Bush sucks as President [Archive]

RageSk8

Oct21-03, 09:09 PM

Anyway, 2 positives I see from Bush: fighting terrorism, helping the economy recover. These two are of course the major issues.

I agree that fighting terrorism and helping the economy recover are major issues, they just are not the only major issues (health care, the environment, and civil liberties are all also major issues). Apart from your parochial view of what are major issues, I am having a lot of trouble seeing Bush as being positive in the two areas you listed, terrorism and economics. First, on terrorism, Bush in many people's minds has been a failure at combating terrorism because of his neocon approach.

The Bush administration puts far too much emphasis on states - this became all too apparent with his war on Iraq. From the article I posted in the thread “Great Article Detailing the Bush Administration's Failures in Intelligence”: By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed. The war on Iraq has taken valuable resources away from the war on terrorism.

On the economy, will the economy recover? Yes. Will the economy recover to the degree that it should? No. Are Bush’s tax cuts going to create jobs? Yes, of course. Are the tax cuts a good[ approach to creating jobs? Hell no. As I have stated before in this forum, because the marginal propensity to consume decreases significantly as incomes increase, cutting taxes for the rich is not an effective way to spur the economy. Tax cuts for the middle and lower classes are much more effective in creating jobs as the middle and lower classes spend a greater percentage of their tax breaks and the money they do spend goes into goods rather than investments. To quote the billionaire Warren Buffet:

Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be…

Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets.

So, even if one limits the scope of major issues to the economy and terrorism, Bush doesn’t seem to be a positive leader at all.

Zero

Oct22-03, 01:10 AM

Bush hasn't done anything especially positive in his nonsense 'war on terror'...when you declare 'war' on nouns, you are doomed to failure. Bush keeps making missteps, mostly because he has the attitude that whatever he wants to do must be the right thing...and he is very often wrong! You don't spur the economy by cutting taxes on wealthy people and corporations, for the simple(and simplified for this post) reason that by doing so you maintain their wealth without their having to do anything to increase productivity. Increased productivity is where you see jobs and sustainable growth. A tax cut for the middle class, and heck, free money for poor people, would have created spending on goods, and the increased demand would have created jobs. This 'jobless' recovery isn't a positive step for anyone but the wealthiest few.

kat

Oct22-03, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Zero
when you declare 'war' on nouns, you are doomed to failure. erm, japan, germany and nazi were all nouns, for that matter even Hitler was a noun.......Are you sure that's what you meant to say?

Zero

Oct22-03, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by kat
erm, japan, germany and nazi were all nouns, for that matter even Hitler was a noun.......Are you sure that's what you meant to say? I think you know exactly what I mean. Declaring war on a country is one thing. Declaring war on a concept, and then treating it like it is a war against a country, is f***ing lunacy!![6)] Honestly, this whole 'war on terror' is 1)overblown, 2) doomed to fail, 3)bound to cause more harm than good, 4)trade liberty for 'safety', and we won't even get safety. Terrorism isn't as much of a threat to America as the 'war on terror' is. What a joke, the idea disgusts me on an intellectual as well as emotional level.

russ_watters

Oct22-03, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by RageSk8
I agree that fighting terrorism and helping the economy recover are major issues, they just are not the only major issues (health care, the environment, and civil liberties are all also major issues). By this I simply meant that if you ask people after an election to give the main reason they voted for/against a candidate, the vast, vast majority will cite one of these two. I didn't mean to imply that there aren't other problems in this country. To quote the billionaire Warren Buffet: I don't disagree with him often, but on this one I do (its a popular article and I've read it and seen it cited before). The super-rich are an entity all to themselves for whom the normal rules of economics no longer apply and they are a small entity. So using himself as an example doesn't mean much of anything to the rest of us. Declaring war on a concept, and then treating it like it is a war against a country, is f***ing lunacy!! Such as "the war to make the world safe for democracy"? 10 points to the first who knows which war that was.

megashawn

Oct22-03, 04:33 PM

Anyway, 2 positives I see from Bush: fighting terrorism, helping the economy recover. These two are of course the major issues.

Well, I'm probably considered middle or low class. I can assure you that since Bush has been in office, things have been more difficult for me. I won't say its his fault, (International conspiracy theory to make shawn's life dificult) but I do not think the things he's done to "help the economy" are working. If they are, why is there daily job cuts, companys going under, etc, etc?

I agree with Zero. How can you fight a concept? Better yet, how can you send thousands of troops to fight a concept? Terrorism is not warfare, its not groups of people who pick a nice open field and line up and shoot at one another. Its not even opposing forces in foxholes and bunkers. Its not war at all.

How can you declare war on something that is not war? Its not like Al-queda has an organized state and military. The only way to stop terrorism is to prevent it. Just like the kid from NC that put the packages of box cutters on the plane to show how weak our security is, after the things Bush put in place to combat such actions. Now they are talking about giving him 10 years for it, when he should apparently be running the show.

But basically, what has Bush done to combat terror? Essentially nothing. If a kid can sneak weapons on a plane 2 years after 911, whats to say a terrorist can't do the same? The only thing bush has done, IMO, is spread more terror around the world.

russ_watters

Oct22-03, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by megashawn
Well, I'm probably considered middle or low class. Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."

RageSk8

Oct22-03, 11:44 PM

Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."

Gotta love cliche conservative responses... What does this have to do with anything? From what I can tell it is merely a move to shift focus away from the undeniable growing disparity between the upper middle class and the lower middle class. Such statements are, of course, irrelevent to any discussion about economics and/or politics within the United States, but none the less give conservatives a mantra to latch on to. Funny how things work out... Sudenly the simple fact that poverty is always relative to a specific socio-economic spectrum does much more than it rationally should... It should just lead one to draw a picture of the socio-economic spectrum in question, but conservatives somehow miss the whole point...

RageSk8

Oct22-03, 11:52 PM

The super-rich are an entity all to themselves for whom the normal rules of economics no longer apply and they are a small entity. So using himself as an example doesn't mean much of anything to the rest of us.

Actually it means A LOT to the rest of us. The fact that part of the Bush plan gives what will amount to billions of dollars a year in tax breaks to the super rich, the people who need the money the least, when giving the middle and lower classes, the people who actually need the money, comprable tax breaks would stimulate the economy more, creating more jobs. How is this fact irrelevent?

Zero

Oct23-03, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Such as "the war to make the world safe for democracy"? 10 points to the first who knows which war that was. WWI...Woodrow Wilson said it in 1917 or 1919. You know, back when wars were actually wars, and not the new type of insanity we have now.

megashawn

Oct23-03, 04:02 PM

Gotta love a country where someone who owns a computer can still consider him/herself to be in the lower class. In many countries, the definition of "middle class" is "not starving to death."

And I really wish something could be done about it. However, I can't help the fact that I was born to an american family, and I therefore am subject to the classes of an american society. Gotta love a forum where a person can say something that is totally off base.

And FYI, I built my computer myself for about $600. I can't afford to buy a Dell, nor would I want to. I had to go hungry for a week after that and skip a car payment.

I'd say that probably qualifies as middle class. Can I ask when the last time you had to go hungry was to get something you wanted?

drag

Oct23-03, 05:25 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by RageSk8
The Bush administration puts far too much emphasis on states - this became all too apparent with his war on Iraq. From the article I posted in the thread “Great Article Detailing the Bush Administration's Failures in Intelligence”: By early March, 2002, a former White House official told me, it was understood by many in the White House that the President had decided, in his own mind, to go to war. The undeclared decision had a devastating impact on the continuing struggle against terrorism. The Bush Administration took many intelligence operations that had been aimed at Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups around the world and redirected them to the Persian Gulf. Linguists and special operatives were abruptly reassigned, and several ongoing anti-terrorism intelligence programs were curtailed. The war on Iraq has taken valuable resources away from the war on terrorism.
Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparently
your knowledge about terrorism is quite insufficient.
The Persian Gulf and the middle east ARE the sources
of terrorism. There you find the source, means and motives
of almost all terrorist activity on the planet. It is foolish
and pointless to try and chase every suspect in every country
when these middle eastern sources will just send many more
instead and give them even more money and weapons. The
only way to get rid of terrorism is to destroy the systems
that promote it - not just terrorist organizations but the
regimes and their rethoric in the countries where these
organizations are really located and where they are formed
and recieve support in all possible ways.

BTW, Iraq was without a doubt such a country.
There are many more.

Peace and long life.

RageSk8

Oct23-03, 07:11 PM

Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparently your knowledge about terrorism is quite insufficient. The Persian Gulf and the middle east ARE the sources of terrorism. There you find the source, means and motives of almost all terrorist activity on the planet. It is foolish and pointless to try and chase every suspect in every country when these middle eastern sources will just send many more instead and give them even more money and weapons. The only way to get rid of terrorism is to destroy the systems that promote it - not just terrorist organizations but the regimes and their rethoric in the countries where these organizations are really located and where they are formed and recieve support in all possible ways.

Sorry to inform you that the war on a Iraq has created more terrorists in the area. Sorry to inform you that government agents working on terrorists cells were reasigned to the war on Iraq. Is it just me or is focusing on terrorists important? The ne0con approach to international politics is failing, again this is because too much emphasis is put on states. Terrorists cells are in every major Western nation. Does this mean we should attack France and England? Terrorists do not need a sympathetic government to opperate, so overthrouging even the most sympathetic to terrorists does little good. I have never understood the line of logic that you have just give... Granted, it is what the Bush Administration puts forth, but it has NO basis in reality.

Hurkyl

Oct23-03, 07:28 PM

Terrorists do not need a sympathetic government to opperate, so overthrouging even the most sympathetic to terrorists does little good.

I'm having trouble swallowing this logic...

megashawn

Oct23-03, 09:11 PM

Well, I see what your saying Hurkyl, but I think he's just got that worded funny.

At the same time, he makes a very strong point. Remember, the 19 terrorists behind 911 were trained here in america, by american pilots, and used american planes. Certainly the USA is not sympathetic towards a groups of extremist bent on toppling our monuments, killing thousands and wrecking our economy.

And certainly there are still terrorist groups plotting attacks right here in the USA.

And what are we doing about local terrorism? Well, getting ready to sentance a US Citizen for revealing a blatant flaw in the airline security. I'd say it is our right to do the right thing in defense of our country. Every citizen is responsible for our defense.

But when the government steps in and punishes the people who try to expose the flaws, what kind of a way is that to motivate me to bring some other government failure to light?

Still have to agree with the title of the thread.

RageSk8

Oct23-03, 09:59 PM

I misspoke on more than wording. When trying to draw a distinction that the Bush Administration is overemphasizing states in their international agenda a went further I should have (and actually feel). States can be important. Iraq wasn't, no links to any terrorist organization has been found and in attacking Iraq we took precious resources off of known terrorists. Saddam supported terrorism ideologically, the worst he did in supporting terrorism was giving aid to terrorists was giving the families of suicide bombers money - not that this isn't bad, but it is not grounds for a war, especially a war that, again, required the reassignment of agents who were working on actual terrorists cells. So, in other words, I regret going as far as I did, which underemphasized States, but I wholeheartedly stand by saying that Bush and his supporters overemphasize States.

russ_watters

Oct24-03, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by megashawn
And I really wish something could be done about it. However, I can't help the fact that I was born to an american family, and I therefore am subject to the classes of an american society. Gotta love a forum where a person can say something that is totally off base.

And FYI, I built my computer myself for about $600. I can't afford to buy a Dell, nor would I want to. I had to go hungry for a week after that and skip a car payment.

I'd say that probably qualifies as middle class. Can I ask when the last time you had to go hungry was to get something you wanted? I also built my computer. That doesn't change the point: we both have computers. I frankly don't believe that you went hungry to buy your computer. Eating is more important than owning a computer and you can get used/refirbished parts to build a functional computer for much much less.

Even still, its all about choices: I also own a $1200 used car and live in an apartment. A friend of mine is leasing (idiot) a $15,000 car and still lives with his parents., no links to any terrorist organization has been found RageSk8, you mean BESIDES the terrorist camps, terrorist weapons caches, and terrorist's money, right? I'm wondering if terrorism against Israel is down right now even without a truce because it has become less profitable due to the overthrow of Saddam.

Zero

Oct24-03, 01:55 AM

Let's not play the 'our poor are richer than your poor' thing...stay on topic, gents.

RageSk8

Oct24-03, 02:20 AM

RageSk8, you mean BESIDES the terrorist camps, terrorist weapons caches, and terrorist's money, right? I'm wondering if terrorism against Israel is down right now even without a truce because it has become less profitable due to the overthrow of Saddam.

I need links. From my knowledge no links between Saddam's government and terrorists has been found (at least al queda).

Zero

Oct24-03, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparently
your knowledge about terrorism is quite insufficient.
The Persian Gulf and the middle east ARE the sources
of terrorism. There you find the source, means and motives
of almost all terrorist activity on the planet. It is foolish
and pointless to try and chase every suspect in every country
when these middle eastern sources will just send many more
instead and give them even more money and weapons. The
only way to get rid of terrorism is to destroy the systems
that promote it - not just terrorist organizations but the
regimes and their rethoric in the countries where these
organizations are really located and where they are formed
and recieve support in all possible ways.

BTW, Iraq was without a doubt such a country.
There are many more.

Peace and long life. Ummm....nope, you can't do that, mostly because unless you plan on committing genocide, violence will only beget violence. Plus, you don't see the government rounding up evangelical Christians, since they are the source of almost all domestic terrorism...by your logic, we should open death camps...I mean re-education camps... for the 700 Club viewers.

This is the sort of 'backyard bully' attitude that helps make Bush a lousy president.

Zero

Oct24-03, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by RageSk8
I need links. From my knowledge no links between Saddam's government and terrorists has been found (at least al queda). The 'war on terror' is a front for invading the Middle East, and the Iraq/9-11 link is a game of 'Six Degrees of Saddam'...taking this idea one step further, G.H.W. Bush is responsible for 9-11.

Zero

Oct24-03, 02:47 AM

Another reason Bush sucks is because he has been working hard to smirk his way to complete U.S. isolation from the international community. How long is it going to be before America starts a war with Europe?

Zero

Oct24-03, 03:04 AM

Let's add to the list that, despite his efforts to the contrary, many of his supporters, appointees, and the like are watered-down versions of the culture that helped produce the breeding ground for terrorism in the first place: a crowd of religious zealots who probably admire the Taliban's goals, if not their methods. "Right idea, wrong God" seems to be an attitude that keeps popping up at random from this administration and its supporters.

Njorl

Oct24-03, 08:57 AM

And of course, there's this...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090244/

Zero

Oct24-03, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Njorl
And of course, there's this...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090244/ Uh huh...one more time where he does something stupid, and pretends he actually thought about it first. Oh, he thought long and hard about something...how many votes he would lose if he didn't pander to his "moron" constituency.

Chemicalsuperfreak

Oct24-03, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...one more time where he does something stupid, and pretends he actually thought about it first. Oh, he thought long and hard about something...how many votes he would lose if he didn't pander to his "moron" constituency.

No kidding. Every time he says something really stupid, his handlers spin as his being able to communicate with the average american. I'm not saying are schools aren't in trouble, but I really hope that the average american is not as stupid as this dingbat.

Zero

Oct24-03, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
No kidding. Every time he says something really stupid, his handlers spin as his being able to communicate with the average american. I'm not saying are schools aren't in trouble, but I really hope that the average american is not as stupid as this dingbat. Right, and they turn it around and say that anyone who is smart is bad, as though a high IQ and real experience make you less capable to run things.

Here's a long article about Bush's lies, and why they are required by his philosophy:http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=13471&mode=&order=0&thold=0 ....and here's teh stem cell part:That cavalier dismissal of expert analysis isn't limited to the national-security arena. In the summer of 2001, the Bush administration was looking for a decision the president could make on the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research. His Christian-conservative base wanted an outright prohibition. But such a ban would have alienated swing voters eager for the therapies that could come from that research, such as cures for Parkinson's disease. As Nicholas Thompson explained in the Washington Monthly, Bush's advisers came up with a scheme they thought would pass muster with both the core and the swing voters: the president would limit research to only those stem-cell lines that existed already. But before the decision was announced, federal scientists warned the administration that there simply weren't enough reliable existing lines to be useful to researchers. The White House ignored the warnings, which have subsequently proved all too accurate, and went ahead with the decision, thereby setting back crucial medical research for years

drag

Oct24-03, 01:07 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by RageSk8
Is it just me or is focusing on terrorists important? The ne0con approach to international politics is failing, again this is because too much emphasis is put on states. Terrorists cells are in every major Western nation. Does this mean we should attack France and England? Terrorists do not need a sympathetic government to opperate, so overthrouging even the most sympathetic to terrorists does little good. I have never understood the line of logic that you have just give...
I'm sorry to say, but you display your lack of understanding
and knowledge in the matter yet again.
First of all, the vast majority of terrorists are still there.
Second and most important, without their organizations
these individuals do not pose a threat. Destory all their
organizational capabilities, their funding, their intellegence, training bases and so on - turn the population of the
relevant countries into psychologicly balanced - normal
individuals in free democratic societies and there won't be
any terrorism.

Live long and prosper.

drag

Oct24-03, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by RageSk8
Iraq wasn't, no links to any terrorist organization has been found and in attacking Iraq we took precious resources off of known terrorists.
Amongst many other ties, Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps
and activly supported Hizballa. It has been a safe house
for many terrorists for decades. It was quite likely that
it would use WMDs indirectly by selling them to terrorist
organizations as it did with conventional weapons.

Live long and prosper.

Zero

Oct24-03, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I'm sorry to say, but you display your lack of understanding
and knowledge in the matter yet again.
First of all, the vast majority of terrorists are still there.
Second and most important, without their organizations
these individuals do not pose a threat. Destory all their
organizational capabilities, their funding, their intellegence, training bases and so on - turn the population of the
relevant countries into psychologicly balanced - normal
individuals in free democratic societies and there won't be
any terrorism.

Live long and prosper. LMAO!!! And after that, Bush will part the waters, and make the sun stand still?? The POINT of terrorism is that you can't attack it like you would a military target. Someone can throw a Molotov cocktail, turn the corner and they are a law-abiding citizen again. You cannot beat terorism with military tactics.

Zero

Oct24-03, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by drag
Amongst many other ties, Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps
and activly supported Hizballa. It has been a safe house
for many terrorists for decades. It was quite likely that
it would use WMDs indirectly by selling them to terrorist
organizations as it did with conventional weapons.

Live long and prosper. What WMDs?!? The ones we sold them, or the ones Bush pretended they had? How can non-existant weapons be a threat? America apparently is just as guilty, BTW...we had terrorists training on U.S. soil, we have WMDs, and we have supported terrorism in the past. Shall we attack ourselves, or ask the U.N. to enact sanctions against us?

drag

Oct24-03, 01:23 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Zero
Ummm....nope, you can't do that, mostly because unless you plan on committing genocide, violence will only beget violence. Plus, you don't see the government rounding up evangelical Christians, since they are the source of almost all domestic terrorism...by your logic, we should open death camps...I mean re-education camps... for the 700 Club viewers.
Thank you for your "interpretation" of my messages.
I'd appreciate it if you avoid it in the future.
Maybe I need Russ's signature. [:D]
Originally posted by Zero
The 'war on terror' is a front for invading the Middle East...
hmm... I guess some people won't agree to any action until
just their own house is blown up, not just that of the neighbour.

Live long and prosper.

Zero

Oct24-03, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Thank you for your "interpretation" of my messages.
I'd appreciate it if you avoid it in the future.
Maybe I need Russ's signature. [:D]

hmm... I guess some people won't agree to any action until
just their own house is blown up, not just that of the neighbour.

Live long and prosper. Just as soon as there is a threat, we should take it seriously. In the absense of one, we shouldn't act for the sake of acting.

And, I didn't tell a lie about you or Russ...I just took your logic to the next level, to point out the flaw in your reasoning.

drag

Oct24-03, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Zero
What WMDs?!? The ones we sold them, or the ones Bush pretended they had? How can non-existant weapons be a threat? America apparently is just as guilty, BTW...we had terrorists training on U.S. soil, we have WMDs, and we have supported terrorism in the past. Shall we attack ourselves, or ask the U.N. to enact sanctions against us?
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

Chemicalsuperfreak

Oct24-03, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeild shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name) That the US has trained terrorists on its soil? (9-11 highjackers, Timothy McVeigh, School of the Americas?) That the US has supported terrorists? (Iran/Contra?)

russ_watters

Oct24-03, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper. This is why I am far less active in these discussions than I used to be. Because I KNOW Zero has the facts, his positions and what he says about them are just flat out baffling.

And maybe this is just a case of 'the more you learn, the less you know' but the more I see of Zero, the less sense he makes. I think his tone has changed in the past few months, but it could just be that I'm getting more and more information (facts and opinions) that just don't jive with the things he says.

RageSk8

Oct24-03, 07:09 PM

I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

The funny thing is that this is how I (and from my readings on this forum, Zero as well) feel about most of your and Russ's posts. Part of the problem is that both sides (conservatives, and liberals) pick and choose which evidence to emphasize (this is the whole problem of bias). But, I think, the larger problem is that we ask different questions (maybe not on this issue but most issues). This is not a disadvantage of democracy, it is one of the core advantages of democracy. By having different people attack issues at different angles and debating, our society hardly ever becomes myopic. Sure views hardly change until new evidence is produced by one side, but a single view, a single perspecitve never becomes dominant.

Zero

Oct24-03, 10:43 PM

Zero

Oct24-03, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeild shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name) That the US has trained terrorists on its soil? (9-11 highjackers, Timothy McVeigh, School of the Americas?) That the US has supported terrorists? (Iran/Contra?) I'd like to see someone argue these points too, instead of hiding behind the 'you just don't know anything' posts. Teach us!

Zero

Oct24-03, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
This is why I am far less active in these discussions than I used to be. Because I KNOW Zero has the facts, his positions and what he says about them are just flat out baffling.

And maybe this is just a case of 'the more you learn, the less you know' but the more I see of Zero, the less sense he makes. I think his tone has changed in the past few months, but it could just be that I'm getting more and more information (facts and opinions) that just don't jive with the things he says. I'd have to ask where you are getting your 'facts'. I know you don't go in for blustery right-wing whackos like Rush Limbaugh, so what sources are you using?

Zero

Oct24-03, 10:50 PM

RageSk8

Oct24-03, 11:24 PM

This administrations actions from a purely scientific standpoint are proof-positive that when there is a difference between reality and their agenda, they ignore reality.

I agree on this point, but I don't think most conservatives are as willfully ignorant. They believe their leaders. The evidence is piling up against the Bush administration though, soon I doubt people like Russ will be able to continue their lines of argument (on Iraq).

Zero

Oct24-03, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by RageSk8
I agree on this point, but I don't think most conservatives are as willfully ignorant. They believe their leaders. The evidence is piling up against the Bush administration though, soon I doubt people like Russ will be able to continue their lines of argument (on Iraq). The problem is, I guess, that truth takes too long to catch up to the lies. I don't blame people for believing Bush: they are scared about terrorism, used to trusting their leaders, and the media has almost completely dropped the ball on its coverage of this administration.

kat

Oct25-03, 06:51 AM

Lol, do you guys have your nose tilted towards the ceiling and are you sipping tea with your little pinky finger slightly extended when you put these ideas forth? Thanks for the early morning grin[;)]

Just to make me feel all yummy inside, can you substantiate these particular statements with direct quotes and links to the government site that keeps the entire transcript, with exact wording for me? Oh, and a list of the exact types of "WMD" you're referencing, with references to reliable sites?
Otherwise, in my opiinion, your claims just fall down along the wayside with the rest of the useless rhetoric that goes for "fact" on this particular forum.[g)] Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeild shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name)

Thanks a bunch[a)]

Zero

Oct25-03, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by kat
Lol, do you guys have your nose tilted towards the ceiling and are you sipping tea with your little pinky finger slightly extended when you put these ideas forth? Thanks for the early morning grin[;)]

Just to make me feel all yummy inside, can you substantiate these particular statements with direct quotes and links to the government site that keeps the entire transcript, with exact wording for me? Oh, and a list of the exact types of "WMD" you're referencing, with references to reliable sites?
Otherwise, in my opiinion, your claims just fall down along the wayside with the rest of the useless rhetoric that goes for "fact" on this particular forum.[g)]

Thanks a bunch[a)] Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok? You managed to sign up to PF, and I've seen you post links, so I think you might be able to handle Google. You need to be willing to invest some effort in your own knowledge. Otherwise, should you fall along the wayside with all the rest of the people who don't bother to inform themselves?(In other words, kat, don't be rude or condesending, it is bad manners.)[:D]

russ_watters

Oct25-03, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by RageSk8
The funny thing is that this is how I (and from my readings on this forum, Zero as well) feel about most of your and Russ's posts. Part of the problem is that both sides (conservatives, and liberals) pick and choose which evidence to emphasize (this is the whole problem of bias). But, I think, the larger problem is that we ask different questions (maybe not on this issue but most issues). This is not a disadvantage of democracy, it is one of the core advantages of democracy. By having different people attack issues at different angles and debating, our society hardly ever becomes myopic. Sure views hardly change until new evidence is produced by one side, but a single view, a single perspecitve never becomes dominant. I'll certainly give you that. Different things are important to us. However, I've always taken the position that political science is as its name implies a science and if studied objectively can be figured out. I'd have to ask where you are getting your 'facts'. I know you don't go in for blustery right-wing whackos like Rush Limbaugh, so what sources are you using? A sampling of the mainstream media for the most part. No, I do not watch Fox News.The evidence is piling up against the Bush administration though, soon I doubt people like Russ will be able to continue their lines of argument (on Iraq). My line of reasoning has never been quite the same as Bush's anyway though. I'd like to see someone argue these points too, instead of hiding behind the 'you just don't know anything' posts. Teach us! Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok? Touche' Zero.

This is of course part of the problem - the research itself is easily enough biased. If we do your research for you, we won't see the same things you see. You have to substantiate your own claims.

Kat and I are at a disadvantage in this of course. We are in the position of defending against attacks and it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. So its the positive facts (yours, Zero) that need to be evaluated.

Zero

Oct25-03, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters

Kat and I are at a disadvantage in this of course. We are in the position of defending against attacks and it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. So its the positive facts (yours, Zero) that need to be evaluated. Let's take an example...Did Bush say that an attack on America by Iraq was imminent? Yes, or no, Russ?

Zero

Oct25-03, 03:53 PM

Ask me for something easy, like for me to explain to you how quantum mechanics works, in a single post. Like I said, do a little research, starting probably at http://www.spinsanity.org/ or http://www.dailyhowler.com , and follow the links they provide.

kat

Oct26-03, 08:01 AM

Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok? You managed to sign up to PF, and I've seen you post links, so I think you might be able to handle Google. You need to be willing to invest some effort in your own knowledge. Otherwise, should you fall along the wayside with all the rest of the people who don't bother to inform themselves?(In other words, kat, don't be rude or condesending, it is bad manners.)
How about this: When you make a claim, particularly an accusation of lying, cheating, stealing etc., have the intellectual honesty to support it with direct quotes when asked to. If you haven't seen the direct quotes, from the source, then it's probably prudent not to make the claim until you have, as the media seems to be an unreliable source. I don't feel I need to do research to support your claim, or anyone elses. I do research to support MY claims, so..when I make a claim, you can usually be pretty sure that I can give you a direct source quote or reference.

Originally posted by Zero
Let's take an example...Did Bush say that an attack on America by Iraq was imminent? Yes, or no, Russ?

If he did, then one would not have to follow your links to find the statement. He would only need to go and read the transcripts. Which always seem to be shown in a misleading manner by the press. Take for instance the State of the Union address http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
The only time he uses the word "imminent" is in this manner "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." So, I don't know, that doesn't appear to say there is an imminent threat, in facts it appears to suggest it's not an imminent threat, and that instead we should not wait..until it is..imminent..I see a slight difference in this direct quote.....
Did he use it in the manner your asking about in another speach? if so...we will be able to find it in a transcript.

Zero

Oct26-03, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by kat
How about this: When you make a claim, particularly an accusation of lying, cheating, stealing etc., have the intellectual honesty to support it with direct quotes when asked to. If you haven't seen the direct quotes, from the source, then it's probably prudent not to make the claim until you have, as the media seems to be an unreliable source. I don't feel I need to do research to support your claim, or anyone elses. I do research to support MY claims, so..when I make a claim, you can usually be pretty sure that I can give you a direct source quote or reference.

If he did, then one would not have to follow your links to find the statement. He would only need to go and read the transcripts. Which always seem to be shown in a misleading manner by the press. Take for instance the State of the Union address http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
The only time he uses the word "imminent" is in this manner "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." So, I don't know, that doesn't appear to say there is an imminent threat, in facts it appears to suggest it's not an imminent threat, and that instead we should not wait..until it is..imminent..I see a slight difference in this direct quote.....
Did he use it in the manner your asking about in another speach? if so...we will be able to find it in a transcript. See, that is the sort of 'lazy' reporting that goes on around Bush...he uses the word "imminent" once, and in the way you describe. However, the definition of the word 'imminent' is :About to occur; impending. Bush certainly used language to suggest that Iraq could actually hurt America in the near future, including in your own link. He(well, his speech writers) is also a master of avoiding making direct claims that a Google search can bring up to bite him in the butt.

For instance, Bush said in a speech, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."(google the quote...Is is in an October 2002 speech in Cincinati)

'On any given day' means the same thing as 'imminent', doesn't it? If you speak English, I mean? Remember, Bush supporters were saying we had to strike first, before Iraq hit us. Do you mean to suggest, kat, that we couldn't wait for the U.N. inspectors to finish their job, because Iraq could hit us 15 years from now?

kat

Oct26-03, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Zero
See, that is the sort of 'lazy' reporting that goes on around Bush...he uses the word "imminent" once, and in the way you describe. However, the definition of the word 'imminent' is :About to occur; impending. Bush certainly used language to suggest that Iraq could actually hurt America in the near future, including in your own link. He(well, his speech writers) is also a master of avoiding making direct claims that a Google search can bring up to bite him in the butt.I don't need you to provide the definition of imminent to understand that when someone says..we do not need to wait for...then it is not a present reality..although, they are suggesting it could be a future reality. SO quite clearly...Bush made a statement that = "there is no known imminent threat".
For instance, Bush said in a speech, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."(google the quote...Is is in an October 2002 speech in Cincinati) This statement was supported by David Kays' report.

'On any given day' means the same thing as 'imminent', doesn't it? If you speak English, I mean? I'm not familiar with using those terms as interchangable. I speak English. Remember, Bush supporters were saying we had to strike first, before Iraq hit us. What Bush supporters said[x=] what Bush said. Bush did not say that Iraq was an "imminent threat" no matter how many omelets you would like to create on a sunday morning.
Do you mean to suggest, kat, that we couldn't wait for the U.N. inspectors to finish their job, because Iraq could hit us 15 years from now? Must you cloud the conversation with random accusations like this? I've not suggested anything except that you and chem freak make unsubstantiated claims and pass them off as fact with out supporting them with direct quotes from readily available transcripts. I find that dishonest.

RageSk8

Oct27-03, 02:53 AM

"Revisionism

As previously noted, a current talking point among the apologists is that no one ever claimed that Saddam actually posed an imminent threat—but rather, we had to invade because he might someday become a threat.

Well, it seems to be true that the Bush administration never used the word "imminent"--in much the same way they never claimed that Saddam Hussein was literally the mastermind behind 9/11--but in the latter case, they certainly linked the two together at every opportunity, and in the former, the administration and its various mouthpieces certainly did everything possible to indicate that time was of the essence and we had to act now and we simply couldn't wait blah blah blah.

Case in point: a speech by the President on October 8, 2002. First, let’s get a little 9/11 linkage in there:
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Okay, now let’s make sure people understand that time is of the essence.
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

Okay, not imminent, exactly—but it sure doesn’t sound like we can afford to wait much longer! What kind of threat are we talking about, exactly?
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

--snip--
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not required for a chemical or biological attack -- all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

So there are various ways in which Saddam could attack us at any moment with his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, which we know he has! It’s no wonder our concern is "urgent!"
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Okay, we "cannot wait." We have a "gathering" threat. Our concern is "urgent." We are facing "clear evidence of peril." There's a consistent message here, and if you think it is, "there's no hurry, time is on our side," then you are, perhaps, not the sharpest knife in the proverbial drawer.

My point is, imminence as both a specific and general concept was undeniably in the air in the buildup to war. For instance, here's a Denver Post editorial from Sept. 26, 2002 (via Lexis, so I don't have a link for you):
Iraq's Saddam Hussein can unleash chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of his command, according to a 50-page dossier released by the British government.

The new information, released by Prime Minister Tony Blair, is precisely what we've been waiting to hear.

Iraq poses an imminent threat to world safety. Imminent being the key word.

Okay, you say, but the editorial writer only comes up with the word "imminent" in reference to the British government's 45-minute claim. Well, yes--but those of you with longer memories than, say, Andrew Sullivan, will recall that our President was not above mentioning that claim a time or two himself:
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

That’s from the Washington Post, July 20, 2003. (The "Global Message" mentioned is still available on the White House website, as of this writing). As I say, the Bushies may never have specifically used the word "imminent"—but that’s just a matter of splitting hairs so fine, you’re almost working on a subatomic level. Because they sure as hell implied it at every possibility, and anyone who claims not to understand that is either an outright liar or simply so stupid it’s hard to imagine that they are able to get up in the morning and remember to put their socks on before their shoes.

One other point. People have been quoting this bit from the State of the Union address lately:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Yes, it’s a denial--but it’s an after the fact denial. At the point in time when he says this, he’s already been using the 45-minute claim for months, as well as giving speeches like the one I quote above. This line is a response to critics, pure CYA. "Imminent? I never said ‘imminent’!" This has no more bearing on the discussion than any other Bush administration after-the-fact denial—what Josh Marshall frequently calls "up-is-downism." As simply as possible, for the comprehension-impaired amoung you: this one paragraph does not negate the fact that he spent the previous several months implying precisely the opposite.

Okay?

Well then. I’m certainly glad we had this little chat."

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_10_12.html#001141

kat

Oct27-03, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by RageSk8

Okay, not imminent, exactly—but it sure doesn’t sound like we can afford to wait much longer!

Thanks for the confirmation. It's always nice to have someone affirm the facts. Bush did not say "imminent threat".
Now, if you want to ask me if Bush gave a sense of urgency to his statements, well I guess...I would agree that the facts support that statement. In other words, you wouldn't be lying.

NEXT HALF TRUTH, PLEASE!

Zero

Oct27-03, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by kat
Thanks for the confirmation. It's always nice to have someone affirm the facts. Bush did not say "imminent threat".
Now, if you want to ask me if Bush gave a sense of urgency to his statements, well I guess...I would agree that the facts support that statement. In other words, you wouldn't be lying.

NEXT HALF TRUTH, PLEASE! Every time Bush speaks, it is a half truth...isn't that enough? No, he didn't say thop\se words, but he certainly gave America that impression. And, if there wasn't an immediate threat, then Bush is a criminal in my eyes.

Zero

Oct27-03, 10:15 AM

My real question is: why is it that the only people on the entire planet who trust and support Bush are American Republicans? Are the billions who distrust Bush wrong, or are the Republicans blinded by lies, dogma, and near-religious faith that anyone who claims yo be 'conservative' must be good?

kat

Oct27-03, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Every time Bush speaks, it is a half truth...isn't that enough? I think sometimes Zero, you are addicted to hyperbole like others are addicted to cheap medication.[;)]
No, he didn't say thop\se words, but he certainly gave America that impression. And, if there wasn't an immediate threat, then Bush is a criminal in my eyes. I have never had an in person discussion with anyone who thought that Bush declared Iraq an "imminent" threat. Nor anyone who considered that Bush considered Iraq an Immediate threat. I associate with an older, well traveled and discriminate crowd, that may have something to do with it. However, if the majority of the U.S. could not discriminate between imminent and future possible/probably then I suggest there are other serious issues we should be discussing. If you find Bush's speach making criminal then I suggest you push for charges against all past living presidents, as they are all guilty of it.

kat

Oct27-03, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Zero
My real question is: why is it that the only people on the entire planet who trust and support Bush are American Republicans? Are the billions who distrust Bush wrong, or are the Republicans blinded by lies, dogma, and near-religious faith that anyone who claims yo be 'conservative' must be good? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fustian

Zero

Oct27-03, 01:50 PM

No, kat, what is illegal is invading other countries without a good justification for it. There was obviously time to form an international coalition to bring freedom to Iraq, since they were no threat to anyone. Bush chose to shut out the world, and the proof of his error is apparent, isn't it?

kat

Oct27-03, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Zero
No, kat, what is illegal is invading other countries without a good justification for it. There was obviously time to form an international coalition to bring freedom to Iraq, since they were no threat to anyone. Bush chose to shut out the world, and the proof of his error is apparent, isn't it?

The proof of the error that is apparent are hundreds upon hundreds of mass graves that people are quite literally tripping over all over the country. The mounds of skulls and body parts, many still clutching their possessions, including children clutching the hands of their parents, dolls and other toys. The error in reality was neglect, the neglect to value the life of 10's of thousands of people fighting for the freedom from oppression and brutality. The error was that we were not there to assist them when they needed us.
No meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader should ever be allowed to remain in office for a decade after slaughtering the people they are given the trust to care for like this one did.
Ignoring THAT for a decade is criminal on so many levels and by so many different world leaders I haven't the fingers or toes to count them.
So for those reasons, I cannot, will not agree that there was "obviously time" as time had already run out a decade before.

Zero

Oct27-03, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by kat
The proof of the error that is apparent are hundreds upon hundreds of mass graves that people are quite literally tripping over all over the country. The mounds of skulls and body parts, many still clutching their possessions, including children clutching the hands of their parents, dolls and other toys. The error in reality was neglect, the neglect to value the life of 10's of thousands of people fighting for the freedom from oppression and brutality. The error was that we were not there to assist them when they needed us.
No meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader should ever be allowed to remain in office for a decade after slaughtering the people they are given the trust to care for like this one did.
Ignoring THAT for a decade is criminal on so many levels and by so many different world leaders I haven't the fingers or toes to count them.
So for those reasons, I cannot, will not agree that there was "obviously time" as time had already run out a decade before. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah?[6)]
One decade, or two? Remember, that "meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader" was an ally of the U.S. during the 80s.

I also know of a decade of sanctions that caused the starvation of half a million children.

And none of that justified a preemptive attack on another country without an international consensus. If we didn't Invade Iraq while Saddam Hussien was 'gassing his own people'(Thanks, Reagan, good call invading Grenada instead!), then waiting 6 months to avoid teh current debacle would have been worth it. Iraq is liable to be less free now than it was under Saddam Hussien..thanks to the religious and social issues involved, terrorism is stronger today than it was 2 years ago, and we have alienated the entire world.
This makes Bush a good president how, exactly?

pelastration

Oct27-03, 03:40 PM

I am not a tax-payer in US. Most of you are. Will you ask: What's the game Mr. President?

Check this: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/081203.html

From providing the weapons and tanks that took us to Baghdad, to the personnel rebuilding dams and bridges or operating ports, to the pencils and lesson plans revamping the education system for young Iraqis, private American corporations are spearheading U.S. campaigns in Iraq and reaping the financial rewards of warfare.

Private corporations have played an unprecedented role in the Second Gulf War, and from the looks of just one more number—$680 million, the projected contract with Bechtel Group Inc. for its reconstructive work in Iraq—they will continue to do so.

Some of jobs undertaken by the Bechtels and the Halliburtons- such as rebuilding water and electrical systems for instance are necessary and important. Yet as a nation and a democracy we must ponder seriously whether such private corporations, with firm connections to our leadership, are necessarily the ones who should be handed these jobs. The privatization of the United States military is not a new controversy. P.W. Singer’s new book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2003) offers insights into the questions that should be asked about the unprecedented levels of privatization of military planning, training, construction, and services that were pursued during the Clinton/Gore administration and have been accelerated under the Bush/Cheney administration. If the experience thus far in Iraq is any indication, we clearly have a long way to go before we establish the appropriate balance between profits and patriotism in the use of private corporations to implement our national security strategy.

From a taxpayers’ perspective, the most important question is how many billions of dollars has our government paid private corporations to ensure a final victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom—whatever "victory" ultimately comes to mean?

kat

Oct27-03, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah?[6)]
One decade, or two? Remember, that "meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader" was an ally of the U.S. during the 80s.

I also know of a decade of sanctions that caused the starvation of half a million children.

And none of that justified a preemptive attack on another country without an international consensus. If we didn't Invade Iraq while Saddam Hussien was 'gassing his own people'(Thanks, Reagan, good call invading Grenada instead!), then waiting 6 months to avoid teh current debacle would have been worth it. Iraq is liable to be less free now than it was under Saddam Hussien..thanks to the religious and social issues involved, terrorism is stronger today than it was 2 years ago, and we have alienated the entire world.
This makes Bush a good president how, exactly?

Your veering from fact into half truths again. Their was an international consensus. As for Iraq and freedom, much of Iraq has already reached a level of freedom it did not have prior. Whether that freedom will spread or not is something we will have to all wait and see. I don't agree with the way the aftermath was handled, But I don't see it as the doomsday forecast you feel the need to put forth. "the entire world" really, enough with the hyperbole.

kat

Oct27-03, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by pelastration

From a taxpayers’ perspective, the most important question is how many billions of dollars has our government paid private corporations to ensure a final victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom—whatever "victory" ultimately comes to mean?

I think there are some serious issues here, many that could be addressed publicly that would have people in an uproar, unlike the mega amounts of "hyperbole" (this is my word for the day[;)] ) that just seems to be putting people asleep.
Iraq has a large supply of talent and experienced architects and engineers. They appear to be absolutely, incredulous at the bill that is being put forth for the various repairs of bridges and buildings.
It is also a HUGE disgrace that they are not being utilized to a greater extent for the re-building of Iraq. For that, not only Bush but the entire admin attached to the rebuilding of Iraq, "Suck".

FZ+

Oct27-03, 07:15 PM

Your veering from fact into half truths again. Their was an international consensus.
Actually, there wasn't. (Notice how the white house is smart enough not to use that "we were following the UN directive" argument nowadays?) That's because the claim of the US and UK is no longer that Iraq had WMDs - which was the issue specifically held by 1441, which there was an UN consensus on, and was established by the UK attorney general as the sole legal basis for the war - but that Iraq had WMD programs, or worse an "intention to develop WMDs at some future date", which did not have any sort of UN consensus behind it.

Yes, there was an UN consensus - to disarm Saddam, one thing that the US invasion did not do. As far as this particular issue is concerned, at present Bush can be said to have lied to the world.

kat

Oct27-03, 10:33 PM

FZ- An international consensus is not the same thing as an united nations consensus. 2 or more countries reaching a consensus = international consensus. We certainly did reach an international consensus.

Yes, there was an UN consensus - to disarm Saddam, one thing that the US invasion did not do. As far as this particular issue is concerned, at present Bush can be said to have lied to the world. I'm sure you can provide the quote from the transcript(s) of the speach(es) in which he lied then.

Zero

Oct28-03, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by kat
I think there are some serious issues here, many that could be addressed publicly that would have people in an uproar, unlike the mega amounts of "hyperbole" (this is my word for the day[;)] ) that just seems to be putting people asleep.
Iraq has a large supply of talent and experienced architects and engineers. They appear to be absolutely, incredulous at the bill that is being put forth for the various repairs of bridges and buildings.
It is also a HUGE disgrace that they are not being utilized to a greater extent for the re-building of Iraq. For that, not only Bush but the entire admin attached to the rebuilding of Iraq, "Suck". I wonder how we can agree on this, and not on so many other things...

Zero

Oct28-03, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by kat
FZ- An international consensus is not the same thing as an united nations consensus. 2 or more countries reaching a consensus = international consensus. We certainly did reach an international consensus.
This sounds like the sort of 'lie' we are talking about. You know, similar to Clinton's twisted parsing in regards to his 'sexual relations'? Do you honestly mean to tell me that 'international consensus' means 'two countries'? And do you think that definition, though possibly technically accurate, would actually hold up in practice? Checking dictionary.com, we see that 'consensus' means:

1)An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
2)General agreement or accord
3)Agreement; accord; consent
4)agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief

Obviously, there was no consensus here. I don't think you were lying, so don't start screaming at me. I do think that bush's speechwriters chose their words very carefully, in order to give the impression of one thing, while technically meaning another, in order to intentionally mislead the American public.

kat

Oct28-03, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Zero
or belief

Obviously, there was no consensus here. I don't think you were lying, so don't start screaming at me. I do think that bush's speechwriters chose their words very carefully, in order to give the impression of one thing, while technically meaning another, in order to intentionally mislead the American public.

I think that the use of "no international consensus" is just as misleading.(personally, I think Bush made a mistake to bring it before the U.N., I think he should have followed the same path as Clinton in that matter, as far as reaching his goal effectively.) Not having the support of the security counsel does not mean there was no international consensus. The use of the term from either end of the spectrum is loaded to suggest more then it should. Maybe it's better to skip the use of the well baited rhetorical terms, period.

kat

Oct28-03, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I wonder how we can agree on this, and not on so many other things...
We'd probably come to a consensus on quite a few other areas if you skipped the bellicose language. I'm very serious with this coment.

Zero

Oct28-03, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by kat
We'd probably come to a consensus on quite a few other areas if you skipped the bellicose language. I'm very serious with this coment. What can I say, I'm a fireplug?

You say Bush made a mistake going to the U.N....why? Because the U.N. wouldn't support his war for no reason? The fact that he is going to teh U.N. for help now is proof enough that he should have waited for them before the war. One of the things Bush's dad got right was putting together real support before the war. Also, some sort of plan for teh occupation should have been in place before the war, instead of this pollyanna attitude that democracy would happen right after the huge happy parade the Iraqis were supposed to have for 3 straight weeks after America invaded.

FZ+

Oct28-03, 05:31 PM

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. (This is true, but authorisation no longer exists now with the admission that it was supposedly "programs" we were looking at, not actual weapons.)

Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. (This, refering to France's statement, is a blatant misrepresentation of their statement, which added the qualifier "at this time", and called for additional time for the inspectors)

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.

Bush in March

kat

Oct30-03, 11:30 AM

FZ- I think there are some problems with what your putting forth as lies. I don't really have time to dig up the data to support that until perhaps this weekend. I think that David Kay's report may dispute some of your suggested lies. Have you read it in full?

kat

Oct30-03, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Zero
What can I say, I'm a fireplug?

You say Bush made a mistake going to the U.N....why? Because the U.N. wouldn't support his war for no reason? No, because there was Succesful prescedent not to follow that route. The fact that he is going to teh U.N. for help now is proof enough that he should have waited for them before the war.This is not the route that Clinton followed during his tenure, on several occasions not just in regard to Iraq. He also found support within the U.N., after the action. One of the things Bush's dad got right was putting together real support before the war. Except that he did not, and probably could not get enough support to gather U.N. support to go in and remove saddam saving the tens of thousands men, women and children slaughtered by Saddam while we were right there. I think Bush 1, should have, and could have gone in and prevented the slaughter. Also, some sort of plan for teh occupation should have been in place before the war, instead of this pollyanna attitude that democracy would happen right after the huge happy parade the Iraqis were supposed to have for 3 straight weeks after America invaded. There was a plan, and I don't think that there was an assumption that democracy would magically appear. I am quite sure that I remember quite well hearing that we should expect to be there a long time and that it would not happen over night. I do agree with you that their plan was not sufficient and that there should have been much better planning and preperation including a more comphrensive set of contingency plans.