Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What the hell is Bush Thinking?

  1. Oct 29, 2003 #1
    What the hell is Bush Thinking?!?!

    If you guys haven't heard about this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9111-2003Oct23.html [Broken]

    It seems our President has informed NATO that it has to change the date for its summit because, get this, his daughters are graduating from college. WTF? I am sorry but NATO is more important than Bush's daughter's graduations. Ya think this pisses a lot of people off in the international community?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 29, 2003 #2
    Im not sure if this is done regulary, maybe ambassadors reschedule all the time...
  4. Oct 29, 2003 #3
    This is never done. The Germans are all over this, and for good reasons.
  5. Oct 29, 2003 #4


    User Avatar

    WEll, good for him, NATO wouldn't stop me from my childs graduation either.
  6. Oct 29, 2003 #5
    You have to be kidding me... This is the president of the United States and sorry but his job comes before his family. If he doesn't want to fullfill his responsibilities he should resign. This really is insane.
  7. Oct 29, 2003 #6
    i think kat was bashing NATO more then he was giving acceptance of Bush's action.
  8. Oct 30, 2003 #7
    Hmmmm...and people wonder why America hasd a bad name worldwide? Idiots like Bush, that's why.
  9. Oct 30, 2003 #8


    User Avatar

    Actually a little of both. Showing the importance of family, particularly fathers and their children is good leadership. I don't particularly care whether "rage" thinks it's insane or not. I'm quite sure there is plenty about his views and his manner of expressing himself (rage) that I would consider edging towards insanity.
    Let the Europians have their little uproar, American outrage at Europians views and comments has been very beneficial to our GPA and improving our economy.
  10. Oct 30, 2003 #9
    Can't agree with you more, Zero. It just adds the vile of angst when all Bush wants is oil profits from Mid-Eastern countries, too for American profits and the rise of Nasdaq.
  11. Oct 30, 2003 #10


    User Avatar

    Kat, your a mom... so I empathize with you but our prez

    has a postion of enormous responsibility(yikes) and who is he responsible to? Correctomundo, us the citizens of this erstwhile democratic republic . It would be better for him to have his daughters' colleges change the graduation dates than to cause the ruckus thats been initiated . IMHO, it would be better if Bush did not attend anyway, he won't demonstrate his propensity for putting his FIHM and save the U.S. from the embarrasment. I'm sure you all know he will be far removed from his comfort zone and will have to have just about every detail explained to him by his cadre of aides :wink:, espescially when they use BIG WORDS . Peace
  12. Oct 31, 2003 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What is he thinking? He's thinking he knows who is in charge of NATO. Clearly he is right.
  13. Oct 31, 2003 #12
    Wait a minute! Bush has sent thousands of soldiers away from their families, preventing them from going to things like graduations and much more important things. As commander and chief of the military you think he would be able to sacrifice going to his daughter's graduations for the most important military alliance in the world. It seems that Bush has no problem asking others to do much harsher things than he himself is willing to do. How does this "show the importance of family"? How many parents are forced to miss their kid's baseball game because of work? Are those people showing a disrespect for family?

    No single country is in charge of NATO. That is like saying France showed it was in charge of the UN when it played a major role in preventing UN involvement with the war on Iraq. Is American presence central to NATO? Yes, of course. Does that mean that America should disregard that there are other countries in NATO? Hell no.
  14. Oct 31, 2003 #13
    On my opinion NATO is long since dead. Minimally since NATO - Russia counsel agreement. Putin has in NATO higher part than european countries (not only my small country). Strategic partnership USA-Russia strongly threaten european countries and they want to be US-independent now. Iraq only reveal inner state of NATO, not caused it. In Moscow rules today group of KGB officers and nobody in NATO have problem with this fact. They are friends... Dead, senseless alliance...
  15. Oct 31, 2003 #14
    I think there is a pretty simple explanation for Bushes absence at NATO. Did anyone wathc that program on HBO several days ago called "Kids Born Rich". It was a documentary about children of the ultrawealthy. It was an inside view of the lifestyle and views narrated by an heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune. He was also the director, producer etc and him being who he was is the only reason he was able to get cooperation from others like him.

    Talk about people being insulated from the normal experience of life! For most of them there was a complete lack of empathy for the more unfortunate people on the planet. Think Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake". For many of them their attitude and BELIEF is that the world revolves around them. Bush is a perfect example of someone raised in this manner and he is completely self-satified, arrogant and insulated. That some people think he is right and NATO and the world is wrong is a credit to many US citizen's ability to self delude. It's a product of intellectual laziness of the worst sort. If Bush is elected to another 4 years I'm afraid this planet is going to come apart at the seams and we will only have ourselves to blame.

    As far as a previous poster giving credit to Bush for an upturn in the economy - well better think again. Ever heard of the business cycle? Actually (and boy, do I hope I'm wrong) we may actually be in worse shape if the electorate votes their pocketbook and gives the credit to Bush. I would say I could easily accept a postponement of a turnup in the economy if it will get Bush the hell out of there. The long range damage of more Bush will easily outweigh it. He's a disaster.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2003
  16. Oct 31, 2003 #15
    This is the same president who at one point(just before 9-11, no less) had spent 40% of his presidency on vacation. This isn't a job for him, this is a place he hangs out so his dad gets off his back about 'doing something with his life'.
  17. Oct 31, 2003 #16


    User Avatar

    LOL, this is a great example of reading something into a statement that doesn't exist. It's okay...I understand that was something that you were just dying to get out and that you were very likely blinded by your leftwingismantibushismfrothingathemouthanger you just couldn't help but read into my comment what you have. BUT in the interest of correctness please re-read it so you might grasp my sarcasm, please.
  18. Oct 31, 2003 #17
    It's amazing to me that the whole premise of my argument about Bush being a product of his wealthy and powerful family slanting his values, was completely untouched by you. I suppose its easier to label me than to try to diffuse my argument. Have you ever taken a critical thinking course? There are many ways to attack an argument and its fair to say there is a pecking order on what is a reputable refutation of an argument and what isn't. Attacking the messenger by labeling him isn't one of them. Another example of intellectual laziness. Don't you get tired of mentally sitting on your rear end? I guess most people don't call you on it, huh.
  19. Oct 31, 2003 #18


    User Avatar

    There's no argument to diffuse.... I never said anything about crediting bush with an upturn in the economy. If you feel like debating a statement I've never made...lol,have at it!
  20. Oct 31, 2003 #19
    Stop this, or else...
  21. Nov 2, 2003 #20
    treatment of own soldiers?

    http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1248 [Broken]
    Rumsfeld's New Model Army
    Conn Hallinan
    Foreign Policy in Focus
    Posted 11/2/2003 7:42:00 PM

    November 2, 2003, Summary: Is President George Bush's war against Iraq a "no-win" scenario? Are Bush's anti-soldier and anti-veteran policies pouring salt into the wounds of an Army asked to police more than 20 million people? The essay below promts some tough questions for US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
    Wounded reservists returning from Iraq complain they have been "warehoused" at Fort Stewart, Ga. in barracks without showers or bathrooms and sometimes wait weeks to see a doctor.

    Inadequate medical care - another way the New Model Army is trying to save on personal costs - has touched a raw nerve among veterans as well, many of whom are partially or fully disabled from Gulf War Syndrome. Veterans groups charge that almost 150,000 vets from Gulf War I have been waiting more than six months to see a doctor, and the wait for a specialist is up to two years.
    Those numbers are likely to climb because solders in Iraq today are being exposed to many of the battlefield toxins that felled some 118,000 veterans in the first Gulf War.
    The Syndrome has been linked to some 345 tons of Depleted Uranium ammunition (DU) used in the 1991 conflict. According to the London Express, the Americans and the British used between 1,100 and 2,200 tons of DU, much of it in urban areas during the recent war. Radiation 1,000 to 1,900 times normal has been detected in four locations in Baghdad.
    The situation is "appalling," according to Professor Brian Spratt, chair of the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific body. "We really need someone like the UN environmental program or the World Health Organization to get into Iraq and start testing civilians and soldiers for uranium exposure."
    Such testing is unlikely because the Department of Defense denies that DU poses any health risks.
    Reservists also charge that they are given second-rate equipment in the field, including inadequate body armor.

    While the manpower crisis on the ground is bad---there are just not enough troops available to match the Administration's imperial sprawl--- it is likely to get a whole lot worse. A recent poll by the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes, found that only 49 percent of the reserves intend to re-enlist.
    So is this blind folly? Or does "transformation" offer an unseen benefit?
    "The arguments in support of technological monism echo down the halls of the Pentagon," Major General Robert Scales (Ret.) told the House Armed Service Committee Oct. 21, "precisely because they involve the expenditures of huge sums of money to defense contractors."
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: What the hell is Bush Thinking?
  1. Hell? (Replies: 21)

  2. What is thinking? (Replies: 16)