Support NeoGAF

[Belfast]

Yes many of you do and we should continue to work together to improve the country. I was however addressing the ones who are constantly making idol threats about leaving and play pretend like everything is going wrong in the country. If you can't acknowledge the tremendous economic turnaround or admit that Iraq is better off then you don't really care about the country either. You can still disagree with the way the war was waged, but calling Bush a liar is unproductive nonsense. As you can see every major player in the Democratic party today believed there were WMD in Iraq and most of them advocated military action.

"believed" PAST TENSE. This is what history is all about. It allows us to learn from our mistakes and do better next time. Some people have learned, others have not. Care to guess which group is which?

Also, calling the current trend a "tremendous economic turnaround" is just idiocy.

1) War-time economy. OK, so war isn't the economic powerhouse it might've been in, say, WWII, but the trend IS usually up during a war period. Now....if only we could have economic prosperity in a time of relative peace...hmmm....

2) Economic trends have natural ups and downs. I've yet to see enough evidence or improvement to claim that the economy is improving rapidly. And I'd hardly praise Bush for it. Improving some? Maybe. Hardly a "tremendous economic turnaround."

 

[fart]

well did he lie? because if he lied then he's a liar.

i'm willing to vote for kerry because i think change can come in degrees, and that if you don't attempt to make changes in small degrees, the large ones will never happen. it's the apathetic or third party voter belief that nothing will change in a change of administration given the two-party system, and i agree that fundamentally nothing will change. however, people's lives hinge on the minutiae of policy as well as the fundamentals.

this is what i would advise you to do, triumph. become active in the process. support your idealism and plan for big change in the future, but place your vote where you can make the small changes right now

 

[Mandark]

I get a feeling that the media has chosen its story about Nader, and it's a story that appeals to a lot of people. It's Quixotic Purity vs. Realist Compromise. It's the Corrupt System vs. The Righteous Reformers. It's compelling, primal, and easy to understand.

I have two main problems with it, though.

First, I don't think Nader is fully committed to founding a year-round grassroots movement to change the political climate. He still supports issue-oriented nonprofit organizations, but for someone who says the two-party system is irredeemably corrupted, he seems to have done very, very little about it.

He does not support a party. Has he campaigned on behalf of any likeminded senate or house candidates? What will he do with his campaign apparatus after this election? Why in the blue hell is he hanging out with Ralph Newman? Why has he said he "doesn't deal with the web" when it's obviously become an important recruiting, organizing, and fundraising tool for liberal/progressive activists?

Secondly, I don't think supporting a third party is a smart method if you want to change the political landscape in a meaningful way. Perot garnered many times the votes that Nader did, but his footprint was washed away with the tide.

Much more effective is to take over an established national party. The Goldwater Republicans figured that out, and the result was Reagan, the class of 94, and Dubbya. I think this is what MoveOn, meetup.com, the remnants of the Dean campaign, etc. will try to accomplish.

If you want to look at a losing political campaign with real significance this year, look at Toomey vs. Specter in PA.

PS Do any of the fringe liberal candidates have real ideas about Iraq? As someone who's read way too much about it, I'm interested. Both Nader and Kucinich propose removing US troops from Iraq, which is within America's power, and replacing them with UN peacekeepers, which is not. It makes me think they're either not serious about the issue, that they really agree totally with Kerry and are trying to hide that, or they're afraid to admit they see the project as already failed.

After all, if they advocated the "least worst solution" for something, they might have to apply that standard domestically.

 

[Belfast]

well did he lie? because if he lied then he's a liar.

BUT, BUT, CLINTON LIED TOO!!! And so has every other politician in existence and probably 99% of people around the world, but I thought I'd bring it up before someone else did.

Of course Clinton lied, but he lied about a blowjob, not a war.

 

[videogamer]

Yes many of you do and we should continue to work together to improve the country. I was however addressing the ones who are constantly making idol threats about leaving and play pretend like everything is going wrong in the country. If you can't acknowledge the tremendous economic turnaround or admit that Iraq is better off then you don't really care about the country either. You can still disagree with the way the war was waged, but calling Bush a liar is unproductive nonsense. As you can see every major player in the Democratic party today believed there were WMD in Iraq and most of them advocated military action.

I never said anything about the economy or the state of Iraq. Perhaps some people focus on the negatives and that's what they end up talking about.

However, several other posters have said that there are websites dedicated to calling Bush a liar. OK, so I did a quick Google.

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

OK, so some of those are just disingenuous, but others pretty much conflict with what he said.

 

[Tekky]

...
If you can't acknowledge the tremendous economic turnaround or admit that Iraq is better off then you don't really care about the country either. You can still disagree with the way the war was waged, but calling Bush a liar is unproductive nonsense.
...

I credit Alan Greenspan (along with America's innate economic strength) for the ecnonomic turnaround.

I also think that Iraq could have been much better off if war had been waged competently, rather than just rushing in there and fumbling around like we did. Sure, we dropped bombs "real good", but there wasn't any plan to maintain order or even the good will of the Iraqis.

And by the way, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar, Bush is a liar. For far more reasons than just the war. But you don't want to talk about those. That'd be unproductive nonsense.

 

[----]

Economic trends have natural ups and downs. I've yet to see enough evidence or improvement to claim that the economy is improving rapidly. And I'd hardly praise Bush for it. Improving some? Maybe. Hardly a "tremendous economic turnaround."

Well then you're sadly in the minority, the registered voters are seeing the economic upturn in all the polls.

well did he lie? because if he lied then he's a liar.

No, Bush didn't lie. He told what he knew and what everyone in the Democratic and Republican party believed. He told what many of the countries in the UN believed. And we unfortunately don't have enough information about what was going on to know with absolute certainty what was and wasn't in Iraq. The exact extent of how much Saddam violated the UN resolutions is in question, but the fact that he clearly violated them eggregiously is not. It was within our legal right to go to war, removing Saddam Hussein was not a mistake,

If it was proven that Bush lied he would deserve to be punished as much as Clinton was. But it doesn't look that way at all. Bush was working with the same information that the Clinton administration had and they wanted to go to war as well. They supported the war fully. And we weren't alone in this war, there was a coalition of countries with us that had their own intelligence on the matter. Either everyone lied or no one lied.

 

[fart]

BUT, BUT, CLINTON LIED TOO!!! And so has every other politician in existence and probably 99% of people around the world, but I thought I'd bring it up before someone else did.

Of course Clinton lied, but he lied about a blowjob, not a war.

clinton was a liar. he just went about it a little more intelligently.

 

[Tekky]

Actually, one more point about the great recovery. We've got a huge debt now. Biggest ever, even in relative terms. Huge deficit too, of course. (Clinton had managed to erase the debt, even build up a surplus.)

Calling this recovery a recovery is kind of like buying everything you want and running up a huge credit card bill and thinking it's all good now.

Whatever happened to conservatives, well, you know, _conserving_?

 

[----]

Gotta love people who are willing to make jokes and play partisan politics with issues as serious as Iraq. This shouldn't be about childishly trying to get revenge over the Clinton Monica Lewinsky scanal. Blame Clinton's impropriety and weak self control for that sad time in our history, don't blame the Bush adminstration for something they had no involvement in. Clinton got caught in a lie because of a giant stain on a dress. When you can produce a stain on a dress like the one that proved Clinton had obstructed justice, then you can start talking about lying.

 

[Hitokage]

On some reasons that Bush does not merit reelection...

- Even if tax cuts really are helping the economy into a short-term boom(debatable), they came at a horrendous cost.... the federal budget is now hemorrhaging money... and Bush makes it perfectly clear that those tax cuts were NOT keynesian, and is openly criticizing any motion to roll them back. Simple fiscal irresponsibility.

- Terrorist activities have risen in the past few years. Afghanistan is now ruled by warlords, and Iraq is still struggling for stability. They went forward with noble plans with little regard for ramifications.

- Many in the retired community feel aren't happy with the new Medicare bill. I can't speak for them though, having never looked into the specifics for myself. I just know that despite the official AARP line, many are upset.

- Bush is pushing to make the Patriot Act permanent.

- The Bush Administration has been stonewalling investigations and withholding information to a degree unlike any other previous administration.

- Speaking of withholding information, the Administration has conducted widespread abuse of scientific policymaking.

- Bush's environmental policy is a joke.

- The administrations blatant disregard for governmental checks+balances, having told congress or the courts on more than one occasion to shut up and defer judgement to them.

 

[Tekky]

No, Bush didn't lie. He told what he knew and what everyone in the Democratic and Republican party believed. He told what many of the countries in the UN believed. And we unfortunately don't have enough information about what was going on to know with absolute certainty what was and wasn't in Iraq. The exact extent of how much Saddam violated the UN resolutions is in question, but the fact that he clearly violated them eggregiously is not. It was within our legal right to go to war, removing Saddam Hussein was not a mistake,

If it was proven that Bush lied he would deserve to be punished as much as Clinton was. But it doesn't look that way at all. Bush was working with the same information that the Clinton administration had and they wanted to go to war as well. They supported the war fully. And we weren't alone in this war, there was a coalition of countries with us that had their own intelligence on the matter. Either everyone lied or no one lied.

Wow! What a way to twist the facts into blame for everyone.

I suppose you think Richard Clark is a big fat liar? Bushies were trying to figure out how to attack Iraq even before 9/11. They were constantly looking for a reason. People in the intelligence department were being prevented from giving real intelligence to other parts of the government. It had to be "massaged" first, such that anything that didn't agree with the "we must attack Iraq" plan was edited out.

The lies had to originate from somewhere. Do you think they just spontaneously started appearing from everyones' lips? "Oh, it's okay, everyone was doing it."

Must be awfully dark where you head is right now.

 

[----]

Actually, one more point about the great recovery. We've got a huge debt now. Biggest ever, even in relative terms. Huge deficit too, of course. (Clinton had managed to erase the debt, even build up a surplus.)

Calling this recovery a recovery is kind of like buying everything you want and running up a huge credit card bill and thinking it's all good now.

Whatever happened to conservatives, well, you know, _conserving_?

It's called recovering from a recession. You can't just keep changing your expectations. The demand from the Democratic party for the last year has been for the adminstration to create jobs and take us out of recession. John Kerry was constantly evoking Hoover and talking about the Great Depression, and George Bush ended up making him look like a jackass. Kerry bet on the economy not turning around, he bet against the tax cuts working, he was convinced there would be no job growth and he flat out lost that bet. Take your lumps and at least move onto another issue. If you're going to belabor the economy people are going to just remember how bad Kerry's take on it was. When Bush Sr. promised he wasn't going to raise taxes and did, he paid for it. Now Kerry promised us that we would all be jobless and sufferring because of Bush's economic plan, it didn't work out for Kerry. Why should anyone have faith in him anymore?

If anything Clinton showed us how the tremendous defecit we had amassed over the 80's protecting this country was not that big of a deal. It's fine to rack up debt if you can pay it back easily. Americans don't want to be taxed to death right now, John Kerry is promising taxes. Americans want jobs, taxes aren't going to bring jobs or wealth for the American people.

Bushies were trying to figure out how to attack Iraq even before 9/11. They were constantly looking for a reason.

Good, that's something to be proud of not embarassed of. Did you miss the part about me being furious with Bill Clinton for not doing anything when Iraq violated the 16 prior UN resolutions or when Iraq tried to assassinate our President. Clinton's excuse for not doing anything more serious with Iraq was that his hands were tied because of his impropriety scandal. Boy there's a President that was fit to lead America. What Iraq is experiencing today came a decade too late.

- Bush is pushing to make the Patriot Act permanent.

Good, John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act too. If wiretaps are okay for mob bosses then they're fine for terror suspects too. I don't understand people who are more afraid of our government than they are of terrorism.

- Terrorist activities have risen in the past few years. Afghanistan is now ruled by warlords, and Iraq is still struggling for stability. They went forward with noble plans with little regard for ramifications.

The job is not done. The answer is not to pull out of Iraq or cut funding to our troops that are trying to get the job done. John Kerry sent our troops to war and then later voted against supporting them while they were there. That is certainly not the answer. NATO is going to help provide security in Afghanistan so that the elections can go forward in Afghanistan and remain a free country. The CBS/NYTimes poll numbers show that while you're not convinced, the registered voters are overwhelmingly convinced that Bush's policies against terrorism have been effective.

 

[Tekky]

...
When you can produce a stain on a dress like the one that proved Clinton had obstructed justice, then you can start talking about lying.

Actually, that's not true. Even if you had multiple videos catching all of Bush's lies, he would not be impeached. Republicans are not going to impeach their own guy. It would be political suicide. Not going to happen, unless the public mind goes that way. (If that would happen, then perhaps you'd see the rats jumping off the sinking ship.)

With Clinton, the Republicans were spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money for a special investigator to look into Clinton's affairs during nearly his entire term in office. They needed anything, because they had a majority in congress ready to bust him.

 

[Minotauro]

----, do you think it was dishonest of Bush to take advantage of the American public in the wake of 9/11 to further his own agenda regarding Iraq?

Or, if you think he didn't do this, do you honestly believe we would be in Iraq right now if 9/11 hadn't occurred?

 

[----]

I listened to every one of Bush's speeches and he never once said that 911 was the reason to go to war in Iraq. It was quite clear from the long arduous saga we had with the UN that the reasons for war with Iraq were violations of the UN resolutions specifically 1441. While there is obviously a link to terrorism with Iraq as Saddam was never shy about admitting that he funded and encouraged terrorism, it was never presented by Bush as the only reason to go to war with Iraq. The link between 911 and Iraq is in Americans minds, after 911 our focus needs to be on that region of the world. If we do not help them make progress we are all going to suffer for it, as 911 proved. We can not ignore that region of the world and pretend that will keep us safe.

Or, if you think he didn't do this, do you honestly believe we would be in Iraq right now if 9/11 hadn't occurred?

We would honestly be in Iraq even if 911 hadn't occurred. 911 pushed it up on the priority list. It was extremely logical to deal with Iraq after we dealt with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Colin Powell is not an idiot. They are very closely related issues, but not directly related. Without 911 the adminstration would have still gone through the same steps with the UN demanding that Iraq comply with the UN resolutions. When Iraq failed to comply with the UN resolutions, the Bush adminstration would not have been content with carpet bombing for a week, like the previous administration was. 911 pressed the issue to a pace that maybe didn't allow for a smooth diplomatic process, but with France's intent to undermine everything the US does, it's likely that the outcome would have largely been the same.

Minotauro, you and Tekky need to have it out because the points that you just made completely contradicted each other. Maybe you guys could get your story straight then come to me with questions. Which is it? Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq before 911 or after? Either way, I don't care it was obviously the right thing to do. Pick your reason for war, there were plenty to choose from, Saddam was a pretty fucked up evil bastard who gave everyone plenty of legal reasons to dispose of him. Anyone who was selling weapons to Iraq after what he did in Hallabjah, and I'm not just talking about the French (maybe even some US companies), should be ashamed of themselves if they stood against this war.

 

[Tekky]

It's called recovering from a recession. You can't just keep changing your expectations.
...

Actually, it's called giving trillions of dollars to the Department of Defense and to the top 1% of the country's richest people, as well billions to several corporations who happen to be top contributors to the GOP.

I think it's a testimony to America's strength that we can survive this robbery and still pull through. Of course, now that education and many other federal programs have been cut, I hope our children will be smart enough to continue to compete against countries that are increasing educational funding.

If anything Clinton showed us how the tremendous defecit we had amassed over the 80's protecting this country was not that big of a deal. It's fine to rack up debt if you can pay it back easily. Americans don't want to be taxed to death right now, John Kerry is promising taxes. Americans want jobs, taxes aren't going to bring jobs or wealth for the American people.

Yes, that's right! You can count on an economic boom the size of the internet any time you need to pull out of massive debt! Look, there's another one, right around the corner! Here, let me take some more of this public money and give it to my friends; there'll be plenty to go around later!

(regarding wanting to attack Iraq)
Good, that's something to be proud of not embarassed of. Did you miss the part about me being furious with Bill Clinton for not doing anything when Iraq violated the 16 prior UN resolutions or when Iraq tried to assinate our President. Clinton's excuse for not doing anything more serious with Iraq was that his hands were tied because of his impropriety scandal. Boy there's a President that was fit to lead America. What Iraq is experiencing today came a decade too late.

Why were we so sure Saddam had WMD? Because we sold them to him!

I suppose you missed the part of American history where a Republican president was selling WMD to our buddy Saddam? Donald Rumsfield used to be such good buddies with Saddam back in the Reagan days. Of course, Saddam only wanted the WMD to kill Kurds. We knew that, but it didn't bother us, because Iran was the bad guy at the time, and Saddam wanted to fight them too.

Now, Bush wants to avenge his daddy so bad, he's willing to falsify intelligence to do so.

But it's okay, because Saddam's a bad guy. A friend of Reagan.

 

[Triumph]

Ugh. ---- is a nuisance.

Are you implying that Bush didn't lie about our reasons for going to war? Fine. He didn't lie. If that's the case, then he was woefully misinformed and made a horrible judgement because of that.

So is the President a liar or an idiot? Personally, I'd call him a lying idiot, but I've been known to want my cake and eat it too.

----, how do you defend the idiot man-child President's bungling of Afghanistan? Why did we wait for 2 months before we showed up there, and then pull most of our troops out to focus on Iraq- where Osama Bin Laden WASN'T? Why did the idiot man-child President focus on Iraq, where weapons inspectors couldn't find evidence of WMD, and none have been found to date other than a 10 year old single canister of gas lying on the side of the road? Why did he tell the American people that Saddam Hussein was the next imminent threat to the US, and that Iraq and Al Quaeda had serious ties(something the 9/11 commission refuted)? Why did the little grinning demon-spawn, who avoided military service by serving(or not) in the Texas Air National Guard have the unmitigated gall to stand on a US battle ship under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished" when more US Soldiers have died since than before in Iraq?

Finally, ----, why does this idiot man-child President seem intent on breaking open the protective glass case that our Constitution sits in and taking a good ol' fashioned Crawford, Tejas size shit all over it? Why has he sought to undermine the system of checks and balances that our Federal Government operates under, limiting civil liberties while at the same time saying, "The terrorists hate our freedom."? Am I, under this rationale, to believe that the half-bright, smirking daddy's boy in the Oval Office is a TERRORIST? Because he sure seems to hate our freedoms, ----.

Now, please link me to some well spun articles that will reinforce your positions. Nothing he, you or anyone under the sun can say or do will change the fact that George W. Bush is a lying, idiotic failure of a President, and a waste of oxygen. Please leave my thread and start one of your own next time, you imperialist apologizer. Some of us still love the Constitution and freedom. We'd like some time alone to have a last drink for these ideals before your demon-spawn hell beast of a President drives the last stake through the heart of the American dream.

 

[----]

Tekky, reread the Democrats quotes more carefully. They say "developing" weapons of mass destruction. There goes your "sold them to them" argument. Wave goodbye.

And yeah I'd rather the country function with a little defecit. That means our money is actually being used. What good does Clinton's surplus do us if he's ignoring all of the threats to the nation and letting our military strength go down the toilet. If you're going to tax us up the ass and take all of our money you might as well be using the money to keep us safe.

Fine. He didn't lie. If that's the case, then he was woefully misinformed and made a horrible judgement because of that.

If he was misinformed (and I'm not saying he was) then he made the right decision based upon the information that he had. So no, he made the right judgment. When the fire alarm is screeching in your building, you leave the building even if there is no fire. If the Democrats all believed Saddam was developing WMD as they're quoted as saying then with respect to 911 how can anyone say that the Clinton administration addressed the problems they believed existed properly.

Nothing he, you or anyone under the sun can say or do will change the fact that George W. Bush is a lying, idiotic failure of a President, and a waste of oxygen. Please leave my thread and start one of your own next time, you imperialist apologizer. Some of us still love the Constitution and freedom. We'd like some time alone to have a last drink for these ideals before your demon-spawn hell beast of a President drives the last stake through the heart of the American dream.

W-o-w.

 

[Minotauro]

We would honestly be in Iraq even if 911 hadn't occurred. 911 pushed it up on the priority list.

So, you're telling me, if Bush had started pushing for war in Iraq out of the blue, without any threat from them whatsover, it would've been authorized? Whether you want to admit it or not, the anxiety felt in the period following 9/11 is what permitted the Iraq invasion. The whole "War on Terror" is a very general idea invented by the Bush administration that has allowed them to further their various agendas.

You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

Also, you must've misunderstood me. I agree with Tekky that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq before 9/11 ever happened. My point is that he used 9/11 to accomplish it. Clearer?

 

[Triumph]

Tekky, reread the Democrats quotes more carefully. They say "developing" weapons of mass destruction. There goes your "sold them to them" argument. Wave goodbye.

And yeah I'd rather the country function with a little defecit. That means our money is actually being used. What good does Clinton's surplus do us if he's ignoring all of the threats to the nation and letting our military strength go down the toilet. If you're going to tax us up the ass and take all of our money you might as well be using the money to keep us safe.

You mean like the time he ignored the threat that Iraq presented to our nation when he bombed them, likely eliminating the last chemical weapons facilities that Saddam had? Yeah.

Who are you? Seriously. Are you Karl Rove's bitchy little brother? Dick Cheney's straight son that is so horribly disfigured they don't let him out of the basement? The guy that screws Rush Limbaughs pants on in the morning? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Jim Bowie]

When the fire alarm is screeching in your building, you leave the building even if there is no fire.
W-o-w.

But when you know that one of your idiot friends pulled the fire alarm to get out of working, do you still leave the building?

 

[Leon]

.

 

[Triumph]

I'm especially proud of the description of Dubya shitting on the Constitution. It may be the best off the top of my head thing I've ever written, as I read it again. I may add it to my stand up routine.

 

[----]

Hey Raoul, no need to get all prissy, we're just having a friendly conversation. You don't want to debate anymore we won't. No need to make things personal.

 

[Triumph]

Jesus and I love you, ----. But there are 1.3 billion muslims that want to stick our President's head on a pike. I'm just saying, if 50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong, 1,300,000,000 good natured, fun loving muslims probably aren't either. Heh.

 

[JackFrost2012]

Participating in Internet threads about politics is totally worthless, but I couldn't help but notice that every message in ----'s totally impressive (sarcasm) list of liberal support for Iraq and the Bush administration is OVER 18 MONTHS OLD.

You know, from BEFORE it was made abundantly clear that the American people were sold a bill of goods on the Iraqi debacle. A polite way of putting it would be that the fundamental reasons provided for the Iraqi invasion have been shown to be untrue. An impolite way would be to say THEY LIED.

I'd imagine that the tone from the left nowadays is probably a bit less supportive of your argument.

 

[----]

A polite way of putting it would be that the fundamental reasons provided for the Iraqi invasion have been shown to be untrue. An impolite way would be to say THEY LIED.

I'd imagine that the tone from the left nowadays is probably a bit less supportive of your argument.

JackFrost2012, where's 1997 Clinton appointee George Tenet now? Last I checked he's out of business.

Try to keep an open mind. Don't use a double standard. If you believe there were huge intelligence failures and Bush responded by removing the head of the CIA who was appointed by Clinton, how does the left only get a pass?

While the implications of intelligence failures are a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, the outcome of those possible intelligence failures in this case is thankfully not something to be concerned about. Both parties and both administrations may have used the same intelligence, but the fact that other countries who came to similar conclusions don't rely on our intelligence is what makes me wonder. The book is not closed for me, but either way the worlds smallest violin plays for Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi's are giving the man a trial right now. If there was no cause for war, he'd actually have a chance of not being executed.

 

[JackFrost2012]

Try to keep an open mind. Don't use a double standard. If you believe there were huge intelligence failures and Bush responded by removing the head of the CIA who was appointed by Clinton, how does the left only get a pass?

Hello, scapegoat much?

Do you think the Bush administration actually CARED about what the CIA thought? How uninformed are you?

The administration told the CIA what conclusions they wanted reached and waited for them to parrot them back. When that didn't work, Rumsfeld set up his own secondary intelligence organization independent of the CIA that he listened to in lieu of, you know, the government's actual intelligence arm.

This is what happens when you fudge the data to get the results you want: your experiment is eventually exposed as a sham.

 

[firex]

Without getting into specific policies, the Bush administration is run not too differently from a mafia family or a group of schoolyard bullies. Whenever someone in the group slips up and makes the rest of them look bad, they do their best to kill him off politically. Just notice the way officials that were formerly trusted and called upon regularly are suddenly treated as if it's their fault that Bush and/or Cheney made a stupid decision based upon what they said. Or how someone gets phased out when they no longer agree with Bush's inner circle.

I find the way Bush runs his administration to be not that different from the way many successful dictators have run theirs in other states throughout history - such as Caesar and Napoleon. Note that both of those men were wildly popular in their time - but they were still both dictators and ran a pretty tight ship based upon personal loyalty. Bush is not nearly as brilliant as either of those men, but the model he's running has proven to work. I think even Bush knows he can't just declare himself a dictator overnight with the way things are right now, but I think he is setting a dangerous precedent within the Republican party and possibly for American politics on the whole.

 

[Mandark]

where's 1997 Clinton appointee George Tenet now? Last I checked he's out of business.

1) If the CIA was providing enough intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq, what was the purpose of the Office of Special Plans?

2) Identifying Tenet with "the left" is disingenuous. He was a legislative assistant to George Heinz, a Republican Senator, for three years. He was unanimously confirmed by a Republican-majority Senate. He threatened to resign during the Wye accords. Bush decided to keep him on (a very unusual decision, lest anyone think it a formality or tradition).

3) A whole lot of people involved in national security are out of business, and it doesn't say much for the Bush administration.

The link between 911 and Iraq is in Americans minds, after 911 our focus needs to be on that region of the world. If we do not help them make progress we are all going to suffer for it, as 911 proved. We can not ignore that region of the world and pretend that will keep us safe.

1) A large percentage of Americans think Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Bush benefits politically from this misconception, and his public statements bolster it while avoiding factual statements that can be contradicted.

2) In his State of the Union address in 2003, president Bush focused almost wholly on the threat posed by Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. If his true motive for invading Iraq was the implementation of a free market democracy, then he was deceiptful in promoting the war.

3) I don't believe a significant part of the anti-war movement proposes to ignore the middle east. There are more than two options, and to characterize the opposition as isolationists is a straw man argument.

4) The goal of spreading democratic values is noble. The choice of war as a way to spread it is the debated part. Well-meaning enterprises have caused much grief without much to show for it, as in the Philippines. Bush himself compared Iraq's current situation to that of the Philippines in the past.

It's called recovering from a recession.

The deficits are not a temporary side effect of the recession. Bush has cut taxes while increasing both entitlements and discretionary spending, so it's fairly easy to see why.

John Kerry was constantly evoking Hoover

Because Hoover was the last president to leave office with fewer jobs in American than he began it with. Bush is behind by 1.2 million still, 1.9 if not for the increase in public sector jobs. Even now, wage and benefits are actually declining, which is atypical during a recovery, to say the least.

What good does Clinton's surplus do us if he's ignoring all of the threats to the nation and letting our military strength go down the toilet.

1) If used to pay down the debt, it could help the economy and help prepare the nation fiscally for the big retirement wave. Remember Gore's "lockbox?" Well, whatever figure is given for the national deficit, that's after they've added the SS payroll tax surplus to the unified budget.

2) Do you really think America's military strength was in the toilet when George W Bush took office? (Clinton did raise the budget each year of his second term).

3) John Ashcroft was proposing to cut counterterrorism funding on September 10, 2001 and his August 9 "Strategic Plan" focused on seven goals, none of which involved terrorism.

4) Clinton's team thought of terrorism as the main threat, while Bush's team took a state-based approach. But that's gristle for a whole new thread entirely.

PS Bush certainly lied about his actions on September 11. It can be argued whether those lies are significant or not, but they are documented lies.

PPS Liberals on this board: DO A BETTER JOB. You're not helping the team.

 

[JackFrost2012]

PPS Liberals on this board: DO A BETTER JOB. You're not helping the team.

SORRY!!

It's just that the hours I could spend arguing with pin-headed conservatives could be spent doing something useful, like getting Cloud and Barret to Lv. 99 in the Mako Reactor.

 

[DarienA]

I cannot believe what I have been reading in this thread... I wish I had jumped in earlier..... because there are so many points that ---- made that are just SO wrong... but let me focus on one.

---- you claim that Bush never made any link between 911 and why we went to Iraq? That's funny because Bush has constantly mentioned the fact that 911 was caused by Al Qaeda and that Saddam had strong ties to Al Qaeda.

Simply googling "iraq war bush al qaeda saddam 911" gives you a host of news articles talking about Bush and his Iraq/Al Qaeda links.

Hell you can simply google "saddam 911" for articles and comments.

 

[Santo]

The difference betwen the democrats and republicans:

Democrats can admit when they fouled up, republicans keep making things worse.

 

[Pattergen]

Yeah, ----, you must be a joke character. I mean, supporting the President and having faith that he can clean up this mess is a standpoint that is worth taking. Outright denying that this administration has bumbled, lied, or otherwise made major mistakes is ignorant. Members of the Bush Administration (including Bush himself) have constantly commented on ties between 911 and Iraq (which is an outright lie). Afghanistan is in shambles and is once again one of the largest Opium producers (which the Taliban had eliminated). The war with Iraq might be wrong and it might have been lied about, but it definitly shouldn't have happened as soon after the disaster that is Afghanistan. For me, accountability and honesty should be two things that the US government should hold above all else. The Bush administration does not have these qualities.

 

[ballhog]

Kerry may not be the greatest cantidate, I'm not that crazy about the guy either. But Bush is a total fucking disaster. It may be a case of the lesser of two evils, but one is clearly a shitload less evil. I can live with that. It's time to put idealism on the back burner and get the retard out of office. Be realistic, a vote for Nader might not be a vote for Bush, but it helps him anyway.

 

[Tekky]

---- is clearly a person who doesn't want to be bothered by _facts_.

He can seem to make only two points: Bush was right to kick Saddam's ass, and Bush was right to spend all our money.

He can't seem to address anything else. I suppose the only thing in his field of view is GWB's rear.

 

[Cooter]

Just as important, the U.S. ignored relevant lessons of history. In the 1920s, the British also attempted to bring some representative government to Iraq. After getting hopelessly bogged down in a culture that resisted outsiders, the British gave up and installed a strongman, though they were forced to keep troops in the country until the 1950s to maintain stability.

This borders on racism IMO. To say that an entire people are incapable of democracy is liberal elitism at its best. Any culture on the face of the earth can and should have freedom.

 

[firex]

This borders on racism IMO. To say that an entire people are incapable of democracy is liberal elitism at its best. Any culture on the face of the earth can and should have freedom.

Now I'm not who you quoted, but I think it's saying trying to impose a democracy on the country hasn't worked before and led to a dictator being installed. The quoted passage does not even imply that the Iraqis are incapable of democracy. It says that an outside government forcing a democracy on them does not work. There's nothing racist or "liberal elitist" about that quote. It only implies that a closed culture wasn't going to let an outside government impose their will on the Iraqi people.

 

[Teddman]

If you want to voice your dissatisfaction with the two-party system and their 2004 candidates, you could find many better ways besides voting for a grandstanding egotist like Ralph Nader. Even the Green Party wants nothing to do with him.

I read this column in Minneapolis Star Tribune and could not agree more with the author:

Norman Solomon: Nader hits a new low

Last update: July 3, 2004 at 9:24 PM
Norman Solomon: Nader hits a new low
Norman Solomon
July 4, 2004 SOLOMON0704

After supporting Ralph Nader's presidential drives in 1996 and 2000, I've become more than disappointed in his decision to run this year. I'm now aghast at the current extent of his double-talk -- and double-dealing. While he gives lip service to preventing a second term for the Bush presidency, Nader's key decisions fundamentally contradict his words.

When the Green Party's national convention refused to endorse Nader for president a few days ago, the delegates were not rejecting his strong anticorporate and prodemocracy politics. On the contrary, the convention was acting on the basis of such principles. Greens from every region of the country recognized that Nader -- proudly unaccountable to any institution but himself -- has steered his campaign into a steadily worsening tangle of contradictions.

Activists struggling to build a viable Green Party with a truly democratic process found that Nader preferred to remain aloof. Four years ago, he was the party's presidential nominee but declined to become a member. This time, he ruled out accepting the Green nomination. But he did express a desire for the party's "endorsement" -- and its ballot lines in two dozen states.

Nader promised no accountability for his campaign. In the driver's seat, with hands tight on the steering wheel, he offered to take the Greens for a ride.

Instead, Green delegates opted to nominate David Cobb, a longtime grass-roots activist with a commitment to building the party. Cobb doesn't hesitate to describe both President Bush and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry as corporate functionaries and militarists. But he readily acknowledges that Bush is significantly worse. And while Nader vows to actively seek votes in every state he can, Cobb has pledged to adopt a "safe states" approach that mostly bypasses campaigning in swing states.

Short on cash and volunteers, Nader began to make overtures several months ago for a Green Party endorsement that could get his name on some state ballots. To smooth ruffled Green feathers and boost his chances, Nader chose Green Party leader Peter M. Camejo as his running mate just days before the convention opened. The gambit didn't work.

Nader's credibility is at a new low. "I'm going to take more votes away from Bush than from Kerry," he claims. Yet the overwhelming majority of polls say just the opposite. And his vice-presidential candidate will be anathema to conservatives.

Nader's choice of Camejo renders even more relevant a quip from Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show": "Conservatives for Nader. Not a large group. About the same size as 'Retarded Death-Row Texans for Bush.' "

Camejo, who was a Socialist Workers Party spokesman for many years, will be most unpalatable to exactly the voters whom Nader maintains he can lure away from Bush.

While participating in a debate with Camejo early this year on the merits of a Nader presidential run, I was struck by his ideological rigidity -- and by his refusal to acknowledge real contrasts between Bush and the likely Democratic nominee.

On this point, Nader has waffled in recent months, sometimes differentiating between Bush and Kerry, other times seeming to conflate the two. By tapping Camejo, he has linked up with someone who routinely paints himself into a sectarian political corner. White House strategist Karl Rove must be more pleased than ever about Nader's campaign.

In early spring, when I spoke with Nader in a lengthy phone discussion, he never came close to making a credible case that his run could help beat Bush. The conversation reinforced my impression that his is a campaign in search of a rationale.

Ironically, these days, Nader's behavior resembles the efforts of an irresponsible corporate CEO who confuses his own prerogatives with the greater good.

Norman Solomon, coauthor of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You," wrote this article for the Baltimore Sun.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

----:

Good, John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act too. If wiretaps are okay for mob bosses then they're fine for terror suspects too. I don't understand people who are more afraid of our government than they are of terrorism.

The government is much, much, much more powerful. If the Patriot Act was really just about investigating terrorism, I don't think anyone would give a second thought to it. What has me upset is that they don't even legally have to have a decent reason to be spying on me anymore.

What good does Clinton's surplus do us if he's ignoring all of the threats to the nation and letting our military strength go down the toilet. If you're going to tax us up the ass and take all of our money you might as well be using the money to keep us safe.

Was a military better funded than all other militaries in the world combined no longer good enough?

In general, ----, replying to attacks on Bush with attacks on Democrats seems pretty futile in this thread. The opening post was about how neither group was good enough!

Teddman:

I read this column in Minneapolis Star Tribune and could not agree more with the author:

I've really not paid enough attention to Cobb or Nader to say how much I agree with the article's take on it... but as written I like the way it describes Nader's actions in relation to the Green Party. The ass thing about the two main parties is that it limits the individuality of each of the members. Just because the Green Party is small and unsuccessful doesn't mean I'll give it a free ride for pulling the same stunts on a smaller level to "build a viable Green Party".