George W. Bush: Pros & Cons

[Tyrion]

I think one of my teachers put my views on Clinton well enough.

 

"He's not particularly a guy I would want to meet, but he does a fine job at leading the country."

 

Bush is much akin to my hypothetical senile grandmother being a president...I understand she would be nice and kind, but I really wouldnt want her to be leading the country.

[RpTheHotrod]

Presidents lying about wars has happened in the past. There are just some things that's best that we currently don't know at the time.

 

I'm quite sure it wasn't Bush who said "I'm gonna lie." but a large type of opinion and vote by the upper staff.

[SkinWalker]

Please, everyone, lets avoid ad hominem remarks.

 

I don't mind heated debate as long as insults are avoided. In addition, lets consider proper usage of terminology but not worry so about grammer and spelling. For instance, ignorant[/b means [i]Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened. [/i] It is not correctly used as an insult, but rather as a description of one's knowledge on a subject.

 

Posts that get off-topic might find themselves in the Senate Singularity (it's been hungry lately).

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by SpecialForces

I think of clinton as a mobster. He did things that I didnt like..

 

Care to qualify the "mobster" remark? The definition of "mobster" is a criminal who is a member of a gang. As far as I recall, Clinton was convicted of no crimes, nor was he accused of any crime beyond deceiving the public about a sexual favor. Even if this is considered a crime, it doesn't make him to be a member of a gang.

 

Beyond that, what "things" didn't you like? I ask, because most people who get caught up in the political dichotmy of left vs. right will hate the perceived leader of the opposing view simply because he/she is the leader of the opposing view. That is an error in critical thinking whether you are a republican or a democrat (or independent for that matter).

 

 

Originally posted by SpecialForces

Clinton lied

 

If you believe that politicians do not generally lie to constituents, then you are a bit naive. In fact, I think it is safe to assume that politicians will lie (an unfortunate fact, but one that can be considered more true than not), so it is therefore important to examine what the circumstances of the lies were when deciding the quality of the leadership.

 

For instance, Bush lied to the voters of Texas. He stated that he had no intention of using the gubernatorial race and the office of governor as a "stepping-stone" to the White House. A lot of people believed him, including myself. I voted for Bush as did the voting majority in that year. After less than 1 year in office, Bush announced his candidacy for President. Information came out that Bush accepted much of his gubernatorial campaign funding from the California Republican Party. If you don't see the implication of that, let me spell it out: the republican party (the GOP) wanted Bush to have a success in Texas as a stepping stone to the White House. If you believe that Bush wasn't aware and thought the Calif. Republicans were simply being "neighborly" then you are naive.

 

Now, we examine the two lies:

 

Clinton lied about having intimate contact with a woman other than his wife. One's sexual habits and personal values are one's own business in my book, but I would argue that if one is willing to sell out one's own wife, would one's country rate any higher? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Should Clinton have lied about it? Absolutely... his mistake was actually admitting that he lied. This, however, did demonstrate a character trait I didn't expect: remorse for his behavior. He could easily have denied the whole thing to his grave.

 

Bush lied about his intentions for status and position to gain favor of voters. This lie was about personal gain and greed, not about carnal desire or a bad decsion about a woman. Bush comes from an elitist background. Born in wealth, educated at an Ivy League school, and had everything he could need except the ultimate power in the country. Dad had it. Why shouldn't he? Bush's lie wasn't about hiding an embarassing decsion, but about getting an edge.

 

The kicker is: I voted for Bush once and never for Clinton (Both times, I chose an alternate). My choice will be clear in 2004 as to who I won't vote for.

 

Originally posted by SpecialForces

and we have NO idea whats going on with Iraq.

 

You have no idea. If you want to know, ask. I can comment on much about what's happening there as I stay informed. There are certainly things I don't know, but I know enough to see that the reason for the action there was unjustified. I would have been happier if Bush would have said, "we're taking action NOW to save indigenous groups like the Marsh Arabs who are being systematically wiped out." I would have agreed with it and so would much of the world. But what Bush and Co. did was state that WMDs are the priority. Terrorism is the priority. Neither of those reasons have panned out.

 

You could argue that the reason didn't matter as long as the end result was the removal of a tyrant, etc.

 

But the fact of the matter is that the reason is important. It brings us back to a willingness to lie for gain. It brings us to questions of intent. And it brings us to questions of policy. Is it now American foreign policy to violently overthrow any government or nation with whom we feel is behaving poorly, even if only poorly enough to be considered atrocious?

 

Originally posted by SpecialForces

And weather or not the war was right or wrong isnt the topic but I like Bush better because I trust his desisions more than clintons..

 

Then "trust" in Bush's descions depends upon whether or not a military action that has cost over 430 American Lives (not including 80+ British lives and countless thousands of Iraqi citizens) was "right or wrong."

 

Originally posted by SpecialForces

we have no idea if Bush lied so dont call him a liar.

 

Bush is a liar. I purposly used an example that everyone wasn't thinking of when I qualified my statement of that. But let's not forget Bush's infamous 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union Address that proclaimed that Saddam was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Moreover, in each of his public addresses to the media in the months leading up to the Iraqi War, Bush used much innuendo to suggest that Iraq was responsible for the terrorist threat against the United States.

 

That, my friend, is a lie. He may not have said straightforwardly that "Iraq is responsible for 9/11," but the inferrance of the general public was that Iraq had responsibility. That even misled you, if I read your comments in the other thread correctly. I lie is a lie, even if it doesn't involve words.

 

Originally posted by SpecialForces

I made that desision on logic only, not political views ok

 

What does your logic tell you now?

 

Oh, and just to be sure, I didn't particularly like Clinton. I've voted Republican more times than anything else (I even voted once for Reagan)... but not in 2004.

[ShockV1.89]

Am I annoying? So sorry. Feel free to put me on your ignore list. I won't stop you.

 

"Ignorant" can be insulting depending on the context it's used in. "You're ignorant of the facts" doesn't seem like an insult. "You're just being ignorant" does seem like one...

 

Oh well...

 

On the plus side for Bush, he did just sign the Healthy Forest Restoration Act in response to the wildfires in California. I like that. But critics are claiming he's just pandering to logging companies, and I guess that's possible too.

 

Whole story here.

 

Some excerpts from the article...

 

"With the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, we will help to prevent catastrophic wildfires," Bush said in a signing ceremony at the Agriculture Department. He was joined by firefighters who fought the Western blazes.

 

"We're proud to be standing with them up here," the president said. He said wildfires had destroyed 11 million acres over the last two years, and killed 22 people in Southern California this year alone.

 

For three years, a deadlock in the Senate had prevented the passage of legislation intended to speed forest treatment. But 15 raging fires driven by Santa Ana winds through Southern California prompted Democrats to compromise on the bill. The wildfires burned more than 750,000 acres, destroyed 3,640 homes, 33 businesses and 1,141 other structures.

 

The bill -- the first major forest management legislation in a quarter-century -- is similar to Bush's "Healthy Forests Initiative," which he proposed while touring a charred forest in Oregon in August 2002. The measure streamlines the approval process for projects to cut excess trees out of thick, overgrown forests or stands of trees killed by insect infestation.

 

My worry is that this might go overboard and they'll end up preventing every single fire. Fires are a natural process of the forest. They help replenish the soil with valuable nutrients. There are also trees that can only reproduce through fire (although I'm not sure if this kind of tree grows in California).

 

On a side note: Ph334 my l33t post count. Ph33r 1t!!!11

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

Am I annoying? So sorry. Feel free to put me on your ignore list. I won't stop you.

 

Ack! Not you, i meant SpecialForces. You posted a few seconds before i did.

[Lathain Valtiel]

Erm.. Skinwalker, you forgot something large. Clinton lied to a grand jury. He was technically impeached for the crime of perjury. I personally believe he admitted to his lies because at that point it would have no impact on world opinion, most people sent him sympathy letters for crying out loud... Therefore, I believe that he lied for political gain, and you know what? He pretty much got it.

 

End note to Skinwalker.

 

As for Bush.. Nobody here should bring up the war yet on the topic of lies. No one can effectively PROVE that he lied at this point. They can only speculate. As for the State of the Union.. Don't forget about the preface of 'British intelligence'. Bush stated that British intelligence came up with Saddam looking for uranium (was it uranium?. Surprise, said British intelligence is sticking to the 'yellow cake' uranium in Africa point. It is thus impossible to call him a liar for that, technically it is true, that British intelligence stated such. Now if he lied in front of a jury... And IT CAN BE PROVEN HE LIED, which has not happened yet... Then by all means convict him.

 

 

Can you tell i prefer Bush yet?

[ShockV1.89]

Originally posted by SpecialForces

 

dont take this to offence if your not, but are you a faget?

 

 

Wow! No reason to take offence at that. NO sir, none at all.

 

Honestly, what does him being gay (faget?) or not have to do with him deleting your posts?

 

Post reported.

[SpecialForces]

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Erm.. Skinwalker, you forgot something large. Clinton lied to a grand jury.

 

Yay, thats what I think too

[Datheus]

No one is convicting Bush of lying yet because the media isn't hounding him in the same fashion they hounded Clinton. Why has there been no outcry over the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Bush has not provided a very good answer for this. What are my tax dollars paying for? What are all these black book projects that I can't even know about doing for me if they can't even figure out if Iraq has a couple of missiles or not? Whether he truely was "innocent" in his actions or not, he was wrong. So where is the outcry from the media? I don't think that you can argue that the media has been much more hush-hush about Bush than with Clinton.

 

Although, your point is fairly valid that Clinton did in fact lie before a grand jury... However, the man was lying about receiving a sexual favor. Did he really need to be on the stand for that?

[wassup]

Originally posted by SpecialForces

lol, its because he deleted my post on the legal gay marage forum!

 

Which has relevance to this topic how? Please don't go off-topic and your posts won't be reported/deleted.

 

I like to know the truth and what Bush is doing not because so I can criticize him, but because I care about this country and where it is going and how it is going to affect me. Sitting around and supporting our troops will get us only so far, but to stop mistakes from happening and repeating again in history, the facts and truth need to be revealed.

 

Thank you, you may resume your discussion.

[SpecialForces]

No one is convicting Bush of lying yet because the media isn't hounding him in the same fashion they hounded Clinton. Why has there been no outcry over the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Bush has not provided a very good answer for this. What are my tax dollars paying for? What are all these black book projects that I can't even know about doing for me if they can't even figure out if Iraq has a couple of missiles or not? Whether he truely was "innocent" in his actions or not, he was wrong. So where is the outcry from the media? I don't think that you can argue that the media has been much more hush-hush about Bush than with Clinton.

 

Although, your point is fairly valid that Clinton did in fact lie before a grand jury... However, the man was lying about receiving a sexual favor. Did he really need to be on the stand for that?

 

 

 

 

Well I guess BUSH ISNT A LIAR until he is proven a liar.

You’re ignoring the American rule...

Innocent until proven guilty!

Calm down, you're in such a hurry to crucify him when there isn’t any proof like there was with Clinton.

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by Datheus

No one is convicting Bush of lying yet because the media isn't hounding him in the same fashion they hounded Clinton. Why has there been no outcry over the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Bush has not provided a very good answer for this. What are my tax dollars paying for? What are all these black book projects that I can't even know about doing for me if they can't even figure out if Iraq has a couple of missiles or not? Whether he truely was "innocent" in his actions or not, he was wrong. So where is the outcry from the media? I don't think that you can argue that the media has been much more hush-hush about Bush than with Clinton.

 

Although, your point is fairly valid that Clinton did in fact lie before a grand jury... However, the man was lying about receiving a sexual favor. Did he really need to be on the stand for that?

 

Depends on which media you're reading. Some (Particularly magazines and the like, printed media) editorialize and rant on Bush often. You have clearly not seen some of the people on TV... I watch Fox News sometimes, and there are quite a few people who say 'Bush lied about WMDs', as if it is automatic truth. There has been no OUTCRY sure.. But there has been bitching. There wasn't much of an outcry over Clinton really, except from the hard right. I BELIEVE there is no 'outcry' from the left on this because they would look REALLY, REALLY political doing so (And some are obviously political).

 

I actually forgot whatever the diatribe was for putting him face to face with a jury in the first place, so I can't comment on why he was there. However, that does not excuse him from the fact that it is a serious crime to lie under oath. He could have pled the fifth Amendment. For directly lying under oath he has no excuse.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by XERXES

heh, I think its awesome Bush went to Iraq like that....imagine the morale boost it gave the troops. **** all the Bush bandwagon haters out there, most dont even know what they are talking about...and try to act like they do by quoting others.

 

Maybe it's not the bandwagon, maybe we just ACTUALLY think he's a bad president. mmmmm?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by SpecialForces

Well I guess BUSH ISNT A LIAR until he is proven a liar.

You’re ignoring the American rule...

Innocent until proven guilty!

Calm down, you're in such a hurry to crucify him when there isn’t any proof like there was with Clinton.

 

Try this for proof:

 

1. Harken Energy Lie. When asked about the insider trading allegations, Bush said (not once, but many times) that the "SEC looked at it, and found there was no case". In fact, the SEC did find that laws had been violated, but chose not to take action.

 

2. The DWI Lie. The back story: On September 4, 1976, Bush was pulled over for swerving. He failed a blood alcohol test, was charged with drunk driving, pled guilty and paid a fine, as well as having his license suspended. He then spent the next 24 years trying to cover it up.

 

The lie itself: On 'Meet The Press', 11/21/99, Tim Russert asked Bush, "If someone came to you and said, 'Governor, I'm sorry, I'm going to go public with some information.' What do you do?" Bush replied, "If someone was willing to go public with information that was damaging, you'd have heard about it by now. You've had heard about it now. My background has been scrutinized by all kinds of reporters. Tim, we can talk about this all morning."

 

3. Texas Funeral Services Commission Lie. In Texas, the world's largest funeral home came under investigation a few years back regarding complaints that resulted in very large fines. Just like Clinton, Bush swore in a affidavit that he had no involvement in the case, which got him excused from testifying. And just like Clinton, the affidavit was proven false months later by new evidence. Clinton's lies were of his sexual life, but Bush's lies were an attempt to avoid testifying in a lawsuit concerning this investigation and it's alleged squashing by Bush's administration. This one might come up again soon in the media.

 

 

Lies of other Bush Administration officials:

 

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

 

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."

—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

 

There are more, but the point is, Clinton versus Bush is an invalid argument if all you go by is "Clinton lied, therefore Bush is a better person."

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

 

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."

—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003

 

There are more, but the point is, Clinton versus Bush is an invalid argument if all you go by is "Clinton lied, therefore Bush is a better person."

 

About the other guys... Who is this 'we' in Cheney? If he meant the administration as a whole then he lied, fine, but you can't convict the entire admin. over that. Secondly, as for Rumsfeld.. How is that a lie? Did you personally know if he scrutinized every word ever said byeverybody in the administration for mention of possible nukes? By prefacing it with "I don't believe', you effectively cannot prove he lied unless he said they had nukes himself, or you can read his mind by being psychic.

[SkinWalker]

I saw that episode of 'Meet the Press,' and distinctly remember inferring the 'we' as the Bush admin.

 

Rumsfeld was also confronted by that statement of Chaney by Tim Russet, but I can't remember his reply or the date. If I think of it next time I'm on Nexis-Lexis, I'll do a search for it (or you can check the MtP transcript archives).

 

True enough, Rumsfeld said, "I don't believe..." but come on, you and I both know that this is semantics. Lying is deception, plain and simple. Whether you preface it with disclaimer or not, the deception is still the lie. If you don't think Rumsfeld knew what Chaney had stated in public, then you're being naive. Hell, they have staff members who's job it is to point that kind of thing out!

 

And if it's true that Rumsfeld and Chaney aren't on the same sheet of music, don't you see a problem with that? Either way, it stinks.

 

I could go on and on about the crap this administration (and others) has made mistakes on. The point I was attempting to make is that if you are going to use whether or not the Commander-in-Chief has lied as a measure of effectiveness, then both Clinton and Bush are incompetent.

 

Agree or disagree?

[Lathain Valtiel]

Point acknowledged, both have their faults.

[El Sitherino]

Yeah, you do add color to the forum. We were only on you so the forum doesn't get introuble. (check the mothers against violent video games webpage, they attacked a friends forum once)

 

Just try to keep some of the cursing down to a minimum like all of us, and it'll be peachy.

 

*try as in atleast put in a bit of effort.

[SpecialForces]

Agreed

[El Sitherino]

Bushes True Colors (Visit to Iraq)

I'm sure you've all seen this in the Bush thread but, I figured I'd put it in here also since it does partain to this thread.

 

* I merged the threads, so the original post is in this thread, but I'll leave this one in since one or more posts following are relevant to it.

[CapNColostomy]

I'm not what you would call a big supporter of President Bush, but is he supposed to be embarrassed that he didn't call a press conference announcing that he'd be flying to a nation that has ambushed and killed US soldiers on a near daily basis? I can just see it now. "I'll be there at midnight, and I dare any o' you sum'bitches to start lobbing those RPG's at me!" That article is full of jackassery.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Now many will dissagree, but I have to say this. I saw on the news president george W Bush, leader of the free world, and america, flew to Iraq the country he has declared war upon, put himself in harm's way, and gone to personally give the troopers over there a thanks, and to wish them a happy thanksgiving.

 

He could have sent a letter, he could have taped a message, he could have sent one of his staff or sent the VP, but he went in person.

I'm having severe problems turning this argument down. Why? I don't know where to start. With all due respect. Let me say this as a beginning, though: Just that he visits an occupied country isn't a reason to ignore his faults.

 

Oh, and Iraq is an unsafe, unstable place. Is that supposed to justify Bush's visit there? Is that supposed to make people like him more? Well, answer this: How many people do you think died because of Bush's visit to Iraq? The soldiers who, as you already have said, are 'spread so thin and are getting shot at daily', had to be absent from duty to protect a visiting VIP. "Sure we life guards could've prevented that boy from drowning, but you see, we were busy shaking hands with the owner of the pool"...

 

I know three people who have gotten raped. I'm not getting into the first two, but the third one, who got raped in the neighbourhood she just moved into, pressed charges a month after the assault (when she finally managed to tell her family), and the police did nothing. Nothing at all. Her family took it to a higher court, but still the police did nothing. They didn't even take the guy into custody. They didn't even call her family to tell them why. They just put the whole thing behind them.

 

On the other hand, the woman who helped us find a house to rent in the States saw this car sneak slowly trough her neighbourood one night. She observed the car for a while, and when the drivers noticed they were being watched, they sped up and left in a hurry. She called the police, and three police cars showed up. This girl in my school slapped an asshole of a guy, who had his lawyer dad sue her and ended up making her go to court on charges of "malicious assault". Two gays who slept with each others were arrested and spent a night in jail.

 

But the rapist goes free. They can't even send a single car, or horse-rider, or, well, any police officer, to pick him up. Now, I want to believe that the police didn't have time to arrest the guy. But that does not make sense at all to me anymore. I'm led to believe that ..... was right when she told us about this: "They received the charges and put it behind them". You can't get away with slapping a high-class citizen, but you can get away from raping a low-class citizen. It's not about resource shortages at all. It's about profit, politics, and power.

 

The next thing that bothers me is the woman from the PD who came to my school one day and showed us a movie from a camp criminal teens went to. She spent most of her time telling us not to carve our names into desks or write on toilet walls. Well, I might be the only person with this opinion, but what kind of nutcase decides to take some policewoman's time for her to spend her day at a High School to deter people from writing on restroom walls?? And for your information, there's virtually no writing on our restroom walls. It's a nonexistant problem. Theft, on the other hand, is out of control (two laptops have been stolen from the teachers in four years. A friend of mine had her discman stolen, another friend had her umbrella stolen. I just lost my wallet with $US25 and ten British pounds in it). Rape is a serious problem, so is violence. Does she address that? No. Firearms, rape, break-ins or violence were not even mentioned. Drugs were mentioned in the form of "don't carry others' weed", but that's all. There is an anti-drug and anti-tobacco campaign at my school, but it's run by the students.

 

What's up with the police? Why doesn't Bush fix issues like that? We're the most powerful nation in the world, with our army spread over 120+ nations and still strong enough to defend our own country from just about anything and invade Iraq and Afghanistan. But we have close to the highest crime rate in the world. And that prioritizing says more than enough about Bush. If he really cared about us, he would have done more to help us. Like spend the millions of dollars he's wasted in Iraq on police, environment, welfare, education, and other things that actually affect us (and I mean in a good way, not the way Iraq affected us by making the whole world hate us). And don't get me started on the fact that while Bush claims to be fighting for people to live in a poison/chemical hazard-free world (thus, according to him, the invasion of Iraq), he increases the output of CO2 and removes proven facts on the hazards of CO2 from reports, thus justifying the increased output, when the USA is already responsible for one half of the world's O2 pollution (with 5% of the world's population). Thanks to Bush, I'm probably inhaling more poison by 2010 than I was in 2000, not less.

 

We don't need the Aurora spy plane. We don't need Raptors. We don't need Aircraft Carriers. We don't need nuclear weapons. We need safety. We need policemen, doctors, and a good justice system.

 

I'm not what you would call a big supporter of President Bush, but is he supposed to be embarrassed that he didn't call a press conference announcing that he'd be flying to a nation that has ambushed and killed US soldiers on a near daily basis? I can just see it now. "I'll be there at midnight, and I dare any o' you sum'bitches to start lobbing those RPG's at me!" That article is full of jackassery.

I'm sure he informed the military. Just that we didn't know doesn't mean that the army didn't know.

 

Sometimes fall into the trap of American bashing. But today on the Amercian Thanksgiving I will not hear any of it.

Good idea to bring it up for debate, then. Lock the thread next time:p.

 

Oh, and I don't think bashing Bush, who's in my view . Rather, I consider it my duty following my pledge of allegiance to the Republic. Was I not loyal to the Republic, I'd have let Bush go on without critizing him. And I'd had told bin Laden how to effectively support the ruining of America: VOTE FOR BUSH.

 

Dagobahn Eagle

[CapNColostomy]

No, no, no. You got me wrong. I'm sure the United States Military DID know he was coming. I'm saying what kind of moron calls him a coward because he didn't announce to the whole world (especially hostile Iraqis) that he was coming. That's all.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

My guess is for security reasons. If everyone knew he was coming, Al-Qaida would have shot his aircraft down or something.

 

Try saying this to all the people who are suffering as a result of global warming or those families who have lost members fighting his war in Iraq.

And for those who think global warming is harmless: Go visit Venezia (while it's still there).

 

Insane Sith, I love that article. "There's our heroic liberator! -Where? -Can't you see him? He's sneaking past that fence right there?:rolleyes:".

 

Reminds me of the Canadian prime minsiter during the S. A. R. S. criis: "Yeah, Toronto is safe. I'll stay there over the weekend". Well, if it's that safe, stay there for longer than the weekend.