|GW kicks A$$!||Live Steam|
May 1, 2003 6:30 PM
|I just finished watching the Prez land on the USS Abraham Lincoln. It gave me goose bumps all over. It really did appear to mean an awful lot to the men an women on that ship, after being deployed for over ten months. GW has a real appreciation for their sacrifice and he showed it. Evidently he took the controls of the jet while in flight, before landing on the deck, and according to the pilot, handled it well.
He has had a wildly eventful Presidency thus far, and has handled it like a true leader. The men and women serving this nation have taken notice. It was reported that the men and women on the Lincoln commented that Clinton talked tough, but never did anything about attacks made against US military concerns like the bombing of the USS Cole. They appreciate Bush's commitment to their safety and to protecting the US and US concerns. I do too!
May 1, 2003 7:18 PM
|I thought it was pretty cool too. Too bad the Secret Service vetoed his landing in a Hornet, now that would have been really fun.|
May 1, 2003 7:57 PM
|Whether you agree or disagree with him, I think most would agree he's a leader. He takes things where he wants to, rather than driving out of the rear view mirror (polls).
|No doubt he's a 'leader,' but yesterday||OldEdScott|
May 2, 2003 6:17 AM
|is no evidence of that. Yesterday was a cooly calculated PR event, cooked up by Karl Rove. Hey, I'm not criticizing. I do the same thing. It's an honorable job. It was very well done. But it was about image-building and eventual campaign ads, not leadership.|
|I'll go along with that||DougSloan|
May 2, 2003 6:52 AM
|I don't think to qualify as a leader every single thing you do must be "leadship."
I think yesterday was partially PR, and partially a morale thing for the sailors/troops, conceding that it was mostly PR.
While denying it, that had to be one nervous pilot.
|You three characters crack me up!!!!||cycleaddict|
May 1, 2003 8:45 PM
May 2, 2003 3:50 AM
|Not trying to be a Bush hater. However, wasn't he "away" from his unit during the Vietnamese war for nearly two years? Don't we call that desertion?
It's great to see him in a plane now. However, when it was his duty to fly in the "Champagne Squadrom," he should have followed the orders he now gives.
Again, I just think it is Ironic and I am not getting too worked up about a great pr stunt.
|Mabe he should have been in ....||Live Steam|
May 2, 2003 4:34 AM
|Russia with Clinton deriding the US participation in the Vietnam War. That would have made him much more outstanding as the Commander in Chief. I have never seen any report that he was AWOL. Where did you get that?|
|Steam, you need to get out more.||OldEdScott|
May 2, 2003 6:13 AM
|The AWOL business was a big topic of discussion during the campaign.
Here's some literature (Hey, if Doug can post the John Birch Society stuff he posted yesterday as "history" on FDR, I claim a pass to post this):
|I know :O) However please explain why ...||Live Steam|
May 2, 2003 2:30 PM
|Slick Willie always got a pass on his indiscretions such as his Russian trip and his avoidance of military service. Also Al Bore's alleged Nam stint was totally fabricated. He may have slung that rifle, but he never fired it in anger - that is unless he was thinking about all of that tabackie he had to pick as a yute :O)|
|When the alien invaders come...||mohair_chair|
May 2, 2003 6:20 AM
|I wonder if Bush will suit up and fly a fighter plane, just like in the movie "Independence Day." The Secret Service can't veto that!|
|Nah, if he flies at all||OldEdScott|
May 2, 2003 6:31 AM
|it will be in Air Force One to 'secret and secure locations' till he gets his nerves steady.|
|hahah This might end up in my favorites :P||CARBON110|
May 2, 2003 6:54 AM
|I have to admit, even though I think GW is...well...a boob...or rather just not a very good example of a US Pres. I was inspired by his arrival and the reception he got. It would have gone further if I had been more impressionable and didnt know it was PR event. But, in my opion a US President should be the most intelligent person in his/her administration. Nevertheless, it was good to see him speak.|
|Is there no end to your foolishness?||53T|
May 2, 2003 11:51 AM
|The US president should be the most intelligent person in the adminstration? Like on West Wing? What on earth are you talking about?
How could you accomplish this? Have a short, ugly, policy wonk popularly elected? Or better yet, have the president screen all his advisors to make sure they are not smarter than he.
In how many US adminstrations do you think the President was the smartest person? The odds are against there being even one. The secretary of war/defense has often been a former general. Becoming a modern general is a long and thorough screening process that only passes the most intelligent individuals. A President passes through no such process (except perhaps Grant, Ike, I won't even include Washington). It would be unfair to have them compete in terms of measured intelligence. Treasury Secretaries used to be leading economists. Do you think there are any intellectual lightweights in those ranks? I don't.
It is unlikely that a stupid man will ever get the chance to run for president. However, measured intelligence is only one criteria of political leadership. An ideological foundation is critical for leadership, and it has to be an ideology embraced by the electorate. There were many highly intelligent Marxists, and Mao was no dummy either.
|My end knows no foolishness. How 'bout your's? (nm)||Dale Brigham|
May 2, 2003 12:21 PM
|53t..... what are you talking about?||CARBON110|
May 3, 2003 6:09 AM
|Mao may not have been a dummy but that doesnt mean he was a great leader. LOL Seperate the two. From the above statement you think its unfathomable for a President to be the most "intelligent" person. hmmm, I don't know about you but to be intelligent doesnt exactly mean you just get high scores on some screening process or some numbers define how smart you are. There are alot gifted people, however a President should possess a range of talant. To be visionary,have knowledge of economics and the countrys present status and why its there, to be able to articulate himself/herself in front of the media, to be accessible to answering questions to the country, to hold the respect of his /her administration, gifted in foreign affairs to say the least.
I'm not interested in comparing Bush to CLinton. Clinton is not the issue anymore. GWB lacks alot of the above skills. He isnt visionary, he is simplistic. He try to make us feel good about 911, but has done a porr job of repairing the country. So, we went to Afganistan and Iraq, but GWB got off that plane onto the carrier like he had accomplished something BIG. He hasnt. There are millions of people out of work millions. Attacking Iraq and forcing distance and alienating our allies over mesly Iraq that took 3 weeks to close the "war" is not good policy. It wasnt necesarry. 911 may/will happen sometime in the future and as history shows we need allies.
Are you and Live Steam so impressionable that GWB flying an airplane and getting a reception from the NAVY makes you think he kicks azz? What were you expecting? You have low expectations if that's all it takes. GWB is by no means stupid but he isnt exactly bright either. Expect mroe from yourselves and read between the lines people. Tell me again that Dick CHeeney (former S.O.D who alotted many contracts to Halibutron before being CEO ) , after never having spent one day in the business world NOT ONE DAY, had nothing to do with them getting gigantic contracts. GWB solution to economic crisis is not SMART. His first tax cut did NOT help the economy and neither will this one. He is a simplistic thinker in a complicated time, we need someone whos perception is not one demensional. whether its a Republican or Democrat who cares, we need a good leader to take care of economics, national policy,foriegn policy and the war on terror and someone who can talk to the country and give the USA people confidence.
|I'm sticking my nose in here||purplepaul|
May 3, 2003 1:10 PM
|but it seems like there's an awful lot of rhetoric being thrown around here and not much reality. Yes, millions are out of work, but if you subscribe to the theory of the misery index (the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates) we're close to being at record lows. Unemployment, while higher than in 1998, is around 6%, a very low figure (not that that helps anyone without a job). Inflation almost doesn't exist. So the situation presently isn't as dire as you painted it to be.
I believe Bush has a vision and, therefore, is a visionary. It may seem simplistic, you may not like it. But his vision seems clear to me: he wants to rid the world of terrorism, cut taxes, build "the family" and create an environment for business to flourish. I certainly won't argue that some of the methods he is pursuing aren't questionable, but I believe that he believes it is the right way to go about it.
As for Bush being dim, someone on this forum posted his grades in Yale, and they were surprisingly decent, and his multi-ethnic support as gov. of Texas which, again, I found surprising considering how he is supposed to be only for the evil white man.
His landing on an aircraft carrier was not necessarily significant for the country but I believe it was significant for those who served because it was a gesture to show them that they are indeed important and deserving of a place in the spotlight. I feel a great deal of gratitude for the troops sacrificing themselves and their family life so I can choose to live life as I wish, and getting a visit from the president is the least of what should be done for them.
With the stunning exception of funding homeland security, Bush seems to be doing a good job of making our country safer, dealing with international crises and taking on the slow economy. I don't agree with his tax cuts at all, but I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong. Hopefully, if his tax cuts drive this country into the ground, we will learn enough to not repeat it in the future.
|Good perception, nice openmindedness||CARBON110|
May 3, 2003 1:48 PM
|I agree with you supporting the troops. I hope you are right about GB but I fear we will see the economy get worse and foriegn affairs become severe. Don't forget George the first did the same thing. This is just what it seems to me and the media has been zero help in building confidence in our economy. Anyway, sorry if my tone was inappropriate, that's not how I intended it to be. As for unemployment, well its not getting any better and things are looking to get worse. 6 % may not sound like alot but the number of apllications for example have trippled in places where friends of mine run business. People are getting layed off left and right, that will weaken the economy and a billion and a half tax cut that puts a few hundred bucks in most peoples pocket wont do a thing. Again, 226,000 Americans will benefit the most from this tax cut. Its a rich persons tax cut. The idea is that they will spend the money to stimulate the rest of the country.... I think Howard Dean makes the most sense lately on politics, I would be interested to see what people say about him. not hard core demos are Republics but just normal people looking for the best leader|
|Here's the best part||purplepaul|
May 3, 2003 2:07 PM
|if Bush leads us down the wrong paths, he'll be removed. If he helps the country, despite it seeming inconceivable in many ways right now, he'll be rewarded with another term. I'm all for following his ideas not because I necessarily agree with them, but because I would like someone to be held accountable. If the Democrats voiced their objections, pointed out why, but in the end gave Bush what he wants, by their own arguments, he'd be a one term president.
I know it's odd to advocate going along with something one doesn't agree with. But I would finally like a stop put to both sides blaming the other when things go wrong and taking credit for the things that go right.
|Good points, all!||Live Steam|
May 3, 2003 2:00 PM
|As I posted below, GW is not reactionary, he is proactive. This is what a leader does. They make informed decisions and act on them. They do not wait to see what polls say and they even go against popular opinion to get the job done. He can come off as a bit of a yahoo, but he also has down to Earth sensibilities. I like that about him. I don't know where all of the spoiled rich kid innuendo comes from. Though the Bush's have wealth, I have never gotten the impression that they flaunt their wealth like I do with the Kennedy's, but that's another topic for another day :O)
The economy is the resultant of many factors, the least of which was the DotCom bubble bursting that sent many tech employees to the streets searching for similarly paying high wage jobs that just didn't exist. ENRON and the like have not only eroded investor confidence, but have also decimated many a 401K. These events did not happen, or should I say did not result from GWs tenure in office. These are events that initiated under the watch of another famous or should I say infamous American President :O)
|We will get nowhere...||53T|
May 5, 2003 1:11 PM
|...if we do not speak a common language. The comment was made that it would be preferable for the president to be the most intelligent person in the administration. When I disagree, based on several strong lines of argument, you change the rules. You seem to think that being intelligent means something other than scoring high on IQ tests. Well that is a very wiggly position. If there is some other definition of intelligence, you can't measure it. That allows you to argue any point you want with no data. (Of course that would make you a liberal)
You then go on to say that a president needs a range of talents, which of course is my central thesis.
You state that you are not interested in comparing Bush to Clinton. I agree with that position, although I did not mention Clinton in my post.
You then take a flyer and paint me as impressed by GWB riding in a jet. Do I need to remind you that I argued that the president was NOT the smartest person in the administration?
You state that GWB is not bright. I'd love to see your data on that one.
You bore me to tears with a raving line or argument about Cheney’s business experience, which of course has nothing to do with my statistical argument about the president being the most intelligent person in any administration.
You want a different president. I have an idea; let’s have an election in 2004! Does your kind have a candidate?
|It's actually a shame the a persons intelligence is ...||Live Steam|
May 2, 2003 2:12 PM
|measured by how well they wag their tongue. There are an awful lot of great orators that have dim wits and are not nearly as qualified to be President. I believe that the qualities the President should have are (in no particular order) - the ability to listen, the ability to delegate, the ability to see past the minutia and grasp the big picture, the ability to make a decisive decision, the ability to work well with those on the opposite side of the table, the ability to see quality in people and accept advice from them, the ability to admit mistakes and the ability to go against popular opinion when warranted rather than make the popular choice because of vanity. I believe that GWB has these qualities. He does come off as rather simple, but I don't believe he is simple minded. I think he is proactive and does not wait for problems to come to him. I think his action is office to this point prove these points out. There have been many others before him that were reactionary, and I think they made poor Presidents. Smarts does not always roll off of the tongue. Sometimes, and the country is usually better for it, it come with deeds and actions.
I would ask that someone post what qualities their "favorite" President had. I am interested to hear the responses.
|He is a seriously needed and refreshing change||No_sprint|
May 2, 2003 6:48 AM
|from the last administration this entire great country had to suffer and survive through.|
|Yeah, I was getting tired of peace and prosperity! ;-) nm||rwbadley|
May 2, 2003 7:03 AM
|It;'s too bad that it came at the cost of ...||Live Steam|
May 2, 2003 2:20 PM
|integrity and honesty. The prosperity was falsely achieved. Wall Street saw the opportunity to fix the books and the market responded resoundingly well; that was until the false reports were exposed, then most of us lost a ton of financial security. As they say things rot from the top down. Our past eight years proved that to be correct. Hey if the President could lie and cheat, why can't I. Go ahead you Clinton loving liberals :O) I can take the heat. Tell me there was all of that smoke but no fire!|
|Well I'm sure Bush will straighten Wall Street out.||czardonic|
May 2, 2003 3:20 PM
|You don't mind Bush lying about his "service" to our country during Vietnam.|
|I don't have any proof he did. I just read that he did, but ...||Live Steam|
May 2, 2003 4:15 PM
|the link Old Ed posted does not have anything to back it up other than their say so. Where is their proof? They have Al Bore toting a rifle I am sure he never fired, so their veracity is questionable to me:O)|
|Where's the Democrats' attacks on this PR stunt?||Continental|
May 2, 2003 7:19 AM
|Have the Democrats given up? Are they afraid to criticize Bush? Don't they have anyone who can make the carrier landing look like Dukakis in a tank? I don't think that the Democrats can attack the President for addressing the troops, but the carrier landing seems to be fair game for ridicule. Their lack of response speaks volumes about the weakness of their position.|
|equal to Dukakis?||DougSloan|
May 2, 2003 7:35 AM
|Bush at least had a plausible reason for doing what he did -- going to carrier, and was an Air National Guard pilot.
Dukakis looked like a silly duck out of water.
|No, it speaks volumes about the weakness of our||OldEdScott|
May 2, 2003 7:40 AM
|candidates. What a sorry lot they are.
Here's my 2004 Dream Ticket: Granholm/Landrieu. Is that a great ticket or what? They'd whip George Bush like a sick mule. Those two gals are SERIOUS politicians.
Unfortunately, Granholm doesn't qualify (I think she was born in Canada). But old Military Mary would just just DAZZLING, slinging a bawdy hip to one side and saying, in that great sultry Louisiana accent, "Why, that George Bush is a rich-boy pansy (she'd use a better word that also starts with p and ends with y, haw haw) who's got no earthly business in a fighter jet, somethin he had sense enough to know 30 years ago when he was drinkin and duckin National Guard duty."
Sigh. It would be lovely.
|Testicular atrophy among male Dem presidential candidates||Dale Brigham|
May 2, 2003 9:38 AM
|Yes, Ed, it looks sadly like our gals have larger cojones than our guys. The 2004 Dem presidential ticket is likely going to do nothing to energize core Dem voters, but will instead be Bush-Lite (somewhat friendlier and gentler), ceding every critical issue to the Repubs. ("Yes, we hate terrorists, too, but in a nicer way.") Not many swing voters will buy that product. After all, why get the house (no-name) brand when you can have the brand leader? Unless something BIG happens between now and Nov. 2004, I see the election as a (well-deserved) bloodbath for our side.
This is bumming me out. Gotta' start drinking now. Over and out.
|Check it out, dudes! Our gals -- OldEd's dream ticket --||OldEdScott|
May 2, 2003 9:54 AM
|a proposal met with slant eyes at the DNC, but a lively thought nonetheless -- in action.
Jennifer gets a fishin license:
Military Mary making GWB look like a, uh, pansy:
We have WINNERS here folks. OldEd's tellin you ...
|Cabela's is Michigan's #1 Tourist Attrraction???||Alpedhuez55|
May 2, 2003 11:09 AM
|That kind of suprised me. A gun & Fishing shop is the most popular place to visit in Michale Moore's Native state??? I guess you usually think of an amusement park or historical site. Is Ted Nugent's Ranch #2 ;) Well, I have made a few trips to LL Bean in Maine, so who am I to talk.
Cabelas does sell good quality merchandise at a good price. If you are looking for a rain suit, they are a great place for it. And I guess it is a great place for a vacation as well!!!
|Pure PR stunt--can't believe how well it's working.||retro|
May 2, 2003 10:37 AM
|The carrier landing was pure PR--there was no reason for him to do it other than getting his picture (in flight suit and helmet) on the front page of every paper in the country this morning. You could certainly define it as a foolish risk, needlessly putting himself in danger for the sake of a photo opportunity.
The disturbing thing to me is how eagerly people are lapping it up. The guy's still the same old draft-dodging AWOL Texas National Guard legacy-admit frat rat he always was. By the end of the week, though, half the morons in the nation will believe he actually flew combat missions in Iraq.
|And it only meant one extra day at sea for the sailors!||czardonic|
May 2, 2003 12:27 PM
White House officials originally said that Bush was making the dramatic jet trip because the ship was too far out to sea to be reached by helicopter. Bush was trained in ejection procedures and water survival in case of a crash. But the carrier was just 30 miles from shore by the time he arrived, and officials said it had slowed down so that Bush could spend the night on board before the USS Abraham Lincoln docks today, extending by one day the sailors' almost 10-month deployment at sea, the longest by a carrier in 30 years. (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/122/nation/Bush_proclaims_a_victory+.shtml
This Bush fellow is a real prince.
|on the other hand...||DougSloan|
May 2, 2003 1:17 PM
Lincoln sailors cherish Bush visit
May 2, 2003 For many sailors on board the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush's visit was a moment they will not forget. NBC's Ann Curry reports
Many of the 5,000 sailors said it will be some time before they forget their last day away from port, and several praised Bush for making it special.
"It's like when you thought everybody forgot about you," said Djossou. "He came out here and made everything better because he didn't forget."
|Hmm. . .||czardonic|
May 2, 2003 1:29 PM
|I suspect that there were also "many" sailors who didn't feel at all forgotten by the spouses and children waiting for them shoreside.
Moreover, Bush could easily have visited without depriving these people of a day of their lives spent with family. Instead, it appears that they were delayed simply to create a pretext for his carrier landing and slumber party.
But if the sailors don't see it this way, then no harm, no foul.
|Hmm. . .||purplepaul|
May 2, 2003 1:40 PM
|I think it would be pretty amazing to meet a president, even if I didn't support his policies. Just knowing the amount of power he has makes him larger than life. For military personnel, I'd expect it to be even more significant. But it's pretty lame that the carrier was just 30 miles off shore. Weak.|
May 2, 2003 6:27 PM
|I'm proud of the military and the mission they accomplished. I think Bush could have met the ship when it docked but obviously he likes to play the jock. To me it was one of the tackiest events I've witnessed in many years (since Clinton played the sax at his victory celebration).
I'm concerned the US is not humble enough after this victory and is instead threatening many other countries either by using military force or economic sanctions. Through all this gloating this administration should realize the president isn't welcome in most countries of the world and the economy is the worst it's been in many years. He has a lot of work to do if he wants to be a 2 term president.
|That says it all for me ...nm||rwbadley|
May 2, 2003 8:40 PM
|I obviously think it was great. It said a lot about what he ...||Live Steam|
May 3, 2003 1:37 PM
|thought of the job those men and women did. It was grandstanding, but hey it also sent a message to other terrorist nations as well. I have no problem with sending the message that "if you mess with us we will mess you up." What is wrong with that? What is wrong with flexing muscle if you have it to flex? This country has been too complacent for many years. That sent the wrong message to those that would choose to intimidate us. Recent past administrations have done too little to respond to terrorist acts in the past. There was no fear of retribution. This lead to the bombing of the Cole, 9/11 and other tragic events. I was weary of it happening and so were many others including the men and women of our armed forces. That is why they gave GW the reception they did.
We took out the baddest bullies in the Middle East -the Taliban and Saddam - and in short order. I think everyone who had thoughts of committing heinous acts of terrorism against the US have taken notice and have re-assessed their commitment to attacking US interests. Good job GWB! Protect my ass and everyone I know and love from these threats. That's my taxes hard at work!
I don't know about your assertion that "the President isn't welcome in most countries of the world", but I know our money is. It seems that this is all we are appreciated for. Americans spending their hard earned dollars in foreign countries and on foreign goods. It may sound cynical, but it's true and I have experienced it - even here in the US by foreign immigrants. It's just the nature of people. Not necessarily that they are bad, but they certainly are looking out for number one.
|Live Steam where do you get your info??||CARBON110|
May 3, 2003 2:04 PM
|I think your right about flexing muscles so that the world knows " hey, we can be bad azz MoFos if we need to be and we can do it anywhere" However, alienating our allies is BAD policy. Iraq and the Taliban are far and away NOT the worst bullies LOL not even close mang. Going to Iraq was like Germany annexing Czech. in the WW2. It was pretty cake, not to minimize what our troops did at all. They are very brave. However, North Korea is threating the world with building Nukes, has openly lied, has prrof of Nukes ( unlike Iraq) and only China forced them to tone down their speech a little. How about Syria sheltering Humas or Jordan or iran who DOES have chemical weapons? Those places make Iraq look easy.
Its making a difference that we have a few hundred thousand troops in the middle east but, its not going to change much for awhile. GW knew he would win the war on Iraq and that makes a difference. by the way, the lack of action by Clinton did not lead to the Cole, 9/11 or the bombing embassys. What we did in our foriegn affairs lead to those actions. Do you really think these people thought, " hey they wont do anything " No, they didnt, its a way of life, a faith almost. China,Iran, Syria, are all looking to boost their economys right now and china especially makes $$$$$ huge money off USA. So they don;t like it when we get hit like 9/11 cause it threw the World into crisis finacially.
By the way, why the hell are we moving bases from Germany and France and other countrys that objected to our Iraq policy, to new countrys? Is this GWB being vindictive? Granted France was a little to eager to object but more alienation from our allies wont benefit our future
|Americans are often thought of as not understanding other||purplepaul|
May 3, 2003 2:30 PM
|cultures. I believe this to be true in some cases and no more so than in the Arab and Muslim world. Although it is unthinkable to us, I do believe that many leaders we have labelled "terrorists" really did not believe we would fight them. Bin Laden said as much, that we were wimps and cowards and would turn and run at the first shot. I believe it was important for us to prove them wrong on this count. The second major point of misunderstanding goes to their religious beliefs. I believe they truly believe that God is on their side, so they must win even though there is no rational evidence. Diplomacy cannot work. Re-educating people can, but first we have to get in there, destroy their corrupt leaders and set up schools free from religious fanaticism.
Diplomacy is the Western way. It's the Eastern way. I'm not sure what the Middle Eastern way is, but it sure ain't dealing with reality. Remember what a shock it was for them to finally see that Baghdad Bob was lying. How could they have seen it? They weren't encouraged to be critical thinkers, to challenge what authority said. So, in addition to understanding the good things of their culture, we must also recognize their limitations. And before someone accuses me of bigotry, of which I'm guilty on many things, I don't believe they are inherently different from anyone else on this planet. They're the victims of their environment, as are we all.
|One point ...||Live Steam|
May 3, 2003 3:03 PM
|I don't really think that Bin Laden and Saddam really believe that God is on their side and that they would somehow be victorious against our forces. I think they feed this to the fanatics and less educated to get them to put up some fight. It's their form of propaganda. Just like the stuff Baghdad Bob was feeding to the Iraqi people.
I think we have a few people here in the US that do and say the same things and use people less educated than themselves, to enrich their bank accounts - reference Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The intelligent and educated people of the black community do not support or sanction these two. They see through their nefarious ambitions and support those who truly want to speak for their needs.
|you forgot a few||rufus|
May 5, 2003 8:32 AM
|I think we have a few people here in the US that do and say the same things and use people less educated than themselves, to enrich their bank accounts - reference Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
like jerry falwell, rush limbaugh, newt gingrich, etc.
|If you read my post correctly I said ....||Live Steam|
May 3, 2003 2:50 PM
|the MIDDLE EAST. NK is not in the middle, where, by the way, most of our trouble has emanated from. GW may have had confidence that our success in Iraq would be swift, but most of the nay Sayers, including Janine Garofolo and Martin Sheen, said we would be entrenched in bloody warfare there for years. Hind sight is 20/20 you know :O)
Hey I'm all for kicking some A$$ is Syria. I think it would actually be easier than Iraq. That is why I believe that they will acquiesce to our demands that they knock the shlit off or face the same consequences. NK is a threat, but in the end I feel China will whip them into submission. I don't think they want nukes sitting on their border.
Do I think our inaction in the past lead to 9/11? Yes. Hey we dropped a few big ones on Khadafy and haven't heard from him in years. Power and force is all they respect and answer to. It was previously perceived that the US wouldn't act because the President wouldn't put his political ass on the line to do something about it.
Why is it perceived that we have alienated our allies? Why isn't it perceived that they have alienated us, GB and the rest of the coalition? The US and GB concluded that it was in their best interests to eliminate the possibility that Saddam was distributing WMD, information and money to those willing to take aggressive action against allied concerns. His persistent obstruction and unwillingness to work with the inspectors, brought about the decision to take action against him. This should have been enough to bring about a consensus among our "allies" that Iraq was a threat. Actually they did agree on countless occasions (ref. resolution 1441, et al) - that is until it came time to act. I have no problem in closing our bases in the countries you mentioned. They obviously don't appreciate us being there.
|I so totally disagree||purplepaul|
May 3, 2003 3:33 PM
|with those who say our policies brought 911 on us. That's like saying a battered woman deserves to be beaten because she pissed the guy off.
I thoroughly concur that our past inaction against terrorism was the single most important thing that emboldened our enemies. But I also think actions and words by Saddam and Osama demonstrate that they could not conceive of us retaliating. I think Saddam was utterly convinced of this especially because his links to the western world were on his side (France, Germany and Russia). Bin laden certainly tells his followers that we're all little girls, but I think he must believe it too or else he would have waited until he had a nuclear bomb to hit us (he would have been in a much stronger position). As it is, he grossly miscalculated our response and is in a much worse position now. It cannot be lost on his followers that he's hiding somewhere because he was thoroughly beaten.
We were heavy handed with our allies as they were with us. I think we could have won them over with better diplomatic efforts, but I blame France, Germany and Russia for their outrageous duplicitous behavior. As much as I would enjoy punishing them, I think the world would be better off with us realizing our tremendous power, and extending a fig leaf.
|I don't think that anything short of .......||Live Steam|
May 3, 2003 3:46 PM
|bribery would have swayed them from their positions. After all their unwillingness to stand against Saddam was financially driven. If the US were to somehow make up for their losses, I am sure they would have participated. I do not think they were standing on principal. I would extend the fig leaf from a political perspective, but I would not go out of my way to ensure that they get to participate in rebuilding Iraq and prosper financially. Humanitarian aid and policing duty is all that I would allow.|
|You want another war?||dasho|
May 3, 2003 7:19 PM
|I have a 17 year old son and don't want to lose him because Bush wants to take our minds off the economy. Sure, we can kick Syria's @#$ very easily as well as most if not all other countries in the world but that isn't going to stop terrorism but only make it worse.
Bush and his administration seems to have adopted that gung-ho philosophy and for that reason I hope this is a one term administration. It would be nice if these cowboys could stop threatening virtually everyone, learn to be a little more humble, and try to mend some fences. Talk about poor foreign relations. We are despised by most of the world and it doesn't have to be that way. We can fight terrorism more effectly with the help of other nations.
Let's face it, the US getting the UN involved with Iraq was a charade. Bush never gave the UN enough time to carry through with inspections etc. and was constantly threatening Iraq during the inspections. Don't get me wrong; I don't feel the UN would have been successful with the inspections and was for removing Hussein but why in the hell play silly games? Did Bush think the rest of the world couldn't figure out his so called strategy? I don't think GW is sure who he is; he seems to want try both Powell's dove methods and Cheney/Rumsfeld's hawkish philosophy. I don't think that qualifies him as a great leader.
|The inspections lasted 12 years. How much more ...||Live Steam|
May 3, 2003 8:09 PM
|time was needed? As for "the World despises us" crap. If it is true, it did not start during this administration. 9/11 happened just a short few months into his Presidency. So if we are truly hated, it started well before he got into office. Your son is 17. So what. Is he in the service? There is no draft you know. Tell him to stay in school and get a good education. Those that are serving are doing so voluntarily with the full knowledge that they may have to put themselves in harms way.
I am sick and tired, as are many others, of not responding to the pot shots that these punk terrorists have been taking at US citizens and US interests. It has to be addressed. The only way to get results is to go after the source. You liberals want to appease. Well that has proven not to be effective and in many areas, both domestically and internationally. Appeasement means weakness to the evil minded. They only respond to force.
Tell those that lost some loved on during the 9/11 tragedy or in the bombing of one of our US concerns abroad, that we should turn the other cheek. They had sons that were lost to terrorism. GWB is taking action and sending fair warning that these acts of aggression and cowardly acts of terrorism will not go unanswered. I don't understand why every liberal is so concerned about what other countries think about the US. They obviously didn't think they needed to present a united front against a despot bent on aiding abetting terrorism against the US. I could really care less what they think. They only want two things from us anyway - to be allowed to come to the US and our money. They have no sense of camaraderie with us. They have their own national pride and their own concerns. France, Russia and Germany are the last nations that should be giving advice on international tolerance and diplomacy. Their records are deplorable and speak for themselves.
You obviously cannot be objective about Bush. He will win a second term in office - hands down! So get used to the idea :O)
|The inspections lasted 12 years. How much more ...||dasho|
May 4, 2003 8:22 AM
Please read my post again. I don't argue the UN inspections didn't and wouldn't work. I said Bush should have never went through the UN in the first place and it was a total charade. I don't think a great leader would have made such a poor decision. He has too many cooks in the kitchen in my opinion.
And I was totally for attacking Al Queda in Afganistan and removing Hussein and his regime. But this attitude that we ought to invade Syria and other countries just because we can kick their cans is what concerns me. Yes, we need to pressure them to quit supporting Hezbollah and other terrorists organizations but we also need to look at WHY Syria and others are doing it which leads to the Palestine/Israel conflict. Bush needs to pressure Israel a bit as he did so when first elected but he has pretty much done an about face as of late. I'm not saying we should abandon Israel as they are a true friend and democracy but they must concede some things for the peace process to work and I'm not sure Sharon has any intention of doing so.
Lastly, I am not a liberal as you assume and in fact have been called a "Bushie" on previous posts. I just call em like I see em. I lean more towards the conservative side but the last time I voted for a Republican (I now vote Libertarian) was Bush Sr. We went from having a lawyer (and his wife) as our commander in chief to a golden boy that has had everything handed to him and can't relate to the average working class American. Now that is real progress. Let's face it, neither party gives a flip about most Americans and are bought off by the lobbyists.
I'm not so sure Bush will get re-elected as you say but if I survived 8 years of the Clinton administration I suppose I can get through another few years of these cowboys.
|The inspections lasted 12 years. How much more ...||Live Steam|
May 4, 2003 8:59 AM
|My reading of your previous post suggested to me that you believed that the inspections should have continued indefinitely - "Let's face it, the US getting the UN involved with Iraq was a charade. Bush never gave the UN enough time to carry through with inspections etc. and was constantly threatening Iraq during the inspections." However I take it face value that you did not intend that. Bush went the only route that was geopolitically acceptable - via the UN and sanctioned by UN resolutions. He may or may not have known that the Triumvirate would have dissented as they did. This did however, provide authorized cover for the actions the coalition may have well been planning to take regardless of the outcome of the inspections. France, Germany and Russia may just have played into the hands of the coalition. Maybe Fr., Gr., Ru. should have stood ground with them against Saddam. This may have resulted in a different history of events. So maybe you assessment of Bush is off a bit. Maybe he is not so much a Cowboy as he is a poker player.
As I stated in another post, I have never gotten the impression that the Bush's flaunt their wealth or have been jaded by it. I have always gotten that impression form America's other "first family" the Kennedy's. Maybe it's all the trips to Tahoe and the yacht sailing and Hollywood hob knobbing that does that to me :O)
Oh, by the way I am happy to hear you have a relatively conservative perspective on things :O)
|The inspections lasted 12 years. How much more ...||Live Steam|
May 4, 2003 12:19 PM
|I should have taken the opportunity to apologize in my last post for calling you a "Liberal". If you are conservative that must have stung quite a bit. I know I would be offended. Just ask Old Ed :O)|
|No harm, no foul...||dasho|
May 4, 2003 3:58 PM
|Believe me I am conservative but I don't agree with everything the Republicans do just because I'm conservative. I wish there was a viable 3rd party that was somewhere in between the 2 but it will never happen. Although I'm not a Nader fan, I agree with his assessment that both parties are controlled by corporate America.|
May 4, 2003 4:43 PM
|I am willing to bet anyone $20 that GW doesnt get re-elected. Unless the Demos hand him the elecetion (which is very possible) or he comes up with some genius plan for the economy (not quite as possible) The Demos have alot of work to do but critizing us right now isnt prudent. Some of you Republicans and Democrats are as bad as religious fanatics. You lose sight of reason. Let me get this straight, GWB is proactive? For who? America? Maybe the top 10% of the country but that's it. There are millions out of work,Millions and growing at a fast rate, so take a look at what the new tax cut is going to cut for funding so that 226,000 of the wealthiest Americans can have more $$ The only thing GWB has risked are the lives of USA soldiers for something that will end up costng the USA more money in rebuilding ( if we keep our word since we havent started rebuilding Afganistan..but theres no oil there )and protecting. Billions in war debt, a failing economy...bad judgement and poor timing. I am glad we went to Iraq, but not the way we did...on our own and alienating half the world. I'm still waiting for Live Steam to make some sense about why GWB is so proactive and so ""kick azz"" By the way you need to research the facts behind the Cole and Embassy bombings.
GW better enjoy the ratings while they last cause there will be a hell storm come election time. By the way, GWB polls were through the roof when we went into Iraq the first time, Dont you remeber him going to see th troops then? Same thing, same reception. It happened to his father. All we need is a Demo or Independant with a real plan and some respect.....Howard Dean?
|Please..... explain some of the facts about ...||Live Steam|
May 4, 2003 6:23 PM
|the Cole bombing and the embassy bombings. Enlighten us, please. You bit the Dumocrats line about the 226,000 wealthiest Americans crap, hook, line and sinker. They play down to the intellect of the crowd that's for sure. While your at it why don't you tell us what your understanding is of the proposed tax cut and how it will be implemented. Maybe you'll convince me that it's a bad idea and I'll change my vote :O)|
|Here ya go mang..........||CARBON110|
May 5, 2003 9:31 AM
|First and foremost, the wealthiest 226,000 people is a FACT it's a proven statistic that can NOT be refuted. It's not some food for the Demos out there. Secondly, lets agree not to have personal attacks or to have to pretentious a dialogue between us ok? There is black and white and I like to believe that most of us are grey. Meaning that there are Hard core Demos and Hard core Republicans but most of us are just looking for the most intelligent leader to vote for regardless of party. We may lean to one side or the other occassinally but the House,Senate seats change alot so being a Democrat in say the late 80s or early 90s isnt the same as being one in the late 90s ...if you know what I am trying to convey. The partys dynamics change with the social,world affairs,domestic affairs etc etc of the country. For both Ds and Rs. Sure there are basic fundamentals I know.
In anycase, I agree with you that alot of politicians play the masses as they think will benefit them. If you get C-SPAN you should listen in. To mention a few, the tax cut will be pair alot for by cutting other programs. The Bush administration has received alot of bad news for thins like, social policy,no economic growth and blatant disregard for it. The tax cut will cut programs like 500,000 after school programs, alot of Health care beneifits to name a few things that will effect an already struggling economy. I will name more when I have time, but these will also put people out of jobs. Jobs, unemployment is growing fast. So unemployment costs wll start to go up as well...everything that's correlated to a jobless economy.The level of living will decrease eventually because its NOT going to get better for at least the next 10-12 months and it will growth more and more.
As for the Cole and embassy stuff, those are part of the unofficial war, the unamed war the USA and others have been conducting for years. USA especially has a bad name among Middle Eastern countries because we have either implemented a violent leader or worked with one. In return that leader mistreats his population and eventually gets overthrown and replaced by people who know the USA had supported. I'll give specifics later when I hvae a chance today...but this is my short timed response Live Steam...hope it pushes you to the Old Grand Party isnt thinking as clearly as it should.....especially when it comes to being visionary about spending $$$$$$$ War debt,cutting the countrys programs to pay for a futile tax cut, no one in hostory has done this...and now we have to spend more Billions on rebuilding Iraq and Afganistan cause we said we would...or we will just repeat the above by unvolving ourselves in worldy conflict to save democracy under the pretense now of keeping the country safe...then leaving a big mess in our wake...hopefully some violent leader who is anti-USA wont come to power in our wake in Iraq and Afg. Hopefully another Mao or Saddam wont either
|About that tax cut.....||dasho|
May 5, 2003 2:18 PM
|Warren Buffet said today that a tax cut will only help the rich and won't help the economy much but will sink the government deeper into the red. I think the only thing that will really get us out of this recession is to get more Americans working.
The last tax cut was a joke as far as I'm concerned. I agree to a point with the philosophy that giving a tax cut to the rich will help somewhat as the rich own corporations/businesses and they may hire more people etc. But companies don't need tax cuts, they need to be selling more of their products but many Americans are out of work or nervous and aren't eager about buying goods unless absolutely necessary.
Todays headlines stated that companies planning layoffs surged in April. If Bush is smart, he will start listening to people like Buffett. I'm not blaming the Repubs for this recession as it started under the Dems watch but the Repubs need to be more fiscally responsible.
|they won't hire you, you are not cheap enough...||LinuxDude|
May 7, 2003 9:16 AM
|Whether the corporations get the tax cut or not they are going to spend it on cheap labor abroad. As has been increasing the case with IT (well-paid, service) jobs. |
this article "Jobs take trip abroad" explains this new trend in detail: http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0503/04outsource.html
here is an excerpt:
"This increasing mobility of many jobs -- in IT, but also in areas like accounting and engineering, and in less-skilled fields like call centers -- has grown into a mainstream trend. There's concern that tech jobs could make a shift akin to what happened when manufacturing jobs migrated to Mexico, China and Southeast Asia. As with those factory jobs, the job market for American tech workers, already depressed by the dot-com bust and the stagnant economy, could get tighter."