Close Topic Options

Politics - The Next US President? - Page 11

Will this hurt votes or increase votes or is Bush just stiking to his religious background?

BUSH BACKS BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE
President Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it.
https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...76545%2C00.html

President US The Politics

Since from every perspective GW Bush is by far the WORST PRESIDENT in the history of our great nation, John Kerry would make a FAR BETTER president.

On nearly every important issue, Bush has been a DISASTER.

ECONOMY -- greatest net less of jobs since the great depression; new jobs are lower paying. Record budget deficits as far as the eye can see, which means you'll see very little of the money you've paid into Social Security your entire working life. It's essentially a huge transfer of wealth from working peoples' retirement to the wealthiest few per cent.

ENVIRONMENT -- worst. ever. period.

BIG GOVERNMENT -- spending has increased under Republican control of all branches of government, and Constitutional protections of liberty are being eroded.

NATIONAL SECURITY -- Bush's biggest disaster; ignored pre-9/11 warnings of impending attack; Failed to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora when he had the chance; allowed al Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup by diverting resources and attention to a totally unnecessary war in Iraq; damaged long-held allainces and diminished U.S. standing in the world by launching an unnecessary, unjustified war against a country that neither attacked nor threatened us; did the terrorists a tremendous favor by inciting anti-American rage and enabling them to spread their operations into Iraq; stretched our military precariously thin, diminishing our readiness for any other conflict; drained our treasury of funds needed for Homeland security, and ...

DIVIDED the nation more than it already was, at a time when unity is important. He did this by running as a moderate and governing from the extreme right. Caused his own 80% approval ratings to plummet by lying to the American people and getting us into a war that is making us LESS safe.

Personally, I was impressed by Bush's performance in the aftermath of 9/11, but it soon became apparent he would use his broad support to push a partisan domestic agenda and even worse -- implement a radical neoconservative foreign policy that is alienating our frienda and multiplying our enemies.

A large majority of the American people put their trust in GW Bush in the wake of 9/11. He took that trust, and the patriotism and anguish of 9/11 shared by all Americans, and manupulated it through a campaign of fear and lies to launch a war in Iraq that is much more dangerous in its potential consequences than Saddam Hussein ever was.

Bush's disastrous foreign policy is enough to make him among the worst presidents ever, but what clinches the title for him is his betrayal of the trust placed in him and the needless sacrifice of our young people in uniform that has resulted.

If you want to know why so many Americans have such strong negative feelings about this president, his betrayal of America tops the list. He has taken our flag and wrapped himself and his lies so tightly in it, some people can only see the flag.

But the fact is, this emperor has no clothes.

Politics - The Next US President? History & Civil Business Politics

Thank you for showing the great divide within the US.

Economy: He inherited it from President Clinton, under whom the Justice Department specifically targeted the most productive, profitable segments of the economy (technology companies), and tried to destroy them. Also, raised tax rates, which has proven historically to always significantly slow down the economy. When GWB pointed out, before the 2000 elections, that the economy was on a sharp decline, Clinton, Gore, and their band of merry bandits all claimed that GWB was CAUSING that decline by his words (not yet president - pretty powerful, eh?).

Environment: Best in the last 150 years. Just about the best in the industrialized world. Far better than Russia, China, North Korea, etc, etc, etc. Constantly improving. The only thing is that we have pulled out of the socialistic farce called the Kyoto protocols, which were specifically designed to destroy the US economy.

Big Government: I will grant this one. But - he has given you folks all the things YOU have been demanding for the last three decades, so what are you complaining about?

National Security: Ignoring pre-9/11 warnings? The recent partisan 9/11 commission couldn't come up with anything, so where do YOU get this? He was in office for less than 9 months, had the same information that Clinton did, and was actually making progress. WHAT DO YOU THINK HE SHOULD HAVE DONE?! You complain that he took various warnings (including strong warnings from Russia) that Iraq was about to attack us, and did something about it, but you hate him for NOT doing something about 9/11. Thank you for showing the basic hypocrisy in your position.

Our military is precariously thing because Clinton gutted the military. And, because Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Daschle, and the rest voted against every pro-military action that ever came up.

Who divided the nation? Gore is the one who tried to steal the election. It was Democratic activists in Democrat-controlled counties, that had the problems. No Republicans fussed about Florida. Yes, Republican officials of the state of Florida followed state laws, as written. There have been at least two previous times when the same thing happened (electoral college win - popular vote loss), and both times, the electoral college took the cake. That is the way the Constitution is written. Who has spent the last 3 1/2 years bad-mouthing Bush? Who has lied about Bush and the Republicans? Who is it now that calls disabled soldiers returning from Iraq "baby-killers", and "murderers"? It isn't the Republicans that are sowing hatred.

Your complaints are old and tired. You refuse to accept that there are good things going on in this country. All of your accusations have been documented to be wrong, on all counts. You accuse GWB of refusing to do anything about bin Laden in Tora Bora, but it was the State Department (controlled by Clinton era bureaucrats) that pulled those strings. It was Clinton who refused the offer by the Sudan to capture bin Laden. It was Clinton's people who made sure that terrorism would be treated as a criminal offense, rather than a national security concern, and then made sure that national intelligence couldn't discuss such things with the FBI and law enforcement.

There is a lot I don't like about GWB. I hate his domestic agenda, wherein he has grown the government, given the socialists all that they ask for, and continued the Democratic agenda of eroding personal liberty. But Kerry is a worse disaster than Carter ever was, just waiting to happen. He has already sworn to give up US sovereignity to the UN, which is one of the most anti-liberty institutions in the world.

I might have even considered voting for Lieberman, if he had won the primaries. But that wasn't possible. He does not bow down to all the fringe groups, and he appears to be somewhat honest. Unlike Kerry.

So, there's my little rant. IMO, you are very wrong about GWB. But then, your hatred is showing through by your lack of evidence for your charges.

Page 11 President US The Politics

Lack of evidence? I realize my 4-installment post in the Post War Iraq thread was quite long, but if you paid any attention at all you would see that I provided evidence from multiple sources. Meanwhile, you provide none.

Please provide evidence of this ludicrous charge.

The Clinton tax increase occurred early in his presidency, and was followed by years of sustained prosperity. This does not mean that one produced the other, but your assertion is flatly contradicted by the facts.

How would you know what I have been demanding? What I disliked most about Clinton (besides his flawed character) was that he proposed a program for nearly every problem. The federal government should not attempt to be the solution for everything.

I blame Clinton as well as Bush. Clinton failed to improve cooperation between the FBI, the CIA, and local law enforcement. His administration was full of "policy wonks" and they were fully aware of the growing terrorist threat, but inexcusably did not improve our system for detecting and preventing terrorist attacks before they occurred.

This does not absolve the Bush administration. They were told that terrorism would be their biggest security issue, but they did not make it a priority. You probably dismiss Richard Clarke as an anti-Bush partisan, but that is putting the cart before the horse. He was appointed by Reagan and served under four presidents (3 Republican). His work was anti-terrorism, and he turned against the Bush administration not because of a predisposition to oppose Republicans (there is no evidence of that) but because of the Bush administration's policies both before 9/11 and after. Here is the transcript of his interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608698

Please provide the evidence of strong warnings from Russia. Bush made no mention of it (that I know of) when he issuing all kinds of warnings (later proven false) about Iraq. I have yet to see any credible evidence that Saddam was planning an attack against the U.S. (which would be suicide on his part). What would I have done? I would have made the prevention of terrorism a priority, and started working immediately to improve cooperation between our various agencies. I would NOT have invaded Iraq based on the evidence (or lack thereof). There is no hypocrisy in criticizing Bush for his pre-9/11 failure to make terrorism a priority, and also his diversion of resources away from terror prevention by invading Iraq.

I don't have space in this post to address the remainder of your unsupported assertions.

President US The Politics

Yes, you did supply references on another topic. I wrote on this topic before I read the other. However, I have also provided many references and resources, in prior posts about Iraq.

Microsoft
Cisco

The attack on Microsoft led directly to the premature "burst" of the tech bubble. Not that it wouldn't have happened, but it probably wouldn't have been as severe.

The prosperity was the result of the massive growth in technology and tech stocks. It overcame the sluggishness that normally comes with tax increases. By similar standards, the economic downturn happened in the first months of GWBs presidency, yet you blame him for it. So, did GWB cause it? You asserted earlier that he did. Or was it a normal business cycle?

Good point. I was lumping you in with all the other left-wing people who hate GWB so heartily. I apologize.

A couple of weeks ago, Vladimir Putin informed the world of these warnings. The warnings were that Iraq was a credible threat, and was prepared to attack the US with major terrorist attacks last summer.

Yes, my assertions are "unsupported" because I read so much every day that I can't remember which news report I read them from.

So here are some facts that are easily found on an internet news search:
Putins warning:
https://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040618-080724-6825r.htm

WMDs found in Iraq:
https://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5568967
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/763038.cms

Sorry, I can't look up anything else at the moment. Headed to bed.

Politics - The Next US President?

I Googled "Putin warns Iraq attack U.S." and came up with several articles in which Putin in 2002 warned the U.S. against attacking Iraq (no grounds for war) and also a few on the warnings that made news recently.

In the recent story (including the link you provided) there are no details of the alleged plans to attack, nor does it say who gave the Russians this information. It's possible the Bush administration didn't add these warnings to its case for war at the time because it might have jeopardized Russian intelligence assets.

However, I suspect it wasn't used at the time and isn't being trumpeted as a major justification now because without details or sources there is little credibility to it. The various human sources used by the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans have turned out to be consistent providers of false information, so unnamed sources in this story carry little weight -- especially since there is no corroborating evidence Saddam was planning such attacks.

Back in 2002, were Putin's warnings a factor in the decision to launch an invasion? I don't know; are the Bushies saying it was?

As for the few warheads of mustard and sarin that have turned up, there is no dispute that Iraq had stockpiles before the first Gulf War. Considering the munitions sites scattered all over Iraq, it would be surprising if a few relics didn't turn up. Unless it can be demonstrated these were recently manufactured, they do not constitute a validation of the administration's claims.

Politics The US President - Page 11

The point about the sarin and mustard gas found is that none of the inspectors were EVER able to ascertain what had happened to the stockpiles.

Yes, Putin, Chirac, and Schroeder all warned Bush against going into Iraq. After all, their governments were making LOTS of money from Iraq.

Politics The US President Politics Business Civil & History - Page 11

Rumors are now abounding that Cheney will drop out of the race due to health reasons. An even spicier rumor is that the health issue is a decoy of him being dropped by Bush in an effort to pick a running mate that can bring some oopmh to the race. Cheney's approval rating is a mere 21% at the time, and his hidings from the public, and heavy involvement in the Halliburton scandals have not given him a favorable view to the public.
A flipside to Bush replacing Cheney is that the possible front runners for the second mate position (Giuliani and McCain) are even less conservative that Cheney is, and this will not bode well with the ultra conservatives in the Republican party. So does Bush choose between loyalty to the party and his current VP, or equalling Kerry's choosing Edwards by himself picking a popular running mate to help his re-election bid?