Shizzle my nizzle
28th July 2004
He's really handed out a beating to the Americans in Congress over the acusations that he received money/oil from Saddam Hussain during his regime for support in Britain. Do you think Galloway is telling the truth? When you looked into his eyes when he stood in front of his accusers in the USA, I don't think anyone could have believed he was lying, but the US seem pretty sure about it. I think he was telling the truth. What do you think? Related Link - You can watch his testimony here.
23rd May 2003
I saw this earlier in the week and even though it's nearly fifty minutes long it's definitely worth watching. I don't know if he's guilty or not, he seemed to dance around some of the questions he was asked. Even if he is guilty his criticism of the U.S. government is still devastatingly incisive.
This link has video of his opening statement and an interview featuring him and Norm Coleman who was one of the senators questioning him. http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002119.html
2nd October 2003
He really gave 'em a roasting. One of the congressmen (buck teeth, lanky) looked like he was going to cry afterwards. I don't really care if he is guilty or not - they are just sore they didn't think of it first.
edit: anyone see the speech he gave after winning his constituency? Fucking brilliant - I love this guy.
10th July 2004
He was brilliant.And brave and gave his accusers a very difficult time. All the time I saw that testimony no matter how much I saw ,he was the only person who was talking.everyone else seemed to have kept quiet except when asked questions and stuff.
One of the congressmen (buck teeth, lanky) looked like he was going to cry afterwards.
Was it that guy named Coleman?Or whatever?
This shows why only two senators have ever been elected president (both which weren't very good presidents) *cough idiots*. He did a damn good job of defending himself though.
What, JFK wasn't a good prez?
[color=black][color=black][color=black]He wasn't bad by comparison to the incompetence of Harding, but in my opinion he was too inexperienced for the Presidency. Khrushchev mopped the floor with him when they met to negotiate. Because of this, Khrushchev came to believe that Kennedy was a weak leader, leading to both the creation of the Berlin wall, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Luckily full nuclear war caused by the latter was averted, probably the greatest achievement of his carrier. The greatest showing of his inexperience probably was the total failure of the Bay of Pigs. Other things about Kennedy: the rigging of the election in Chicago, and drug use (which might have played a part in Khrushchev out debating him) but he never really had a completely detrimental effect on the US like Harding did, for the most part because of the image he gave the country. He wasn't terrible President like Harding, but I wouldn't rank him as one of the great presidents either. He probably gets too much credit out of sympathy for his assassination and the tragedies of his family.[/color] [/color][/color]
JFK would have been a fine president had he lived. His agenda: -Out of Vietnam by 1965 -Civil Rights Act by 1966 -The Great Society by 1968 -Expansion of the Peace Corps -A crackdown on Organized Crime It would have been smooth sailing.
Khrushchev's distrust of Kennedy came from his dealings with Eisenhower, who often and easily lied to the Premier. The Bay of Pigs incident came about as an extension of Eisenhower policies. Eisenhower was a great president, but he really ticked Khrushchev off.
[color=black]I'm not sure about the Civil Rights acts; he seemed avoid that issue like Eisenhower did, not because of Racism, but because, like Eisenhower, he wanted to avoid the violence that was inherent with the passage of such acts. LBJ was really the first president to give Civil Rights complete support (and in part did so because the violence had already begun to erupt). The Great Society seemed to be more of a work by LBJ, so if Kennedy hadn't died, it still would have been passed by him, although it really was LBJ's program (at least that's the way it looks because LBJ was the one who lobbied for it's passage as President).[/color]
[color=black]Yes, Khrushchev did distrust Eisenhower and his policies, but he came into leadership preaching the death of capitalism. In my opinion he judged Kennedy's inexperience as weakness, causing him to take aggressive action without fearing reprisal from Kennedy. Yes, the Bay of Pigs was a result of Eisenhower policy, but Kennedy's failure was his unquestioning support of it, especially after the "Cuban Exile's Aircraft" were found out to be repainted A-26s by the media, resulting in a Cuban air force presence on the day of the invasion. I guess the criticism of the Bay of Pigs is probably all wrongful hindsight, since most of the things that went wrong (the fact that it was one of Castro's favorite resorts, for example) weren't known at the time; still was his inexperience that lead to his full support of it.[/color]
1. Except for Vietnam, LBJ's policies from 1963 to 1966 were a continuation of Kennedy's.
2. I believe Khrushchev wanted to genuinely talk with the United States when he took office. He said so, because he believed that trade and open relations wth America would give the Soviets more resources at the cost of some political face. However, we told him to shove off, so he promptly did so.
3. I'd say it was less his inexperience and more his overfaith in his advisors, esp. McNamara. After Bay of Pigs, Kennedy was much more forceful with his lieutenants, as demonstrated with the Cuban Missile Crisis.