News Is Re-Electing Bush a Mistake Given His Presidential Record?

[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 statements 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 that's 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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

A History of Refusing to Release Documents

...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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What George Bush and Rick Perry don't want you to know

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]

100 Reasons to choose from

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