joe-pro-photographer joe-pro-photographer

Bush is Bad

▼

Bush is Bad

Divided, we fail

from JoeUser Forums
In my last political posting, I suggested Bush was one of the worst Presidents in history. My reasoning was straight forward: no matter what your position on the war in Iraq, his handling of the planning up to war, the execution of the war itself, and the poor after-thought about the conflict's aftermath, make him a nominee for Lousy Prez.

So, many more conservative bloggers took me to task on the intelligence leading up to the war. "No," they write, "hind sight is 20/20, and it's easy to see the intelligence was wrong after the fact."

The problem is,from the beginning, Bush forced the intel to fit his agenda. It's not me who says this, it's a chorus of people from both the right and left. David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, couldn't believe the lack of intel on WMD's when he started looking for WMD's after the conflict began. And although he had no intel, was given a rag-tag group to look for WMDs, he still thought the wMDs probably existed. As he dug into the reports, he understood how everyone was duped.

The Bush Administration relied on Iraqi exhiles to support the WMD beliefs. Some of these folks hadn't been to Iraq since the first Gulf War. Their intel was more than 10 years old. One was later arrested for accepting money from SH himself, under the oil for food program. He had been a regular visitor at the White House.

A leader doesn't take facts and fit them to his agenda. A leader evaluates facts and reacts to the facts. A leader inspires others to come forward and voice their opinion, even when that opinion is different from theirs. A leader evaluates his team, and watches for power hungry people who can't run their department (read: Rumsfeld), a leader works with the minority and incorporates their concerns, where possible, into his agenda. A leader works within the Constitution. A leader unites and inspires.

Bush did none of these. (Though whether he stepped out of the bounds of the Constitution is open to debate). He took a "you're with us or you're against us" approach.

The uniter turned out to be the ultimate divider.
politics
85,731 views 215 replies
Reply #26 from WinCustomize Forums Top
when are you people going to wake up? All of your minds have been loaded so full of garbage by the media and by liberal college professors and whoever else might think it's the "in" thing to bash our president. George Bush did what needed to be done. Terrorists kill, we needed to stop them. And if anyone thinks Sadam didn't have WMD's they are mistaken. The problem was that the media broadcasted to the world that we were coming for them, and they got rid of them long before we had a chance to find them. Bush is doing one thing, trying to liberate humanity from murderers who WILL NOT STOP, and are not going to listen to peaceful negotiations. I will support ANY president who is simply trying to save humankind from evil.

And a side note... about the money going to Katrina victims... there is PLENTY of it. It is being mishandled by local governments. It's not that it isn't there... trust me.
Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top

No way, Carter comes in at a close second and he was worse than Bush will ever be.
End of quote

actually, bush is a terrible president and carter, after all these years, is remembered as a man of integrity and honor. yes, the country went thru an oil embargo during carter's term but that can't be laid at his feet. yes, the hostages in iran were held for over a year during carter's term but how can carter be blamed for that episode in american history? also, quite a few of the things reagan took credit for during his first term started under carter, especially in the military field (cruise missiles, bombers, tanks). i admit i voted for reagan the first time but i'm ashamed of it. i've never voted for george w. i did vote for his dad, tho (the first time). altho his dad only had one term, he did much more for the people and the country than dubya has in 7 years. his dad didn't try to take over iraq for good reason.....there was no exit plan. obviously, dubya hasn't one, either.

 

and john, if you really do support bush and his administration no matter what they do, that's one strike against you, my friend.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not in the mood to discuss this topic. I was just wondering why it is still in the Personal Computer area...


I'm asking the same question. I can't seem to get it moved. Frankly, it's kinda nice, I've read some opinions from others who don't normally respond to this sort of thing. But it was an error on my part, and anyone who can tell me how to move the whole thing over to Politics or Current Affairs (where I had posted it) please do.

Otherwise, skip it and move to another article, dweeb.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
We know from the women scientists that Biological warfare materials were still being produced and worked on.


Actually, we know no such thing. We know women scientist said they new other scientists who may have worked on WMDs. We haven't found any scientists who said the DID work themselves on WMD. No drivers who said they drove the trucks. Tubes thought to be for nuclear weapons turned out to be a red-tape run around to prevent the wrath of SH's brother. Everything you think we know about Iraq has holes the size of swiss cheese. After 1998, there were almost no weapons inspectins in Iraq. When Blix spoke to the UN, he spoke of Iraq's non compliance with inspectors, not on finding WMDs.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
No way, Carter comes in at a close second and he was worse than Bush will ever be.


Really? Hmmm.
Reply #31 from WinCustomize Forums Top
And a side note... about the money going to Katrina victims... there is PLENTY of it. It is being mishandled by local governments. It's not that it isn't there... trust me.
End of quote


- the federal government wouldn't hand out the money without keeping tabs on it, I'm sure it made Gee Dubya a little angry to waste his war money on New Orleans, I'm sure he has a crew scrutinizing every dollar being spent over there. The bush administration rec'd a bit of heat on it's response time in providing aid to it's local "refugees" (great name for your country's citizens), if the money was being mishandled I'm sure he would be publicizing that as well to make his outfit look better and more concerned

- care to give examples of how it's being mishandled....
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Joe: Do you recognize any responsibility or authority of the United States to enforce the ceasefire of 91?


That was not the reason given to go to war. If it had been, we might be having a different discussion. The reason we went to war was 1) wmd's and 2) to "fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here and 3) SH was a brutal guy.

I've never seen ,except in this thread, the above statement used as a primary justification for going to war with Iraq by an Administration Official. Has Bush ever said this was a reason he invaded Iraq? When and where? Has Rice? Powell? What about the state of the Union in 2003? Was it listed there? I remember the yellow cake uranium was listed as a reason. That, of course, turned out to be slightly ...um....wrong.
Reply #33 from WinCustomize Forums Top
plus the overall point was that more money is being spent on war-torn Iraq than on New Orleans & Katrina victims - why is that? All in the name of fighting terrorism and protecting Iraqi citizens? Is that more important than assisting your local citizens? Why are the priorities out of whack?

Before you rebuild another country, rebuild your own - how can you be expected to do a good job in Iraq if you can't show that you have a track record of doing the same locally?
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush started something that he knew could not or would not end.


That I hadn't considered, it's a good point. As for not touching this thread with a ten foot pole, I'm glad you did. I'm actually pretty centrist in my views, which since this is a slightly different group, may not know. Your son's experiences are counter what the media is feeding us at the moment: that violence is down. God bless you and your son.

Whether this war is about oil, I don't know. I agree Bush is probably controlled by oil interests. However, my gripe with Bush isn't necessarily the invasion of Iraq itself. I'm not sure, frankly, whether that invasion was right or wrong. My problem with this administration -- and why I think it is one of the worst in history -- is the lack of planning up to invasion, the lack of proper execution after the invasion, the inability to properly bring coalitions together inside Iraq to govern, the inability to take care of our veterans when they return, the lying to the American population about the reasons for war, and the unwillingness of this president to explore other possibilities and opinions.

This president is devisive, not a uniter. He is the opposite of a good leader.
Reply #35 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Oh, and there's a huge difference between showing support for the troops who are merely carrying out politicians orders, and support for the warmongering arsehole(s) who send them there.
End of quote


Again I say - how can you possibly know the things you "believe" are factual sitting where you are. Where has your information come from?

And a simple question to all of you - you have defined what you don't want - tell me what you do want and what you would do - if your answer is "well get rid of Bush" do you think the world will say - Oh now that Bush is gone we need to stop all of this and just get along?

These issues did not start with President Bush they started many years ago - through Democratic and Republican administrations - brought about by many governments other than the United States.

I don't need to step into a war zone to know of needless bloodshed, horror and misery.
End of quote


This response is the same I get every time I suggest to people they put their words into action. My friend, I have stood in a battlefield - and seen things nobody should ever have to see.

I will say this - until you see the cost - and know that you must validate your reason for being there - you can't make such definitive statements.

I was not a lemming and neither are the troops in our country or yours - I stood next to those men - I know their convictions - and believe me they know what is being said in threads just like these - they have internet too!

The one thing I hear the most is - they just don't get it - why don't they come and see what is really going on and why.

A fair question I believe!

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, and Bush, if you're get to read this, you no need to wait for history to deliver its verdict, judgement...world condemnation of your actions is already in.


I'm glad to have an opinion of someone outside the US on this. Thank you. We (here in the US) always think we are the center of the universe. Anyone who thinks (after the French Presidents photo op two weeks ago) that the US isn't scorned on this, you just keep thinking you're in the center of the universe. Even Poland, who was a staunch supporter at the beginning of the war, bailed out.

As for Bush reading this, dream on. He doesn't even read the paper. Sigh. Another intellect in the White House.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is a goober of biblical proportions


Gotta love this. Thank you. I heard Andy Card speak shortly after he left the White House. Did he talk about any of this? Nope. He told about how he cried the first time he walked into the Oval Office.

I'll cry when Bush walks out.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oil stops flowing - no heat, no food, no medical supplies, on and on... Do you agree? Will you allow yourself to think about it?


My first comment is snippy, sorry: Are you in the oil lobby?

After that, though, I appreciate your position. Again, I repeat: I don't know if the invasion of Iraq was right or wrong. I just know that everything surrounding the decision has been screwed up and at the very least mishandled. After all this time, I have mixed views about whether it was right or wrong to go to war. Equally, I side with Joe Liberman, and don't think withdrawal is a prescription for success in Iraq.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd love to know how much has been spent in Iraq since this whole mess started.


The white house budget office says rougly 1 trillion dollars.
Reply #40 from WinCustomize Forums Top
My first comment is snippy, sorry: Are you in the oil lobby?
End of quote


No I am not - why would you ask such a question to my post?

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sadam didn't have WMD's they are mistaken.


Besides our Veep, please tell me one person, just one, who does not think we had a critical breakdown of intelligence that lead us to a faulty conclusion regarding WMDs in Iraq. I can tell you a bunch who say we were very mistaken: David Kaye, Bush's person to go to Iraq and make this determination, is the most noteable. Even the administration now acknowledges they (probably) made an error on WMD. So go ahead, tell me who believes the intel prior to the war was good.
Reply #42 from WinCustomize Forums Top
integrity and honor
End of quote

Because the Liberal media portrays him as such? Don't believe everything you see on tv or read in the newspaper.

Everyone blames Bush for how the war was conducted. No one even bothers to bring up the fact that before Clinton left office their was intel that someone would be attempting to attack the Trade Centers, he basicly went off and just said "screw it, let the other guy handle it".
WWW Link
WWW Link
(Random Google Search)

Basicly to sum them up, the Clinton administration had knowledge of four hijackers and their plans, yet did NOTHING. Yet somehow Bush is the worst president here? He may be an idiot and far from the best we've had, but he is nothing close to the worst either.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
tell me what you do want and what you would do


That's a fair challenge. Thank you. First, let me say I have also seen things nobody should ever see: I covered and photographed ground zero immediately after the planes hit the world trade center. Please read my other posts as to my position on Iraq. In brief, I'm not sure we should not have invaded the country. My problem is not the invasion, it is the justification and management of the entire process.

Here's what I would do and what I want:
1) Reasons given to go to war that aren't lies or shades of truth. If the reason is because SH tortures his people, say that. If the reason is because he's in violation of the cease fire, say that. If the reason is he supports terrorists, say that -- and offer hard proof.
2. Once you invade, supply our troops with the numbers that guarantee success. Listen to Powell, and hit them with a tidal wave that permits no insurgent to raise a gun.
3. After you've established control, work to get the Iraqi government up and running, by not practicing a debathification, and eliminating the entire infrastructure of a country. Build a coalition of leadership. Don't prop up leaders that are weak. When it's obvious they can't deliver, get another leader.
4. Have a sec of defense who isn't a control freak and can play nice with the other cabinate members in interest of national security.
5. Have a Joint Chief of Staff who reports to me and not through my minions, as is supposed to be the case, and solicit their candid, unfiltered advice.
6. Work with minority members of congress to bring their ideas into the fold whenever possible.
7. Not farm out security to private security firms not covered under any law, Iraqi or US.
8. Lead by building consensus and bridges, both domestically and internationally.
9. Build an air tight intel case before going to war. Know more about my enemy than my enemy knows about himself.
10. Stabilize the infrastructure within Iraq so things like electricity work. Take a page from Venezuela and buy off a few of my enemies.

That's what I want and what I'd do. It's pretty much the opposite of what this administration has done.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will say this - until you see the cost - and know that you must validate your reason for being there - you can't make such definitive statements.


my only problem with your comments is the idea that this thread undermines the troops. My partner is a vet. My mother -in- law has 5, yes 5, kids serving in Iraq. She (and they) are fiercly anti-Iraq war, though they've served multiple tours.

I don't agree with much of what is said in my own thread (except of course what I write). But the problem is this: "you must validate the reason for being there". The troops don't have to validate the reason for being there. They are their because our government has put them there. Right or wrong, that's how it is.

Again, to repeat, I'm not at all sure we shouldn't be in Iraq. After all this time I still don't know. Why? Precisely for the reasons you say -- I haven't been there. Ground Zero was enough for this coward. But all this is not material. My thread is about Bush, not the troops, not even Iraq. My thread is about the mismanagement of war, of our troops, of the reasons leading to war, of Bush living in a state of denial. Like it or not, the troops are commanded by a leader who is inept. That isn't to say what they do isn't brave, or good, or important. Just that their leader is lacking.

I wish it was different. I do. Hopefully, we'll do better in the future.
M
Reply #45 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Everything you think we know about Iraq has holes the size of swiss cheese. After 1998, there were almost no weapons inspectins in Iraq. When Blix spoke to the UN, he spoke of Iraq's non compliance with inspectors, not on finding WMDs.
End of quote


There were no WMD's in Iraq at the time of the invasion....otherwise they would have been held up for all the world to see: "See, I told you so!" That's exactly the justification Bush needs, and it hasn't been forthcoming, so one could reasonably conclude that it simply does not exist.

Oh, and on that point of the Brits being opposed to war because of the horrors that occurred on home soil....the Germans and Japanese are also two nations who vehemently oppose war...and pretty much for the same reason, their homelands were devastated by bombing. And no, were are NOT talking about who started it back then...we ARE talking about what they have learned from it.

In terms of age, the US as a nation is still a baby, yet it proposes to be a world leader without the wealth of experience held by other nations. Many of those nations (such as Germany & Japan) were criticised the US for being too diplomatic and were condemned for their inaction regarding Iraq...yet the US may have actually learned something if Bush has been prepared to listen...and that twit lil Johnny wouldn't have needed to send Aussies to die, neither.

It may be that many in Japan are too young to know of these horror, but traditional Japanese teaching is too exacting for them not to learn the valuable lesson of their forefathers. And take a look at Japan today, after failing to conquer the world by force in WWII, it is taking over the world in so many ways without as much as firing a shot....through its industriousness and good economic management.

Yep, there's lessons to be learned, alright, but will they be learned while gun happy presidents sit in the Oval Office and take away peace with a single pen-stroke....and anyone who really believes invading Iraq was aimed at terrorism/creating world peace has rocks in their head. HEllOO...bin Laden had no proven ties to Saddam Hussein and he is still out there.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
My first comment is snippy, sorry: Are you in the oil lobby?
No I am not - why would you ask such a question to my post?


Don't get huffy. You articulate the position of the oil industry. I can say this pretty honestly, I've photographed for oil lobbyists. That's not to say their positions (or yours) are wrong. One thing I've learned about Capitol Hill, usually people have good reason for feeling the way they do. I'd like technology to get us out of the current oil catch-22. Until it does, I think you are en pointe.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
My first comment is snippy, sorry: Are you in the oil lobby?
No I am not - why would you ask such a question to my post?


Don't get huffy. You articulate the position of the oil industry. I can say this pretty honestly, I've photographed for oil lobbyists. That's not to say their positions (or yours) are wrong. One thing I've learned about Capitol Hill, usually people have good reason for feeling the way they do. I'd like technology to get us out of the current oil catch-22. Until it does, I think you are en pointe.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Basicly to sum them up, the Clinton administration had knowledge of four hijackers and their plans, yet did NOTHING. Yet somehow Bush is the worst president here?


Hmmm. This thread is on Bush, not Clinton. What do you think saves Bush from the worst ever title? What are his best accomplishments? How do they rank historically with his peers?
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm asking the same question. I can't seem to get it moved. Frankly, it's kinda nice,


it is in personal computers because you created it from another thread, to make sure it doesn't happen you have to post from the title page. ie if you want it in politics you have to go to the main page and click on politics and then create post.