icky

Chretien and Bush have the same glaring fault in my eyes. They both stand in front of the people for whom they are supposed to be working and essentially say "We're doing this whether you like it or not, because I said so". I accept that the leader of the country should be making the hard choices, but I can't accept that the reasons behind those choices are not articulated.

I have defended Bush against armchair presidents and knee-jerk partisan bashers many times, but his inability to communicate with the people is unacceptable in that position. He has made decisions which may have had rational thought behind them, but he has made them look like they were random whims.

And also, I blame the two-party system. Woof.

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

tHa_KhAn

Agreed. However, like I mentioned before Government action is rarely swift. I don't think anyone was aware of the cost before hand and that is the biggest gripe. If you thought it was a good idea then, you think it is a good idea now. You just may not think the price(monetary and in human life) is worth it anymore. Then comes the decision facing anyone ,Bush or the next administration and congress, at what point do we eat the losses and what point do we say a little more and we'll be there.

__________________

Beatnik

I don't hate Bush, although I do hate Fox News. But I do "strongly disapprove" of so many things he and his cohort have done. Let me count the ways:

I strongly disapprove of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted for no significant gain in Iraq.

I strongly disapprove of the 70,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, 4,000 U.S. military deaths, and 20,000+ American casualties that have occurred because we invaded Iraq.

I strongly disapprove of his politicization of National Security.

I strongly disapprove of his views on homosexuals. And abortion.

I strongly disapprove of the fact that he thinks God talks to him.

I strongly disapprove of the way he pronounces almost every word with three or more syllables - one syllable at a time.

I strongly disapprove of his blatant fiscal irresponsibility.

I strongly disapprove of his administration's repeated choosing of loyalty over competence.

I strongly disapprove of him flushing the good will of the world post-9/11 down the toilet by invading Iraq.

I strongly disapprove of his Vice President. And his Attorneys General.

I strongly disapprove of their attempt to frame the Democrats' win in 2006 as something that would please our enemies and Al Qaeda.

I strongly disapprove of the fact that our rights as citizens have eroded steadily in the past 6 years.

I strongly disapprove of the fact that we've given up just about all moral high ground in response to Al Qaeda; I strongly disapprove that now republicans in their debates strive to outdo each other in defending torture. I disapprove that the executive has in effect turned the "torture debate" into a semantic one.

I strongly disapprove of extraordinary rendition.

I strongly disapprove of AT&T forking over all the info that goes over its wires to the government, and that the executive is lobbying for amnesty for this violation.

I strongly disapprove of the fact that I'm now sympathetic to John Ashcroft, after learning about their midnight meeting with him in the ICU. I disapprove that I don't hate John Ashcroft any more.

I strongly disapprove of the fact that otherwise decent Americans defend the use of torture, the restriction of rights and liberties, and the extension of a doomed, expensive war. In the name of "freedom".

And so on. Call it "hate" or "strong disapproval". Call it "torture" or "enhanced interrogation". Semantics aside, we all know what we're really talking about.

__________________

TheSkudDestroyer

I don't at all sympathize with torture to obtain information...But it's really REALLY hard to draw a line on what IS and what is NOT torture. Torture creates high levels of emotional or physical stress. How can we always draw a line on what is torture? It's hard to make laws about it when there are so many ways you can "torture" someone.

It's such a fragile system, sometimes.

There is so much partisanship today that I hate turning on the TV. Republicans are stupid, Democrats are stupid...

The only person I wanna vote for is John McCaine, even though he's a "republican."

2008 is going to be the first election I vote in, and it's gonna suck!

__________________
|TG-6th|Skud
BMT Graduate - 320th Training Squadron, Flight 024 - MSgt Romero - "Kids no more!"
30 weeks Keesler AFB, 1W031 - Weather

xTYBALTx

Just write in "Tybalt from TG."

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

tHa_KhAn

Best idea ever! Only if you add Gunther in your cabinet.

__________________

xTYBALTx

Gunther will serve as Attorney General.

Further cabinet level appointments will be forthcoming.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

CingularDuality

Damn, that's funny!

I have a serious question for you, though, and to keep things simple, I'd like you to answer it with just a yes or a no.

If you were the President, and you just captured somebody that you are 100% positive has information about a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists inside the United States that is being planted in a large city in the next 72 hours, and no other interrogation techniques have worked, would you torture him to stop the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

I ask you this not because it's likely to happen exactly as I stated, but to demonstrate that dealing in absolutes is silly. I don't think that torture should be a policy of the USA, but to say that the US will never torture anyone ever, no matter what, is equally silly, IMO. Perhaps we should keep our torture a secret? Hell, I don't know. But I know that saying that torture should NEVER be an option is just downright stupid.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

xTYBALTx

The question is irrelevant to the question of whether torture should be legal or not - and here's why:

Keep it illegal, so then people will only use torture when they're so confident of its' utility as to stick their own neck out for it. If you save hundreds of thousands of lives, you'll have a full Presidential pardon coming right your way.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

tHa_KhAn

I think CD was aiming at that torture has a pretty broad definition and that some tactics could be considered torture by some groups and not by others. Personally I don't mind an attractive naked woman grinding her body on mine, but there are groups that would consider have said similar things are torture.

__________________

xTYBALTx

Just as some people don't feel pain (it's true - they exist), so therefore is it not tortuous to chop off people's limbs?

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

CingularDuality

Right, the question of legality is different than the questions that are being asked. I keep hearing "is it OK" or "is it wrong"... I'm totally cool with keeping it illegal, for the reasons you and I have illustrated.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

xanathemax

Please read a history book that wasn't written by a guy in a bunker surrounded by creamed corn. Regardless of political affiliation, there's near unanimous consensus that FDR was a good president. Just because you, someone born after the Great Depression/World War II with little understanding of what it takes to recover from such a crisis, don't like paying for school lunches doesn't mean FDR is one of the worst presidents ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...rvative_raters

Even the conservatives polled list him as one of the top three ever. Whether you think the New Deal provides for an ideal society or not, he pretty definitely saved this country from one of its harshest periods. If you're going to outlandishly claim that he's the worst president ever you'd probably do well to provide some reasoning.

Skylark

Warning: long reply to rants

And I hate CNN, the Times and most of the liberal media in the same way... but what point does that server? LOL... Everyone hates the other side's point of view.
Sure... about 40%(?) would, even if he was a GREAT president. Why? he is the other party? Just like 40%(?) would hate any Democrat president simply for being democrat.

That being said, I think he's messed some stuff up. Since Iraq started. he could have and should have handled a lot of things differently.

While I agree, I would be blaming terrorists, not Bush for the deaths. Or at least 99% (I suppose the cases where a few soldiers were bad could be argued. But we're not the ones killing all the civilians and ourselves.)

OH COME ON! Like the democrats aren’t? They are worse, in my opinion. They seem prepared to use the deaths of our soldiers simply to win the elections. They seem eager for more to die rather than commit enough force to make it work. Here's one editorial that listed a bunch of examples of their statements:
Democrats Spinning Gains In Iraq
From The Lexington Herald-Leader
Editorial

August 23, 2007
George Orwell, call your office. You can add to your list of opposites (“war is peace,” “ignorance is strength” and “freedom is slavery”) a new one. It is the emerging plan of congressional Democrats, joined by at least one Democratic presidential candidate: “losing is winning.” …
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin … says, “The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq... appear to have produced some credible and positive results.” …
[E]ven acknowledging progress on the ground is a far cry from a spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said recently that Democratic leaders are “not willing to concede there are positive things to point to” in Iraq. … U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., voted against authorization for Bush to invade Iraq. But he told the Olympian newspaper that he is convinced the military needs more time in the region and that a hasty pullout would produce chaos that could only help Iran and damage U.S. security.
Baird, too, recently returned from a visit to the region, including Iraq.
Even Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who can’t afford to be on the wrong side of victory no matter how far away it might seem, acknowledges the troop surge is producing results. So does Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin. …Yes, says Clinton, the surge is “working,” but according to her, it is coming “too late” and so it’s time to bring the troops home. If one suffers from terminal cancer and a last-ditch effort is made with experimental drugs to save the patient’s life, would a responsible physician give up and declare the situation hopeless, even as the drugs show progress fighting the disease?
All of Iraq’s political leaders are not on vacation. The Bush administration says Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other members of the elected government are negotiating a political settlement that would be acceptable to all sides. …
Democrats at last appear to have a war strategy. It is to snatch victory from the jaws of victory, even after claiming lack of progress and forecasting defeat for at least the last three years. …
http://www.kentucky.com/591/story/157131.html

And some of us don’t.
Then you also disapprove of most Christians? There are a lot of us and most of us believe God talks to us in some way. Now if he believed that God sat down and talked to him like he did in that Simpsons episode or something, that's one thing. (the red phone is for Russia, the white phone lets me talk to God!)
Seriously – other than the way – what has he messed up? Perhaps hearing the war is bad so many times, I missed something. Entirely possible. I know some things he did were working here and there, but the cost of the war tends to screw up a lot of things.
I agree somewhat, but I think that is pretty much normal business no matter who you are. To say that it is just Bush is... not sure what word to use here.
Which basically means you didn’t care for Iraq anyway. If you agree with the invasion of Iraq, then this means nothing because you also believe the world is refusing to see that the sky is blue. I disapprove of the world fighting so hard against us trying to do something that needs to be done. yes, we can argue over methods, results, etc... but terrorism is not going away. It was growing even before Bush became president. Now they are just more concentrated in one country.
I disapprove of them some, but hardly strongly. Again, I think it is politics and/or general beliefs. I believe you and I would disagree on a lot of things. I disagree with any politician at least some.
And I strongly disapprove of a certain democrat of going overseas to talk to the a hostile leader, giving support to his views and beliefs. I disapprove of the Democrats doing little (or even working against) to support the soldiers, then using those same soldiers' deaths as politcal ammunition to support themselves.
I strongly disapprove of the fact that these rights HAVE to be eroded somewhat just to protect us. I would agree that it has gone too far, but I would infer from your general statements that you think it has gone WAAAAY too far- possibly that nothing should have changed, but that is a whole discussion in and of itself.
I agree with this most of the way. However, do you really think they would treat our prisoners well if we housed them in the Hilton? That being said, I agree with others who say that it should be made illegal. I think Bush screwed up big time in the secret prisons and associated stupidity. Again, he could have made things a lot better by going about things differently. It doesn’t mean I think the initial move in was a a bad move.
And I disapprove of the fact that people act like they are listening in on every single normal american as they call pizza hut to order some food (sarcasm). Again – I think he should have gone about this in a different way. There is a group (judges) where he can go to get permission for wire taps. It is secret, but controlled by the whole checks/balances thing. Trying to do it without the usual method was a mistake. Granted – I think we all know that anything that was done through this method would have been leaked to the media about 45 seconds later, rendering them moot.
And I disapprove of the fact that you used to disapprove of him. Sure, he has done some things wrong. But I think most of what he has done was right or for the right reasons. Again, most of the negativity around him appears to me to be simply from disagreeing with his politics and religious views.
You’ve pretty much already said this, so this is just repetition other than the use of the ‘freedom’ tag. Again, torture bad. Restriction of rights and liberties – make a new thread and we could start discussing these restrictions on a case by case basis. Some of the restrictions weren’t bad. Some were. Doomed? OH COME ON!? No one knows how this is going to end up. I suppose you could call it doomed if the democrats win the presidency and control of both houses because they'll pull the plug and then Iraq will end up worse than it ever was. It'll turn into a breeding ground, controled by Iran.

Here is part of my problem. I know we need to discuss how how the world is going. I know the government needs to discuss things, argue and figure out what needs to happen. But the way some democrats are going about it is emboldening the enemy. If you don’t believe that, then I think you’re playing ostrich. (head, sand?) It is a fact that the terrorists see our news. They see the government is arguing for their side (in their view) and that these groups are winning. They see that they are screaming about the deaths of our soldiers and that we should get out. Conclusion: keep killing, eventually those pathetic looser Americans will leave because they have no stomach for fighting with TRUE soldiers of God (in their views).

I have no answer to how we could have done this whole discussion without giving them the moral support of having an end in sight. But the overzealous way some democrats are going about it is just wrong. The way that some portray all soldiers as rapists and baby killers is pathetic. That movie is going to be an al-queda recruiting tool for years and years to come. Or at least, certain parts will.

We are our own worst enemy.
When something happens (like 9-11), we follow a nice little process.
We evaluate. We study. We decide on a course of action. When that course proves difficult, we complain. We cry. One side (whoever is not in power) uses that as a means to attack the other side. We do things to interfer. We visit enemy leaders to lend credibility. Etc etc etc

I think things have been done well and things have been done poorly. But I think many of the people who argue for and against have they heads far enough up their sides backside that they can’t discuss things rationally (and I include myself in that area, despite my attempts to look at both sides).

There is a reason I usually don’t participate in threads like this. It is pointless. Bush bashing is a sport. It should be in the Olympics so the whole world can compete for the gold and ignore the real problems that exist. Meanwhile, the things he has messed up get lost in the general roar of the crowd as the effigies burn.

My main disapproval of Bush? That he isn't politically attacking back as effectively as he should. Because I see most of this anti-Bush stuff as pure politics from a side that hasn't done well in elections for a while.

__________________

Guardianx11x

The real problem is Texas. I think it is in America's best interest to never allow a Texan in office ever again. Anyone who is raised with state pride over national pride should not be granted the power of the executive.

__________________