MedLine said:Within my own circle of friends, many of them have an extreme hatred for George W. Bush, but when I ask them why, exactly, it is that they hate him they have given some pretty wild answers. So my challenge to you is, tell me why you hate/dislike/have a problem with him without having to look it up or fact check yourself; I am curious as to what the support for his hatred is. Some will be legitimate some will not, let's discuss.
MedLine
The Bush claim was not that there were WMDs left over from the 80s, but that Saddam had started new WMD programs.MedLine said:This is what I feel has happened to Bush. Yes, he has made bad decisions, yes he often sounds like a buffoon, but the main reason people dislike him (in my opinion and personal experience) is the war on Iraq and the urban legend that there were no WMDs found in Iraq.
Fox said:WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.
Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
...
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
Please do name them, along with specific quotes where they expressed such favor. If you don't have any actual quotes, don't bother.I guess I also should have pointed out the prominent democrats that were in favor of the war to begin with but later jumped shipped.
Unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.MedLine said:2.) To be honest, I created this thread to bait people into this specific discussion. Do you think the WMD argument is false? It has clearly been proven so from the liberals and regurgitated on CNN that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Or has it? How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
The point that I am trying to get across is that a huge number, if not the majority of people, that hate Bush hate him based on false beliefs and a fundamental misunderstanding of the term WMD.
One should provide the evidence to support these statements.MedLine said:The third major economic problem during his tenure would be the current crisis which current knowledge of the situation shows that it was caused by sub-prime loans predominantly and had a ripple effect throughout. I guess I should point out that sub-prime lending is a concept that was strongly pushed by the democrats.
MedLine said:2.) To be honest, I created this thread to bait people into this specific discussion. Do you think the WMD argument is false? It has clearly been proven so from the liberals and regurgitated on CNN that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Or has it? How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
The point that I am trying to get across is that a huge number, if not the majority of people, that hate Bush hate him based on false beliefs and a fundamental misunderstanding of the term WMD.
...
Like in many of my posts, there is a caveat. I am not some huge Bush fan or neo-con, although I do tend to side with many conservative policies I also side with numerous liberal ideas also. It just really irks me when people gang up on someone because it is the popular thing to do. This is what I feel has happened to Bush. Yes, he has made bad decisions, yes he often sounds like a buffoon, but the main reason people dislike him (in my opinion and personal experience) is the war on Iraq and the urban legend that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I guess I also should have pointed out the prominent democrats that were in favor of the war to begin with but later jumped shipped.
Medline
We know that Iraq has at least seven of these mobile, biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each. That means that the mobile production facilities are very few -- perhaps 18 trucks that we know of. There may be more. But perhaps 18 that we know of. Just imagine trying to find 18 trucks among the thousands and thousands of trucks that travel the roads of Iraq every single day.
It took the inspectors 4 years to find out that Iraq was making biological agents. How long do you think it will take the inspectors to find even one of these 18 trucks without Iraq coming forward as they are supposed to with the information about these kinds of capabilities.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are sophisticated facilities. For example, they can produce anthrax and botulinum toxin. In fact, they can produce enough dry, biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. A dry agent of this type is the most lethal form for human beings...
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction...
Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan...
Al-Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zakawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaida. Fortunately, this operative is now detained and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.
This senior al-Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of al-Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan. His information comes firsthand from his personal involvement at senior levels of al-Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased al-Qaida leader Mohammed Atef, did not believe that al-Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help.
Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq. The support that the describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abdullah al-Araqi had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gasses. Abdullah al-Araqi characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.
As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name, and this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.
With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take their place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.
MedLine said:2.) To be honest, I created this thread to bait people into this specific discussion. Do you think the WMD argument is false?
It has clearly been proven so from the liberals and regurgitated on CNN that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Or has it? How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
The point that I am trying to get across is that a huge number, if not the majority of people, that hate Bush hate him based on false beliefs and a fundamental misunderstanding of the term WMD.
You cannot compare the two.3.) Get real, you hate George Bush because he spews propaganda to news outlets? My first instinct is to ask for a particular case, my second is to point out that it is customary of a president to spew propaganda (Immediately after the infamous, "I did not have sex with that woman" stunt by Clinton, what did he do? Invaded Yugoslavia to distract voters from the scandal and the impeachment that would soon follow. And don't even try to go into the human rights argument because the same could be used for Iraq. Politics is an image which politicians must hone and refine.
Government Curries Favor With Military News Analysts
The Pentagon may influence the analysis of some retired military personnel who appear on television news programs, the New York Times recently reported. Media insiders discuss the details of this murky world of defense companies, the current administration and the war in Iraq. Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june08/tvgenerals_04-24.html
5.) Worsening our economic situation was based on a number of factors which least of all had to do with said tax cuts for the rich. Let's look at the downturn in the economy shortly after Bush took office which was considered the crash of the dot com bubble. Since the bubble began to burst before GB took office it can hardly be attributed to him. Then there was the economic turmoil after 9/11 which would also not be GB's fault and it surely wasnt due to said "giving rich people a tax break." The third major economic problem during his tenure would be the current crisis which current knowledge of the situation shows that it was caused by sub-prime loans predominantly and had a ripple effect throughout. I guess I should point out that sub-prime lending is a concept that was strongly pushed by the democrats.
Like in many of my posts, there is a caveat. I am not some huge Bush fan or neo-con, although I do tend to side with many conservative policies I also side with numerous liberal ideas also. It just really irks me when people gang up on someone because it is the popular thing to do. This is what I feel has happened to Bush. Yes, he has made bad decisions, yes he often sounds like a buffoon, but the main reason people dislike him (in my opinion and personal experience) is the war on Iraq and the urban legend that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I guess I also should have pointed out the prominent democrats that were in favor of the war to begin with but later jumped shipped.
Medline
Quoting from memory:MedLine said:How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
MedLine said:Do you think the WMD argument is false?
MedLine said:Several of you have questioned the economic part of my argument any I am not sure what exactly you are questioning. If you don't think that this current problem was largely started by the sub-prime market collapse and subsequent foreclosures than a quick google search should put your doubt to rest. If it is my claim that the democrats are the problem behind the subprime loan lending, take the Clinton Administration's push to expand the subprime market. You should also consider that the Bush adminstration tried to reign in the subprime market several times only to be met with considerable opposition from Barney Franks et al.
The first piece is about the Franks issue:
Democratic Fingerprints are all over crisis
This one is an old piece from 1999 about the Clinton administrations push for subprime lending:
Thank you Clinton for the subprime boom!
Unfortunately that's all the time I have right now. Have a good weekend everyone!
MedLine
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
More Americans own their homes than at any time in history. Minority home ownership has reached record levels. Consumer confidence is at its highest point in nearly 40 years, productivity is high, inflation is contained, manufacturing activity is growing and the small business sector is thriving.
That is incorrect. Fannie and Freddie http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/07/gse_to_gdp_jul_08.gif the mortgage secondary market of the US,including less than prime loans, except for one or two years mentioned in the misleading McLatchy piece. By 2007 they were once again leading the pack:Office_Shredder said:Everyone blames Clinton because he pushed Fannie and Freddie to make more subprime loans, and then subprime loans are what caused the crisis. Except that most subprime loans weren't purchased by Fannie and Freddie.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/05/bloomberg/bxmortgage.php?page=1IHT said:NEW YORK: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, once derided as white elephants of the mortgage market, are benefiting from the subprime-lending debacle and trampling just about anything in their way.
...
The companies' shares also got a boost after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac told Congress in April that they had committed to provide money to subprime lenders as home prices weakened.
Incorrect. The administration attempted to rein in the GSE's through legislative proposals, though they didn't try hard enough; IMO Bush could have taken direct executive action through the Treasury to stop them.Furthermore, Bush never really did anything to reign in the subprime market.
See S.190He had six years of a Republican Congress, what was he waiting for?
That's nearly exactly backwards. I'm unaware of any political leader saying the 'democrats caused all of it.' However, from the other side, the http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-dems-bear-no-responsibility-for-economic-crisis-2008-09-16.html:...Nobody's innocent in this mess, but to say the Democrats caused all of it (some people even blame Jimmy Carter... because nobody ever had a chance to repeal any of his laws) while the Republicans were trying to fight it is pretty disingenuous
TheHill said:House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”
mheslep said:That is incorrect. Fannie and Freddie http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/07/gse_to_gdp_jul_08.gif the mortgage secondary market of the US,including less than prime loans, except for one or two years mentioned in the misleading McLatchy piece. By 2007 they were once again leading the pack:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/05/bloomberg/bxmortgage.php?page=1
While subprime mortgages got battered, the fixed-rate loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prefer to package into bonds and guarantee increased to 82 percent of new mortgages from 63 percent in mid-2005. The amount of mortgage bonds sold or guaranteed by the companies rose by a net $93 billion this year, up 38 percent from the same period in 2006, according to estimates by Credit Suisse.
Incorrect. The administration attempted to rein in the GSE's through legislative proposals, though they didn't try hard enough; IMO Bush could have taken direct executive action through the Treasury to stop them.
Statements in 2003 by Sec Treasury Snow, Chairman CEA Mankiw
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1884163&postcount=22
See S.190p
That's nearly exactly backwards. I'm unaware of any political leader saying the 'democrats caused all of it.' However, from the other side, the http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-dems-bear-no-responsibility-for-economic-crisis-2008-09-16.html:
Again you are singling out one or two years when other players outpaced Frannie and Freddie. Before, and especially after, as the graph and article make clear the GSE's dominated mortagages in the US. Cumulatively over the last 15 years the GSEs bought FAR more mortgages prime and subprime than anyone else. Certainly the GSE's were not forced to buy subprime, they trumpeted the fact in 2007 that they were buying subprime to help us all out! They willingly 'trampled' into the market, as the piece says, to make money. In addition, because of their auto documentation practices that became common practice, many of the loans they bought (on paper) as prime could easily be, and probably were, subprime.Office_Shredder said:Did you read this?
It's almost like it says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't prefer subprime mortgages in the article. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. It goes on to say how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't get mired in the subprime mortgage crisis that was afflicting some banks. I never said they didn't hold a lot of mortgage debt, just that they clearly weren't forced into buying up debt that they didn't want, and a lot of the subprime mortgages were given out because they were believed to be proiftable, not because a government agency was forced to pick up the debt.
That OCC rule preempted some state rules with federal ones for national banks. If there's evidence that the federal restrictions were poorer, and not better, than the several states, then that was a blunder....Well, the Treasury department took direct action... to limit states from reigning in predatory lending practices (read: subprime mortgages) via the OCC
http://www.realtor.org/government_affairs/gapublic/occanalysis
mathwonk said:this reminds me a little of the threads entitled "why is 1 = .999...?" or as i have said before, bill cosby's famous album, "why is there air?"
Oh you know he will.Greg Bernhardt said:Not that I like Bush, but I hope if Obama wins and turns out not to be that great that he'll receive plenty of criticism here.
As scientists, we do not necessarily hate Bush as an individual. However, we may disagree with his policies and actions that go against scientific evidence and research.
Many scientists do have concerns with Bush's stance on climate change and his decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. This is because the overwhelming majority of scientific research supports the existence of climate change and the need for immediate action to address it.
While some scientists may have disagreements with Bush's views on evolution, it is not the sole reason for any dislike towards him. As scientists, we value evidence-based reasoning and may have concerns with any political leader who rejects widely accepted scientific theories.
Bush's administration did make significant cuts to scientific funding during his time in office. This has been a major concern for scientists, as it can hinder progress and advancements in research and innovation. However, it is important to note that the budget decisions are ultimately made by Congress and the President, and not solely by Bush himself.
Some scientists may disagree with Bush's stance on stem cell research, as he placed limitations and restrictions on federal funding for this type of research during his presidency. However, this is not the only factor that may contribute to any dislike towards him. Scientists may have a range of reasons for their opinions on Bush, including his policies on education, healthcare, and foreign affairs.