A chronicle: Media question honesty of Bush administration

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

chrisms

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2003
6,615
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Your opinion. In my opinion, history will show that Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, doing untold damage to this country, specifically in the areas of international cooperation, civil rights, and the environment. He has also screwed up the economy, but he's only in the top three or four in that category (so far).

President Bush had virtually no control over the economy's recent downfall. Most analysts agreed before the election that the economy was headed for recession, and most agreed Bush would have a tough time handling the wrongful blame. The situation turned for the worse after September 11 when stocks fell greatly.

Bush is trying to fix the economy, but his plan is being debated. Until his tax cut is put into affect, we can not yet judge how he has handled the economic situation.

If anything Bush has advanced civil rights, by fighting to remove affirmative action. If you are unaware, affirmative action is something which is based soley on race, and discriminates against whites. He has also appointed a black Seceratary of State and a black female National Security Advisor.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: chrisms
If anything Bush has advanced civil rights, by fighting to remove affirmative action. If you are unaware, affirmative action is something which is based soley on race, and discriminates against whites. He has also appointed a black Seceratary of State and a black female National Security Advisor.

Sorry, finger check. I meant civil liberties
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Flap...Flap...Flap go the gums.
rolleye.gif


Yeah - we just decided that since Saddam kills his own people then we should kill them too?
rolleye.gif
No blood is on our hands except the splatter of Saddam's regime. You people don't have any idea if there was immenent danger to the US or not, but we ALL know there was immenent danger to our ally Isreal and other nations in the region.

And for Pete's sake QUIT TALKING ABOUT A "RUSH TO WAR" If anything we waited too damn long. That SOB had 12 years to own up to his end of the bargain and didn't! We tried many things to get him to comply WITH HIS OWN AGREEMENT!

IMO - Anyone who uses the "rush to war" argument is just plain ignorant.:|
But you are right on one thing - time is/was on our side - history will know that we gave Saddam 12 years to disarm and history will see that we were justified in taking him out.;)

CkG

My, you're really on a roll. No content, but lots of digs and distortions. Let's take a look at what you wrote:

Flap...Flap...Flap go the gums.
rolleye.gif

Gratuitous dig

Yeah - we just decided that since Saddam kills his own people then we should kill them too?
rolleye.gif

Lie - I said nothing of the sort

No blood is on our hands except the splatter of Saddam's regime
Wrong - of course their blood is on our hands, we killed them. The question for debate is whether it was justified.

You people don't have any idea if there was immenent danger to the US or not,
That's wrong too - we have a very good idea based on all sorts of evidence. Iraq obviously did NOT have the massive quantities of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons Bush claimed they had. We may still find small amounts, but they're hardly a significant danger to the country. His military was certainly no danger to us; we proved that in a scant three weeks.

but we ALL know there was immenent danger to our ally Isreal and other nations in the region.
False - we don't all know this. In fact, there is no reason to believe he posed any imminent danger to anyone other than his own people. Did he want to become dangerous again? Probably. Would he have eventually posed a danger? Maybe. Was he an imminent dnager? Get real. You need to look up the word "imminent".

And for Pete's sake QUIT TALKING ABOUT A "RUSH TO WAR" If anything we waited too damn long.
Statement of your opinion - the U.N. and most of the world disagreed.

That SOB had 12 years to own up to his end of the bargain and didn't! We tried many things to get him to comply WITH HIS OWN AGREEMENT!
Speculation. So far, we've found no evidence he was in material non-compliance, with the possible exception of the al Samoud missles which may have exceeded U.N. range restrictions by a small margin. We had inspectors in the country to determine whether Iraq was in compliance or not, and to bring Iraq into compliance if/where they weren't, but Bush wasn't willing to wait for objective professionals to do their jobs.

IMO - Anyone who uses the "rush to war" argument is just plain ignorant.:|
Another gratuitous dig.

But you are right on one thing - time is/was on our side - history will know that we gave Saddam 12 years to disarm and history will see that we were justified in taking him out.;)
Your opinion. In my opinion, history will show that Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, doing untold damage to this country, specifically in the areas of international cooperation, civil rights, and the environment. He has also screwed up the economy, but he's only in the top three or four in that category (so far).

"Blood on our hands" implies intent. There was NO intent to kill innocent civilians in this war.

"Imminent danger" can take many forms. It doesn't necessarily mean that he was going to directly attack. Suicide vests were found, missiles that exceeded UN limits were found, and he paid families of suicide bombers to entice others to engage in attacks against Israel and/or others. "Imminent" doesn't have to mean that he has a warhead pointed at the US ready to launch.

So Mr. Diplomat(sarcastic dig ;) ) - How much longer should we and the UN given Saddam to disarm? 12 years of defiance isn't long enough? Would you have just "trusted him" since he said he didn't have WMD anymore? I don't care if he never had WMD - he didn't prove to us that he didn't. If he would have given the inspectors UNRESTRICTED access to everywhere in the country and they still didn't find any evidence of WMD then we wouldn't have gone to war, but the fact remains that he did restrict the inspectors and did have places that were "off-limits". Now ask yourself - "why would a guy that has nothing to hide - not allow you to search everywhere?" Also remember that Saddam agreed to these inspections in the cease fire agreement.;)

Bush didn't wait for inspectors to do their job? Where did you hear that tripe? or did you come up with that yourself? The UN "inspectors" had plenty of time over the past 12 years to do their job but Saddam led them on a wild goose chase. Bush gave inspections one last chance to work and 'ol Blind Blix didn't do any better. Now I don't only fault Blix for being blind - I also put the majority of the blame on the UN for not backing up demands for unrestricted access to Iraq - which in turn put blinders on the inspection teams. IMO the UN bears the responsibility for the inspection failures.

Ignorance isn't a "dig" - It only stings like a dig when you realize that you've been ignorant;)

Did I say that Bush was going to be looked at as a great president? Nope - I only said that History will NOT look at his actions in regards to Iraq as a "rush to war". Now as for your blasts about Bush - only one holds up - and that is the civil liberties that are being taken from us in the name of "security". I think Bush needs to tighten the reigns on Asscroft real quick like.


CkG
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,004
5,517
126
"Blood on our hands" has nothing to do with "intent", it has to do with results.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sandorski
"Blood on our hands" has nothing to do with "intent", it has to do with results.

I guess that phase is open to interpretation then. To me it implies killing without regard for (Innocent) human life.

CkG
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
71,848
5,856
126
I guess that phase is open to interpretation then. To me it implies killing without regard for (Innocent) human life.
--------------------
Yup, the other is just collateral damage. That's OK.

I ran across this tonight poking around. I thought it had some bearing on the question of what Jesus would do:


SIGNS OF SPIRITUAL PERFECTION
Meher Baba

An ordinary man may not be able to discriminate satisfactorily between the different stages of spiritual attainment up to the sixth plane. He may be able to know that such souls are advanced, but not the extent of their advancement. But when a sincere and patient seeker of Truth comes into contact with one who is spiritually perfect, he will observe certain outer signs that are inseparably associated with inner spiritual perfection.

The most important of these signs are three: firstly, Perfection is not only "Oneness with God," but the continual and uninterrupted experience of "Oneness in everything." A Perfect Master continually, without break, experiences and realizes his own Self as the Self in all. This inner experience objectively manifests itself in the spontaneity of love that such a one feels or expresses towards all Creation. To him nothing is attractive or repulsive. Good and bad, saint and sinner, beauty and ugliness, wisdom and idiocy, health and disease ? all are modes of his own manifestation. When embodied Perfection loves, fondles or feeds any living creature, it feels and enjoys as if it were loving, fondling and feeding its own Self. In this stage no vestige of "otherness" is left.

 

quincy2002

Senior member
Oct 30, 2002
390
0
0
So you are surprised politicians lie? They all do regardless of being on the right or left.

I fully supported getting rid of hussein, the guys an a**hole. The only part of the war I found laughable was that it seemed like the "reason" for the war turned into "freeing the Iraqi people" I find that to be a joke. No one gives a hoot about the iraqi people. There's people all over the world being mistreated and killed but the US doesn't go rushing around "freeing" everyone. I think they started playing the "free Iraq" card so that the war wouldn't be to distasteful to some people.

That said, I still support the war and Pres. Bush. If we had a democrat in the White House, Hussein would still be in power. I also don't care if we find any WMD. Getting rid of Hussein is enough reason. Oh, and I forgot, we freed the Iraqi people too. ;)
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
quincy2002 you must be Bush Sr. ;)
yeah Saddam tried to kill you so killing him by having your son invading his country is justified...
btw, Clinton actually tried to kill Saddam too, by sending the UN inspector to check on his palaces for WMD, but then change mind and instead send a couple of tomahawks to do the job :)
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Q-2002,
I for one think it is outrageous that our Politicians lie. I do not expect it, and it should be punished - period.
His lie was better/worse is not the issue, a lie is NOT to be accepted, or tolerated in our society.

Strangely enough the lies that are presented during campaigns are excused.

I do not vote for anyone who I find presenting lies as part of their policies.

Everyone should stand up for thuth in government - and remove those who do not perform honsetly.
That's what our country was based on - not to see who could get away with it.

 

quincy2002

Senior member
Oct 30, 2002
390
0
0
CaptnKirk
I completely agree with you regarding politicians lying. I find it despicable. And you are right about lies being mostly excused. People are strange that way, forgiving politicians after they lie to them.

I find myself disliking most politicians nowadays, right or left (although I mostly dislike the left ;)) due to the fact that they all lie. They lie to get voted in, then continue various other lies as time goes on.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Q-2002,
I for one think it is outrageous that our Politicians lie. I do not expect it, and it should be punished - period.
His lie was better/worse is not the issue, a lie is NOT to be accepted, or tolerated in our society.

Strangely enough the lies that are presented during campaigns are excused.

I do not vote for anyone who I find presenting lies as part of their policies.

Everyone should stand up for thuth in government - and remove those who do not perform honsetly.
That's what our country was based on - not to see who could get away with it.

Hear, hear. We used to expect our elected officials to be leaders and statesman. Now we're content to have con artists and used car salesman. Why is that?

Sometimes I think we're getting exactly the government we deserve.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: quincy2002
cpumaster
Speaking of Bush Sr., he shoulda nailed Hussein the first time!

I've always wondered if that's part of what drove Bush-lite to attack Iraq, a chance to vindicate Daddy Bush, or maybe even to one-up him.
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
at least daddy Bush has the diplomatic skill and will to resist the temptation that Bush-lite seem to lack.
Agreed that Saddam should have been taken out back then, especially during the Shi'ite uprising in the South, and with the world support back then, we probably won't have to fought so hard in the UN security council to pass the resolution, but daddy Bush resist the temptation and stick to the original mission with hope and prayers that Saddam will be taken out by his own people and through sanction. Of course nobody envision the scenario where all the rebellions (Kurds, Shi'ite), no flying zone and the UN sanction would fail totally to dislodged him and it takes Bush-lite 12 yrs later to break all this stalemate and send in our boys to literally pull his statues down in Baghdad square.

the invasion of Iraq is part oil-politics, part taking away govt that 100% anti-US with threat of developing WMD (so far no sign of actual WMD yet), part neo-cons (Rumsfield, Paul Wolfowitz) political dream and influence, part Israel diplomacy, and part Bush own personal vendetta (don't tell me that never played into his mind during decision time).
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: cpumaster
at least daddy Bush has the diplomatic skill and will to resist the temptation that Bush-lite seem to lack.
Agreed that Saddam should have been taken out back then, especially during the Shi'ite uprising in the South, and with the world support back then, we probably won't have to fought so hard in the UN security council to pass the resolution, but daddy Bush resist the temptation and stick to the original mission with hope and prayers that Saddam will be taken out by his own people and through sanction. Of course nobody envision the scenario where all the rebellions (Kurds, Shi'ite), no flying zone and the UN sanction would fail totally to dislodged him and it takes Bush-lite 12 yrs later to break all this stalemate and send in our boys to literally pull his statues down in Baghdad square.

the invasion of Iraq is part oil-politics, part taking away govt that 100% anti-US with threat of developing WMD (so far no sign of actual WMD yet), part neo-cons (Rumsfield, Paul Wolfowitz) political dream and influence, part Israel diplomacy, and part Bush own personal vendetta (don't tell me that never played into his mind during decision time).

Good list. The only thing I would add is part distracting the American public from how badly things are screwed up at home.

It's interesting to speculate how things would be different today if Bush Sr. had taken out Hussein back then. He'd had a much better chance at a second term, for starters. Clinton might never have made it to the Presidency. Who knows what else.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,392
8,258
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

That SOB had 12 years to own up to his end of the bargain and didn't! We tried many things to get him to comply WITH HIS OWN AGREEMENT!
Speculation. So far, we've found no evidence he was in material non-compliance, with the possible exception of the al Samoud missles which may have exceeded U.N. range restrictions by a small margin. We had inspectors in the country to determine whether Iraq was in compliance or not, and to bring Iraq into compliance if/where they weren't, but Bush wasn't willing to wait for objective professionals to do their jobs.

i'd just like to point out that this is a classic logical fallacy as the treaty required iraq to prove it was in compliance, not for us to figure out if iraq was in compliance. since iraq never did prove it was in compliance with the treaty they were in material breach of the cease-fire and, as punishment, faced a resumption of hostilities.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,392
8,258
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Good list. The only thing I would add is part distracting the American public from how badly things are screwed up at home.

It's interesting to speculate how things would be different today if Bush Sr. had taken out Hussein back then. He'd had a much better chance at a second term, for starters. Clinton might never have made it to the Presidency. Who knows what else.

the first bush never really did push his popular victory in the first gulf war during the election and probably wouldn't have even if saddam had been toppled. he saw it as playing at dirty politics and refused to do that.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
If Saddam had no wmd why wasn't he screaming for the weapons inspectors to come back into Iraq and prove and then to lift the sanctions?

Why did it take the threat of military force to get the UN inspectors back into the country?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
71,848
5,856
126
I think I'm going to call the Mayor and demand a 24 hour police presence in my house. I don't have any WMD, well actually I got some dual use roach spray, but they'll never fugure that out, and I want to proclaim their absence to the world. Yes, we have no WND, to day. We got bananas though.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think I'm going to call the Mayor and demand a 24 hour police presence in my house. I don't have any WMD, well actually I got some dual use roach spray, but they'll never fugure that out, and I want to proclaim their absence to the world. Yes, we have no WND, to day. We got bananas though.

You actually would do that if the Mayor put you on house arrest because you raided (unintentional pun:p) other people's homes.

:)

CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

That SOB had 12 years to own up to his end of the bargain and didn't! We tried many things to get him to comply WITH HIS OWN AGREEMENT!
Speculation. So far, we've found no evidence he was in material non-compliance, with the possible exception of the al Samoud missles which may have exceeded U.N. range restrictions by a small margin. We had inspectors in the country to determine whether Iraq was in compliance or not, and to bring Iraq into compliance if/where they weren't, but Bush wasn't willing to wait for objective professionals to do their jobs.

i'd just like to point out that this is a classic logical fallacy as the treaty required iraq to prove it was in compliance, not for us to figure out if iraq was in compliance. since iraq never did prove it was in compliance with the treaty they were in material breach of the cease-fire and, as punishment, faced a resumption of hostilities.

I agree this is factually correct, but I doubt it is relevant. I don't think there is anything Iraq could have done to prove it was in compliance to the satisfaction of the Bush administration. It was a no-win for Iraq; Bush had already decided we were going to attack.

Even if this were the true reason for our attack, it must be the first war in history justified by spotty paperwork.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: etech
If Saddam had no wmd why wasn't he screaming for the weapons inspectors to come back into Iraq and prove and then to lift the sanctions?

Why did it take the threat of military force to get the UN inspectors back into the country?

Is it really that hard to understand why a sovereign nation is not excited to have outsiders poking around in their military facilities, especially when those outsiders are de facto representatives of their arch enemy? It would be totally humiliating for someone with Hussein's ego.

For the record, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I am NOT convinced Iraq had actually destroyed all of its NBC materials as claimed. I just think we should have let the inspections program continue in accordance with U.N. wishes since 1) there was no imminent threat, and 2) the U.N. was the authority which passed the resolution. Bush's rush to attack had nothing to do with the alleged weapons of mass distraction.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think I'm going to call the Mayor and demand a 24 hour police presence in my house. I don't have any WMD, well actually I got some dual use roach spray, but they'll never fugure that out, and I want to proclaim their absence to the world. Yes, we have no WND, to day. We got bananas though.

You're gonna call Jerry "moonbeam" Brown and say what?????

You have an enviornmentally unsafe can of what spray... and you're alerting the world to the fact... in and around Oakland, USA...

There be comming to take you away ha ha... to the funny farm where life is happy....

But, not to worry... I understand there is .................... nuke stuff hiding at a reactor nearby...
to sorta take the heat off... shhhhhh.

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,392
8,258
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I agree this is factually correct, but I doubt it is relevant. I don't think there is anything Iraq could have done to prove it was in compliance to the satisfaction of the Bush administration. It was a no-win for Iraq; Bush had already decided we were going to attack.

Even if this were the true reason for our attack, it must be the first war in history justified by spotty paperwork.

its not just spotty paperwork, its no paperwork. if the iraqis were as transparent as the former soviet states and south africa blair and powell would have talked him out of whatever he would have wanted, i'm sure. if there was good evidence of disarmament he would have had no backing in congress and no backing popularly.
 

cpumaster

Senior member
Dec 10, 2000
708
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I agree this is factually correct, but I doubt it is relevant. I don't think there is anything Iraq could have done to prove it was in compliance to the satisfaction of the Bush administration. It was a no-win for Iraq; Bush had already decided we were going to attack.

Even if this were the true reason for our attack, it must be the first war in history justified by spotty paperwork.

its not just spotty paperwork, its no paperwork. if the iraqis were as transparent as the former soviet states and south africa blair and powell would have talked him out of whatever he would have wanted, i'm sure. if there was good evidence of disarmament he would have had no backing in congress and no backing popularly.

yet it takes the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor before we decided to enter WWII,

this war was largely based on Bush conviction that Saddam has WMDs and will lie and do everything to hide them, supported only by thin evidence of unaccounted chem & bio agents on paperworks and the apparent reluctance of Iraqis official to be 100% cooperative with UN (and US in the security council)

what if the Saddam/Iraqis suspect that telling UN their every military secret (not just WMD, but other secret military facilities, as US would probably accussed them to contain WMD) would be equal to committing suicide as US could have used it to advantages and still attack Iraq anyway?

yeah Saddam has been given chance for 12 years to comply with UN resolution, yet there are other countries that never comply with UN resolution and no action was taken against them, eg. Israel under UN resolution should have given back the Golan height to Syria, yet they still keep it until today and you don't see Bush going on TV threatening Isreal to comply with UN rsolution.