George W. Bush: Pros & Cons pt. II

[SkinWalker]

It appears that the other thread has reached some sort of limit. It has either reached a limit of pages, bytes, or posts.... I'm not sure which. It also appears that one or two posts were lost in that thread, but I don't thing they were significant to the discussion.

 

To be fair, please read George W. Bush: Pros & Cons pt. I first before posting here unless you've followed it all along.

 

In the mean time, the George W. Bush: Pros & Cons pt. II thread is now open for business!

 

----------------------- End Silly Explanation--------------------

 

Originally posted by 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.

 

Of course he did. "Faith," as it were, is a tool of diplomacy. But he didn't offer just blind faith. I point you to the first paragraph in this article at the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists. The Clinton admin kept the military at the ready. In addition, there were IAEA monitors (both human and electronic) in place until the summer of 2002.

 

As to the proof of the "point about North Korea's nuclear advances," I will concede that in all likelihood, NK had some research going on (probably think tank-type stuff), but they didn't make significant advances until the summer of 2002 -after Bush's "axis of evil" speech. I direct you to this excerpt from USA Today (Oct. 18, 2002):

A senior administration official said the North Koreans had been working on producing weapons-grade uranium for several years. U.S. intelligence thought the program was merely research and development, even though North Korea was believed to have one or two nuclear devices. But this summer, North Korea began a large-scale acquisition of materials for a gas centrifuge, the device that actually enriches uranium. The official said there was no question what the North Koreans are up to.

 

Moreover, in an Op-Ed article in the New York Times (Oct. 27, 2002), President Jimmy Carter said the following:

 

I went to Pyongyang and helped to secure an agreement that North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit I.A.E.A. inspectors to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. In return, the United States and our allies subsequently assured the North Koreans that there would be no nuclear threat to them, that a supply of fuel oil would be provided to replace the power lost by terminating the Yongbyon nuclear program and that two modern nuclear plants would also be provided, with their fuel supplies to be monitored by international inspectors.

 

Since then, the spent fuel at Yongbyon has continued to be monitored, but the two replacement nuclear plants have not been built and the United States has assumed what the North Koreans consider a belligerent attitude toward them.

 

I would agree that there is a certain amount of "faith" there, but the important thing is that it isn't blind. I think we're going to see that the solution to N. Korea in the near future is going to be very similar to the one already arrived at in the past. The only alternative is war. War with the DPRK would be costly for all stakeholders.

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

I cast to your attention the famous Hitler appeasement by France and Britain. As you well know, it didn't work out. At all.

 

I must say, I really didn't expect Hitler analogies from you. The Hitler card is one that is worn, overused, outdated, and largely irrelevant with modern tyrants. I say this because what matters to governments isn't whether or not genocide is occurring or whether human rights are violated. What matters is the direct threat one regime has upon another. I don't agree with this, but it's historically true. In addition, the political designs of Hitler were a bit different than those of Kim Il Sung, not that I agree with either.

 

In the case with NK and Kim Il Sung, there are few significant similarities to Hitler beyond tyranny.

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

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.

 

I think the course of action of the Clinton admin was the correct one. I think, however, that the Bush admin did bungle by not maintaining diplomacy. The "axis of evil" inclusion was the wrong thing to say. I recognized it the instant he said it in the State of the Union speech. I commented to my wife within seconds of hearing it that it would not bode well in N. Korean relations.

 

What evades me, is how anyone could not admit that that was the stupidest thing he said in the entire speech, if not the entire year. That type of rhetoric plays well domestically, we all love to hear our leader "talk tough," but it comes off in totally different way abroad. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is certainly naive. The comment was irresponsible.

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

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

 

No. History professors have their own agendas and are not scientists. They do not typically employ scientific method to their studies.

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

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.

 

True... it is. But I often imagine that an atheist President would have had to convince the voting public he was "god-fearing." If he wanted to be elected in the first place.

 

References:

 

Carter, Jimmy (October 27, 2002). Engaging North Korea. New York Times - Sunday Late Edition. Sect. 4; P. 13; Col. 1; Editorial Desk.

 

Kristensen, Hans (September/October 2002). Preemptive posturing. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Volume 58, No. 5, pp. 54-59

 

Slavin, Barbara and McQuillan, Laurence (October 18, 2002). N. Korea hastens nuclear program USA Today. Pg. 1A

[SkinWalker]

Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S.

 

The link above is to a news story in Florida Today on Dec. 15, 2003. Here's an excerpt of the first couple of paragraphs:

 

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

 

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

 

Moreover, the senators were told that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons (namely anthrax) capable of reaching the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. via Unmaned Aerial Vehicles.

 

First, Iraq's anthrax arsenal was comprised of 8.9 thousand liters of liquid anthrax produced at the Al-Kahim facility in 1991, which was blown up by the coalition in 1996 (by the arms inspectors I believe). Liquid anthrax only has a shelf life of about 3 years.

 

Second, no UAV's of any capability were recovered (the drones found were very low-tech with wooden frames and no delivery capability to the next village, much less the Eastern Seaboard).

 

Third, no evidence of remaining weapons of mass destruction has ever been shown. In addition, UNSCOM weapons inspector, Scott Ritter and the defected Iraqi General Hussein Kamal both stated separately that the weapons and materials (chemical, biological and nuclear) were destroyed by the Iraqi government and weapons inspectors post 1991.

 

Bottom line: Bush lied to the Congress of the United States in order to further the neoconservative agenda to change the regime in Iraq. He (and his admin) used the fear and anger of the American people following 9/11 to further that goal.

[SkinWalker]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11736-2004Jan12.html

 

This story covers a "56-page document written by Jeffrey Record, a veteran defense expert who serves as a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College" and "represents a blistering assessment of what President Bush calls the U.S. global war on terrorism."

 

The actual paper, written by Dr. Jeffery Record of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College at Carlilse Barracks, PA, is BOUNDING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM and found at that link.

 

In my opinion, this monograph might just be the very bit of critical analysis that will do Bush in. It echos many of the sentiments I already had about the so-called Global War on Terrorism and stimulates some thoughts I hadn't had previously.

[Lathain Valtiel]

There is one thing about tyrants.. By default they crave power, and thus by default they are not subject usually to having their appetites whetted by appeasement. Besides, a quote.. "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."

 

#2... I don't see why we should care about abroad, but I digress. I'm not interested in what they think of us, because I'm pretty much convinced that given the chance, foreign countries would act in the exact same way, thus by default making them hypocrites. I do not pay attention to hypocrites. Especially not when the stupidity is nation related.

 

#3.. . Again, read Bush's mind and get back to me before you say he lied. I'm going with Kay saying bad intel was the error. You want to argue with Kay, be my guest.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Okay, I don't think Bush lied about the WMD's... it was the result of the bad intelligence given to him. Just because he receives bad intelligence that he didn't know was bad, that he announced it make him a liar... besides, we went into Iraq, removed Hussein from power, end of story. Oh, that was just my opinion, feel free to contradict me, as that's what we're all supposed to do in the Senate, I think.

 

Oh, and by the way, my link to this is:

here.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

To be fair, please read George W. Bush: Pros & Cons pt. I first before posting here unless you've followed it all along.

 

You do realize that you're talking about five pages, right?

 

It seems from the beginning of this thread that the debate has reached the point where you are debating the illegal (and incredibly stupid) invasion of Iraq. Weapons of Mass Destruction, or Weapons of Mass Deception, it matters little. Bullying around the Security Counsil is the most effective way of sqandering one's international goodwill. Besides, until Mr. Bush does something effective about those fascist terrorists that bomb abortion clinics in the US, his 'war on terror' is just a load of sh/t.

 

But what got me hooked initially was the comments on the economy. Some hard and fast facts: When Clinton came into power, Pres. Bush the former handed over the largest deficit on the public budget since the world war. Clinton repaired that. He actually had the budget balancing. In came 'dubya', handing out massive tax-cuts to the richest 10%, increasing militairy expences and thus utterly ruining the economy. Getting all paranoid about the insignificant idiots who blew up WTC didn't help either. Both in terms of human lives, and socio-economic costs, car-driving is far more harmful than terrorism, so from a rational point of view, it really is not worth getting all worked up about. So the rubbish about the bad economy being Clinton's fault is just that: Rubbish. (Please ignore this if it has been said before. I have, contrary to my usual habit, not read the entire thread before I posted.)

[Druid_Allanon]

Unfortunately, I don't know much about politics, but I do read the papers, and hence have a general idea of what's going on. Here's my 2 cents' worth of opinion:

 

No country invades another one unless the former has something to gain for the latter. 'Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq', bah, absolute rubbish. It was merely an excuse to invade Iraq and gain something out of it. If I'm not mistaken, that something's Iraq oil? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Clearly, the situation in Iraq isn't going well, despite the capture of Saddam. Why doesn't Bush recognize it and withdraw his troops from Iraq? IMO, probably because his pride prevented him from doing it.

 

[/rant]

[toms]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Okay, I don't think Bush lied about the WMD's... it was the result of the bad intelligence given to him. Just because he receives bad intelligence that he didn't know was bad, that he announced it make him a liar... besides, we went into Iraq, removed Hussein from power, end of story. Oh, that was just my opinion, feel free to contradict me, as that's what we're all supposed to do in the Senate, I think.[/url]

 

Yeah, but the question is, was the intelligence bad and that is why we went to war. Or was the intelligence bad because it was massaged into supporting a case for a war that had already been decided on.

 

WMD was basically an excuse (i think almost everyone admits that now), but it was a necessary excuse because otherwise the invasion was illegal. I guess it then depends whether you feel the risk/reward of the war in iraq was worth an illegal war or not. Some people think it was, some don't.

 

---

 

Anyway, did anyone in the UK see that report on the news last night about the iraq casualty figures? Seems that the 2000 the pentagon is quoting doesn't include a whole load of people with brain damage, friendly fire and other effects. The actual number of people medically evacuated from iraq is about 8800. It was prety sad seeing the interviews with the soldiers who had lost legs and didn't know how they were going to support their families... and a shame they weren't getting the fanfares of the other returning troops, but instead coming home in the dead of night.

Of course, 600 dead and 9000 wounded is nothing close to the number of injured/killed in wars like Vietnam, but if this keeps on at this rate and bombs keep going off in iraq to try and destabilise the situation I think GW might be in trouble in the polls.

 

Oh, and i should probably mention that there must be over 2000 brits brought back too, but i can't remember the figures.

[Druid_Allanon]

And to think only Bush, the president of United States, can't recognise that.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Druid Allanon

Clearly, the situation in Iraq isn't going well, despite the capture of Saddam. Why doesn't Bush recognize it and withdraw his troops from Iraq? IMO, probably because his pride prevented him from doing it.

 

If he pulls out now, the Islamists will take power. It'd be Iran take two. Nobody wants that... Well, nobody remotely sane, anyway.

[toms]

He can't pull out now, that would be the worst thing he could do as it would create a power vacuum.

 

Everyone knew when he went in that the war would be easy, it would be the time afterwards that would be hard. Most of us suspected that he would ignore and undercut the UN to go to war, then come begging back to them (and all the other countries he insulted cos they wouldn't support the war) to help police the peace. That is exactly what happened.

 

I guess he will try and put more and more of the responsibility on the UN so he can reduce his presence there. If it had been me I would have told him to get lost when he started asking the UN, france, etc... to commit troops. But then i guess they have to rise above it for the sake of the people of iraq.

 

The thing is, once they have free elections there is going to be a Religious Islamist government anyway... that is one of the reasons it always confused me as to why the US was so keen to get rid of Saddam, he was about the only secular leader in the regoin and so the only leader who was completely against Al Quaida. weird.

[SkinWalker]

Another reason to "fire" Bush: Scientists criticize Bush administration - Kansas City Star.

 

More than 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and several science advisers to Republican presidents, on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of manipulating and censoring science for political purposes.

 

I started this thread on the same subject sometime back in August.

 

Fire the guy.

[Samnmax221]

He does'nt let those damn terrorist walk on us!

[SkinWalker]

Looks like a lot of terrorists walking all over us to me.

[rccar328]

Looks like a lot of terrorists walking all over us to me.

 

Just because some soldiers have died in Iraq & Afghanistan doesn't mean that terrorists are "walking all over us." Be fair - how many of the terrorists have we killed? Pull that out of your lexis-nexis hat, if you can.

 

To me, to have terrorists "walking all over us" is to have them terrorizing Americans in America, bombing buildings & busses, causing widespread panic & terror. That's not happening - in fact, it's the primary purpose of the War on Terror, which I applaud President Bush for.

 

My problems with the President stem mainly from his economic & domestic policy decisions - primarily his spending on Medicare & his stance on illegal immigration.

 

Despite these disagreements, though, I feel that the President is doing a great job - and is much better than the alternative (which looks to be the ever-duplicitous John Kerry).

[rccar328]

Jobs on the Rise

 

Bush's economic plan is working, and the last holdout, the jobs numbers, are up (contrary to what the liberal press is saying).

[SkinWalker]

Or:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib197

 

And

 

http://www.jobwatch.org/

 

The Bush admin isn't taking some data into account when it assesses the jobless rate. There are many people who aren't getting counted for various reasons, one of which is that they've exceeded their alloted benefits period with state unemployment services.

 

Net jobs created is still far, far lower than the Bush Admin's projections.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by rccar328

To me, to have terrorists "walking all over us" is to have them terrorizing Americans in America, bombing buildings & busses, causing widespread panic & terror. That's not happening - in fact, it's the primary purpose of the War on Terror, which I applaud President Bush for.

 

Tsk, tsk, tsk... the human and economic cost of dubya's counterterrorist measures are far higher than the cost of letting the terrorism happen. The man is on a rampant overkilling spree.

 

Despite these disagreements, though, I feel that the President is doing a great job - and is much better than the alternative (which looks to be the ever-duplicitous John Kerry).

 

At least Kerry has a brain in his head. And he's not leaning on facist groups for financial support. And he's not on the oil companies' payrolls.

[toms]

Originally posted by rccar328

To me, to have terrorists "walking all over us" is to have them terrorizing Americans in America, bombing buildings & busses, causing widespread panic & terror. That's not happening - in fact, it's the primary purpose of the War on Terror, which I applaud President Bush for.

 

But if that is how you define it then you have NEVER had terrorists walking all over you. You have had, what, a whole TWO attacks by foriegn terrorists on US soil???? That i can think of at least. And those were over a period of about 8 years.

 

That is hardly what i would call having terrorists walking all over you. You should have tried living in the UK in the 90s, or in Spain, or france, or almost any other country in the world.

Stronger airline security, etc... were all natural reactions to 9/11 that may have helped make attacks less easy, but i can't see that anything GW has done that anyone else wouldn't have done has made attacks less likely. Just because you haven't had an attack on US soil since 9/11 doesn't mean much at all.

 

The terrorists are still out there, the US is alienating more and more people in the middle east, the US army is distracted in Iraq... i don't feel any safer.

[rccar328]

The Bush admin isn't taking some data into account when it assesses the jobless rate. There are many people who aren't getting counted for various reasons, one of which is that they've exceeded their alloted benefits period with state unemployment services.

What I love about arguments about the economy is that it all depends on who you ask and when.

[ShadowTemplar]

rccar: You're still only citing neo sources.

[rccar328]

You're still only citing neo sources.

Maybe in your opinion...but the so-called "neo source" that I cited backed up his argument with clearly cited sources...that's why I posted it. I could've used his sources from CNN and posted the same argument, but why do that when it's already laid out right there in the article?

[SkinWalker]

There are some very clear questions that I think need to surface within the media regarding George W. Bush's ethics.

 

First, is the question of his "missing year." The Republicans "searched" for documentation of his military service and came up with what seems to be only one document. I've yet to see references to others, but this one document, if we are to believe those that have seen it, was torn and Bush's full name isn't even present.

 

In interviews, Bush has stated (I believe it was Meet the Press) "I was discharged honorably." And he goes on to point out that this is proof alone that nothing inappropriate occurred. This, however, is a dodge and I can tell you from first-hand observation that many people have discharged "honorably" and have had many problems within their units.

 

Bush also seems to have a faulty memory regarding his military service at that time. That, too, appears to be a dodge. I've never met any servicemember that didn't have distinct and clear memories of his duty assignments. Service of that kind and the commeraderie with peers that occurs is unique. Moreover, one would expect that a person qualified to pilot a jet might have better than average cognitive skills.

 

Bush apparently missed all of his physicals after 1971 (USA Today) but kept his pilots status? How is that possible? Yet, on the discharge it shows his MOS (military occupational specialty) as pilot. What did he do as a non-pilot in the guard? If he had the physicals, they'd be on his records... they're not.

 

Perhaps Bush really didn't know how to fly. Sure, he was taught, but piloting is something that you simply must log hours upon hours (incidently, where are those records?) to get the experience needed to do well. One starts with single engine aircraft and, after mastery of this, moves on to small jets. Look at this excerpt (Minutaglio, 1999):

 

Evans said he'd love to go flying. At the airport he watched Bush stare at the controls, at the panel, and he realized that Bush-though not admitting it-had no idea how to fly the thing properly. After finally figuring out how to launch the plane, Bush pushed the Cessna hard down the runway. Evans screamed, "Give it some gas!" The Cessna's warning system was blinking and crackling. Bush tried to lift his craft fast, almost as if he were piloting a jet back in the Texas Air National Guard. The plane wobbled into the air, and the unsubtle maneuvering threatened to shove it into a stall. Now the rented plane was rattling in the sky over Midland

 

Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot, said (2/23/04) on National Public Radio, "He volunteered to go to Vietnam."

 

Responding to a question on NBC's "Meet the Press" about whether he volunteered to go to Vietnam (2/8/04), Pres. Bush said, "No, I didn't."

 

Interestingly enough, Colin Powell has a view on the whole matter. I'm an admirer of Powell and, though the dust jacket is missing, My American Journey (1995) sits prominently on my bookshelf. Flipping to page 148, you'll see:

 

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

 

 

Minutaglio, Bill (1999). First Son, George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty, Random House, NY

 

Powell, Colin (1995). My American Journey, Random House, NY.

 

USA Today (2004). President Bush's Military Records.

 

Not observed at this unit

 

AWOL - 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73.

 

Yes... seems to be AWOL.

 

313 days of service in 1970 - 46 days of service in 1971 - and 22 days of service in 1972. That's the barest minimum in the last year of service! Only about 1 weekend a month, if he really showed (you don't "clock in" when in the National Guard, you follow orders), but not enough to be a pilot... guess he really did lose his pilot's status early in his "career." Also, many reservists and NG have been known to be paid for weekends they really didn't show for...

 

You don't get this kind of counseling statement if you have a sparkling attendance and efficiency. 1LT Bush was being "warned" in this memo.

 

Arrested!? Check the bottom of the page... please note that if you answered "no" to that question there was no need to offer an explanation.

 

A clearly biased op-ed, but it lists sources to facts surrounding Bush's de facto AWOL status in the 1970's.

[Kain]

I find this to be EXTREMELY interesting.

And these are disturbing.

 

And unfortunantly true,

[SkinWalker]

The second ethical consideration that I believe warrants more questioning in the media is George W. Bush's inept and, perhaps, unlawful handling of Harken Energy.

 

If we are to believe major media outlets such as Time Magazine, The Washington Post, and Newsweek, Bush went into the oil business with the backing and connections of his father's friends and associates. When he ran into trouble, he sold 10 percent of the company to a friend of James Baker III, his father's eventual secretary of state. The company was worth $ 382,000 (or so Time magazine tells us). The one-tenth share, though, went for $ 1 million.

 

With that company failing, Bush sold it , again, at an inflated price. This time Bush was made a director of the acquiring company, Harken Energy Corp.

 

When suggested by Newsweek (2002) that he was involved in accounting inproprieties in his Harken Energy financials, Pres. Bush was quoted as saying, "In the corporate world, sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting practices."

 

On August 10, in a speech before the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting in Las Vegas, party chairman Terry McAuliffe demanded that President Bush make public records of the Securities and Exchange Commission's investigation into his sale of Harken Energy stock more than a decade ago (a probe that found no wrongdoing on Bush's part). "If you have nothing to hide, then release the documents," McAuliffe roared as the crowd cheered. "To paraphrase a Republican hero -- Mr. President, tear down this stonewall!"

 

To be fair, McAuliffe has his own problems with corporate fraud allegations concerning Global Crossing, but his point is valid in spite of this. If Bush has nothing to hide, prove it.

 

Tom Daschle was asked in 2002 if he thought Bush's involvement with Harken Energy would undermine his credibility. This is what he replied with: "I think the president would do well to ask the Securities and Exchange Commission to release the file - release it all. Let everybody see just what is there. There have been some real questions, I think, about what happened."

 

From the July 10, 2002 National Review:

On June 22, 1990, Bush sold 212,140 shares of Harken at $4 a share, for a total sale of $848,560. Nearly two months later, on August 20, Harken announced a much larger than expected loss for the quarter that ended on June 30. In the months that followed, Harken's stock price drifted downward, hitting $1.25 per share by the end of 1990.

 

More importantly, Bush used accounting trickery along the lines (though much smaller in scale) of Enron by concealing its failure. A $10 million phantom profit was created in a deal where Harken Energy borrowed its own money to purchase its own subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum.

 

Comming from the man who publically denounced and criticized Enron and its CEOs, this seems hypocritical.

 

And that's not even considering the evidence suggesting that Kenneth Ley was in bed with Bush & Co. prior to the Enron scandel.

 

 

 

Newsweek (Jul 22, 2002). Perspectives, pg. 17.

 

York, Byron [Whitehouse correspondent] (7/10/02). The Facts about Bush and Harkin. The National Review