George W. Bush: Pros & Cons

[SkinWalker]

Three threads combined... and the thread is a "Sticky." At least until Bush loses the next election

 

BTW... just for fun, click on Google and type the following two words without quotes: "miserable failure" then Click "I'm Feeling Lucky."

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

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.

 

Well he's an idiot. Not as much as bush but still and idiot:rolleyes:

 

Nevertheless, the city was safe. SARS killed less people then the flu in a year...

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Three threads combined... and the thread is a "Sticky." At least until Bush loses the next election

 

BTW... just for fun, click on Google and type the following two words without quotes: "miserable failure" then Click "I'm Feeling Lucky."

 

Even better. try "French Military Victories" and THEN push that button.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by 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.

I posted the article because people were claiming Bush was brave for putting himself in harms way, when in truth he did not.

[Lathain Valtiel]

And use an article from a far left organization to prove it.. How brilliant(ly biased). Find me a more neutral source that doesn't go on news programs and immediately launch a ten minute diatribe against Bush when he isn't the topic and MAYBE I'll find it credible.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

And use an article from a far left organization to prove it.. How brilliant(ly biased). Find me a more neutral source that doesn't go on news programs and immediately launch a ten minute diatribe against Bush when he isn't the topic and MAYBE I'll find it credible.

Technically in political journalism, there is no neutral. But I can name you a few of the guards who were at the base that noticed his, not so heroic visit.

 

and the nation is anything but what you'd call extreme left. They criticize all and investigate all. Hell they did a bash gore article in 2001 that was majorly rich in criticism.

[CapNColostomy]

I was unaware Bush's trip to Iraq was an attempt to look heroic. Good publicity, sure. I'll buy that one. But he didn't have to go there, and say jack or **** to any of the soldiers. It was a nice gesture. And why anyone would want to debate it, is beyond me. So he didn't do a ticker tape parade in downtown Bagdad in a convertible, flipping off the citizens or do a parachute drop in. Why would anyone expect him to? The friggin Pope cruises around in a bubble, but nobody calls him chicken****.

[toms]

i don't realy see what bush visiting iraq has to do with anyone's opinions of him. It seems to me to be the sort of thing that any president of almost any country would do when he had his troops in a foreign country.

 

Technically, the US isn't at war with them anyway, as the war is over. So he is visiting an occupying force, rather than a combative one.

 

btw, tony blair visited iraq in May

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2003/05/29/98219-ap.html

 

i suppose i might be confused due to all the threads merging.

 

-----

 

from the outside looking in, it is starting to get scary quite how selective and even downright biased the US media has become. The general effect of 9/11 seems to be that the US (and uk) has become amuch more intollerant, monitored, propoganda driven society. Few people these days seem to bother to question...

 

----

 

Word is, Russia have now decided not to sign the Kyoto treaty after "US pressure". Not entirely sue why the US would be preasuring Russia not to sign it, unless they just didn't want to be the only people standing outside it.

 

Anyway, without the US the main incentive for the russians to join (to sell their polution quotas to the US) had gone. So now it looks global warming will continute.

 

Apparently there will very soon be no skiiing the Europe due to global warming.... how can you say Global Warming isn't wreking lives???????

 

-------

 

What do people actually UNDERSTAND by WMD??? Everyone seemed to give the impression that this meant something spectacular... but all the intelligence was about "Battlefield WMD", which basically means short range missiles and bombs.... not of threat to anyone except an invading army.

 

Unfortunately, this wasn't the impression given by most politicians... the phrase "WMD" was used as if it was some dark, demonic weapon that could attack us in our beds.

 

------

 

Does anyone actually feel safer now that the US has invaded IRAQ??? I sure don't. Even putting aside the inflamation in the middle east, the fact that the US has basically set a precident of attack first, ask questions later worries me immensely.

 

The fact that by first bribing and bullying, and then completely ignoring the UN the US has basically discredited it also worries me a lot.

It was never the fastest, or most efficient organisation (but then a group like that never could be) but it has worked pretty well in preventing wars among members since was set up.

 

I think in years to come we may well see this as a very bad idea indeed which led to much more world disorder. Here's hoping im wrong.

 

It's not the sort of thing that is nice to say, or even think, but in the back of my mind i can't help but think that it might be a good thing that so many american soldiers are being killed in iraq. Of course, anyone dying at all is a tragedy, but if it puts a brake on us ideas of unilateral strikes in other countries that they don't like then it may turn out to be a good thing, hard as that is to say.

You have to wonder if the remarkable ease with which the Afganistan campaign went didn't make the US far too overconfident and trigger happy. Since getting involved in iraq they do seem to have toned down a lot of talk about other regimes they were going to go after.

 

----

 

All politicians are liars, hypocrites and cheats who are all out for themselves, however we all ocasionally get caught up with one that we like. Unfortunately we are almost inevitably get dissolusioned when their true character is revealed.

 

[edit]Boy! so many spelling mistakes and typos, so little time... oh well.[/edit]

[MennoniteHobbit]

Who's debating about the importance of Bush going to Iraq? Like many people before me have posted, it was a kind gesture. It was Thanksgiving, a time to give thanks, and Bush was giving thanks to the soldiers for volunteering in Iraq. Only people (like Democrats and hypocrites... wait a minute, Democrats are hypocrits... most of them anyway) could interpret Bush's trip to Iraq as a publicity stunt. In no way can his Thanksgiving trip boost his 2004 election ratings, at least in the way he meant. His reason for going was solely to be kind and grateful, not heroism. Bush is by the way the first president to visit soldiers in another country (as far as I know).

[Kain]

Bush was giving thanks to the soldiers for volunteering in Iraq.

 

Nobody VOLUNTEERED to go to Iraq. Its their job, and I'm sure they all want to come back home where its not worrying about your life everytime a car backfires. Too bad Bush's war 'being over' doesn't mean that they're safe.

 

Only people (like Democrats and hypocrites... wait a minute, Democrats are hypocrits... most of them anyway) could interpret Bush's trip to Iraq as a publicity stunt.

 

If it wasn't a publicity stunt, then it was his board of advisors decision. I'm sure he'd of rather sat home and had a turkey than to go get some sand in his shoes.

 

What do people actually UNDERSTAND by WMD??? Everyone seemed to give the impression that this meant something spectacular... but all the intelligence was about "Battlefield WMD", which basically means short range missiles and bombs.... not of threat to anyone except an invading army.

 

Actually, Bush can be quoted several times as referring to the WMD's as Nuclear Warheads and Biological Warheads. Too bad for you that I'm very tired or I'd show you a few.

[Lathain Valtiel]

Actually, since the draft isn't in, they technically volunteered to go into Iraq by voluenteering to join the armed forces... So you're wrong there Kain. (LOVE the LOK games BTW)

[MennoniteHobbit]

Well, first of all, the USA is technically a republic. The governmental process involves both regular citizens, along with Congressmen.

Next, President Bush IMHO is doing a good job. He's done so much in so little time, and did not break under the still current pressure.

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel:

Actually, since the draft isn't in, they technically volunteered to go into Iraq by voluenteering to join the armed forces... So you're wrong there Kain. (LOVE the LOK games BTW)

Got you there Kain. Besides, practically no one would join the Armed Forces, unless they volunteered. (What he said)

Actually, Bush can be quoted several times as referring to the WMD's as Nuclear Warheads and Biological Warheads. Too bad for you that I'm very tired or I'd show you a few.

Well, too bad for that defense. Still, a WMD is probably categorized into Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear, not warheads. Though Iraq had the warhead and SCUD capability.

[Kain]

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Actually, since the draft isn't in, they technically volunteered to go into Iraq by voluenteering to join the armed forces... So you're wrong there Kain. (LOVE the LOK games BTW)

 

'Bout time someone recognizes LoK besides me.

 

And I'm not wrong there.

 

They volunteered to join, yes. I'd bet many of them were like 'Hey its peace time, lets join up for college money'. And then BOOM!!! 9/11 happened after the 4 week(I think) deadline to leave. So now, aside from breaking a leg on purpose, shooting off a toe, or being dishonorably discharged, the only option they have is to abide by their decision to go into the military and thus to war. Given the options (broken limb, one less toe/finger, dishonor, or take on a 3rd world country in the strongest military force on the planet)...well, we see the result.

[Qaz]

(sorry for poor spelling, english is not my native tounge"

 

I want to say one thing for now...

 

9/11 > "Screams of War On terrorism and American justice" > Screwing Afghanistan by launching an invasion against to "remove an evil dictator and defeat evil terrorism" > Iraq has Weapons of Mass destruction + allied with Terrorists + an evil dictator that must be stopped from killing innocent civilians > A long political game of searching for WMDS (which America gave to Iraq btw) > Majestic Name of Invading Iraq: "Operation: Freedom Shield" then "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" > absolute screwage of Iraq to get one man, miserable failure initially > Sudden Shut Down of issue of Weapons of Mass destruction and terrorists in Iraq, everyone screams "I am proud to be an American" > Guerilla warfare...

 

Now, does this chain of events MAKE ANY HUMAN SENSE to you...? I mean, wasn't the whole point of this entire Middle East crisis to "Put Terrorists to their Rightful Justice"? It just went from that search for WMDS... and then to saving countries from evil dictators.

 

THERE ARE MILLIONS suffering from other dictators in Middle East, N. Korea is reinstalling its Nuclear Program, etc. Yet NOBODY is even TRYING to correct those issues....

 

Kinda makes you wonder

[Lathain Valtiel]

Actually, they're trying to settle N. Korea with diplomacy. I don't see why, considering I think EVERYONE HERE knows that Clinton screwed up and the North Koreans cannot be trusted.

 

OK, I fib, i do see why. They might have nukes. The only way we'd win without getting blasted is a preemptive nuclear assualt that would annihilate the whole area. Problem is, it'd slam SOUTH Korea too.

 

So basically, we can't trust diplomacy, and we're already busy in Iraq. No way we'll be allowed to nuke N. Korea to hell. I swear if N. Korea sells a nuke to terrorists and it gets used or us or some other poor undeserving saps I will forevermore say Clinton was the worst president in history.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

I swear if N. Korea sells a nuke to terrorists and it gets used or us or some other poor undeserving saps I will forevermore say Clinton was the worst president in history.

 

Why would he be the worst president? Bush was the one who went after Iraq, which was an easy target, instead of North Korea.

[SkinWalker]

I never really cared for Clinton and didn't vote for him, but I'd have to say that he certainly wasn't the "worst" United States President. In fact, I could make a very good argument that G.W. Bush is worse.

 

The thing about Clinton is that conservative Republicans out-right hated him. It became the party mantra when he was first elected and all Republicans (okay... most) fell in step like a jack-booted army and chanted "Clinton is bad, find the fault in Clinton."

 

I saw his faults. I also saw his strengths. The strengths weren't enough to earn my vote, but nor were his faults enough to earn my hatred. In fact, I figured after he was elected that perhaps he had more going for him that I saw and that he probably deserved both terms.

 

But "worst President?"

 

Not even. I point those interested to this essay (I found it somewhat partisan, favoring the Democratic end, but accurate. I thought better of Reagan than the author did, however.).

 

From the Essay: we could have done much worse than ol’ Bill. In our nation’s over-200 year history we’ve elected ourselves some real political morons.

 

And: ohnson was succeeded by Grant, an even more scandalous fellow than our famed Clinton. This hard-drinking war hero appointed a bunch of idiots, including his Secretary of War, his private secretary, and officials in the Treasury and Navy departments. These folks were all corrupt, and Grant tried to defend some of them. Bad idea. Future politicians take note: run from corruption and scandal. Run far, run fast, run like the wind.

 

And finally: Harding suffered from a bit of Grant-syndrome: appointing friends with some corrupt leanings. He had some convicted for fraud, bribery, you name it. Even his Attorney General was implicated in some of this. Tsk, tsk. The most famous of Harding’s debacles was the Teapot Dome scandal, a little transaction which involved government folks leasing federal property to private oil companies. Harding was only able to escape all this crap through death, which he did, in 1923.

 

The moral? Don't be tempted to jump on anyone's platform simply on the strength of their words. Do the research yourself and see past the media bullsh*t. The media could care less about whether it is right or left... it only looks for the bottom line and answers to the corporations that own them. Just because right-wingers and left-wingers claim this or that doesn't mean that they're feeding you all the story.

 

I'm still waiting on the " top 10 best things the Bush administration has accomplished. See page one or two if anyone needs a starting point, I filled in #1.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Actually, they're trying to settle N. Korea with diplomacy. I don't see why, considering I think EVERYONE HERE knows that Clinton screwed up and the North Koreans cannot be trusted.

 

Which is a good example of partisan lock-step rhetoric.

 

It will be many years before we can know whether the Clinton Admin's choice to improve relations with N. Korea was a "screw-up" or not. If we ever know.

 

The way that statment of yours exemplifies typical rhetoric of political dichotomy (which is the real enemy of our nation) is that it ignores the complexities involved in the N. Korea issue.

 

Ignored is the fact that N. Korea faced many years of economic strife as pointed out by even Donald Rumsfeld in his speech that described the lack of lights shining in NK when compared to the rest of the world in nighttime sat photos. This effectively created a situation of desparation in which illicit sales to terrorists and "enemy states" becomes preferable to starvation.

 

Ignored is the idea that Clinton & co. might have been on the right track by allowing positive economic changes to influence the people and leadership of NK.

 

Ignored is the fact that NK's nearest neighbor, S. Korea, wanted these improved relations because this would mean a step closer to a unified Korean peninsula. Perhaps an end to the constant fear that S. Korean's live in on a daily basis (I've been to the DMZ. It's a bit scary). Perhaps an end to the dependancy on a foreign occupation to provide protection.

 

Many other complexities of the NK issue are also ignored, but the final one I'll list is the fact that by saying "EVERYONE HERE knows that Clinton screwed up" in regards to NK policy ignores the fact that not everyone here is willing to accept your lock-step rhetoric. Clinton may have been wrong. Or he may have been right all along and Bush might have screwed up with the whole "axis of evil" speech that included NK. None of NK's recent advances in nuke-tech occured until that statement had come to pass.

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Which is a good example of partisan lock-step rhetoric.

 

It will be many years before we can know whether the Clinton Admin's choice to improve relations with N. Korea was a "screw-up" or not. If we ever know.

 

The way that statment of yours exemplifies typical rhetoric of political dichotomy (which is the real enemy of our nation) is that it ignores the complexities involved in the N. Korea issue.

 

Ignored is the fact that N. Korea faced many years of economic strife as pointed out by even Donald Rumsfeld in his speech that described the lack of lights shining in NK when compared to the rest of the world in nighttime sat photos. This effectively created a situation of desparation in which illicit sales to terrorists and "enemy states" becomes preferable to starvation.

 

Ignored is the idea that Clinton & co. might have been on the right track by allowing positive economic changes to influence the people and leadership of NK.

 

Ignored is the fact that NK's nearest neighbor, S. Korea, wanted these improved relations because this would mean a step closer to a unified Korean peninsula. Perhaps an end to the constant fear that S. Korean's live in on a daily basis (I've been to the DMZ. It's a bit scary). Perhaps an end to the dependancy on a foreign occupation to provide protection.

 

Many other complexities of the NK issue are also ignored, but the final one I'll list is the fact that by saying "EVERYONE HERE knows that Clinton screwed up" in regards to NK policy ignores the fact that not everyone here is willing to accept your lock-step rhetoric. Clinton may have been wrong. Or he may have been right all along and Bush might have screwed up with the whole "axis of evil" speech that included NK. None of NK's recent advances in nuke-tech occured until that statement had come to pass.

 

Don't judge me Skinwalker. That's number one. That is my right. Not yours. I haven't called you or whatever you spout anything, so do me a favor and cut it.

 

Number two, on the points. First, that would maybe work, IF there wasn't the fact that most of the wealth goes to the top military brass and Kim Jung II in the first place anyway. The people starve in droves, yet those guys eat lavishly (AND I MEAN LAVISHLY) according to a Daily News article which would take me an eternity to dig up since it was posted somewhere in the middle of the paper last year. (I'm more curious how the reporter GOT IN). Illict weapons sales wasn't an alternative to starvation, it simply enriched the top men of Kim Jung II's regime.

 

Second point.. I'm waiting to see the improvement. Of course, they have enough money to build a gigantic nuclear shelter of huge double doors, and guides saying 'We have to beat the Americans', but not enough to feed the people. Oh yes. Well improved.

 

Excuse me, but for the most part a good chunk of people in South Korea want to join the communist regime for some strange reason. I can't tell if they want us there or not.

 

I'd like you to prove to me that last point about North Korea's nuclear advances, and that it was not backed up by research/development done before the axis speech. Until then, you cannot faithfully say that, and I will bring that up ad infinitum.

 

Oh, yes, and about 'lock-step rhetoric'.. I say what I think. If you think it sounds partisan, keep it to yourself. Just by using that excuse to downplay it makes your argument weak. Answer it, and be done with it.

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by Tyrion

Why would he be the worst president? Bush was the one who went after Iraq, which was an easy target, instead of North Korea.

 

Think of countries like people. Would you trust a person that sells illegal weapons to whoever wants them, desires power above all else, and so on, to keep their word when they have the chance to acquire what is currently the ultimate power in the world, if they break that word?

 

..I pity the person who says yes.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Don't judge me Skinwalker. That's number one. That is my right. Not yours. I haven't called you or whatever you spout anything, so do me a favor and cut it.

 

Hey... I wasn't judging you. I was judging the statement you made. I apologize if you think I was. In all actuality, I was surprised that you made that comment about "Everyone here knows that Clinton screwed up". From posts youv'e made previously, I realize that you prefer Bush over Clinton, but not to the point of resorting to what is typical partisan rhetoric. The points I made after were intended to qualify my contention that it was "partisan rhetoric."

 

I did say "your partisan rhetoric" at the end, so perhaps that was offensive, but it was only because I was referring to your post, not that I believe you speak for Conservative Republicans, etc.

 

Still, the "Everyone here knows that Clinton screwed up" statement seemed to me like bait. So I took a bite

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Number two, on the points. First, that would maybe work, IF there wasn't the fact that most of the wealth goes to the top military brass and Kim Jung II in the first place anyway.

 

That is very true. Which is why I maintained a bit of skepticism about the plan. But what other choices of action were open to the Clinton admin at the time? Economic sanctions were already about as severe as they could be as were diplomatic ones within the world community. N. Korea appeared to have little to lose by selling military hardware to nations unfriendly to the West. It seemed logical to offer some reason for the NK government to slow or stop its arms sales before it got to the point of selling WMDs. A preemptive military strike would have had many caveats as we've seen in Iraq (costs to servicemembers & taxpayers, reconstruction, etc.)

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Second point.. I'm waiting to see the improvement.

 

It is doubtful that it will ever be known if any improvement will be forthcoming because of Clinton's actions. Bush's have effectively nullified the previous admin's efforts. There is no doubt that the government (NK) was/is corrupt. That does not mean change cannot be peaceful.

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Excuse me, but for the most part a good chunk of people in South Korea want to join the communist regime for some strange reason. I can't tell if they want us there or not.

 

Young Koreans. Old Koreans love Americans. The young ones hate us. They didn't see first hand the "evil of communism" and don't see first hand the dire situation that their N. Korean breatheren are dealing with.

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

I'd like you to prove to me that last point about North Korea's nuclear advances, and that it was not backed up by research/development done before the axis speech. Until then, you cannot faithfully say that, and I will bring that up ad infinitum.

 

I'm only saying that news of NK's nuke-tech advances wasn't out until after the Axis of Evil speech. I'm not saying that the plan wasn't formulated. It's a good bet that someone in the NK government was ready and waiting for the right moment. But the monitoring sensors that were in place on the stored nuke material weren't removed until after the Axis of Evil speech. If you like, I'll search Nexis-Lexis and see what I come up with.

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Oh, yes, and about 'lock-step rhetoric'.. I say what I think. If you think it sounds partisan, keep it to yourself. Just by using that excuse to downplay it makes your argument weak. Answer it, and be done with it.

 

If you really think that "EVERYONE HERE knows that Clinton screwed up" in regards to NK policy, then you are quoting partisan rhetoric. I've heard that type of rhetoric time and again on the Sunday morning talk shows (particularly on FoxNews). I have a lot of respect for your opinion and you always appear knowledgeable about the things you post, but if it "sounds partisan" I won't keep it to myself. I'll respond and tell you and everyone that reads here why it seems partisan.

 

It seems partisan because: it makes the assumption that "everyone here" should feel the same way about Clinton as you without qualifying why; and, it doesn't state why Clinton screwed up, but rather follows the "lock-step attitude" of the Conservative Right about anything Clinton.

 

Now if that argument seems weak, I don't know how to make it stronger.

 

BTW, I think the Liberal Left has more than it's share of Lock-Step Rhetoric as well. The whole "Bush is evil" thing is almost exactly like the Republican mantra about Clinton. My personal feeling is that Bush is bad for the nation because his concern is not for all the people, but rather the elite few at the top and that personal status means more for his elitist personality. But that is my personal opinion, which, for the most part, is groundless. It's just a gut feeling I have about the guy.

 

Overall, I can't stand politicians because they don't think like scientists. To politicians, the truth is relative. To scientists, it's paramount.

[Lathain Valtiel]

Here's the way I see it. Clinton took the NK on faith. When you look at it from the 'country as a person' perspective, I think most people who are not EXTREMELY naive would say it was in all probability a very bad idea to keep them on their word. I cast to your attention the famous Hitler appeasement by France and Britain. As you well know, it didn't work out. At all. It DOES NOT help our case that the UN doesn't want to do anything about this, but in that respect I'm not surprised.

 

By the logic above, it evades me how anyone could not admit to SOME degree that Clinton bungled. He was effectively taken for an idiot, at our apparent future expense.

 

Ah, I see now about the young Koreans... I could bring up a disturbing little story about how some Korean girl was hounded by her friend for helping an American in an online game... But nah.

 

About scientists... I hope you're not including history professors in that catergory, they tend to go to the left in higher classes.

 

Interesting note about Howard Dean by the way.. He says his Christian religion would play a huge role in an administration if he wins... But that's another topic.

 

For some strange reason, this thread has apparently reached some sort of limit. There doesn't seem to be any way to post to it now, so I'm going to direct everyone to the continuation thread at George W. Bush: Pros & Cons pt. II, which I've made the new sticky. This thread will survive as a linked resource from the cotinuation thread. --- SkinWalker