What has Bush done that is good?

[Aquatic]

And by that I mean George Bush! I thought I'd take a positive angle on things. Has he done anything good? I can't think of anything, not a single thing. Except maybe the death penalty, which I strongly support. But he doesn't use it enough and hasn't gotten any legislation enacted so that doesn't count.

[BRussell]

Well it draws perspiration off the body so that...

Oh. All these bush threads are starting to get confusing.

I think he initially dealt with Afghanistan appropriately.

[Aquatic]

:lol:

How so?

All the Arabic language units and Special Ops were sent to Iraq instead. And initially..well didn't we wait two months before doing anything in Afghanistan? (Can you imagine giving Timothy McVeigh a two-month head-start to run, like MM mentioned in Fahrenheit 911) How is Afghanistan doing right now? Innocent civilians from lots of countries getting killed there every week. And where is Osama bin Laden!? Forget Saddam THAT'S the guy who's ultimately behind 9/11! It's like a magician, diverting your eye while he pulls a rabbit out of a hat...

[quagmire]

Well on 9/11 his advisors said to stay on the ground. He didn't listen and still flew saying," We need to show these bastards we are not afraid of them."

[Wrong Robot]

I said this in Naples' thread about this, and I'll say it here too.

I think that the best thing GWB has done is get people to perk up to politics, and likewise might get more people to vote. Of course, I believe that might also be his undoing since what perked them up is all the shit he's done while in office.

Additionally, he has given comedians countless hours of material, subsequently providing laughter for millions of americans.

[SDW2001]

This thread is fucking joke.

[Fran441]

Originally posted by SDW2001
This thread is fucking joke.

What a coincidence..... so is Bush. ;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Fran441
What a coincidence..... so is Bush. ;)

Touche.

I'll play along.

Bush:

1) WOT: Bush's approach is correct. We need to fight the battle overseas rather than in the streets of Manhattan. If this means a "premptive" invasion, so be it. You can disagree.

2) Afghanistan: The Taliban are gone. Despite what media tells you, they're not coming back. Afghanistan is a different country and is on the path to Democracy.

3) Iraq: There have been mistakes made, but the overall mission is going to be successful. Iraq will become a Democracy, and that in itself will help end terror.

4) Tax Cuts: Just for the rich? Hardly. My combined household income is less than $60,000 a year. I saw a huge benefit from those cuts, from marginal rate cuts to changes in depreciation laws (for example). These cuts have unquestionably stimulated the economy.

Economy to grow at fastest pace in 20 years. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html)

5) Here's where you'll really flip out: The No Child Left Behind Act. That's right, the NCLBA. For all its flaw (and I agree there are many), I know first hand that this law has gotten a lot of school districts of their collective asses. It's forced real and meaninful accountability. Speaking of education, the federal education budget has increased 48% since 2001. Underfunded? No.

6) Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Regardless of stance on abortion in general, this is an inhumane and medically unnecessary procedure.


Bush has done (or will do) plenty I disagree with. Notably, he signed the medicare bill, supports faith based charities and has allowed the deficit to expand rapidly. But as I recall, that's now what this thread is about.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Let's see…
He broke with the fatherly doctrine which has been adopted since 1991, which advised to keep in place a wekeaned-yet-solidly installed Iraqi Baathist regime. Fearing the ineffective restraints of sanctions would be entirely eroded (which was well under way at the time), opening the way for a return of the moustachioed regime to the fold of the so-called “international community” would inevitably lead him to new adventures.
He also dumped the isolationnist tendency despite it having popular resonance among his electorate.

Although I'd rather only metnion the good, I feel I have to mention what was in my opinion his biggest fiasco (I only address global policy here): his failure to contain and marginalise the anti-U.S. rhetoric, which was efficaciously neutered by the previous administration at the time of intervention in the Balkans; this rhetoric crossed over to the mainstream in the aforementioned “international community”. A damage it will take years to mend.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
This thread is fucking joke.

You're right!

Talking about what Bush has done in the positive is a joke!

He almost had me with that telemarketer thing but you can see where that ended up. It wasn't enough. It was a token gesture.

The same with the plans for moon and mars. I'm all for space travel and it sounds good on the surface. But you know as well as I do it's so far off that he'll be long gone by the time it succeeds or not. Plus it's paying for itself by starving other worthwhile programs like the Hubble which still has some life in it.

I don't have enough room here to list all the things he's done wrong.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Afghanistan is a different country and is on the path to Democracy.
When I interviewed Joseph Biden in late March, he recounted a conversation he'd had with Condoleezza Rice in the spring of 2002 about the growing instability that had taken hold after the Taliban was defeated, in late 2001. Biden told Rice he believed that the United States was on the verge of squandering its military victory by allowing the country to slip back into the corruption, tyranny, and chaos that had originally paved the way for Taliban rule. Rice was uncomprehending. "What do you mean?" he remembers her asking. Biden pointed to the re-emergence in western Afghanistan of Ismail Khan, the pre-Taliban warlord in Herat who quickly reclaimed power after the American victory. He told me: "She said, 'Look, al-Qaeda's not there. The Taliban's not there. There's security there.' I said, 'You mean turning it over to the warlords?' She said, 'Yeah, it's always been that way.'"
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/07/marshall.htm
Iraq will become a Democracy, and that in itself will help end terror.
No it won't, and democracies with strong splits don't typically work out too well.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Touche.

I'll play along.

Bush:

1) WOT: Bush's approach is correct. We need to fight the battle overseas rather than in the streets of Manhattan. If this means a "premptive" invasion, so be it. You can disagree.

2) Afghanistan: The Taliban are gone. Despite what media tells you, they're not coming back. Afghanistan is a different country and is on the path to Democracy.

3) Iraq: There have been mistakes made, but the overall mission is going to be successful. Iraq will become a Democracy, and that in itself will help end terror.

4) Tax Cuts: Just for the rich? Hardly. My combined household income is less than $60,000 a year. I saw a huge benefit from those cuts, from marginal rate cuts to changes in depreciation laws (for example). These cuts have unquestionably stimulated the economy.

Economy to grow at fastest pace in 20 years. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html)

5) Here's where you'll really flip out: The No Child Left Behind Act. That's right, the NCLBA. For all its flaw (and I agree there are many), I know first hand that this law has gotten a lot of school districts of their collective asses. It's forced real and meaninful accountability. Speaking of education, the federal education budget has increased 48% since 2001. Underfunded? No.

6) Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Regardless of stance on abortion in general, this is an inhumane and medically unnecessary procedure.


Bush has done (or will do) plenty I disagree with. Notably, he signed the medicare bill, supports faith based charities and has allowed the deficit to expand rapidly. But as I recall, that's now what this thread is about.


Geez SDW!

Not everybody agrees with this or thinks these are good things!

You do get that don't you?


Maybe in some other parallel universe they might work or people might appreciate those gestures.


But we'll just take one as an example. Iraq :

TOTALLY UNNECESSARY!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
I said this in Naples' thread about this, and I'll say it here too.

I think that the best thing GWB has done is get people to perk up to politics, and likewise might get more people to vote. Of course, I believe that might also be his undoing since what perked them up is all the shit he's done while in office.

Additionally, he has given comedians countless hours of material, subsequently providing laughter for millions of americans.

Hey now! I hadn't thought of that!

Now that the people see what it's like to have someone really bad in office they aren't apathetic anymore.

They want change and to do that you have to be interested.

[Aquatic]

Perhaps I should have phrased it more specifically. Has he done anything that is good that is not subjective?

[X X]

Originally posted by Aquatic
:lol:

How so?

All the Arabic language units and Special Ops were sent to Iraq instead. And initially..well didn't we wait two months before doing anything in Afghanistan? (Can you imagine giving Timothy McVeigh a two-month head-start to run, like MM mentioned in Fahrenheit 911) How is Afghanistan doing right now? Innocent civilians from lots of countries getting killed there every week. And where is Osama bin Laden!? Forget Saddam THAT'S the guy who's ultimately behind 9/11! It's like a magician, diverting your eye while he pulls a rabbit out of a hat...

One of the reasons we waited 2 months before we did anything in Afghanistan was because we were consulting the British and the Russians about their experience and getting their advice. Both of them said we can't succeed if we were to do a massive invasion like we did in Iraq because of the terrain and population.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
I said this in Naples' thread about this, and I'll say it here too.

I think that the best thing GWB has done is get people to perk up to politics, and likewise might get more people to vote. Of course, I believe that might also be his undoing since what perked them up is all the shit he's done while in office. In the same spirit of underhanded compliments:

1. He's destroyed any remaining semblance of a Republican reputation for fiscal sanity.

2. He's solidified the Republican ideology as based solely on social/religious conservatism, and driven it completely away from libertarian conservatism.

3. He's united the Democratic party around an otherwise bland presidential candidate.

4. He's ended any hope that the US can pursue a policy of pre-emptive war in the future.

[BuonRotto]

I think if the lame attempt at a topic gets too perverted here that we'll just lock it. That is, unless people treat it with some more decorum. It didn't start that way, but a few posts in there were sincere. The last thing this place needs is another exucse for cock fighting.

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by jimmac
Geez SDW!

Not everybody agrees with this or thinks these are good things!

You do get that don't you?


Maybe in some other parallel universe they might work or people might appreciate those gestures.


But we'll just take one as an example. Iraq :

TOTALLY UNNECESSARY!

you should make a point...totally unnecessary is hardly a valid argument. Perhaps you should read a bit deeper into all the reasons we went into Iraq.

Its really painful to have faimly there and hear a handful of people constantly bitch about how "unnecessary" the war on terrorism is when their entire argument is based on Michael Moore's $7.50 play on reality. Just keep pumping your $.02 comments into these forums all day long hoping to change 1 persons mind...you're doing a great job.

[giant]

Originally posted by Playmaker
Perhaps you should read a bit deeper into all the reasons we went into Iraq.
You've been reading plato recently?

[Playmaker]

There are plenty of good things that Bush has contributed durring his presidency the growth of the economy being one of the more notible. While I dont think he is among the greatest presidents to have served I certainly dont see the need to constantly bash every decision he makes. Bush has had to make some extremely tough decisions durring his presidency and I commend him for sticking with these decisions. I never see anyone bashing the UN's contributions or ability to enforce its own laws. Perhaps some of this narrow-minded scrutiny should be directed at this organization.

[Placebo]

Originally posted by giant
No it won't, and democracies with strong splits don't typically work out too well.
The United States is one of those democracies. I'm beginning to wonder whether we'd be happier if the South had won the Civil War. That way, the South could have their Republican way, and the North could have their liberal way. In our current situation, only half the people in the country can be happy about the election results.

Just my two cents.

[groverat]

Before 9/11 he signed a really good nuclear disarmament deal with Putin. I don't know where that is now, but I was happy about it at the time.

SDW:

Schools are still underfunded, the percentage increase means almost nothing with regard to whether or not they are underfunded.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Playmaker
you should make a point...totally unnecessary is hardly a valid argument. Perhaps you should read a bit deeper into all the reasons we went into Iraq.

Its really painful to have faimly there and hear a handful of people constantly bitch about how "unnecessary" the war on terrorism is when their entire argument is based on Michael Moore's $7.50 play on reality. Just keep pumping your $.02 comments into these forums all day long hoping to change 1 persons mind...you're doing a great job.

I've made my point for SDW several times like no WOMD, no imminent threat, didn't accomplish a damn thing. And how did he pick this country if those reasons are invalid? Stick a pin in a map? There are still many more evil dictators in the world.

I'm sorry you have family there and I don't blame the troops in any way, shape, or form. We shouldn't be there in the first place. It's Bush! Myself and many others were for not going so your family didn't have to be over there before the war. Don't be obtuse.

I'm tired of restating this case every stinking time like I haven't said anything.

This seems to have been a favorite tactic of Bush supporters.

Then they say : I'm not really a Bush supporter but I think he's done some good things ". But then if you read what they think is good it sounds just like a Bush supporter.


Well myself and many others don't care anymore and are just voting Kerry.

[fuzzymonk]

Don't you hate how you know these conversations never change anyone's mind, yet we post them anyway. Some sort of exercise in futility. Well, in an attempt to do my hone my debate skills(a.k.a. waste time at work), here is a reply.


Originally posted by jimmac
I've made my point for SDW several times like no WOMD, no imminent threat, didn't accomplish a damn thing. And how did he pick this couintry if those reasons are invalid? Stick a pin in a map? There are still many more evil dictators in the world.


No imminent threat? I think a little more research into the reasoning behind this is needed. I do believe the reason for going in was because Iraq failed to meet the demands of the UN. Who had made repeated demands and then repeatedly backed down.

The UN was set up to do what the League of Nations failed to do. Bush is doing what FDR intended the US and Brittan to do though the UN. Go look it up. All these people going off about Bush is a warmonger that is going to start WW3 really need to go back and see how WW1 and WW2 got started. The threat in that region is huge. It's not a simple response to 9/11. It's part of a much larger war on terror. A much larger fight to prevent another world war.

Instead of plagiarizing a few of the facts from this email I’ll just post it here too:

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, remind them of the following

1. FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us - Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

2. Harry Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

3. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

4. Lyndon Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

5. Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

6. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, wounded al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist/head-of-state who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by fuzzymonk
Instead of plagiarizing a few of the facts from this email I’ll just post it here too: 3. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Nope... our involvement in the conflict in Vietnam began in the late '50s. JFK only inherited the situation.

[rageous]

Originally posted by jimmac
Geez SDW!

Not everybody agrees with this or thinks these are good things!

You do get that don't you?


Maybe in some other parallel universe they might work or people might appreciate those gestures.


But we'll just take one as an example. Iraq :

TOTALLY UNNECESSARY!

Well, oddly enough, this thread is about people listing their opinions on what they feel the President has done right. If we made a thread about what everybody in AO totally agrees Bush did right or wrong, it'd be pretty short since both questions would have zero answers.

In short: You don't get it. Feel free to disagree with some point that were made. But try doing so with an intelligent response.

[rageous]

Originally posted by Placebo
The United States is one of those democracies. I'm beginning to wonder whether we'd be happier if the South had won the Civil War. That way, the South could have their Republican way, and the North could have their liberal way. In our current situation, only half the people in the country can be happy about the election results.

Of course the country would be better. Because then the South could still be opressing and lynching blacks. Yay @ Rebel victory!!!!

</your post sucks>

[rageous]

Originally posted by groverat
Before 9/11 he signed a really good nuclear disarmament deal with Putin. I don't know where that is now, but I was happy about it at the time.

SDW:

Schools are still underfunded, the percentage increase means almost nothing with regard to whether or not they are underfunded.

Schools are not underfunded. The teachers union has screwed education more than any other single factor. There is no good reason, given the large amount of money spent per capita on education, for there to be so many problems with education. Were the vast sums spent intelligently, the teacher's union equally worried about educating children as they are about preserving the job of alcoholic teachers, and more choice made available to parents about where and how their children are educated, we'd be much happier people.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Touche.

I'll play along.

Bush:

1) WOT: Bush's approach is correct. We need to fight the battle overseas rather than in the streets of Manhattan. If this means a "premptive" invasion, so be it. You can disagree.

And who did we "get" as a result of the strike against Afghanistan? Answer: Nobody of any importance, while at the same time we coddled the Saudis, the Pakistanis, and others who have far greater links to international terror. The duplicity and shortsightedness is unbelievable. Maybe India or Pakistan should follow the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and see who can be most macho, and be the first to lob nukes at the other? Perhaps any other nation who feels threatened by the US should strike us first, according to the Bush doctrine? It is the Bush doctrine that will bring war to our shores.

2) Afghanistan: The Taliban are gone. Despite what media tells you, they're not coming back. Afghanistan is a different country and is on the path to Democracy.

No they are not. Although the Taliban may not be the recognized governmental power in Afghanistan..they havent gone anywhere. In fact they are recruiting, as we speak. The Karzai government is a joke...it has virtually no executive power outside of Kabul. The warlords rule the rest of the country, womens' rights are a little better, but in Kabul only, outside of there, little has changed; opium production is at record levels (as predicted by Mike Ruppert shortly after 9-11), and US troops are being killed there in larger numbers than during the invasion in November 2001. Karzai is the "Mayor of Kabul" and thats about as far as his real influence goes.

3) Iraq: There have been mistakes made, but the overall mission is going to be successful. Iraq will become a Democracy, and that in itself will help end terror.

If only it could be successful, but killing over 11,000 civilians, destroying their infrastructure, their heritage and antiquities, selling off their assets to western corporations at rock bottom prices, torturing their prisoners, and showing blatant disdain and disregard for their customs and traditions has made the US look like a boorish, thuggish enemy as far as most Iraqis go. A recent coalition poll told the sorry story of 3% of Iraqis looking favorably on the occupation. What a joke! If "democracy", "freedom" and a "decent standard of living" was the US aim in Iraq, then why did the new Iraqi puppet government just declare martial law yesterday? Regarding "liberation", what about all the poor oppressed people in nations all around Iraq which are monarchies or Islamic fundamentalist dictatorships with ghastly human rights records? You approve? Does Bush approve? What do say about invading those nations as well? After all...it was people from Saudi, Egypt, the UAE and Yemen who (according to the FBI), slammed those planes into our buildings, and they haven't been brought to task in one tiny, miniscule fashion. (6 Yemenis have just been charged with attacking the USS Cole). Not a single ambassador from those nations was carpeted after the attacks. And we react by invading the two nations which had the laest involvement, for other reasons no doubt.

4) Tax Cuts: Just for the rich? Hardly. My combined household income is less than $60,000 a year. I saw a huge benefit from those cuts, from marginal rate cuts to changes in depreciation laws (for example). These cuts have unquestionably stimulated the economy.

Economy to grow at fastest pace in 20 years. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html)

While Bush and big government spending go hand in hand:
http://www.independent.org/tii/content/press_rel/press_040624.html

5) Here's where you'll really flip out: The No Child Left Behind Act. That's right, the NCLBA. For all its flaw (and I agree there are many), I know first hand that this law has gotten a lot of school districts of their collective asses. It's forced real and meaninful accountability. Speaking of education, the federal education budget has increased 48% since 2001. Underfunded? No.

Yes it is underfunded., and always has been. When schools are falling apart, kids have out of date textbooks and teaching profession is held in disdain by much of society (echoed by the pathetic salaries)....there is clearly huge amounts yet to do. That 48% increase? LINK please!

[quote]6) Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Regardless of stance on abortion in general, this is an inhumane and medically unnecessary procedure.

PBA is very rare btw, but better done in a clinic than in a shed with a coathanger. Whats your thoughts on stem cell research?

Bush has done (or will do) plenty I disagree with. Notably, he signed the medicare bill, supports faith based charities and has allowed the deficit to expand rapidly. But as I recall, that's now what this thread is about.

The good stuff he's done, or inadvertently done:
Galvanized opposition all over the US and the world, and increased awareness of political realities amongst the young.... there is more to life than skateboarding. Maybe the democrats will become a real party representing the left of center, as opposed to "republican lite". Maybe they will become proud of the moniker "liberal", instead of wimping out. Maybe they will become relevant again.

A over-simplistic analogy: What happens to an eagle with a broken left wing, and a right wing thats flapping wildly out of control? It starts to go round in circles and lose altitude faster and faster, until it hits the ground with a sickening thud.....

[running with scissors]

what has bush done that's good?

since the end of major operations in afghanistan, i'd say he's managed to fuck things up real "good".

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by running with scissors
since the end of major operations in afghanistan, i'd say he's managed to fuck things up real "good".

I dont agree with you one bit but at least you got straight to the point:D

[Aquatic]

There are plenty of good things that Bush has contributed durring his presidency the growth of the economy being one of the more notible. While I dont think he is among the greatest presidents to have served I certainly dont see the need to constantly bash every decision he makes. Bush has had to make some extremely tough decisions durring his presidency and I commend him for sticking with these decisions. I never see anyone bashing the UN's contributions or ability to enforce its own laws. Perhaps some of this narrow-minded scrutiny should be directed at this organization.

Hehe don't get my started on the UN. ;) They have plenty of issues.

However, has the economy really gotten better? We have the largest deficit ever. And that, after having a SURPLUS from Clinton. I remember a political cartoon where Clinton is saying "Geez with a surplus you'd have to be a real idiot to end up with a deficit!" That alone invalidates the "good economy" statement. We have the combination of a sharp economic slowdown, tax cuts and higher spending. For example a trillion dollars just for the Iraq mess, or the huge Medicare handout to the health industry. Corporate welfare does NOT WORK. Reaganomics, or "trickle-down economics" does NOT WORK. The only reason we got ourselves out of that mess from Reagan in the 90s was because of the "Information Age" and the resulting boom in many industries from the Internet combined with President Clinton's financial acumen.

The economy right now sucks, unless you are rich. In general the American economy is very bad. We have a huge trade deficit. Our money is flowing to Commie China! We buy tons of new tech gadgets from them that will lose their value in a few years and they keep the money and invest it in industries which won't lose their value. So as we can see China's economy will someday overtake ours. It seems almost inevitable but Bush is definitely speeding it up.

Linkage: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237
The people who wrote this probably know a lot about economics! I can remember not liking econ! Damnit I am switching in to being a joint econ-natural resource management major too!

BuonRotto this is not an invalid thread. Name something good you think Bush has done. I don't mean like plant a tree or read a children's story, I mean national/international policies, programs, etc.

[Existence]

Bush choosing Colin Powell and Condi Rice for top positions in his cabinet. I may not agree with either and Bush's decisions were almost certainly politically motivated, but having minorities and women in higher positions of power is a good thing.

[giant]

Originally posted by Existence
Bush choosing Colin Powell and Condi Rice for top positions in his cabinet.
Colin Powell I understand, but condi rice?
I may not agree with either and Bush's decisions were almost certainly politically motivated, but having minorities and women in higher positions of power is a good thing.
Even if they, like rice, can't do their job? That's just as shallow as the repubs that consciously support them as tokens.

[SDW2001]

Sammi jo:

And who did we "get" as a result of the strike against Afghanistan? Answer: Nobody of any importance, while at the same time we coddled the Saudis, the Pakistanis, and others who have far greater links to international terror. The duplicity and shortsightedness is unbelievable. Maybe India or Pakistan should follow the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and see who can be most macho, and be the first to lob nukes at the other? Perhaps any other nation who feels threatened by the US should strike us first, according to the Bush doctrine? It is the Bush doctrine that will bring war to our shores.


We "got" many leaders of AQ and kicked out the Taliban regime. Without the Pakistani's, we'd have a logisitical problem with invasion and an information problem as to the inner workings of Al Qaeda.

Your pre-emption argument is absurd. You are comparing rogue regimes with the United States...and any such comparison is unacceptable. For all your talk of understanding the complexities of geopolitics, you then turn around and simplify the India-Pakistan situation to "Mommy...he jumped of the bridge...so can I!". Please. It's not the same situation.


No they are not. Although the Taliban may not be the recognized governmental power in Afghanistan..they havent gone anywhere. In fact they are recruiting, as we speak. The Karzai government is a joke...it has virtually no executive power outside of Kabul. The warlords rule the rest of the country, womens' rights are a little better, but in Kabul only, outside of there, little has changed; opium production is at record levels (as predicted by Mike Ruppert shortly after 9-11), and US troops are being killed there in larger numbers than during the invasion in November 2001. Karzai is the "Mayor of Kabul" and thats about as far as his real influence goes.


This paragraph you posted is filled with the typical suppositions and rhetoric I've come to expect from you. The Taliban do not rule the nation, and things for women are A LOT better...not to mention men. Of course the Taliban have not been exterminated. If that had happened, you'd be screaming that Bush was comitting genocide. As for Karzai's influence, you'd have to provide some real backing for that claim.



f only it could be successful, but killing over 11,000 civilians, destroying their infrastructure, their heritage and antiquities, selling off their assets to western corporations at rock bottom prices, torturing their prisoners, and showing blatant disdain and disregard for their customs and traditions has made the US look like a boorish, thuggish enemy as far as most Iraqis go.

More bullshit. Even if true, civilians are sometimes killed in war. It's unfortunate and we try to avoid it. Grow up.

We did not target their infastructure as we did in 1991. We've poured billions into rebuilding the country. We have not acted with total disregard for their customs. In other words, you're blatantly wrong.


A recent coalition poll told the sorry story of 3% of Iraqis looking favorably on the occupation. What a joke! If "democracy", "freedom" and a "decent standard of living" was the US aim in Iraq, then why did the new Iraqi puppet government just declare martial law yesterday?

I'd like to see that poll. I also saw one that says 89% of Iraqis are willing to work with the interim government. That poll was recently conducted by Baghdad University.

You're also wrong about Martial Law. They approved a policy to allow emergency law to be imposed if needed. They've got a serious security situation...what would you like to do instead?




Regarding "liberation", what about all the poor oppressed people in nations all around Iraq which are monarchies or Islamic fundamentalist dictatorships with ghastly human rights records? You approve? Does Bush approve? What do say about invading those nations as well? After all...it was people from Saudi, Egypt, the UAE and Yemen who (according to the FBI), slammed those planes into our buildings, and they haven't been brought to task in one tiny, miniscule fashion. (6 Yemenis have just been charged with attacking the USS Cole). Not a single ambassador from those nations was carpeted after the attacks. And we react by invading the two nations which had the laest involvement, for other reasons no doubt.


Wait...what are you advocating..invading those countries too? I'm not. There is no evidence of any kind that those governments were involved or were a direct threat to the US or its allies. Saudi Arabia has a horrible human rights record and I agree...but what should we do? Should we stop buying their oil? OK...I'm on board with that. Where would you like to get it from. Oh, right..I forgot...you're a leftist so you oppose drilling ANWR, offshore and anything that has the letters O-I-L in it.



While Bush and big government spending go hand in hand:


Now that's just cheap. I agree Bush is a big spender. I fault him for most of it. How many times must I present this honest criticism, and can you show how this has hurt the economy?



PBA is very rare btw, but better done in a clinic than in a shed with a coathanger. Whats your thoughts on stem cell research

So your argument is that because it's "very rare" (which you have not supported) that it should be legal? You further argue that this very rare procedure (and therefore not in demand by women) will be carried out en masse in "sheds"?

I support Bush's position on Stem Cell research. Life should not be created and then destroyed. Bush's position is to continue to fund and allow research on existing stem cell lines.


Galvanized opposition all over the US and the world, and increased awareness of political realities amongst the young.... there is more to life than skateboarding. Maybe the democrats will become a real party representing the left of center, as opposed to "republican lite". Maybe they will become proud of the moniker "liberal", instead of wimping out. Maybe they will become relevant again.

A over-simplistic analogy: What happens to an eagle with a broken left wing, and a right wing thats flapping wildly out of control? It starts to go round in circles and lose altitude faster and faster, until it hits the ground with a sickening thud.....

Cute Sammi...cute. so your solution is that we need to become more liberal. This despite a clear trend within the Republican Party to become more liberal on social issues and federal spending. You don't seem to understand! The Republicans have become what the Democrats were in the 1930's and 1940's. They've become the party of FDR. They've not just assumed control of the agenda...they've stolen it.

The Democrats will not succeed until they truly come to the center. They will have to do what the Republicans have done in the past 10 years. They will have to support an aggressive foreign policy, a strong military/pro-national security agenda, limited federal spending and policy of smaller government.

Until they do that, it's only going to get worse for them. If the Dems lose big in this election, the current Clintonite V. Deananic squirmish will look like a love fest. The party will go into a full civil war and complete tail spin.

[Playmaker]

well I guess you've just about summed this thread up swd :D

[giant]

Originally posted by giant
Originally posted by Playmaker
Perhaps you should read a bit deeper into all the reasons we went into Iraq.
You've been reading plato recently?
I'll take your lack of response as a no.

So try this, what does "regime change" really mean and where does the concept come from?

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by giant
You've been reading plato recently?
I'll take your lack of response as a no.

So try this, what does "regime change" really mean and where does the concept come from? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry I didnt know I was supposed to respond to this...I must have been too busy reading the 35468435138975 copy and pasted posts you've added all over AI. Say what you like Plato at least my thoughts are original.

"Heres an article that proves that the other article I posted was right and your wrong"

And what the hell are you talking about "Regime Changes" for anyway? Are you trying to put a thought together on your own.

[giant]

Originally posted by Playmaker
Say what you like Plato at least my thoughts are original.
So you don't know anything about Bush admin foreign policy, which relies very heavily on plato and his famous student, or really political philosophy in general, considering how fundamental those writings are overall.
And what the hell are you talking about "Regime Changes" [sic] for anyway?
Because you apparently think others "should read a bit deeper into all the reasons we went into Iraq," meaning you must know all about this stuff. I suppose you also got a copy of wolfowitz's dissertation, too?

For future reference, when I post a quote of yours and then respond to it, my response has something to do with the quote. It's a great BB feature designed to avoid such confusion.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by Playmaker
Say what you like Plato at least my thoughts are original.


there is no such thing as an original thought. ;)

[groverat]

That powerful teacher's union!

What a joke. Yeah, those $35k/year masters of the world!

[Aquatic]

I fault him for most of it. How many times must I present this honest criticism, and can you show how this has hurt the economy?


You dip RTFA. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237

We've spent a trillion. We went from a surplus to a deficit. We gave trillions to a select few rich people in this country, then revved up the military-industrial complex and spent another trillion in Iraq and it's probably not even half over. The Medicare handout was another hundreds of billions if not more. Because of Bush's trade policies we are hemorrhaging trade deficits like nobody's business since we hate those Commies unless they are the little kids in China building us Dells.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by rageous
Well, oddly enough, this thread is about people listing their opinions on what they feel the President has done right. If we made a thread about what everybody in AO totally agrees Bush did right or wrong, it'd be pretty short since both questions would have zero answers.

In short: You don't get it. Feel free to disagree with some point that were made. But try doing so with an intelligent response.

No. I'm afraid it's you who doesn't get it.

Put it in context. I was replying to someone else and challenging the validity of their statement.

Just because you may disagree with my viewpoint doesn't make it unintelligent.

If this thread just listed what Bush has done right it would mostly be blank.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Touche.

I'll play along.

Bush:

1) WOT: Bush's approach is correct. We need to fight the battle overseas rather than in the streets of Manhattan. If this means a "premptive" invasion, so be it. You can disagree.

2) Afghanistan: The Taliban are gone. Despite what media tells you, they're not coming back. Afghanistan is a different country and is on the path to Democracy.

3) Iraq: There have been mistakes made, but the overall mission is going to be successful. Iraq will become a Democracy, and that in itself will help end terror.

4) Tax Cuts: Just for the rich? Hardly. My combined household income is less than $60,000 a year. I saw a huge benefit from those cuts, from marginal rate cuts to changes in depreciation laws (for example). These cuts have unquestionably stimulated the economy.

Economy to grow at fastest pace in 20 years. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html)

5) Here's where you'll really flip out: The No Child Left Behind Act. That's right, the NCLBA. For all its flaw (and I agree there are many), I know first hand that this law has gotten a lot of school districts of their collective asses. It's forced real and meaninful accountability. Speaking of education, the federal education budget has increased 48% since 2001. Underfunded? No.

6) Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Regardless of stance on abortion in general, this is an inhumane and medically unnecessary procedure.


Bush has done (or will do) plenty I disagree with. Notably, he signed the medicare bill, supports faith based charities and has allowed the deficit to expand rapidly. But as I recall, that's now what this thread is about.


------------------------------------------------------------
Economy to grow at fastest pace in 20 years. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html)

------------------------------------------------------------
And you complain about my links. Just reading the other headlines there you can tell which way they lean.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Aquatic
Perhaps I should have phrased it more specifically. Has he done anything that is good that is not subjective? :lol:
I guess in order that it not be subjective "good" must be defined. Perhaps you should also define bad. Both of these things seem to be ever more subjective as each day passes. This is especially true among liberals IMO.

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by giant
So you don't know anything about Bush admin foreign policy, which relies very heavily on plato and his famous student, or really political philosophy in general, considering how fundamental those writings are overall.

Because you apparently think others "should read a bit deeper into all the reasons we went into Iraq," meaning you must know all about this stuff. I suppose you also got a copy of wolfowitz's dissertation, too?

For future reference, when I post a quote of yours and then respond to it, my response has something to do with the quote. It's a great BB feature designed to avoid such confusion.

and aparently the game of row-sham-bow continues. While I dont understand your repeated reference to Plato or how his influence on Bush is relative to the questions posed. I still fail to see your absent point. Which "fundamental" writings are you refering to? The writings of someone who died in 347 BC are hardly relivant to the actions taken as a result of Terrorism.

Foreign Policy....Lets see, regardless of what you think I know about the administrations foreign policy its important to keep in mind that the U.S.'s involvment in Iraq is based on a series of events. The most significant being the unwillingness to cooperate with UN resolutions on numerous occasions. After timeless warnings and games we reacted to a threat that almost certainly would have sold WMDs to the highest bidder, attacked, tortured, and killed more of there own citizens as well as any number of atrocities (things the regime had already done on more than one occasion).

so sit back (or walk around as Plato did) and think up any number of excuses to avoid liberating the people of Iraq and removing a killer from terrorizing the middle east if not anyone within reach. Your arguments are weak as are your references to fundamental thinkers.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by NaplesX
:lol:
I guess in order that it not be subjective "good" must be defined. Perhaps you should also define bad. Both of these things seem to be ever more subjective as each day passes. This is especially true among liberals IMO.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about conservatives.

If they disagree with something it's either unintelligent or bashing. On the liberal side real reasons for statements are given. Which of course are ignored by the conservative under the guise of being " unamerican " Or " Who do you think you are questioning the president? ".

Fortunately the Bush supporters are running out of excuses for his actions.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by jimmac
Funny I was thinking the same thing about conservatives.

If they disagree with something it's either unintelligent or bashing. On the liberal side real reasons for statements are given. Which of course are ignored by the conservative under the guise of being " unamerican " Or " Who do you think you are questioning the president? ".

Fortunatly the Bush supporters are running out of excuses for his actions. So one of you lefty's (or the thread starter) define "Good" and then we can converse on an intelligent and honest level, otherwise it is just an exorcize in typing practice.

[msantti]

I vote for a "Bush Bash" forum.

Outsider gets to polluted with them.

[NaplesX]

Oh yeah, Lay has been indicted,

Lack of this was declared a black eye on the admin, so now this can be considered good and credited to the admin, no?

[NaplesX]

The first crisis that this admin faced and solved successfully, the China plane downing negotiations were a big success.

[jimmac]

See what I mean.........

[NaplesX]

While looking for some claimed successes by the admin, I ran across this article:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004640

Maybe old news, there are some interesting points in there. I apologize if it is not on topic,

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The first crisis that this admin faced and solved successfully, the China plane downing negotiations were a big success.

I've always been so mixed on this. It certainly wasn't a complete failure, and things could have been better, but I've always felt something about the whole situation wasn't 'right'. I guess I just wanted him to blow the plane up with cruise missles so the Chinese couldn't reverse engineer our technology.

[tonton]

Originally posted by msantti
I vote for a "Bush Bash" forum.

Outsider gets to polluted with them.

Headline November 2004:

"Kerry wins 49 states. Texas secedes from the Union. Other states don't seem to care."

Why is it all the loons are from Texas?

[tonton]

Originally posted by NaplesX
While looking for some claimed successes by the admin, I ran across this article:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004640

Maybe old news, there are some interesting points in there. I apologize if it is not on topic,

Interesting piece. But so what? He knows his croneys. He doesn't (didn't) know who the president of Pakistan was (shortly after a nuclear crisis with that country) while he was running for President. Which is more important in the global arena? No wonder this administration has such a US centric view. Bush thinks it's more important to know what's in his circle than what's outside of it.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by tonton
Interesting piece. But so what? He knows his croneys. He doesn't (didn't) know who the president of Pakistan was (shortly after a nuclear crisis with that country) while he was running for President. Which is more important in the global arena? No wonder this administration has such a US centric view. Bush thinks it's more important to know what's in his circle than what's outside of it. That is not what it said.

[giant]

Originally posted by Playmaker
so sit back (or walk around as Plato did) and think up any number of excuses to avoid liberating the people of Iraq and removing a killer from terrorizing the middle east if not anyone within reach. Your arguments are weak as are your references to fundamental thinkers.
Actually, it's the bush policy team that is deeply influenced by plato, aristotle and some modern interpretations of their philosophies.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many Bushists actually fool themselves into thinking that the administration's ideas have no academic roots. These are guys with phds in political science and are deeply steeped in political philosophy, as everyone in any political science department discusses often.

But those with no contact with these ideas fool themselves into thinking the administrations policies (really any administration's policies) are simple reactions and strategies that have not philosophical foundations. It's truely amazing since even the most basic poli-sci 101 courses and such common journals as foreign affairs are filled with discussions of plato, aristotle, mill, hume, hobbes, locke and the whole spectrum of famous political philosophers.

But go on believing what you tell yourself. You say my arguments are weak, but you apparently have absolutely no idea what they are, nor could you really have any idea what the Bush admin's are, as continually demonstrated in your comments like the one above. Bushists are, for the most part, just blindly tagging along.

Edit: just to add, I found it very interesting how recent discussions of kerry admin foreign policy attribute it to an "administration" as opposed to "kerry." It's quite a contrast from the constant focus on "bush," as if it's an individual that comes up with the policies.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by fuzzymonk
Don't you hate how you know these conversations never change anyone's mind, yet we post them anyway. Some sort of exercise in futility. Well, in an attempt to do my hone my debate skills(a.k.a. waste time at work), here is a reply.




No imminent threat? I think a little more research into the reasoning behind this is needed. I do believe the reason for going in was because Iraq failed to meet the demands of the UN. Who had made repeated demands and then repeatedly backed down.

The UN was set up to do what the League of Nations failed to do. Bush is doing what FDR intended the US and Brittan to do though the UN. Go look it up. All these people going off about Bush is a warmonger that is going to start WW3 really need to go back and see how WW1 and WW2 got started. The threat in that region is huge. It's not a simple response to 9/11. It's part of a much larger war on terror. A much larger fight to prevent another world war.

Instead of plagiarizing a few of the facts from this email I’ll just post it here too:



------------------------------------------------------------

" No imminent threat? I think a little more research into the reasoning behind this is needed. I do believe the reason for going in was because Iraq failed to meet the demands of the UN. Who had made repeated demands and then repeatedly backed down. "

------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, no.

We've been over this soooooooo many times on this forum it should be embossed on everyone's brain by now.

The only ( and I do mean only because the rest of the world and the american people would have never bought it any other way ) reason this war got off the ground is Bush's mysterous " Threat ". The implication was that Saddam was a threat to us. Here in the U.S. Making people think he had the means to attack us.

And no I'm not going to look it up for one more person!

If he had said it was to liberate Iraq, settle the situation with the UN's handling of Iraq, bring more peace to the middle east nobody would have bought it.

Myself and many others didn't buy it anyway.

This has nothing to do with FDR or Kennedy or anyone else.

Bush told a lie ( apparently ) to start a full blown war.

What do you think the WOMD ( or lack there of ) debacle was all about? why do you think it was such a big deal?

Geez!

Selective memory loss I guess!
:rolleyes:

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by Placebo
I'm beginning to wonder whether we'd be happier if the South had won the Civil War. That way, the South could have their Republican way, and the North could have their liberal way. In our current situation, only half the people in the country can be happy about the election results.

Just my two cents.
Well, it's bound to happen when we have elections, that some people be unhappy about the results.

As for the the southern states which formed the C.S.A. we can assume they would have continued along the tendency they followed before secession.
1. Expansion.
The landed-propoertied slaveowners were eyeing new domains, both westward and southward, as in the case of Texas (the “trouble” with Mexico having been among other things, that it had abolished slavery in 1831). And let's not forget that it was Lincoln's opposition to allow slavery to expand to new territories which was seen as a cause for secession.

2. Slave-based industrialisation.
We are used to the contrast between a rural South and an industrial North, but while the South was indeed still mainly rural and lagging behind the North (and Britain) when it came to industrialisation, it was in the same situation as (and ahead of some of) continental European countries at the time; and slave-labour was being used in factories. If it were allowed to continue, it would have.

To the people of the C.S.A. the right to own other people as slaves was seen as a freedom and a foundation of their way of life even if most of them couldn't afford to own one, and there was no way they were going to renounce it by their own volition. It is a very good thing they were crushed by the Union armies.

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by giant
Actually, it's the bush policy team that is deeply influenced by plato, aristotle and some modern interpretations of their philosophies.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many Bushists actually fool themselves into thinking that the administration's ideas have no academic roots. These are guys with phds in political science and are deeply steeped in political philosophy, as everyone in any political science department discusses often.

But those with no contact with these ideas fool themselves into thinking the administrations policies (really any administration's policies) are simple reactions and strategies that have not philosophical foundations. It's truely amazing since even the most basic poli-sci 101 courses and such common journals as foreign affairs are filled with discussions of plato, aristotle, mill, hume, hobbes, locke and the whole spectrum of famous political philosophers.

But go on believing what you tell yourself. You say my arguments are weak, but you apparently have absolutely no idea what they are, nor could you really have any idea what the Bush admin's are, as continually demonstrated in your comments like the one above. Bushists are, for the most part, just blindly tagging along.

Edit: just to add, I found it very interesting how recent discussions of kerry admin foreign policy attribute it to an "administration" as opposed to "kerry." It's quite a contrast from the constant focus on "bush," as if it's an individual that comes up with the policies.

We obviously agree to disagree on this topic. I dont think you addressed anything in this last post outside the concept of having philosophical foundations based on ancient writings. I absolutely agree with you that many of the things we were all taught in College (if not High School) help to carve out our thought processes and mold us into well rounded decision makers. THAT BEING SAID...what the fuck does that have to do with the actions of the current administration? Where are you reading this bullshit? The decision to go into Afghanastan and then Iraq are reactionary measures taken in an effort to prevent the spread of terrorism. There are multiple reasons for each on many different levels and none have anything to do with Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Freud, or any other Philosopher, Scientist, or Street Poet.

To tie this all together there are many excellent contributions that have been made by this administration, While not every decision was a great one the morons who consistantly complain that nothing good has come from this administration expect every decision to have immediate results and are too narrow-minded to see that many of the actions that have been taken are not only to ensure that things get better today but that our chindren and grandchildren live in a better place. I hope I havent offended you with this post, It certainly wasnt my intention. It is damn near impossible to do anything other than present people with the facts and let them formulate their opinions based on the facts present. If you have a link or article you'ld like to send me explaining where these philosophical references keep coming from I'd be glad to read it, but for now I don't see their relivance to this discussion.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Actually, it's the bush policy team that is deeply influenced by plato, aristotle and some modern interpretations of their philosophies.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many Bushists actually fool themselves into thinking that the administration's ideas have no academic roots. These are guys with phds in political science and are deeply steeped in political philosophy, as everyone in any political science department discusses often.

But those with no contact with these ideas fool themselves into thinking the administrations policies (really any administration's policies) are simple reactions and strategies that have not philosophical foundations. It's truely amazing since even the most basic poli-sci 101 courses and such common journals as foreign affairs are filled with discussions of plato, aristotle, mill, hume, hobbes, locke and the whole spectrum of famous political philosophers.

But go on believing what you tell yourself. You say my arguments are weak, but you apparently have absolutely no idea what they are, nor could you really have any idea what the Bush admin's are, as continually demonstrated in your comments like the one above. Bushists are, for the most part, just blindly tagging along.

Edit: just to add, I found it very interesting how recent discussions of kerry admin foreign policy attribute it to an "administration" as opposed to "kerry." It's quite a contrast from the constant focus on "bush," as if it's an individual that comes up with the policies. The modern world was influenced by Socrates, Plato and many greek philosophers, so what. What is your point.

If you would just come out and state your case instead of taking a detour to humiliate and browbeat with your supposed knowledge, you would come across much better IMO. Forget all the typing, electrons and time you would conserve in the process.

[giant]

Originally posted by Playmaker
...what the fuck does that have to do with the actions of the current administration?
Back to my original point: maybe you should look into it before telling others that they "should read a bit deeper into all the reasons we went into Iraq," particularly since you have made it abundantly clear in this series of posts that you have no clue about what those reasons are. As is always the case, behind the rhetoric is a combination of political philosophies being put into action, something easy to learn about if look beyond fox news and actually listen to the discourse between the administration's thinkers, their fellow academics and other foreign policy experts and political scientists/philosophers.

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by giant
Back to my original point: maybe you should look into it before telling others that they "should read a bit deeper into all the reasons we went into Iraq," particularly since you have made it abundantly clear in this series of posts that you have no clue about what those reasons are. As is always the case, behind the rhetoric is a combination of political philosophies being put into action, something easy to learn about if look beyond fox news and actually listen to the discourse between the administration's thinkers, their fellow academics and other foreign policy experts and political scientists/philosophers.

once again you come to no relivant conclusion.:no: Why bother posting if you're not going to make a point? You started this series of posts by attacking my response time to your question and once I responded you've done nothing but remove yourself from the discussion at hand. Have Bush and his administration in YOUR opinion done anything that you would consider good over the last 4 years? Please, don't bother responding with some tid-bit you picked up in a humanities class unless it is pertinant . Feel free to send me that link to the Bush Admin. and their heavy reliance on early philosophical thought, you have me waiting on the edge of my seat.

[giant]

:lol:

Sure, this topic is just a replay of an older thread (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42003&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) in which I posted the most praises of the Bush admin out of all other participants. A sampling:

I'm glad Powell kept the wackos in the admin from going even more overboard.

I'm glad O'Neill spoke out about how screwed up things were.

Same with Clarke.

I'm glad Beers left the Bush admin, joined the Kerry campaign and committed to getting Bush out of office.

I thought it was very noble of John DiIulio (the former head of the faith-based programs) to tell the truth about the administration and it's short-coming from yet another insider's perspective. We owe him a lot, because he clearly supported Bush strongly and was very disappointed by what he saw during his time with the administration.

I really liked how the nation's top counter-terrorism advisor leading up to 9.11 personally apologized to the families of those killed, making a point to accept responsibility.

Speaking of accepting responsibility, it was really refreshing to see rumsfeld accept responsibility for the abu ghraib torture, and say "I am accountable."

I thought it was great that Karen Kwiatkowski came forward and spoke about her experiences close to the office of special plans and gave us some insight into how intel on Iraq was contorted.

I liked that Joe Wilson came forward and discussed his experience in Niger.

I'm glad that there is an investigation into the vp's office concerning the illegal outing of a CIA operative.

I'll have more to come soon.

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by giant
:lol:

Sure, this topic is just a replay of an older thread (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42003&perpage=40&pagenumber=3) in which I posted the most praises of the Bush admin out of all other participants. A sampling:

I'm glad Powell kept the wackos in the admin from going even more overboard.

I'm glad O'Neill spoke out about how screwed up things were.

Same with Clarke.

I'm glad Beers left the Bush admin, joined the Kerry campaign and committed to getting Bush out of office.

I thought it was very noble of John DiIulio (the former head of the faith-based programs) to tell the truth about the administration and it's short-coming from yet another insider's perspective. We owe him a lot, because he clearly supported Bush strongly and was very disappointed by what he saw during his time with the administration.

I really liked how the nation's top counter-terrorism advisor leading up to 9.11 personally apologized to the families of those killed, making a point to accept responsibility.

Speaking of accepting responsibility, it was really refreshing to see rumsfeld accept responsibility for the abu ghraib torture, and say "I am accountable."

I thought it was great that Karen Kwiatkowski came forward and spoke about her experiences close to the office of special plans and gave us some insight into how intel on Iraq was contorted.

I liked that Joe Wilson came forward and discussed his experience in Niger.

I'm glad that there is an investigation into the vp's office concerning the illegal outing of a CIA operative.

I'll have more to come soon.

Now I feel like I'm reading this post for a reason. I was concerned we werent getting anywhere.:D

[giant]

I'm happy that chief medicare actuary richard foster's work showed that medicare chief Scully was trying to lie to the american people to help get Bush's prescription drug bill passed.

[bunge]

Evidently he did done good (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/campaign/09records.html?pagewanted=all) in the service.

Wow.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by bunge
Evidently he did done good (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/campaign/09records.html?pagewanted=all) in the service.

Wow. Nice.
Deja Vu, anyone? (http://www.google.com/search?q=missing+nixon+tape&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)

[rageous]

Originally posted by bunge
I've always been so mixed on this. It certainly wasn't a complete failure, and things could have been better, but I've always felt something about the whole situation wasn't 'right'. I guess I just wanted him to blow the plane up with cruise missles so the Chinese couldn't reverse engineer our technology.

So you're idea of the right thing would have been to fire cruise missles into China!? You have got to be kidding me.

Easily a Top 5 worst idea. Ever.

[bunge]

Originally posted by rageous
So you're idea of the right thing would have been to fire cruise missles into China!? You have got to be kidding me.

Easily a Top 5 worst idea. Ever.

My idea would have been to keep China far away from our technology.

[rageous]

Originally posted by bunge
My idea would have been to keep China far away from our technology.

Which according to you would entail firing cruise missles into China to destroy said technology.

Idiocy.

[bunge]

Originally posted by rageous
Which according to you would entail firing cruise missles into China to destroy said technology.

Idiocy.

Don't be an idiot. There are more than one path to just about any goal.

[rageous]

Originally posted by bunge
Don't be an idiot. There are more than one path to just about any goal.

Okay, I'll bite.

Explain to me how you think the US could have destroyed that plane once China had gained control of it in a completely non-hostile way.

[Anders]

Go back in time and install a remote controlled self destruct mechanism. Or ask for it nicely.:D

[Protostar]

What people dont seem to understand in America is that not every country in the world wishes to be a democracy. Just because it works here(not really when people lose their jobs just for speaking out against that bumbling idiot) doesnt mean it will work there. Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries have had certain way of living for hundreds of years and if u think they are going to change in a year just because we tell them to is foolish

[Anders]

Originally posted by Protostar
What people dont seem to understand in America is that not every country in the world wishes to be a democracy. Just because it works here(not really when people lose their jobs just for speaking out against that bumbling idiot) doesnt mean it will work there. Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries have had certain way of living for hundreds of years and if u think they are going to change in a year just because we tell them to is foolish

I have always had problems with arguments like that. I know what you are saying but I don´t agree.

You say that not every country wish... Do countries have an opinion of things? Isn´t it just people who can have opinions? "Countries" often stands for those who benefit mostly from the current situation, those in power, and of course they don´t want democracy.

Then the next argument would be that people don´t want to have the freedom to decide over their destiny. But then you use a democratic argument against democracy. "If people could chose they would chose not to be able to chose". But how can we argue against their ability not to be able to chose NOT to chose at least?

The point should be to give them the right to chose but not tell them which choices are right, even if those choices limit them. I read a story from one of the african countries in the first post-colony periode. The people was given the right to vote but in many places the tribal leader told the members how to vote or voted for them. They had the freedom not to let the leader chose for them but they chose to let him. That seemed like the right compromise.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Anders
I have always had problems with arguments like that. I know what you are saying but I don´t agree.

You say that not every country wish... Do countries have an opinion of things? Isn´t it just people who can have opinions? "Countries" often stands for those who benefit mostly from the current situation, those in power, and of course they don´t want democracy.

Then the next argument would be that people don´t want to have the freedom to decide over their destiny. But then you use a democratic argument against democracy. "If people could chose they would chose not to be able to chose". But how can we argue against their ability not to be able to chose NOT to chose at least?

The point should be to give them the right to chose but not tell them which choices are right, even if those choices limit them. I read a story from one of the african countries in the first post-colony periode. The people was given the right to vote but in many places the tribal leader told the members how to vote or voted for them. They had the freedom not to let the leader chose for them but they chose to let him. That seemed like the right compromise. There are many forms of choosing to have yor social-structure organized: in other words, to be governed. For instance, Tribal organization: the people in the tribe want to live according to the tradition of tribal rule, few in such systems want to organize an eleborate vote system beyond the form that they allready have.

We often, arrogantly assume that the view of the world that we hold is absolute and should hold for all cases . . . 'Democracy' is great stuff, what we assume is the best for all people may take other forms where other forms of social thought rule: social thought is a reflection of the world-perspective within which one lives: it is the reality that one inhabits: in reality not everyone wants to give up their ways of being, or radically shift their 'reality' simply because some westerner tells them "democracy rules -ok?!". . . and wants them to shop at CostCo . .

BTW, I am responding to the post above and not the context so consider that before you flame me . . . in fact I don't even knnow what the context was, yet.

[Anders]

My biggest gribes with what you say is that it more often than not is a cover for those who have the power to keep it that way. what you describes is known as feudalism here in europe

Now it become very simplistic: Say a young man in a tribe want to break with it and live in another part of the country, go to another country to live etc. What is more important then. The unity of the tribe or the wish of the man? If we say the first then we value structure higher than individuals and I can´t do that as a liberal.

[Anders]

Originally posted by pfflam
Tribal organization: the people in the tribe want to live according to the tradition of tribal rule, few in such systems want to organize an eleborate vote system beyond the form that they allready have.

To parafrase: People want to live under tribal rule-> People choose not to be able to chose.

Unless they are asked how do we know?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Anders
My biggest gribes with what you say is that it more often than not is a cover for those who have the power to keep it that way. what you describes is known as feudalism here in europe

Now it become very simplistic: Say a young man in a tribe want to break with it and live in another part of the country, go to another country to live etc. What is more important then. The unity of the tribe or the wish of the man? If we say the first then we value structure higher than individuals and I can´t do that as a liberal. That is your European eyes seeing European forms whereas I gave one example and did not mean European.

A culture expresses itself as the form of its social body: in other words, people get the government they deserve.

Of course, I am taking Devil's Advocate here . . . I like Democracy . . .
but in devil's advocate land, there are other means of social self organization that are the culmination of the people's will: tribal people (example: nomadic tribes) 'elect' leadership through traditional means, if they did not do so (so they believe) the tribe would not be able to make it through another migration: it is the expression of the collective that takes the form -who are we to say to them: "this form would work better for you" . . . it could be imposed upon them, but then it might also end up in the total devastation of the tribe . . . after all, they are expressed as their social form, and if that changes, they too change completely . . . and perhaps, in the future, humanity will collectively be very very different than we are today, and will have an as of yet, unimagined social body and correlate governmental form.