George W. Bush: Pros & Cons pt. II

[toms]

UK Iraq Leak

 

Tony Blair was last night forced on to the defensive over Iraq after explosive leaked documents revealed that he was warned a year before the invasion that a war could send the country into meltdown.

 

The Prime Minister was advised by officials that the country risked 'reverting to type' - with a succession of military coups installing a dictator who could then go on to acquire his own weapons of mass destruction - and that British troops would be trapped in Iraq 'for many years'.

 

Even his own foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, concluded in a private note that President Bush had no answer to the big questions about the invasion - including 'what happens on the morning after?' The memos, showing how detailed military planning was even a year before the invasion, will prompt renewed questions about whether better planning for the aftermath of war could have prevented the bloodshed now engulfing Iraq.

 

The most damaging passages concern British officials' widespread scepticism about the US case for invading, with one Cabinet Office briefing paper citing the success of the Afghanistan invasion, distrust of the UN and 'unfinished business from 1991' as factors.

 

The first leaked paper is a briefing for Blair on 8 March, three days ahead of a meeting he was due to have with US Vice-President Dick Cheney, from the Cabinet Office Overseas and Defence Secretariat. Warning that the US 'has lost confidence in containment', it lists reasons the US now wants to invade, concluding starkly that there was no legal justification for military force: 'Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists.'

 

This exposes the difficulties Blair faced in persuading the US at least to try for a second UN resolution - and confirms the messy route to a ruling from the Attorney-General that war was legal, outlined by Butler.

It also warns Blair had to make a decision about an invasion then expected in autumn 2002 - eventually deferred to spring - 'six months in advance'.

 

This will be seized on by anti-war MPs to argue that while in public Blair was talking up diplomacy, in fact he had already decided to invade. However, Downing Street itself has suggested in the past it was hoping for the best while planning for the worst: the memo suggests no decision had been made.

 

The next significant memo is from Manning to Blair, describing how he told US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice that 'if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done'.

 

Critics will say that shows while the Government was publicly insisting its aim was not regime change but tackling WMD, in private there was no pretence. Manning adds Bush still lacked answers to questions including 'what happens on the morning after?'.

 

The memos confirm long-held suspicions that Britain's role was to try to minimise the fallout from a military invasion that the US was determined to mount. Manning's note concludes there was 'a real risk that the Administration underestimates the difficulties'.

 

Then on 25 March came Straw's letter, predicting that the Crawford summit would be high-risk and pushing for arms inspectors to be allowed back into Iraq. He added that there was 'a larger hole than anything' in the question of what the war was meant to achieve - a question being asked more urgently now, given the Iraq Survey Group's failure to find WMD.

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1307888,00.html

 

This shows that even the BRITISH officials (the one government that consistently stood behind bush on iraq) thought that the reasons weren't the reasons being given publicly (" the success of the Afghanistan invasion, distrust of the UN and 'unfinished business from 1991'") and that Bush had no real idea what this war was meant to achieve.

If even they didn't believe Bush's outward claims of why he was going to war, is is surprising that so many people in the rest of the world were sceptical too? Bush's constant shifting of his justification, and his backing out of the second vote at the UN also do dramatic harm to his (and the US's) image abroad.

[toms]

with regard to the different issue of kerry or bush being suitable due to experience or anything, there was a post during a debate about the libertatian canditate that i felt was very true

 

"Badnarik has no political experience whastoever, only two failed attempts at running for the Texas State House of Representatives. This is the general problem with third party candidates."

 

I think this is the general problem with politics today. We seem to think its the norm to have a career politician. I think the founding fathers would have intended a baker, a butcher, a sailor, and a bank owner to all be equally feasible politicians. These individuals don't like something so they say their ideas and if people like what they say the office selects the person. The way we have it now, the politician(which is a valid "career") looks around for offices that he/she is likely to win and they go for it.

 

Example: In the old days Americans,"founding fathers" decided that George Washington would be a good president. Washinton wasn't really interested in the position but support for him to become president was just so overwhelming that he was forced to take office. This is how we find a good president someone who gets the position not because they dog it relentlessly in order to gain power and influence but a person who solemnly accepts it because Americans demand that this person have the job.

 

This notion that experience matters is utter crap what we are doing is just facilitating the current power structure and making it harder and harder to affect meaningful change. If you want someone to continue giving us the status quo with no innovation and no passion for the position continue to select someone with "experience" I however will not.

 

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20/1423219

 

This is something that has always annoyed me... and it has turned politics in almost every country into a case of who knows who, or who has hte most money.. rather than who would be best for the job.

 

maybe they should limit political terms to a few years, limit the number of terms you can run and so on...

 

If you looked at Bush or Clinton, or Bush Sr or Reagan, purely on a resume, not knowing who was who, you wouldn't give any of them a job as a governor, let alone president.

[jokemaster]

About the preferential treatment: To a level it can be condoned, I mean if there's a horrible war going on and you could get your son preferential treatment, wouldn't you?

 

If your father could get you preferential treatment, wouldn't you accept it?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by jokemaster

if there's a horrible war going on and you could get your son preferential treatment, wouldn't you?

 

If your father could get you preferential treatment, wouldn't you accept it?

 

No and no.

[Kain]

Ahem.

[toms]

Originally posted by jokemaster

About the preferential treatment: To a level it can be condoned, I mean if there's a horrible war going on and you could get your son preferential treatment, wouldn't you?

 

If your father could get you preferential treatment, wouldn't you accept it?

 

Probably try and probably.

Doesn't make it fair though. And i wouldn't be proud of it.

 

The simple facts of the matter and the bush sr was only president because of who his family was, bush jr is only president because of who his father was.

 

Maybe this was what was intended by the founding fathers, who were i guess of the upper class of the time, but it basically means the US still has a "ruling elite" or "nobility" that controls everything. Not very different from how communism turned out, or the situation of lords ruling england a few centuries back. Look at all the potential candidates for president over the last few decades, how many were what you could consider to be "average americans?"

 

And with the odd american preference for having leaders who are dumber than they are, it leads to an even odder situation of dumb rich guys running the country... not even the smart rich guys you get in other countries...

[jokemaster]

Its not fair, it's life and it should be improved, but the people who don't want to be president are the ones who should be.

[toms]

The UN nuclear watchdog is concerned at the disappearance of high-precision equipment from Iraq's nuclear facilities that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

 

In a letter to the UN Security Council, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said some industrial material that Iraq sent overseas has been located in other countries but not high-precision items including milling machines and electron beam welders that have both commercial and military uses.

 

IAEA inspectors left Iraq just before the March 2003 war. US President George Bush's administration then barred UN weapons inspectors from returning, deploying US teams in an unsuccessful search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, IAEA teams were allowed into Iraq in June 2003 to investigate reports of widespread looting of storage rooms at the main nuclear complex at Tuwaitha, and in August to take inventory of "several tons" of natural uranium in storage near Tuwaitha.

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=571251

 

Oh, nice job george.... sigh...

[kipperthefrog]

This link! Look! HERE"S all YOU need to know about BU$H!!!!

 

-CLICKY-

[lukeskywalker1]

Well... its over.

[kipperthefrog]

WHATS over?

[wassup]

It may be over, but that doesn't mean we have to stop debating about his pros and cons.

Here's a press conference he held today. Some interesting statements:

And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people.

As a matter of fact, no President should ever try to impose religion on our society.

Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital.

Good. Gosh, we're going to have a lot of fun, then. Thank you all.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Well... its over.

 

Truer words are not found in the rest of his posts.

 

Well, at least this means that Clinton will win the next election... Always assuming that there is a next election.

[SkinWalker]

This thread is about the Pros & Cons of President Bush. I'd say that is fair from over

 

But I will "unsticky" the thread. If it continues with a life of its own without the sticky, then so be it. There's plenty left to discuss.

[lukeskywalker1]

Well, at least this means that Clinton will win the next election...

 

False words. Clinton can't run :-p Yes, I had to pick on you.

 

I assume you mean Kerry, but, who knows who will run. True, Kerry will most likley have an advantage because he is a familiar face. The problem is, this is Kerry's whole campaign: I AM NOT GEORGE BUSH. That won't matter in 4 years. Notice, on most issues Kerry and Bush are on opposite sides: Abortion, Gay Marriage, The War in Iraq, Foreign Policies... etc.

 

Things will change in 4 years. New events shall arise, and Kerry and his oponent will have newer, more relevent things to "debate" then. He will need a whole new campaign. His views and opinions could possibly change by then, depending on how world/home events go.

 

 

Always assuming that there is a next election.

 

Elaborate?

 

The fall of the Roman empire?

 

But I will "unsticky" the thread. If it continues with a life of its own without the sticky, then so be it. There's plenty left to discuss.

 

I think the public speaks for itself, they reelected him. Bush was right: "I know I am going to win."

 

Obviously they think there are more pros than cons, or, maybe just more pros than what Kerry had?

 

Of course, we will see what the future holds for America.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

False words. Clinton can't run :-p Yes, I had to pick on you.

 

Sure she can.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

I think the public speaks for itself, they reelected him. Bush was right: "I know I am going to win."

 

Indeed. The public does speak for itself. It says, "a little over half of us vote based on superstition and belief rather than logic and reason."

 

That is the same half of the American public that believe that only one person can affect grandiose issues like abortion, gay rights and gun control. That's the same American public that ignores the facts that point to unqualified leadership and traitorous actions of the current regime.

 

At least Ashcroft is fired.

[wassup]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Notice, on most issues Kerry and Bush are on opposite sides: Abortion, Gay Marriage, The War in Iraq, Foreign Policies... etc.

 

Are you sure? Both George Bush and John Kerry think abortions are wrong (though Kerry thinks they should be legal and "safe"), both are against gay marriage (though Bush wants to go as far as amending it), and both are along the lines of "I will hunt down the terrorists, kill them all, etc."

 

I believe the mistake Kerry made in his campaign, among other things, was trying to reach out to the voters that Skin refered to, those that base their decisions on personal beliefs, while at the same time trying to appease those who supported his own party. What he and his campaign advisors didn't see was that the President already had secured the votes of the religious evangelicals and Kerry had no chance of getting their votes. Studing the polls reveals that many of these voters who chose Bush in 2000 also voted for him in this election. In the end, the range of voters that Kerry tried to attract was too diverse, and he chewed more than he could swallow.

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

At least Ashcroft is fired.

 

If only Rumsfeld would get the boot too...

[Spider AL]

In the end, the range of voters that Kerry tried to attract was too diverse, and he chewed more than he could swallow.

Maybe, but I think America's real problem that this election brought to light, is the enormous quantity of unchristian religious fanatics that comprise a huge proportion of your population. Now that they've gotten a taste of voting and politics in general, I doubt whether your future or ours over the water is going to be looking brighter anytime soon.

[lukeskywalker1]

Both George Bush and John Kerry think abortions are wrong (though Kerry thinks they should be legal and "safe"),

 

While George thinks abortion should be illegal and... well.. then it would be safe, because you can't have one

 

both are against gay marriage

 

Maybe, but he supports his lesbian/bisexual (?) daughter? I'm not sure he's against it.

 

 

Keep in mind I am not bashing Kerry, I'm just saying there campaigns were... maybe not 100% opposite, but obviously they planned to do the opposite of what the other was planning.

 

Sure she can.

 

:-P :-D

[toms]

a) what SHOULD he do with his daughter? Send her to be "cured"?

 

b) Cos the reason almost EVERY western country legalised abortion didn't have anything to do with the fact that it kept happening even when illegal, but many more mothers died. Tell people it is illegal and it will stop....

 

Maybe he just thought that it isn't the government's role (or even legal ability IMHO) to enforce christian based rules on a non-religious situation like marriage.

 

But I think BOTH wassup and AL are right.

Kerry did try to appeal too much to both sides, and america is SOOOO split betweent the religious central states and the practical coasts that he was NEVER going to manage to appeal to both, at least not more so than "one of their own" like bush.

 

I also think that now that religion has gotten involved in politics it is going to be almost impossible to get it out. The democrats should just ignore it entirely and concentrate on practical differences, not try and be republican-religious-lite.

 

But i doubt they will...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

Maybe, but he supports his lesbian/bisexual (?) daughter? I'm not sure he's against it.

 

That's Dick Cheney who has the lesbian daughter... not Kerry, BTW.

[kipperthefrog]

how could Bu$h and Chenney be aginst gay marrage if chenny has a lesbian duaghter???

[wassup]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

how could Bu$h and Chenney be aginst gay marrage if chenny has a lesbian duaghter???

 

Bush is the one supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and woman, Cheney has spoken that he wanted gay marriage to be decided on the state level.

 

Also, today Secretary of State Colin Powell "resigned" and was replaced by former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, one of Bush's closest aides.

[Spider AL]

Also, today Secretary of State Colin Powell "resigned" and was replaced by former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, one of Bush's closest aides.

Of course. Now that Bush has won the popular vote, he knows he doesn't need that damn moderate running around muddying his water.

[kipperthefrog]

Satisfy my curiosity, but won't we all get arrested by the FBI if we critisize Bu$h becuase of the PATRIOT act?