What about Bush?

Remove all ads!

@ Laches

I have been editing my post before I saw your answer.

On topic:
You are right. And I never said that the governments opposing the war havent made mistakes.

But what did you expect? Bush rushed this war, saying that no matter what others (UNO, Europe) want - this is whats going to happen. He pushed Schröder & Chiraq to the wall. Then there were these outrageous comments of some of his administration.

Dont you think they had this NO WAY-attitude because of the blatant arrogance that was shown?

I know that the US is the current power of the globe but it was not very smart to be so obvious about it. That is what diplomacy is about.

 

@BTA

True, WMD were not the ONLY reason the U.S. went to war with Iraq, but they were the MAJOR reason. We were told that Iraq posed an immediate threat to U.S. interests and those of our allies due to the development of biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons. My job is as a chemist for the DoD, and I work on the Elimination of Chemical Weapons Program. And I can tell you, dead as leather, that WMD were the main reason. In fact, there was talk about the possibility of sending consultants in after the war to help destroy/neutralize these weapons they were supposed to have.

That's another thing that annoys me. The spin-doctors that the Bush administration has become. Now we went to war in Iraq "to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictatorial regime". Puh-lease. Tell me the people of the U.S. don't have that short a memory. There are many dictatorial regimes in the world, many of which are a hell of a lot closer than Iraq, many of which would be a whole lot easier to topple that Iraq, and we don't do a damn thing about them. The only item beyond WMD that was a reason to go to war with Iraq was supposed connection between Iraq and terrorists, which have also been proved to be false.

 

One of the reasons Bush may lose some Independents is because he has only paid lip service to some of the above. Of course there have been tax breaks. However, over the last two years the government has grown by 27% according to some preliminary estimates. During the last fiscal year federal discretionary spending grew by 12.5%. Now, there is the war of course. But, non-military discretionary spending is up 8.7%. This doesn't sit particularly well with some fiscal conservatives who, other than abortion folks, may be the largest single issue voting block around.

Libertarians for example (small 'l' not big 'L') generally have the option of eating **** sandwich A or **** sandwich B. Either way they have to eat **** but sometimes one sandwich has more bread to cover the taste with. In the last election, Bush was the **** sandwich with more bread. This election he may lose the prized title of 'best tasting **** sandwich in town.' Libertarians (small 'l' not large 'L') make up a significant part of the Independent voting block and if the election is as close as the last one may actually influence the result if they're sufficiently tired of Bush's **** and want to try someone else's ****. Sometimes I look at the possibilities and I say - Oh ****.

Edit for Aldeth:

You need a subscription for the NY Times (it is free though):

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time." -- New York Times editorial, February 27, 2003.

 

@Laches

That is one of the funniest and most insightful expostions of the dilemma that faces us independent voters. I remember Ross Perot . Thank for the laugh, now I've gotta get back to my lunch, and no, it's not a ****sandwich.

 

@ Laches - just to echo Hacken Slash -
I think you summed it up perfectly.

 

Let me explain a very generalized perception of Europe here in America.

You watch our movies. You listen to our bands. You copy our styles. You copied our form of government. You enjoy all the modern inventions that America has provide: telephones, computers, automobiles...etc.

When someone comes along and runs over France...we kick their asses. In fact, your militaries are essentially OUR militaries.

Yet, Europe remains mystified and dumbstruck when America gives them an order. What a bunch of ungrateful children.

Granted, this has all been over-simplified but I think it is very indicative of the popular image of Europe here in America.

 

Ah, the “ugly American” rears its head.

So what if they (and we) watch your movies, etc.? It’s not as if they (or we) get them for free; the U.S. reaps economic benefits from all this. As for as military assistance, the U.S. chose to get involved; it could have just as easily declined. Yes, assistance is often requested, and yes, the U.S. usually comes through, but in those situations the rest of the Western world supports the action. The U.S. also chose to get involved in Vietnam, so participation is not always positive.

Now there’s the kicker – what right does the U.S. have to give an order to any sovereign nation? Make a request, of course, call in favours, sure, but an order? Come on. And if the rest of the world disagrees with the request (or ignores the order), then did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, it’s the U.S. that’s in the wrong? Of course not; you instead choose to be offended.

L.N.T.'s post reflects precisely the kind of attitude that often turns the rest of the world off; I hope that it is the opinion of only a vocal minority. However, is it any wonder that international support for the U.S. is waning at a time when it should instead be growing?

Edit - based on D.R.'s post below, if L.N.T.'s post is not reflective of his own attitudes, then I redirect my comments towards the "general American" of whom he speaks.

[ November 15, 2003, 00:33: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

To LNT's defense, before people start pummeling my buddy...

Maybe I was the only one who caught this - I speak fluent smart-ass.

@ BTA

You must not be watching the same news that I do. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have all repeatedly asserted several "facts" that have come to be proven false.

Vice President Cheney
Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention
August 26, 2002

"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

NBC Meet the Press with Tim Russert
September 8, 2002

"What we have seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium. Specifically aluminum tubes."

Secretary Powell
FOX News Sunday Interview with Tony Snow
September 8, 2002

"There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks… With respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons and he is probably continuing to try to develop more… With respect to nuclear weapons, we are quite confident that he continues to try to pursue the technology that would allow him to develop a nuclear weapon… So there's no question that he has these weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more."

This is NOT true, nor was it ever

From a former weapons inspector, and a Bush republican:

Secretary Rumsfeld
The New Republic (June 30, 2003)
September 26, 2002

In Washington on September 26, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

ABC "This Week with George Stephanapolous"
March 30, 2003

"If you think – let me take that, both pieces – the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

President Bush
United Nations General Assembly, New York
September 12, 2002

"U. N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio
October 7, 2002

"In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions."

Interview with TVP, Poland
May 29, 2003

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories… They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."


I would love to hear any compelling arguement for why I'm crazy for thinking the Bush administration has deliberately misled us as a nation, exaggerated and hyped intel to play off our fears, and push a war that was clearly not necessary given the speed with which Iraq was taken and the total lack of any WMD, their most compelling form of evidence, whether Bush fans would like to admit it or not.

The entire administration needs to go. Sorry.

 

We tried that - the supreme court appointed him anyway.

Try a real independent: Vote Nader!

 

ALdeth, to answer your original question is in fact quite difficult. When President Bush came to address the Australian Parliament, it really seemed such a rushed, surreal event. He whizzed in, whizzed out, didn't see anyone outside the government officials that pretty much smothered him, and he did not really have anything new to say about any topics that affect Australians. It really seemed too quick. I have absolutely no way of judging or understanding much about him except what comes from CNN or other US news services anyway, since Australian media was either as tight lipped as the security or basically repeating what US news says.

I can't understand why there was such an intense level of security and why he seemed so distant and "anti-social". I also expected that someone in his position would have had a much more profound impact on Australia, but it seemed that most people had forgotten that he even came a few hours after the address he made, perhaps it was becaue he actually did leave?

Ummm. I dunno?

 

What is nonense is that anyone would believe that Shrub was really elected to the high office of President. It just so happened that his brother was governor of the highly contested state and that he had stacked the deck by hiring a firm from Atlanta with the task of singling out minorities by claiming they could not vote because they were supposed "felons." Florida is so locked down it's not even funny. The cronyism that is rampant in this dishonest and vile administration extends from the likes of K. Harris to the judges who happily declared Shrub our prez. If anyone has to grit his/her teeth, it's those of us who still believe in fairness and a democratic process where the body electorate still want legitimate representation by a real president, but instead are forced to bide our time until the corruption is gone, like the cancer that it is, from our once great nation.

And nearly the same votes? Al Gore won that by 500,000 votes. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/

[ November 16, 2003, 04:34: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos, my friend...please abandon your electoral conspiracy theories...I know that it is a typically conservative source...but the accounts are ironclad...check out THIS .

Please don't go on with this worn out lament. The Carter / Ford election was actually decided on a smaller portion of popular vote, and Hayes / Tilden established the authority of the Supreme Court in this matter.

And, if there truly is any basis in what you say about Dubya getting elected because of the influence of his brother, then that only confirms the old addage to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" . You can either complain about this, or accept Richard Nixon as President in 1960...take your pick.

 

HS - Keep in mind that the SC also said that it was not setting a precedent with its astounding ruling in the 2000 election. They were very careful to say that it only applied in the case of their Shrub vs Gore. Amazing.

Added: That is an intersting comparision - Nixon and Bush II. I think you are on to something, HS. Really, I don't mean that in my usual sarcastic tone either. If there was a recent past president I would have liked to met in person it would have been Nixon. I have an odd sort of interest in him, because he was so well read and he enjoyed writing and debating with both admirers and critics. I think he would have really liked a board such as this. His book _No More Vietnams_ was well-written. If you have not read it, then I would definitely recommend it. Although there was much that I did not agree with in its take on the Vietnam days.

[ November 16, 2003, 05:31: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Yes, appointed. We can argue this all day/night and we both know that neither of us will budge on this issue. That's half a million people, BTA.
And if some of us had not voted for Nader, you would not even be thinking about how close it was. Shrub would be back on the ranch and only a problem for us here in Texas. But we've seen worse. Of course, you have Arnold.

 

Thanks, BTA. If I'd said that it would have sounded "pissy" .

Chandos, I am forwarding a "Nixon's the One" lapel pin to you for you to wear to work on Monday morning.