Bush: Failed Presidency - Debate the Impact

  • News
  • Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses President Bush's actions and policies, with some commenters arguing against his effectiveness in fighting terrorism and helping the economy recover. Some believe that his focus on states and the war in Iraq has taken resources away from the war on terrorism, while others question the effectiveness of his tax cuts for the wealthy in creating jobs. Overall, the conversation suggests that Bush's actions and decisions have not been entirely positive or successful.
  • #71
I am not a tax-payer in US. Most of you are. Will you ask: What's the game Mr. President?

Check this: http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/081203.html

From providing the weapons and tanks that took us to Baghdad, to the personnel rebuilding dams and bridges or operating ports, to the pencils and lesson plans revamping the education system for young Iraqis, private American corporations are spearheading U.S. campaigns in Iraq and reaping the financial rewards of warfare.

Private corporations have played an unprecedented role in the Second Gulf War, and from the looks of just one more number—$680 million, the projected contract with Bechtel Group Inc. for its reconstructive work in Iraq—they will continue to do so.

Some of jobs undertaken by the Bechtels and the Halliburtons- such as rebuilding water and electrical systems for instance are necessary and important. Yet as a nation and a democracy we must ponder seriously whether such private corporations, with firm connections to our leadership, are necessarily the ones who should be handed these jobs. The privatization of the United States military is not a new controversy. P.W. Singer’s new book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2003) offers insights into the questions that should be asked about the unprecedented levels of privatization of military planning, training, construction, and services that were pursued during the Clinton/Gore administration and have been accelerated under the Bush/Cheney administration. If the experience thus far in Iraq is any indication, we clearly have a long way to go before we establish the appropriate balance between profits and patriotism in the use of private corporations to implement our national security strategy.

From a taxpayers’ perspective, the most important question is how many billions of dollars has our government paid private corporations to ensure a final victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom—whatever "victory" ultimately comes to mean?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Originally posted by Zero
Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah?
One decade, or two? Remember, that "meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader" was an ally of the U.S. during the 80s.

I also know of a decade of sanctions that caused the starvation of half a million children.

And none of that justified a preemptive attack on another country without an international consensus. If we didn't Invade Iraq while Saddam Hussien was 'gassing his own people'(Thanks, Reagan, good call invading Grenada instead!), then waiting 6 months to avoid teh current debacle would have been worth it. Iraq is liable to be less free now than it was under Saddam Hussien..thanks to the religious and social issues involved, terrorism is stronger today than it was 2 years ago, and we have alienated the entire world.
This makes Bush a good president how, exactly?

Your veering from fact into half truths again. Their was an international consensus. As for Iraq and freedom, much of Iraq has already reached a level of freedom it did not have prior. Whether that freedom will spread or not is something we will have to all wait and see. I don't agree with the way the aftermath was handled, But I don't see it as the doomsday forecast you feel the need to put forth. "the entire world" really, enough with the hyperbole.
 
  • #73
Originally posted by pelastration


From a taxpayers’ perspective, the most important question is how many billions of dollars has our government paid private corporations to ensure a final victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom—whatever "victory" ultimately comes to mean?

I think there are some serious issues here, many that could be addressed publicly that would have people in an uproar, unlike the mega amounts of "hyperbole" (this is my word for the day:wink: ) that just seems to be putting people asleep.
Iraq has a large supply of talent and experienced architects and engineers. They appear to be absolutely, incredulous at the bill that is being put forth for the various repairs of bridges and buildings.
It is also a HUGE disgrace that they are not being utilized to a greater extent for the re-building of Iraq. For that, not only Bush but the entire admin attached to the rebuilding of Iraq, "Suck".
 
  • #74
Your veering from fact into half truths again. Their was an international consensus.
Actually, there wasn't. (Notice how the white house is smart enough not to use that "we were following the UN directive" argument nowadays?) That's because the claim of the US and UK is no longer that Iraq had WMDs - which was the issue specifically held by 1441, which there was an UN consensus on, and was established by the UK attorney general as the sole legal basis for the war - but that Iraq had WMD programs, or worse an "intention to develop WMDs at some future date", which did not have any sort of UN consensus behind it.

Yes, there was an UN consensus - to disarm Saddam, one thing that the US invasion did not do. As far as this particular issue is concerned, at present Bush can be said to have lied to the world.
 
  • #75
FZ- An international consensus is not the same thing as an united nations consensus. 2 or more countries reaching a consensus = international consensus. We certainly did reach an international consensus.

Yes, there was an UN consensus - to disarm Saddam, one thing that the US invasion did not do. As far as this particular issue is concerned, at present Bush can be said to have lied to the world.
I'm sure you can provide the quote from the transcript(s) of the speach(es) in which he lied then.
 
  • #76
Originally posted by kat
I think there are some serious issues here, many that could be addressed publicly that would have people in an uproar, unlike the mega amounts of "hyperbole" (this is my word for the day:wink: ) that just seems to be putting people asleep.
Iraq has a large supply of talent and experienced architects and engineers. They appear to be absolutely, incredulous at the bill that is being put forth for the various repairs of bridges and buildings.
It is also a HUGE disgrace that they are not being utilized to a greater extent for the re-building of Iraq. For that, not only Bush but the entire admin attached to the rebuilding of Iraq, "Suck".
I wonder how we can agree on this, and not on so many other things...
 
  • #77
Originally posted by kat
FZ- An international consensus is not the same thing as an united nations consensus. 2 or more countries reaching a consensus = international consensus. We certainly did reach an international consensus.
This sounds like the sort of 'lie' we are talking about. You know, similar to Clinton's twisted parsing in regards to his 'sexual relations'? Do you honestly mean to tell me that 'international consensus' means 'two countries'? And do you think that definition, though possibly technically accurate, would actually hold up in practice? Checking dictionary.com, we see that 'consensus' means:

1)An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
2)General agreement or accord
3)Agreement; accord; consent
4)agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief

Obviously, there was no consensus here. I don't think you were lying, so don't start screaming at me. I do think that bush's speechwriters chose their words very carefully, in order to give the impression of one thing, while technically meaning another, in order to intentionally mislead the American public.
 
  • #78
Originally posted by Zero
or belief

Obviously, there was no consensus here. I don't think you were lying, so don't start screaming at me. I do think that bush's speechwriters chose their words very carefully, in order to give the impression of one thing, while technically meaning another, in order to intentionally mislead the American public.

I think that the use of "no international consensus" is just as misleading.(personally, I think Bush made a mistake to bring it before the U.N., I think he should have followed the same path as Clinton in that matter, as far as reaching his goal effectively.) Not having the support of the security counsel does not mean there was no international consensus. The use of the term from either end of the spectrum is loaded to suggest more then it should. Maybe it's better to skip the use of the well baited rhetorical terms, period.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by Zero
I wonder how we can agree on this, and not on so many other things...
We'd probably come to a consensus on quite a few other areas if you skipped the bellicose language. I'm very serious with this coment.
 
  • #80
Originally posted by kat
We'd probably come to a consensus on quite a few other areas if you skipped the bellicose language. I'm very serious with this coment.
What can I say, I'm a fireplug?

You say Bush made a mistake going to the U.N...why? Because the U.N. wouldn't support his war for no reason? The fact that he is going to teh U.N. for help now is proof enough that he should have waited for them before the war. One of the things Bush's dad got right was putting together real support before the war. Also, some sort of plan for teh occupation should have been in place before the war, instead of this pollyanna attitude that democracy would happen right after the huge happy parade the Iraqis were supposed to have for 3 straight weeks after America invaded.
 
  • #81
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possesses and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. (This is true, but authorisation no longer exists now with the admission that it was supposedly "programs" we were looking at, not actual weapons.)

Yet some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced that they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. (This, referring to France's statement, is a blatant misrepresentation of their statement, which added the qualifier "at this time", and called for additional time for the inspectors)

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.

Bush in March
 
  • #82
FZ- I think there are some problems with what your putting forth as lies. I don't really have time to dig up the data to support that until perhaps this weekend. I think that David Kay's report may dispute some of your suggested lies. Have you read it in full?
 
  • #83
Originally posted by Zero
What can I say, I'm a fireplug?

You say Bush made a mistake going to the U.N...why? Because the U.N. wouldn't support his war for no reason?
No, because there was Succesful prescedent not to follow that route.
The fact that he is going to teh U.N. for help now is proof enough that he should have waited for them before the war.
This is not the route that Clinton followed during his tenure, on several occasions not just in regard to Iraq. He also found support within the U.N., after the action.
One of the things Bush's dad got right was putting together real support before the war.
Except that he did not, and probably could not get enough support to gather U.N. support to go in and remove saddam saving the tens of thousands men, women and children slaughtered by Saddam while we were right there. I think Bush 1, should have, and could have gone in and prevented the slaughter.
Also, some sort of plan for teh occupation should have been in place before the war, instead of this pollyanna attitude that democracy would happen right after the huge happy parade the Iraqis were supposed to have for 3 straight weeks after America invaded.
There was a plan, and I don't think that there was an assumption that democracy would magically appear. I am quite sure that I remember quite well hearing that we should expect to be there a long time and that it would not happen over night. I do agree with you that their plan was not sufficient and that there should have been much better planning and preperation including a more comphrensive set of contingency plans.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Hmmm...1) Bringing up Clinton again? What is that, a fetish? 2) There was a call for UN inspectors to finish their job...Bush could have waited.
 
  • #85
George Bush

Bush says the same things over and over again, day in, day out . . .

VOTE GREEN!

WE NEED A CHANGE IN POLITICAL SYSTEM!
 
  • #86
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...1) Bringing up Clinton again? What is that, a fetish? 2) There was a call for UN inspectors to finish their job...Bush could have waited.

No, you asked me why I thought...and I am explaining the precedents that I based my belief upon...and that I based my belief on them...because they were successful...I'm showing you that precedent shows that going to the United Nations...because of earlier precedence..is not neccesarily a good standard for your proof.
 
  • #87
I think a President is only as good as his advisors , look at Nixon and Kissiger and the Cambodian policy for God's sake. What was that but one persons psyche controlling bloody events perpetrated on villagers without even a lwn mower let alone anti-aircraft weapons.
 
  • #88
Originally posted by kat
No, you asked me why I thought...and I am explaining the precedents that I based my belief upon...and that I based my belief on them...because they were successful...I'm showing you that precedent shows that going to the United Nations...because of earlier precedence..is not neccesarily a good standard for your proof.
What I find interesting is that the approach I suggest is the same sort of successful approach that worked for the Shrub's father. Bush I deserves credit for putting together a real international coalition. Bush II is a schmuck for trying to go it alone, and then asking for the UN to bail him out after the fact.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
128
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
384
Views
40K
Replies
1
Views
987
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Back
Top