What EXACTLY IS WRONG with George W. Bush?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Everyone seems to hate him and I would like a nonemotional response as to why this is the case. I'll probably ask you to back up what you say so don't just spew off a bunch of crap.



[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</p>
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 93
    He is using 9/11 as a means to justify his increased military spending and is wagging the dog with Enron.
  • Reply 2 of 93
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [quote]Originally posted by crawlingparanoia:

    <strong>He is using 9/11 as a means to justify his increased military spending and is wagging the dog with Enron.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So my question to you is why is increased military spending bad? Why does it need to be justified at all?
  • Reply 3 of 93
    [quote]Originally posted by crawlingparanoia:

    <strong>He is using 9/11 as a means to justify his increased military spending and is wagging the dog with Enron.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yea. 9-11 is no justification for having a capable and equipped military.



    Also he's "wagging the dog" with Enron because he's using it to ummmm? Well he's .... Let see he made the whole thing up to distract people from ummmm What does "wag the dog" mean because crawlingparanoia has no ****ing clue what it means.
  • Reply 4 of 93
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    [quote]Originally posted by crawlingparanoia:

    <strong>He is using 9/11 as a means to justify his increased military spending and is wagging the dog with Enron.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's far creepier than that. As some news outlets and SNL have commented, he's tagging more as co-conspirators to the terrorists.



    "If you're not with us, you're against us." Um, hello, coalition? Who needs a coalition?!



    The increasing pitch has already hit domestic politics: Daschle makes comments about an endgame strategy (whether he's sincere or just getting some political points) and Lott flying waaay off the handle in reaction.



    The States are in deep trouble if the questioning of congress members patriotism expands in earnest.

    As for Enron, he's not using it. He's desperately trying to distance himself from it. I have no doubt there's a second act to this story.



    Screed



    [ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 93
    glurxglurx Posts: 1,031member
    [quote]

    <strong>"If you're not with us, you're against us." Um, hello, coalition? Who needs a coalition?!

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Coalition: Those Who Are With Us?



    Enemy: All others
  • Reply 6 of 93
    [quote]Originally posted by glurx:

    <strong>



    Coalition: Those Who Are With Us?



    Enemy: All others</strong><hr></blockquote>



    HEY! NO THINKING ALLOWED! STOP RIGHT NOW!
  • Reply 7 of 93
    Actually, he's using 9/11 as an excuse to overthrow the Taliban and in the process get control of oil reserves in Uzbekistan and several other Russian countries. This huge untapped reserve will be used to fuel the two largest countries in the world (China and India) once a pipeline can be constructed to lead it to market via the ocean. Whoever controls the flow of this oil essentially controls the fate of these two countries.



    Unocal corporation has been trying to build an oil pipeline for several years-- and the most direct route is through Afghanistan to Pakistan. The Taliban distrust american corporations, and despite millions of dollars sent to them by the Bush Administration ($43 million last February) they planned on awarding the contract to an oil company from Argentina. Apparently at some point they told the Bush Administration they would essentially hand over Bin Laden (this was many months before 9/11) to drop the matter but of course only the oil mattered. Enron figured into this because of a large refinery which was constructed in India-- memos between Bush and Ken Lay have been released via the Smoking Gun discussing "the pipeline from Uzbekistan." This refinery was originally part of the plan put together by Cheney's "energy taskforce" so obviously it would supply Enron with a steady stream of income.



    But back to Afghanistan. Talks between the Administration and the Taliban broke off in August-- according to Pakistan's former secretary of state we had threatened to "bury them with a carpet of bombs." (After making this statement the secretary was removed from office-- Pakistan has much to gain from this pipeline as well!) Once talks broke off Bush went on vacation-- which he was still taking at the time of 9/11-- whether that implies knowledge of an attack plan is unknown. The attack could have been retaliation against our threats, an attempt to rally muslim nations against the US, or just madness on the part of Osama Bin Laden. In any rate, they made a stand against us and were rightly wiped off the map for it.



    Now look at the situation-- the Taliban have been replaced with a US-friendly government. Construction on the Unocal pipeline resumed on September 12, the day AFTER the terrorist attack. The company Dick Cheney was involved in before vice presidency, Hallibuton, has received the contract for constructing PERMANENT military bases inside and around Afghanistan (and thus the pipeline). And right now Bush has sent troops into Georgia to protect the northern portion of the pipeline.



    But yes, this also allowed for a build-up in military spending and as a result some business for the Carlyle Group (whose members include GHWB).
  • Reply 8 of 93
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    Mr. Satellite, well you probably are mostly right. BUT, in the long run this is better for the people of Afganistan and the US. They are now free and we get cheaper oil
  • Reply 9 of 93
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    This sort of thing makes me sick,that someone would use the current crisis to forward their own corrupt personal interests.Where has the media been in reporting all this? Mr. Satellite,do you have any

    links where more can be read.
  • Reply 10 of 93
    Indeed I do-- I'll compile a list and post it tomorrow...
  • Reply 11 of 93
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [quote]Originally posted by Rick1138:

    <strong>This sort of thing makes me sick,that someone would use the current crisis to forward their own corrupt personal interests.Where has the media been in reporting all this? Mr. Satellite,do you have any

    links where more can be read.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Explain the corruptness in this please. Sounds like business and politics to me. They may be bad, but it doesn't seem like there is anything "corrupt" here
  • Reply 12 of 93
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    To lead US troops into a war zone without exposing their full personal interests in the outcome of the war,to pretend that the reasons for the war are solely related to the September 11 terrorist attacks when they are not,this is the very defintion of corruption.If you are satisfied that these are acceptable ways of doing business and politics then I feel sorry for you.
  • Reply 13 of 93
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [quote]Originally posted by Rick1138:

    <strong>To lead US troops into a war zone without exposing their full personal interests in the outcome of the war,to pretend that the reasons for the war are solely related to the September 11 terrorist attacks when they are not,this is the very defintion of corruption.If you are satisfied that these are acceptable ways of doing business and politics then I feel sorry for you.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    There is never just one reason for a war.
  • Reply 14 of 93
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    How do you think the troops who are risking their lives would feel if they found out about this? That they were fighting as pawns in Enron's game? I doubt they would be very happy.
  • Reply 15 of 93
    [quote]Originally posted by Rick1138:

    <strong>How do you think the troops who are risking their lives would feel if they found out about this? That they were fighting as pawns in Enron's game? I doubt they would be very happy.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    First, they aren't "fighting as pawns in Enron's game"! Geez..where they HELL would you get that from? What these others have posted?



    Mr. Satellite, let me ask you a question. Where did you get all that information? Sounds like such bullshit or an episode for the X-files.



    [quote] Once talks broke off Bush went on vacation-- which he was still taking at the time of 9/11-- whether that implies knowledge of an attack plan is unknown.<hr></blockquote>

    You are implying that by including it..and just trying to stoke a nice fire against Bush here at AI.



    [quote]And right now Bush has sent troops into Georgia to protect the northern portion of the pipeline.

    <hr></blockquote>

    Uh..yeah. Sure. And where did you get this information? Had you actually read something other than a liberal press, you would have seen that Georgia President Edward Shereadfsfs (don't know how to spell his name and not enough time to look it up this morning) had actually requested U.S. S.O.F. to help train his soldiers in the hunt for terrorists in his country. That's what the Special Forces do....train! If we were gonna guard something, that's what we have regular troops for. Hence the 101st at the airfield, taking over for the Marines.



    [quote]The company Dick Cheney was involved in before vice presidency, Hallibuton, has received the contract for constructing PERMANENT military bases inside and around Afghanistan (and thus the pipeline)<hr></blockquote>

    And just where did you get this load of B.S.?! Man, you sure do have some source of news that noone else seems to get!
  • Reply 16 of 93
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    A major 'character flaw' in Bush is that he is very arrogant.



    For the most part, the country supports Bush's actions in the "War on Terrorism", but that's where his overwhelming support really dies down. Other than that, most issues are still divided. Plus, Bush has consistently backed himself in to a corner on issues.



    Take Campaign Finance Reform, for example. He said that if the bill ever reached his desk, he would sign it. But in the campaign, he swore to the Republican party that he was totally against such a bill and would take action against it.



    Then there is the new 'Shadow Government' revelation. Turns out that no one in Congress had even the faintest idea that this had gone in to effect. Even during the height of the Cold War and during the Cuban Missile Crisis when the world was at the very brink of Nuclear War, there was no shadow government.



    Now we hear that the US had reason to believe that terrorists had a low yield nuclear device from Russia and that they were targeting NYC. Did anyone let even the Mayor of NY know? Of course not. So the President has kept secret all of these major secrets from the other branches of government. You might call it 'security', but I don't think that it's right that the Congress should be reading about these important issues in the Washington Post before they know the story from the President.



    Then you have people like Ari Fleischer saying that the current turmoil in the Middle East is President Clinton's fault (Oh please. ). If things aren't going the Republican's way, they can always blame it on Clinton right? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    Then there was the whole "Axis of Evil" comment that I still think was out of hand. Like I've said before, if Iraq is not agreeing to the terms of our settlement with them from the Gulf War, then it's just about time to take out Saddam Hussein- something that George Bush (Sr.) didn't do the first time.



    Then there's the September 11 relief that was supposed to go to NYC. The economy in NYC is not good right now, from what I've heard. My family was down in Manhattan about 2 weeks ago, and not only is the financial district in ruins (physically and economically), but uptown isn't much better. They said that the hotel they stayed in was fairly empty, the restaurant for the hotel was cut back to only being open on weekends, there were fewer people out and about, all of the shops that were open were having huge sales and had people on the streets begging them to go in, and they even were walking by very fancy restaurants (suit and tie type places) where they were asked to come in and eat for less than half price when they were wearing their 'regular' street clothes. Any way, the economy isn't doing as well as it should be, from what I've heard, and now Bush has cut back the amount of money that is going to go to the relief efforts.



    Then there's Enron. While not affecting Bush yet, the administration has repeatedly refused to have the Vice President questioned about his energy policy meetings. My question is this: Why? Why won't they let him answer questions? Why won't he answer questions? Does he have something to hide? If he didn't, then I think he would say, "All right. I've got nothing to hide. I'm putting my cards on the table- this is what happened, this is who I met with." But he can't. So you just have to wonder what's going on there as well.



    There's a lot more that I could write, but you get the basic ideas of why a lot of people aren't happy with Bush right about now.
  • Reply 17 of 93
    imacfanimacfan Posts: 444member
    Firstly, let me say that I look at this from a UK perspective, where politics is more to the left than in the USA (but not as much as Europe). I support the slightly more right-wing Conservative party.



    Personally, I thought that Bush would be a disaster when he was voted in. However, I think that he has done well in converting his party into a more mainstream, meritocratic one. Also, he has managed to keep out the extreme right-wingers.



    I believe also that he was very measured in his response to September 11, and the Taliban would have deserved to be taken out, 911 or not.



    David
  • Reply 18 of 93
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by iMacfan:

    <strong>



    Personally, I thought that Bush would be a disaster when he was voted in. However, I think that he has done well in converting his party into a more mainstream, meritocratic one. Also, he has managed to keep out the extreme right-wingers.



    I believe also that he was very measured in his response to September 11, and the Taliban would have deserved to be taken out, 911 or not.



    David</strong><hr></blockquote>

    i agree too, i just regret the speech of axis of evil, but it's perhaps just inside politics for his citizens.
  • Reply 19 of 93
    robertprobertp Posts: 139member
    [quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:

    <strong>Everyone seems to hate him and I would like a nonemotional response as to why this is the case. I'll probably ask you to back up what you say so don't just spew off a bunch of crap.



    [ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    First let me say I do not hate him, but I do not think he nor his constituents should be using 9-11

    as a reason for violating every decent right to privacy that we enjoy in this country. The old saying "it is a matter of national security" is a way for our government to weild the sword of utmost power..ie, phone taps without court orders, arrest and detainment without true provocation or court order, investigation on ANYONE they deem as a threat to national security without any upfront proof. This is big brother time people, and the sooner this country wakes up to this fact the better. The tax payers have seen the money fly from the federal gov. to deal with this new domestic terror threat. We have witnessed the birth of the Homeland Security program (read police state). We are living in dangerous times as far as our individual rights are concerned and Bush is using this tactic for full steam ahead to fight terrorism..or is he?



    [ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 93
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [quote]Originally posted by Robertp:

    <strong>



    First let me say I do not hate him, but I do not think he nor his constituents should be using 9-11

    as a reason for violating every decent right to privacy that we enjoy in this country. The old saying "it is a matter of national security" is a way for our government to weild the sword of utmost power..ie, phone taps without court orders, arrest and detainment without true provocation or court order, investigation on ANYONE they deem as a threat to national security without any upfront proof. This is big brother time people, and the sooner this country wakes up to this fact the better. The tax payers have seen the money fly from the federal gov. to deal with this new domestic terror threat. We have witnessed the birth of the Homeland Security program (read police state). We are living in dangerous times as far as our individual rights are concerned and Bush is using this tactic for full steam ahead to fight terrorism..or is he?



    [ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Robertp ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

    If you aren't actually a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. None of this affects you. I'd rather have a couple hundred people in jail for a while than have my downtown blown up.
Sign In or Register to comment.