Time Mag POTY 1938-Hitler 2004-Bush

[glyph]

Good points by all. Everything being said is helping me shape my own thoughts and it's hopefully all for the better. I believe that everyone loses when we start to just throw rocks at each other. I feel the need to express more precisely where I have problems with what is going on. Senor touched a good point talking about the other countries that could easily fit the "Iraq" profile. I feel that the US's "War on Terror" has much more important battles to fight in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan among other places. America is riding a high horse telling Iran to stop nuclear production while we turn a blind eye to Israel.

Only so many things at a time. We are already pretty much stretched to our limit (the military that is).

I'm also a little worried by the new cabinet that is being chosen. Colin Powell cannot be replace by Condi Rice. Period. Condi is smart, very smart...book smart. I'm not prepared to accept that she is the best person for the job...only that she is the person most loyal to the Bush Admin. Rumsfield has come under fire from our very own troops for his shortcomings and yet he is staying. I wish my employer rewarded incompetence like that. I wouldn't have to try so hard.

Condi would have been better, I think, in SecDef. However, there are things there that they know and we don't.
Don't confuse the well-covered complaints of a few with the entire military. Just about every one I know thinks Rumsfeld is doing an excellent job. I understand a lot of them were pissed off about being extended in their deployments and such, but it is a necessary evil. We airlift pilots (C17s specifically) were on a plan where we would be gone 186 days out of the year, but now the reserves are being deactivated and we have to be gone 200 days out of the year. It sucks, but is necessary to maintain our operations abroad.

The new nominee for Attorney General, Mr Gonzalez, was the ringleader of the new US policy to allow information gained from torture to be used in court. Hello...Geneva Convention? He was also the lead council for the CEO of Enron, AKA biggest Bush contribution. I was actually really suprised when I heard about Bernie Kerik. Somebody really forgot to do their homework on that one. Guliani is even appologizing. Too bad most of America thinks the nanny thing was the only problem.

Porter Goss, new CIA head honcho, sent out a memo that the CIA would not tolerate internal opposition to the Bush Admin's policy. Everything is perfect when there is no one around to tell you when you're wrong.

I have not seen the memo, so I don't know what he really said. CIA is a military-esque organization that needs to be as disciplined as the military. The mission has to be accomplished, and that is the tone that Goss is setting. I seriously doubt he is saying no one can have a different opinion, but Bush, as the Commander-in-Chief does set the direction of the organization. It's just the way it is. It is not a corporation.

My problem isn't specifically with Bush, but the entire scope of those around him. The people that advise him and should be the voice of the people and the non-partisan voice of the nation are Bush loyalists. They will continue to cloud the truth.

What truth is being clouded? Seriously, this seems to be the tone of much of the country, but what truth is being obscured? What lies being told? People make lots of accusations, but I have seen nothing yet to back it up. I see Bush to be a lot like myself. He says what he is going to do, and does it. He values honesty, truth, and integrity. I have seen nothing yet to diminish his integrity.

If anyone has some proof, show it to me!

 

[slug420]

how about the truth about the election?? The entire system is a disgrace! Jimmy Carter and his whatever commission said that the voting system in florida specifically is worse than that of most 3rd world countries that are just starting out as democracies. there is NO accountability and NO integrity associated with any of the electronic voting that is taking place. It is an outrage. But did his administration make it a priority to have it fixed after the first go-round? no. and they ignored all the controversey and suspicion of voter fraud this time around too.

how about the claims by bush and his administration that iraq was a threat. how about that. and all the "evidence" they used ot back it up. what horse s*** it all was. They used evidence of chemical weapons in 1992 with a shelf life of 2 years to 2 months to justify invading and occupying a hostile country in 2003....are you SHITTING me? did they mention the shelf life of the chemicals they found when they were trying to get support to go to war or did they just say "had produced in 1992 blah blah tons of serin". they comPLETELY clouded the truth by ignoring anything that did not support their desire to got o war and exxagerating and making all kinds of inferences on the limited data that supported going to war.

and how theres over a thousand americans dead because he had something up his ass about iraq. It makes me ******* sick to watch him and his administration on Tv at press conferences acting like they are broken up and distraught over the 20+ that died today in the attack, and about all the americans that are dying and being disfigured in the war. It was TOTALLY unneccesary to go in there, he ignored every voice of reason, and now his **** up is costing people their lives, and not matter how many press conferences they hold they just dont care as much as they should. Do you honestly think they would have been as quick to pull the trigger if one of his or rummy's kids was an infantry soldier on the front lines? Because thats how he should be treating every one of those soliders, like his own son or daughter because they are someone's son or daughter someone on who's behalf he is supposed to be acting.

 

[glyph]

how about the truth about the election?? The entire system is a disgrace! Jimmy Carter and his whatever commission said that the voting system in florida specifically is worse than that of most 3rd world countries that are just starting out as democracies. there is NO accountability and NO integrity associated with any of the electronic voting that is taking place. It is an outrage. But did his administration make it a priority to have it fixed after the first go-round? no. and they ignored all the controversey and suspicion of voter fraud this time around too.

That is up to the individual states, not the administration. Do you want the federal gov't to run everything? I hardly consider Jimmy Carter to be a worth spokesman for anything. Unfortunately there is controversy and suspicion of fraud in every single election. There always will be. Again, that is the state's responsibility. There were no real issues here in SC.

how about the claims by bush and his administration that iraq was a threat. how about that. and all the "evidence" they used ot back it up. what horse s*** it all was. They used evidence of chemical weapons in 1992 with a shelf life of 2 years to 2 months to justify invading and occupying a hostile country in 2003....are you SHITTING me? did they mention the shelf life of the chemicals they found when they were trying to get support to go to war or did they just say "had produced in 1992 blah blah tons of serin". they comPLETELY clouded the truth by ignoring anything that did not support their desire to got o war and exxagerating and making all kinds of inferences on the limited data that supported going to war.

There was tons of evidence. Besides, Bush did not make the decision to go into Iraq. Congress did, almost unanimously. So blame the entire congress, not just Bush. Remember, Bush is head of the Executive branch, which is only 1/3 of the gov't. Apparently there was enough evidence to convince ALL of Congress (even kerry!) of the need to go into Iraq. You cite one example.

and how theres over a thousand americans dead because he had something up his ass about iraq. It makes me ******* sick to watch him and his administration on Tv at press conferences acting like they are broken up and distraught over the 20+ that died today in the attack, and about all the americans that are dying and being disfigured in the war. It was TOTALLY unneccesary to go in there, he ignored every voice of reason, and now his **** up is costing people their lives, and not matter how many press conferences they hold they just dont care as much as they should. Do you honestly think they would have been as quick to pull the trigger if one of his or rummy's kids was an infantry soldier on the front lines? Because thats how he should be treating every one of those soliders, like his own son or daughter because they are someone's son or daughter someone on who's behalf he is supposed to be acting.

Again, you blame Bush for a decision made by Congress. That just doesn't make any sense. It was not unnecessary to go into Iraq. Intelligence showed that Iraq was building up a stockpile, and planning to use said stockpile. Rather hard for us to know that they were lying amongst themselves about their own capabilities. Further, they have demonstrated a historical tendency to be violent. Also, they were consistently violating all 14 resolutions put forth by the UN. Who was doing nothing about it, and would have continued doing nothing about it.

As for Bush's reaction: How much empathy has this president proven to have toward the military? Don't just look at words spoken, as they mean nothing. Look at what he has done. More raises than any President in recent history. More of a push to get us the equipment we need to fight the war. Not to mention a surprise visit to the folks in the AOR, putting himself in danger. Compare to Clinton's actions. Sending a small force into Somalia with no real plan of action, and hamstringing the commanders on the ground by putting Vietnam-like limitations on their operations. Not to mention shrinking the budget, cancelling projects, and not being any sort of respectable leader. I, for one, see more reason to believe his reaction to the loss of fellow troops than anything someone just says, and doesn't have a record to back it up.

 

[xelderx]

What truth is being clouded? Seriously, this seems to be the tone of much of the country, but what truth is being obscured? What lies being told? People make lots of accusations, but I have seen nothing yet to back it up. I see Bush to be a lot like myself. He says what he is going to do, and does it. He values honesty, truth, and integrity. I have seen nothing yet to diminish his integrity.

If anyone has some proof, show it to me!

Try and find the transcripts of Condi's testimony to the 911 commission. Before she even answered any questions each member of the commission was told they only get 10 minutes of her time each. Most of the commission members had multple questions for her, but she put a time limit on it so they couldn't ask all that they wanted. Then, when she was asked a question she started rambling off about unrelated things until that persons time limit was up. Richard Ben-Veniste, the head of the commission said about Rice, "If you ask for the time some people will tell you what time it is. And then again, some peoplepeople like Ricewill explain how to build a new watch." The main question that everyone wanted her to answer was about the warning given to the President in the August 6th PDB. She repeatedly side steps the questions to avoid saying that the President was warned in the August 6th PDB of impending attacks. She was under oath to tell the full truth and she made a joke of it.

I also got to thinking a bit at your earlier statement Glyph about the media being clearly anti-Bush. I've heard that from a lot of Bush supporters. It was funny to me because people who are anit-Bush thinks the media is Pro-Bush. I think people are just seeing what they want to see. There are clearly cases of both pro and anti Bush reporting in the media.

 

[M=SP^2]

Glyph, the congress authorized the use of force on Iraq after bush presented his false evidence in the U.N. and to the congress, the congress never made the decision to go to war that was strictly a Bush decision. It's funny to see you praise Bush for his leadership, then dump on the congress whenever something goes wrong.
Bush has not attended a single military funeral, Rummy doesn't even sign the death certificates for fallen soldiers....and then berates soldiers for questioning the lack of armor on trucks. Guess all the soldiers that cheered when question about armor was asked were cheering Rummy right?

 

[xelderx]

Guess all the soldiers that cheered when question about armor was asked were cheering Rummy right?

Most Americans never heard the soldiers cheer for the question. Fox News edited the cheering out.

 

[xelderx]

I also just read that documents have been released suggesting that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against Iraqi detainees. Also released today, a December 2003 FBI e-mail talks about the FBI characterizing the Defense Department's methods as "torture". The e-mail from the "On scene Commander" in Iraq also states that the FBI has prohibited it's agents from using the techniques that the Executive order authorizes.

 

[anarchistchiken]

Political arguments are too long to type. Need to be said. But there is one point I have to make.

People who say that bush stood fast and helped us recover from "an act of war and national tragedy" are retarded. Don't even begin to think that I dont think September 11 was the worst day in the history of the continental US (I think Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Pearl Harbor were a little bit more deserving of the title), but what people fail to realize is that while bush has been helping our country along with that crisis, the military, under his orders, were killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. 3000 people died here as a result of Saudi based terrorists, so Bush doesn't even issue a statement denouncing the Saudi government (the most brutal and oppresive dictatorship in the world today, maybe even in history) but he just goes off and kills 15,000 totally innocent Iraqi civilians? Yeah guys, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[glyph]

Try and find the transcripts of Condi's testimony to the 911 commission. Before she even answered any questions each member of the commission was told they only get 10 minutes of her time each. Most of the commission members had multple questions for her, but she put a time limit on it so they couldn't ask all that they wanted. Then, when she was asked a question she started rambling off about unrelated things until that persons time limit was up. Richard Ben-Veniste, the head of the commission said about Rice, "If you ask for the time some people will tell you what time it is. And then again, some peoplepeople like Ricewill explain how to build a new watch." The main question that everyone wanted her to answer was about the warning given to the President in the August 6th PDB. She repeatedly side steps the questions to avoid saying that the President was warned in the August 6th PDB of impending attacks. She was under oath to tell the full truth and she made a joke of it.

I have not seen any of that. That sucks.

I also got to thinking a bit at your earlier statement Glyph about the media being clearly anti-Bush. I've heard that from a lot of Bush supporters. It was funny to me because people who are anit-Bush thinks the media is Pro-Bush. I think people are just seeing what they want to see. There are clearly cases of both pro and anti Bush reporting in the media.

First I had heard that. Maybe it depends on the media? For instance, television news networks to me have all been mainly anti-Bush; as well as the mainstream newspapers. The old-school media, if you will. Fox is almost in the middle, but I see it as still leaning left.

Talk-radio and a lot of online stuff I would see as being fairly conservative.

 

[seatbackfurther]

That is up to the individual states, not the administration. Do you want the federal gov't to run everything? I hardly consider Jimmy Carter to be a worth spokesman for anything. Unfortunately there is controversy and suspicion of fraud in every single election. There always will be. Again, that is the state's responsibility. There were no real issues here in SC.

I'd hardly consider Bush a worthy spokesman.. Unfortunately, WE THE PEOPLE, allow our election system to be s***. Direct Democracy would benefit us, but we choose to ignore technology of today to help us out. It's just funny how you can lose the popular vote and still be president (and no, I am not talking about this years race)

There was tons of evidence. Besides, Bush did not make the decision to go into Iraq. Congress did, almost unanimously. So blame the entire congress, not just Bush. Remember, Bush is head of the Executive branch, which is only 1/3 of the gov't. Apparently there was enough evidence to convince ALL of Congress (even kerry!) of the need to go into Iraq. You cite one example.

Tons of evidence? What evidence is that? Pictures of supposed bunkers? Military Integillence is what is called an oxymoron. Namely, because MORONS are in the military. Aside from the supposed crap, Bush and his administration made the biggest push. Of course congress is going to back the pres, who was the MAJORITY in congress? Almost all of congress would say they were duped by lies and stupid intelligence.

Again, you blame Bush for a decision made by Congress. That just doesn't make any sense. It was not unnecessary to go into Iraq. Intelligence showed that Iraq was building up a stockpile, and planning to use said stockpile. Rather hard for us to know that they were lying amongst themselves about their own capabilities. Further, they have demonstrated a historical tendency to be violent. Also, they were consistently violating all 14 resolutions put forth by the UN. Who was doing nothing about it, and would have continued doing nothing about it.

we aren't the world police. We don't need to be the Bully. If the UN didn't back the US isn't that some sort of FLAG? I mean come on, their tendency to use weapons of mass destruction? Where? They used gas on kurds. I'd still like to see these WOMD.

As for Bush's reaction: How much empathy has this president proven to have toward the military? Don't just look at words spoken, as they mean nothing. Look at what he has done. More raises than any President in recent history. More of a push to get us the equipment we need to fight the war. Not to mention a surprise visit to the folks in the AOR, putting himself in danger. Compare to Clinton's actions. Sending a small force into Somalia with no real plan of action, and hamstringing the commanders on the ground by putting Vietnam-like limitations on their operations. Not to mention shrinking the budget, cancelling projects, and not being any sort of respectable leader. I, for one, see more reason to believe his reaction to the loss of fellow troops than anything someone just says, and doesn't have a record to back it up.

He knew what he would be doing in his term, just as his father did. Of course they are going to back the military that they are going to be using. Think of it this way, if you are going to have sex with your wife, are you going spit on her first? Clinton actually cut spending for the military, because that is exactly what was needed. Seriously, if the budget is over and you are over spending on military where are you going to cut the budget? Think about it.. it's freaking common sense. Bush has increased the deficit by HOW MUCH? Now his plans are to suddenly cut it in half... give me a break. What VIETNAM-LIKE limitations were taken by clinton? Bush is like any other politician, unsincere. He could care less about the military, and that's probably true, although it's my opinion. You can spout this and that about how he helped the military. He hasn't really. There are so many other things he can do to help the military in the long run. Not give them two pay raises in one year. WOW.

 

[glyph]

Glyph, the congress authorized the use of force on Iraq after bush presented his false evidence in the U.N. and to the congress, the congress never made the decision to go to war that was strictly a Bush decision. It's funny to see you praise Bush for his leadership, then dump on the congress whenever something goes wrong.

False evidence only in the sense that in the end it turned out to be untrue. But at the time, the intelligence was accurate. Hindsight being 20-20 and all. How does a vote in Congress not count as a Congress decision? I am not dumping on Congress for something that went wrong, I don't see the decision to go into Iraq as wrong. I think we should have gone there. So it was the correct decision. I praise Bush for having integrity, which is the first quality of leadership.

Bush has not attended a single military funeral, Rummy doesn't even sign the death certificates for fallen soldiers....and then berates soldiers for questioning the lack of armor on trucks. Guess all the soldiers that cheered when question about armor was asked were cheering Rummy right?

Didn't see anything about the question to Rumsfeld.

I do know that the problem is being fixed, as my wife was riding in an armored Humvee last weekend in Iraq. She sent me a picture. Not to mention all the new armored ones riding on trucks down to the port that I often see on my morning commute.

Besides, how do you blame the current administration for the equipment handed to them by the previous administrations?

As for soldiers complaining, we in the military lose our right to speak our opinion to the public when criticizing the military or our leadership. It is in the documents we sign. We no longer have the same freedom of expression that citizens have. That is made clear in our training and recruitment (at least in mine, it was). There is a chain of command for that stuff. Having not seen that, I am not sure if he was criticizing them for asking outside the chain, asking publicly, or just for flat out asking. Couldn't tell you there.

Another point: anyone can point out any other person's individual mistakes consistently and call that person wrong. When a person takes an individual's complete record of activity into account, it often draws a different picture. What has Rumsfeld accomplished? A hell of a lot. If he criticized the troops improperly, then that should be pointed out, but only in balance of what he has done right. Yes? Simple fair treatment that should be accorded everybody.

 

[glyph]

I also just read that documents have been released suggesting that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against Iraqi detainees. Also released today, a December 2003 FBI e-mail talks about the FBI characterizing the Defense Department's methods as "torture". The e-mail from the "On scene Commander" in Iraq also states that the FBI has prohibited it's agents from using the techniques that the Executive order authorizes.

where'd you read that? I would like to read it, too.

 

[RyanJayG]

we as the general public get to sit back, with out any accountability and say how THEY should of handled things. but in perfect honesty we, the general public, are not privy to the same information, and intelligence the people making the decisions are.

whatever your beliefs are on how things should of been done, and as much as it is your right to question, b****, moan, priase, etc. the actions of your elected officials, anyone who claims to know everything they know, every bit of intelligence, every angle effected, and every consequence of actions is a fool.

 

[seatbackfurther]

we as the general public get to sit back, with out any accountability and say how THEY should of handled things. but in perfect honesty we, the general public, are not privy to the same information, and intelligence the people making the decisions are.

whatever your beliefs are on how things should of been done, and as much as it is your right to question, b****, moan, priase, etc. the actions of your elected officials, anyone who claims to know everything they know, every bit of intelligence, every angle effected, and every consequence of actions is a fool.

The thing is, we as people, should know the facts as much as possible. So if what we are given is half lies and faslehoods, what other information are we to make an actual informed decision about? Aside from that fact, the president or congress don't get every bit of intelligence, every angle effected, or every consequence of actions. We can see that now. It's called hindsight.

A great quote from Tommy Boy:
"What the American public doesn't know, is what makes them the American public."

 

[glyph]

Political arguments are too long to type. Need to be said. But there is one point I have to make.

People who say that bush stood fast and helped us recover from "an act of war and national tragedy" are retarded. Don't even begin to think that I dont think September 11 was the worst day in the history of the continental US (I think Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Pearl Harbor were a little bit more deserving of the title), but what people fail to realize is that while bush has been helping our country along with that crisis, the military, under his orders, were killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. 3000 people died here as a result of Saudi based terrorists, so Bush doesn't even issue a statement denouncing the Saudi government (the most brutal and oppresive dictatorship in the world today, maybe even in history) but he just goes off and kills 15,000 totally innocent Iraqi civilians? Yeah guys, that makes a lot of sense.

I think this format is quite a good one. Imagine how heated things would get if we were all in the same room? You can tell just how emotionally charged this discussion has been with a keyboard. Imagine in person? ouch.

You imply that Bush ordered the military to kill civilians (at best your statement implies that civilians were killed with no reluctance to do so). That is a hell of a claim to make. Evidence? We were ordered to kill civilians, eh? You also use poor terminology. Tens of thousands = 15,000? I will tell you this, our training (which, in my unit, is annually refreshed) has a high-level of threat evaluation involved, in which civilians are almost completely off-limits. I hope you have some good sources to back your claim. I have a hard time not getting offended by that one.

Pearl Harbor, about 1500 people killed. Half of 9/11, and they were mostly military, combatants according to the Geneva conventions. 9/11 were mostly non-combatants. Huge difference.

Saudi is a whole other host of issues, most of which are political. Most of which I have poor knowledge of.

 

[glyph]

almost like I'm post-whoring. I am just get tired of hearing baseless accusations, no matter who they are against. Normally I wouldn't engage in such a long discussion. It's quite tiring and time-consuming. The issue with this one is that I respect Bush for who he is and what he has accomplished, and for staying true to his word. If you have an accusation with valid sources to support it, I will definitely take it into account.

The benefits are that my ignorance is reduced.

 

[seatbackfurther]

Pearl Harbor, about 1500 people killed. Half of 9/11, and they were mostly military, combatants according to the Geneva conventions. 9/11 were mostly non-combatants. Huge difference.

Actually, there about 2500 killed. And, the difference, it was an act of war against us. We actually KNEW who comitted the act, thus a reason for war. There's a very thin line with Sadam and 9/11, if that is what you are implying.

 

[RyanJayG]

The thing is, we as people, should know the facts as much as possible. So if what we are given is half lies and faslehoods, what other information are we to make an actual informed decision about? Aside from that fact, the president or congress don't get every bit of intelligence, every angle effected, or every consequence of actions. We can see that now. It's called hindsight.

A great quote from Tommy Boy:
"What the American public doesn't know, is what makes them the American public."

oh I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point or I didn't voice it accuratly enough... in reference to all the intelligence that could be presented to them. I'm saying that even they didn't know everything. sure, Bush and his cabinet decided to go, it was his decision, but if someone, namely the CIA and the NSA our chief intelligence agencies are telling him that Sadam has WMD then would you (in the shoes of the president) believe it? I think you'd be forced to.

I'm just saying that us, the people criticising the administration for its choices based on the information they had at the time is hindsight on OUR parts... they dont get that luxury

 

[seatbackfurther]

almost like I'm post-whoring. I am just get tired of hearing baseless accusations, no matter who they are against. Normally I wouldn't engage in such a long discussion. It's quite tiring and time-consuming. The issue with this one is that I respect Bush for who he is and what he has accomplished, and for staying true to his word. If you have an accusation with valid sources to support it, I will definitely take it into account.

The benefits are that my ignorance is reduced.

How is nobody backing anything up? What do you want to know? Bush is a hypocrite because he actually opposed The Department of Homeland Security? Then later, for politcal reasons, exploited it. How about even after saying he is going to beef up security, we still have yet to see anything other than airports, which are still lacking. I mean, we only physically inspect roughly 6% of cargo, our border patrol is absolute crap. How about railroads, how about subways? ZERO DOLLARS. How about NAACP bad mouthing Bush and now they are getting examined by the IRS, but yet Bush has had many conversations with church congregations, but nothing has come of that? Not only that, but Bush's administration to clearly categorize terrorism as absolutely appaling. Look up Israeli/Palestinian attacks/suicide bombs. They only claim 9 of 97 were significant... I could go on, but I have to leave work...

 

[M=SP^2]

False evidence only in the sense that in the end it turned out to be untrue. But at the time, the intelligence was accurate. Hindsight being 20-20 and all. How does a vote in Congress not count as a Congress decision? I am not dumping on Congress for something that went wrong, I don't see the decision to go into Iraq as wrong. I think we should have gone there. So it was the correct decision. I praise Bush for having integrity, which is the first quality of leadership.

Please tell me how the intelligence was accurate, are you saying it wasn't disputed within the intelligence community and are you saying that there wasn't any contradictory evidence? How can every single reason he posed for war in Iraq be eventually proven false? Perhaps he only presented the evidence that supported his goal of war. Bush framed the argument as a matter of national security, and if anyone voted against the authorization for force was portrayed as weak against terrorism....fact is war in Iraq and war on terrorism are mutualy exclusive.

As for soldiers complaining, we in the military lose our right to speak our opinion to the public when criticizing the military or our leadership. It is in the documents we sign. We no longer have the same freedom of expression that citizens have. That is made clear in our training and recruitment (at least in mine, it was). There is a chain of command for that stuff. Having not seen that, I am not sure if he was criticizing them for asking outside the chain, asking publicly, or just for flat out asking. Couldn't tell you there.

Rummy was there supposedly for a question and answer session, I guess he was expecting another photo-op but it didn't work out that way. I for one am glad not to have been trained to accept authority regardless of my doubts, guess that soldier and all the ones who cheered him missed his lesson too.