What the hell is Bush Thinking?

  • News
  • Thread starter RageSk8
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Thinking
In summary, the conversation discusses the controversy surrounding President Bush's decision to change the date of a NATO summit because of his daughters' college graduations. Some people believe that this shows the importance of family, while others criticize Bush for not prioritizing his duties as the leader of the United States. Some also question the effectiveness of NATO and its relationship with Russia. Overall, the conversation highlights the divisive opinions on Bush's actions and the potential consequences for both the country and the international community.
  • #1
RageSk8
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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Im not sure if this is done regulary, maybe ambassadors reschedule all the time...
 
  • #3
This is never done. The Germans are all over this, and for good reasons.
 
  • #4
WEll, good for him, NATO wouldn't stop me from my childs graduation either.
 
  • #5
WEll, good for him, NATO wouldn't stop me from my childs graduation either.

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.
 
  • #6
i think kat was bashing NATO more then he was giving acceptance of Bush's action.
 
  • #7
Hmmmm...and people wonder why America hasd a bad name worldwide? Idiots like Bush, that's why.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Mattius_
i think kat was bashing NATO more then he was giving acceptance of Bush's action.

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.
 
  • #9
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...and people wonder why America hasd a bad name worldwide? Idiots like Bush, that's why.

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.
 
  • #10
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 that's 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
 
  • #11
What is he thinking? He's thinking he knows who is in charge of NATO. Clearly he is right.
 
  • #12
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.

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?

What is he thinking? He's thinking he knows who is in charge of NATO. Clearly he is right.

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.
 
  • #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...
 
  • #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:
  • #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'.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by exeric

As far as a previous poster giving credit to Bush for an upturn in the economy - well better think again.

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.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by kat
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.

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.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by exeric
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.

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!
 
  • #19
Stop this, or else...
 
  • #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
http://www.fpif.org/
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:
  • #21
You do have to love Bush's anti-military benefits stance. People don't realize taht when the neocons want to cut benefits for the poor and middle class, that often includes our military. But, never fear, Bush has a special 'faith based' plan...he's going to suggest injured soldiers and veterans pray a whole bunch, and if God is willing, their ilnesses and injuries will go away.*snicker*
 
  • #22
If it quacks like a duck...

In the environment GW grew up in I'm sure there were a million subtle clues that the little guy just isn't important. I think that's why Bush treats the military people the way he does. They are tools to enable the shaping of global governance. If a few die I suppose he thinks that is just the price that must be paid. The problem with that thinking is that if YOUR son or daughter was injured or killed you'll want to know that he or she HAD to be there.

War is too devastating to ever wage except as a last resort. And those people who don't think so should always think first if they are willing to allow their own loved ones to enlist in a war. If they are not then they shouldn't be promulgating them - let alone starting one like GW has. The problem with GW is he doesn't have the imagination to realize all the things that can go wrong in a war. And since he doesn't have to worry about his own safety others safety doesn't play a big part in his thinking. But it should always play a part in a president's thinking BEFORE they start a war.
 

1. What is the rationale behind President Bush's decisions and actions?

President Bush's decisions and actions are based on his own personal beliefs and values, as well as advice from his advisors and the political climate at the time.

2. How does President Bush's background and upbringing influence his decision-making?

President Bush's background and upbringing, particularly his conservative upbringing and his experience in the oil industry, have influenced his decision-making and policies as president.

3. Why does President Bush seem to prioritize certain issues over others?

President Bush's priorities are based on his personal beliefs and the priorities of his political party. He also takes into consideration the current state of the country and the world when setting his agenda.

4. How does President Bush's foreign policy differ from previous presidents?

President Bush's foreign policy, specifically his approach to the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq, has been more aggressive and interventionist compared to previous presidents. He also focused heavily on promoting democracy and spreading American values globally.

5. What factors influenced President Bush's approval ratings during his presidency?

President Bush's approval ratings were influenced by a variety of factors, including the state of the economy, his handling of the Iraq War, and natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. His ratings also fluctuated based on his actions and decisions throughout his presidency.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
4K
Back
Top