Why Bush must not be re-elected

[Ivan Seeking]

What I did while playing president:

•I attacked and took over 2 countries.

•I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.

•I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).

•I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

•I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

•I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

•In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did).

•After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.

•I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.

•In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

•I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.

•I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period.

•I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

•I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of TV.

•I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history.

•I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

•I cut health care benefits for war veterans.

•I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

•I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

•I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

•Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.)

•I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.

•I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.

•I am the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.

•I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security"(only one letter away from BS).

•I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough to beat, but I did it!!).

•I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

•I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

•I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

•I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. I withdrew from the World Court of Law.

•I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

•I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.

•I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.

•The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

•I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

•I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

•I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.

•I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

•I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

•I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

•I set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.

•I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

•I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

•RECORDS AND REFERENCES: I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

•I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of war.

•I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use. (wink,wink)

•All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

•All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

•All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

•Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review

Thank you Mr. Bush. Now, please go someplace where we will never see or hear of you again.

[devil-fire]

where did you get all those points of information? it sounds like hes going to be quite a figure in history

[Ivan Seeking]

Tsu got this from a person involved in the Kerry campaign.

[russ_watters]

Tsu got this from a person involved in the Kerry campaign.Hehe. :rofl:

[Ivan Seeking]

Good come back. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That clears it all up for me. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Next?

[Dissident Dan]

You forget many things. Here are a few:

-I perpetrated the most massive and successful campaign to deceive Congress, the UN, and the American populace so I could wage a war that I intended to wage for years

-I presided over the largest set of proposed and actual environmental rollbacks in U.S. history--covering air quality, water quality, forest conservation and preservation, and superfund sites

-I crippled education with deficit spending and the "No Child Left Behind" act

-I gave no-bid contracts to my Vice President's company, Halliburton, which has since overcharged taxpayers millions, if not billions, and has neglected its duty.

-I destroyed the first amendment by becoming the first President in history to always set up "free speech" zones to keep away dissenting voices whenever I make an appearance and by promoting the marriage of government and religion.

[kat]

Wrong forum Ivan, skeptism and debunking can be found at the link below....

[Robert Zaleski]

What I did while playing president:

1. I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

2. I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

3. Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history.

4. I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

5. I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. I withdrew from the World Court of Law.

6. I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.

7. The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

Some of My Favorites

1. When did we go into a depression and when did the DOW drop by 85 percent as it did in 1930?
2. I didn't realize there were that many anarchists in the world. Could we have a show of hands please.
3. If Kerry is elected, he'll have a richer administration than all the others combined.
4. Yes, and retain Libya, Sudan and China.
5. Rejecting the World Court is okay by me. Slobodan Milosevic will die of old age before a verdict is reach in his trial.
6. Thank you Congresswomen Eddie Bernice Johnson (D), et al, for humiliating our country by comparing it to a Third World dictatorship.
7. How much did the Democratic Party Chairman, Terry McAuliffe make from the Global Crossing fraud?

[Tsu]

You forget many things. Here are a few:

-I perpetrated the most massive and successful campaign to deceive Congress, the UN, and the American populace so I could wage a war that I intended to wage for years

-I presided over the largest set of proposed and actual environmental rollbacks in U.S. history--covering air quality, water quality, forest conservation and preservation, and superfund sites

-I crippled education with deficit spending and the "No Child Left Behind" act

-I gave no-bid contracts to my Vice President's company, Halliburton, which has since overcharged taxpayers millions, if not billions, and has neglected its duty.

-I destroyed the first amendment by becoming the first President in history to always set up "free speech" zones to keep away dissenting voices whenever I make an appearance and by promoting the marriage of government and religion.
Oh, yeah. Those, too. :rofl: :rofl:

[Ivan Seeking]

Wrong forum Ivan, skeptism and debunking can be found at the link below....

Is that the best that you can do? This and seven objections from Robert Zaleski? Robert, should we assume that you agree on all other counts?

So far it seems Russ's objection is that we should not consider evidence presented against a candidate by someone who donates their time to the democratic process.

[JohnDubYa]

Boy, with all this "ammo" Bush has no chance of winning. I guess we can call the election over. :)

[Ivan Seeking]

Only if everyone realizes who they elected. I guess this means that we can count on you to campaign for Kerry?

[JohnDubYa]

But voting for Kerry wouldn't give me the opportunity to piss you off.

Also, if I vote for Kerry, then I would be agreeing with Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell. Dude, no way.

[Tsu]

But voting for Kerry wouldn't give me the opportunity to piss you off.

Also, if I vote for Kerry, then I would be agreeing with Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell. Dude, no way.
Ah. You'd rather agree with people like Chuck Norris, Bo Derek, Shannon Doherty... :rolleyes:

[the number 42]

Good list, Ivan. However I think at this point those who support Bush aren't going to change their minds, no matter what evidence is produced. Or let me put it this way; if I found that there were some compelling evidence that Bush actually did more good than harm, it would create so much cognitive dissonance I'd probably have to dismiss the new info for at least a month as 'unbelievable', and at some point be man enough to admit to having made a massive error in judgement. Would I have done all this restructuring in time for the election (assuming it goes ahead according to schedule)? At this point the two camps may as well say "My leader is bigger than yours" for all the difference it will make to each other's views.

[kat]

So far it seems Russ's objection is that we should not consider evidence presented against a candidate by someone who donates their time to the democratic process.

I'm sorry, where's the evidence? :zzz:

[Robert Zaleski]

Just to show you how silly your list looks to a Republican, I've put together my own inane list as follows:

15 Reasons for not Electing Kerry and Edwards

1. John Kerry is a gigolo and Teresa Kerry has hyperopia.
2. John Kerry has hyperopia.
3. Teresa Kerry wishes she had her deceased husband back instead of the stiff she’s got now.
4. Ted Kennedy is John Kerry’s mentor.
5. Teresa Heinz Kerry gives Johnny a weekly allowance, but only if he’s been a very, very good boy and this has nothing to do with bedtime maneuvers on a Sealy Posturepedic mattress.
6. The John John’s do more embracing with each other than with their wives.
7. John Kerry likes to romp around the house in his wife’s underwear.
8. Teresa Kerry likes to dress in black leather and snap a whip.
9. John likes it when Teresa dresses in black leather and snaps a whip.
10. John Kerry intends to divorce the Pickle Queen and become the wife of George Soros.
11. Whoopi Goldberg and Meathead Reiner will be offered cabinet positions in a Kerry-Edwards administration.
12. Edwards is a trial lawyer.
13. Edwards is running with Kerry because polls show he won’t be reelected in his home State of North Carolina.
14. John Edwards is better looking than the two candidates wives.
15. John Kerry owns a shotgun and hockey stick, or is it......has a pistol for a wife and a hockey puck for a running mate.

[Tsu]

Well, that's just plain childish, Mr. Zaleski. I had the (obviously mistaken) impression you were above that type of thing.

[Entropy]

I can only think of three words after reading this thread: "God help us."

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm sorry, where's the evidence? :zzz:

The specific assertions are made. Show me the records that Bush is hiding.

If you don't wish to contribute then why are you here?

[Ivan Seeking]

Just to show you how silly your list looks to a Republican, I've put together my own inane list as follows:

blah blah blah

great post. That sure changed my mind.

[Ivan Seeking]

Good list, Ivan. However I think at this point those who support Bush aren't going to change their minds,

According to the Sunday morning talking heads, just today as a matter of fact, barring unexpected major events, and historically, the now undecided votes will detemine this election.

[Ivan Seeking]

When I see preachers/electricians in the Bible belt wincing I know that Bush's position is very tenuous indeed.

[Ivan Seeking]

In lieu of two wars and the near certainty of further terrorist attacks on US soil, I am sure glad that we have this gay marriage thing, and the current rash of flag burnings dealt with, Replublican leadership. What great leadership in these dangerous times.

[Ivan Seeking]

My cousin [by marriage] was working with the FBI and doing surveillance on suspected terrorists - I probably shouldn’t say where except in the western US. Since Federal funds promised never arrived, he is back on kidnappings and child custody issues. The local law agencies had to absorb the costs. This sort of thing was reported in news articles of the last 18 months or so.

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm noticing a pattern here where no one is willing to defend Bush against these allegations in a serious way. Perhaps this is because so many of them are true.

It just sounds unbelievable when you put them all together. That's the point.

[devil-fire]

if even 1/4 of those statments are Half true, i still find it surprising that americans are not a LOT more upset with this man. how do u put up with this????

im canadain so that stuff dosnt make me want to over throw the goverment but if bush was in charge of canada and doing as badly i would be pulling my hair out

[Ivan Seeking]

We recently had a very uncharacteristic show of outrage on the floor of congress by a black congresswoman from Florida. She accused Bush of a coup d'état. Not so well known but widely reported at the time, blacks in Florida claimed that they were prevented from voting by “Republican thugs”. This fact was lost in the counting frenzy. Of course, Florida, Governend by Bush's brother, was also the swing state that got Bush elected.

The congresswoman was demanding that the UN monitor our election. Rightfully so I think.

[Dagenais]

I attacked and took over 2 countries.



You do realize that one of those Countries flew 2 planes into the Twin Towers, right?

Also, I support any effort to put Sodamn Insane out of power. If he had mass weapons of destruction - he'd use them. If you don't realize that, you need a serious reality check. He uses weapons all the time against his own people and Country, you think he'd have a problem with using it against a Country that hates him?

He even said that the US people would bleed and die if they invaded Iraq. He's completely delusional and nuts to make a threat like that.

There would have been decades of terror in Iraq unless you think his sons would have been better.

He kills his own like Stalin did, except Stalin managed to make the USSR economically strong. Sadaam doesn't benefit his Country. He's a corrupt dictator and a lot of us are damn glad he's not one anymore.

great post. That sure changed my mind.

Was the purpose of starting this thread to have your mind changed?


im canadain so that stuff dosnt make me want to over throw the goverment but if bush was in charge of canada and doing as badly i would be pulling my hair out

As far as the economy goes, Bush couldn't do anymore damage to Canada. It's already screwed up. More in some places than others, like in British Columbia.

Canadians should be more worried with the NDP getting into power than about Bush.

[kat]

The specific assertions are made. Show me the records that Bush is hiding.

If you don't wish to contribute then why are you here?

Uhh, not to post assertions, claim they are evidence and then fail to show how they are "evidence".

[loseyourname]

Ivan: Just about every point you posted was your subjective opinion of what history's subjective opinion of Bush will be. Post some numbers. Show us some actual facts and we'll listen. As of now, you've given nothing but propaganda.

[JohnDubYa]

if even 1/4 of those statments are Half true, i still find it surprising that americans are not a LOT more upset with this man. how do u put up with this????

For the same reason they put up with Bill Clinton. He had a laundry list too.

By the way, the word "Americans" is capitalized.

[JohnDubYa]

My cousin [by marriage] was working with the FBI and doing surveillance on suspected terrorists - I probably shouldn’t say where except in the western US.

Glad to know that our FBI agents are keeping their cousins informed of their activities.

[JohnDubYa]

Okay, here goes:


What I did while playing president:

•I attacked and took over 2 countries.

That's better than attacking and not taking over two countries. Americans don't consider military victories a bad thing.


•I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.

I don't recall the US Treasury filing Chapter 11, or is this just hyperbole? If so, why should Americans buy it?

This is the biggest problems with these lists. The effects are usually grandly exagerrated, and completely attributed to the President no matter what his involvement entailed.

To wit:

•I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).

Bush is taking his hits for the economy, but no President is ever totally responsible, especially since the downward trends began before he took over.

But the biggest problem with this item is the notion that Bush shattered the record. No, the American economy shattered the record. Bush happened to be President at the time, which does not make him wholly responsible for what took place.

In other words, your list is too simplistic.

[russ_watters]

So far it seems Russ's objection is that we should not consider evidence presented against a candidate by someone who donates their time to the democratic process.[emphasis added] Well spun. Much like Moore's work, pretty much everything on that list while not specifically factually inaccurate is either misleading, unsubstantiated, or just plain meaningless. Yeah, it makes for great soundbytes, but there isn't actually any evidence of anything in there (by implication, any evidence you would provide would be negative - and just saying the word implies it exists - and thats enough for the purposes of a soundbyte).

And yes, you can make a strikingly similar list for Clinton - or any other president for that matter.

Since burden-of-proof is, of course, on you, I'll take only the first one as an example: •I attacked and took over 2 countries. -Other side: I'm assuming that's Afghanistan and Iraq. Setting aside the reasons (I'm sure most agree with Afghanistan and most do not agree with Iraq, but hey - even if you agree with an action, you can still pretend it was bad, right?), in both cases, we toppled dictatorships and installed Democracies. Both are now sovereign.

-Clinton parallel: Clinton took down Yugoslavia and tried, but failed to take Somalia. Spin as desired.

[Robert Zaleski]

Here’s a few numbers to play with. Now show us yours

In 1933 the United States had 25 percent unemployment, and this was a time in our history when the normal household had only one wage earner.

The GDP fell by 29 percent between 1929 and 1933.

The stock market lost over 80 percent of its value.

From 1970 personal bankruptcies have been increasing on a yearly basis, setting a new record high each year.

[Robert Zaleski]

Well, that's just plain childish, Mr. Zaleski. I had the (obviously mistaken) impression you were above that type of thing.
I'm crushed. The only difference between my list and the one originally posted by Ivan is that I admit that mine contains lies, half-truths and innuendoes.

[the number 42]

I support any effort to put Sodamn Insane out of power. If he had mass weapons of destruction - he'd use them. If you don't realize that, you need a serious reality check. He uses weapons all the time against his own people and Country, you think he'd have a problem with using it against a Country that hates him?
If he would have used his chemical weapons against anyone, he would have used them against Israel. The fact that he never did speaks volumes about his intention to use them outside his own borders.


He even said that the US people would bleed and die if they invaded Iraq. He's completely delusional and nuts to make a threat like that.
Yep, he sure talked a good fight. Then hid in a hole.


Canadians should be more worried with the NDP getting into power than about Bush.
That's probably important to Canadians, but is hardly a global issue.

[JohnDubYa]

If he would have used his chemical weapons against anyone, he would have used them against Israel.

Except for the teensy-weensy fact that Isreal could retaliate with nuclear weapons, whereas the rest of Saddam's neighbors couldn't.

[the number 42]

I'm no military tactician, but I would have thought that using nuclear weapons on your immediate neighbours would backfire somewhat. Also, Israel would have to admit that it had nuclear weaponry, something it has denied for years. Not to mention all the other neighbours who would be directly effected by radiation, fallout etc., and the general political disapproval over someone daring to use nuclear weapons.

[JohnDubYa]

I'm no military tactician, but I would have thought that using nuclear weapons on your immediate neighbours would backfire somewhat.

A fat lot of good that would do Saddam.

Also, Israel would have to admit that it had nuclear weaponry, something it has denied for years.

Let me get this straight: Isreal would be more worried about the world finding out it had nuclear weapons than the criticism it would take for actually using them?

No matter how you slice it, a chemical attack on Israel would have created enormous problems for Saddam Hussein. Besides, an unprovoked chemical attack on Israel would have backfired in terms of public sentiment if Israel did not retaliate with nukes. Sure, a lot of Arabs hate Israel, but not all of them would have supported such a huge violation of international protocol.

Finally, your statement "If he would have used his chemical weapons against anyone, he would have used them against Israel" is just conjecture on your part. You don't know how Saddam thinks, so there is no way that you can make such a claim.

[Dissident Dan]

That's better than attacking and not taking over two countries. Americans don't consider military victories a bad thing.


Are you saying that you don't have any moral objections to an unnecessarial conquering countries?


I don't recall the US Treasury filing Chapter 11, or is this just hyperbole? If so, why should Americans buy it?

[quote]
Bush is taking his hits for the economy, but no President is ever totally responsible, especially since the downward trends began before he took over.


The deficit is a number relating to the Federal government, not directly the private sector economy. The president is directly reponsible for his spending that has caused the greatest Federal deficit on record.

[JohnDubYa]

Are you saying that you don't have any moral objections to an unnecessarial conquering countries?

Depends on what you mean by "necessary." Bush wins this election largely on whether or not he can make the claim that the war was necessary.



The deficit is a number relating to the Federal government, not directly the private sector economy. The president is directly reponsible for his spending that has caused the greatest Federal deficit on record.

Only Congress can spend money. Only Congress can raise or lower taxes and pass budgets. It's in the Constitution.

[Dissident Dan]

Only Congress can raise or lower taxes and pass budgets. It's in the Constitution.

That's true, but the president's OMB prepares the budget, and the Congress works with what's there, not making a whole lot of changes. Also, the presiden'ts proposals, such as the medicare one, had the cost underestimated by $150 billion. Also, the president's war in Iraq has been extremely expensive, which Congress has to fund (although I very much disagree with their decision to abdicate their Constitutional power to wage War).

[russ_watters]

Depends on what you mean by "necessary." Bush wins this election largely on whether or not he can make the claim that the war was necessary. Even of those who disagree with whether it was necessary, there are few that honestly believe ousting Saddam wasn't a good thing. That's why the Democrats aren't asking for Bush's head on a platter.

[russ_watters]

The deficit is a number relating to the Federal government, not directly the private sector economy. The president is directly reponsible for his spending that has caused the greatest Federal deficit on record. With the caveat, of course, that the private sector economy is what primarily determines federal income via taxes.

[russ_watters]

I must admit to not having read the whole thread before. This post is wonderful: The specific assertions are made. Show me the records that Bush is hiding. Translation: 'I have no evidence, therefore the evidence must have been suppressed.' Uh huh. Is that how burden-of-proof works, Ivan? Haven't we had this discussion before?

Ivan: you are an axe murderer. Anything you say to try to refute that and any evidence you show is evidence that you are good at hiding/faking evidence. Prove me wrong.According to the Sunday morning talking heads, just today as a matter of fact, barring unexpected major events, and historically, the now undecided votes will detemine this election. As always. Isn't that tautological? That's why I don't watch those shows any more.

[kat]

Also, the president's war in Iraq has been extremely expensive, which Congress has to fund (although I very much disagree with their decision to abdicate their Constitutional power to wage War).
This is incorrect. Congress does not HAVE to fund the Iraq war. In fact, it was the refusal of Congress to fund the Vietnam war that inevitably ended it. Also, according historical court cases it was found that congressional aproval of finances for a war was in effect Congressional approval of that same war.

[loseyourname]

No matter how you slice it, a chemical attack on Israel would have created enormous problems for Saddam Hussein. Besides, an unprovoked chemical attack on Israel would have backfired in terms of public sentiment if Israel did not retaliate with nukes.

A chemical attack on Israel probably would have resulted in the US and Israel both going into Iraq and deposing Saddam.

[Dissident Dan]

This is incorrect. Congress does not HAVE to fund the Iraq war. In fact, it was the refusal of Congress to fund the Vietnam war that inevitably ended it. Also, according historical court cases it was found that congressional aproval of finances for a war was in effect Congressional approval of that same war.

I was not being clear enough. I did not mean that there is any law that mandates funding, but that it would have been ridiculous, as well as being political suicide, not to fund it.

[Dagenais]

A chemical attack on Israel probably would have resulted in the US and Israel both going into Iraq and deposing Saddam.

Oh wow! Israel is going to help! Oh wow! The Israelis are coming, run, run!

One of the reasons (through my biased, and only my biased opinion) that the US is in this war is because they support Israel. They should've stayed out of the middle east, but they decided to take Israel's side. That'll tend to piss-off the surrounding Muslim nations.

[Ivan Seeking]

I must admit to not having read the whole thread before. This post is wonderful: Translation: 'I have no evidence, therefore the evidence must have been suppressed.' Uh huh. Is that how burden-of-proof works, Ivan? Haven't we had this discussion before?

Ivan: you are an axe murderer. Anything you say to try to refute that and any evidence you show is evidence that you are good at hiding/faking evidence. Prove me wrong. As always. Isn't that tautological? That's why I don't watch those shows any more.

:rofl:

I will grant you that some of the language is hyped, but Russ, you would have me prove a negative? I'm surprised at your flawed logic.

Lets make it easy. Show me the sealed records from Bush's tour as Governer...or don't they keep gubuantorial records any more?

[russ_watters]

I will grant you that some of the language is hyped, but Russ, you would have me prove a negative? I'm surprised at your flawed logic. :confused: That's a mirror I'm showing you Ivan. Some of those assertions in your opening post are positive, some are negative. The point is you are trying to shift the burden-of-proof. For example:Lets make it easy. Show me the sealed records from Bush's tour as Governer...or don't they keep gubuantorial records any more? Well you tell me - are there records and if so, what do they say? If you have no evidence, say you have no evidence but you think there might be some somewhere that could be evidence of impropriety (you hope). But excuse me if I don't leap on the bandwagon with such a weak assertion.

[russ_watters]

...it would have been ridiculous, as well as being political suicide, not to fund it. Yes, God knows, the worst thing any politician - especially a Democrat - can do is stand up for what they believe.

Could you explain to me why it would be political suicide? Many Democrats, Kerry included, argued against it, then voted for it, then claimed they were duped into voting for it (nevermind what that says about their gullibility, nor the fact that they argued against it before voting for it). Kerry's taking a lot of flak for that. In fact, this seemingly predominantly Democratic trait is one of the reasons I'm a Republican.

[Ivan Seeking]

:confused: That's a mirror I'm showing you Ivan. Some of those assertions in your opening post are positive, some are negative. The point is you are trying to shift the burden-of-proof. For example: Well you tell me - are there records and if so, what do they say? If you have no evidence, say you have no evidence but you think there might be some somewhere that could be evidence of impropriety (you hope). But excuse me if I don't leap on the bandwagon with such a weak assertion.

Well, you seem to say show me the records that we can't get and I'll believe it. Okay, in order to do justice to the issue I will dig up some specific information about all of this.

I am a little surprised at your objection. I thought this was all well known but maybe not so.

[Dissident Dan]

Yes, God knows, the worst thing any politician - especially a Democrat - can do is stand up for what they believe.

Could you explain to me why it would be political suicide? Many Democrats, Kerry included, argued against it, then voted for it, then claimed they were duped into voting for it (nevermind what that says about their gullibility, nor the fact that they argued against it before voting for it). Kerry's taking a lot of flak for that. In fact, this seemingly predominantly Democratic trait is one of the reasons I'm a Republican.

We are not talking about the authorization for the war. We are talking about the $87 billion. He was never against funding the troops. He voted for a proposal to pay for it by rescinding bush tax cuts for the wealthy. When that failed, he cast a "protest" vote, knowing full well that the bill would pass, against the final measure to allocate $87 billion.

[Ivan Seeking]

Isn't that tautological? That's why I don't watch those shows any more.

I don't think so. For example, we might see that Bush's support is very soft, and at the last minute a lot of Y2K Bush voters will switch and vote for Kerry. This happened with Carter and Reagan. Almost no one saw the landslide coming, as I remember. The point today is that the established support in both camps is thought to be firm. Those who are declared as undecided are the only game left for either side to win.

[Ivan Seeking]

...But now, facing far more serious allegations than fundraising irregularities, the President has categorically refused to release critical documents in a host of areas.

Many examples are given.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=116445


More to come. :wink:

[Ivan Seeking]

Closing Open Records

...The last time Bush and Perry hooked up in an attempt to defeat the Texas Public Information Act was two years ago, when the new governor tried to help the new president keep his state papers out of the hands of journalists and scholars. Now the two leaders are at it again, threatening to create an important exception to disclosure of the same Bush records and thereby restricting the public's right to know....

...In the latest dispute over the Bush papers, however, the president is winning on points. This round began in August, following the publication of an article tracking Gov. Bush's decision-making process that had led to the execution of 151 men and two women during his six-year tenure in Austin. [continued]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-11-07/pols_feature.html


But Mr. Bush's Texas records were moved back to state custody after a ruling from the attorney general

http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=3442

[Ivan Seeking]

The Top Ten reasons given:

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

7. Deriding "nation-building" during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.

8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.[90 more reasons follow]

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326

[Elizabeth1405]

Okay, here goes:

That's better than attacking and not taking over two countries. Americans don't consider military victories a bad thing.

As an American, I consider needless deaths during war a "bad thing."--regardless of who comes out on top.





Bush is taking his hits for the economy, but no President is ever totally responsible

...unless he happens to be a Democrat, like Jimmy Carter

[Elizabeth1405]

By the way, the word "Americans" is capitalized.

Relax. The guy is from Canada, and he mispelled and failed to capitalize the word "Canadian" too.

[loseyourname]

As an American, I consider needless deaths during war a "bad thing."--regardless of who comes out on top.

And what's needless? Was the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo needless? Was the dropping of the A-bomb needless? Was General Sherman's total destruction of the cities of Atlanta and Savannah needless?

[adrenaline]

There is a more subtle but much more sinister reason not to vote for Bush.

Voting for Bush means voting for the status quo dismal intelligence that allows Al Queda to thrive.


What remains inexplicable to me is why the Bush administration would believe that the attacks did not prove the need for an urgent overhaul of U.S. intelligence, but that business as usual would suffice? Whatever one thinks of Bush on other subjects, this decision remains unexplained and undefended.

Bush, in his most inexplicable action as president, has made no substantial changes in either the structure of the intelligence community or in its personnel....yet the pro Bush advocates wants us to believe by voting for him, we are voting for a stronger antiterrorism defensive front.

Let me explain:


The CIA, the NSA and the vast apparatus of the U.S. intelligence community were created in the late 1940s with one purpose: to combat the Soviet Union.

The end of the Cold War should have led to a rethinking of both mission and organization. There has been some the former, but hardly any of the latter



Soviet intelligence, and thus ours, made certain fundamental assumptions about how intelligence operations should be carried out:

1. The primary purpose of soviet or american intelligence was to penetrate the decision-making layers of opponent states and to transmit information to a central authority. The primary means for achieving this was to plant agents inside the CIA of KGB; the secondary means was technical intelligence.


2. The secondary purpose of our countries' intelligence agencey was to use these agents to obscure intelligence activities . In other words, agents were also were also used to falsify intelligence.

We became much more heavily dependent on technical means of intelligence-gathering than did the Soviets. Where the Soviets would try to recruit well-placed Americans to extract information, we would try to tap into Soviet systems of communication to gather the same information. The Soviets were obsessed with protecting their assets, we with protecting our technical capabilities.


For the United States, the terrorist groups of the 1970s and 1980s were not seen as independent actors, but as entities designed or at least guided by the KGB toward psychological and political ends. On the whole, this was not a bad way to view the world. The KGB used these groups -- particularly Palestinian groups -- to create political environments that were conducive to Soviet ends. The Soviets maintained a program designed to seduce, manipulate and manage the leadership of these terrorist groups. The United States understood that the best way to defeat these groups was by disrupting their relations with the Soviets. Both sides were quite realistic for a while..

By the time of Desert Storm, the Soviets were no longer key enablers of terrorism. The problem is that our CIA has lost the prism through which it viewed organizations that were using terrorism as a weapon. To be more precise, where the United States previously had viewed the Arab world through the prism of the CIA-KGB competition, the end of the rivalry did not bring with it a new prism. The CIA knew that the Soviets were no longer managing the situation, but they did not develop a new way of thinking about that situation.



Al Qaeda has been designed to be different from predecessor groups that used terrorism.

First, there is no dependency on a single intelligence agency. Al Qaeda used relations with Pakistani and Saudi intelligence, among others, but did not depend on them. Second, the group understood how the Soviets and Americans had used intelligence during the Cold War, and created an organization that was not easily penetrated by either human or technical means. They don't run cables that submarines could tap into or chatter on car phones, so the NSA has limited opportunities to intercept.


The CIA, institutionally, does not seem to have the frame of reference for al Qaeda. This agency was organized for penetrating the upper circles and lines of communication of a nation-state or a state-sponsored group. It was built to deal with the KGB and its creations.

What had been built to be congruent with Soviet intelligence is now left standing alone, congruent with nothing.



He believes profoundly and completely that the same organizational structure and people that took down the KGB would eventually take down al Qaeda -- no wholesale changes required. It is understandable that people who had won once would think that they could win again using the same tools. It is inexplicable that the president and his advisers would believe them. Simple common sense should tell U.S. leaders that it is simply fantastic to believe that a force built to defeat the Soviet Union can serve to defeat al Qaeda.

However, I'm not sure Kerry is going to make this a priority agenda either. At least, not a voting agenda.

[Elizabeth1405]

And what's needless? Was the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo needless? Was the dropping of the A-bomb needless? Was General Sherman's total destruction of the cities of Atlanta and Savannah needless?

You may want to go back and read my original post. I'm saying the DEATHS of so many civilians is needless, not necessarily the acts that lead up to these deaths. There were "needless" deaths in all the situations your mention--civilians dying as a result of war is, in my opinion, needless. More appropriately, I consider the death of nearly 1,000 American soldiers in Iraq and the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians by foreign invaders to their country to be needless. And I think "needless" is a good way to describe all of the Vietnam war.

[loseyourname]

You may want to go back and read my original post. I'm saying the DEATHS of so many civilians is needless, not necessarily the acts that lead up to these deaths. There were "needless" deaths in all the situations your mention--civilians dying as a result of war is, in my opinion, needless. More appropriately, I consider the death of nearly 1,000 American soldiers in Iraq and the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians by foreign invaders to their country to be needless. And I think "needless" is a good way to describe all of the Vietnam war.

Well then, if you think civilians dying as a result of war is needless, and needless deaths is a valid reason for opposing a war, then you would have opposed every war the US has been involved in since the Civil War. Heck, in the other examples I used, we intentionally targeted and killed civilians. In a war like the one we're involved in today, and in Vietnam, civilians were killed because the enemy disguises itself as civilians and makes it difficult to tell who's a threat and who is not a threat. I would think the intentional targeting of civilians would be more objectionable. I'm guessing you nonetheless object to this current war more than you would to WWII or the Civil War, so for the sake of consistent reasoning, you must have another reason - not civilian deaths.

[Elizabeth1405]

In a war like the one we're involved in today, and in Vietnam, civilians were killed because the enemy disguises itself as civilians and makes it difficult to tell who's a threat and who is not a threat.


Did you ever hear of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam? None of those civilians were mistaken for anything than what they were--poor people in a small village.The soldiers killed them because they were easy targets, and they were eventually prosecuted for it. Vietnam was a lose-lose situation--the soldiers lost, and their victims lost. It was a mistake, and apparently nobody has learned anything from that. I oppose ALL war. I don't see how bombing other people to smithereens (whether "intentional" or not) is an acceptable solution to anything. I know a very sweet gentleman who is a WWII veteran. He is very conservative politically, yet is against the death penalty. Why? He admits to killing hundreds of Germans in WWII. He doesn't regret killing them, because that's what he had to do at the time for himself and his country. He is against the death penalty not because of what it does to the person being executed, but what it does to us. He knows what effect killing will have on the psyche of someone, regardless of whether it is justified. Nobody "wins" from war. That's why I don't understand the gung-ho attitude of people in this country to the war in Iraq. How did killing and bombing become something to cheer and brag about?

[Sting]

How did killing and bombing become something to cheer and brag about?

Elizabeth, if I may respond to this:

People may view a situation like Iraq where civilians are bombed and killed in a positive light because they feel that killing civilians is killing a potential terrorist. Killing a potential terrorist means less threat for the world.

Allow me to embellish that I don't necessarily agree with the logic. I'm only evaluating the perspective of why people view bombing and killing with a positive outlook.

[Elizabeth1405]

this:

People may view a situation like Iraq where civilians are bombed and killed in a positive light because they feel that killing civilians is killing a potential terrorist. Killing a potential terrorist means less threat for the world.



Gosh, I really hope people don't think that way! If they do, then I assume they'd want to just nuke all of the Middle East. Afterall, we never know if who's a terrorist and who's not over there, right?

[Prometheus]

In a war like the one we're involved in today, and in Vietnam, civilians were killed because the enemy disguises itself as civilians and makes it difficult to tell who's a threat and who is not a threat.

Your viewpoint is certainly one way to look at it. Another way that some people look at it is that the U.S. had no business in Vietname or in Iraq. Therefore, the reason that civilians were killed is that the U.S. invaded these 2 countries when it had no business doing so, and in the process used such excuses as yours to jusitify killing people that never should have been placed under attack in the first place.

[loseyourname]

Your viewpoint is certainly one way to look at it. Another way that some people look at it is that the U.S. had no business in Vietname or in Iraq. Therefore, the reason that civilians were killed is that the U.S. invaded these 2 countries when it had no business doing so, and in the process used such excuses as yours to jusitify killing people that never should have been placed under attack in the first place.

I agree that the war in Vietnam was foolish (because it was strategically unnecessary), but I find it very interesting that no one ever seems to argue that North Vietnam had no right to invade and forcibly take over South Vietnam.

I oppose ALL war. I don't see how bombing other people to smithereens (whether "intentional" or not) is an acceptable solution to anything.

I suspected that you felt this way. For my part, I'm damn glad we did what we did back in the 40's, and I think we should have done it a lot sooner.

[Prometheus]

I agree that the war in Vietnam was foolish (because it was strategically unnecessary), but I find it very interesting that no one ever seems to argue that North Vietnam had no right to invade and forcibly take over South Vietnam.

Come on, surely you have heard many people make this claim.

But not me. What possible justification can you make for forcibly excising part of Vietnam and setting up a puppet government, and then claiming that they have no right to fight it out in their attempt to keep it separate or to unify?

Are you saying that the North had no right to invade and forcibly take over the South in the American Civil War? In this case, at least the people involved chose the division, unlike in Vietnam where greedy imperialists made the decisions.

If you believe that North Vietnam had no right to go to war to reunify with the South, then I claim that you have no right to support any war that has ever happened in history, as there can be no better justification for a war.

You probably believe that China would be evil if they were to invade Taiwan. After all, the U.S. stole it fair and square.

[loseyourname]

So you equate the Confederacy's desire to secede due to the fact that they wanted to continue to enslave Africans to Taiwan's desire for basic human rights and self-determination? Is that really a good comparison to make? Are you a communist? I'm not saying your opinion is invalidated if you are, but I'm curious.

[JohnDubYa]

Voting for Bush means voting for the status quo dismal intelligence that allows Al Queda to thrive.


What remains inexplicable to me is why the Bush administration would believe that the attacks did not prove the need for an urgent overhaul of U.S. intelligence, but that business as usual would suffice? Whatever one thinks of Bush on other subjects, this decision remains unexplained and undefended.

Did Clinton find out about the first bombing of the WTC in time to prevent it? In his eight years as President, did he overhaul the CIA to fit with modern times?

[Prometheus]

So you equate the Confederacy's desire to secede due to the fact that they wanted to continue to enslave Africans to Taiwan's desire for basic human rights and self-determination? Is that really a good comparison to make? Are you a communist? I'm not saying your opinion is invalidated if you are, but I'm curious.

Are you a communist? I'm not saying your question is meaningless, but it is.

You speak of Taiwan's desire for basic human rights and self-determination. How old are you, under 25?

Taiwan did not secede from China for basic human rights or for self-determination. The United States supported its point man in China, Chiang Kai-Shek. He had zero concern for the inhabitants of the island that he invaded from China. The native Taiwanese despise him. They appreciate the position that they are in due to the assistance that the U.S. gave to Taiwan, and particularly the money. Ask a Taiwanese man, not a descendent of one of the soldiers in the invasion, if he thinks that Chiang Kai-Shek did anything for the basic human rights of his parents when he invaded.

The South in the U.S. wanted self-determination. Taiwan did not. Taiwan was invaded by a ruthless dictator who held power only thanks to help from the U.S. His invasion was brutal to the local inhabitants. Read a history book.

[JohnDubYa]

Interesting opinion on Taiwan:

http://www.npf.org.tw/English/Publication/NS/NS-C-090-261.htm

[Prometheus]

Interesting opinion on Taiwan:

http://www.npf.org.tw/English/Publication/NS/NS-C-090-261.htm

Gee whiz. Aren't we surprised that the Taiwan National Policy Foundation writes a completely unbiased account of how wonderful Chiang Kai-Shek was?
Surely, the Taiwanese that survived the initial slaughter should thank the heavens for his coming.

[Prometheus]

I agree that the war in Vietnam was foolish (because it was strategically unnecessary),
Are you a communist? I'm not saying your opinion is invalidated if you are, but I'm curious.

[Sting]

Afterall, we never know if who's a terrorist and who's not over there, right?


I agree. And remember that terrorists are not limited to Islamic Arabs which makes the question even more mentally-draining.

If they do, then I assume they'd want to just nuke all of the Middle East.

I know some people who would agree to that sentiment.

Gosh, I really hope people don't think that way!

I hope so too.

[russ_watters]

...unless he happens to be a Democrat, like Jimmy Carter I've never seen Carter cited on this issue (maybe I'm too young). But no, I don't consider any President, even Carter, to have much of an impact. So now its up to you: do you think Carter was responsible for the economy of the 70s? Do you think Clinton was responsible for the economy of the 90s? Do you want to have it both ways?I oppose ALL war. I don't see how bombing other people to smithereens (whether "intentional" or not) is an acceptable solution to anything. That certainly is a comfortable - if not realistic - opinion. In what period of history would such a position have been actionable? I can't think of one.

I see bumper stickers and t-shirts all the time that say "War is not the answer." Never once have I seen one that says "the answer is..." Its a lot easier to condemn an action than to suggest an alternative.

For example, pick a world leader to replace (except for Hitler) and a year (sometime in the mid-'30s, probably). Put in that position, what would you have done to prevent WWII.

[Prometheus]

I was being serious, dickhead. Never mind.

My gosh. Did I upset you? How could that be, since I only asked you the same question that you asked me.

You pretend to be upset. Sure. You are serious. Sure. You attempt to insult me, and then you get vulgar in reaction to the same question that you hoped I would smile at? Sure.

I do confess that I did not realize that you are so eloquent. You are serious, aren't you? Never mind.

[loseyourname]

Ah, I'm sorry. I'm just really frustrated that no one on this forum ever answers a question. I honestly wanted to know if you are a communist.

[wasteofo2]

George Bush, sucker-punching someone while playing rugby:

http://www.gwpda.org/tomorrow/bushsuckerpunch.gif

Talk about moral character!

[JohnDubYa]

I was pissed off at him, but George W. has my vote after seeing the image, although I wish he had been playing real football. (I call him by his first name since we are such good friends.)

[kat]

I think putting that photo forth as indicative of character is more indicative of the character of the poster..

[wasteofo2]

I think putting that photo forth as indicative of character is more indicative of the character of the poster..
Oh come on, don't take everything so seriously. You really don't think seeing the president punching someone in the face is funny?

[JohnDubYa]

I remember the story about J.C. Watts decking someone at a YMCA. Someone pushed a kid down on the running track and J.C. whapped him. Knocked him out. J.C. later apologized, but I didn't think he needed to.

Must be a Republican thing.

[gravenewworld]

I've seen that list before-41 reasons why George Bush sucks. This one is even better, how bout 1000 reasons why you should hate george bush. And every reason has a citation how bout that! www.thousandreasons.org

[wasteofo2]

I remember the story about J.C. Watts decking someone at a YMCA. Someone pushed a kid down on the running track and J.C. whapped him. Knocked him out. J.C. later apologized, but I didn't think he needed to.

Must be a Republican thing.
Nah, it's just when Howard Dean flips out, he makes sure no one hears from the guy again :rofl:

[JohnDubYa]

Does he threaten him with litigation?

[phatmonky]

how did I miss this amazing circle jerk until now??
BTW Ivan, 6 pages ago you made an original post. A quick google search shows most of those points are fake.
I'll write it all out later if I get some time.

I really can't wait for this board to come back to some calibur of quality.