The George W. Bush Thread

[Singularity]

Originally posted by archer_007
I can agree with him in that if they really felt that way, they would have made protest votes. People even vote against the $98B for the troops in Iraq and Afghanstan (something I would have voted againsta also)

A green vote is not necesarilly a very popular vote. A go for the Kyoto agreement would equal prospects of tens of thousands jobs lost in americas industrial sector. And a rethinking of your lifestyle and energy consumption in the private households.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Stapel
He did say that Iraq was an immediate thread, which was utter nonsense.
My grandmother was a greater thread to the US, than Saddam.

Why do you use past tense ?

Two days ago, 2004 State of the Union speech :
"There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few [i.e France]. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

Few things :

1- Bush has never stopped to say the purpose of the War in Iraq was to defend the security of American citizens.

2- The "few" he's talking about are : China, India, Russia, Brazil, Germany, France, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Austria, Greece, and 130 other nations. Bush has never convinced neither the majority of the Security council (4 countries including the US out of 15), nor the majority of UN members (35 members out of 190). You may say he convinced the most important, however, only 15 countries with more than 10 million people out of 80 in the world supported the US.

90% of the world's population live in countries which decided to not support the USA. And the population of the USA alone is about 5% of it. Once again, considering France as the only one who opposed to the war is making of France a much more important country I decently consider it is.

 

[Archer 007]

The "permission slip" was a jab at Demcratic candaite Howard Dean.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by archer_007
The "permission slip" was a jab at Demcratic candaite Howard Dean.

So what Archer ? It doesn't contradict my point.

 

[Stapel]

It all boils down to the fact that GWB, and many many other Americans, really think the invasion of Iraq is really helping the security of the American people.

I think it rather idecreases the security of American (and other) people, but, in order to understabd the American policy, we should realise that Americans really belive they do the right thing.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
So what Archer ? It doesn't contradict my point.

I was just noting that incase you didnt know..

 

[Speedo]

I'm such a bull because that war was pure crap for the reason I've just explained. Bush Administration has lied to the Americans and Americans had jumped on it... swallowing everything like kittens.

<rant follows>

How does that have anything to do with "Bush will be reelected because Americans want to punish France!"?

I hate to break it to you Marla, but France isn't as big as you seem to think. Except for the occaisional "froggy green surrender monkey" joke, almost nobody over here really cares about France, mustless "punishing" you.

 

[Speedo]

My point is that you need a hell of a lot of evidence to say he lied about WMDs. Just because there aren't any, or any haven't been found yet, doesn't mean Bush (and Blair) lied about the threat from Iraq. Also the case for war did not rest solely on the shoulders of WMDs that just happened to be the one reason all the agencies of the American government could agree on.

Mein Gott im himmel! A rational post!

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Therefore Bush did not lie but was let down by the intelligence services or put too much faith in the accuracy of the intelligence he was being provided with.

Let down? One year before Bush stated the infamous "The British government has learned" that Saddam was seeking to aquire nuclear material, the ClA had debunked that as a myth. So Bush was being underhanded. On the one hand he sought to make sure that the finger could be pointed at the failure of British intelligence should he be proven wrong, on the other hand he was acting on old information which was wrong. Now why was the CIA overided in the decision process? CIA had been put under intense political pressure by VP Cheney to come up with anything that would give the go ahead for war. Seems to me to be a bad situation when politicians decide what is good intelligence and what is not. Moreover when the intelligence proved faulty the current administration sought to make CIA director George Tenet the fall guy. Furthermore the administration has not been shy in spreading fear in the intelligence community by exposing secret agents seen as liabilities in preserving the cover up.

So the questions are.
1) Will foreign intelligence services be willing in the future to hand over information to CIA, when they see that A) CIA is a weak institution open to political pressure, B) that the information handed over can be used against them for political purposes.

2)Can agents working for the CIA be sure that their employment will remain secret?

3)Can the people be sure that when politicians point to intelligence, that this intelligence is trustworthy and has not been manipulated?

I am not sure that Bush lied, but it seems that this buraucracy is getting bent out of shape. The political decsion process is corrupted and is being overrided at crucial points.

Therefore the finger has to be pointed at the eye of the power. The decision for war was taken before the terrorist attacks. I find this strange. The decision for war was taken BEFORE the terror, but the war was made possible ONLY AFTER the terror. You get my drift.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Speedo

I hate to break it to you Marla, but France isn't as big as you seem to think. Except for the occaisional "froggy green surrender monkey" joke, almost nobody over here really cares about France, mustless "punishing" you.

Come on. There is a virtual obsession with France. Just see how the Republicans are chastigating it for the headscarf ban.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Speedo
I hate to break it to you Marla, but France isn't as big as you seem to think. Except for the occaisional "froggy green surrender monkey" joke, almost nobody over here really cares about France, mustless "punishing" you.

Your point just proves that you don't even read my posts !

I'm quoting myself :

"90% of the world's population live in countries which decided to not support the USA. And the population of the USA alone is about 5% of it. Once again, considering France as the only one who opposed to the war is making of France a much more important country I decently consider it is."

So you agree with me there's no better reason to hate France than the other 90% of Humanity ?

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Singularity
I can sum up Bush's problems quite easily. Legitimazy. He was elected by a few broken voting ballots. He just barely got enough support for the war, though in my eyes he had a sizeable camp in the UN when he declared war.

And sorry, that boyish 'texan cowboy carisma' doesn't go down smoothly over here in europe. It's just not our style. Same as some european politicians make republicans in the states sick...

This is positively flattering. You are saying that he should not be able to wield the power that he does, not because he is incompetent, but because he is TOO competent, and is doing things you dislike. This is indeed one of the commonly said things about President Bush, that he hasnt sufficient basis for the changes he is able to accomplish, but in the end it is a complaint that the opposition is unable to stop him, even though they seem to have the means to do so.

I cannot help about the cowboy style. It is perhaps uniquely American. Still it is better to be respected than liked and as I note above, you are giving him respect.

Originally posted by Singularity
Do you really think 99 was opposed to the plan? Or was it the majority of the republicans who made any other vote made moot?

Do YOU really think the Democrats would vote against it just to make Republicans look good. To answer your question, yes I think exactly that. If you want to start a thread on Kyoto, do so. Suffice to say here that it was a disastrously bad, hopelessly shortsighted document, that was voted down by acclamation, as the tally indicates.

Originally posted by Stapel
It all boils down to the fact that GWB, and many many other Americans, really think the invasion of Iraq is really helping the security of the American people.

I think it rather decreases the security of American (and other) people, but, in order to understabd the American policy, we should realise that Americans really belive they do the right thing.

I think that that is accurate. In some ways it is hard to put words to what has been accomplished. But, yes, there is a definite improvement in the perception of security. Also, yes, the country believes that this was a righteous war, that we did the right thing. Tied up in that is the fact that the bulk of the financial burden is being born by the American taxpayer. Obviously there is opposition, but IMO there is a deep glow of satisfaction at a job well done. Brilliantly done in fact.

As to whether it increased or decreased the security of the whole world, that is a matter that is yet undecided. I am optomistic however. For example, Syria had been an agitating force. With a large American army next door, that has moderated noticibly. The situation in Iran is troublesome, but the prospect of free and open trade with the Iraqi Shi'a is a point in favor of peace. Also it is very early in the going. So much of the reconstruction is simply repairing neglect and introducing modern life to places that had not known it.

In any event I will be going there personlly soon, and I will be able to see first hand what is going on.

J

 

[Speedo]

Your point just proves that you don't even read my posts !

No I didn't. I don't really care about the war, who supported who, or whatever. All I was interested in was finding out where you got "Bush will be reelected because Americans want to punish France" from.

Come on. There is a virtual obsession with France. Just see how the Republicans are castigating it for the headscarf ban.

That's hardly an obsession. On this forum alone, people from around the world have done the same. Besides, I haven't even heard any US govt officials give any kind of opinion on it.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Speedo
Besides, I haven't even heard any US govt officials give any kind of opinion on it.

I hear nothing, I see nothing, I say nothing.

- Don Rumsfeld never mentionned any "Old Europe".
- Condie Rice never said that sentence : "Punish France, Ignore Germany, Forgive Russia"
- Restaurants in the White House, House of Parliament and Congress never renamed "French Fries" as "Freedom Fries".

I'm hating the US so viscerally that I'm hearing imaginary voices I guess.

 

[The Chosen One]

France, Germany and Russia didn't want us to go into Iraq because they're afraid of what we'll find. Like their constant dealing of arms to Iraq during the 1990 and in 2000-01, when no one was supposed too hmmmm wierd. And of course if we take Saddam out of power there goes their weapons contracts.

 

[Speedo]

Sigh. For one complaining about reading your posts, you aren't doing a very good job yourself...

Did you read the line above that? Where he says: "Just see how the Republicans are castigating it for the headscarf ban."

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by The Chosen One
France, Germany and Russia didn't want us to go into Iraq because they're afraid of what we'll find. Like their constant dealing of arms to Iraq during the 1990 and in 2000-01, when no one was supposed too hmmmm wierd. And of course if we take Saddam out of power there goes their weapons contracts.

Yeah of course ! And and I guess we've also found the evidence of their evil secret deals after the war

 

[Singularity]

Originally posted by onejayhawk

This is positively flattering. You are saying that he should not be able to wield the power that he does, not because he is incompetent, but because he is TOO competent, and is doing things you dislike. This is indeed one of the commonly said things about President Bush, that he hasnt sufficient basis for the changes he is able to accomplish, but in the end it is a complaint that the opposition is unable to stop him, even though they seem to have the means to do so.

Where did I say he was too competent? I merely pointed out that the precedential election was borderline in terms of meeting the requirements of a valid result. I'm giving him respect as a man that's representing 50% of the US population, but I hardly say that he's too competent anywhere in my post. Neither am I saying that he has done anything I dislike. The lack of a uniformity in the democrats camp is another topic that I honestly know far too little about.

I cannot help about the cowboy style. It is perhaps uniquely American. Still it is better to be respected than liked and as I note above, you are giving him respect.

True. And a very overlooked aspect of Bush's failing popularity ratings in europe for instance.

Do YOU really think the Democrats would vote against it just to make Republicans look good. To answer your question, yes I think exactly that. If you want to start a thread on Kyoto, do so. Suffice to say here that it was a disastrously bad, hopelessly shortsighted document, that was voted down by acclamation, as the tally indicates.

I admit that was purely speculation since I havent read a post-vote survey of that vote. But the common opinion on green votes, no matter what democracy or case, is either you have a fighting chance to make the vote. Or you stay far away from it since green votes sells as bad as tax increases to the average voter. And that's across partylines. I see you think the Kyoto agreement was pretty shabby. That may be so. But you fail to see the crowd that had allready signed it. We might not be big on tonnes of emmisions globally compared to the US. But again, the blatant disregard of international consenus(only Russia, China and USA failed to sign it) and segregationism from Bush hardly makes him a more loveable character outside the US. And that's dead smack in the centre of the topic of this thread.

 

[Zeekater]

Originally posted by The Chosen One
France, Germany and Russia didn't want us to go into Iraq because they're afraid of what we'll find. Like their constant dealing of arms to Iraq during the 1990 and in 2000-01, when no one was supposed too hmmmm wierd. And of course if we take Saddam out of power there goes their weapons contracts.

Yes, and the US gave weapons to Bin Laden.
Your point?

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Zeekater


Yes, and the US gave weapons to Bin Laden.
Your point?

But the US is trying to rectify that. IF you make a mess, shouldn't you clean it up?