• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How GW Bush got successful...a different look

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As we know, GW Bush was a failed oil manager but he seems to be a successful president (as demonstrated by his re-election). What do we learn from this? (1) Does this mean that Bush hasn't had requisite skills necessary to be successful in business but has some innate skills to make a successful career as a politician? or, (2) does this mean that politics is generally easier than business and that's how Bush was a success in the former field?
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Some would say that it's Bush's family connections. I believe that these connections helped him out, but the fact that his father was President does not guarantee him a two-term presidency.

Part of it is being in the right place at the right time. I don't know much about his oil buisiness and how or why it failed. However, his ideas fit well with the national mood in 2000.

Clinton was a very popular president, but people were ready for a general reduction in taxes and moderate Republican economic policy. McCain's campaign finance reform didn't gain enough traction. The democrats didn't have much more to offer - making it tough for Al Gore to win a larger coalition of voters.

I don't think its accurate to say that either buisiness or politics is easier. They are different worlds, and some people are better at buisiness while others are better at politics.
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
but the fact that his father was President does not guarantee him a two-term presidency.
Sure. Being an incumbent and starting a war almost always, without exception, guarantees two terms.

However, his ideas fit well with the national mood in 2000.
Yes, there was the clinton scandal and his fellow man wouldn't fare well (although he did won the popular vote even given that) plus no one really cared. But he (aids) acted smart the second time--he needed sth big, sth dramatic to get re-elected and starting a war was certainly big enough to "help" citizens get organized not to let down a commander-in-chief when he is in the process of waging war.

I don't think its accurate to say that either buisiness or politics is easier.
I think you are right.

people were ready for a general reduction in taxes and moderate Republican economic policy. McCain's campaign finance reform didn't gain enough traction.
I think those were details still and not decisive. I think McCain wouldn't be elected even on the personal level, forget policies. Ppl thought he was a good leading senator but too old/too late to become president.
 

clearview

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Connecticutter said:
Some would say that it's Bush's family connections. I believe that these connections helped him out, but the fact that his father was President does not guarantee him a two-term presidency.
True, but it sure helps, especially when your dad can hide your misdeeds. I hear, but don't know, that G.W.'s granddad contributed to the Nazi's. Idealogy was different then, so I'm not judging, but if true I do find it interesting.

Part of it is being in the right place at the right time. I don't know much about his oil buisiness and how or why it failed. However, his ideas fit well with the national mood in 2000.
There was a backlash when some Dems were nailed for corruption. Republicans had also been aggressively dominating politics, and were very organized and devoted to retaining power in Congress. The 2000 election outcome was barely won - considering the Supreme Court got involved - but was barely won through a lot of trash politics. I wonder just how many people got Roved when it was all said and done.

Clinton was a very popular president, but people were ready for a general reduction in taxes and moderate Republican economic policy. McCain's campaign finance reform didn't gain enough traction. The democrats didn't have much more to offer - making it tough for Al Gore to win a larger coalition of voters.
The reduction in taxes for most people didn't amount to much as far as individual paychecks. The biggest cuts went to business. Clinton only raised taxes once during his two terms, but liberals are still branded as being "tax and spend" zealots. We actually had a budget surplus. The only way that happened was by both sides working together.

Dems always had more to offer, but sucked at getting the message out, weren't well organized as they are getting now, and frankly, with Tom DeLay and Frist as leaders, Dems were locked out of most of what was going on, and very few Dem bills were put on the schedule.

I don't think its accurate to say that either buisiness or politics is easier. They are different worlds, and some people are better at buisiness while others are better at politics.
I would agree with that. I also think business and government should complement each other, but it seems the Bush administration would like to make our country the United States of America, Inc. If your model to run the nation is based on running a business, and you've already failed at it...
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
clearview said:
True, but it sure helps, especially when your dad can hide your misdeeds. I hear, but don't know, that G.W.'s granddad contributed to the Nazi's. Idealogy was different then, so I'm not judging, but if true I do find it interesting.
Yeah - I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to be judged based upon the ideology of my ancestors.

clearview said:
The reduction in taxes for most people didn't amount to much as far as individual paychecks. The biggest cuts went to business. Clinton only raised taxes once during his two terms, but liberals are still branded as being "tax and spend" zealots. We actually had a budget surplus. The only way that happened was by both sides working together.
The election was as close as possible, there's no doubt about it. I think that people were generally happy with the way the Clinton White House and the Republican congress were running policy (scandal notwithstanding). It just wasn't clear that Al Gore would continue with Clinton's policies.

curious_ said:
Yes, there was the clinton scandal and his fellow man wouldn't fare well (although he did won the popular vote even given that) plus no one really cared. But he (aids) acted smart the second time--he needed sth big, sth dramatic to get re-elected and starting a war was certainly big enough to "help" citizens get organized not to let down a commander-in-chief when he is in the process of waging war.
Actaully, the Iraq war was used to undermine the Bush administration and hurt his chances for re-election. If Bush had just destroyed the Taliban, the dems would either have run on him being "soft on Saddam," or they would have had nothing and lost.
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actaully, the Iraq war was used to undermine the Bush administration and hurt his chances for re-election. If Bush had just destroyed the Taliban, the dems would either have run on him being "soft on Saddam," or they would have had nothing and lost.
The democrats thought that they would turn the situation upside down in their favor, but it didn't work out the way they had hoped. Bush had practically nothing, he had a sluggish economy and poor defense, most dramatically reflected in 9/11, and lots of personal mocking so he needed sth real big and on-going that would ensure nearly bi-partisan suport (Remember Kerry saying he "voted for it before voting against it"--see how tricky the whole issue was) and that would surely make the citizens stand united drumming behind his proposed policies. I am quite sure without Iraq, he would have lost. Incumbent+war time commander-in-chief=re-election!
 

clearview

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actaully, the Iraq war was used to undermine the Bush administration and hurt his chances for re-election. If Bush had just destroyed the Taliban, the dems would either have run on him being "soft on Saddam," or they would have had nothing and lost.
Please explain how the Iraq war was used to undermine Bush. I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just curious about your view on it. Personally, if I felt something was wrong, I'd use it against my opponent, though the mud-slinging that usually comes with that tends to cause more harm than good in terms of credibility of both the slingers and those wearing the mud.

I don't agree with the "soft on Saddam" comment. Dems are usually degraded based on being too soft on everything, so accusing the other side of softness would have seemed like a disingenuous political move. The disagreement between the parties in my view, is one of a basic idealogy of how to address world issues. If you examine the reasons the Dems voted "go" on Iraq was because all diplomatic and peaceful means were to be exhausted first, which ended up not being the case. That fact gets unmentioned when the Reps try to defend going to Iraq by bringing up the Dem vote for it.

Dems seem to favor global and shared responsibility of all nations to make the change politically, and Reps see that as some sort of personal weakness deserving shame, framing it as fact every chance they get. The Reps seem to be of the America Rules so we can do whatever we want, just take the bastards out now philosophy of might over right (their perception of right, anyway). I'm obviously slanted to the left, but would like to hear your view on this as well.

I'm tired of the spin, and the dishonesty. As far as I'm concerned, the neocon Reps, especially Bush and his pals, are like boys who cry wolf. Even if they did a 180 around to a Dem political view, it would be nothing more than a cunning political move.

I would love to have true bi-partisanship back, and to see the Republicans take back their party from the neocons. There is no balance anymore, and we need it badly.
 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't agree with the "soft on Saddam" comment. Dems are usually degraded based on being too soft on everything, so accusing the other side of softness would have seemed like a disingenuous political move. The disagreement between the parties in my view, is one of a basic idealogy of how to address world issues...Dems seem to favor global and shared responsibility of all nations to make the change politically, and Reps see that as some sort of personal weakness deserving shame, framing it as fact every chance they get. The Reps seem to be of the America Rules so we can do whatever we want... the neocon Reps, especially Bush and his pals, are like boys who cry wolf
Absolutely. And the way the reps act is not a sign of 'taking responsibility' but is a sign of lacking competence and shortsightedness. The time will tell.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
clearview said:
Please explain how the Iraq war was used to undermine Bush. I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just curious about your view on it. Personally, if I felt something was wrong, I'd use it against my opponent, though the mud-slinging that usually comes with that tends to cause more harm than good in terms of credibility of both the slingers and those wearing the mud.
I don't understand what there is to explain. Of course the handling of the Iraq was was used by the Kerry campaign against Bush. Where's the argument?

clearview said:
I don't agree with the "soft on Saddam" comment. Dems are usually degraded based on being too soft on everything, so accusing the other side of softness would have seemed like a disingenuous political move. The disagreement between the parties in my view, is one of a basic idealogy of how to address world issues. If you examine the reasons the Dems voted "go" on Iraq was because all diplomatic and peaceful means were to be exhausted first, which ended up not being the case. That fact gets unmentioned when the Reps try to defend going to Iraq by bringing up the Dem vote for it.
John Kerry himself said that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed with force. John Edwards called Saddam an "imminent threat" which goes beyond what the Bush administration said. Kerry had criticized the government during the 90s for not doing enough on Saddam, so why not criticize Bush if Saddam was still in power in 2004?

clearview said:
Dems seem to favor global and shared responsibility of all nations to make the change politically, and Reps see that as some sort of personal weakness deserving shame, framing it as fact every chance they get. The Reps seem to be of the America Rules so we can do whatever we want, just take the bastards out now philosophy of might over right (their perception of right, anyway). I'm obviously slanted to the left, but would like to hear your view on this as well.
It's naive to think that bending to the pressures of the world community is somehow in our best interests, or even in the interests of the world. When we talk about the world community, we're talking specifically about France and Germany. If not, then who else are we talking about?

We now know that France, Germany, and UN officials were financially involved with the regime of Saddam Hussein. They aren't interested in protecting us.

It's not our job to police the world, or to tell other countries how they need to conduct themselves. However, if we are faced with a threat, such as the one that comes from Terrorist Organizations or Saddam Hussein's expansionist and irrational regime, then we need to protect ourselves. Remember that all throughout the 90s, Saddam would shoot at planes, and occationally he would march his army to the border of Kuwait until we resumed bombing or mobilizing. How could we continue to simply babysit Saddam Hussein while the Iraq people have no freedom nor hope for the future?

If Saddam had gotten the weapons, he's have been locked into power for a long time, and it looks like that's what will happen with Iran and North Korea. Those two countries haven't been invading neighbors thus far, but we need to keep a close watch.

clearview said:
I'm tired of the spin, and the dishonesty. As far as I'm concerned, the neocon Reps, especially Bush and his pals, are like boys who cry wolf. Even if they did a 180 around to a Dem political view, it would be nothing more than a cunning political move.
They won't.

clearview said:
I would love to have true bi-partisanship back, and to see the Republicans take back their party from the neocons. There is no balance anymore, and we need it badly.
I don't really know about the neo-cons, but I'd like to see a Republican Party that actually stands for smaller government.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by curious_
As we know, GW Bush was a failed oil manager but he seems to be a successful president (as demonstrated by his re-election). What do we learn from this? (1) Does this mean that Bush hasn't had requisite skills necessary to be successful in business but has some innate skills to make a successful career as a politician? or, (2) does this mean that politics is generally easier than business and that's how Bush was a success in the former field?
__________________
How GW Bush got re-elected--the best thread on the forum.
This is how he won...

 

curious_

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Who thinks w/o Iraq GWBush would've lost?
 

clearview

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Connecticutter said:
I don't understand what there is to explain. Of course the handling of the Iraq was was used by the Kerry campaign against Bush. Where's the argument?
I have my own view, I just wanted to know the details of what you base your statement on.

John Kerry himself said that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed with force. John Edwards called Saddam an "imminent threat" which goes beyond what the Bush administration said. Kerry had criticized the government during the 90s for not doing enough on Saddam, so why not criticize Bush if Saddam was still in power in 2004?
When are you referring to Kerry's comment to use force... before or after the vote for war? We now know the intel Congress got wasn't complete, and that they were basically spoon-fed what the Bush administration wanted them to know.
Given the "facts" spouted by Mr. Bush at the time, who led us all to believe we were in iminent danger when he knew otherwise, many on both sides thought going to Iraq was the thing to do. I'm also troubled because the reasons for going to war went from keeping Saddam from building and using nukes, to the incredible task of spreading democracy -- to a nation thousands of years older than ours. If they wanted a western kind of democracy, other attempts before us would have worked just as well, but didn't. What's the next reason? Kerry's 90s criticism was also valid, but he wanted more done politically, not militarily.

It's naive to think that bending to the pressures of the world community is somehow in our best interests, or even in the interests of the world. When we talk about the world community, we're talking specifically about France and Germany. If not, then who else are we talking about?
I said nothing about bending to the pressures of the world community. That is not my meaning, only your interpretation. This administration seems to only want other involvement from other nations when it comes to commerce, and if this was a monopoly game, we'd always want to be the banker. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but times change, and we have to look at the global picture.

We are vulnerable now. We are dependent on countries such as China to pay our bills and supply our stores; we are reliant on foreign oil and natural gas; the EU is an influence whether we like it or not; we have North Korea and Iran to deal with, as well as trying to finish up in Iraq and Afganistan; Osama is still out there; but most of all we've been weakened from within. Our borders aren't safe yet, cargo on most planes still isn't checked, private planes and cargo go unchecked, money for ports and railroads has not been allocated - in fact the Reps voted down funding for it; and most of all our country is divided and our elected officials have created the division, starting at the top. Mr. Bush, the "uniter not a divider" president goes out on his tour now being nothing but partisan, blasting the Dems, and insulting Congress. He thinks he's above our own laws and our own constitution. Under this administration, we are in no position at this time to snub our noses at the rest of the world. When we regain our strength, it's a different story. But we, the people, need to decide what that story is, not the likes of the current and corrupt Republican majority.

We now know that France, Germany, and UN officials were financially involved with the regime of Saddam Hussein. They aren't interested in protecting us.
Money talks. The United States illegally sold arms to Iran to then be sent to the Contras to fulfill our own political plans. In fact, we are still the number 1 arms dealer in the world. If we get into a situation with Iran, how many of our soldiers will be shot with American weapons? Look back... at one time, the former Soviet Union was our friend to help defeat the Germans, and yet we spent decades in a Cold War with them. They also supply oil and natural gas... hey buddy! Realisitically, it's all a political and world game, and it changes constantly. The UN is going through a much-needed cleaning, though I doubt we can accomplish that with Bolton there -- the man had to be a recess appointment to get him the job as it is. Plus, we gave the UN the finger because they wouldn't do what we wanted, when we wanted. In spite of that, they have offered assistance in Iraq, but we won't take it.

It's not our job to police the world, or to tell other countries how they need to conduct themselves. However, if we are faced with a threat, such as the one that comes from Terrorist Organizations or Saddam Hussein's expansionist and irrational regime, then we need to protect ourselves. Remember that all throughout the 90s, Saddam would shoot at planes, and occationally he would march his army to the border of Kuwait until we resumed bombing or mobilizing. How could we continue to simply babysit Saddam Hussein while the Iraq people have no freedom nor hope for the future?
I agree, if we are truly and honestly faced with a threat, we do need to protect ourselves. The question is, what the best way to do that is. That is where the conflict comes in, and given our vulnerability I just can't see us going it alone again -- we just can't afford it. We're more in debt now than we have ever been in the entire history of our country. We need to build and unify back at home, before we can hope to be the example to the world. What would they be following now? With the Christian right agenda so deeply embedded in the Republican majority party, it seems we're not that much different than Iraq.

I don't really know about the neo-cons, but I'd like to see a Republican Party that actually stands for smaller government.
I AGREE!
You really have to read between the lines. At the federal level, they say they won't raise taxes, and they also cut state funding. States suddenly have a HUGE drop in federal dollars, so they have to make up for it by cutting services and RAISING TAXES. So, what really is the truth, and are we purposely being misled? It's a way to force federal government to become smaller and put more responsibility on the states, which I'm not necessarily against, but personally I think there is a better and gradual way to do it so people don't get hurt and states can benefit and be stronger in the process. Unfortunately, the current theme is to "starve the beast."
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
clearview said:
When are you referring to Kerry's comment to use force... before or after the vote for war? We now know the intel Congress got wasn't complete, and that they were basically spoon-fed what the Bush administration wanted them to know.
I think that it's irresponsible for someone in congress to rely entirely on a presidential administration for their intel. When the sentors went on TV in the months leading up to war, they didn't say "based on the information that the Bush administration have gathered," they said "based on the facts that I have gathered."

John Kerry wrote an interesting article in the New York Times a few months before the war.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5596

Much of the article may seem to support your point of view, but here is a key quote.

"We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise... If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." - John Kerry

Look at congressman Christopher Shays from Connecticut. He was the first congressman to visit Iraq after the invasion, and has since been there about a dozen times. He is critical of Bush on many issues, but he still believes that our actions in Iraq were the right thing to do.

clearview said:
Given the "facts" spouted by Mr. Bush at the time, who led us all to believe we were in iminent danger when he knew otherwise, many on both sides thought going to Iraq was the thing to do. I'm also troubled because the reasons for going to war went from keeping Saddam from building and using nukes, to the incredible task of spreading democracy -- to a nation thousands of years older than ours. If they wanted a western kind of democracy, other attempts before us would have worked just as well, but didn't. What's the next reason? Kerry's 90s criticism was also valid, but he wanted more done politically, not militarily.
Bush never used the term imminent danger. In fact, that was John Edwards. I think that building a democracy was always part of the plan. Why else name it Operation Iraqi Freedom? Many are frustrated because it doesn't seem like building a democracy is in our national security interests, but a democracy is far more likely to have peaceful relations with its neighbors than fall back into a Saddam-Hussein style aggressive dictatorship.


clearview said:
We are vulnerable now. We are dependent on countries such as China to pay our bills and supply our stores; we are reliant on foreign oil and natural gas; the EU is an influence whether we like it or not; we have North Korea and Iran to deal with, as well as trying to finish up in Iraq and Afganistan; Osama is still out there; but most of all we've been weakened from within. Our borders aren't safe yet, cargo on most planes still isn't checked, private planes and cargo go unchecked, money for ports and railroads has not been allocated - in fact the Reps voted down funding for it; and most of all our country is divided and our elected officials have created the division, starting at the top. Mr. Bush, the "uniter not a divider" president goes out on his tour now being nothing but partisan, blasting the Dems, and insulting Congress. He thinks he's above our own laws and our own constitution. Under this administration, we are in no position at this time to snub our noses at the rest of the world. When we regain our strength, it's a different story. But we, the people, need to decide what that story is, not the likes of the current and corrupt Republican majority.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying about domestic security issues. Keep in mind that this country has always been partisan - there is always a split. Bush doesn't really use his position to blast dems all that often. He might be promoting his agenda on Iraq, Social Security, etc - but what I'm seeing from some of the democrats is the visceral hatred of George Bush just for being who he is.

clearview said:
The UN is going through a much-needed cleaning, though I doubt we can accomplish that with Bolton there -- the man had to be a recess appointment to get him the job as it is. Plus, we gave the UN the finger because they wouldn't do what we wanted, when we wanted.
Bolton's a good guy - we need someone who is going be tough on reform - not someone who is going to be making excuses for the UN.
 

clearview

Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Connecticutter said:
I think that it's irresponsible for someone in congress to rely entirely on a presidential administration for their intel. When the sentors went on TV in the months leading up to war, they didn't say "based on the information that the Bush administration have gathered," they said "based on the facts that I have gathered."

John Kerry wrote an interesting article in the New York Times a few months before the war.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5596

Much of the article may seem to support your point of view, but here is a key quote.

"We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise... If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." - John Kerry

Look at congressman Christopher Shays from Connecticut. He was the first congressman to visit Iraq after the invasion, and has since been there about a dozen times. He is critical of Bush on many issues, but he still believes that our actions in Iraq were the right thing to do.
Thanks for the link... it's interesting and informative.

I respect Rep. Shays for being more of a traditional Republican, rather than another neocon cowtowing to a corrupt administration, however, from what I hear and read of the Reps in power, they are very good at bullying their own to tout the daily talking points and no matter what, support Bush. They've gone so far as to break the rules repeatedly to hold votes open for hours until they "convinced" enough colleagues to vote their way. That's not democracy.

Even if the intel coming from D.C. is true, at this point, the coverups, lies, corruption, and disinformation leaves me to believe NOTHING that comes out of the White House.
Let's see, on top of Iraq, there is:
  • The president's desire for absolute power
  • The illegal wiretapping of Americans in America
  • The tracking of Democratic supporters by the I.R.S.
  • Paying right-wing talk show hosts to promote No Child Left Behind without disclosing payment - illegal
  • Supplying right-wing "news" reports done by marketing agencies on the government's behalf, without disclosing the source - illegal
  • The recess appointments of unqualified cronies in key positions
  • The wide net of Republican representatives involved in the lobbyist scandal
  • The investigation of Senate Majority Leader Frist
  • The embarrassing circus surrounding Terri Schiavo
  • The unwillingness to include Democratic representatives in committee meetings
  • The unwillingness to put Democratic bills on the floor for a vote
  • Midnight rewriting of bills, even by authors of their own party
  • Forcing votes without giving representatives time to read the bill
  • Changing official documents to debunk research, such as global warming
  • Pushing to subsidize child care, education, etc. only to faith-based right-wing Christian groups
  • The whole Plamegate affair outing an undercover CIA agent by Rove and Libby (so far)
  • The Republican majority's willingness to change rules at their whim, and to rid the so-called Ethics Committee of anyone who didn't receive a bribe
  • Tom DeLay's multiple indictments and illegal redistricting in TX to gain seats in Congress
  • Trying to push through extreme activists judges to the Supreme Court
  • The refusal to investigate war profiteering (beyond the UN Oil for Food scandal) such as all the subsidiaries of Halliburton (ex CEO Cheney)
  • Outsourcing private security in Iraq (paying six figure salaries and supplying state-of-the-art equipment while our soldiers get squat, and write home for night scopes for Christmas presents)
  • Lying about a solder being killed by friendly fire to paint him as their kind of war hero
  • Bundles of American cash disappearing
  • Not properly funding the VA to help Iraqi vets
  • Not properly equipping our soldiers in Iraq in spite of requests from ground cammanders
  • Not allowing (until recently) anyone other than Rush Limbaugh on Armed Forces Radio
  • Hand-picked Bush supporters in "town hall" meetings
  • Scripted propaganda using our soldiers as a backdrop
  • The Katrina failure
  • The lates Medicare drug plan screw-up
  • The attempt by Bush to privatize Social Security during a time of war, under extreme debt, and against the wishes of the majority of Americans
  • Record trade defecits
  • Record debt
  • Cutting social programs that mostly affect women, children, the poor and the elderly, while giving tax cuts to the top half percent of Americans
  • Not providing any direction or challenge to America to replace all the manufacturing jobs now outsourced around the globe
  • Rewarding companies who outsource
  • Rewarding companies to repatriate
  • Not raising the federal minimum wage in almost a decade
  • The outright denial from everyone tied to Bush of wrongdoings even in the face of documented facts
  • and on, and on, and on...
Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman also went to Iraq and came back with glowing remarks about the progress being made, however, others who spend the majority of their time in Iraq have a different opinion:

Reported in November, 2005, from Michael Ware, Time Magazine's Baghdad Bureau Chief: "I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

Bush never used the term imminent danger. In fact, that was John Edwards. I think that building a democracy was always part of the plan. Why else name it Operation Iraqi Freedom? Many are frustrated because it doesn't seem like building a democracy is in our national security interests, but a democracy is far more likely to have peaceful relations with its neighbors than fall back into a Saddam-Hussein style aggressive dictatorship.
If building democracy was always part of the plan, they should have made that known, and should not have made a comment about it being a "slam dunk." Of course we'd all love to have true democracy around the globe, but there is a right way to do it, and a wrong way. The war was planned years ago, so any excuse used to justify it now is disingenuous and insulting to Americans (in my opinion).

I agree with a lot of what you're saying about domestic security issues. Keep in mind that this country has always been partisan - there is always a split. Bush doesn't really use his position to blast dems all that often. He might be promoting his agenda on Iraq, Social Security, etc - but what I'm seeing from some of the democrats is the visceral hatred of George Bush just for being who he is.
I hear ya, partisanship is part of the two party system. Bush has been very careful not to be partisan until recently. I find any slam against Congress in poor taste for a president, and makes him seem like he's throwing a little tantrum. It's embarrassing. Where did the "uniter" go?

Bolton's a good guy - we need someone who is going be tough on reform - not someone who is going to be making excuses for the UN.
Where did you get the idea Bolton is a good guy? Any progress made by "him" was actually achieved when it was requested he not be included in negotiations. He's a tough one, but there's a question as to being a rational one.
 
Top Bottom