)

jeffmoskin

Mar 20 2006, 08:12 PM

QUOTE(Evelyni

nTexas @ Mar 20 2006, 04:16 PM)

[/quote]
Naw. All it will do is stop the flow of oil thru the strait of Hormuz. A mere loss of 25 percent.

Should drive oil to $300/bbl

Gas to $15/gal.

Maybe we would prefer armageddon.

EvelyninTexas

Mar 20 2006, 08:34 PM

Yeah, but it will tick the Iranians off so bad they'll lob some nukes by way of Israel. That'll be the end. And, you're right, if the world were to end soon I wouldn't have to stay awake nights figuring out how to pay for gas.
(And I drive a fuel efficient small car!)

jeffmoskin

Mar 21 2006, 09:08 AM

QUOTE(EvelyninTexas @ Mar 20 2006, 06:34 PM)

Don't worry about Israel:

1. They have a few hundred nukes to lob at Iran. There would BE no more Iran. Hence, Iran would be committing suicide by attacking Israel. MAD still works.

2. Israel, unlike the USA, actually has an anti missile missile, the ARROW. It has been successfully tested against the Iranian Shabbaz 3 as well as the Iraqi SCUD. It scored direct hits.

GoIllini

Mar 21 2006, 01:52 PM

QUOTE

Naw. All it will do is stop the flow of oil thru the strait of Hormuz. A mere loss of 25 percent.

Should drive oil to $300/bbl

Gas to $15/gal.

Maybe we would prefer armageddon.

$300/barrel would mean a conservation revolution. It would also mean that China's screwed more than the U.S.

War with Iran would knock out one bird the conservatives want to hit, one that moderates want to hit, and one that environmentalists want to hit with one stone.

QUOTE

Hence, Iran would be committing suicide by attacking Israel. MAD still works.

Unless, of course, Iran hands a nuclear device to terrorists (unlikely, but possible). IMHO, the U.S. ought to avoid warmongering on this one because the Europeans have more at stake- and they're more able to deal with Iran than we are. Thus, Europe- and maybe Israel- should lead the way on this one.

jeffmoskin

Mar 21 2006, 04:53 PM

QUOTE(GoIllini @ Mar 21 2006, 11:52 AM)

$300/barrel would mean a conservation revolution. It would also mean that China's screwed more than the U.S.

It would also encourage China to keep accepting our otherwise worthless greenbacks to buy that oil. This is, assuming that the Iran Oil Bourse is kept from succeeding, and the dollar remains the sole oil currency.

cutecat

Jun 5 2006, 05:52 PM

He is in Omaha, Nebraska this week! I wonder who will appear with him. South Omaha (remember our resegregation of schools issue) is mostly Hispanic and he is visiting a family center there. Now I have always hated when the Mideast is unsettled because it is so biblical. I have a very wise brother who always reminds me that before Armageddon there has to be 100 years of peace. So now I don't worry

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.