My President Is A Bastard

[override367]

READ AT YOUR OWN PERIL


Is Bush a good president? No


Was he handed a raw deal? Hell yes.

He walked into a super-pc system where even hinting arabs were responsible for crimes was ludicrous and the CIA wasn't even allowed to investigate arab terrorist organizations with field agents!

He had to deal with the worst terrorist attack in recent memory.

He had to (and still does have to) deal with alot of people who are more interested in playing politics than the actual benefit of this country.

His advisors are by and large asshats.

In this country the president doesn't really do much of anything without getting approval, which he did. I actually believe Bush had no reason to doubt the CIA director's evidence about the WMDs, as the CIA isn't what it used to be. Congress approved just about everything.

And now people are spending more effort into pointing fingers at the president and rumsfeld than preparing for the pull out of Iraq next month which should recieve all the attention.

Clinton (I DID like him, he was a good economist, but not a great president) essentially opened the door on further, bigger, Al Queda attacks by virtually ignoring the USS Cole bombing, as a Saudi was behind it and doing any action against a Saudi is taboo on capitol hill (they are STILL fighting through that bs)

Political correctness and playing politics is the only reason Al-Quada is an international force today and the reason Saddam wasn't ousted in the first Gulf War.

The UN is currently on my shitlist (yea I know, nobody cares, but this is a rant so I don't care if you don't care) because of their supposed oil for food program, maybe part of the reason they didn't want us to go to Iraq was to learn they essentially FUNDED THIS MANS MILITARY AND KNEW IT WAS HAPPENING!!!!!!

US intelligence assets all through the 90s kept telling us that Saddam was buying weapons with this oil for food money, and the UN just gave him a polite warning. EVENTUALLY he would have done something with this growing military, and no longer can someones family "dissapear" for speaking a bad word about Saddam, infact even most of the insurgents hate Saddam and are happy he's gone as much as us, they just don't like Westerners in an arab country.

None of this is to say I wouldn't vote against Bush if it were possible, but at least Bush keeps a reasonably clear stance on things, Kerry seems to have opinions that shift daily and has no real stance on anything, except that he doesn't like Bush. Kerry hasn't shown how he's going to be a better president, and many policy issues he criticizes the president for, HE VOTED FOR, I'd rather have a gunhappy cowboy than a hypocritical worm.

/end rant, not even gonna correct spelling and grammar

 

[Sander]

Congress approved just about everything.

Well, except for a war.

Political correctness and playing politics is the only reason Al-Quada is an international force today and the reason Saddam wasn't ousted in the first Gulf War.

Very doubtful. Any arguments or proof to go with this statement?

[qutoe]The UN is currently on my shitlist (yea I know, nobody cares, but this is a rant so I don't care if you don't care) because of their supposed oil for food program, maybe part of the reason they didn't want us to go to Iraq was to learn they essentially FUNDED THIS MANS MILITARY AND KNEW IT WAS HAPPENING!!!!!! [/quote]
Even though the rest of your post is decent, this just degraded it a lot. The UN security council did not have anything to do with the food for oil program, and the UN security council is the part that decides about going to war. The UN security council is comprised solely of representatives of member states, and is therefore not influenced by the rest of the UN (or very little indeed).
If you had been paying attention when this issue came up, you would've noticed that France and Russia were the ones blocking an attack; not the UN itself.

US intelligence assets all through the 90s kept telling us that Saddam was buying weapons with this oil for food money, and the UN just gave him a polite warning. EVENTUALLY he would have done something with this growing military, and no longer can someones family "dissapear" for speaking a bad word about Saddam,

Yet again, this is untrue. Do you really think that Saddam would've wilingly risked his position as the leader of a country by not only buying more weapons, but also planning on using them? He may have been a megalomaniac, but he certainly wasn't a fool.

infact even most of the insurgents hate Saddam and are happy he's gone as much as us, they just don't like Westerners in an arab country.

This, again, is faulty. As an article in "De Groene Amsterdammer" has shown (yes, for you Dutchies, that's a very biased source, but a decent one nonetheless), even a producer of American sodas has turned against the USA after supporting it for a while. This solely because of the mess the US is making of Iraq right now, they are giving away major contracts to foreigners, they are even making laws so that that becomes easier, and that isn't really helping. The general attitude of Paul Bremer is pretty much fucking things up as well. There are a lot of things like that.

None of this is to say I wouldn't vote against Bush if it were possible, but at least Bush keeps a reasonably clear stance on things, Kerry seems to have opinions that shift daily and has no real stance on anything, except that he doesn't like Bush. Kerry hasn't shown how he's going to be a better president, and many policy issues he criticizes the president for, HE VOTED FOR, I'd rather have a gunhappy cowboy than a hypocritical worm.

INstead of saying that his stances have shifted, maybe you should start looking at what his stances actually are. Maybe you'll then see how he claims he'll be a better president:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

 

[override367]

As most late night rants are, of course it was full of holes, and I should have been more clear about pointing fingers at the UN, it was a small part of the UN, but since generalizations about America seem to be alright, I'm comfortable applying them to others.

I watched an interview on Discovery Times (great channel) with a former CIA field agent who consistantly found evidence that terrorist groups were being funded by arab countries, and his reports were essentially ignored. He found that Iran was responsible for the bombing of the US embassy back in '83 that killed 63 people as I recall (I type my info without pulling up google every 3 seconds to quote, so if my figures are a bit off forgive me) and the later bombing that killed 200 was funded by the Saudi Royal family. He said in this interview that prior to 9/11 any reports naming any countries that sell oil to the US were completely disregarded, and to this day they still have to get through mounds of red tape before anyone important reads them.

I'm not saying Bush is a great president, I'm saying you can't lay ALL the blame on him, a president can only engage in military action for 90 days (war powers act, which oddly gave presidents MORE autonomy) without approval of congress and cannot himself declare war without approval. If I had to lay blame for the war on Iraq I would start with the director of the CIA and work my way onto Bush (who would make my top 10 list for sure, but not the #1 spot). The fact is Bush was presented with enough evidence to go ahead, and Congress (who btw are the ones who declare war, NOT the president) also bought this "evidence", so lay blame on the guys who came up with this load of crap.

Bah... Actually I'm not voting at all, or I'll throw it away on Ralph Nader, Bush and Kerry both strike me as unfit individuals to run this country, I'd sooner put Chris Rock in charge.

 

[Tannhauser]

You mean it is better than an United States President can continue a war for years, as long it is called "Police Action?" As it was in Korea and Vietnam?

 

[override367]

No you misunderstand, a police action is a horrible loophole in the war powers act that REALLY needs to be fixed, but that has no bearing on the current conflict which is an actual war declared by congress, and they were mislead by same evidence that mislead bush, so again I say blame should go first and foremost to the faulty evidence the CIA cooked up.

 

[Tannhauser]

No, I believe you misunderstand.

The War Powers Resolution didn't come about until 1973, the Korean War ended in 1953, and the Vietnam War ended in 1973 (a number of months before the War Powers Resolution). The War Powers Resolution wasn't in a position to affect anything about those wars. Unless you are arguing that Presidents obey laws not yet written, "police action" isn't a loophole. The War Powers Resolution was created to end such "police action" on the Presidents part.

The War Powers Resolution stipulates that a President has to report to Congress within 60 to 90 days of American military involvement, and Congress has to make a choice (formally declare War, pull out American troops, or allow the President to continue for another 60 days). I don't see how this "gave presidents MORE autonomy" as you so bluntly put it.

If you want to read the document, here it is.

No, this doesn't have anything to do with the current Iraqi War, as Congress declared war this time. Yet, your information is faulty on this point.

 

[override367]

your right my bad

I got a little mixed up, the war powers act did indeed actually give the president more autonomy, but yea the police actions in korea and vietnam were before it came about.

But again, my whole argument is you cannot lay ALL the blame on the president, ALOT of people in the government were for the war in Iraq for the wrong reasons.

The president does deserve his share of the blame, but I feel he is getting more than his share of it

I mean, the president and everyone else for that matter have little to go on but what the intelligence community tells them, if the CIA says, for example, if they say"Canada is about to attack, see they have missiles here and here" while pointing to sattelite photos (which could be from anywhere) and say that it is "undeniable evidence" that an attack is imminent, well they are the sattelite photo interpreters and intelligence officers, that should be good enough, but the CIA has proven with the recent war in Iraq that they need to have their evidence checked and rechecked, because they can't be trusted.

 

[welsh]

So I was just wondering to myself...
Where have all the good leaders gone? America has gotten the shaft in that department. I want a leader who the people generally adore. Someone who knows the issues, knows the details of the issues, and has a high intelligence so he can deal with those issues accordingly. I want a leader who isn't a war-monger, who isn't an elitist. I want a leader who didn't get voted into office by the supreme court. I want a leader with the common sense, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead the country, with a cabinet who shares his qualities.

For a second I thought you were suggesting Clinton for a third term.

The answer is disappointing. We haven't had one of those since the 1960s.

WHat happened- Nixon. We elected Nixon after Bobby Kennedy got shot because we thought Nixon could get us out of War and not start a nuclearn war with Russia. By the late 1960s the country was divided. But Nixon was a sell out. You couldn't buy a used car from a guy that looked and acted like Nixon.

And Nixon proved to be a poor mad lunie. Yes he got us out of Vietnam and did quite a few good things, but he also turned the state into his own means for empowerment. Nixon's impeachment led to Ford, who was a standin. Ford led to Carter, who was an idealist and a born-again, and said on public TV, "I must admit, I have lusted for other women in my heart." Jeez, really?

Reagan game back with a strong policy of tax cuts, deficit spending and get tough on the Russkies when it looked like the Russkies were getting ahead of us (like in Afghanistan). But the Russkies were dieing out really. Still we kept Reagan in because he was a tough dude.

But actually Reagan's appeal was in taxes. Low taxes became the Republican selling point. Then it became state's right (which in the past had given us such prized ideas as segregation, discrimination and rampent local level corruption). Bush followed Reagan but got stuck with the costs of Reagan's term. He raised taxes, lost the no tax policy and got whooped by Clinton.

Clinton did something amazing. He raised taxes. And in raising taxes he actually helped the economy grow by making it more dependable, stable and secure. And we got a better country. But Clinton couldn't keep his pants on and so after his two terms of office we got Dubya who again promised us "gentle conservative" and "tax cuts."

So what happened to leadership? In the 1960s we saw the federal government as the means by which the country could improve. Not since the New Deal did the state get involved in social progress. But then we got crappy leaders, and that led to favoting tax cuts to social progress.

And so goes leadership.

 

[John Uskglass]

Clinton did something amazing. He raised taxes.

Bush did that. Bush did alot of things to help the economy. And he lost not because of Clinton, but because some inverted Nader types thought they could win.

it became state's right (which in the past had given us such prized ideas as segregation, discrimination and rampent local level corruption)

O, yes, while the New Deal worked soooo well, did'nt it Welsh?

Clinton did something amazing. He raised taxes. And in raising taxes he actually helped the economy grow by making it more dependable, stable and secure.

Yeah. The birth of the internet and the rise of the office over the plant had absolutely EVERYTHING to do with Clinton, did'nt it? Nevermind the fact that this is the guy that bombed a pharmacutical factory to pull everybody's eyes away from the fact that he was getting his cocked sucked while deciding the most imporant issues in the wold, huh?

So what happened to leadership? In the 1960s we saw the federal government as the means by which the country could improve. Not since the New Deal did the state get involved in social progress. But then we got crappy leaders, and that led to favoting tax cuts to social progress.

I'm kind of conflicted here, as I was drawn to the Republican party on what could be described as "semi-imperialist" grounds, but you seem to be forgetting that Clinton was, if anything, as much of a budgetary convservative as Bush....maybe more. He reformed welfare, he cut down on the military budget after the cold war......while Bush is doing exactly what you are saying with his disasterous health care bill.

 

[JoeMataius]

Not to sound like a tree hugging hippy or a nazi, but I am hoping for a plague or something like that. Redemption for all the shit that goes on. The Earth getting back at us. Wiping the slate clean so to speak. A post-apocalyptic world.

 

[quietfanatic]

Although it might appear appealing to some to decimate humanity, it would counterproductive as well as a cop out. All the progress made over the centuries would be lost and we any survivors would most likely revert to a primitive and violent state. The Taliban wanted to go backwards in time and were so 'moral' that people had to flee the country.
Do not worry about nature getting its revenge, we are a part of nature, albeit a very well developed type of organism, and are perfectly capable of wiping ourselves out independently as a worse case scenario.

First world fertility is falling dramatically (biologically that is, not just due to social and economic pressures) and what we really need is for this trend to spread worldwide without wiping us out or destabilizing genetic diversity.

 

[welsh]

Clinton did something amazing. He raised taxes.

Bush did that. Bush did alot of things to help the economy. And he lost not because of Clinton, but because some inverted Nader types thought they could win.

I actually believe that this is somewhat correct. The US was coming out of recession when Clinton was coming into office. It was the raising of taxes that fucked the old Bush, mostly because of the "read my lips" stuff. Taxes are such a key issue to middle class voters in the US, it's amazing how little we pay in taxes compared to most other developed countries.

To be fair to the Old Bush, (and I admit I liked the guy- a moderate Republican is not that much different from a moderate Democrat) he didn't have much choice. Bush inherited the problems of Reagan's deficit spending and had to raise the taxes.

That said, Clinton deserves a lot of the credit for balancing budgets and starting to pay down the deficit. That wasn't Bush's acheivement. A lot of Clinton's fiscal conservativism helped make the economy more credit worthy. A hell of a lot of FDI came to the US during the Clinton years (the US and CHina were the two biggest targets for FDI) in part because of the Clinton conservatism.

it became state's right (which in the past had given us such prized ideas as segregation, discrimination and rampent local level corruption)

O, yes, while the New Deal worked soooo well, did'nt it Welsh?[/quote]

Yes, actually it did a lot of good.

You forget that a lot of the projects done during the New Deal set up the infrastructure that made the industrial boom in the US before, during and after the Second World War a reality. You also have to take that into consideration that this was the beginning of Keynsian economics for the US, recognizing the important role of the state in the economy. We are talking about the growth of both the welfare state and democracy. That the state is an essential part of the globalized economy and the ability of economimes to navigate the globalized economy is widely recognized today. One good example is MITI in Japan, but you can find similar determinants in other countries. Honestly, I give a lot of credit to Greenspan, the FED chairman for keeping the US economy on course.

I often look at the New Deal primarily as a set of legal reforms. Look at some of the Supreme Court decisions before the New Deal on issues like child labor (oh what's wrong with a 12 year old in a coal mine?) or women's labor ("making sure that women get a fair rate of salary violates their freedom to contract!) or worker safety- (Yes health standards for bakers because we don't want them spreading their diseases into our cakes) and you can see some of the social progress being formed. Labor was allowed to organize and campaign effectively- which ironically allowed labor to become incorporated into the system.

Look at how labor was incorporated in other parts of the world and you see both the relationship of labor in communism and in the rise of nazism.

In facist countries, worker's parties and working class movements were both extremely strong and radical. Facism grew by the need of leaders who believed that force was needed to smash those movements and control the population.

In communist countries, weak working class parties never gave birth to Nazis. THe Bolshevik's come to power as a minority representative group after the first revolution fails to get Russia out of the war.

In the US workers were strong, but were also not radicalized. Policy reforms allowed for their inclusion in the decision making process of government. Keynsian economics recognized that the market could not provide for certain social goods. The welfare states is really a set of policies that partially decommidify the core elements of the prevailign social understanding of what constitutes a just and dignfied standard of living. By substituting political determination for market determination, of selecting prices and quantities, one sees an increasing opportunity to lead a decent life.

That's one of the benefits of the New Deal.

Clinton did something amazing. He raised taxes. And in raising taxes he actually helped the economy grow by making it more dependable, stable and secure.

Yeah. The birth of the internet and the rise of the office over the plant had absolutely EVERYTHING to do with Clinton, did'nt it? Nevermind the fact that this is the guy that bombed a pharmacutical factory to pull everybody's eyes away from the fact that he was getting his cocked sucked while deciding the most imporant issues in the wold, huh?

CC, that's flame bait. Tsk tsk, you are better than that.

But yes, the birth of the internet led to new investment, new growth in the economy and although it created a bubble, it did help the economy grow. I have always been suspicious of Clinton's bombing campaign, but generally have dismissed that. If I was president, I would have had my dick sucked by a better looking woman- see Kennedy for an example of president's who knew the power of a presidential cock.

That said, you are not making a point here CC, and I would think you were a better debater than that.

Clinton's economic plans did help the country grown. THe internet was part of that parcel, but that wasn't all. Good spending, better government, the ability to manipulate the nature of the US debt all helped in making for a better economy.

Clinton's sexual needs but more his willingness to lie, that ruined what could have been a fantastic political legacy. It's that, and the fact that he should have been impeached for lieing, that was the shame of his political tenure.

So what happened to leadership? In the 1960s we saw the federal government as the means by which the country could improve. Not since the New Deal did the state get involved in social progress. But then we got crappy leaders, and that led to favoting tax cuts to social progress.

I'm kind of conflicted here, as I was drawn to the Republican party on what could be described as "semi-imperialist" grounds, but you seem to be forgetting that Clinton was, if anything, as much of a budgetary convservative as Bush....maybe more. He reformed welfare, he cut down on the military budget after the cold war......while Bush is doing exactly what you are saying with his disasterous health care bill.

[/quote]

Yes, that is the curious problem. THe fact is that the repressive state has grown dramatically under Bush, while Clinton began to, appropriately, downsize the military. It was Bush that has been fiscally irresponsible, which is often a curse of democrats. THerein lies the problem. THe republicans voted for a fiscal conservative and got fiscal irresponsibility.

Why? Because it's true that Clinton couldn't control his dick. But Bush can't control his political ambitions. Most of Bush's campaign pledges- prescriptions for the elderly, no child left behind, spending for the military, a mission to mars, etc. All cost money. They sound good and they get votes, but they are bad policy.

In the Clinton administration you had policy over politics. Clinton sold out on the welfare state when he put the policy of welfare into the hands of the states. He had to, it was a policy choice even if it had political consequences. NOt surprisingly, Democrat LBJ's policies- the Voting Rights Act, the Great SOciety, also took policy (what's good for the country) over politics.

Bush is about politics and his constituents. It's about politicing for office and doing so effectively. I heard one of his speeches on radio C-span and it's damn good, if full of bullshit if you look at it carefully. But that's politics. It's about winning and leading and doing right for your key constiuents- namely the republican elites- Most of Bush's campaign support comes form the top ten percent of the top 1% of income earners, and satisfying voters.

Example? SUVs. SUVs rollover more, are less safe in accidents because of the construction of their frames that don't absorb shock and because they consume gasoline inefficiently. MOst people buy SUVs because they have been told they are safer and look sportier but also because they get tax advantages for buying SUVs if they own a small business- and there are lots of small businesses in the US. Problem is that most SUV owners use their vehicles for the same reason that people use basic cars. Yet cars are held to higher gas and pollution standards. IF SUVs were made to be more fuel efficient (which is possible) then we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Instead the Bush administration gives them tax breaks. Why?

Because key supporters of the Bush administration are in (1) the energy industry which wants to see people consume more fuel, and (2) the auto-industry which wants to protect it's leading vehichles- currently SUVs.

Need another example- guns. THe NRA is very pro-Republican and the gun industry is very pro-NRA. In the late 1980s and 90s, gun sales had begun to grow stagnant except for two types- 9 mm handguns (like your Sigs, Glocks, etc) and military styled weapons. There has been legislation in the past year regarding the ability of private individuals to sue gun manufacturers who put guns into circulation and are negligently allowing their weapons to go into consumer use. There was also a move to maintain the assault weapon ban. Despite pleas from police chiefs, the Bush administration has decided not to renew the ban. Why? Because it's good politics if crappy policy.

A third example? NASA- The Republican have decided to cut programs that would support both the international space station and the hubble space telescope while supporting a policy to go to Mars first. Why? Good politics. You can get yourself behind a policy that says "We'll be first on Mars" for good nationalistic feeling. In the meantime cut projects despite the fact that the projects have not yet come to the end of their utility or are not yet completed. So years of work done for the Hubble and the Space Station are poured down the drain so we can have political pitch- Mars or Bust. And who benefits? THe industries and the politicans, while all that investment that went into two projects goes down the crapper. Good policy would say "reap what you have sowed for you have invested in it." But we leave the fruits of our investment wasted.

That's the problem with leadership in the US today. Our leadership is putting politics- the desire to stay in office, ahead of the needs of the country.

 

[John Uskglass]

CC, that's flame bait. Tsk tsk, you are better than that.

But yes, the birth of the internet led to new investment, new growth in the economy and although it created a bubble, it did help the economy grow. I have always been suspicious of Clinton's bombing campaign, but generally have dismissed that. If I was president, I would have had my dick sucked by a better looking woman- see Kennedy for an example of president's who knew the power of a presidential cock.

That said, you are not making a point here CC, and I would think you were a better debater than that.

Clinton's economic plans did help the country grown. THe internet was part of that parcel, but that wasn't all. Good spending, better government, the ability to manipulate the nature of the US debt all helped in making for a better economy.

Clinton's sexual needs but more his willingness to lie, that ruined what could have been a fantastic political legacy. It's that, and the fact that he should have been impeached for lieing, that was the shame of his political tenure.

Sorry if it came off as flamebait, but I honestly had a point here.

Clinton was not a bad president, and not really a bad guy. Heck, he's probably the best Democratic President sense the '50s. But he did alot of shitty things. His bombing of the Sudanese pharmacutical factory, and fankly I don't really think extra marital affairs are apropriate in the White House.

Bush Ist had something Bush 2nd just does'nt, and Clinton totally lacked: honest likeability.

Sorry I don't respond to everything you posted welsh, I don't have the time right now.

 

[Brother None]

Clinton was not a bad president, and not really a bad guy. Heck, he's probably the best Democratic President sense the '50s. But he did alot of shitty things. His bombing of the Sudanese pharmacutical factory, and fankly I don't really think extra marital affairs are apropriate in the White House.

How is bombing a pharmacutical factory in TEH WAR AGAINST TERROR (yes, that was a mistake in the general war against terror, which Clinton fought more actively than pre-911 Bush, n'est pas?) without UN backing worst than attacking a country in the war against terror and ending up throwing the country into chaos, holding only the capitel, with UN backing.

Oh my God he's talking about Afghanistan, not Iraq

Yeah, just making sure bullshit war II doesn't make people forget bullshit war I.

As for extra marital affairs, you Americans need to get over the illusion that the President needs to be a shining beacon of American values. That's bullshit. He's a politician, all he has to do is to be good at his job, he doesn't need to be any more morally correct than a plumber or a doctor. Politics, even though it has a unique system of getting hired and fired, is still just a job-market.

One of the funniest statements I ever heard an American (some political specialist) make was "Clinton was a good president. He would've been a great president, except for the Lewinski-affair." Hah.

Bush Ist had something Bush 2nd just does'nt, and Clinton totally lacked: honest likeability.

You like him, most people don't. Honest gullability is how a lot of people would put it, but those people are ignorant. I don't trust Bush, he's a dangerously intelligent lying backstabber in a dangerous position of power. He's certainly shown disloyalty to America's old allies, like the Taliban, and an itch in the back of my neck says he would've tried to frame Ricce for the 9/11 fiasco, but she outmanouvered him, and now he has to try his gullible yokel act on a council of people who he, hopefully, won't be able to fool.

I dislike Kerry even more. He has the dangerous element of being a flip-flop too, changing from one opinion to another, hopping about. That's very dangerous for a world leader. Whatever you do, don't vote Kerry.

Gore, I liked more, his lack of charisma certainly wouldn't have hurt America's international politics more than Bush has.

Taxes are such a key issue to middle class voters in the US, it's amazing how little we pay in taxes compared to most other developed countries.

Not really. Taxes are linked to how necessary they are. Bush Jr., as Sr., has to raise taxes for expensive wars. Most developed countries have high taxes because of a highly centralised and overly bureaucrat government, which is a consequence of an enormous, some would say over-bloated, wellfare state. Since the US lacks these things, there's no real need for large taxes, unless you feel like waging war or unless you're in a bad economic crisis.

a moderate Republican is not that much different from a moderate Democrat

The huge problem of the American democratic system summarised in one sentence.

 

[John Uskglass]

yes, that was a mistake in the general war against terror, which Clinton fought more actively than pre-911 Bush, n'est pas?

No, not particularly. That's something of a myth. Bush's focus was on Star Wars tech, not the Taliban, but Clinton did not really have a focus.

Yeah, just making sure bullshit war II doesn't make people forget bullshit war I.

Afghanistan was-in no way- a "bullshit" war. When the French, Germans and Americans work together in the late 21st century, something is up.
3,000 people died, and it was as much an action of the Afghani state as the Iraq War is one of America.

As for extra marital affairs, you Americans need to get over the illusion that the President needs to be a shining beacon of American values. That's bullshit. He's a politician, all he has to do is to be good at his job, he doesn't need to be any more morally correct than a plumber or a doctor. Politics, even though it has a unique system of getting hired and fired, is still just a job-market.

Kharn, if you where reciveing oral sex from a secretary while on the phone with, say, a senator, would you be fired?

You like him, most people don't. Honest gullability is how a lot of people would put it, but those people are ignorant. I don't trust Bush, he's a dangerously intelligent lying backstabber in a dangerous position of power. He's certainly shown disloyalty to America's old allies, like the Taliban, and an itch in the back of my neck says he would've tried to frame Ricce for the 9/11 fiasco, but she outmanouvered him, and now he has to try his gullible yokel act on a council of people who he, hopefully, won't be able to fool.

I don't really think you understand GWB that well, Kharn. The primary focus of his cabinet is loyalty. Everyone-from Powell to Rice to Cheyney-has to be loyal. Thus I don't really think GWB would backstab anyone in his close cabinet.

I dislike Kerry even more. He has the dangerous element of being a flip-flop too, changing from one opinion to another, hopping about. That's very dangerous for a world leader. Whatever you do, don't vote Kerry.

Here here!

Not really. Taxes are linked to how necessary they are. Bush Jr., as Sr., has to raise taxes for expensive wars. Most developed countries have high taxes because of a highly centralised and overly bureaucrat government, which is a consequence of an enormous, some would say over-bloated, wellfare state. Since the US lacks these things, there's no real need for large taxes, unless you feel like waging war or unless you're in a bad economic crisis.

Bush II has not raised taxes. Though, to be honest, I hope he does once the recovery is on a safer footing.

The huge problem of the American democratic system summarised in one sentence.

It's not really a huge problem at all. It might be viewed as less democratic, but I'd say that it's more important for the most powerful state in history to have stability and be centrific then have democracy and the fear of American Hitlers.[/quote]

 

[Brother None]

No, not particularly. That's something of a myth. Bush's focus was on Star Wars tech, not the Taliban, but Clinton did not really have a focus.

Perhaps, I might get back to that later

Afghanistan was-in no way- a "bullshit" war. When the French, Germans and Americans work together in the late 21st century, something is up.
3,000 people died, and it was as much an action of the Afghani state as the Iraq War is one of America.

The war is not the problem. The aftermath is a fiasco. Heck, Iraq is in a better state. Afghanistan is thrown back into pre-Taliban chaos, a time when Afghanistan was lowest on the UN list of quality of life. The situation in Afghanistan has becomes a lot worse for its citizens since the war, and that's what I call a total failure. In case you didn't know, the Taliban might've been oppressive bastards, but at least they brought peace and introduced education into people's lives.

Iraq might still be saved, it depends on what the future holds. Afghanistan, torn to bits by battling warlords, might as well be written off as a failure, since everyone refuses to invest significant amounts in freeing the entire country, as opposed to just the capitel. Terrorist breeding ground? It is now.

Plus the war was bullshit anyway, Al Quaida was in Afghanistan, sure, but it was also in Pakistan and funded from Saudi Arabia. Did anyone, especially the US, ever do anything about that, except some nudges with a "hey, how 'bout you fix that"-wink? Not really. Bullshit reasons make for a bullshit war

I originally supported the war, as I did the Iraqi war, because it was essentially a move to remove a dictatorial regime (a minority regime in Afghanistan, even), but I did not know at that time what failures both "missions" would be.

Also, don't refer to the Northern Alliance as "the Afghani State". They may be more of a majority, but their claim to power is no more democratic and hence no more legit than that of the Taliban.

Kharn, if you where reciveing oral sex from a secretary while on the phone with, say, a senator, would you be fired?

There are no senators in Holland, but I don't understand your question. Read my argument again, then figure out the following comparison. A bussinessman who telephones while getting a blowjob from his secretary would get a frown or a warning at best. A president who does the same = instantly fired.

Does this make sense? Is this justified? No. It's not a Politicians job to be a shining example to the people, this is an archaic idea and really needs to be dropped, since it seems to derate pretty good politicians, like Clinton.

Clinton lying to the state was bad, tho', but that's another matter.

I don't really think you understand GWB that well, Kharn. The primary focus of his cabinet is loyalty. Everyone-from Powell to Rice to Cheyney-has to be loyal. Thus I don't really think GWB would backstab anyone in his close cabinet.

I don't think you understand him too well, but neither of us are very neutral in the matter, are we?

I don't trust Bush mostly out of one motive, he is a historical revisionist. There's little I loathe more than historical revisionism, it's what's turning me away from the Left-wing SP here in Holland. The amasing thing about Bush is, tho', that nobody seems to remember his previous statements when he contradicts himself. I can remember him portraying the UN inspectors going to Iraq first as doomed, then as heroes, then as misguided heroes, then as pathetic fools. And the last just seems to stick, without anyone remembering any of the first.

But that's not the worst of it. The "Oh, hey, wait, we didn't go to Iraq to get WMDs, we went to Iraq to remove Saddam. Yeah, that's it!"

You don't see anything wrong with hating one president for getting a blowjob and loving another president who's a two-faced lying git? He's actually lying to your faces, and you're just swallowing it.

Bush II has not raised taxes. Though, to be honest, I hope he does once the recovery is on a safer footing.

Aye, and you see where his refusal to raise taxes is getting you. A few presidents down the road and Bush's policy is going to bring the house down. If that president is a democrat, you'll blame him. If he's a republican, it's probably some democrat's fault. Isn't it?

It's not really a huge problem at all. It might be viewed as less democratic, but I'd say that it's more important for the most powerful state in history to have stability and be centrific then have democracy and the fear of American Hitlers.

I am shocked and appalled. You're supposed to be the frontrunner of liberty, the fighters of democracy. How the hell can you justify going abroad to enforce democracies when you don't even have a proper democratic system at home?

You're basically sitting down and saying "hey, I have to give up an essential freedom, at least partially, but it's ok, I get some security for it"

Doesn't that attitude sound familiar to you? It does to me, it reminds me of the people flocking to the fledgeling Muscovite state, which, more than the other cities, offered safety and security. That grew in Tzarist Russia, and the attitude nurtured there lead to the USSR.

 

[John Uskglass]

The war is not the problem. The aftermath is a fiasco. Heck, Iraq is in a better state. Afghanistan is thrown back into pre-Taliban chaos, a time when Afghanistan was lowest on the UN list of quality of life. The situation in Afghanistan has becomes a lot worse for its citizens since the war, and that's what I call a total failure. In case you didn't know, the Taliban might've been oppressive bastards, but at least they brought peace and introduced education into people's lives.

Iraq might still be saved, it depends on what the future holds. Afghanistan, torn to bits by battling warlords, might as well be written off as a failure, since everyone refuses to invest significant amounts in freeing the entire country, as opposed to just the capitel. Terrorist breeding ground? It is now.

Plus the war was bullshit anyway, Al Quaida was in Afghanistan, sure, but it was also in Pakistan and funded from Saudi Arabia. Did anyone, especially the US, ever do anything about that, except some nudges with a "hey, how 'bout you fix that"-wink? Not really. Bullshit reasons make for a bullshit war

I originally supported the war, as I did the Iraqi war, because it was essentially a move to remove a dictatorial regime (a minority regime in Afghanistan, even), but I did not know at that time what failures both "missions" would be.

Also, don't refer to the Northern Alliance as "the Afghani State". They may be more of a majority, but their claim to power is no more democratic and hence no more legit than that of the Taliban.

I don't know about that. It's has a constitution now, it has a fairly good head of state.

Realize, though, that Afghanistan was never one of the centers of civilization from 6000 BC to 1258 AD. It's really Africa's foothold in Asia in terms of being fucked up.

Does this make sense? Is this justified? No. It's not a Politicians job to be a shining example to the people, this is an archaic idea and really needs to be dropped, since it seems to derate pretty good politicians, like Clinton.

Clinton lying to the state was bad, tho', but that's another matter.

That's a good point, and I understand why you might not agree with me, but I just don't think its appropriate for a president to do that.

Lying was just icing on the cake to me.

I don't trust Bush mostly out of one motive, he is a historical revisionist. There's little I loathe more than historical revisionism, it's what's turning me away from the Left-wing SP here in Holland. The amasing thing about Bush is, tho', that nobody seems to remember his previous statements when he contradicts himself. I can remember him portraying the UN inspectors going to Iraq first as doomed, then as heroes, then as misguided heroes, then as pathetic fools. And the last just seems to stick, without anyone remembering any of the first.

I admire you're hatred of historical revisionism (something that I share, and if anything, am more of a fanatic for).

I'm not going to call this historical revisionism though. These are current events, happening at an amazing pace. I think it's fair to change one's opinons so quickly in such situations.

For instance, before 9/11 no one really wanted to go into the middle east and stop Fundementalism before it reached this point. And that lead into a world of shit. After 9/11 we realize that.

Historical Revisionism is diffirent. This is historical revisionism (and total shit) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/103-9374138-1444664?v=glance&s=books

Aye, and you see where his refusal to raise taxes is getting you. A few presidents down the road and Bush's policy is going to bring the house down. If that president is a democrat, you'll blame him. If he's a republican, it's probably some democrat's fault. Isn't it?

Mebbe. But I don't like the defeicit as much as anybody.

I am shocked and appalled. You're supposed to be the frontrunner of liberty, the fighters of democracy. How the hell can you justify going abroad to enforce democracies when you don't even have a proper democratic system at home?

That's not what I am saying and you know it. America does not need to be a totalitarian, or an authoritarian state. That's against everything I belive in. I firmly belive in democratic institutions.

Nonetheless, having a relitiviely unstable system in America would be bad. I recognize that America does not have the most democratic government in the world, but it's democratic enough for most of the people here, and it's a bit safer for the world.

Do I think that a little more democracy would hurt? No. I think the Electoral Collage is silly, for instance, but I think that a country able to destroy the world 5 times over in a day needs stability almost as much as democracy.

 

[Brother None]

I don't know about that. It's has a constitution now, it has a fairly good head of state.

An unenforced constitution is worse than no constitution, because now they can point and say "hey, we have a constitution." Yeah, a constitution that applies to who, exactly?

Karzai is often referred to as the mayor of Kabul, and that's justified. His theoretical power may span Afghanistan, but his actual power does not, and as long as nobody is willing to do anything about it, that situation won't change, and it's not much of a variation on the pre-Taliban situation, except that Kabul is in better hands and some of the warlords are dead. Poor guys.

Realize, though, that Afghanistan was never one of the centers of civilization from 6000 BC to 1258 AD. It's really Africa's foothold in Asia in terms of being fucked up.

And that means that by definition that situation should stay the same? The Americans went there to liberate the place, but what's the point of throwing people from the hands of evil oppressors into the hands of evil warlords. If you really want to invade a country, at least justify it by making the lives of the people better on the long run. Like Korea.

That's a good point, and I understand why you might not agree with me, but I just don't think its appropriate for a president to do that.

Lying was just icing on the cake to me.

Maybe it's not appropriate, but it's no big disaster.

The lying is terrible and that's something a president really shouldn't do

I'm not going to call this historical revisionism though. These are current events, happening at an amazing pace. I think it's fair to change one's opinons so quickly in such situations.

Yes it is. But if you do, you have to say "my previous statement was wrong, I was wrong and mistaken." and then change your opinion.

What Bush is doing is changing his opinion, then pretending it was his opinion all along. Just listen to Paladin Solo, he actually believes Bush went to Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein all along, while this was not remotely the case.

And that, my friend, ís historical revisionism.

Mebbe. But I don't like the defeicit as much as anybody.

Well then, I hope you do realise it is Bush's fault. I don't use the word fault in that sense that often, but in this case, it is.

Nonetheless, having a relitiviely unstable system in America would be bad. I recognize that America does not have the most democratic government in the world, but it's democratic enough for most of the people here, and it's a bit safer for the world.

Do I think that a little more democracy would hurt? No. I think the Electoral Collage is silly, for instance, but I think that a country able to destroy the world 5 times over in a day needs stability almost as much as democracy.

Heh, the funny thing is your opinion on this is remarkably European, sacrificing liberty for stability and all that...

You do have a point, tho', and from a foreign perspective at least America is secure in this way

At the same time it's not. Republicans facing of Democrats make for dangerous situations at times. Kerry replacing Bush is potentially enormously dangerous because Kerry's weak spine will give America's enemies too much leeway. Keeping Bush on is dangerous because he remains to be a wacked-out nutjob and he'll probably drag America into an economic crisis, tearing the country apart by too much investing in wars just as Ivan Grozny did with the two-front war with the Tatars and the Teutonics.

But there's no other choice. There's no third option for someone who isn't too spineless and not too insane either. America's extensively flawed system isn't only democratic, it can bring out some tricky situations too.

 

[Sander]

What Bush is doing is changing his opinion, then pretending it was his opinion all along. Just listen to Paladin Solo, he actually believes Bush went to Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein all along, while this was not remotely the case.

I'm jumping in here, this is not entirely true. PS believes that the underlying reason for the war was always to remove Saddam (not the reason given: WMD), and he could be right there, because if they went in there to remove Saddam, they'd have to kick out Kim Jong Il, as well as other dictators around the world. And Bush isn't willing to do that.

PS: SP and revisionist history? Could you explain?

 

[welsh]

actually I would have liked to have seen CC's response to my comments on the New Deal. Oh well.

Anyway, Kharn is right about Afghanistan. It's a mess and a sideshow to the big game, which has always been about getting rid of Saddam. Saddam was the target when Bush came to office, Afghanistan was the gate that got us there.

The Taliban did a few things that were important- they created stability, enforced the law, and showed some centralization. This is essentially for a viable state. A constitution is not. The UK has lacked a formal written Constitution and yet it has it's own constitutional law. A constitution basically should do two things- (1) outline the organization of governance, (2) constrain power.

But for a law to exist it needs to be backed up with power. From what I have seen, the center of Afghanistan is rather weak and most of the key players were merely warlords who had joined up to oust the Taliban so they can maintain more localized power. To have a centralized state, those warlords will need to be reigned in and the vestiges of the Taliban destroyed. I don't know if that's possible when we are focusing on Iraq.

Regarding Bush and Kerry, I lean for Kerry. Not my ideal choice, but better than another four years of Bush. Don't be too hard on Kerry. He was a Senator and had to vote on a lot of bills that were compromised provisions. Legislation in Congress is a business of settlements and compromises from both sides of the poltiical spectrum. This protrays the Sentator as flip-flopping more than perhaps is due (and why so few of them get elected president).

So you have a Senator who is used to making compromises and working with Republicans (like McCain) vs. an electric chair loving Governor who believes he has been appointed by God to lead America.

Yes, it's a crappy choice perhaps, but it usually is. Still, think about another four years of Bush.