Can Legislation Prevent Leaders from Misleading Congress into War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chi Meson
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around strong negative sentiments toward former President George W. Bush and his administration, particularly regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Participants express frustration over the perceived lack of accountability and the emotional responses elicited by his policies. There is a debate about the appropriateness of outrage towards political leaders and whether such emotions can lead to rational decision-making. The conversation also touches on media influence, public apathy, and the challenges of finding unbiased news sources. Overall, the thread reflects deep dissatisfaction with Bush's legacy and the impact of his leadership on American society.
  • #51
Less than 24 hours left!

ANI_WOOODY.GIF

01snooopy.gif
 

Attachments

  • ANI_WOOODY.GIF
    ANI_WOOODY.GIF
    4.7 KB · Views: 338
  • 01snooopy.gif
    01snooopy.gif
    5.4 KB · Views: 377
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
He's still getting a little work done. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean just got their sentences commuted:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6mH44rWD9yyZf_AZ7YxQDVFL7WwD95QC1FO0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Math Is Hard said:
He's still getting a little work done. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean just got their sentences commuted:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6mH44rWD9yyZf_AZ7YxQDVFL7WwD95QC1FO0

Lou Dobbs will be dancing a jig this afternoon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
turbo-1 said:
W has no regard for human life, unless it happens to be a fetus - then he is "on the job".

And what did he do for fetuses?? OK, the late term abortion bill, but even Biden voted for that... Actually, he probably increased abortion even taking the late term abortion bill in account since he cut family planning support to the Third World. It has been shown that when women are denied birth control they use abortion as the birth control of last resort.

So he really wasn't even interested in the life of the fetus.
 
  • #55
http://users.telenet.be/yitian/goodbye-600.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
What I want to know is where is the media coverage of Bush's welcome home party in Midland Texas?

Oh wait. Here it is:
Meanwhile, in Midland: Bush's homecoming
Hundreds of people have begun streaming into Centennial Plaza in downtown Midland for a welcome-home rally for ex-President Bush. Eight years ago, Bush held a final good-by rally in the place before heading to Washington for his inauguration. On Tuesday, after attending Barack Obama's swearing-in in Washington, the former president and first lady headed back to Texas for a 5:20 p.m. event. Thousands are expected. Bush loyalists -- some festooned with Bush-friendly buttons -- were given large red and blue W signs and Texas flags. On each side of a large outdoor stage are huge screens with the Texas flag and and words "Welcome Home President and Mrs. Bush."

Midland bling-bling for George W. Bush's Homecoming

Supporters dismissed the problems, praised the man. "We're very proud of him," said Kenneth Reynolds of Midland. "In my opinion he's done an outstanding job. He's done a good job for our economy out here in West Texas. I don't think had anything to do with the economy problem -- it was other people. "
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/01/meanwhile-in-midland-bushs-hom.html

I see it wasn't his fault.
 
  • #57
Math Is Hard said:
He's still getting a little work done. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean just got their sentences commuted:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6mH44rWD9yyZf_AZ7YxQDVFL7WwD95QC1FO0

Only two.

Randall "Duke" Cunningham, Edwin Edwards, George Ryan, Michael Milken, Bob Ney, Ted Stevens, Jack Abramoff, all left off the list (as was John Walker Lindh, but, seriously).

No pre-emptive pardons for anyone in the Bush administration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
LowlyPion said:
I see it wasn't his fault.

Can't be his fault, because he really didn't do anything.
 
  • #60
OMG.

I have just found out that W was a virtual management twin of one of my old bosses.

Whilst perusing the web I ran across some controversy about how Obama had changed the dress code in the white house:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.html?_r=1"
New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: January 28, 2009

Thus did an ironclad rule of the George W. Bush administration — coat and tie in the Oval Office at all times — fall by the wayside ...

My experience:

OmCheeto's old boss said:
Your socks are too short. Yes. It's a clause in the dress code. I'm afraid I'm going to have to put it in your personnel file. Consider this your first warning. 3 more warnings and you will be terminated. Do you understand?
(Abbreviated sport socks are not allowed. Abbreviated sport socks are those that are defined as those socks that do not extend at least 2" above the ankle.)

For years following, this was known as the "Sock Wars". I was also rudely referred henceforth to as "Mr. Sissy Socks" by my fellow coworkers.

I should have filed a lawsuit for harassment...

From the above mentioned New York Times story:
Under Mr. Bush, punctuality was a virtue. Meetings started early — the former president once locked Secretary of State Colin L. Powell out of the Cabinet Room when Mr. Powell showed up a few minutes late — and ended on time.

Guess what...

OmCheeto's old boss said:
I've written you another reprimand. This time for not showing up on time for work. I had the administrative assistant go over your timesheets for the last year, and you have been late 120 times out of the 210 working days. This is highly inappropriate. You have 2 more warnings left, and then you will be terminated.

hmmmm... what did the analysis, which consumed 4 hours of the AA's time, look like you might ask?

Late! 1 minute on 60 separate occasions.
Late! 2 minutes on 30 separate occasions.

....

Sorry to bring this up and remind you all of him, but when I saw how, as our president, he dwelled on pedantic petty trivialities, it brought up old bad memories, and I just had to vent.

:redface:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
What of G. W. Bush's personality now? Although I am not qualified to make a professional diagnosis and have never met the man, I suspect that he may experience one or more of Napoleonic complex, depression, addictive and avoidant personality, and pathological lying.

We all have negative personality traits, and he is no exception. I am pretty sure he is loved by his family and close friends, but such relationships you can't elect. He seems to me more concerned with his inner circle than the rest of the world. I guess he was nominated more for his ability as a figurehead to endure and deflect confrontation, and project his good-old-boy image, than for any true talent or ability.

It is uncanny how his face resembles various masks (e. g., Ancient Greek theater). Have you seen monkey face comparisons to his?
 
  • #62
As regards methods of ejection I was going to go with a trebuchet, but settled on this, I'm sure you have a few lying about if you want to fire him into the sun or another star somewhere?

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/4D9CB8F4-AA0E-4FCD-92C2-275836C4862C/0/chp_rocket.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
Loren Booda said:
I guess he was nominated more for his ability as a figurehead to endure and deflect confrontation, and project his good-old-boy image, than for any true talent or ability.
He was nominated because the "machine" picked him as their usable puppet. He was never truly in control. McCain should have been our leader for the past 8 years, but he was not answerable to the machine. A large group of non-politicized people can see through the chatter, and when McCain talked on the trail in 1999, we heard a person who could actually think and perform according to his own set of convictions.

But he was derailed by the Rove-Cheney-Addington bulldozer. Exactly where? South Carolina. A bait was laid, McCain took it, and it was over.

This time around, McCain was clearly compromised by the machine, and it was very sad t see.

Similarly, on the other side, the Dems had their own machine behind Clinton. Obama took over the clearly predecided favorite with ingenuity and his own version of the "straight talk express." When his position finally became clear, the infiltration of that machine also came clear, hence the nominations of certain people who seemed to lack the moral shimmer we were promised.

I am still optimistic, but less so than two weeks ago. I'm glad to hear the admission from O that the defense of Daschle was wrong, I truly wish that it had been sooner, and before Daschle pulled himself out. He should have said "Sorry man, stick around, but you don't get the job; you blew it." That would have been fabulous. A terribly-missed opportunity to win over a million people with borderline opinions about Obama. That opportunity is gone.
 
  • #64
Chi Meson said:
He was nominated because the "machine" picked him as their usable puppet. He was never truly in control. McCain should have been our leader for the past 8 years, but he was not answerable to the machine. A large group of non-politicized people can see through the chatter, and when McCain talked on the trail in 1999, we heard a person who could actually think and perform according to his own set of convictions.

But he was derailed by the Rove-Cheney-Addington bulldozer. Exactly where? South Carolina. A bait was laid, McCain took it, and it was over.
Agreed. I was very bitter about that.
This time around, McCain was clearly compromised by the machine, and it was very sad t see.
I'm not sure if I would word it that way. McCain still had the same issues in the primary as he did 8 years ago, which was why he started off a big underdog. But once he won the primary, he was the candidate, which by default means he ended up with the support of "the machine" and they shaped his campaign. But a lot of that was despiration anyway and with what happened to the economy in September and October, his odds of winning were never that good. With where he stood in August, I thought he was going to win: he was an underdog, and gaining, which is exactly where he likes to be.
Similarly, on the other side, the Dems had their own machine behind Clinton. Obama took over the clearly predecided favorite with ingenuity and his own version of the "straight talk express."
Yes, Obama was in a similar position to the one McCain was in in 2000 - but Obama beat the machine and McCain didn't. I wonder if Obama gave Hillary that cabinet position as thanks for Bill helping him win the primary! :smile:
When his position finally became clear, the infiltration of that machine also came clear, hence the nominations of certain people who seemed to lack the moral shimmer we were promised.
I don't think I'd say that. I think Obama wants to be different, it's just that he and his constituents are naive about whether or not it is possible to truly be different. The goals of getting experienced and, shall we say, "uncompromised" advisors are mutually exclusive and Obama went with experience and it bit him in the rear.
I am still optimistic, but less so than two weeks ago. I'm glad to hear the admission from O that the defense of Daschle was wrong, I truly wish that it had been sooner, and before Daschle pulled himself out. He should have said "Sorry man, stick around, but you don't get the job; you blew it." That would have been fabulous. A terribly-missed opportunity to win over a million people with borderline opinions about Obama. That opportunity is gone.
I agree. Obama admitted he was wrong, which was nice but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't do the right thing in the first test of his leadership character that he faced (actually, it was the third, wasn't it...?).

The question I have is why didn't he do the right thing and pull Daschle's (and the others?) nomination? My perception: it's intestinal fortitude. And that's something that always worries me about democrats. Sooner or later, he's going to have a real test (this was minor) and he's going to need guts.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Yes, but does anyone think Obama will lock Clinton out of a cabinet meeting because she spent too much time putting on her lipstick?

Though I think it might be a funny joke to play on her one day. Does anyone have Barack's number?
 
  • #66
OmCheeto said:
Yes, but does anyone think Obama will lock Clinton out of a cabinet meeting because she spent too much time putting on her lipstick?
If she's late for that reason, he damn well should!
 
  • #67
This is the first I heard that Bush locked out his Sec. of State from a cabinet meeting. Since Colin Powell was one of the few, if not the only senior cabinet member that was NOT already singing the same song, I have no doubt that the lockout was a convenience to them who wanted an opportunity to push through the agenda without any counterpoint.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Bush is gone and good riddance I say.

Locking out Powell and lecturing on dress code is about the level of pettiness I think that he operated on. Forget unfettering polluters, and reducing budgets of regulation agencies, and using Federal Attorneys for partisan ends, and embarking on an agenda of foreign aggression. No Powell was late ... lock him out. Coat and tie or you won't be seated. So petty. Hurricane in New Orleans? No sport coats allowed.

To hear Cheney talking freely and proudly about trampling the Bill of Rights and casting his ominous prediction of renewed terrorism because their way of enhanced interrogation was the only way is just the most ridiculous self-serving nonsense.

He and Bush I suppose will spend the remainder of their years trying to convince anyone who may listen how they should be grateful for the disservice they have done to the economy, the Constitution and our standing in the world. I rather think the only thing they will really be doing is trying to convince themselves that they did a good job.
 
  • #69
And let there be no more:

http://www.military.com/veterans-report/bill-seeks-to-punish-those-who-mislead-into-war?ESRC=vr.nl"

Week of February 16, 2009
U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced legislation that would impose fines or prison time on presidents or executive-branch officials who "knowingly and willfully" mislead Congress to gain authorization to use U.S. military forces. The Executive Accountability Act was introduced last week and is co-sponsored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-HI. If passed, the act would apply only to current and future presidential administrations and executive branches. The act calls for fines or up to 10 years in prison for leaders found guilty of misleading Congress in order to get authorization to go to war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top